Online Proctored Versus Unproctored Low-Stakes Internet Test Administration: Is There Differential Test-Taking Behavior and Performance?

Online Proctored Versus Unproctored Low-Stakes Internet Test Administration: Is There Differential Test-Taking Behavior and Performance?
复制标题

在线监考与无人监考低风险互联网考试管理:应试行为和表现是否存在差异?

DOI:
10.1080/08923647.2017.1258628
复制
发表时间:
2017
影响因子:
3.2
通讯作者:
O. Liu
O. Liu
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Joseph A. Rios;O. Liu

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

摘要在线高等教育机构关注的是如何获得有效的结果时,远程管理学生学习成果(SLO)评估。传统上,由于增加了灵活性和降低了成本,人们在很大程度上依赖于无监督的互联网考试管理(UIT);然而,一些有效性问题导致一些研究人员质疑其实施和结果。为了减轻UIT的局限性,已经开发了一种相对较新的方法,称为在线监考,通过利用技术来创建可验证和安全的测试条件,以远程镜像亲自监考。本研究评估了在线监考和无监考考试管理在低风险测试环境下的用户友好性、考生行为和平均成绩的可比性。结果表明,用户友好性得到改善(例如,方便登录);然而,在不同的监考条件下,学生在快速猜测信息、快速猜测或综合得分方面没有观察到显著差异。总体而言,这些结果表明,在线机构可以实施UIT,这是一种具有成本效益的方法来测试管理,并获得有效的组级推理SLO评估。
ABSTRACT Online higher education institutions are presented with the concern of how to obtain valid results when administering student learning outcomes (SLO) assessments remotely. Traditionally, there has been a great reliance on unproctored Internet test administration (UIT) due to increased flexibility and reduced costs; however, a number of validity concerns have led some researchers to question its implementation and results. To mitigate the limitations of UIT, a relatively new approach, referred to as online proctoring, has been developed to mirror in-person proctoring remotely by capitalizing on technology to create verifiable and secure testing conditions. This study evaluated the comparability of online proctored and unproctored test administration in a low-stakes testing context on user-friendliness, examinee behavior, and mean scores. Results demonstrated improved user-friendliness (e.g., ease of logging in); however, no significant differences were observed in terms of keystroke information, rapid guessing, or aggregated scores between proctoring conditions. Overall, these results suggest that online institutions can implement UIT, which is a cost-effective approach to test administration, and obtain valid group-level inferences from SLO assessments.