SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: Özel Sayı

Examining Students' Formative Test-Taking Behaviors Using Learning Analytics

Alper BAYAZIT
Denizer YILDIRIM
Gökhan AKÇAPINAR
Hale ILGAZ
Pages
382–395
Publication Date
2023-10-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, students’ profiles have been analyzed in a formative assessment environment and compared with the summative assessment environment based on attempt count, overall time spent, first attempt score, and the last attempt score metrics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In online learning environments, assessment is an important dimension and also one of the most challenging parts of the process.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Cluster 1 showed a high number of interactions, and an increasing trend was observed in grades over attempts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, students’ profiles have been analyzed in a formative assessment environment and compared with the summative assessment environment based on attempt count, overall time spent, first attempt score, and the last attempt score metrics.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:test-taking behavior analysis · learning analytics · formative assessment

Abstract

In online learning environments, assessment is an important dimension and also one of the most challenging parts of the process. So to provide an effective learning process analyzing students’ behaviors are important for designing formative and summative assessment environments. In this study, students’ profiles have been analyzed in a formative assessment environment and compared with the summative assessment environment based on attempt count, overall time spent, first attempt score, and the last attempt score metrics. The within-subjects design has been used. Cluster analysis and the Kruskal Wallis-H Test were used to analyze behaviors. The data show that there are three main clusters. Cluster 1 showed a high number of interactions, and an increasing trend was observed in grades over attempts. Cluster 2 consists of the students who received the best grades in all of the other clusters, and lastly, cluster 3 consists of students that interact little and score lower on formative assessments.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYAZIT, A., YILDIRIM, D., AKÇAPINAR, G., ILGAZ, H. (2023). Examining Students' Formative Test-Taking Behaviors Using Learning Analytics. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: Özel Sayı, 382–395. https://ajindex.com/articles/971560

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Blondeel, E., Everaert, P., & Opdecam, E. (2023). Does practice make perfect? The effect of online formative assessments on students’ self-efficacy and test anxiety. The British Accounting Review (101189). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101189
  2. Cassady, J. C., & Gridley, B. E. (2005). The Effects of Online Formative and Summative Assessment on Test Anxiety and Performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(1). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1648
  3. Crisp, V., & Ward, C. (2008). The development of a formative scenario-based computer assisted assessment tool in psychology for teachers: The PePCAA project. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1509-1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.02.004 Gašević, D., Greiff, S., & Shaffer, D. W. (2022). Towards strengthening links between learning analytics and assessment: Challenges and potentials of a promising new bond. Computers in Human Behavior, 134(2022), 107304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107304
  4. Guo, H. (2021). How Did Students Engage with a Remote Educational Assessment? A Case Study. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 41(3), 58-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12476
  5. Guo, H., & Ercikan, K. (2021). Comparing Test‐Taking Behaviors of English Language Learners (ELLs) to Non‐ELL Students: Use of Response Time in Measurement Comparability Research. ETS Research Report Series, 2021(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12340
  6. Han, S., & Kang, H.-A. (2021). Sequential Monitoring of Aberrant Test-Taking Behaviors Based on Response Times. In M. Wiberg, D. Molenaar, J. González, U. Böckenholt, & J.-S. Kim, Quantitative Psychology Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74772-5_7
  7. Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304
  8. Hui, B. (2023). Are They Learning or Guessing? Investigating Trial-and-Error Behavior with Limited Test Attempts. Paper presented at the LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, Arlington, TX, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576068
  9. Lee, Y. H., & Haberman, S. J. (2016). Investigating Test-Taking Behaviors Using Timing and Process Data. International Journal of Testing, 16(3), 240-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2015.1085385
  10. Liao, M., Patton, J., Yan, R., & Jiao, H. (2021). Mining Process Data to