8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

1/7

Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication

Department

Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership,

Education & Communication Department

University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year

Effects of Classroom Testing byMicrocomputer

Blannie E. Bowen David M. AgnewOhio State University University of Nebraska - Lincoln

This paper is p osted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/2

8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

2/7

Ef fec ts o f C lassroom T es t i ng by M i c roc ompu t e r

Blannie E. Bowen, Associate ProfessorA g r i c u l t u ra l E duc a t i on

The Ohio State University

David M. AgnewP r o j e c t A s s i s t a n t

A g r i c u l t u ra l E duc a t i onUnivers i ty o f Nebraska-L inco ln

A c c ep t ed f o r P ub l i c a t i on M ay 1986

Mic rocompute rs a re be ing u s e d f o r a v a r i e t y o f p u r p o s e s , bu tr e s e a r c h a b o u t t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s l a g s b e h i n d a d o p t i o n

r a t e s f o r t h e t e c h n o l o g y . However, s ev era I r esea rche rs have ex am i nedcompetenc ies voca t i ona l educa t ion teachers need to use e f f ec t i ve l y t h i se m e r g i n g t e c h n o l o g y (Bowen, 1 9 8 4 ; C a n t r e l I , 1 9 8 2 ; C h a s e , G o r d o n , &

Makin, 1984 ; Hudson, 1 9 8 3 ; M i l l e r & F o s t e r , 1 9 8 5 ; R o t h , T e s o l o w s k i ,Rankin, & B lackman, 1984) .t i v e i n na t u re .

These s tud ies were exp lora tory and descr ip-

Further, t h e r e i s a l i m i t e d r e s e a r c h b a s e a b o u t t h e e f f e c t s o fm ic rocompute rs i n voca t i ona l ag r i cu l t u re on l ea rn ing i n t he a f f ec t i ve ,c og n it i ve a n d p s yc h om o to r d om ai ns. R o h r b a c h (1983) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h eef fec ts o f mic rocomputer ins t ruc t ion versus lec ture-d iscuss ion in teach-ing co l l ege s tuden ts a f a rm management l esson . The lec tu re -d i scuss ion

g ro up i n t h e R oh rb ac h s tu dy p e r fo rm ed sig ni f ic an tl y b et te r t ha n t wom i cr o co m p ut e r gr o u ps d i d on a c o gn i t i v e me a su r e. H ow ev er , B ec ke r a nd

Shoup (1985) conc luded tha t s ign i f i can t i nc reases i n s tuden t know ledgeof safe t rac tor operat ion concepts resu l ted when vocat iona l agr icu l tures t u d e n t s a s w e l l a s a c l a s s o f U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a a g r i c u l t u r e s t u -dents were taught us ing mic rocomputers ,

The research base is even more sha l low when ef fec ts o f tes t ing s tu-d en ts b y c o mp ut er t ec hn ol og y a r e e x pl or ed . B i s k i n a n d K o l o t k i n (1977)f ound t ha t c om pu t e r -bas ed , t e l e ty pe and pape r and penc i l m e t hods o f t es ta d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r o d u c e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s w h e n s t u d e n t s w e r e g i v e n t h eM in ne so ta M ul ti ph as ic P er so na li ty I nv en to ry . C o r y (1977) f o u n d t h a tpape r and penc i l and c om pu t e r i z ed adm i n i s t r a t i on m e t hods p red i c t ed j ob

p e r f o r m a n c e e q u a l l y w e l l o n f o u r o f f i v e a t t r i b u t e s s t u d i e d . Thesef ind ings abou t t he e f f ec t i veness o f compute r t echno logy a re genera l l yc o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n s C l a r k ( 1 9 8 3 ) m a d e a f t e r h i s meta-a na ly se s of r es ea rc h ab ou t th e in fl ue nc e of m ed ia o n le ar ni ng . Cl a r kcon tended tha t t he teacher ra ther t han i ns t ruc t i ona l med ia b r i ngs abou ts tuden t ach ievement .

