Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:20:48.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Online Examinations in College Courses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Andrew P. Barkley
Andrew P. Barkley*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research evaluates the use of online examinations in college courses from both instructor and student perspectives. Instructional software was developed at Kansas State University to administer online homework assignments and examinations. Survey data were collected from two classes to measure and evaluate the level of student preferences for online examinations. The statistical determinants of student preferences for online testing were identified and quantified using logistic regression analysis. Strategies for the effective use of online examinations are summarized for potential adopters of online examinations.

Keywords

online examinationsstudent learningteaching technologyundergraduate teachingA22
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 445 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, J.A., and Kulik, L.C.. “Effects of Frequent Classroom Testing.” ERIC Document Reproduction Series No. 274-672. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 16-20, 1986. Internet site: http://edrs.com/ (Accessed March 25, 2002).Google Scholar
Barkley, A.P. “Unanticipated Benefits from the Use of Computer Technology in a Large Introductory Course.” Interactive Learning: Vignettes from America's Most Wired Campuses. Brown, David G., ed. Bolton, MA: Anker, 2000.Google Scholar
Barkley, A.P. “The Future of Teaching Undergraduate Agricultural Economics: Lifelong Learning in an Era of Rapid Technological Change.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(July 2001):1–19.Google Scholar
Barkley, A.P., and Haycock, A.. “Development and Use of the Homework Helper, an Online Homework Grader.” NACTA Journal 45(March 2001):27–32.Google Scholar
Barua, J. “Computer-Based Testing on Campus.” Syllabus (April 1999):51–52.Google Scholar
Borcher, G., Pinckney, B., and Clemens, E.. “Temperament Learning Styles Associated with True/False, Multiple Choice, and Multiple-Multiple Choice Exam Formats.” NACTA Journal 38(March 1994):10–12.Google Scholar
Bracey, G.W. “Teachers, Thinking, and Testing.” Phi Delta Kappan 71(January 1990):404-7.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. “Assessing Your Students: Testing in the Online Course.” Syllabus (March 2000):16–18.Google Scholar
Gibson, E.J., Brewer, P.W., Dholakia, A., Vouk, M.A., and Bitzer, D.L.. “A Comparative Analysis of Web-Based Testing and Evaluation Systems.” Internet site: http://waltoncollege.uark.edu/dist-ed/ (Accessed March 25, 2002).Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.W. “Making the Most of a Slow Revolution.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 28(March/April 1996):10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gortner, A.K., and Zulauf, C.R.. “The Use of Time by Undergraduate Students.” NACTA Journal 44(March 2000):22–30.Google Scholar
Green, K.C. “The Coming Ubiquity of Information Technology.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 28(March/April 1996):24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, K.C., and Gilbert, S.W.. “Great Expectations: Content, Communications, Productivity, and the Role of Information Technology in Higher Education.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 27(March/April 1995):8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H.Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1993.Google Scholar
Haney, W., and Madaus, G.. “Searching for Alternatives to Standardized Tests: Whys, Whats, and Whithers. Phi Delta Kappan 70(May 1989):683-87.Google Scholar
Hanna, G.S.Better Teaching Through Better Measurement. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
Kember, D., Jamieson, Q.W., Pomfret, M., and Wong, E.T.T.. “Learning Approaches, Study Time, and Academic Performance.” Higher Education 29(1995):329-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, C., and Kulik, J.A.. “Effectiveness of Com-puter-Based Instruction: An Updated Analysis.” Computers in Human Behavior 7(1991):75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, M.E., Ram, M.P., and Day, T.M.. “The Effects of World Wide Web Instruction and Traditional Instruction on Achievement and Change in Student Attitudes in a Technical Writing in Agricommunication Course.” Proceedings of the 1996 National Agricultural Education Research Meeting 23(1996):80–90.Google Scholar
O'Kane, M., and Armstrong, J.D.. “Developing Course Materials Using the World Wide Web.” NACTA Journal 41(June 1997):10–15.Google Scholar
Pyle, J. “Perception On-line Testing and Tutorials.” Concordia Computing. Internet site: www.cord.edu/dept/computing/faculty/tools/perception (Accessed March 25, 2002).Google Scholar
Suen, H.K., and Parkes, J.. “Challenges and Opportunities in Distance Education Evaluation.” Distance Education Resource Center. Internet site: http://waltoncollege.uark.edu/disted/challenges_and_opportunites_in_.htm (Accessed March 25, 2002).Google Scholar