Turkish teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards computer assisted testing in comparison with Spanish teachers’ and students’ perceptions

Main Article Content

Aslihan Berber
Jesus Garcia Laborda

Abstract

There are different opinions about using technology in assessment field of education regarding computer assisted assessments. People have some concerns such as its application, reliability and so on. It seems that those concerns may decrease with the developing technology in the following years since computer-based testing programs are gradually getting better in terms of reliability and utility.  This research aims to determine Turkish teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards computer assisted testing comparing the results with Spanish students’ and teachers’ perceptions. In this study, testing and assessment are used interchangeably even though some researchers accept these terms separately. The result of this study is crucial for educators in Turkey because computer-assisted assessment is being tried to be applied in Turkish schools. It is crucial to be aware of educators and students’ perceptions towards it.

Keywords: computer assisted testing, Spanish, Turkish, teachers, students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Berber, A., & Laborda, J. G. (2015). Turkish teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards computer assisted testing in comparison with Spanish teachers’ and students’ perceptions. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 7(2), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v7i2.42
Section
Articles

References

Akbaba Altun, S., (2001, September). Elementary School Principals’ Attitudes towards Technology and Their Computer Experiments. Paper presented at the World Congress on Computational Intelligence (WCCI) Triennial World Conference. Madrid, Spain.

Baran, B., Kilic, E., Bakar Corez, A. & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Turkish University Students’ Technology Use Profiles and Their Thoughts about Distance Education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1).

Bennett, W. L. (2003). The burglar alarm that just keeps ringing: A response to Zaller. Political Communication, 20(2), 131-138.

Blazer, C. (2010). Computer-Based Assessments. Research. Information Capsule, 0918, 1-18.

Bridgeman, C. (2009). Contracts as Plans. U. Ill. L. Rev., 341.
Cox, K., & Clark, D. (1998). The use of formative quizzes for deep learning.Computers and Education, 30(3), 157-168.

De-Siqueira, J. M., Peris-Fajarnes, G. , Gimenez, F. & Magal-Royo , T. (2009). Spanish students and teachers’ preferences towards computer-based and paper-and-pencil tests at universities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 814–817.

Gamire, E., & Pearson, G. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Island Press.

Garcia Laborda, J.; Magal Royo, T.& Bakieva, M. (2010). A First Approach to the Analysis of Student Motivation in the Trial Version of the Computer Based University Entrance Examination. Paper presented at the CALL conference. Antwerp, Belgium.

Jamil, M. (2012). Perceptions of University Students Regarding Computer Assisted Assessment. TOJET: Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 267-277.

Kikis-Papadakis, K., & Kollias, A. (2009). Reflections on paper-and-pencil tests to eAssessments: Narrow and broadband paths to 21st century challenges. The Transition to Computer-Based Assessment, 99.

Kyllonen, P. C. (2009). New constructs, methods, and directions for computer-based assessment. The transition to computer-based assessment, 151-156.

Millet, G. P., Jaouen, B. E. R. N. A. R. D., Borrani, F. A. B. I. O., & Candau, R. O. B. I. N. (2002). Effects of concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy and VO~ 2 kinetics. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 34(8), 1351-1359.

Ogilvie, J. M., Speck, J. D., Lett, J. M., & Fleming, T. T. (1999). A reliable method for organ culture of neonatal mouse retina with long-term survival.Journal of neuroscience methods, 87(1), 57-65.

Paek, J. S. (2005). U.S. Patent No. 6,927,478. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Paterson, K. G. (2002). ID-based signatures from pairingson elliptic curves.Electronics Letters, 38(18), 1025-1026.

Pathan, M. (2012). Computer Assisted Language Testing [CALT]: Advantages, Implications and Limitations. (Research). Retrieved from: http://www.researchvistas.com/

Puhan, M. A., Vollenweider, D., Latshang, T., Steurer, J., & Steurer-Stey, C. (2007). Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: when are antibiotics indicated? A systematic review. Respir Res, 8(30), 1465-9921.

Rabinowitz, S., & Brandt, T. (2001). Computer-Based Assessment: Can It Deliver on Its Promise? Knowledge Brief.

Reid, I. R. (2002). Relationships among body mass, its components, and bone.BoneKEy-Osteovision.

Sapriati, A., & Zuhairi, A. (2010). Using Computer-Based Testing as Alternative Assessment Method of Student Learning in Distance Education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education- TOJDE, 11 (2), 161-169.

Sim, G.; Holifield, P., & Brown, M., (2004). Implementation of Computer Assisted Assessment: Lessons from the Literature. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(3), 215-229.

Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032-1044.

Thurlow, M., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D., & Hodgson, J. (2010). Computer-based testing: Practices and considerations (Synthesis Report 78). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Usun, S. (2007). Teacher Training Programs for Computer Education and Computer Assisted Education in Turkey. (Report). Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/?q=usun&ft=on&id=ED500110

Vandal, B. (2010). Getting past go: Rebuilding the remedial education bridge to college success. Education Commission of the States.

Yurdabakan, I. & Uzunkavak, C. (2012). Primary School Students’ Attitudes TOWARDS Computer Based Testing and Assessment in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13, 177-188.