Objec t ives and Hypotheses

This research tes ted hypotheses about how ef fec t ive ly mic rocompu-ters cou ld be used to admin is ter an ob jec t ive c lassroom tes t to s tudents

who had s tud ied and used compute r t echno logy .sought to determine: S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e s t u d y(a ) t he e f f ec t t ak ing an ob jec t i ve f i na l examina-t i on by m ic rocompute r wou ld have upon s tuden t cogn i t i ve per fo rmance ;(b) t h e e f f e c t t h i s m e t h o d o f t e s t i n g w o u l d h a v e o n s t u d e n t a t t i t u d eabou t c om pu t e rs i m m ed i a t e l y a f t e r t he ex am i na t i on ; and ( c ) w he t he r t h i smethod o f t es t i ng wou ld requ i re more t ime than conven t iona I paper andpenci I test ing procedures.

8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

3/7

Three hypotheses were formulated for test ing (p

8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

4/7

g iv en t hr ee s am pl e it em s be fo re s ta rt in g th e t es t. A ft er t he s am pl e

items were completed, the instructo r fielded questions about the pro-cess. Concurrently , the teaching assistant explained the directions andf ie lded quest ions f rom students in the convent iona l group. Both teach-ers then proceeded to record the number of minutes each student neededto complete the test . Af ter complet ing the cognit i ve tes t, the s tudentscompleted an instrument designed to measure their att i tudes toward com-

puters.

T h e t hr ee d e p en de n t v ar ia b le s m e as u re d i n t h i s s t u d y w e r e :(a) minutes to complete the test; (b) score on the test; and (c) score

on the att i tudes about computers instrument.the instructor ,

The test was developed byand re l iabi I i ty coeff icients from 10 prior administra-

t i o n s r a n g e d f r o m .78 t o . 90. I n t h i s s t u d y , the convent ional testgroup data were used to compute re l iabi l i ty coeff ic ients which were .80fo r Rep li ca t io n 1 and . 78 fo r Rep li ca t io n 2 . Da ta wer e n o t ava i lab l e tocompute rel iabi l i ty coeff icients for the microcomputer testing group.Although the software recorded each students score on the test, i t did

n o t s tor e da ta ab ou t in di v id u al t es t it ems . T h e l 0 - i t e m a t t i t u d i n a linstru ment was val idat ed by a pa nel of ex perts a nd yield ed a .74 Cron-bach's a l p h a r e l iabi I i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r R e p l i c a t i o n 1 a n d .76 f o r

Repl i ca ti on 2.

Findings

Personal data by treatment and control group are provided in Table

1 for Repl icat ions 1 and 2. The mean age for the 49 subjects in Repl i -cat ion 1 was 33.8 ( t reatment , 34.9; control , 32.5) .

FG$ication 2 were o lder ,The 28 subjects in

with a mean age of 38.4 (treatment, 42.7; con-

34.1).t io n 2. There were 38 females in Repl icat ion 1 and 7 in Replica-In Repl icat ion 1 , 33 subjects had no bachelor s degree, and 16had a bachelor s degree or h igher . Repl icat ion 2 consisted of 12 sub-jects wi th a bachelor s only and 16 wi th a master s or educat ional spe-cia l ist degree. The object ive midterm examinat ion (See Table 1) wasu sed as a co var ia te i n th e s tud y . T he mi dte rm an d f in al exam in at io ns

were very highly correlated (r= .77) for Repl icat ion 1 and moderatelyr el at ed i n R e p li ca ti on 2 ( r= .4 3) . M id te rm s co re s f or t he t re at me nt a ndcontrol groups were compared using a t-test, and no signif icant di ffer-ence was found in e i ther repl icat ion (Repl icat ion 1:Rep l i ca ti on 2: t [26]=1 .04, p >. 05 ).

t [4 7] =- .7 4, p>.05;

T es t o f H yp ot he si s O ne : F in a l E va lu a ti o n S co r es

A one-way analysis of covar iance revealed that the two groups weren o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n t e r m s o f t h e i r s c o r e s o n t h e 3 5 - i t e m

final examinat ion. Table 2 I is ts the measures of centra l tendency andthe ANCOVA for the f inal examination scores. Hypothesis One was notr e j e c t e d f o r e i t h e r r e p l ication since the exper imenta l and controIgroups had simi lar scores on the f inal examinat ion.

Test of Hypothesis Two: Student Att i tudes Toward Microcomputers

The mean at t i tudinal scores of the two groups were posi t ive in bothrepl icat ions.(posit ive).

