Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FOURTH GRADE STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN MATHEMATICS
ASSESSMENT: COMPUTER VERSUS PAPER-PENCIL TESTING MODALITY
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Education Department
Carson-Newman University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
By
Samantha Nicole Carroll
May 2021
ii
Dissertation Approval
Samantha Nicole Carroll
Dissertation Title: FOURTH GRADE STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN
MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT: COMPUTER VERSUS PAPER-PENCIL
TESTING MODALITY
This dissertation has been approved and accepted by the faculty of the Education
Department, Carson-Newman University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree, Doctor of Education.
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Tammy Barnes, Dissertation, Chair
Dr. P. Mark Taylor, Methodologist
Dr. Patricia Murphree, Content Member
Approved by the Dissertation Committee Date: February 4, 2021
iii
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the overall testing experience that
fourth-grade math students encounter when taking a computer-based versus a paper-
pencil-based assessment. The research data revealed a deeper understanding of the
overall test experience and students' outlook on achievement, anxiety, and attitudes
through the testing modes. This study's data were supported by interviews, classroom
observations, and a survey with six math students from a rural school district in East
Tennessee. The results were used to articulate findings among the participants and
establish a list of common themes, including student mindset, testing anxiety, and
assessment mode preference. The findings supported that both types of testing modes
were equally preferred and that attitudes toward testing and positive mathematic
experiences produced a higher success rate within the classroom. Additionally,
recommendations were made to enhance test mode familiarity on the devices and
platforms used for classroom assessment.
.
iv
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 by Samantha N. Carroll
All rights reserved
v
I hereby grant permission to the Education Department of Carson-Newman
University to reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes,
with the understanding that in no case will it be for financial profit to any
person or institution.
Samantha N. Carroll
Date: February 4, 2021
vi
Dedication
First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my late little
brother. I can only imagine what you would have to say about this endeavor of mine. I
miss you daily and wish you were here for me to force you to read this. I would also like
to dedicate this study to anyone with dreams that seem impossible. One's past does not
dictate the future, and staying the course is so important. Perseverance, hard work, and
dedication speak volumes to a person's character, and with those characteristics, anything
is possible. Lastly, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to those that are passionate
about education. I am so grateful for educators and administrators that saw something in
me even when I did not. I would not be where I am without enthusiastic mentors.
vii
Acknowledgments
First, I give thanks to God for blessing me with this amazing opportunity to chase
my dreams and pursue my doctoral degree. Without God's grace, I would not have been
able to finish this endeavor.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their time and patience
throughout this entire journey. I want to thank Dr. Barnes for always being just a phone
call away. You have been the mentor that I want to become someday. Your passion and
leadership have really been a blessing throughout my time at Carson-Newman. For that, I
am forever grateful. I want to thank Dr. Taylor for serving as my methodologist and
giving me valuable insight into the process. Dr. Murphree gave me an awareness of the
research process and served as my reader.
I want to thank my family. Without their patience and understanding throughout
this process, I would not be where I am today. To my husband, you are my biggest
encourager and supporter. Thank you for saying encouraging words, positive words, and
even hard words along the way. You always gave me the extra push needed to get
through; I will be forever indebted to your grace, patience, and understanding. I know it
was never mentioned to my children, but thank you for understanding why I was not
always present. I worked countless hours to accomplish this dream of mine. You have
been my driving force and my reason why. I hope one day you can chase your dreams
with arms wide open. Thank you for instilling in me a determination and passion for
never giving up and overcoming obstacles to my mom and dad. Thank you for always
being proud of me no matter what; I never want to disappoint you. To my in-laws, thank
you for dropping everything and moving schedules around to accommodate watching the
viii
kids while I worked. Thank you for believing in me like I am yours. It does not go
unnoticed. I love you all so very much.
I want to thank my friends. You take "it takes a village" to the extreme. Thank you
for encouraging me and always being there whenever needed. Special friends are few and
far between, and I would not be where I am without you.
I would also like to thank the many educators and administrators who saw traits
that I did not see in myself throughout my educational and professional career. Your
constant pushing and encouragement have made me a better person, and I hope to inspire
and encourage others as you have done to me.
ix
Table of Contents
Dissertation Approval…………………………………………………………………….ii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Copyright Statement………………………………………………………………...……iv
Signature Page…………………………………………………………………………….v
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...vi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................... xiv
1: Introduction. ………………………………………………………………………….1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................... 2
Purpose and Significance of the Study ............................................................................... 3
Theoretical Foundation ....................................................................................................... 3
Sociocultural Learning Theory ..................................................................................... 3
Cognitive Load Theory ................................................................................................. 4
Test Mode Familiarity................................................................................................... 5
Research Question .............................................................................................................. 6
Rationale for the Study ....................................................................................................... 6
Researcher Positionality Statement .................................................................................... 7
Delimitations, Limitations, and Assumptions ..................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................ ….10
x
Summary .......................................................................................................................... .11
2: Review of Literature ................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Literature Review ............................................................................. 13
History and the Importance of Education ......................................................................... 14
Education in the 17th Century ..................................................................................... 14
First School for Girls .................................................................................................. 14
K-12 Education ........................................................................................................... 15
Technology in the Classroom ..................................................................................... 16
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 18
Methods for the Literature Review ................................................................................... 20
Evolution of Technology .................................................................................................. 21
Obligation to Assess ......................................................................................................... 26
Standard Paper Pencil Testing .......................................................................................... 27
Advantages of Paper Pencil Testing ................................................................................. 29
Disadvantages of Paper and Pencil Testing ...................................................................... 30
Computer-Based Testing .................................................................................................. 32
Benefits of Computer-Based Testing ................................................................................ 34
Limitations of Computer-Based Testing ........................................................................... 36
History of Testing in Education ........................................................................................ 38
Relevance of Testing......................................................................................................... 40
Testing Anxiety ................................................................................................................. 42
Testing Achievement ........................................................................................................ 45
Testing Attitude ................................................................................................................ 46
xi
Preferred Testing Method ................................................................................................. 47
The Future of Testing........................................................................................................ 47
Gaps .................................................................................................................................. 48
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 49
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 50
3: Methodology ................................................................................................................ 52
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 53
Description of the Specific Research Approach ............................................................... 53
Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 54
Observations ............................................................................................................... 54
Interviews .................................................................................................................... 54
Triangulation ............................................................................................................... 55
Description of the Study Participants and Setting ........................................................... 55
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 57
Surveys ......................................................................................................................... 58
Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 58
Observations ................................................................................................................. 58
Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................................. 59
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 60
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 61
4: Presentation of Findings ............................................................................................ 64
Research Methodology Applied to Data Analysis ............................................................ 65
Phenomenological Research Method ........................................................................... 65
xii
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 66
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 67
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants ....................................................................... 67
Data Collection Process .................................................................................................... 68
Presentation of survey data ........................................................................................... 68
Observation data presentation ....................................................................................... 71
Interview data presentation ........................................................................................... 72
Study Findings .................................................................................................................. 75
Student Mindset ................................................................................................................ 75
Testing Anxiety ................................................................................................................. 75
Assessment Mode Preference ........................................................................................... 76
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 76
5: Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations ................................................... 78
Theoretical Framework Relevancy ................................................................................... 79
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 80
Design of the Study ........................................................................................................... 80
Limitation, Delimitation, and Assumptions ...................................................................... 81
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 81
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 81
Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 82
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 82
Student mindset ........................................................................................................... 83
Testing anxiety ............................................................................................................ 83
xiii
Assessment mode preference ...................................................................................... 83
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 84
Implications....................................................................................................................... 84
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 85
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 86
References ........................................................................................................................ 87
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A – Parent Consent Form…………………………………………………99
Appendix B – Student Survey Questions……………………………………...……102
Appendix C – Student Interview Questions ............................................................. 106
Appendix D – District Letter ................................................................................... 108
Appendix E – Site Permission Granted .................................................................... 110
Appendix F – Paper-Pencil Math Assessment ......................................................... 112
Appendix G – Paper-Pencil Assessment Answer Key ............................................. 115
Appendix H – Computer-Based Assessment .......................................................... ..119
Appendix I – Computer-Based Assessment Answer Key ..................................... ...122
xiv
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 4.1 Student Participant Academic Level ................................................................. 69
Table 4.2 Student Survey: Student Achievement ............................................................. 70
Table 4.3 Student Survey: Testing Anxiety ...................................................................... 70
Table 4.4 Student Survey: Student Attitude ..................................................................... 71
Figures
Figure 4.1 Interview Coding Data .................................................................................... 74
1
Chapter One: Introduction
The digital era has transformed the world. Without a doubt, technology will be a
vital portion of Education in the digital era (Hashim, 2018). Education and technology
are cohesively becoming merged. The dependence on technology has increased human
productivity substantially. Education and technology have become intertwined in the
school setting. Every subject can now be taught using some form of technology.
Integrating technology is an expectation of many school-wide administrators. Educators
do not do children justice if their classrooms do not provide some technology for the
students to utilize throughout the learning process. Students are often asked to complete
tasks online or watch videos online to supplement what the educator teaches in the
classroom. Teachers have found that the growth of technology tools correlates with
expanded student engagement. The most effective strategies must include an innovative
curriculum and new forms of teaching and teacher education. New approaches to student
assessment and new instructional materials must be incorporated for overall student
success (Black & Atkin, 1996). Educators want to teach students to the best of their
abilities. Changing the best teaching practices to mimic the evolution of technology is
extremely important. These mindset shifts will develop educators worldwide and benefit
students astronomically in the educational world.
Understanding the most efficient way to teach students has been at the forefront
of educational policies for years. Innovative teaching yields innovative learning and test-
taking tactics that will be beneficial for students. Students must know how to navigate
and recognize the importance of such instruments to succeed in most classrooms.
Assessing what students learn is just as critical a task as teaching them the material.
2
Practical assessments should guide instruction for each individual child and classroom.
Assessing students should be a tool that teachers use to better educate the children in their
classrooms. Finding the appropriate assessment measure to enhance students' overall
testing experience is a problem most educators face. Modifications can be made for those
students based on the data that assessments bring to the table. Children benefit drastically
from adjustments made in the classroom. The goal of education is to be individualized as
much as possible, and assessments truly help teachers modify instruction for students.
Modified instruction for students will support individualized learning plans.
Statement of the Problem
With the rapid growth of technology, educational research has been directed
towards the assessment issues in Tennessee. This study focused on the attitude, anxiety,
and achievement of fourth-grade math students while taking examinations via paper-
pencil and technology-driven in a rural school located in East Tennessee. Prior studies
have examined the benefits and disadvantages of both methods of testing. For this study,
the researcher gathered and analyzed data about fourth-grade students' overall testing
experience while looking at the assessment process given to that particular child.
The problem is that students are not accurately being measured on knowledge
obtained due to assessment type. Delivery of assessment is causing unnecessary restraints
for students, hindering their attitude, anxiety, and achievement. The testing experience
for a child obstructs the data that will drive future education for that particular child.
There is a need to investigate what students need to be successful with assessment modes
in the classroom. Using the appropriate testing mode for each child will aid in its overall
success in the classroom. The emphasis associated with K-12 testing is rising year to
3
year. Often, students are identified by a test instead of the knowledge they obtain on the
topic. The future of testing needs to evolve for students from elementary age to high
school age to be successful. How well a child does on assessment should not be the goal;
however, successful students should be the education goal.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
This qualitative study aimed to analyze fourth-grade mathematics students' overall
testing experience in a rural school setting. Each child will have a different experience
based on the lifestyle of that particular child. The study looked primarily at the students'
achievement, anxiety, and attitudes while taking a paper-pencil assessment and a
technology-based assessment. Student perception of test-taking was also reviewed and
analyzed in detail. Data were gathered through surveys of students, observations of
students, and interviews with students.
This study's purpose comes from the relevant problem of the anxiety students face
when assessing an online platform. The primary focus was on six students. Two were
high-achieving students, two were average achieving students, and two were lower-
achieving students, as determined by the district's benchmark assessments from the
previous year. The differences in ability gave a broader understanding of the research
question.
Theoretical Foundation
Sociocultural learning theory. Vygotsky is known for the sociocultural learning
theory. Vygotsky believed that learning precedes development, language is the primary
vehicle of thought, meditation is essential to education, and social interaction is based on
4
learning and development. Learning is a process of internalization in which skills and
knowledge are transformed from the social into the cognitive plane (Shabani, 2016).
Sociocultural learning theory impacted this study. Sociocultural learning theory opines
that a child's learning environment can affect their testing experience and child
development. A child's learning environment can essentially make or break a child's self-
esteem in elementary school. Regaining that confidence later in the elementary years is a
challenging task to accomplish. Elementary school years are when students should build
up trust and feel very assured in their learning environment. Teachers are ultimately in
charge of how students feel when inside the classroom. The sociocultural learning theory
is based on the idea that a learner's environment plays a significant role in the overall
learning experience and inclusive development of a student.
The social learning theory tenets affect the child's ability to perform an
assessment given in a classroom setting. The social aspect can also have drastic measures
on a child's performance in the classroom. A student's peers can positively or negatively
affect how well that particular child performs in classroom settings. Sociocultural
learning theories take a more learner-centered approach to education (Wang, Bruce, &
Hughes, 2011). Student-centered learning is essential for child growth and gives the child
ownership of his or her knowledge. Sociocultural learning theory focuses on conceptual
and methodological frameworks analyzing exactly how people learn (Esmonde &
Booker, 2016).
Cognitive load theory. Education and technology's progression demand
assessing students' assessment modes and frequency become very prevalent in school
systems. Technology makes accessing information extremely easy and usually with a
5
click of a button. Retaining information is not a skill one needs because of the access to
technology and the plethora of available data. The theoretical framework that supported
this study is the Cognitive load theory. Cognitive load theory (CLT) originated in the
1980s and underwent development and expansion in the 1990s. Cognitive load can be
described as a multidimensional construct representative of the load that performing a
particular task imposes on the learner's cognitive system (Paas & van Merrienboer,
1994). Cognitive load theory deals with problem-solving difficulty. The information must
be held in a child's memory until they are ready to use the material. It is known that the
brain is intended to only do so much at one time; therefore, test-taking can be a high-
anxiety situation for children. Children have difficulty deciding on the information that is
important and the information that needs to be forgotten. Educators need to help students
learn to process information differently.
Test mode familiarity. Test mode familiarity will impact a student's overall
examination experience. Several factors play into a child's testing familiarity. A child's
background will drastically change how well a child does in a testing environment.
Whether or not a child has support at home is critical to how a child will behave and
perform in a learning setting. It is of the utmost importance that every insinuating
circumstance is considered when looking at test mode familiarity. Suppose a child is not
familiar with a particular type of test. In that case, that child will not perform well when
given an assessment using that testing mode. Helping students find what works best for
them should be at the forefront of every educator's classroom agenda.
The conceptual framework for the study revolves around the emphasis the
educational system has put into assessments. Teacher effectiveness is affected by how
6
well a student does on a state-mandated test. The children who make up a teacher's class
can impact whether a teacher is an efficient instructor in the educational system. A child's
learning environment can have detrimental effects on a child's success. However, a child
can really flourish in a positive, healthy learning environment. A positive learning
environment lends itself to a positive student-teacher relationship. Relationships are
essential to overall student success in and out of the classroom. When a positive
relationship exists between students and teachers, the outcomes far outweigh a negative
relationship. It should be the educator's goal to provide a healthy relationship with every
student in the classroom. This will pay dividends in the end.
Research Question
The following research question directed this qualitative study:
1. What is the experience of fourth-grade mathematic students as they take a
computer vs. paper-pencil test?
Rationale for the Study
The study focused on understanding students' overall testing experience in a
mathematics classroom given different testing modes. Research focusing on different
types of testing methods is plentiful. However, there is limited research on which testing
mode is preferred by students and provides the highest achievement, lowest anxiety, and
best attitude towards testing. Some studies argue that since the world is headed towards
technology-driven assessment, that should be the only option for specific students or
individual tests. Through a survey, in-depth interviews, observations, and a focus group,
the study analyzed students' complete experiences in a testing setting with different
7
assessment modes. Prior research has identified how testing modes affect scores. Still,
current research has yet to understand the perception of students when it comes to testing.
Student perception and experience should drive the decision made by critical
stakeholders, administrators, and teachers.
Educational leaders and key stakeholders often recommend or oversee tests that
are not in the students' best interest. Having not been in the classroom or being so far
removed from the school impacts student success because the test may sound good in
theory. Still, it is not developmentally appropriate for that particular grade-level.
