The Investigation of Difference between PPT and CBT Results of EFL Learners in Iran : Computer Familiarity and Test Performance in CBT

• Autorzy: Monirosadat Hosseini , Mohamad Jafre Zainol Abidin , Hamid Kamarzarrin , Mohamad Khaledian
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The purpose of this study is to examine the score comparability of institutional English reading tests in two testing methods, i.e. paper-based and computer-based tests taken by Iranian EFL learners in four language institutes and their branches in Iran. In the present study, the researcher tried to examine whether there is any difference between computer-based test results (henceforth CBT) and paper-based test (PPT) results of a reading comprehension test as well as exploring the relationship between students' prior computer experience and their test performance in CBT. Two equivalent tests were administered to one group of EFL learners in two different occasions, one in paper-based format and the other in computer-based test. Utilizing t-test, the means of two modes have been compared and the results showed the priority of PPT over CBT with .01 degree of difference at p < 05. Using ANOVA, the findings revealed that computer experience had no significant influence on the students' performance in computerized test. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Students; English language; Tests; Foreign language teaching; Information technology in teaching

PL

Studenci; Język angielski; Testy; Nauczanie języków obcych; Komputerowe wspomaganie dydaktyki

• Czasopismo: International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS)
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 11
• Strony: 66--75

Twórcy

autor

Monirosadat Hosseini

• University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

autor

Mohamad Jafre Zainol Abidin

• University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

autor

Hamid Kamarzarrin

• Payame Noor University, Iran

autor

Mohamad Khaledian

• Payame Noor University, Iran

Bibliografia

• [1] Bachman L., Language testing 17(1) (2000) 1-42.
• [2] Bennett R. E., Braswell J., Oranje A., Sandene B., Kaplan B., Yan F., Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 6(9) (2008).
• [3] Berner, J. E. (2003). A study of factors that may influence faculty in selected schools of education in the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt computers in the classroom. George Mason University.
• [4] Boo, J. (1997) Computerized versus paper-and-pencil assessment of educational development: Score comparability and examinee preferences. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, USA.
• [5] Bridgeman B., Lennon M. L., Jackenthal A., Applied Measurement in Education 16 (2003) 191-205.
• [6] Chapelle C. A., Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27 (2007) 98-114.
• [7] Clariana R., Wallace P., British Journal of Educational Technology 33(5) (2002) 593-602.
• [8] Coniam, D. ReCALL 18 (2006) 193-211.
• [9] Cumming, A., R. Kantor, K. Baba, U. Erdosy & M. James (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for next generation TOEFL (TOEFL Monograph 30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• [10] DeAngelis S., Journal of Allied Health 29 (2000) 161-164.
• [11] DeBell, M. & Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet use by children and adolescents in 2001: Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
• [12] Douglas D., Hegelheimer V., Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27 (2007) 115-132.
• [13] Fleming, S. & Hiple, D. (2004). Foreign language distance education at the University of Hawai'i. In C. A. Spreen, (Ed.), New technologies and language learning: issues and options (Technical Report