october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 differences in percentages, it was not possible to declare whether male or female were more inclined towards CB examinations. Significant differences were found between the attitudes of teachers from different departments in statements 6 th (χ 2 = 10.502>9.49, α=0.05, Sig.=0.033), 8 th (χ 2 = 13.729>9.49, α=0.05, Sig.=0.008), and 13 th (χ 2 = 11.287>9.49, α=0.05, Sig.=0.024). In statement 6, it was clear from percentages that good majority (70%) of social science teachers, simple majority of IT professionals (65%) while 51% from natural sciences disciplines disagreed with the statement that CB testing is a worst tool of assessment. Same in statements 8 and 13, drastic difference were found between the calculated percentages. Significant differences were found between the attitudes of low ranked and high ranked teachers in statement 20 (χ 2 = 8.132>5.99, α=0.05, Sig.=0.017). From calculated values it was clear that both groups recommended preparing a master plan to introduce CB examinations at national level. But overwhelming majority (88%) of low ranked teachers and good majority (73%) of high ranked teachers showed major attitudinal difference among the same groups. Significant differences were found between the attitudes of teachers from different level of qualifications in statements 3 rd (χ 2 = 7.867>5.99, α=0.05, Sig.=0.020), 6 th (χ 2 = 8.651>5.99, α=0.05, Sig.=0.013), and 9 th (χ 2 = 6.883>5.99, α=0.05, Sig.=0.032). From calculated values of statement 3, it was clear that both groups were agreed that computer facilitated in minimizing clerical mistakes. But percentages (i.e., 88% highly qualified and 78% less qualified) showed major attitudinal difference among the same groups. Same in statements 6 and 9, sweeping difference were found between the calculated percentages. Significant differences were found between the attitudes of teachers from different level of teaching experiences in statements 3 rd (χ 2 = 7.282>5.99, α=0.05, Sig.=0.026) and 11 th (χ 2 = 8.651>5.99, α=0.05, Sig.=0.016). From calculated percentages of statement 11, it was clear that an overwhelming majority of both groups were agreed that CB examinations facilitate to assess more students in less time. But percentages (i.e., 86% highly experienced and 99% less experienced) showed less experienced teachers were more in CB examinations with respect to the given statement. Part – III of the Questionnaire Table 5 displayed results of each sampled group of teachers in terms of overwhelming, good majority, and simple majority responses. An overwhelming majority of overall sampled teachers, female teachers, teachers from the group of social sciences & IT professionals, high ranked, less qualified teachers less experienced teachers and those teachers who have any type of computer training certificate or degree were strongly agreed with the statement that CB examinations seems to be very interesting technique of assessment but even then it’s difficult for teachers to construct objective type question papers for the same system of examinations. While same majority of all other groups of sampled teachers were highly anxious about the difficulty of constructing items for CB examinations. Good majority of overall sampled teachers, female & male teachers, teachers from IT profession, low ranked teachers, less experienced, teachers who have computer training certificate or degree and teachers who haven’t CB examinations experiences expressed that CB examination system is risky because of system failure or light failure problems during examinations even then it’s an interesting technique of examinations for students. Not only this, they also believe that CB examinations can affect the entire educational system positively in terms of innovation and modern changes in teaching and learning methods. Simple majority of overall sampled teachers, female & male teachers, low ranked teachers, less qualified teachers who have & have not computer certificate or degree teachers who have & have not CB examinations experiences articulated that CB examination systems could have flaws in terms of constructing different form of test items i.e., fill in the blanks, MCQs, matching items, or short answers but even then they agreed that they could frequently assess their students during session through this technique of assessment. Not a single responded item of the questionnaire was found in the column of overwhelming majority of PB examinations. This concluded that they were highly inclined towards CB examinations. This was verified by good majority of sampled teachers from all groups except female teachers, teachers from the group of IT profession, more experienced and teachers who have no computer training certificate or degree expressed that administrators of their institutions are trying hard to bring change in PB examinations systems. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 375