Teachers advocate for their students, but year after year, tests are administered to
students. A meager percentage of students excel in assessing the material that is not
taught to the test. Educational leaders, key stakeholders, and educators need to work
seamlessly to provide students with the most beneficial testing available to that particular
state. Communication among the groups will be essential for improved testing measures
to be useful for children's success.
Researcher Positionality Statement
The researcher for this qualitative study has taught at the elementary level for six
years and obtains a Master of Arts degree in Education. Currently, the researcher teaches
fourth-grade math at a rural elementary school in East Tennessee. This is the first year the
researcher has served in an upper elementary classroom. As an educator, the importance
of assessments concerning student choice was formidable. Acknowledging the difference
that a testing mode makes with children's overall assessment experience has genuinely
impacted students' lives. Traditional testing can yield data that a computer-based
assessment cannot.
8
The researcher's role in the entire process helped to guarantee that the qualitative
study, research, surveys, observations, and interviews were conducted with no bias and
were unrestricted from personal opinions or perspectives. The researcher was exclusively
responsible for collecting and organizing the data and determining a fourth-grade
mathematics student's overall testing experience. The researcher analyzed several types
of data sources when doing this qualitative study. Providing the most up-to-date research
available was critical in understanding the inclusive testing experience of the students.
Delimitations, Limitations, and Assumptions
The data for this study were collected from one elementary school in an East
Tennessee school district. The school is found in a rural setting. The study was
implemented in Fall 2020 over three months, focusing on selecting participants in a
fourth-grade math class. The participants were a student population made up of lower,
average, and high achieving abilities or test performance. The participants were willing to
participate, and their identities were kept confidential.
A limitation of this study was time constraints because it was conducted in such a
short amount of time. Another end of the study was the size of the small sample.
However, this provided in-depth research opportunities. The delimitation of the study
was that the sampling was purposeful and included different ability levels. The study
included six students made up of three different ability levels, approaching, average,
above-average. Another delimitation of the study was the validity and reliability of using
well-researched instruments and conducting detailed research on the topic.
9
It is the postulation of the researcher that participants provided honest and
dependable feedback and responses. It is also assumed that the participants selected
represented a broad spectrum of ability levels in a fourth-grade math class to offer a wide
variety of data.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are used throughout the study and are critical to the research
question:
• Academic Achievement: a reasonably significant accomplishment made by
students in an educational environment. Academic achievement makes a social,
economic, and psychological contribution to an individual and his/her family
(Borekci & Uyangor, 2018).
• Attitude: a secure way of feeling or thinking, or behaving about someone or
something. Attitude is also the positive or negative calculation of one's
surrounding or surroundings (Bhatnagar & Das, 2014).
• Computer-Based Testing: use of computers for assessment purposes (Sim &
Horton, 2005).
• Mathematics: proposes, develops, analyzes and applies different methods from
scientific computing to several fields. Those fields at an elementary level include
equations and algebra (Quarteroni, Sacco, & Saleri, 2010).
• Paper-Pencil Assessment: paper-pencil assessments are also known as
traditional testing and include written tests and standardized tests. Standardized
10
tests ask students to use pencils to fill in bubbles on a scannable answer sheet
(Frey, 2018).
• Student: students can vary in age and learn from an educator that Peters typically
defined as kids in a K-12 academic setting (2012).
• Technology: digital tools to support computer applications that make
communicating, learning, and designing easier for technology-literate people
(Means & Olson, 1997).
• Test Anxiety: students who frequently experience distraction in a testing setting
and problems preparing for testing (Yusefzadeh, Iranagh, & Nabilou, 2019).
• Testing Experience: the experience a child has with testing in an educational
setting. The student may have a positive or negative testing experience depending
on the testing (Ravitch, 2016).
Organization of the Study
This qualitative study is separated into five chapters. The first chapter introduces
the study, a statement of the problem, and provides the purpose and significance. Also
included in the first chapter are the theoretical and conceptual frameworks to support this
study. The first chapter discusses the rationale of the study, limitations, delimitations, and
study assumptions. The second chapter reviews the professional literature related to the
study. The second chapter focuses on the history and evolution of education and
technology. Also incorporated in the second chapter are the advantages and
disadvantages of paper-pencil and computer-based assessments. In chapter three, the
research methodology is presented in detail. The methodology section includes a
description of the population and sampling, research techniques, and procedures utilized
11
throughout the qualitative study. Chapter four details the findings of the research and
analyzes the data. In the fifth chapter, the conclusion and were drawn from the study
results are explained—the implications provided by this chapter and specific suggestions
for further research on the subject.
Summary
This qualitative study gathered data using surveys, observations, and interviews.
Participants in the study were fourth-grade mathematics students. Students were selected
from three academic levels; under-achieving, average, and high achieving levels. This
study will provide an understanding of the students' overall testing experience in a fourth-
grade mathematics class. There are countless ways to assess students; the two most
common testing methods are paper-pencil testing and computer-based assessments.
Traditional testing has been in existence for decades, and the familiarities with those
types of tests are overall high. Parents and students feel very comfortable when tests are
administered using this type of testing mode. Technology-based assessments tend to be
more stressful, especially for elementary-aged students. However, they are becoming
more common in elementary school settings. Identifying what works best for students
and implementing a strategic plan of action will help K-12 students be successful inside a
classroom and the world that exists outside the four walls of education. It is essential to
identify what testing mode works best for a student as early as possible to go through
school being successful when assessments are being administered.
12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
There is substantial research on students and their testing experience while
focusing on two types of testing methods, paper-pencil assessments and computer-based
assessments. These are still used in the educational system today to get an accurate
picture of what knowledge students obtain throughout a specific time. The majority of
published works concentrate on the up-and-coming emphasis on computer-based testing
in educational settings. Classrooms implement technology in several ways, and testing is
one of the main ways it is implemented. Computer-based testing (CBT) is taking a paper-
pencil assessment in most schools, where technology is available. While these previous
studies offer valuable insight into supporting computer-based testing, a student's overall
experience should determine which type of testing is administered to that particular
student. When students are assessed in different ways, the anxiety, achievement, and
attitude can change depending on how their comfort level differs with each testing mode.
Each child's experience with testing will be different and should be considered when
administering a test. The experience in a testing setting can significantly impact the
knowledge transmitted from the child to the assessment. The data can falsify the child's
actual understanding of the standard.
The literature review examines and combines relevant literature and analyzes the
gathered information in an organized manner. This chapter delivers an overview of
current research that is relevant to the research question. Research gives an understanding
of what is presently happening with assessment and technology as it pertains to
education. It studies the progression of knowledge and technology in an educational
setting. The review of literature also takes into consideration what factors play a vital role
13
in the experience of testing for fourth-grade students in a mathematical environment. The
research becomes more focused throughout the literature review by narrowing down the
investigation into a specific topic. The student's overall testing experience when taking a
math assessment is the particular issue that is being studied.
The emphasis on testing is continuing to rise all over the world. Advancing the
effectiveness of educating students is dependent on assessment accuracy and efficacy. A
negative experience or fear of failure can impact a student's future attitude toward testing.
Positive testing experiences during a child's education should provide opportunities to
grow and to be academically successful.
Organization of the Literature Review
The literature review begins with the historical account of education and its
evolution over the centuries to become what it is today. With the evolution of education
comes the development of technology, enabling educators to teach and assess their
students. Technology plays a massive role today, and most could not see the world
without it now. The advancement in expertise has shaped society into a technological
environment. Students are assessed daily to establish whether or not they have gained the
knowledge intended by the teacher. Teachers can assess students not only by asking them
a question verbally but can get as involved as assessing students using technology. With
the added emphasis on assessment over the years, test anxiety has become prevalent in
students as young as elementary-aged. Testing anxiety can be a tremendous hurdle for
some students in an educational setting. Different effects play a role in the overall
experience of a child while testing.
14
History and the Importance of Education
Education in the 17th century. Instruction has evolved tremendously over the
years and will continue to change for the duration of life. The journey of schooling is a
lengthy endeavor. Education today is not what knowledge was in the 17th century. In the
17th century, going to a public school was not a requirement but a dream for many.
Societal needs placed a strong emphasis on children helping the family. They were
expected to work at home or on the farm so the family would succeed. Even if a child
could get an education, a family member in their home often provided the schooling. The
main focus of education in the United States was to teach children the importance of
Biblical knowledge and how to align themselves with puritan morals. According to Carla
Wright (2019), once the settler's population started to grow, each colony must have at
least one school teach students academics. Still, these schools mainly focused on
educating the wealthier community. Even though education was not considered very
important, Harvard was established as the first college in 1636. A little over a century
later, the girls' first academy was established in 1787 (Wright, 2019).
The first school for girls. The first academy for girls was just setting the
foundation for what was to come in history. Education continued to change over the
years, following the first academy for girls and the first college. These two marks in
history set the bar high for everything that followed in education afterward. History is
still being made daily with reforms in education. Teacher training was not a necessity
until much later in history. Public school started to progress around 1840; before then, it
was only available to the wealthy. Many reformers opposed this; they wanted all children
to gain an education. Noticeable amongst them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and
15
Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann began the publication of the Common School
Journal, which took educational issues to the public. The reformers argued for the case on
the confidence that schooling could create honorable citizens, unite society, and prevent
poverty and crime. Free public education on an elementary level was accessible for all
American children by the 19th century due to such efforts. Thattai (2001) stated that
Massachusetts approved the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed
by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws necessitating children to attend
at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to standard schooling
and decided to create their own private schools. The 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce
v. Society of Sisters states that it could not make children attend public schools. Students
could participate in private schools instead. Private schools are schools where tuition is
paid for schooling.
K-12 education. Society allowed everyone to receive an education either by
public schooling or private schooling. The school was no longer just for the wealthy.
Education became available to everyone interested in obtaining an education. The
transition was a massive part of American history and has shaped our country into what it
is today. Education has not been known to go backward, only to advance. The bulk of
one's teaching stems from K-12 education. Education can often be described as
elementary and secondary education. In the United States, they are often collectively
referred to as K-12 education. K-12 is a kind of shorthand that refers to
the grades through which students progress. The "K" applies to kindergarten, typically
presented in the elementary school system. Thus, K-12 education is 12 years long for
most students, plus kindergarten. As part of K-12 education, an elementary
16
school usually registers students from kindergarten or sometimes first grade through the
fifth or sixth grades. Bryce Loo (2019) stated that students move on to a lower secondary
school, usually known either as a middle school or a junior high school. The last three or
four years of school are typically known as high school, or occasionally senior high
school (Loo, 2019).
Education is available to all United States citizens. Once children have completed
a K-12 education, they can choose a technical or college path depending upon the future
they want for themselves. Typically, a college education will require students to get a
scholarship or pay tuition to attend. Long before teaching was recorded, the American
continent's inhabitants developed many traditions and social organizations that made the
core of education for the generations to follow. Gradual adjustments and alterations
naturally occurred over time. Urban (et al., 2019) suggested that children's education
proceeded down through centuries along the same lines and involved the same landscape
and cultural learning, as had long been the pattern. Continuing with the practice will be
the teachers' and students' adjustments to adapt to new and growing technology.
Technology will be critical in the growth of the nation and in the development of
classrooms. Technology has made a prominent appearance in America, and classes are
becoming smarter than ever before.
Technology in the classroom. While education is evolutionary, so is the way that
students learn. When schooling was first formally organized, students were expected to
sit at desks, and teachers lectured the entire day. Now, students and teachers learn
together in different settings, and the traditional seating arrangement is made up of other
options. Teachers utilize technology in the classroom to assist in the learning process.
17
The amount of knowledge available for students helps aid their learning in the school and
helps with differentiation. Technology has paved the way for education, and teachers
utilize it daily. Technology is essential in education today. It is used very often and
usually without much thought. The use of technology seems to come naturally to most;
however, that is not always the case. Training will be necessary to those for whom it does
not come naturally. Urban et al. (2019) stated that one implication of the scientific and
technological era is that knowledge is continually modified and renewed innovations.
Time should be spent learning to obtain information rather than memorizing the material.
Since familiarity will have to be revised and completed all through life, may accordingly
suppose that studies may be shortened.
In contrast, the relationship between introductory theory and professional practice
in higher education—which is sometimes inordinately protracted—may be revised
(Faure, 1973). A revision has proven correct all through history. It will continue to bring
truth to the educational system in America and around the world. The responsibility to
keep up with technology will be in the hands of people everywhere.
Educational technology plays a huge role in educating youth today. It must be
taken very seriously to keep up with the times. Students love the option to play with
technology such as computers or tablets for personal use. They are often well versed in
such settings. Teachers and students now use technology daily to assist their teaching and
learning. Teachers use computers and Elmo projectors to display learning material that is
engaging and useful to students. Most students have access to technology regularly, either
at school or at home. Students may now use technology for academic purposes, and this
has been an enormous breakthrough for education. Waddell (2015) stated that learning
18
techniques to improve and facilitate learning could be found everywhere today. Learning
techniques can be used to individualize learning in the classroom. Technology has not
always been this way.
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework is a structure that can support the philosophy of a
research study. Theoretical arrangements are essential because they introduce and
describe the theory that explains why the research problem that is under study exists.
Three theoretical concepts that supported this study were Cognitive load theory, test
mode familiarity, and sociocultural learning theory, all of which directly correlate. Each
theoretical framework is essential to the research that was conducted.
Sweller (1994) specified that cognitive load theory deals with learning and
problem-solving difficulty that is artificial. It can be manipulated by instructional design.
When children learn, information must be held in their memory until processed
sufficiently to pass into their long-term memory. The brain is designed to retain a certain
amount of information before going into overload. Larsen (2018) specified cognitive
psychology and applied education studies that repeated retrieval of information
significantly progresses retention compared to repeated studying. When educators expect
students to learn and retain large amounts of information, the overall testing experience
affects student achievement, anxiety, and attitudes. Cumulative tests really examine this
theory because it is an assessment that requires individuals to retain a tremendous amount
of material that could potentially be on the test.
Khoshsima et al. (2017) stated that online and paper-based assessments have
equivalency in scores based on how similar the tests' content is being administered. When
19
a student is asked to take an assessment, whether it is a computer-based assessment or a
paper-pencil assessment, a child will prefer one. The experience between both testing
modes for a student will be different. This is caused by test mode familiarity.
Instructional design canon states that paper-based versus computer-mediated instructional
components should produce exactly equivalent results if the content and cognitive
activities are the same (Clark, 1994). Students should be able to navigate both test
formats with comfort and ease. The material is essentially the same; therefore, students
will be able to solve each question effortlessly if the material has been taught properly to
the student. This is not the case in some settings; some researchers believe that test
familiarity plays a huge role in a child's success. A student's testing familiarity can be
influenced by several factors, such as social-economic status, ethnicity, age, and gender.
Finn (2015) affirmed that male students preferred computer-based testing and were more
familiar with that type of test than female students. Many students do not have access to
technology at home. The only experience they receive is in a school setting. Some
students may only see technology when an assessment is being assigned for them to take.
This does not always lead to a positive connotation of technology in a learning
environment.
Sociocultural learning theory plays a pivotal role in supporting this research
study. Leo Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, introduced the Sociocultural Learning
Theory. The three key themes of the theory are culture, language, and zone of proximal
development. These three characteristics influence a child's ability to take a test in any
environment. Shabani et al. (2010) stated that teachers assign learners tasks that fall
outside the proximal development zone or tasks that the learner would not be able to do
20
even with help. The approach also considers how students communicate with their peers
and how social events impact their ability to obtain information. Social settings can
drastically affect a child's performance in school. A combination of all three theories
plays a pivotal role in this study because they are all theories that pertain to a student's
growth and maturity. Without the proper testing mode, a student may not thrive in an
academically driven environment. Social interaction can be the key to success in many of
these situations.
Methods for the Literature Review
The review of literature occurred during the 2020-2021-time frame. Several
online databases were utilized while conducting research. The online databases allowed a
systematic search of articles, journals, dissertations, and books for the study. Tools,
which enabled analysis, were online resources of the Carson-Newman University library,
EBSCO Discovery Service, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Journal Storage (JSTOR),
and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). The following vital terms
enabled the search: computer-based assessment, paper-pencil assessment, assessment,
test anxiety, achievement, elementary students, testing experience, technology, evolution,
and knowledge of students' needs. Research articles were peer-reviewed and full text. The
primary range of research was 2010-2020. Since the dissertation examined the evolution
of education, technology, and testing in the United States over a broad time frame, earlier
sources with important information were crucial to this study's development.
