Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

M.Ed. (Education) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

This study examined the effects of computer-assisted testing on text anxiety, achievement and student attitudes toward a course. One hundred students from an undergraduate educational psychology class were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group of students was assigned to take all of their unit examinations using computer-assisted testing (CAT). For those in the CAT group, examinations were presented on microcomputers. The second group of students took the same examinations using regular paper and pencil testing procedures (RT). With the exception of testing methods, an attempt was made to keep all other factors relating to course administration consistent for both groups. Pre and posttest measures of the students' levels of test anxiety were obtained during the course, using the Achievement Anxiety Test (AAT). Both debilitating and facilitating anxiety scores were used from the AAT. Achievement was assessed using a comprehensive final examination at the end of the course. Student attitudes toward the course were measured using a course evaluation form. It was hypothesized that assignment to CAT would result in higher scores on the facilitating anxiety scales and lower scores on the debilitating anxiety scale. The study also postulated that students exposed to CAT would demonstrate higher levels of performance on the final achievement test. Finally, it was theorized that students in the CAT group would rate the course more positively than the students exposed to regular testing procedures. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance procedures. The results of the analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between the CAT and RT groups in terms of test anxiety, achievement, or attitudes toward the course. In comparing traditional and computer-assisted testing, the present study suggests that it may be possible to obtain the ease of test administration, feedback, item analysis, and record keeping provided by a computer, without affecting student testing behaviors or test norms.

The purpose of the study was to supply materials for answers to questions regarding a description of the group of individuals receiving College-Level Examination Program credit including an assessment of the academic progress of the group.Approaching these questions through an examination of related literature revealed common features of other attempts to describe and measure policies and practices of the College-Level Examination Program and similar programs. In the study, consideration was given to the basic values and assumptions that underlie both credit by examination in general and the College-Level Examination Program in particular.The final study population consisted of 246 individuals whose permanent record cards were available at the time the study was made. 284 individuals took College-Level Examination Program General Examinations between December 18, 1969, and January 23,1973.From questions raised by Ball State University Administrators, nine hypotheses were derived.By means of simple manipulation of raw numbers, percentages and extraction of means, and by means of analysis of variance and analysis of covariance techniques, the hypotheses were tested.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three testing procedures on comprehensive final examination performance. The 64 undergraduates used as subjects were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a non-repeated single-unit, a non-repeated cumulative, or a repeated single-unit testing procedures. Subjects in the non-repeated testing procedures were administered a weekly multiple-choice test taken from content covering either (a) the most recent material or (b) all the material to-date. Subjects in the repeated testing procedure were administered up to three alternate forms of a multiple-choice test taken from content covering the most recent material. The dependent measure was a comprehensive 100 item multiple-choice test. Grade point average was used as a covariate.An Analysis of Covariance was applied to determine whether there was a significant difference between (a) the means of the non-repeated cumulative and the repeated single-unit procedures, and (b) the average mean of these two procedures and the mean of the non-repeated single-unit procedure. The .01 level was used for judgments about statistical significance.Findings1. No significant difference was found between the mean final examination score obtained by the students in the non-repeated cumulative and the repeated single-unit testing groups after the effects of the covariate were partialled out.2. No significant difference was found when the average of the final examination scores obtained by the non-repeated cumulative and the repeated single-unit groups was compared to the mean final examination score obtained by the non-repeated single-unit group.3. The subjects in the repeated single-unit testing group obtained a significantly greater number of points on the examinations administered throughout the quarter.Conclusions1. Previously reported differences between repeated versus non-repeated and repeated versus cumulative testing on final examination performance may be reflecting only differences in testing frequency.2. The higher grades obtained by students given multiple opportunities to "master" material may not reflect actual end-of-course achievement by a comprehensive final.3. To aid in the valid interpretation, generalizability, replication and synthesis of research findings, detailed descriptions of the independent and dependent variables used in testing procedures research seem warranted.

No description available.

M.Ed. / The department of Industrial Design at the University of Johannesburg implements year-end written examinations for all of its theoretical subjects as a final summative assessment. This assessment process has remained largely unchanged since the inception of the course and remains an important period within the academic calendar. This method of assessment is the mainstay of the assessment process employed at the department with regard to the theoretical subjects offered. However, students’ experiences of this phenomenon are unknown. Reasons for this are varied but, primarily, a lack of open communication between lecturers and students as a result of the nature of the discipline has compromised deeper understanding of the student experience. Previous research regarding assessment within the broad art and design field has focussed intently on the subjective studio critique as a method of assessment of practical work. The results of previous research have, therefore, side lined investigation of written end-of-year examinations. It is with this in mind that the focus of this study is to investigate students’ experiences of written examination within the context of industrial design education. This study investigates written year-end examinations as a phenomenon and identifies possible linkages to Transformative Learning (TL) theory. That is to say, students’ experiences of examination are investigated as contextual experiences that may or may not bring about transformation in meaning structures that initiate critical reflection. According to TL theory, students who are able to reflect critically on experiences will be able to adopt and even accept different viewpoints. Such a changed viewpoint is critical to establish in order to understand if and how students learn through transformation as a result of their experiences of the phenomenon of written examination.