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 Simple majority of overall sampled teachers, female & male teachers, teachers from social, natural sciences, low ranked teachers, teachers who have and have not certificate or degree and teachers who have no experience of CB examinations expressed that PB examinations systems is beneficial and easy to manage because results are more accurate in same system of examinations. Column-wise interpretations of Table 5 helped to compare and conclude that overall sampled teachers were in favor of CB examinations, female teachers, teachers from social science group, highly ranked teachers, highly qualified teachers, more experienced teachers, and teachers who have CB examination experiences were found to be more interested in CB system of examinations as compared to other peered groups. REFERENCES Bodmann, S. M. and Robinson, D. H. (2004). Speed and Performance Differences among Computer-Based and Paper-Pencil Tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 51 – 60. Bull, J. (1999). Computer – Assisted Assessment: Impact on Higher Education Institutions. Educational Technology & Society, 2(3). Retrieved December 05, 2004 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodicals Clariana, R., and Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (5), 593-602. Conole, G., & Warburton, B. (2005). A Review of Computer Assisted Assessment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13(1), 17-31. Fluck, A., Pullen, D., and Harper, C., (2009). Case study of a computer based examination system. Australasian journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 509- 523. Havens, A. (2002). Examinations and Learning: An Activity – Theoretical Analysis of the Relationship between Assessment and Learning. Retrieved December 03, 2010 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002238.htm Karadeniz, S. (2009). The impacts of paper, web and mobile based assessment on students’ achievement and perceptions. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(10), 984 – 991. Retrieved May 15, 2011 from http://www.academicjournals.org/sre Koppel, N. B. and Hollister, K. K. (n.d.). Comparison of Live versus Paper-Based Assessment in Computer Application Course. Journal of Informatics Education Research, 5 (1), 39-50. Lim, E., CH., Ong, B., KC., Wilder-Smith, E., PV., Seet, R., CS. (2006). Computer-based Versus Pen-and-paper Testing: Students’ Perception. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 35 (9), 599-603. McKenna, C. (2001). Introducing Computers into Assessment Process: What is the Impact Upon Academic Practice? Paper Presented at Higher Education Close Up Conference 2, Lancaster University, 16 – 18 July. Retrieved November 4, 2004 from http://leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001805.html Rehmani, A. (2003). Impact of Public Examination System on Teaching and Learning in Pakistan. Retrieved December 24, 2010 from http://www.aku.edu/AKUEB/pdfs/pubexam.pdf Shah, J. H. (2002). Validity and Credibility of Public Examinations in Pakistan. An Unpublished Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Ph. D., in the Department of Education, Islamia University Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Sim, G., Holifield, P., & Brown, M. (2004). Implementation of Computer Assisted Assessment: Lessons from the Literature. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12 (3), 217 – 233. Test (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 23, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_(assessment) Uysal, O. and Kuzu, A. (2009). A Thesis Proposal: Quality Standards of Online Higher Education in Turkey. Internationalization and the Role of University Networks. Proceedings of the 2009 EMUNI Conference on Higher Education and Research, Potorož, Slovenia, 25 – 26 September. Retrieved December 25, 2010 from http://www.emuni.si/Files//Denis/Conferences/EMUNI_HE-R/Proceedings/Papers/48.pdf Whittington, D., Bull, J., & Danson M. (2000). Web-Based Assessment: Two UK Initiatives. The Sixth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Rihga Colonial Club Resort, Cairns, 12-17 June 2000, Australia. Retrieved October 12, 2010 from http://www.ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw2k/papers/index.html Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 376
Page 2 and 3:
THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCA
Page 4 and 5:
Dear Colleagues, TOJET: The Turkish
Page 6 and 7:
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Annotation retrieval TOJET: The Tur
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Stage 2 Process Stage 3 Output Stag
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Learning effectiveness TOJET: The T
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix A: Questionnaire TOJET: Th
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TOJET: The Turk
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Computer Use Transformational Leade
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Diverger TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
clarify their misconceptions. TOJET
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
*p < .05 TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
section to the user. TOJET: The Tur
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 370 and 371: Statement Analysis TOJET: The Turki
Page 388 and 389: Appendices TOJET: The Turkish Onlin
Page 412 and 413: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 414 and 415: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 426 and 427: eactions TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470:
show all

october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?