21
Evolution of Technology
Similar to education, knowledge is just an evolutionary. Technology has advanced
drastically and in such a short amount of time. Students often find themselves trying to
catch up with the latest skills and the information they provide. Despite what one may
think, technology was one of the most conservative of human activities. It provided the
necessary link between human beings and their access to basic needs, such as access to
food, shelter, and other means of survival. The expertise was too necessary to tamper
with except under profound necessity. The common saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it,"
is only a new preparation of ancient understanding. Pursell (2007) stated, change was
likely to be for the worse, not the better, and for people who lived at the edge of
subsistence, innovation was too great a gamble to take.
Innovation was not popular and was negatively comprehended by Americans over
60 years ago. Technology has changed drastically since those times, and the dependence
on such equipment from the human race is very prevalent. Perrin & Kumar's study
determined that overall,
…81% of Americans say they go online daily. That figure includes 28% who go
online almost always, and 45% say go online numerous times a day and 9 % who
venture online about once a day. 8% go online several times a week or less often,
while 10 % of adults say they do not use the Internet at all. (Perrin & Kumar,
2020)
These statistics are staggering and will likely increase daily. With computers'
availability, people often get on the Internet without thinking about what they are doing.
22
Information is clearly available at the fingertips of human beings. To gain as much
knowledge as possible on any given subject, many students and teachers use technology.
A student or teacher can find an answer to any question by simply typing it into the
search engine on a computer, cell phone, or tablet. People can talk to technology if the
desire is there. The possibilities are endless. The evolution of technology has taken off
over the past 50 years. There are no signs of it stopping anytime soon. Automation has
had a tremendous impact on human life. Social networking could help introverted
humans open up and connect with faculty and other students when using social
networking to communicate. Schumacher (2016) stated that technology allows students
to collaborate and work together in a whole new way. Saettler (2004) reported that
educational technology, as a process, emerged out of the early technological tradition
when a kind of knowledge began to be systematically applied to instruction. Tribal priests
invented pictographs to record and spread information in previous times. The technique
was influential in that period. Saettler also stated that the more advanced the culture, the
more complex the instruction technology was to reflect particular ways of thinking,
acting, speaking, or feeling. Over the centuries, each significant shift in educational
values, goals, or objectives has led to diverse instruction technologies (2004).
Technology continued to grow and changed depending on the need that was at hand.
The exchanging of knowledge from one generation to another - has been in
existence from the earliest times of human advancement. Information will continue to be
passed on from generation to generation. It all began in 1801 with a large slate hanging
on the wall in a school in Scotland. It was used to provide information to a large group of
people at one time. In the United States, by the mid-19th century, every classroom had a
23
blackboard available to teach students. The first version of a blackboard was either green
or brown and was introduced in the 1960s. Whiteboards were developed as a brain
enhancement to transferring information from a whiteboard to white paper rather than
requiring the brain to reverse the color of black/green board and white chalk writing to
white paper and dark pencil writing. Whiteboards did not become available until the late
1980s. Aids being used to project items have been used since 1420. An apparatus to
project images from a horizontal surface onto a vertical screen was developed in the
1870s (Muttappallymyalil et al., 2016). Some types of screens can typically be found in a
classroom setting.
Transparencies are rarely used in a classroom setting anymore because other
technologies such as Elmos can project the desired information onto the screen. Teachers
utilize these technologies to aid in student learning and engage the students in the
curriculum. Smart Boards are often found in classrooms, as well as Smart TVs. These are
pieces of technology that enhance student learning and make it digital.
Purdue Online stated that, in 1990, The World Wide Web was given life
When a British researcher-developed Hypertext Markup Language, or HTML. When
the National Science Foundation (NSF) disconnected restrictions on the Internet's
commercial use in 1993, the world exploded into a frenzy of newfound investigation and
communication methods. The first Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) were
unconstrained by Apple Computer Inc. in 1993. Soon after, computers became part of
everyday life and, for some, every moment. By 2009, 97% of school classrooms had one
or more computers, and 93% of classroom computers had Internet access. There was one
computer available for every 5 students. Instructors stated that 40% of students utilized
24
computers often in their educational endeavors, in addition to interactive whiteboards and
digital cameras. Nowadays, college students are rarely without computer
technology: 83% own laptops, and over 50% have smartphones.
The use of technology today in the classroom is expected rather than suggested.
With the evolution of technology come high demands and expectations. There is much
training available online that instructs how to properly use the technology. Canough
(2013) suggested that to be an excellent educator and effectively integrate technology in
the classroom, teachers must first be open to the idea of technological use. Also,
educators must be flexible in their use of technology and professional in their analysis of
themselves and their lessons. Individual school districts or companies may supply the
training on-site, so everyone who will be using the technology feels comfortable doing
so. Having an open mind to new technology is the key to success. The latest technology
will continue to develop in the ever-changing world, and adaptation will be crucial to
growth. High technological expectation poses the most threat to veteran teachers.
According to Orlando (2014), veteran teachers are unwilling to integrate these resources
into their practices. Providing veteran teachers with professional development on these
types of resources would give them the confidence to succeed.
Student learning should be the motivation that drives the use of technology in the
school. Its use can permit teachers and students to become partners in the learning
process. Integration of technology necessarily alters the teacher's traditional paradigm,
providing wisdom and the student absorbing knowledge and for an important reason. The
information needed for tomorrow's occupations will change before many of today's pupils
enter the job market. Bitner (2002) suggested that students must discover knowledge,
25
communicate appropriately with others, and problem-solvers to be productive members
of society. Essentially that is the goal, and setting students up best for success should be
the overall objective for teachers. Providing students opportunities to engage with
technology will help them by offering the tools they need to succeed. When teachers
introduce technology in the classroom and give students opportunities to grow using
technology, it is referred to as blended learning (BL).
BL is part of the constant convergence of two typical learning environments. On
the one hand, teachers have the traditional face-to-face learning environment that has
been around for centuries. These two learning environments have mainly remained
separate in the past because they have used different media and method combinations and
have addressed different audiences (Graham, 2006). The beauty of BL comes when
students can be in a classroom setting but see the same skill or standard directed by many
different people in many others by merely using technology to access those tools.
The evolution of technology has made many unfathomable scenarios fathomable.
Technology has made many aspects of education possible. It has allowed students to far
exceed the knowledge of one particular teacher. However, technology will continue to
grow, as will students. The future will reap the benefits of teachers implementing
technology into the classroom. For students to be successful with technology, teachers
must equip students with the knowledge they need about technology.
Students often choose paper/pencil assessment over technology because they do
not feel comfortable using technology or feel comfortable using technology for personal
use but not for educational purposes. For example, assessments tend to be an academic
component that students do not want to tackle with technology. Providing students
26
flexibility in assessments may show teachers data that weigh in the students' favor. Also,
letting students show what they know beyond taking an examination is favorable for the
student.
Obligation to Assess
Assessment is critical in education today and will continue to be necessary.
Pellegrino (2004) stated that numerous streams of influence, including social policy and
societal goals, theories of the mind, and computational capacities, have affected the
American educational assessment population over the past century and have predictions
for continuing to do so well into the current century. The academic assessment
community will have to face considerable challenges to improve approaches to
educational assessment substantially. Solutions to present worries, respectively denoted
as top-down versus bottom-up approaches, address essential educational assessment
issues, such as incorporating evaluation into the learning environment. If such
explanations can be applied, the educational evaluation landscape will be very different
and much better at the end of the current century. An assessment has always been at the
forefront of educational decisions addressed at meetings. Assessment in education is a
very debatable topic. The evaluation definition can be different depending on who is
being assessed or who is doing the assessment. Huba and Freed (2000) defined
assessment as the procedure of gathering and discussing information from multiple and
varied sources to develop a deep understanding of what students know, understand, and
can do with their knowledge due to their educational involvements. The process
culminates when assessment results improve subsequent learning (Huba and Freed,
2000). There are several ways to assess student learning through testing.
27
Educators need assessment approaches informing and guiding children's learning
progress and staying current with the skills and content being taught. Assessments need
to be changed for them to generate data that are relevant to a classroom teacher.
Designing assessments that capture all children's capabilities within the range of what is
being taught requires going beyond and merely gauging whether a correct or incorrect
answer has been achieved (Vista et al., 2017). How the educator presents, these
assessments will be meaningful in assessing student learning. Tests are either given in a
standard paper-pencil test item format. Each child is provided with a pencil and paper or
a computer-based format. Students log in using a username and password to successfully
take the assessment. Assessment data are used for more than gauging student learning.
Alzen, Fahle, & Domingue (2017) stated that large-scale standardized testing plays a
central role in current education policy and research as evidence regarding teacher
effectiveness. Assessment weighs heavily on students and teachers alike. The stressors
that are attached to evaluations are for both students and teachers. Teachers become
stressed by the accountability attached to the assessments. They can put that stress on the
students in the classroom.
Standard Paper Pencil Testing
In recent years, there has been an increase in testing using computer-based
assessments instead of paper-pencil assessments. There are several reasons why people
are converting to a computer-based testing option over the standard paper and pencil test.
The reason could be conservation of time; the grading is almost completed instantly and
without hassle to the administrator, or assessments can be given more frequently.
Whatever the reason, the transition is happening daily. Some students adapt reasonably
28
well, and some students prefer standard, paper-pencil testing. Adapting to computer-
based assessment is an adjustment for students, especially learning the platform for that
particular assessment.
Paper-and-pencil assessment refers to traditional checks. Standardized tests fall
under paper-and-pencil testing because students must bubble in circles on a Scantron
answer sheet. Standardized tests are now commonly administered on computers, but
classroom assessment usually requires students to submit written responses on paper
(Frey, 2018). Some computer-based testing will require students to provide short answer
responses in a text box, which would necessitate typing skills to an extent. Frey's research
(2018) has been ongoing on the topic of paper-pencil assessments versus computer-based
assessments. In a study published in a February issue of the Economics of Education
Review (presented in an April 2018 working paper), AIR researchers James Cowan and
Ben Backes looked at Massachusetts students' grades during the first two years of online
testing. In 2015 and 2016, half of Massachusetts students took PARCC, the state-
administered end-of-year test, online, while half received a paper-and-pencil version.
Students who tested online performed five months behind the students who took
the test with paper and pencil. There was no reason to consider that they were less
prepared; instead, the testing mode appeared to be inhibiting their results. On the English
test, the results of students from low-income families, English Language Learners, and
students with disabilities seemed to be significantly affected by the switch online. But the
inconsistencies in scores minimized in the second year of testing, proposing that it is not
as much of a hindrance once students become accustomed to the new format (Backes et
al., 2018). Changing formats is a concern when addressing student needs in a fourth-
29
grade classroom. Teachers want to use the mode of testing that is most appropriate for the
age group. Setting students up for success is a critical role that the classroom teacher
possesses. There are several advantages and disadvantages to paper-pencil testing.
Backes et al. (2018) stated that the differential between students' online and
paper-based performances could have significant consequences for themselves and their
teachers, schools, and communities. For instance, standardized tests have a wide range of
potential implications for students, including identifying gifted and talented programs,
considering special education programs, and flagging for grade retention (2018). Paper
and pencil testing are also used throughout the year to assess where a child is with a
particular standard for a specific subject. Both settings' advantages and disadvantages are
weighed before distributing the test in an ideal environment for a student. Another place
where significant differences were found was for a student whose primary language was
not English (Hardcastle et al., 2017). There is not much difference for high school
students because their computer skills are more mature than those of elementary-aged
students.
Advantages of Paper Pencil Testing
With paper-pencil testing, the accountability measure is definitely prominent
because it cannot "crash" as a computer would. It is concrete evidence of student learning
and can be graded by the teacher. The test can be manually filed for safekeeping and
future reference if needed. If something were to happen to the paper and pencil
assessment during the testing time-period, the educator would simply supply the student
with another test and move forward. With paper-pencil evaluations and standardized
testing, it is possible to compare results from one area in the country to another. This
30
comparison model will help identify the national gaps and overlaps in a student's
education preparation. Analyzing student work is better done through paper and pencil
assessments, especially in math, because the teacher can see how the student worked out
a particular problem. A set of recognized standards or an instructional framework
accompanies standardized testing to guide classroom learning and test preparation.
Standardized tests have an incremental approach that creates benchmarks to measure
student progress over time (Meador, 2019). Standardized tests lend themselves to a very
structured setting. With paper and pencil assessments, some scripted material is provided
to teachers so they can proctor appropriately. Paper and pencil assessments are tangible.
Some students do better when they can touch what it is they are working with. Working
their problems outright on paper aids the visual learners in succeeding in a testing
situation. Students can erase and try again if they make a mistake, and they can always go
back to previous test items once they have completed the test. Reviewing previous
answers is not always allowable or feasible on a computer-based assessment. Once a
child moves to the next question on a computer screen, it is hard to navigate the previous
question.
Disadvantages of Paper and Pencil Testing
Paper and pencil assessments often do not allow for personal factors to be taken
into consideration. For example, suppose a student needs the font to be more significant
to see it. In that case, paper and pencil assessments are not going to offer that for a
particular student. If a student needs contrast lighting, only a computer-based test can
offer that to a student without any problems. The differentiation for the way the
assessment looks is lesser than what would be available on a CBT. Like any assessment,
31
paper and pencil assessments can cause stress to a student, making the student perform
lower than that particular student's capabilities. Testing anxiety comes to play when
students feel stressed during a testing situation. Anxiety can be caused by the teacher's
pressure on the students or the pressure coming from home to always do well. With
public and charter schools competing for the same public funds, educators and politicians
have come to depend even more on standardized test scores. Some opponents of testing
argue that lower-performing schools are unethically targeted by councils who use
academic performance as a justification to further their own agendas (Meador, 2019).
Political interference is a downfall of paper and pencil assessments but could be a
downfall for CBT. With paper-and-pencil tests, there is an additional confounding factor.
Scores on handwritten assessments can be influenced by the legibility of the answer. Less
legible test responses can drop scores by 35 percentile points compared to the same
response that is written neatly and legibly (Lynch, 2016).
Not being able to read a student's answers is a considerable disadvantage of paper
and pencil assessments. A student's thoughts cannot be clearly expressed if that particular
student does not have beautiful penmanship. Working with students on handwriting will
be the only chance that student has to do well on that portion of a test. Often, students are
given the exact same paper and pencil assessments. The questions go in the same order.
When a test has the same layout, it lends itself to students sneaking a peek at another
child's paper to obtain the correct answer. Generating different testing layouts that
include the same questions is now an option for many testing platforms. Utilizing these
platforms can be very helpful for educators.
32
Computer-Based Testing
Computer-based testing is not new, and there are no signs of it going anywhere
anytime soon. Computerized exams frequently are perceived as being "state of the art" or
automatically better than traditional, standardized paper-and-pencil exams (Parshall et al.,
2002). Burnett (2019) stated research defines computer-based testing (CBT) as a digital
assessment or e-assessment. As the name suggests, the test involves using a computer. It
is a digital version of an exam rather than a paper-based test. Tests are increasingly being
developed solely for computer-based testing rather than for both computer and paper-
based testing (Burnett, 2019). With the rapid progression of science and technology,
universities and educational institutions attempt to develop a new assessment method to
replace their previous testing modes. Computer-based test (CBT), a test or an assessment
administered by a computer device, has incrementally matured since the 1970s. And it is
now widely employed by numerous kinds of tests, especially for large-scale institutional
tests (Burnett, 2019).
A study (DeAngelis, 2000) examined the equivalence of computer- and paper-
based versions of an examination through score differences across the two test formats
and students' attitudes toward and perceptions of computer-based exams. Thirty senior
dental hygiene students were randomly divided into two equal groups. One took the first
examination on the computer, while the second made it on paper. Later, the groups were
switched for a second examination. In completing the computer version, each student was
asked to complete a survey that examined their experience and attitude and perceptions
toward computer-based testing. Students using the computer performed as well as or
better than those using paper; the performance increase was significant for the first
33
examination. Student acceptance of the computer format was mixed, possibly varying
with prior exposures to such arrangements. Benefits of the computer-based testing
included a reduction in time required for scoring and recording grades, quicker student
progression through the examinations afforded by the digitizing of the visuals, and ease
of item analysis for both individual students and the group (DeAngelis, 2000).
The American Educational Research Association (AERA) conducted a study. It
noted that additional research on CBT answer-choice selection and test navigation
features and how they influence elementary and middle school students' test performance
is warranted (2017). The study noted that gender was found to have little influence on a
student's account.
