Computer-Based Learning - Essay Example

Running Head: CBL/CAA GIVES UNFAIR ADVANTAGES TO CERTAIN LEARNERS Discuss the view that Computer Based Learning (CBL Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) gives unfair advantages to certain groups of learners [Writer's Name] [Institution's Name] Discuss the view that Computer Based Learning (CBL) / Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) gives unfair advantages to certain groups of learners Introduction Technology has become an integral part of the educational setting since its debut in the early 1980s. Its use in the classroom has been met with mixed results. Teachers and researchers in the education field have been given the responsibility of infusing technology into their curriculum. Although many teachers can see the benefits technology may have to offer, they are finding it difficult to both learn themselves and teach to secondary education students. Many teachers find that certain types of technology in the classroom make presentation of material easier. Others find that it hinders their efforts, as secondary education students tend to use it for entertainment and not as intended. Within the context of writing classes and writing research, Computer Based Learning (CBL) / Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) have been employed primarily to support collaborative writing endeavours. (Zakrzewski 2003) The feature sets of CBL and CAAs provide a rich environment for the activities of group writing tasks, peer reviewing, and information exchange. Further, CBL and CAAs provide opportunities for instructors to expose secondary education students to knowledge, as well as opportunities for secondary education students to build their own knowledge through interaction via an electronic communications medium. (Mccabe 2000) The exposure to and development of secondary education student knowledge transpires as a function of the dynamic interaction process within the learning environment. Thus, usage of CBL and CAAs may promote active learning of course material by engaging the secondary education student in communication activities and behaviours that stress interaction among secondary education students and between the secondary education student and the instructor(s). (Salmon 2003) However, secondary education students must use (and adapt usage of) the CBL and CAA in a manner that supports effective interaction to gain such benefits. (Zakrzewski 2003) Research has shown the following characteristics of some students who tend to have and unfair advantage in CBL and CAA, communicative interaction significantly influence such student's effectiveness: communication message content, communication exchange format, and communication exchange timing. The secondary educator of today faces a difficult challenge when given the choice of employing CBL and CAAs in traditional face-to-face or distance learning situations. Administrators facing pressures to cut university costs (and maximize usage of faculty resources) argue for the use of CBL and CAAs, whereas conventional secondary education students research presents conflicting results regarding the effects of CBL and CAA use in higher education settings (see, for example, Alavi; Alavi; Leidner and Ruberg). What is an educator to decide The purpose of this study is to shed light on this very real problem today is higher education faculty face. In this study, we focus on exploring secondary education student interaction within the context of CBL and CAA usage to gain a deeper, situated understanding of how secondary education students choose to use the CBL and CAA to meet assignment requirements, and ultimately to uncover factors that may influence secondary education student learning outcomes. (Mayer 2003) Nevertheless, before we can isolate factors that influence secondary education student learning, we must first have a well-grounded understanding of the type and kind of interaction that actually occurs when secondary education students complete computer-based communication assignments on their own, with minimal instructor intervention. (Mandinach et al. 2002) Computer-Based Assessment has become common in UK secondary education sector. In the early days, CBA was restricted to text-based simple question and answer sessions written by programmers. Later, authoring systems were developed to create more user-friendly products and wider access for academics (Whiting, 2000). Today there are free, easy to use products for creating online assessments ( Derbyshire, 2000) and commercial products such as Question Mark Designer for creating flexible networked tests. Questions do not now have to be text-based but can also incorporate graphics and multimedia. Responses assessed can include multiple choice selection, British secondary education student's hotspot clicking, text, numerical studies that included mathematics for secondary education students to answer. CBA is now used for exams, mid-unit tests and diagnostic assessments. (Evensen et al. 2000) It is also found as an integral part of many Computer Assisted Learning training programs. Perhaps now, with the creation of a national Computer Assisted Assessment centre in the UK, it has come of age. One strand running through a number of computer-based assessment projects has been the ability of the software to randomly generate questions for the secondary education students or to randomly select a coherent subset of questions from a large question bank. This has been achieved in a variety of different ways, particularly in maths and the sciences, and has served different purposes. Random-based tests take more time to create but, once created, do have a number of practical secondary education CBA/CAA advantages stemming from the easing of security concerns, and can have a much longer life. In formative assessments, random tests can also provide large sets of questions for secondary education students to practise, with instant feedback. This paper looks at the type's learners who get an unfair advantage during CBA usage and the reasons for those advantages over conventional students. Discussion Recent UK literature concerning the use of learning technology has turned towards the need for centralised support systems (Longstaffe et al., 2001; McDonough et al., 2002). Similarly, the lack of policies and standards has UK secondary education students to suffer, being viewed by some staff as a luxury, an add-on cost rather than part of the process of refining the delivery of materials and assessments, (Lieblum, 2000) and thus hindered its progress. The literature indicates that whilst some institutions have established separate UK secondary education students in classrooms, others have incorporated them within existing central services, or within departments or faculties as means of addressing the problem of embracing UK secondary education students. As Longstaffe, et al. note "... the problems, strategies and solutions remain the same" (Longstaffe, 2000, p. 89). The TLTP has acknowledged the need to support staff in the implementation of TLTP materials through the establishment of the Teaching and Learning Support Network (TLTP, 2001). CAA is the use of computers in secondary education student assessment. This may encompass a range of activities including the use of computers to: - deliver, mark and analyse assignments or examinations; - record, analyse and report on achievement; - collate and analyse data gathered from British secondary education students mark readers (OMR); and - collate, analyse and transfer assessment information through networks. In comparison with the use of computers to aid secondary education student learning, CAA is a relatively new development and has often been pioneered by enthusiastic individual academics. Examples include the use of Question Mark software at the universities of Luton (Zakrzewski & Bull, 2000), and Plymouth (McCabe & Troise, 2000), the development of in-house CAA software at the University of Wolverhampton (Thelwall, 2000) and a system built using some software at a University (Brown et al., 2001). The use of the World Wide Web (WWW) to facilitate assessment has seen the work of projects such as Medweb, (a WWW-based system designed to integrate teaching, research and administration), gain momentum but not necessarily full institutional acceptance (Richards, 2001). Often developments have to be curtailed, restricted or abandoned owing to time and funding restrictions, or the movement of the individual(s) concerned. Therefore, opportunities are missed, in part, because of the lack of strategic planning. The most obvious way in which computerisation of assessment can be a virtue is through instant marking and feedback. It is believed that instant feedback is often more educationally effective than when delivered after a delay, possibly of days or weeks, for human marking (Dempsey, Driscoll & Swindell, 2003). In addition to this, quick feedback is clearly desirable for much formative assessment, particularly for diagnostic quizzes and self-tests when the results may be used to direct remedial studies. Open access tests can also promote understanding, particularly by weaker secondary education students, by encouraging revision. (Kafai and Resnick 2000) The secondary education student experience can also be indirectly improved because of the lecturer's easy access to a breakdown of test marks. There have been concerns expressed about the effectiveness and scope of CBA in both formative and summarise roles. Laurillard (2003) in the context of a simple adaptive UK secondary education students quiz raises the concern that it would not be able to do much to help develop conceptual understanding. Jones (2003) also doubts that UK secondary education students training programs can build higher thinking skills if they are linear. One response to this has been constructivism and the creation of environments for exploration and learning ( Grabinger & Dunlap, 2003). There is, however some evidence that formative computer-based assessments can aid retention of concepts ( Bocij & Greasley, 2000) and subject mastery in some sense ( Whiting, 2000). One major concern raised about summarise CBA is whether it can assess higher intellectual skills. It is in common use for first year secondary education students, but is less common elsewhere, with notable exceptions, such as medicine, where it is used in the final year of degrees and for the continuing professional qualifications of practising physicians. There are some skills, such as the ability to construct a logical argument in essay form, that CBA cannot assess, although there have been partially successful attempts to devise metrics to British secondary education student's mark essays (Christie, 2000). It is inconceivable to use a computer to assess large, important, predominantly creative projects such as a final year creative writing essay or a final year arts project. Computers are, however, used to assess some large creations, such as computer programs (Foubister and Foxley), although a computer program clearly exists in a tightly defined environment and has a relatively small artistic component. Many CBA tests are mainly or exclusively multiple-choice. Nevertheless, multiple-choice questions do not have to test facts, but well-written questions can require interpretation and probe understanding (Carneson, Delpierre & Masters, 2000), although not directly the ability to construct something. Here are some illustrative examples of ideas for multiple-choice type question stems that would not just test knowledge. Given an unknown picture: - Select two painters that were major influences on the artist... - Pick a word that best describes the mood of the picture... - Which of the following aspects of painting do you think the artist was most concerned about... Given a section of prose: - Select all the metaphors. - Select all the similes. - Identify the inappropriate metaphor. It is also easy to devise complex logic problems with multiple-choice answers. A simple example of this would be: Which of the following is the correct negation of the statement: 'All secondary education students in the class with brown shoes are female...' Research has also shown that Multiple-choice tests can be as reliable as human marked essays (Kniveton, 2000). It is believed, therefore, that multiple-choice tests and computer-based assessments can have a place in the highest levels of education, but should be used in conjunction with other assessments to cover areas beyond their scope. The advantages for some students of being able to practise and learn from the test programme were somewhat offset for some secondary education students by the partly correct perception that they would not get partial marks for partially correct answers, and that the computer was therefore a harsher marker than a lecturer. (Linn 2000) Despite this, at the end of the test 55% preferred computer-based assessment to traditional assessment against 12% who did not and 34% undecided. Only 6% said that they did not trust the computer to mark their work at the end. In the history of the test, only one secondary education student has claimed that they failed the test only because it was computerised, and they failed a written substitute test that they were allowed to take. As a result of this, and experiences with secondary education students with no previous IT experience, we have no concerns that the technology is a real obstacle to any secondary education student. (Bull et al. 2003) Although the grades on the test improved over the previous written version and exam grades have slightly improved, it is not possible to give a definitive statement of success because of the heterogeneous nature of the secondary education student base and the differing annual base skill level. Nevertheless, it is believed that the overall contribution is positive. After a discussion, a decision concerning whether to replace the final exam with another similar computerised test was resolved by keeping the written version because of the essential component of the course that could not be assessed by a computer: the ability to write a coherent and logical secondary education student's correct report on the results of a statically survey of British students of secondary education and their test results. (Salmon 2003) Secondary education students tend to have a positive perception of using technology in the classroom. It may be the case that being actively involved in class lessons helps them to better understand certain concepts, or they may enjoy having the computers and other technology because it makes school more entertaining for them. Young secondary education students that have difficulty understanding how certain types of technology work should not be given lessons in the absence of a teacher or other adult. Secondary education secondary education students are aware of the many facets of life technology is now being used in and are able to advance their knowledge in the field faster than some of their instructors may be able to do. Secondary education students in higher education are also inundated with technology tools in most programs at the college and university level. Secondary education students ' experiences with technology both in and outside of school may shape their view of what it is they are learning as well as how difficult the subject is to learn. For secondary education students who have had much experience with technology as a tool, the transition into the classroom may be an easier one. However, many secondary education students do not use technology as a tool but for other "social interaction" related practices. (Levy 2001) According to sociocultural theory, this too will help secondary education students to learn about and use technology in the classroom, albeit in a different format. Sutherland et al. (2004) argue that any experience with technology tools outside of the classroom will help secondary education students who where facing unfair competition from some other students, who can use them within a classroom setting as well. How did secondary education students structure their interaction Overwhelmingly, the data indicate that secondary education students used the CBL and CAA to discuss course content and did not tend to diverge into tangential topics or issues. This indicates a directed and purposeful (as opposed to playful) approach to using the CBL and CAA. Message content was highly task-focused, as opposed to social/relational in nature, though our data suggest that it is normal for such self-disclosure to occur in this venue. Further, the