A Comparison of Paper-Based and Web-Based Testing [electronic resource] / Rebecca Pollard Cole, Dan MacIsaac and David M. Cole.
The purpose of this study (1,313 college student participants) was to examine the differences in paper-based and Web-based administrations of a commonly used assessment instrument, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, 1992). Results demonstrated no appreciable...
Saved in:
| Online Access: |
Full Text (via ERIC) |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Other Authors: | , |
| Format: | Electronic eBook |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[Place of publication not identified] :
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
2001.
|
| Subjects: |
| Summary: | The purpose of this study (1,313 college student participants) was to examine the differences in paper-based and Web-based administrations of a commonly used assessment instrument, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, 1992). Results demonstrated no appreciable difference on FCI scores or FCI items based on the type of administration. Analyses demonstrated differences in FCI scores due to gender and time of administration (pre-test and post-test). However, none of these differences was influenced by the type of test administration (Web or paper). Similarly, FCI student scores were comparable with respect to test reliability. For individual FCI items, paper-based and Web-based comparisons were made by examining potential differences in item means and by examining potential differences in response patterns. Chi Squares demonstrated no differences in response patterns and t-Tests demonstrated no differences in item means between paper-based and Web-based administrations. In summary, the Web-based administration of the FCI appears to be as efficacious as the paper-based administration. Lessons learned from the implementation of Web-administered testing are also discussed. (Contains 2 figures, 4 tables, and 27 references.) (Author/SLD) |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | ERIC Document Number: ED453224. ERIC Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001). This research was partially supported by Northern Arizona University Organized Research Grant funds, the NAU Department of Physics and Astronomy, the National Science Foundation through the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT), and the U.S. Department of Education funded Arizona Teacher's Excellence Coalition (AzTEC). |
| Physical Description: | 21 pages. |