The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two versions provided to students CBT and PPT with 0.36 moderate correlation indicators in the pre-CBT test, no significant differences between the males and females in the CBT test results.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Study aims to determine whether the university students' scores in the compulsory Islamic culture course test on a selected sample differ across the paper-and pencil test (PPT) & computer-based test (CBT) versions, and to reveal the relationship between gender and the student's level of performance in the test, Therefore, the study evaluated the comparability of two versions of a compulsory Islamic culture course test (PPTs) and (CBTs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The importance of conducting the study in Jordan stems from the fact that public and private universities have begun to move away from the traditional patterns of tests such (PPTs) and went towards (CBTs), In addition to detecting which models give the best in the output and has the characteristics of the psychometric test, Furthermore indicates whether there were differences between males and females, the study sample consisted of 120 individuals, 67 females and 53 males from scientific, health and humanities colleges.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two versions provided to students CBT and PPT with 0.36 moderate correlation indicators in the pre-CBT test, no significant differences between the males and females in the CBT test results.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:PPT · CBT · Comparability
Abstract
Study aims to determine whether the university students' scores in the compulsory Islamic culture course test on a selected sample differ across the paper-and pencil test (PPT) & computer-based test (CBT) versions, and to reveal the relationship between gender and the student's level of performance in the test, Therefore, the study evaluated the comparability of two versions of a compulsory Islamic culture course test (PPTs) and (CBTs). The importance of conducting the study in Jordan stems from the fact that public and private universities have begun to move away from the traditional patterns of tests such (PPTs) and went towards (CBTs), In addition to detecting which models give the best in the output and has the characteristics of the psychometric test, Furthermore indicates whether there were differences between males and females, the study sample consisted of 120 individuals, 67 females and 53 males from scientific, health and humanities colleges. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two versions provided to students CBT and PPT with 0.36 moderate correlation indicators in the pre-CBT test, no significant differences between the males and females in the CBT test results. Therefore, on the basis of the results of the present study, the CBT test is an option and a preferred alternative for regular students of the bachelor's level at the University of Jordan.
ALAKYLEH, A. S. (2022). Evaluating the Comparability of PPT and CBT by Implementing the Compulsory Islamic Culture Course Test in Jordan University. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 175–186. https://ajindex.com/articles/540223
Ackerman, R, & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(1), 18-32.
Al-Amri, S. (2009). Computer-based testing vs. paper-based testing: establishing the comparability of reading tests through the evolution of a new comparability version in a Saudi EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Essex, England. Anne, A., Walgermo, B., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 61-68.
Aslan, O. (2006). New way of learning: E-Learning, Fırat University, Journal of Social Science, (16) 2, 121-131.
Chapelle, C. A, & Douglas, D. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clariana, R, & Wallace, P. (2005). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (5), 593-602.
Gallagher, A., Bridgeman, B., & Cahalan, C. (2002). The effect of computer-based tests on racial/ethnic and gender groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39 (1), 133-147.
Creed, A., Dennis, I., & Newstead, S. (1987). Proof-reading on VDUs. Behaviour & Information Technology, 6 (1), 3–13.
Destefano, D, & Lefevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behaviour. (23) 3, 1616–1641.
Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information usage. London: Taylor & Francis. Dundar, H, & Akcayır, M. (2012). Tablet vs. Paper: The effect on learners' reading erformance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4 (3), 441-450.
Ekrem, S. (2014). Computer versus Paper-Based Reading: A Case Study in English Language Teaching Context. Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE 4 (1). Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Fuhrer, S. (1973). A comparison of a computer-assisted testing procedure and standardized testing as predictors of success in community college technical mathematics (Doctoral dissertation), New York University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34 (6), 3086. Fleming, S., Hiple, D., & Du, Y. (2002). Foreign language distance education at the University of Hawaii. In C. A. Spreen (ed.), New technologies and language learning: issues and optio