The scale had a possible range of 10 (negat ive) to 50The t-test performed for both repl ications indicated that

Hypothesis Two should not be re jected s ince the two groups had simi larpos it i ve a t t itudes about computers (Repl i cat ion 1 :and control , 41 . 0 ; Repl ication 2 :

microcomputer , 40.9 ,

41.4).microcomputer, 3 9. 3 a nd c o nt ro l,

Hypothesis Two was not re jected for e i ther repl icat ion.

4

8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

5/7

Table 1

A Compar i son o f T rea tment and Cont ro l Groups on Se lec ted Var iab les f o rRep l i ca t i ons 1 and 2

V a r i ab l e

T rea t m en t ControI Overa I I

Repl icat ion R ep l i ca t i o n RepI icat ion

1 2 1 2 1 2

AgeMean

S.D.

SexMales

FemaIes

Degree

34 .9 42 .7 3 2 .5

12.9 8 . 8 9 .4

7 9 4

18 5 2 0

34.1 33 .8 38 . 4

7 . 9 11.0 9.3

1 2 1 1 21

2 3 8 7

No B.S.B .S . o r H igherBache lo r s On ly

Master s or H igher

Mar i ta l S ta tus

S i n g l e

Mar r i ed

Mid te rm Score(100-point s c a l e )

M e a n

S.D.

15 0 18 0 3 3 0

1 0 0 6 0 1 6 0

0 6 0 6 0 1 2

0 8 0 8 0 1 6

4 2 6 1 1 0 321 1 2 18 1 3 3 9 2 5

78.7 79.1 8 1 .3 83.1 80.1 81 . 012.2 11.0 12.2 9 .4 12.1 10.2

T es t o f H yp ot he si s T hr ee : M i nu t es t o T a ke t h e E x am in a ti o n

A t - tes t used to compare the two groups ind icated there was a s ig-

n i f i c an t d i f f e renc e i n m i nu t es requ i r ed t o c om p l e t e t he ex am i na t i on i nRep l i ca t i on 1 . The m ic rocompute r g roup took 5 .7 m inu tes l onger t o com-p le te t he e xa mi na t i on ( 32 .7 v s. 2 7. 0; t [47]=2.36, p.05). H yp o th es is T h re e w as r ej e ct ed f or R ep l i ca ti on 1 b u t n o t f o rR ep l i ca ti on 2 . T h e c o n t r ol g r o u p n e e d e d 2 7 m i n u t e s i n b o t h re pl ic a-t i ons , bu t t he m ic rocompute r g roup needed 10 m inu tes l ess i n Rep l i ca t i on

2 (32 v s . 22).

Conc lus ions and Imp l i ca t i ons

Conc lus ions and imp l i ca t i ons were fo rmu la ted w i th t he know ledgethat sub jec ts for th is s tudy used mic rocomputer technology ex tens ive lyd u ri n g a c o mp u te r a p pl ica ti ons c ou rse . I n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f i n a lexamina t i on scores were i ndependen t o f t he method o f tes t i ng . Further ,t he ob j ec t i v e m i d t e rm ex am i na t i on adm i n i s t e red by pape r and penc i l p ro -cedures was modera te l y t o h igh l y co r re la ted w i th t he f i na l examina t i on .

Th is sugges ts that how s tudents scored on the f ina l examinat ion was bes ti nd i ca ted by scores made on the m id te rm examina t i on and no t by t he

method o f t es t i ng .

5

8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

6/7

Tab le 2

ANCOVA of Final Examination Scores for Replicat ions 1 and 2

Group

Treatment

Control

n A d j u s t e d M e a n s

Repl ication Replicat ion

1 2 1 2

2 4 1 4 2 8 . 4 26 . 5

2 5 1 4 2 8 . 9 26 . 3

S.D.