There currently is keen interest in CBT, and advocates have identified many
positive merits of this approach to assessment, including efficient administration, student
preference, self-selection options for students, improved writing performance, built-in
accommodations, immediate results, vigorous item development, increased authenticity,
and the potential to shift focus from assessment to classroom instruction (e.g., Becker,
2006; Salend, 2009; Thompson et al., 2002).
A study conducted by Thurlow, Lazarus, Albus, and Hodgson (2010) stated that
over half the United States has an online test developed with intentions to administer the
test within the next five years. These computer-based tests include regular assessments;
end of course assessments, formative or diagnostic assessments, and evaluations
designated for students' specific populations (Thurlow et al., 2010). Computer-based
testing is widely utilized nationwide.
34
Sari (2019) reported that lessons requiring focused attention may be better served
using paper, devoid of distractions. In contrast, tasks that need students to reference
external sources or rapidly sift through large quantities of information may benefit from
laptop use (2019). Deciding which assessment is more appropriate for each scenario is
often left up to the classroom teacher. Benchmark assessments and end-of-course
assessments are often left up to individual school districts. Some school districts do not
take benchmark assessments, while others have a strategic plan for benchmark
assessments.
Benefits of Computer-Based Testing
Some online testing databases are entirely free of charge, making the idea to use
CBT more appealing to teachers and administrators. Teachers can take a paper-pencil
assessment and recreate it as a CBT by adding the same questions to the online database.
The easy transition will help keep the test alignment from paper and pencil into CBT. The
ability to collect data in a timely fashion is available when using CBT. The option is not
always readily available when administering a paper and pencil assessment. Computer
technology can quickly analyze the data and sort the data depending on what variable the
educator is examining through the evaluation. Electronic test banks are available as well
as randomization of parameters. Mogey & Watt (2019) reported that the electronic
selection of questions from a bank has already been declared one possibility for the
electronic generation of tests. Collaboration is vital when formulating test banks for
online databases. From this, a considerable number of various tests can be generated
(2019). Most online testing databases offer immediate scoring options. Therefore, when a
student completes an exam, the score will be available on the screen for the examinee to
35
see. However, immediate feedback is usually not the case if the review included short
response items where the student had to type an answer. These typically take longer to
grade and will not be available immediately. Another advantage for examinees is that
most computerized exam programs offer tests more frequently than for paper-and-pencil
testing. In fact, this so-called continuous testing approach results from limited numbers of
computer stations typically available for testing at any given time. It actually creates
specific challenges to the testing program (Parshall et al., 2002). The offering of tests is
not a concern in elementary grades for a young adult who pays for assessment and online
exams. John Winkley (2010) specified advantages over paper-based equivalents (other
than the electronic marking) relate either to interactivity – providing the candidates with
powerful and realistic ways to interact with the question resources and present their
response, or to rich-media – offering a variety of useful and stimulating content to allow
more authentic assessment activity (2010). These items' benefits in terms of assessment
include improved motivation and engagement from students and improved face and
content validity.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the leading critical legislative effort to obtain
an equal playing field for individuals with disabilities. The Act verbiage included
language-directed assessments given to students with disabilities. The regulations
required that tests reflect the capabilities of disabled students and not their impairments.
Throughout the years, CBT has evolved and now provides many accommodations for
students when taking online assessments. Bennett (1999) indicated capacities can now be
made that include: input devices as a trackball, a head-mounted mouse emulator, or an
enlarged keyboard that duplicates the functions of both the mouse and the standard
36
console (1999). People being assessed may magnify parts of the screen, change the
foreground and background colors, contrast appropriately, and adjust the entire computer
to various positions. These accommodations have been available to students who need to
better depict the knowledge they obtain. Students do not need a 504 plan for a teacher to
assign accommodations to a student. It will be the teacher's discretion if the child benefits
from such adjustments. Modifications should be considered when a child could excel
with the accommodations.
Limitations of Computer-Based Testing
Administering tests when every child has a different username and password can
be difficult in an elementary setting. Students are unaware of how to type on a keyboard
in some cases. Another disadvantage to testing administration would be that test-takers
usability may pose a challenge and the related concern of test-takers familiarity with its
use. Moreover, suppose the number of people required to take a test far exceeds the
available computers. In that case, testing may need to be completed over some time.
When the same test is administered, it is a concern that those who take the test after them
may acquire information that threatens test security and test validity (Wise, 2019).
Test development with CBT can be a disadvantage for many reasons. It can take
time to create computer-based assessments. Computer-based assessments may be
developed and not be age-appropriate for the examinee; thus, creating a challenging work
environment for that student. Test development could be assigned to one person or team.
If that person or group does not finish promptly, it could disrupt testing for everyone
involved. Downing (2006) detailed that significant test development requires a
systematic, detail-oriented approach based on sound theoretical education measurement
37
principles. A systematic approach is critical and is not always followed when tests are
being created on a school-wide or district-wide level. Keeping in mind precisely what is
being assessed should be at the forefront of the creator's mind. Tests that have been
developed can often times have filler questions. These questions make test development a
disadvantage to CBT. In other words, a student's expertise with a method of testing
makes a difference. For students with little experience, computer assessments misjudge
their writing achievement (Lynch, 2016).
Often, there are computer-based assessments that are very tricky to navigate for
the students. They may include drag and drop items. A challenging task on a Macintosh
computer is to master navigation without an external mouse. They may also have things
on the test that want the tester to scroll down in a small text box. Suppose students are not
familiar with these types of scenarios before taking the test. In that case, they will not do
well on the assessment. Task complexity is definitely a disadvantage of CBT with
elementary-aged students. Some students will avoid the question entirely if the task is too
detailed. For example, in low-stakes assessments, test-taker disengagement tends to be
the most significant issue.
In contrast, for high-stakes assessments, test anxiety or cheating is of more
significant concern. Managing the legitimacy threat posed by a specific construct
irrelevant factor requires one or both of the following factors: the development of
measures for detecting its presence and the implementation of testing methods to reduce
its impact. Each of the advantages of CBTs (greater control, more information,
adaptation) enhances our ability to establish the two components.
38
Tim Davey (2011) specified that security concerns might have historically
dictated that each test form be used on only a single occasion and then discarded. Test
security virtually eliminates the problem of item pre-exposure. The administration
schedule and form reuse policy can be applied under CBT as well. But providing large
groups of students with computers is much more complicated than providing them with
No. 2 pencils. It is not uncommon to see CBT testing spread over administration
"windows" covering days or even weeks. In fact, the conveniences noted earlier actually
may make a CBT easier to offer on-demand than confined to a limited number of
administration dates. Therefore, test designers must carefully weigh the potential impact
of CBTs on administration policies and the consequences those policies might have on
test security. The security of all involved during testing should be thoroughly thought out
before administering the test. Undoubtedly, with a room full of students taking an online
assessment, one student is bound to have technical issues with his or her computer. The
Wi-Fi may not be working on that particular computer, or the platform is not up to date
on what the student needs to access the test. The possibilities are endless, and the
educator must be ready to troubleshoot the issue on time.
History of Testing in Education
Testing is very prevalent in today's times. There is a test for just about anything
anyone can think of. Performance testing is how well someone performs. The definition
is in the name. Historians then outline the history of performance testing, dividing it into
three periods: premodern (from 210 BCE to 1900 CE), modern (1900 to 1980), and
postmodern (1980 to the present) (Madaus & O'Dwyer, 1999). In 1838, American
educators began articulating ideas that would soon be translated into formal assessments
39
of student achievement. The College Entrance Examination Board was first founded in
1900. In 1901, the first examinations were administered around the country in nine
subjects.
Standardized testing has been utilized since 1992 to hold schools accountable.
The assessments have also been recorded on permanent records. Testing promised a way
to identify students who might go on to great things while avoiding wasting resources on
students who may fall behind. The practice went along with academic tracking growth to
set students on the career path deemed appropriate for them. The most crucial test of
ability, the College Entrance Examination Board—later renamed the Scholastic Aptitude
Test, or SAT—began in the 1920s (Gallagher, 2003).
Standardized tests have been used to manage school systems and influence
curriculum choices for school districts. Tests designed and administered from beyond
classrooms have always been more useful to administrators, legislators, and other school
authorities than classroom teachers or students. They have often been most eagerly
applied by those seeking school reforms. Tests similar to these still go on in today's
educational realm. Testing will be prominent in public policy agendas as long as
education deems a necessity for Americans. The exploration for better assessment tools
will remain oppressed with controversies that have as much to do with testing per se as
conflicting visions of American ideals and values (The United States Congress, 1992).
Educators often do not understand the amount of testing that is being asked of them and
their students. The frequent assessment takes away from instructional time. Usually, the
questions are set up in a way that teachers have not taught.
40
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), an educational reform, expanded state-
mandated standardized testing as a means to assess school performance. Now, most
students are tested yearly in grade school as well. The annual grade-level testing is in
addition to any classroom-level formative assessments to determine a student’s subject
comprehension. Today the United States viewpoints are again at the crossroads of
significant transition in student testing. Lessons from educational testing history provide
essential background to developing testing policies for the future (The United States
Congress, 1992). Testing will always be a debate in the United States. Key stakeholders
will continue to address assessments in the classrooms they have never been in. The
testing of students in the United States is now 150 years old.
Relevance of Testing
In 1967, William W. Turnbull specified that three stages mark the development of
relevance in testing. Relevance to the educational program, significance to the individual
student's past accomplishments, and importance to the student's future actions make up a
large portion of the importance of testing. These three stages are definitely prevalent
years later in education.
Assessment becomes relevant even when students become involved in their
own inspection. Students taking an active role in scoring criteria, self-evaluation and goal
setting more readily accept that the assessment adequately measures their learning
(Sheeba, 2017). Letting students take part in their knowledge and giving them a voice in
their evaluation can make a massive difference in students' attitudes toward testing.
The relevance of testing is going to be debatable. Students may not see the need
for testing. Instead, they may see anxiety, achievement or lack thereof, and their attitude
41
attached to the test they will take in school. It is so essential that the teacher sets the stage
for assessment to not daunt the students. The teacher’s attitude can help the students have
a positive mindset for testing. Building lifelong learners is a product of a proper mentality
towards testing. Teachers should not teach a test because this definitely falsifies the data
from that particular test. Teachers nationwide who teach to state-mandated tests
throughout the year hinder the child's learning experience. Teaching authentic
information will benefit a child so much more than teaching to a test.
Assessments can be a vital component in efforts to improve education. But as
long as critical stakeholders use them only as a means to rank schools and students,
educators will miss their most potent benefits. Shifting the mindset in educators in the
way they use assessments and the results the testing yields is critical in students'
advancement. Improving the quality of the checks in their classrooms is crucial, as well.
Lastly, aligning instruction with state standards and ensuring the assessments support
those standards will help students succeed in a testing scenario. When teachers make
classroom assessments an essential part of the instructional process and a prime
component of best instructional practices, the benefits of review for both students and
teachers will be boundless (Gusky, 2003). Essential information from ongoing formative
assessments is critical for teachers to consider as they spend countless hours planning
instruction for their classes every year. If assessments are honestly assessing what is
being taught, time is being wasted for teachers and students. Checks should have a
driving focus when being conducted by teachers.
The relevance of the test will aid in the testing experience of a student. According
to Walker, nationwide, the testing obsession has set aside visual arts, music, physical
42
education, social studies, and science, not to mention basic courses such as world
languages, financial literacy, and that old standby, penmanship (2014). Schools are seen
in a different light now. They are seen as factories that crank out children to do well on a
high-stakes test. Achievement is more than how well a student does on a test.
Achievement can be measured in several ways. Those need to be considered when
determining if a child is successful. Setting students up for success should be the ultimate
goal of the education establishment.
Testing Anxiety
Spielberger (2013) suggested that anxiety is a central explanatory concept in
almost all contemporary personality theories. It is regarded as a principal causative agent
for such diverse behavioral consequences as insomnia, immoral and sinful acts, instances
of creative self-expression, debilitating psychological and psychosomatic symptoms, and
distinctive mannerisms of endless variety. Anxiety is often seen in people, and stress can
intensify and fluctuate over time. But the term anxiety is also used to refer to a
personality trait—to individual differences in the extent to which different people are
characterized by anxiety states and by prominent defenses against such conditions. Some
individuals may express their anxiety while others keep their concerns to themselves.
Stress had become more prevalent over the years, and it is not uncommon in small
children, teenagers, or young adults.
Much headway has been made in discovering the cause of anxiety. The most
important conclusion that has been made is that concern stems from three factors:
biological, psychological, and social. It is also known as the "biopsychosocial model."
There are many influences on a child's anxiety. Some of which are sleep, food, temper, or
43
too much stimulation. These are all elements that should be deliberated when looking at a
child's anxiety levels. Researchers Dacey, Mack, & Fiore (2016) detailed that anxiety
exceeds the routine self-doubts experienced by others for these children. An anxious
child is often hindered because the pressure is so high that she has difficulty functioning
in her peers' realm. When this happens, a sense of inferiority prevails, and the ability to
achieve success declines. Psychoanalytic approaches seek to heal through a detailed
journey through the child's early years.
Sigmund Freud completed a lot of research on anxiety. Breuer & Freud (1936)
described fear as a complicated feeling that shifts the mood, possibly cause grief. These
feelings take place in the consciousness of the mind (1936). When anxiety is present in
children, they tend to get really anxious about certain school parts. Test anxiety is
widespread in school-age children. They may complain or act differently when they
know a test is about to administer at school.
Test anxiety has been around for about 70 years. Test anxiety and coping with test
anxiety continue to be essential research topics. Finding the triggers and solutions are the
main research topics in the educational field. Test anxiety can range from elementary-
aged children all the way up to adulthood. Tuma and Maser (2019) stated that the 1980s
have been called the decade of anxiety. Anxiety levels have continued to grow over the
last forty years, and now people live in a very anxious society. There are many forms of
anxiety, and all are being continuously researched. A variety of anxiety states can be
readily identified. These may range from hypo anxiety, where the individual seldom, if
ever, experiences anxiety, to "normal" anxiety, where the emotional response is
proportional to the perceived risk or danger. Everyday stress is a state that acts as a
44
positive, motivating force towards adaptive coping. Anxiety may range in discomfort,
fear, or even tension. It could reduce cognitive functioning and result in stage fright or
school phobia. Still more severe and debilitating are those states that call for clinical
treatment and even hospitalization. Finally, there is a state of panic or terror that may
exacerbate a disorder (e.g., depression) or be the basis for another condition (e.g.,
agoraphobia) (Tuma & Maser, 2019).
Test anxiety is a situation-specific personality trait generally regarded as having
two psychological components: worry and emotional arousal. People vary concerning the
disposition to experience these components in academic settings (Sarason, 1990).
Anxiety should be taken very seriously and should be looked at on a case-to-case basis.
Some concern is entirely normal, while some stress can cause a person very much
emotional turmoil. Students can experience test anxiety or even anxiety about school.
Finding the root cause of the concern is very important in helping a child overcome such
feelings.
At present, only one measure is available for assessing TA in children in grades 3-
6, the Children's Test Anxiety Scale (CTAS: Wren & Benson, 2004). In contrast, the Test
Anxiety Inventory for Children and Adolescents (TAICA), which covers grades 4-12, is
not available for public use and is not valid for different ethnic groups (Sari, 2019).
Educators can help lessen test anxiety in their students by not solely talking about tests or
putting a lot of emphasis on doing really well on an exam. When an educator puts a lot of
weight into a review, students may feel very anxious that they do not disappoint their
teacher in a school setting. Teachers and students must work together to find a common
ground of achievement for each individual student. Success for one student can look
45
different from that achievement for another student in the same grade level or classroom.
It is imperative for educators to not expect the same result among students in one class.
Understanding expectations can help lessen the test anxiety that a student may experience
while taking a test. Alleviating the stress will hopefully relieve that student to be more
successful in a testing situation.
Testing Achievement
Testing achievement affects both the student and the teacher. Performance is
something that is done successfully through effort, skill, or courage. However, not all
students can display performance by taking a test because of external causes. Chen &
Zhang (2013) specified that given that humans live in a performance-oriented society,
accomplishment situations in which presentation and rivalry are prevalent can instigate
intense and frequent emotions. This influences the overall testing experience for a
student. Making performance and achievement on a test is significant. Several factors
come into place when deciding how a child achieves on a test. The child may or may not
have support at home, the child may or may not be able to eat breakfast daily, the child
may or may not be a primary caregiver in the house.
