Advertisement

Writing e-Exams in Pre-University College

  • Mathew HillierEmail author
  • Nathaniel Lyon
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 524)

Abstract

This study examined students’ expressed strategies, habits and preferences with respect to responding to supervised text-based assessments. Two trials of a computerised examination system took place in an Australian pre-university college in 2016 and 2017. Students in several classes studying geography and globalisation completed a sequence of practice and assessed work. Data were collected using pre- and post-surveys about their preferred writing styles, habits and strategies in light of their choice to type or handwrite essay and short answer examinations. Comparisons were made between those that elected to handwrite and those who chose to type the examination, with several areas being significant. The performance (grades), production (word count) of the typists and hand-writers were also correlated and compared.

Keywords

e-Exams Writing strategies Student perceptions Affordances 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Australian Government Department of Education and Training for financial support and the students at Monash College for being willing to ‘give it a go’.

References

  1. 1.
    TEAA: Transforming exams across Australia. Australian Government Department of Education and Training, Grant ID15-4747 (2015). http://transformingexams.com
  2. 2.
    Fluck, A., Hillier, M.: Innovative assessment with eExams. Presented at the Australian Council for Computers in Education Conference, Brisbane, 29 September to 2 October (2016). http://conference.acce.edu.au/index.php/acce/acce2016/paper/view/34/27
  3. 3.
    Hillier, M., Fluck, A.: Transforming exams - how it works for BYOD e-Exams. Presented at the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, pp. 100–105. Toowoomba, Australia (2017). http://2017conference.ascilite.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Concise-HILLIER.pdf
  4. 4.
    Fluck, A., Hillier, M.: eExams: strength in diversity. In: Tatnall, A., Webb, M. (eds.) WCCE 2017. IAICT, vol. 515, pp. 409–417. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74310-3_42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swets, J.A., Feurzeig, W.: Computer-aided instruction. Science 150(3696), 572–576 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tatnall, A., Webb, M. (eds.): Tomorrow’s Learning: Involving Everyone. Learning with and about Technologies and Computing. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74310-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crisp, G.: Towards authentic e-assessment tasks. Presented at the EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, Honolulu, HI, pp. 1585–1590 (2009). http://www.editlib.org/p/31689/
  8. 8.
    Sülzenbrück, S., Hegele, M., Rinkenauer, G., Heuer, H.: The death of handwriting: secondary effects of frequent computer use on basic motor skills. J. Motiv. Behav. 43(3), 247–251 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hillier, M.: To type or handwrite: student’s experience across six e-Exam trials. In: Reiners, T., von Konsky, B.R., Gibson, D., Chang, V., Irving, L., Clarke, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, Perth, Australia, pp. 143–154 (2015). http://transformingexams.com/files/Hillier_2015_ascilite_fp.pdf
  10. 10.
    Fluck, A., et al.: eExam symposium: design decisions and implementation experience. Presented at the IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education, 3–6 July, Dublin, Ireland (2017). http://transformingexams.com/files/Fluck_etal_2017.pdf
  11. 11.
    Hörnblad, P., Brenner, M.: Digital Exam. SUNET Incubator project, NORDUnet (2016). https://portal.nordu.net/display/Inkubator/Digital+Tentamen
  12. 12.
    Dermo, J.: E-assessment and the student learning experience: a survey of student perceptions of e-assessment. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 40, 203–214 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mogey, N., Fluck, A.: Factors influencing student preference when comparing handwriting and typing for essay style examinations: essay exams on computer. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46, 793–802 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Purcell, M., Paterson, J., Mogey, N.: Exams: comparing handwritten essays with those composed on keyboards (Final Report). Heslington: The HEA (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hillier, M.: The very idea of e-exams: student (Pre) conceptions. In: Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp. 77–88 (2014). http://ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/fullpapers/91-Hillier.pdf
  16. 16.
    Mogey, N., Paterson, J., Burk, J., Purcell, M.: Typing compared with handwriting for essay examinations at university: letting the students choose. Res. Learn. Technol. 18(1), 29–47 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fluck, A.: eExaminations Strategic Project Final Report for Academic Senate (unpublished report). University of Tasmania, Australia (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rankin, A.: A comparability study on differences between scores of handwritten and typed responses on a large-scale writing assessment (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Iowa, IA (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terzis, V., Economides, A.A.: Computer based assessment: gender differences in perceptions and acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(6), 2108–2122 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Hillier, M., Lyon, N.: Student experiences with bring your own laptop e-Exams in pre-university college. In: Passey, D. et al. (eds.) OCCE 2018, IFIP AICT, vol. 524, pp. 253–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2019)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jamieson, S.: Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med. Educ. 38(12), 1217–1218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann, H.B., Whitney, D.R.: On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 18(1), 50–60 (1947)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freeman, G.H., Halton, J.H.: Note on an exact treatment of contingency tables, goodness of fit and other problems of significance. Biometrika 38, 141–149 (1951)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al Nadabi, Z.: Features of an online English language testing interface. In: Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, 30 November–3 December, Perth, Australia, pp. 369–373 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Monash CollegeMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations