Sleeping in a hallow space of imagination

Thus, Bugbee (1996) concluded that the use of computers really affects testing;

Notwithstanding that CBT and PPT can be equivalent especially when the test developers take responsibility by showing how the equivalent can come by. He stated further that the barriers to

the use of CBT are inadequate test preparation and failure to grasp the unique requirements for

implementing and maintaining them; emphasizing that such factors as the design,

development, administration and user characteristics needed to be considered in using CBT.

Schenkman, Fukuda & Persson (1999) identified one of the numerous variables that impact on

student‟s performance when questions are presented on a computer to be the quality of the

monitor. On the impact of CBT on student attitudes and behavior, Butler (2003) confirmed the

association between a moderate number of tests and better student attitudes; especially that his

respondents were found to be generally more positive toward the proctored, CBT facility than

toward in-class, pencil and paper testing.

Similarly, Donn (1991) found that the mean achievement score was significantly higher

for the computer-based group in a study of the effects of a CBT on the achievement and test

anxiety exploring the relationship between computer anxiety and computer experience and

assessing the affective impact of computerized testing on students. There were neither a

significant difference in text anxiety between the groups, on the one hand nor a significant

relationship between their computer experience and anxiety owing to taking the CBT. The

conclusion reached by the study that if computerized test-taking tasks are kept simple, even

test-takers with minimal computer experience may not be disadvantaged, was informed by

respondents‟ positive reactions toward CBT generally.

Research outcomes have thus supported the fact that when students are motivated and

testing conditions are equivalent, there are no differences between the scores obtained via

computer-based or paper-pencil tests (Lynch, 1997 & Marson, Patry, and Berstein, 2001).

Other research results suggest that although students may be disadvantagged, at the initial

stage, which may account for why Wingenbach (2000) found no significant associations

between academic achievement and students‟ attitudes towards computers, computing anxiety

levels, attitudes towards electronic examinations, or gender by the introduction of CBT, such a

setback was temporary (Ricketts and Wilks, 2002).

 

Thus the initial low academic achievement in CBT, occasioned by such detrimental

effects as computing and/or test anxiety soon disappeared as later CBT examinations produced

impressive academic achievement for many respondents. The most recent endorsement of this

viewpoint came from Tella and Bashorun (2012) in a study whose results demonstrated that the

University of Ilorin students, their respondents, have positive attitude towards CBT as more

than half of them indicated preference for CBT over PPT in addition to establishing a strong

perception that CBT increase respondents‟ performance in learning. Scalise. & Gifford (2006)

Leave a Response