Coleman's research (2019) indicated that the achievement of a just society entails
the sacrifice of other values (such as the value of nurturance provided by a child's
parents) that may be held at least as firmly. A child is raised and cared for at home speaks
volumes about how the child performs and achieves in a school setting. Children must
obtain everything they need to be the best students of their ability.
Both general cognitive ability and parental involvement contribute to achievement
(Karbach et al., 2013). This is stated over and over in research. McNeal (2014) opined
46
that parent involvement focuses on academic research, policy formation, and public
debate. Students need parents who are involved. In fact, they depend on them to be
successful. Some forms of parent involvement have a more significant impact on student
outlooks, accomplishments, and behaviors than others. Students will reap the benefits of
parent involvement (2014). Not all students have parents who can be involved in their
educational endeavors. Achievement measures need to consider that many parents work
and will not aid the child with academic expectations.
Testing Attitude
Most students come to school willing and ready to learn. However, some students
come to school with a completely different attitude about school as a whole. Students
who have a genuine interest in school tend to excel over the students who do not have the
same opinion about the school. The same outlook is often prevalent when it comes to
testing in students. When a child has a positive attitude and does not feel anxious about
testing, they tend to do better on the assessment. A factor that may affect every test's
results in a student's life is their attitude towards the subject or topic being assessed.
Studies show that testing students' emotions or mood testing are fundamental. Chen &
Zhang (2013) ascertained that emotions could substantially influence students' academic
learning, motivation, and achievement. A student's attitude encompasses all the feelings
students internalize about the school, life, and overall well-being. Relationships with
students can have an impact on a student's life and attitude.
It may be, for example, that excellent performance and attitudes towards learning
are mutually reinforcing. Alternatively, it could be that students with an advanced natural
ability both achieve well and use particular learning strategies. Other factors, such as the
47
background or differences in the schooling environment, may also play a significant role
(Shankar et al., 2013). Looking at students overall is extremely important when
analyzing their attitudes. Getting to know a child in a school setting can help change their
attitude towards school and testing.
Along with attitude comes motivation. Students are motivated, or they are not.
Students can be intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated. Buzdar et al. (2017)
reported that extrinsically motivated students determine their performance standards
according to social norms and customs. Hence, they usually are more social and friendly.
Intrinsically motivated students perform because they enjoy the topic or get a sense of
accomplishment by mastering a topic or task. Helping intrinsically motivated students set
a higher goal and providing instructive and honest feedback is repeated. All these
students need to flourish in a classroom setting. Teachers never want to try and
negatively motivate these types of students.
Preferred Testing Method
Just like most things, children espouse a testing preference. Some children prefer
to take paper and pencil assessments. In contrast, others would like to be evaluated in an
online format. Giving students an option to choose which testing method they prefer
creates ownership in learning and provides students with a sense of independence.
Allowing students to select also sets them up best for success. If the child selects a choice
in which way they test better, perhaps their achievement will be higher.
The Future of Testing
Testing will always be around. Gunduz (2020) identified that achievement tests,
questionnaires, scales, and interviews are generally used as data collection tools for other
48
dependent variables in academic achievement studies. Acquiring different perspectives is
essential because the various data collection tools available require such. It also indicates
that more complex tests will be created for future use.
Testing overuse and misuse in education are the most significant complaints from
parents and educators. Overall, testing is not beneficial to a student and does not prove to
educators what they know. Tests turn into monotonous tasks that children tend to avoid
when overused. The future of testing in the classroom could lead to portfolio-based
assessments K-12 in place of statewide-standardized tests. Portfolios give a more
accurate depiction of a student's knowledge and growth throughout the entire year instead
of a snapshot into the child's understanding of single concepts. Formative assessments
will still be readily available for students. Teachers should determine their students' needs
before choosing paper and pencil assessments and computer-based assessments.
Gaps
Every year, the testing regime gets questioned when statewide testing is
administered, yet statewide testing is conducted every year. Statewide testing is
responsible for holding teachers and administrators accountable for student performance.
This all started in 2002 when the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in the
United States. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was demanding that by 2014, all
students would be proficient in math and reading. NCLB failed. Entire generations of
students have been schooled under test-based accountability policies. Test scores are
being pursued at the expense of meaningful learning. Students are being taught to tests
year after year to obtain proficient scores so teachers and administrators can keep their
jobs. Testing seems to benefit those students whose background has allowed them to gain
49
high levels of knowledge early on in their childhood development and hinder them
without luxuries. In Tennessee, testing is just as rampant as it is in other parts of the
country. Tennessee is also making the transition to using computer-based testing to
administer statewide assessments. Tennessee has seen repetitive issues with computer-
based testing to assist TNReady. Each time the platform failed, it was blamed on
unnecessary updates from the vendor of the assessment. The last two TNReady vendors
struggled to deliver the test glitch-free. In April 2019, Governor Bill Lee said that
TNReady would be given on paper instead of the computer. The decision was made to
eliminate any technical issues in the future. This was a relief to many educators and
students statewide. Unforeseen computer problems and glitches were placing unnecessary
stress and anxiety on educators and students. Students and educators want a test they can
count on and feel comfortable with.
Conceptual Framework
The emphasis on assessments in education has been increasingly substantial
throughout the last ten years. The focus on teacher effectiveness weighs heavily on the
children and how well they can achieve state-mandated assessments. This information is
not new, but information that directly impacts teachers year after year. Teachers depend
on student achievement to prove their worth throughout their teaching endeavors.
Administrators evaluate teachers yearly. A snapshot of their teaching labels them, and
that is what they are often known for. The environment is a factor that teachers are
assessed yearly on. This depends on how children react when they are in that particular
teacher's learning environment. It must be inviting but not too encouraging. The
administrator's involvement in the classroom can also help or hinder a teacher. The
50
overall success of a student depends on all the criteria mentioned above. Educating
students is much more than standing in front of a group of children and lecturing them
until they "get it."
Relationships are the key to overall student success. Ying-Yao (2020) detailed
that student-teacher relationships positively affected students’ mathematical problem-
solving abilities and lowered anxiety tested in a mathematical setting. Relationship
building with students is one of the most prominent roles a teacher has in the classroom.
Students will benefit from a caring and passionate teacher long before they benefit from
someone who teaches at them. Cognitive, motivational, and emotional needs have to be
met to be successful in the classroom. The inner child needs attention before expecting
them to output useful data. Purslow and Belcastro (2006) specified that elementary
students' teachers do a better job providing emotional support systems than teachers of
middle and high school students. Starting elementary school support is critical but must
be followed through as the child progresses in age.
Summary
Education will continue to change, as will technology, throughout man's existence
on the Earth. Adapting assessments to meet all students' needs will be a critical
component of a teacher's job description. The overall testing experiences a child will
endure will influence that child's achievement and the student's data. Other factors, such
as anxiety and attitude, will lend themselves to molding the specific student's testing
experience. Allowing students to express their concern, achievement, and attitudes
towards testing helps understand why a child is excelling or struggling when given a
paper and pencil assessment or a computer-based test. Communication is critical when
51
students are involved. They should have a voice when their education is concerned, and
testing should not be any different. An educator should be their advocate and support
line. This will help students in the future and hopefully set them up best for success.
Communicating with students about their testing abilities and experiences will let
the educator know where changes need to be made during assessments. Furthermore, it
will enlighten educators about changes that need to be made to the curriculum and
individual lessons taught daily. Testing or the method of testing will not affect some
students. However, some students will need accommodations and will need to be tested
in an alternate setting. Educators need to assess what a child knows and not the child's
ability to take a test. Giving students a choice of which testing method they prefer should
be paramount in a school setting. The testing method that the student feels more
successful with should be the ultimate guide in assessing that particular student. Allowing
the student an option is a differentiation at its best. The overall experience of the test
should be considered when preparing an assessment for a child.
52
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to gain a better insight into the experience a fourth-
grade mathematics student endures when encountering two types of testing methods. The
two types of assessment methods used were paper-pencil assessments and technology-
based assessments. This study allowed for a deeper understanding of the underlying
causes of overall test experience with an elementary-aged student. A qualitative research
approach was used to acquire student outlooks on achievement, anxiety, and attitudes
during the testing involvements. A qualitative research approach gives a better
understanding of the experience through the lenses of the participant. Roy (1991)
suggested that qualitative research includes direct observation for case studies, in-depth
interviews, focus groups, and oral history. This chapter outlines the research question,
research approach, population sampling, instruments used, and analyzed data.
The research project aimed to assess students using both testing modes to gain a
deeper insight into the child's overall assessment experience in a mathematical setting.
The research also identified the anxiety, achievement, and attitude towards traditional and
technology-based testing in a fourth-grade mathematics class. Observing and
interviewing students presented an in-depth and concise understanding of the testing
method preferred by the students. The process provided more in-depth exploration into
the overall experience a child endures while in a testing setting supplied by the educator.
Testing can be a stressful situation for some students. Having essential data for choosing
the appropriate testing mode for the individual student is critical to garnering relevant
results. Formally assessing students provides the teacher with a deeper understanding of
any misconceptions.
53
Research Question
In this study, the researcher collected data to analyze and answer the following
research question:
1. What is the experience of fourth-grade mathematic students as they take a
computer vs. paper-pencil test?
Description of the Specific Research Approach
Qualitative research methods were used to guide this study. According to
Teherani, Matimianakis, Stenfors-Hayes, Wadhwa, and Varpio, qualitative research is the
systematic inquiry into public phenomena in natural situations (2015). Finding out the
overall testing experience that a fourth-grade student endures in an assessment setting
was the research project's objective. Having students participate in high-stress situations
for the benefit of data should not focus on any educator. Qualitative research was chosen
to better understand the attitudes, anxieties, and achievements of a fourth-grade student
participating in a mathematics-testing scenario. Students were given an assessment using
diverse testing modes. The examination methods chosen for this study were paper-pencil
and computer-based assessments. These two testing methods were selected because they
are the most frequently used testing approaches for education. It was meaningful for this
study to be qualitative and to collect data through narratives and dialogues to give
immediate perspectives on the importance of student voice and perceptions with
assessments. This study aimed to identify significant aspects that can support students
who struggle with one form of testing method to the other.
54
A qualitative research strategy was suitable for this study because it allowed the
researcher to gather fourth-grade students' comprehensive perceptions regarding two
types of testing. The researcher utilized various strategies to gather common themes from
multiple sources during the research time frame. This was accomplished through surveys,
observations, and interviews.
Surveys. The surveys helped to get prerequisite ideas of how the participants saw
their anxiety, attitude, and achievement related to both types of testing methods in a
mathematical setting. The survey consisted of ten questions on a paper survey. The
students used the Likert scale to rate each of the items or scenarios. The participants were
given the survey in a group setting after school. The survey took 15 minutes to complete.
Observations. Observations aided the researcher with information that students
could not successfully verbalize to the anxiety, attitudes, and achievements in a testing
situation. The researcher observed the participants in both testing scenarios and gathered
essential information. The observations took around one hour, and the students were in a
group setting. After school, the observations took place. Parents were previously notified
about the testing observations and signed consent forms agreeing to the time and location.
The examiner distributed both types of assessments during this time.
Interviews. The researcher collected narrative interview data concerning both
types of testing methods administered to that student. The interviews took place after
school in the classroom setting. The interviews were conducted in a one-on-one
atmosphere where confidentiality could be maintained. The interviews took around 30
minutes each. After each interview, the researcher transcribed the recordings obtained
during the interview. After the transcription, the researcher reread all the transcripts and
55
coded the data to develop central issues and themes of importance in each interview
scenario. Survey and interview questions qualified achievement, attitude, and anxiety
themes. These specific themes were sought after in the transcription and coding process.
The participants were selected to represent all academic levels (high, average, and
approaching) associated with a fourth-grade mathematics class. Their educational levels
were wide-ranging to provide a diversity of experiences with fourth-grade students. The
significant themes emerged from the data after the transcriptions were coded. The
researcher identified the issues and themes that appeared to be most prominent in the
research study.
Triangulation. With any thorough research, triangulation must be used for
increased credibility and validity to the research topic. Method triangulation involves
using multiple data collection methods about the same scenario (Polit & Beck, 2012).
This type of triangulation was used in the research project. Most qualitative researchers
studying human phenomena collect data through interviews with individuals or groups;
their selection of the interview type depends on the study's purpose and resources
(Triangulation, 2014). The three types of research collection strategies yielded data
specific to the research question. Triangulation was achieved by thoroughly analyzing
data from surveys, observations, and interviews.
Description of the Study Participants and Setting
Hambleton and Swaminathan (2013) specified the determination of sample size is
contextual and partially dependent upon the scientific paradigm under which
investigation is taking place. The researcher involved an elementary school located in a
rural area of east Tennessee. The school was one of the first schools built in this specific
56
county. The school is among a district that includes three preschools, twelve elementary
schools, five middle schools, and three high schools. The county encompasses around
10,000 students throughout the region. The school in which the study was conducted is
populated with about 300 students. The academic statuses of the selected participants
were obtained through the classroom teacher of those students. The researcher analyzed
the data and compared the assessment scores with information from the surveys,
observations, and interviews. The elementary school is not considered to be a diverse
community. With around three percent of students not considered Caucasian, it is one of
the least varied schools ethnically in the county, with only 16.6% being non-Caucasian.
The elementary school does have a wide range of academically achieving students.
Fourth-grade mathematic students were the lead participants for this study. Six
participants with varied academic backgrounds who were enrolled in the fourth grade
were selected for this research project. The students took a benchmark assessment
provided by the county. The students were chosen by their achievement on this specific
assessment. The students were from different academic standings; two were considered
approaching students, two were average-achieving students, and two were higher-level
students. The data ranked students based on their academic achievement, and from that
data, the students were selected.
The researcher obtained permission from the Carson-Newman University
Institutional Review Board to commence data collection. Once permission was granted,
the researcher was able to move forward with the study. Before the data collection
process, the researcher received proper approval forms from the district and the
elementary school principal used in the research. Next, the researcher contacted all
57
parents of the potential participants, seeking insight and permission. The researcher
obtained approval forms that were used for all the students selected to use in the study.
After all the steps were conducted, the researcher was able to begin the research.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection occurred in four overlapping stages or tiers:
Tier One (October-November, 2020) – Carson-Newman IRB approval received,
School District approval letter to conduct research received, and parent permission forms
signed.
Tier Two (November-December, 2020)- School and student data collection of
academic achievement scores, demographics, and development of survey and interview
questions were designed and organized before beginning the study.
Tier Three (November 2020)- Survey questionnaires were given to help
understand testing experiences. Observations were made of the six students in different
testing scenarios during the specified time frame.
Tier Four (January 2021-March 2021)- Documents and artifacts of participants'
experiences in a testing scenario were reviewed. Compilation of coding and trends that
link testing methods with achievement, anxiety, and attitudes were collected. The
researcher will disaggregate the data by ability level.
When administering a survey, scales are appropriate for gathering data on
attitudes and experiences. A combination of Rating and Likert scales were used to
determine participants’ perceptions. During the survey process, the Likert scale was used
58
to gather insightful data. In the Likert scale, the answer choices are on a scale that ranges
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” using a 1 to 5 ranking. Participants were
given the option to add a written narrative to any of the survey questions if they had
additional responses. A rating scale is standard in data collection because it gathers
comparative information about a specific research topic. A rating scale allows a
participant to assign a value to a scenario or question. Ten questions were given to the
participants. The researcher gained a broader perspective of the topic from several
academic levels through the survey of items.
Surveys. The survey was given to each selected student to gather their opinions
about different testing modes. The two methods included computer-based and paper-
pencil assessments. The questions included items about how comfortable the student is
with both testing modes. The survey also had items that asked the participant how
comfortable they feel while taking assessments.
Interviews. After the surveys, interviews were conducted with individual
students. The interviews were conducted after school in a private one-on-one setting. The
teacher asked the student a question, and the student responded after the appropriate wait
time. The interview pertained to the assessments that were given to the pupil. Interviews
gave further insight into the survey questions, and the observations were noted by the
researcher. The researcher set up times with the parents to conduct the interviews with
the students.
Observations. The researcher observed students during a testing period. The
testing period took place after school and lasted for approximately one hour. The
researcher administered the test to the students in the classroom. The students took a
59
paper-pencil assessment and computer-based assessment. The researcher noted testing
anxiety, attitudes, and overall experiences exhibited during the student evaluations.