exchange format closely mirrored the stated assignment requirements (e.g., question-and-answer or group discussion), and was relatively free of aggressive communication. (Larkin and Chabay, 2000) These findings, taken together, suggest that instructors must be careful to match assignments to goals for using the technology, but need not worry about excessive flaming, as long as they are present in the interaction. It is important to note that simply assigning use of the technology, as a class requirement may not meet the goals of increasing secondary education student-secondary education student and secondary education student-instructor interaction. Instructors must be aware of both explicit and implicit goals of using the technology in the classroom and be sure to raise implicit goals to the level of active consciousness when assigning tasks to secondary education students. (Goodman 2002) Finally, approximately one-third of the communication incidents were at times beyond the normal hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., suggesting that secondary education students used the technology to extend the classroom boundaries to times that were appropriate for them. Conclusion In conclusion, this study has provided conventional secondary education students evidence regarding how secondary education students manage their interaction when completing computer-based communication assignments. In some respects, our results support prior research findings and reports regarding on-task communication behaviour. However, our study also highlights secondary education student decisions regarding communication content, the format of the communication exchange, and the timing of the communication exchange. Secondary education students manage a number of competing exigencies when completing assignments for courses and must guard their time closely. As instructors, we hope secondary education students choose to use their time in concert with our goals for course assignments. However, as the march toward employing computer-based communication technologies for distance learning continues apace, it is critical for student to focus on results and it is important for educators to examine conventional secondary education student's evidence to understand what is actually occurring within secondary education student interaction. We believe this study contributes to an understanding of how secondary education students structure their interaction in a CBL and CAA environment and we hope the results reported here will foster continued research in this important area. Despite the large number and variety of methods of computer-based assessment in use in higher education today, there are still misconceptions and unanswered questions concerning the role that it can play in the learning process and its possible scope for summarise assessment. There is a range of literature covering different aspects of this, but the variety of types of assessments and disciplines in which they are used does not help to clarify the issue. It is easy to see that there are some things that a computer cannot assess and that tests of factual knowledge are not difficult to computerise but this can lead to a dismissing of the potential of CBA. There is, however, evidence that even the commonly used multiple-choice questions can test higher intellectual skills and that in certain circumstances multiple-choice exams can be as reliable for assessment purposes as essays. Different styles of assessment have different impacts upon secondary education students, and the randomly generated open access tests attempt to provide an inexhaustible supply of formative assessment in addition to their eventual use for summarize assessment. The random element can give them a longer life span, over five years now for the Wolverhampton statistics test, and allow them to double as a learning resource. Results of the survey into the open access statistics test showed that it is popular with secondary education students, it drives many to revise more and that it is used by a number to direct their studies, away from the computer. It therefore seems that it is able to provide one of the sometimes forgotten essential components of education: motivation. This is likely in this case to be some form of extrinsic or 'achievement' motivation, rather than a desire to understand the subject, but does point the way to conceptualising computer-based assessment not as separate from the rest of the education process but as situated in a learning environment and able to affect the way in which other materials are perceived and used. This, in conjunction with other evidence discussed and the taxonomy of uses, shows the versatility and potential richness of CBA for education. There are a great many different ways of using computer-based assessment with secondary education students, from a diagnostic test given before studies begin, to formative assessments during study, mid-term tests and the final exam. Computerisation of assessment can enhance the value of education in certain circumstances, either because it is unfair advantage for some student's who can be more adaptable to the CAA/CBL format of papers because the assessment would be impractical secondary education students without it. Computers cannot be used for all assessments because some educational outcomes, particularly those with a creative component, are too difficult to measure with the defined rule that a computer program needs. The point here is that CBA is different to and, in the information age, complementary to traditional assessment methods. References Alavi, Maryam, (2001). