Online Tests in the Trend of Education 4.0: An Empirical Study in Mathematics at High Schools of Can Tho City

Tuan Anh Bui; Nghia Huu Nguyen; Thao Thi Thu Tran; Anh Ngoc Phuong Nguyen

doi:10.52296/vje.2021.29

Authors

Tuan Anh Bui Department of Mathematics Education, Teachers College, Can Tho University, Can Tho City, Vietnam
Nghia Huu Nguyen Can Tho Department of Education, Can Tho City, Vietnam
Thao Thi Thu Tran Department of Mathematics Education, Teachers College, Can Tho University, Can Tho City, Vietnam
Anh Ngoc Phuong Nguyen Department of Mathematics Education, Teachers College, Can Tho University, Can Tho City, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2021.29

Keywords:
Paper-pencil tests
online tests
procedure of establishing online tests (PEOT)
Mathematics education
Google Forms
IATA

Downloads
PDF

How to Cite

Bui, T. A., Nguyen, N. H., Tran, T. T. T., & Nguyen, A. N. P. (2021). Online Tests in the Trend of Education 4.0: An Empirical Study in Mathematics at High Schools of Can Tho City. Vietnam Journal of Education, 5(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2021.29

Download Citation

Abstract

In the trend of Education 4.0, the assessment of learning results through online tests is increasingly widespread and important because of its usability and mobility. In addition, it is also adaptable in the volatile situations of today's society such as natural disasters, epidemics, war, etc. The paper presents the results of an empirical study in Mathematics at high schools in Can Tho city on the comparison of outcomes between online tests and paper tests. The initial statistical analysis results show that the evaluation of learning results by online tests has high consensus among the experimental group. Furthermore, the advantages and suggestions for improvement are also pointed out and discussed in this work.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agrawal, A., Atiq, M. A., & Maurya, L. S. (2016). A current study on the limitations of agile methods in industry using secure Google Forms. Procedia Computer Science, 78(291-297), 35.

Alexander, M. W., Bartlett, J. E., Truell, A. D., & Ouwenga, K. (2001). Testing in a computer technology course: An investigation of equivalency in performance between online and paper and pencil methods. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 18(1), 69-80.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.

Astuti, S., Sayekti, I., & Krishna, B. (2020). Google form in engineering mathematics: Innovation in assignment method. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1613(1), 1-11.

Bayazit, A., & Aşkar, P. (2012). Performance and duration differences between online and paper-pencil test. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(2), 219-226.

Bennett, R. E., Persky, H., Weiss, A. R., & Jenkins, F. (2007). Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments. A Report from the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project, Research and Development Series. NCES 2007-466. National Center for Education Statistics.

Boitshwarelo, B., Reedy, A. K., & Billany, T. (2017). Envisioning the use of online test in assessing twenty-first century learning: a literature review. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 16.

Cartwright, F. (2007). IATA 3.0 Item and Test Analysis: a software tutorial and theoretical introduction.

Chaiyo, Y., & Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student's perception in the classrooms response system. In 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT) (pp. 178-182). IEEE.

Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Farkasné Tóth, K. (2009). Comparing paper-and-pencil and online assessment of reasoning skills: A pilot study for introducing TAO in large-scale assessment in Hungary. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

De la Fuente Valentín, L., Pardo, A., & Kloos, C. D. (2009). Using third party services to adapt learning material: A case study with Google forms. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 744-750). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Djenno, M., Insua, G. M., & Pho, A. (2015). From paper to pixels: using Google Forms for collaboration and assessment. Library Hi Tech News.

Gehringer, E. F. (2010). Daily course evaluation with Google forms. In ASEE, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition (Vol. 27).

Harmon, O. R., Lambrinos, J., & Buffolino, J. (2010). Assessment design and cheating risk in online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3).

Larsen, K. G., Mikucionis, M., & Nielsen, B. (2004). Online testing of real-time systems using Uppaal. In International Workshop on Formal Approaches to Software Testing (pp. 79-94). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Mahalakshmi, K., & R. Radha. Covid 19: a massive exposure towards web based learning. Journal of Xidian University, 14(4), 2405-2411. https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.4/266

Mansor, A. Z. (2012). Managing student’s grades and attendance records using Google Forms and Google Spreadsheets. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 420-428.

Moon, J. L. (2013). Comparability of online and paper/pencil mathematics performance measures. PhD diss., College of Education and Human Services, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Murphy, M. P. (2018). “Blending” Docent Learning: Using Google Forms Quizzes to Increase Efficiency in Interpreter Education at Fort Henry. Journal of Museum Education, 43(1), 47-54.

Paek, P. (2005). Recent trends in comparability studies. Pearson Educational Measurement.

Pennebaker, J. W., Gosling, S. D., & Ferrell, J. D. (2013). Daily online testing in large classes: Boosting college performance while reducing achievement gaps. PloS One, 8(11), e79774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079774

Puhan, G., Boughton, K., & Kim, S. (2007). Examining Differences in Examinee Performance in Paper and Pencil and Computerized Testing. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 6(3). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1633

Rogers, C. F. (2006). Faculty perceptions about e-cheating during online testing. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(2), 206-212.

Stowell, J. R., & Bennett, D. (2010). Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 161-171.

Taherbhai, H., Seo, D., & Bowman, T. (2012). Comparison of paper-pencil and online performances of students with learning disabilities. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 61-74.

Varble, D. (2014). Reducing cheating opportunities in online test. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 3(3), 131-149.

Veanes, M., Campbell, C., Schulte, W., & Tillmann, N. (2005). Online testing with model programs. In Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering (pp. 273-282).

Veanes, M., Roy, P., & Campbell, C. (2006). Online testing with reinforcement learning. In Formal Approaches to Software Testing and Runtime Verification (pp. 240-253). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Verawardina, U., Asnur, L., Lubis, A. L., Hendriyani, Y., Ramadhani, D., Dewi, I. P., … & Sriwahyuni, T. (2020). Reviewing Online E-learning Facing the Covid-19 Outbreak. Journal of Talent Development & Excellence, 12(3s), 385-392.

Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in grade K-12 mathematics test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(2), 219-238.