Data Analysis Procedures
After gathering the data, the researcher must analyze the plethora of data
collected. The researcher will code qualitative research data from the overall findings.
According to Stuckey, “coding is a process used in qualitative research analysis, which
takes time and creativity. Three steps help simplify this process:
1. Reading through the data and constructing a narrative;
2. Classifying the data into codes; and
3. Using memos for clarification and understanding (2015).
During this research process, the researcher must focus on the research question,
so data analysis is relevant to the coding. All participants were referenced by categories,
such as Student One. This research used open coding to compile the data into manageable
categories. Then Axial coding was used to make the connections between and across
categories.
The researcher looked for recurring experiences that were repeated throughout the
interviews. During the interviews, videos and notes were taken to ensure that meaningful
data were collected during this time. After the recording of each interview, the recording
was transcribed using a coding process. Axial coding was used to look for connections in
the data collected. Axial coding is used after the open coding process to focus on what
the data are saying. Axial coding is needed to examine the relationships between concepts
and categories that have been developed in the open coding process (Strauss & Corbin,
60
1990). Reviewing and member checking was utilized to make sure the data were
correctly classified.
Open coding is the part of data analysis that focuses on the conceptualization and
categorization of phenomena through an intensive investigation of the data (Kaiser &
Presmeg, 2019). The survey questionnaire was collected using paper and Google forms.
The surveys used scaled answer choices and open-ended responses if the participant
found it necessary. The participant could leave this area blank if no further information
was pertinent.
Ethical Considerations
Dependability, confirmability, credibility, and transferability play a significant
role in the development of research studies. These four areas relate to Ethical
Considerations and prevent unauthentic research from being conducted in education.
Dependability is critical when conducting research. Moon et al. (2016) explained
dependability as having the research findings' consistency and reliability. The research
procedures are documented intensely. Someone outside of the research field will track,
audit, and critique the research process throughout the project's entirety. Carelessness is
targeted when an outsider is looking at the dependability of a study.
Moon et al. (2016) explained confirmability to be the researcher's achievement
when linking the conclusion as a method that can be followed and replicated. The process
must flow smoothly when a researcher wants to achieve confirmability in a study.
61
Credibility refers to the grade to which the research represents the research
participants' actual meanings or the “truth value” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The reader
must find that the findings are accurate and credible.
Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings described in the study
are useful to theory, practice, and future research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Permission to conduct the study was initiated with authorization from the Carson-
Newman University Institutional Review Board. Once this authorization was granted,
permission from the school system and elementary school administration was obtained.
From there, the students and parents were contacted to ensure their willingness to
participate in the study. Parental written consent was obtained from all minor students
before interviewing.
Since it is recommended that names are kept confidential, coded titles were used
to identify the participants throughout the study. All of the participants were reminded
that the survey was voluntary. Permission to video or audio record the participants was
requested at the beginning of each interview. A signed consent document was provided to
all participants before each interview, as well. Participants could provide feedback before
the final report of the study.
Summary
A qualitative research study was used to determine fourth-grade mathematics
students' overall testing experience when given two testing methods. The study focused
primarily on the participants' anxiety, attitudes, and achievements regarding the
classroom's testing methods. Utilizing the qualitative research methods of surveys,
62
observations, and interviews provided a rigorous understanding of fourth-grade students'
perceptions and experience in a math setting. Analysis of the results allowed the
researcher to organize the evidence for future use and research. These research findings
aim to support students by allowing them to take ownership of their learning and
assessing by choosing the assessment method used for future testing in an educational
setting based upon ability level. This study closely examined the advantages and
disadvantages of both paper-pencil assessments and computer-based assessments. The
research focused on six students and their overall experience while testing. Analyzing
students while they are taking an examination and interviewing students after they are
finished with the task will give a better insight into students' overall assessment
experience.
Student anxiety, achievement, and attitudes were examined to evaluate the
comparison of testing experience with two different testing modes. The testing modes
were paper-pencil assessments and computer-based assessments. In-depth interviews
were led with the six students. A scaled survey questionnaire was administered to
participants. The researcher observed the pupils while they were given an assessment.
The researcher kept a journal to record any behaviors or ideas noticed during the
observations. A focus group of six students led by the researcher was presented with
open-ended questions. The interviews were video and audio recorded. The recordings
were transcribed. The data were coded and categorized by themes, and patterns were
noted. The findings were enlightening for the test-taking selection process and can
provide efficacy to testing measures. Chapter Four provides a thorough description of the
study results and an analysis of the data through coding related to the research questions.
63
Furthermore, Chapter Five gives a conclusion and the recommendations the researcher
found critical throughout the study.
64
Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the experience that a fourth-
grade student undergoes when confronting two types of mathematic testing methods. The
data and interpretation of the results are aimed to provide insight into the understanding
of student attitude, achievement, and anxiety while in a testing atmosphere. The theories
developed from the study may help educators make an informed decision regarding
student testing's occurrence and importance. The data and findings hope to provide
feedback for those who work and teach in math education.
Chapter four outlines the research methodology, theoretical framework, the
participants, data collection, and study findings obtained from this research study. 2020
Aims Web benchmark assessment was administered to all fourth-grade math students to
determine each student's academic level. From the data obtained, six student participants
were chosen to participate in this research study. Two students were selected from the
below-average category, average category, and above-average category. Each student
was given a survey, assessments for observations, and a one-on-one interview. When
conducting the survey, a 5-point Likert scale was used for answering the survey
questions. According to McLeod (2020), the Likert scale is a five-point scale used to
allow participants to express how much they agree or disagree with a specific declaration.
The researcher began by reading the survey aloud to the participants. The students were
also provided with a color-coded smiley face scoring sheet to help navigate and mark the
Likert scale score sheet. Participants were given the option to add clarification for each
statement by verbally expressing any opinion to the statement. Input from students was
gathered from the surveys. Next, the teacher observed the student participants while
65
taking a paper-pencil assessment and a computer-based assessment. The observations
helped the researcher identify any anxiety signs given by the participants while taking the
assessments. The teacher then interviewed each student. Video recording took place
while the interviews were conducted individually. After the interviews, the researcher
then transcribed the video recordings for fidelity.
Questions for student surveys, assessments, and interviews were reviewed by
collegial educators in the same building the research was taking place. Feedback was
provided by four building educators before the surveys, assessments, and interviews were
conducted. Notes and transcriptions of the student interviews were taken to assure
participants' responses were well understood from a personal perspective. All students
were associated with the same school. The participants were from all academic levels to
provide an overall representation of fourth-grade students. The triangulation method
leads the study to develop critical narratives and good themes.
Research Methodology Applied to Data Analysis
Phenomenological research method. The process applied to the analysis of data
is categorized as phenomenological methodology. Phenomenology is the study of the
objects that appear in our consciousness or how we experience these objects (Gill, 2020).
Testing is one strategy that educators implement to guide and support students in an
academic setting. Testing is also a strategy that must be completed by the teachers and
the students in a learning environment. Data are then analyzed, and instructional methods
are adjusted once there is room for refinement. Phenomenological methodology suited
the study because the teaching strategies and procedures needed for this study were
routinely used in the classroom.
66
The study aimed to thoroughly understand student experiences while engaging in
two types of testing modes. The recorded data revealed the different types of academic
levels that span the entire grade. Although student testing can show valuable data, those
numbers do not define the student's aggregate qualities, nor do they define the educators.
This study worked to discover the factors that contribute to the overall experience when
taking an exam. Students may think about which type of testing method they prefer when
in a testing environment. Student preference for a testing mode could lead to academic
student success when in an educational setting.
Theoretical Framework
Three theoretical foundations supported the research. Sociocultural learning
theory, Cognitive load theory, and test mode familiarity were the theoretical frameworks
of choice. Performing tasks prove to be daunting when too much is asked of a student at
one time (Paas & van Merrienboer, 1994). Math assessments can be overwhelming for
some elementary students. The Cognitive Load Theory was selected to support this work.
Giving students too many tests or tests in several different testing modes can be a
daunting task. It relates to the study because math assessments can include multiple types
of questions, which can cause overload in brain activity. The three theoretical
frameworks provided a critical lens into the authentic testing experience that a child
endures in a mathematical setting and the factors that impact the experience.
Conceptually speaking, the educational system has put an added emphasis on assessments
over the past 20 years. A positive learning environment for a child lends itself to a
positive student-teacher relationship. A healthy student-teacher relationship benefits the
child. The rewards from the relationship will extend into teacher effectiveness.
67
Research question
These research methods were used to guide and direct this study to answer the following
question:
1. What is the experience of fourth-grade mathematic students as they take a
computer vs. paper-pencil test?
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants
The participants of this research study attended one rural elementary school
located in east Tennessee. The school encompasses a total of 298 students and 45 fourth-
grade students. The elementary school is labeled as economically disadvantaged within
eligibility criteria under the Title I Program. The participants were selected using the
2020 Aims Web student data provided by the school district. The students selected were
all math students in a fourth-grade setting.
The participants included six fourth-grade math students from one elementary
classroom. The students included two approaching grade-level students, two on grade-
level students, and two exceeding grade-level students. All academic levels in fourth-
grade were represented within the selection of participants. The students participated in
the surveys, observed assessments, and interviews equally. Parental consent was obtained
for the participation of each student before the study. The students that were selected
attended math class regularly, and there were no attendance issues. The participants were
ranging from age 9 to 11 years of age.
Documents and artifacts were also used to cross-reference the information
obtained through surveys, observations, and interviews. The 2020 Aims Web Reports
provided student data on achievement scores to identify students' different levels. The
68
county in which the research was conducted distributes the reports to a school and
classroom level. The data provided by the reports are available to all teachers district-
wide. District approval to use the data collected was obtained before student selection
was made. The documents provided the information needed to make an informed, data-
driven decision when selecting the six student participants for the study.
Data Collection Process
Data collection is essential when conducting a research study. Scientists have
relied on a broad range of tools to collect information about the world. Still, as specific
fields have become even more concentrated, researchers are trained to use a narrow range
of possible data collection methods to obtain information about the particular field being
addressed (Axinn & Pearce, 2006). Data collection helped the researcher focus on
important information while eliminating information that was not relative to the study.
During the study, survey data, observation data, and interview data were used to
articulate the participants' findings and present an informed answer to the research
question.
Presentation of survey data. Six participants were selected by the teacher to
complete survey questions that helped understand the overall testing experience that a
fourth-grader endures in a mathematical setting. Two students were below average
academically. Two students were on average, and two students were above average,
according to 2020 Aims Web data. The well below average and well above average
categories was eliminated so that the data would not be skewed. There were four females
and two males represented. An array of student responses was necessary to gain a
69
general position for each statement reflective of the entire fourth-grade population. The
survey questions guided more in-depth and personal interviews.
Table 4.1.
Student Participant Academic Level
Well Below
Average
Below Average Average Above Average Well Above
Average
0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0%
These three categories were selected for the study. It was noted that there were no
students from the well below average and well above average categories that participated
in the study. The decision to omit the well below average and well above average
categories was to ensure no skewed results with the study.
The questions asked on the study survey were statements in which the students
had to associate a value of 1 (Strongly Disagreed) to 5 (Strongly Agreed) depending on
how they interpreted the statement. Six fourth-grade math students were given the
following questions, and the average responses were calculated. According to the
responses from the surveys, the following classifications were extrapolated:
1. Student Achievement
2. Testing Anxiety
3. Student Attitude
The data yielded that student achievement, testing anxiety, and student attitude formulate
how they experience a testing situation.
70
Student Responses to Survey Questions:
Table 4.2.
Student Survey: Student Achievement
Question
Number
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Agree
Average
Scale
1
2
3
4
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0%
50%
0%
17%
33%
17%
50%
50%
33%
33%
50%
17%
33%
0%
4.5
3.7
3.5
2.8
Table 4.2 shows average student responses to perceptions of student achievement
on math assessments. One hundred percent of students claimed that student testing is
essential. The participants answered Agree (4) to Strongly Agree (5) to the statement.
Students also reported that doing well on a test is the student's responsibility. The average
student response to the statement was 3.7. According to question 3, students believe they
perform better on paper-pencil assessments with an average of 3.5. Question 4 is an
average of 2.8 about performing better on computer math assessments. Students did not
select strongly disagree with any survey questions on student achievement.
Table 4.3.
Student Survey: Testing Anxiety
Question
Number
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Agree
Average
Scale
5
6
7
17%
0%
33%
17%
0%
33%
17%
17%
0%
0%
83%
17%
50%
17%
17%
3.5
4
2.5
Table 4.3 shows student averages of student awareness of testing anxiety that
influence math's overall testing experience. Fifty percent of students believe they have a
choice of taking a paper-pencil or computer-based math assessment. Overall, 83% of
71
students believe their attitude affects how well they do on a test. Most students Strongly
Disagreed (1) or Disagreed (2) with the statement, "I feel stressed while taking math
tests." The average score for that particular survey question was 2.5. The score indicates
that students do not feel stressed while testing, according to the survey question.
Table 4.4.
Student: Student Attitude
Question
Number
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Agree
Average
Scale
8
9
10
0%
50%
17%
0%
33%
0%
17%
17%
50%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
17%
4.7
1.7
3.2
Table 4.4 shows student averages of student attitude toward mathematics testing
in a fourth-grade setting. Almost all students Strongly Agreed (5) to care about their
score on a math assessment. The average score for this particular was 4.7. Students
mostly Disagreed (2) or Strongly Disagreed (1) that students are tested too much in math.
The average score for the question was 1.7. The last question on the survey stated, "I
prefer one type of test to another." The average score on this question was 3.2, with half
of the students indicating their response as neither.
Observation data presentation. Student observation played a pivotal role in the
research process. Observing students taking both paper-pencil assessment and computer-
based assessment enlightened the researcher on fundamental anxieties present with the
six students observed during this time. Signs of anxiety include sweating, shaking, rapid
heartbeat, low self-esteem, fidgeting, test avoidance, distress, and forgetfulness. The key
observations that were repetitive while watching the students were:
1. Knuckle cracking
72
2. Fidgeting
3. Looking around the room
Most students exhibited one, if not all, of the listed characteristics of testing
anxiety. These cognitive and behavioral symptoms are more prevalent in a testing
environment than in a typical classroom setting. Some students also exhibited a sense of
worry by breathing with a conscious sense of doubt. Anxiety while testing is widespread
and is a factor in the overall testing experience that a child endures.
Interview data presentation. The same six participants enrolled in fourth-grade
mathematics class were selected to participate in the interviews. According to 2020 Aims
Web Benchmark data, the students are below average, average, and above average in
academic standing. There were two males and four females who participated in the study.
These students were selected to get a conscientious awareness of all academic levels
represented in a typical fourth-grade mathematics class. The interview was as similar as
possible to ensure that the participants felt comfortable expressing opinions during the
process.
The interviews took place over six days, November 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and
10th. The interviews were open-ended but focused on student attitude, anxiety, and
achievement on math assessments given in two different testing modes. Appendix C
comprises the questions that were used as a guide for the six students that were
interviewed. Notes and transcriptions of the interviews were documents to construct
themes and repeated experiences that may be reflected or echoed between participants.
An unbiased peer review was used to inspect the surveys' questions, student responses,
and processes to guarantee the data collection approaches were conducted with fidelity
73
and precision. The notes and transcripts were used for member checks to make sure that
the researcher recorded the responses accurately.
Triangulation was used in this research study. The student participants were given
codes to ensure confidentiality while conducting the research. Student 1 to Student 6
were assigned to the student participants. Educator 1 was assigned to the educator. The
assigned labels for the students and educator were used to take raw data into the open-
coding process. The researcher began by taking the participants' raw data and forming
categories of information grouped together under a particular topic. The data were
analyzed and grouped under topics throughout the data analysis process. Next, axial
coding was used once groups were formed with the data. Axial coding narrowed down
the topics from the open coding process. Selective coding was then used once common
themes emerged.
74
Figure 4. 1 Example of coding answering the research question: "What is the experience
of fourth-grade mathematic students as they take a computer vs. paper-pencil test?"
________________________________________________________________________
Raw Data Open Coding Axial Coding Selective Coding _____________________________________________________________
Testing anxiety
Exposure to technology Comfort level Use of technology
“It’s because if I do something on the same paper it feels weird to me, but if I do it on different paper and copy it down, it feels better.” “Paper and pencil test was easier, but I do not think I got as many correct as I did on the computer. I would rather have paper pencil test.”