Repl icat ion

1 2

4 .27 4 . 29

4 .58 4 . 27

d f s s M S F

Replicat ion RepIication Replicat ion RepI icat ion

Source 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Midterm(Covariate)

Treatment

Residual

1 1 565.8 90 .3 565.3 90 .3 69 .5* 5 .82*

1 1 2.7 .3 2 . 7 .3 .3 .02

4 6 2 5 3 74 . 6 388.1 8.1 15.5 - -

TotaI 48 27 943 .1 478 .7

*p

8/6/2019 jurnal_b.i

7/7

References

B ec ke r, W . J ., & S h ou p, W . D. ( 1 98 5 , S um me r ). T h e m i cr o co m p ut e r a s a ni n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l . T h e J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f

Teacher Educa to rs i n Agr i cu l t u re , 26 (2 ) , 65 -72 .-B i s k i n , B . H . , & K o l ot k in , R . L . ( 1977 ) . E f f ec ts o f c om pu te r i z ed adm in -

i s t ra t i on on scores on the M inneso ta Mu l t i phas i c Persona l i t y I nven-t o r y . App l i ed Psycho log i ca l Measurement , L 543 -549 .

Bowen, B . E . ( 1984 ). M ic rocomput er c om pe tenci es needed by C oope ra ti ve

Ex tens ion Serv i ce agen ts and voca t i ona l ag r i cu l t u re t eachers i n M is -s issi ppi . U np ub li sh ed re po rt , M is si ss ip pi St at e U ni ve rs it y, De pa rt -ment o f Agr i cu l t u ra l and Ex tens ion Educa t ion , M iss i ss ipp i S ta te .

Campb e l l , D. T . , & S tan ley , J . C . (1963) . Exper imenta l and quas i -exper -imenta l des igns for research. Ch i cago: Ra nd McNa l l y Col l eg e Pub-

I i sh ing .

Cant re l I , M. J . (1982) . An assessment o f a t t i tudes , needs , and de l iverysys tem fo r m ic rocompute r app l i ca t i ons by agr i cu l t u ra l and ex tens ioneduca t o rs in M is s is s ipp i. U npub li s hed doct o ra l d i ss e rt a ti on, M i ss i s-

s ipp i S ta te Univers i ty , Miss iss ipp i S ta te .

C h a s e , S. A . , G o r d o n , R . , & Makin, R . C . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A s y s t e m f o r e v a l u a t -

i ng m ic rocompute r courseware fo r voca t i ona l and techn ica l educa t ion ,f inal r e p o r t . C o l u m b u s : T h e Nat ional C e n t e r f o r R e s e a r c h in V o c a -t i ona l E duc a t i on .

C l a r k , R . E . (1983). Re co ns i de ri ng r ese ar ch o n l ea rn in g from m e di a .Rev iew o f Educa t iona l Research , 53 , 445-459 .

C or y, C . H . ( 19 77 ). R e la t iv e u t il i ty o f c o mp u te r iz e d v e r s u s p ap er -a nd -p en ci l te st s fo r p re d ic ti ng j o b pe rf or ma nc e. A p pl i ed P sy c ho l og i ca lMeasurement , 1, 551 -564 .

H ud so n, C. J. (1 98 3) . T e ac h er c o mp e te n ci e s ne e de d t o ut i l i ze m i cr o co m -pu te rs i n voca t i ona l ag r i cu l t u re . Unpub l i shed doc to ra l d i sser ta t i on ,V i rg in ia Po ly techn ic I ns t i t u te and S ta te Un ive rs i t y , B lacksburg .

Mi l ler , W . W., & F o s t e r , R . M . ( 1 9 8 5 , S p r i n g ) . A n as se ss me nt o f m ic ro -compute r competenc ies needed by voca t i ona l ag r i cu l t u re i ns t ruc to rs i nNebraska and Iowa. T h e J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f

Teacher Educa to rs i n Agriculture,26(1), 30-38 .

R oh rb ac h, N. F. ( 19 83 ). M i cr o co m p ut e r us e i n te a c hi n g gr a d ua t e st u de n tsi n a g r i c u l t u r a l education. U np ub li sh ed d oc t or al d is se rt at i on , Un i-vers i ty o f Missour i -Columbia.

Ro th , G . L . , Teso lo

March). Ge t t i ng

Spec to r , P . E . (198

I icat ions .

wski, D . G . , Rankin, R . A . , & B l a c k m a n , H . S . (1984,ready for micros. VocEd, 59(3), 3 0 - 3 1 .

1). Research des igns . Bever ly H i l l s , CA: Sage Pub-

7