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly 18, pp. 159-174. Bocij, P. and Greasley, P., (2000). Can computer-based testing achieve quality and efficiency in assessment. International Journal of Educational Technology http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/. Brown, G., Bull, J. & Pendlebury, M. (2001) Assessing Secondary education student Learning in Higher Education (London and New York, Routledge). Bull, Joanna, Mckenna, Colleen; (2003) Blueprint for Computer-Assisted Assessment Book by RoutledgeFalmer Carneson, J., Delpierre, G., & Masters, K. (2000). Designing and managing multiple-choice questions. http://www.le.ac.uk/castle/resources/mcqman/mcqman01.html. Christie, J., 2000. Computer-assisted assessment of essays. In: , pp. 85-89. Dempsey, J.V., Driscoll, M.P. and Swindell, L.K., (2003). Text-based feedback. In: Dempsey, J.V. and Sales, G.C. Editors, 2003. Interactive instruction and feedback Educational Technology Publications, NJ, pp. 21-54. Derbyshire, H. (2000). The CASTLE toolkit. http://www.le.ac.uk/castle/. Evensen, Dorothy H., Hmelo Cindy E.; (2000) Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions; Book by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Foubister, S.P., Michaelson, G.J. and Tomes, N., (2001). Automatic assessment of elementary standard ML program using Ceilidh. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 13 2, pp. 99-108. Foxley, E., Higgins, C. and Tsinitsifas, A., (2000). The Ceilidh system: a general overview. In: , pp. 140-145. Goodman, Paul S.; (2002) Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change; Book Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Grabinger, R.S. and Dunlap, J.C., (2003). Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Alt-J 3 2, pp. 5-34. Jones, T., (2003). Towards a typology of educational uses of hypermedia. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 438, pp. 265-276. Kafai, Yasmin, Resnick, Mitchel; (2000) Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World; Book by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Kniveton, B.H., (2000). A correlational analysis of multiple-choice and essay assessment measures. Research in Education 56, pp. 73-84. Larkin, Jill H. Chabay, Ruth W. ;( 2000) Computer-Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches; Book by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Laurillard, D., (2003). . Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology Routledge, London. Leidner, Dorothy E. and Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., (2000). The information age confronts education: Case studies on electronic classrooms. Information Systems Research 4, pp. 24-54. Levy, Michael; (2001) Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization Book by Clarendon Press, Lieblum, M.D. (2000) Implementing UK secondary education students at a university, Computers and Education, 18 (1-3), pp. 109-118. Linn, Marcia C., His, Sherry; (2000) Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners; Book by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Longstaffe, J. A., Whittlestone, K. D., Edwards, J. D., Williams, J. & Hammond, P.M. (2001) Supporting Learning Technology in Higher Education (Sheffield, Information Technology Training Initiative, Universities' and Colleges Staff Development Agency). Longstaffe, J. A., Williams, J., Whittlestone, K. D., Hammond, P.M. & Edwards, J. D. (2000) Establishing a support service for educational technology within a university, Association of Learning Technology Journal, 4(1) pp. 85-92. Mandinach, Ellen B. Cline, Hugh F.;(2002) Classroom Dynamics: Implementing a Technology-Based Learning Environment; Book by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mayer, Richard E.; (2003) Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: Multiple Research Perspectives; Book by Erlbaum Lawrence Associates Mccabe, M. & Troise, I. (2000) A recipe for the successful integration of computer technology into teaching and assessment. Paper given at the Association of Learning Technology Conference, September, Glasgow. Mcdonough, D., Scrivens, J. & Rada, R. (2002) University courseware development: comparative views of computer-based teaching by users and non-users, Computers and Education, 23(3), pp. 211220. Richards, C. G. (2001). A review of WWW computer-assisted assessment systems. Internal report, Flexible Learning Initiative, Loughborough University, January 2001, p. 12. Salmon, Gilly, Routledge; (2003) E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online; Book by Sage Publications Sutherland et al., 2004 R. Sutherland, V. Armstrong, S. Barnes, R. Brawn, N. Breeze and M. Gall et al., (2004), Transforming teaching and learning: embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 pp. 413-425. Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) (2001) Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network, TLTP Newsletter, 5 (autumn) pp. 16-17. Thelwall, M. (2000) Computer-based assessment at the University of Wolverhampton. Paper given at the Association of Learning Technology Conference, September, Glasgow. Whiting, J., (2000). The use of a computer tutorial as a replacement for human tuition in a mastery learning strategy. Computers and Education 9 2, pp. 101-109. Zakrzewski, S. & Bull, J. (2003) Mass implementation and evaluation of computer based assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), pp. 141-152. Read More