“I feel confident on like paper tests, but I don’t feel good on computer tests.” “I do not feel like most people, I am not stressed.” “I feel nervous and scared when taking tests at school.” “I think I might be putting pressure on myself, no one else puts pressure on me.” “My parents put pressure on me to do well.”
“I prefer computer tests because I really like computers.” “I would prefer paper pencil test because the computer is hard to figure out.” “I have a lot of technology at my house. I have an I-pad, a phone, and lots of games.”
Student mindset, testing anxiety, and assessment
mode preference are perceived as
factors when analyzing the experience of
students as they take computer and
paper-pencil assessments.
Student mindset
Confidence awareness Outside pressure to perform
Self-perception Reflection Awareness Reasoning
Assessment mode
preference
75
Study Findings
According to the interview responses, the following ideas were developed from
the coding process to answer the research question. These areas were used to associate
the matters developed from the surveys and observations that helped answer the research
question, What is fourth-grade mathematic students' experience as they take a computer
vs. paper-pencil test?
1. Student mindset
2. Testing anxiety
3. Assessment mode preference
Student Mindset
The participant responses to the interview questions implied a positive growth
mindset was present in each student. Students knew how well they did on each before
getting results back on both assessments. Self-awareness was very present in the
responses. This coincided with the evidence gathered in the student surveys. The
participants were overall very positive about all scenarios indicating a growth mindset.
Student 1 responded, "paper and pencil test was easier, but I do not think I got as many
correct as I did on the computer. I would rather have a paper-pencil test." This showed
that Student 1 is self-aware and knows which test is preferred over the other test.
Testing Anxiety
Testing anxiety can be seen both from a spectator and felt by the examinee.
Fourth-grade mathematics students are well aware of pressure and anxiety when in a
testing situation. When asked the question, is there outside pressure on you to do well on
tests at school, Student 2 responded, "I think I might be putting pressure on myself; no
76
one else puts pressure on me." This is the response from a student who exhibits anxious
tendencies throughout most academic settings in school. Student 2 is very aware of the
pressure that she puts on herself. Although there is the pressure that students put on
themselves, Student 4 stated, "my parents put pressure on me to do well." Student 4
further stated that electronic devices are taken away when he does not perform over 90%
on a test. Student 6 stated, "I feel nervous and scared when taking tests at school." This
particular student has below-average grades in all academic areas at school. The student
was sincere in making this statement. The participants were eager to express the opinions
of testing and anxiety when in that type of atmosphere.
Assessment Mode Preference
Students are very vocal individuals when allowed to have a voice. This interview
process presented a forum for six students' voices to be heard regarding testing mode
preference. Student 1 stated, "I would prefer a paper-pencil test because the computer is
hard to figure out." Typical computer navigation issues arise when children are taking
computer-based tests. This adds to the stress and anxiety levels that are already present
when students are taking an assessment. All students responded that they had some type
of electronics at home. The familiarity with the at-home electronics did not have students
leaning toward computer-based tests.
Summary
The research question was answered from data that were collected through
surveys, observations, and interviews. Overall, the researcher was informed of the many
different styles and areas of testing in mathematics. Through the areas of testing, the
students shared a voice in student assessment. It provides a strong basis of understanding
77
when looking into the overall testing experience during a mathematic exam given in two
different testing modes. The research study data discovered that just as many students
preferred paper-pencil testing as computer-based testing, with the data being wholly split
with 50% of students preferring paper-pencil testing and 50% of students preferring
computer-based testing. Providing students with a choice of testing mode would alleviate
some of the observed testing anxiety. Overall, educators can make a lasting academic
impact on students when considering a child's experience when in a testing scenario.
Student mindset, testing anxiety, and overall testing mode preference should all be
considered in an educational setting before assessments are administered to students for
data collection.
78
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
Since the education model was adopted, students have been assessed in either a
formative or summative classroom setting to determine how much knowledge a child has
gained over an academic year. Students each have a different testing experience based on
the background the child has encountered during the adolescent's lifetime. With the
amount of technology that a student has encountered, knowledge is continually being
modified, and innovations are being renewed (Urban et al., 2019). The impact of the
modifications and innovations directly affects all academic areas, including assessments
in the classroom. Testing experiences will continue to change for students as the
information that is being assessed changes. Finally, the mode of assessment changes to
align with student knowledge growth.
The testing experiences a child endures says a lot about the child's data will yield
from the assessment. The student's achievement, attitude, and anxiety all play a part in
the testing experience. The testing mode student preference arises when an assessment
must be administered. Taking into consideration the child's preference may spark a
different outcome in childhood academic testing that takes place in the classroom. This
qualitative study aimed to determine the overall testing experience a fourth-grade student
endures while taking a math assessment. Through surveys, observations, and interviews,
the overall testing experience was very prevalent to the researcher conducting the study.
There is an association between the child's testing experience and the anxiety,
achievement, and attitude that the particular student has when tested. The purpose of this
study was to examine the overall testing experience that a fourth-grade mathematics
student has when given a computer-based test versus a paper-pencil test. The study also
79
determined if the child preferred one testing mode over the other. In a specific way,
information was gathered from six students regarding their preference for testing mode.
The qualitative study involved collecting data through surveys, observations, and
interviews. This chapter outlines the theoretical framework, design of the study,
limitations, summary of findings, recommendations for future research, and an overall
summary of the research study.
Theoretical Framework Relevancy
The theoretical frameworks supporting this study are Sociocultural Learning
Theory, Cognitive Load Theory, and Test Mode Familiarity. Lev Vygotsky is known for
the sociocultural learning theory. Sociocultural learning theory is a learner-centered
approach to education (Wang, Bruce, & Hughes, 2011). This theory opines that a child's
learning environment can affect the testing experience and expand that student
cognitively. The learner's environment plays an essential role in a student's development
and testing experience within the classroom. Keeping the student's experience at the
forefront of the learning experience should always be the ultimate goal of any educator.
The researcher considered all data obtained from the student participants to make an
informed conclusion to the research question. A second theoretical framework that is
relevant to this study is known as the Cognitive load theory. The cognitive load theory
describes the overload that performing a particular task imposes on the learner's cognitive
system (Paas & van Merrienboer, 1994). This was relevant to the study because educators
often ask students to take assessments with unfamiliar testing modes. Strategies and
practices can lead to frustrated students, which will yield inaccurate data for the educator.
Lastly, test mode familiarity was the final framework that supported the study. Helping
80
students find what works best for the individual is critical for academic success. Test
mode familiarity will support a student who feels comfortable with a particular testing
format and provide additional scaffolding for student success. This framework supported
the study because educators witness one testing mode's success compared to the other
types of testing modes.
The process applied to the data analysis of the research was developed using a
phenomenological methodology. Phenomenology is the study of the items that emerge in
our consciousness or how a person's consciousness or how matters are experienced (Gill,
2020). The recorded data of student perceptions of success considered personal
perspectives of the perceived expectations and limitations that affect student success with
testing modes through this methodology. The overall student experience while taking an
assessment was brought to fruition by the research study and guided by the research
question to gain better insight into the math students' opinions and experiences when
participating in the research.
Research Question
Student perspectives were examined in connection to the following research question:
1). What is the experience of fourth-grade mathematic students as they take a computer
vs. paper-pencil test?
Design of the Study
The study explored the testing experience a student faces when taking two types
of math assessments, paper-pencil and computer-based assessments. One question aimed
to provide insight into a fourth-grade mathematic student's testing experience in a
classroom environment. Student attitude, anxiety, and achievement are affected during a
81
testing session. The study sought to ascertain if students have a preference when it comes
to the testing mode and math assessments. These themes included the importance of
student mindset, testing anxiety, and student assessment mode preference. Students have
a voice when it comes to student testing, and a forum can be to be heard. Providing
students with the testing mode they prefer could enhance student academic achievement.
Students want to excel in math class and want to be provided with assessments that truly
analyze their knowledge. Student perceptions of testing developed over the study.
Limitation, Delimitation, and Assumptions
Limitations, delimitations, and assumptions are essential components of a
research study. Limitations are beyond the researcher's control but could affect the study
outcome (Simon and Goes, 2013). Limitations are present in all research studies.
Delimitations of a study are the characteristics that formulate limitations in the study's
scope (Simon and Goes, 2013). The delimitations are choices made by the researcher
conducting the study. Lastly, assumptions corresponding to research studies can be
assumed by the researcher and the study reader.
Limitations. The research data were gathered from a school in one rural
Tennessee school district. The study was limited to one school and one grade level. The
limited sample affects the mutual experiences among other fourth-grade mathematics
students that are not represented. This restriction may disregard a more important theme
that transcends a particular subgroup. The limitation may be limited only to counties that
share similar community distinctions and demographics.
Delimitations. The research study had delimitations to keep the research
manageable. The number of research questions was kept to one question because of the
82
amount of data the one question would generate. The sample size was six students
making the research manageable in the allotted time frame and school status during a
Global Pandemic.
Assumptions. It was assumed that all participants applied their knowledge during
math class. It was also assumed that overall anxiety was considered when looking for
more obvious testing anxieties. Another assumption present in this research study was
the students' honesty when responding to the survey questions' validity and interview
questions. The target population only included students' experiences in a rural setting,
where diversity was more restrictive than in other school districts.
The research question was answered through scaled survey questionnaire
responses, observations, and interviews. The interview sessions were recorded and
transcribed. All responses were coded using open coding, axial coding, and selective
coding that revealed insight into the research question. The following is a brief discussion
of the categories developed in open coding and the themes revealed in axial coding.
Summary of Findings
The research question was revealed through axial coding after open coding
developed the following three themes: student mindset, testing anxiety, and assessment
mode preference. The research question, answered through axial coding, determined the
student perceptions of a fourth-grade math student's overall testing experience during
both testing modes. The following information describes the findings related to the
themes for the research question. The findings developed from the raw data and themes
revealed during axial coding.
83
Student mindset. The interview questions had students rate how they observed a
testing experience. All students were positive about testing and shared similar and
healthy attitudes about the testing experience. The interviews expanded to explain that
students accept the amount of testing and do not see excessive testing. Students could
express how they felt towards both types of testing and articulate which testing mode
they felt most comfortable with and why. These particular students were intrinsically
motivated to do well on math testing in the classroom.
Testing anxiety. The interview questions ranked testing anxiety as significant in
the students' perceptions regarding the overall testing experience. Students were aware of
testing anxiety or the lack of testing apprehension they had during an assessment.
Students could isolate where the pressure was coming from to perform well on math
assessments at school. A student could say that there was no outside pressure to do well;
the pressure to do well came from within.
Assessment mode preference. The interview questions revealed that students
have a preference when taking an assessment. They prefer either paper-pencil
assessments or computer-based assessments when having to take a test. The students
were able to verbalize their choice and the reason for choosing the preferred testing
mode. Testing mode preference is critical when analyzing data. Students need a voice
when being tested so frequently.
A child's overall testing experience in a math setting was very prevalent from
surveys, interviews, and observations. Students want to do well on assessments to please
themselves, their parents, or their teachers. There was not a student who did not want to
84
do well on the testing. Students have an opinion about which testing method they prefer.
They have positive attitudes to the frequency in which they are tested in the classroom.
Conclusions
This study indicated that students have preferences when looking at testing modes
based on their experiences while being assessed in math. Students may come from
different backgrounds and different technology skill levels and still have a minimal
choice of testing mode and a reason to back up their choice. Even in diverse
backgrounds, the participants seemed to be split in the preferred testing mode. Three
students preferred paper-pencil assessments and three students preferred computer-based
testing. Students are assessed yearly, monthly, weekly, and even daily. Allowing students
a choice in their mode of testing could help students excel or improve on mathematics
assessments. Students need support and options when it comes to testing. Students are
likely to feel that they do not have a choice when taking a math assessment. The child’s
attitude, anxiety, and overall achievement are likely to become more positive when a
child is offered a testing mode choice.
Implications
Implications drawn from this research study will help in making future
educational decisions. Implications for the school are that teachers and administrators
should take the time to carefully listen to the students who are tested in several settings
throughout the year. Students have a testing preference. Providing those children with the
preferred method could yield data that are beneficial to teacher instruction. Future math
educators could ascertain that giving students a choice about testing mode could change
their attitude toward the actual test, make their mathematics experience more positive,
85
and have a higher success rate. Implications for the testing coordinators are that offering
the same tested material in different modes could yield better data. Also, providing the
student with the preferred testing method could lower childhood testing anxiety. The
students may also feel more comfortable with the assessment. The implications of this
research are an attempt to recognize the overall testing experience as it relates to different
types of testing modes, specifically paper-pencil evaluations and computer-based
assessments.
Recommendations for Future Research
The association between preference and socioeconomic status was discussed
during the peer debriefing process. The students that contributed to the study were from
different levels of academic success. Since these academic levels yield different
socioeconomic ranks, it was discussed that there could be a relationship between the
preference of testing mode based on socioeconomic position. Further research in this area
could determine the relationship between testing preference and economic status as it
pertains to education.
Future research could be guided by whether the addition of technology classes in
an elementary school setting would benefit students on a computer-based assessment.
Test mode familiarity was discussed in this research study. An extension of test mode
familiarity and elementary technology classes would provide a more in-depth study on
the comfort a student has when given the proper training on the devices and platforms
used for assessments.
86
Summary
Educational policies have been placed nationally and locally to assess students
regularly. This particular study was concentrated on recognizing the overall testing
experience that fourth-grade math students endure when in a testing environment. The
study revealed that students' anxiety, achievement, and attitudes differ depending on
which type of testing method they prefer. The study also revealed that students do have a
preference when asked which type of testing mode they prefer and have valid reasons
why they prefer one to the other. Hearing students and meeting their testing preferences
could yield huge rewards in the classroom for the students and the teachers. While further
investigations may specify additional information on the overall testing experiences that
fourth-grade students endure, this study provided crucial data on experiential perceptions.
The study acknowledged essential factors that could help support and expand student
academic success with math assessments.
87
References
Alzen, J. L., Fahle, E. M., & Domingue, B. W. (2017). The Implications of Reduced
Testing for Teacher Accountability. AERA Open, 3(2), 233285841770441.
doi:10.1177/2332858417704411
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2017, June 12). Comparing
student performance on paper-and-pencil and computer-based-tests. ScienceDaily.
Retrieved July 6, 2020, from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612115723.htm
Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies.
Cambridge University Press.
Backes, B., & Cowan, J. (2018). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of
online testing on measured student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
68, 89-103.
Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences
in and relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level
technology policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3), 1-38.
Bennett, R. E. (1999). Computer-based testing for examinees with disabilities: On the
road to generalized accommodation. Assessment in higher education: Issues of
access, quality, student development, and public policy, 181-191.
Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014). Attitudes of secondary regular school teachers toward
inclusive education in New Delhi, India: A qualitative study. Exceptionality
Education International, 24(2), 17-30.
88
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. O. E. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight
keys to success. Journal of technology and teacher education, 10(1), 95-100.
Black, P. J., & Atkin, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science,
mathematics and technology education. Taylor & Francis.
Borekci, C., & Uyangor, N. (2018). Family attitude, academic procrastination and test
anxiety as predictors of academic achievement. International Journal of
Educational Methodology, 4(4), 219-226. doi: 10.12973
Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1995). Studies on hysteria: (1893-1895). London: Hogarth Press.
Burnett, T. (2019, July 25). What is a Computer-Based Test? Retrieved July 07, 2020,
from https://www.quora.com/
Buzdar, M. A., Mohsin, M. N., Akbar, R., & Mohammad, N. (2017). Students' academic
performance and its relationship with their intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 20(1), 74.
Canough, J. (2013). Effective Implementation of Technology.
Chen, J., & Zhang, L. (2013). Academic Achievement: Predictors, Learning Strategies
and Influences of Gender. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Clark, R. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology,
Research and Development.
Coleman, J. S. (2019). Equality and achievement in education. Routledge.
Dacey, J. S., Mack, M. D., & Fiore, L. B. (2016). Your anxious child: How parents and
teachers can relieve anxiety in children. John Wiley & Sons.
89
Davey, T. (2011). Practical Considerations in Computer-Based Testing - ETS Home.
Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/CBT-
2011.pdf
DeAngelis, S. (2000). Equivalency of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing.
Journal of allied health. 29. 161-4.
Downing, S. M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. Handbook of test
development, 3, 25.
Esmonde, I., & Booker, A. N. (Eds.). (2016). Power and privilege in the learning
sciences: Critical and sociocultural theories of learning. Taylor & Francis.
Faure, E. (1973). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. Unesco.
Finn, B. (2015). Measuring motivation in low-stakes assessments. ETS Research Report
Series, 2015(2), 1-17.
Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and
evaluation (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781506326139
Gallagher, C. (2003). Reconciling a Tradition of Testing with a New Learning
Paradigm. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 83-99. Retrieved July 8, 2020,
from www.jstor.org/stable/23361535
Gill, M.J. (2020) Phenomenological approaches to research, in Mik-Meyer, N. and
Järvinen, M (Eds.) Qualitative Analysis: Eight approaches, London: Sage, pp. 73-
94.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs, 3-21.
90
Gunduz, M., Kalafat, O., Reisoglu, I., & Goktas, Y. (2020). A Content Analysis of 2012-
2017 Decade Academic Achievement Researches. Kastamonu Education Journal,
28(2), 596-612. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.693412
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Using Data to Improve Student Achievement. Principal
Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (2013). Item response theory: Principles and
applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
Hardcastle, J., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2017, April 30). Search Results.
Retrieved July 08, 2020, from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=CBT
Hashim, H. (2018). Application of technology in the digital era education. International
Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, 2(1), 1-5.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses:
Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaiser, G., & Presmeg, N. (2019). Compendium for Early Career Researchers in
Mathematics Education (p. 532). Springer Nature.
Karbach, J., Gottschling, J., Spengler, M., Hegewald, K., & Spinath, F. M. (2013).
Parental involvement and general cognitive ability as predictors of domain-
specific academic achievement in early adolescence. Learning and
Instruction, 23, 43-51.
Khoshsima, H., Hosseini, M., & Toroujeni, S. M. (2017). Cross-Mode Comparability of
Computer-Based Testing (CBT) Versus Paper-Pencil Based Testing (PPT): An
Investigation of Testing Administration Mode among Iranian Intermediate EFL
Learners. English Language Teaching, 10(2), 23. doi:10.5539/elt. v10n2p23
91
Larsen, D. (2018). Planning Education for Long-Term Retention: The Cognitive Science
and Implementation of Retrieval Practice. Seminars in Neurology, 38(04), 449-
456. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1666983
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Loo, B. (2019, April 16). Education in the United States of America. Retrieved July 06,
2020, from https://wenr.wes.org/2018/06/education-in-the-united-states-of
america
Lynch, M. (2016, December 11). Here's how the method of testing can change student
scores. Retrieved July 08, 2020, from https://www.theedadvocate.org/heres-how-
the-method-of-testing-can-change-student-scores/
Madaus, G. F., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance assessment:
Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 688.
Mcleod, S. (2020, January 01). Likert Scale Definition, Examples and Analysis.
Retrieved January 06, 2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-
scale.html
McNeal Jr, R. B. (2014). Parent Involvement, Academic Achievement and the Role of
Student Attitudes and Behaviors as Mediators. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 2(8), 564-576.
Meador, Derrick. (2019, February 11). Examining the Pros and Cons of Standardized
Testing. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/examining-the-pros-and-
cons-of-standardized-testing-3194596
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). Technology and education reform: Studies of education
reform. Diane Publishing.
92
Mogey, N., & Watt, H. (2019). Implementing Learning Technology. Retrieved July 10,
2020, from http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/implementing-it/using.htm
Moon, K., Guerrero, A. M., Adams, V. M., Biggs, D., Blackman, D. A., Craven, L., ... &
Ross, H. (2016). Mental models for conservation research and
practice. Conservation Letters, 12(3), e12642.
Muttappallymyalil, J., Mendis, S., John, L. J., Shanthakumari, N., Sreedharan, J., &
Shaikh, R. B. (2016). Evolution of technology in teaching: Blackboard and
beyond in Medical Education. Nepal journal of epidemiology, 6(3), 588.
Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigue and knowledge
insecurity influence practice. Teachers and Teaching, 20(4), 427-439.
Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the
training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 51-71.
Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Considerations in
Computer-Based Testing. Practical Considerations in Computer-Based Testing,
1-12. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0083-0_1
Pellegrino, J. W. (2004). The evolution of educational assessment: Considering the past
and imagining the future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy
Evaluation and Research Center, Policy Information Center.
Perrin, A., & Kumar, M. (2020, May 30). About three-in-ten U.S. adults say they are
'almost constantly' online. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/25/americans-going-online-
almost-constantly/
93
Peters, M. J., Howard, K., & Sharp, M. J. A. (2012). The management of a student
research project. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2012). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence
for nursing practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Pursell, C. (2007). The machine in America: A social history of technology. JHU Press.
Purslow, V. T., & Belcastro, A. (2006). An Integrative Framework: Meeting the Needs of
the New-Traditional Student. Online Submission.
Quarteroni, A., Sacco, R., & Saleri, F. (2010). Numerical mathematics (Vol. 37).
Springer Science & Business Media.
Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing
and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.
Roy, A., Lu, C. F., Marykwas, D. L., Lipke, P. N., & Kurjan, J. (1991). The AGA1
product is involved in cell surface attachment of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae
cell adhesion glycoprotein a-agglutinin. Molecular and cellular biology, 11(8),
4196–4206. https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.11.8.4196
Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. IAP.
Salend, S. J. (2009). Technology-based classroom assessments: Alternatives to testing.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(6), 48-58.
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In Handbook of social and
evaluation anxiety (pp. 475-495). Springer, Boston, MA.
Sari, J. K. (2019). Mindfulness training to reduce exam anxiety in elementary
students. PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNAL, 5(11), 9-21.
94
Schumacher, G. (2016). Technology's Influence on Education. Retrieved July 10, 2020,
from https://www.southuniversity.edu/news-and-blogs/2016/08/technologys-
influence-on-education-76874
Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’
professional development. Cogent education, 3(1), 1252177.
Shankar, P. R., Dubey, A. K., Balasubramanium, R., & Dwivedi, N. R. (2013). Student
attitude towards communication skills learning in a Caribbean medical
school. The Australasian medical journal, 6(9), 466.
Sheeba, Sheeba. (2017). Importance of Testing in Teaching and Learning. 2. 1-9.
Sim, G., & Horton, M. (2005, June). Performance and attitude of children in computer-
based versus paper-based testing. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 3610-
3614). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and scope of
the study. Retrieved from dissertationrecipes.com.
Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.). (2013). Anxiety and behavior. Academic Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Stuckey, H. L. (2015). The second step in data analysis: Coding qualitative research
data. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 3(01), 007-010.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional
design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
95
Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A., & Varpio, L. (2015).
Choosing a qualitative research approach. Journal of graduate medical
education, 7(4), 669-670.
Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions. (1992). Washington, DC:
Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment.
Thattai, D. (2001). A history of public education in the United States. Journal of Literacy
and Education in Developing Societies, 1(2), 2001-11.
Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to
largescale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D., & Hodgson, J. (2010). Computer-based testing:
Practices and considerations (Synthesis Report 78). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Triangulation, D. S. (2014, September). The use of triangulation in qualitative research.
In Oncology nursing forum (Vol. 41, No. 5, p. 545).
Tuma, A. H., & Maser, J. D. (Eds.). (2019). Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Routledge.
Turnbull, W. W. (1967). Relevance in Testing.
Urban, W. J., Wagoner Jr, J. L., & Gaither, M. (2019). American education: A history.
Routledge.
Vista, A., & Care, E. (2017, March 27). Education is Changing. It's Time Assessment
Caught Up (SSIR). Retrieved July 06, 2020, from
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/education_is_changingits_time_assessment_caught_
up
96
Waddell, J. (2015, March 27). The Role of Technology in the Educational Process.
Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://education.msu.edu/green-and-
write/2015/the-role-of-technology-in-the-educational-process/
Walker, T. (2014, January 03). The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing Curriculum.
Retrieved July 09, 2020, from http://neatoday.org/2014/09/02/the-testing-
obsession-and-the-disappearing-curriculum-2/
Wang, L., Bruce, C., & Hughes, H. (2011). Sociocultural theories and their application in
information literacy research and education. Australian Academic & Research
Libraries, 42(4), 296-308.
Winkley, J. (2010). E-assessment and innovation. Emerging Technologies. Coventry:
Becta.
Wise, S. (2019). Controlling construct-irrelevant factors through computer-based testing:
disengagement, anxiety, & cheating. Education Inquiry, 10(1), 21-33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1490127
Wright, C. (2019, June 09). History of Education: The United States in a Nutshell.
Retrieved July 06, 2020, from https://www.leaderinme.org/blog/history-of-
education-the-united-states-in-a-nutshell/
Wren, D. G., & Benson, J. (2004). Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development
and internal construct validation. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(3), 227-240.
Ying-yao Cheng. (2020) Academic self-efficacy and assessment. Educational
Psychology 40:4, pages 389-391.
97
Yusefzadeh, H., Iranagh, J. A., & Nabilou, B. (2019). The effect of study preparation on
test anxiety and performance: a quasi-experimental study. Advances in Medical
Education and Practice, 10, 245.
98
Appendices
99
Appendix A
Parent Consent Form
100
Parent/Guardian Consent Form Carson-Newman University
Title of Study: The Experience of 4th Grade Mathematics Students as They Take Computer Versus Paper- Pencil Assessments Principal Investigator: Samantha Carroll Email: [email protected]
Your student is being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to allow student participation in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information. Information and Purpose: The purpose for which your student is being asked to participate in is a part of dissertation research that focuses on the effectiveness of computer-based versus paper-pencil assessments on the achievement, anxiety, and attitudes of grade 4 mathematics students. Your Participation in Study Procedures: Student participation in this study will consist of one student survey, one observation that will include both types of testing formats, and one teacher-student individual interview. Your student's participation is strictly voluntary. There is no penalty for discontinuing participation. Participants will complete:
1. One student survey 2. One observation including both testing modes 3. One interview with the teacher
The study will begin in November 2020 and will be completed by April 1, 2021. Audio and video recording will be used throughout the research process. These recordings will be kept confidential. Each participant will be given an alias for the duration of the research. All recorded material will be kept secure and private. You will have the opportunity to review your responses in the researcher's notes upon request at any time during the duration of the research. Benefits and Risks: There will be no direct benefit to you or your student for participation in this study. However, the benefit will be gaining insight regarding which type of test your student prefers. This may help modify instruction with best practices for reducing stress, anxiety, and negative attitudes towards testing. There are no known risks associated with participating in the study.
101
Confidentiality: Student responses during observations and interviews will be
anonymous. Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve confidentiality,
including the following:
• Assigning code names/pseudonyms for participants on all research notes
and documents.
• Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying
participant information in a locked file cabinet in the researcher's
personal possession.
Student data will be kept confidential except in cases where the researcher is legally
obligated to report specific incidents. The researcher will not share individual responses
with anyone other than the research supervisor.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the researcher at [email protected], or her dissertation chair, Dr. Tammy Barnes, at [email protected]. Subject's Understanding
• I agree to allow my student to participate in this study that I understand
will be submitted in partial fulfillment of the EdD degree requirements in Curriculum and Instruction at Carson-Newman University.
• I understand that my student's participation is voluntary. • I understand that all data collected will be limited to this use or other
research-related usage as authorized by the Carson-Newman University. • I understand that my student will not be identified by name in the final
product. • I am aware that all records will be kept confidential in the secure
possession of the researcher. • I acknowledge that the researcher and her advisor's contact information
have been made available to me, along with a duplicate copy of this consent form.
• I understand the data I provide will not be used to evaluate my performance in my classes.
• I understand that my student may withdraw from the study at any time with no adverse repercussions.
By signing below, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the above information. I am aware that I can discontinue my student's participation in the study at any time. Student Name: _______________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian Signature: _ Date: ______________
102
Appendix B
Student Survey Questions
103
Student Survey
1. Student testing is important.
2. Doing well on a test is the student’s responsibility.
3. I perform better on a paper-pencil math assessment.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
104
4. I perform better on a computer math assessment.
5. I have a choice to take a math test on paper-pencil or on the computer.
6. My attitude affects how I do on a math test.
7. I feel stressed while taking math tests.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
105
8. I care about my score on a math assessment.
9. Students are tested too much in math.
10. I prefer one type of test to another.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
106
Appendix C
Student Interview Questions
107
Student Interview Questions
1. What did you think about the paper-pencil and computer-based
assessments? Be specific. Was one easier than the other? If so, which one and why?
2. If you had a choice between paper-pencil tests or computer-based tests, which would you choose? Why?
3. How do you feel while you are taking an assessment? Is there outside pressure for you to do well on a test? (parents, coaches, and teachers)
4. What type of technology do you have at home? How often do you use technology at home?
5. How confident are you when you take a paper test? Computer test?
108
Appendix D
District Letter
109
110
Appendix E
Site Permission Granted
111
112
Appendix F
Paper-Pencil Math Assessment
113
Name:
Solve each problem. Write your answer in the space provided.
1. 3,567 x 7 =
2. Some sand weighs 2,800 kilograms. It is divided equally among 4 trucks.
How many kilograms of sand are in each truck?
3. Use the distributive property to solve the following problem.
a. 40 × 34
4. Round 35,849 to the nearest hundred.
5. Find the difference between 573,583 and 213,594.
6. Match the following definitions to the example on the right. Write the correct
letter in the blank.
____Expanded Form a. 5 hundreds, 6 tens, 3 ones
____Word Form b. three thousand, six hundred, fifty-two
____Standard Form c. 3,000 + 200 + 1
____Unit Form d. 989
114
7. Show 456 x 3 using standard algorithm, partial products, and area model.
8. Solve the following multiplication facts.
a. 5x6=
b. 4x3=
c. 2x2=
d. 5x0=
e. 9x3=
9. 56,482 + 41,502
10. Compare the two numbers by using the symbols <, >, and =. Write the
correct symbol in the circle.
a. 342,001 94,981
b. 500,000 + 80,000 + 9,000 + 100 five hundred eight thousand, nine hundred
one
115
Appendix G
Paper-Pencil Assessment Answer Key
116
Solve each problem. Write your answer in the space provided.
1. 3,567 x 7 = 24,969
2. Some sand weighs 2,800 kilograms. It is divided equally among 4 trucks.
How many kilograms of sand are in each truck?
700 kilograms of sand are in each truck.
*There may be an illustration here to show work.
3. Use the distributive property to solve the following problems.
a. 40 × 34 (40x40) + (40x4) = 1600 + 160 = 1760
4. Round 35,849 to the nearest hundred.
35,800
5. Find the difference between 573,583 and 213,594.
359,989
6. Match the following definitions to the example on the right. Write the correct
letter in the blank.
_c_Expanded Form a. 5 hundreds, 6 tens, 3 ones
_b_Word Form b. three thousand, six hundred, fifty-two
_d_Standard Form c. 3,000 + 200 + 1
_a_Unit Form d. 989
117
7. Show 456 x 3 using standard algorithm, partial products, and area model.
Standard Partial
Algorithm Products
456 456
x 3 x 3
1368 18
150
+1200
1368
Area Model
400 50 6
3x400 = 1200 3x50 = 150 3x6 = 18
8. Solve the following multiplication facts.
a. 5x6=30
b. 4x3=12
c. 2x2=4
d. 5x0=0
e. 9x3=27
9. 56,482 + 41,502
97,984
118
10. Compare the two numbers by using the symbols <, >, and =. Write the
correct symbol in the circle.
a. 342,001 94,981
b. 500,000 + 80,000 + 9,000 + 100 five hundred eight thousand, nine hundred
one
>
>
119
Appendix H
Computer-Based Assessment
120
Online Assessment Questions
The following assessment will be given through Google
Forms.
Solve each problem. Write your answer in the space provided.
1. 4,362 x 6 =
2. Some sand weighs 5,600 pounds. It is divided equally among 7 trucks. How
many pounds of sand are in each truck?
3. Use the distributive property to solve the following problem.
a. 30 × 61
4. Round 45,291 to the nearest hundred.
5. Find the difference between 641,583 and 212,594.
6. Match the following definitions to the example on the right. Write the correct
letter in the blank.
____Expanded Form a. 4,000 + 100 + 3
____Word Form b. three thousand, six hundred, fifty-one
____Standard Form c. 5 hundreds, 2 tens, 3 ones
____Unit Form d. 289
121
7. Solve 456 x 3
8. Solve the following multiplication facts.
a. 5x3=
b. 6x4=
c. 7x5=
d. 8x9=
e. 4x11=
9. 36,282 + 94,981
10. Compare the two numbers by using the symbols <, >, and =. Write the
correct symbol in the circle.
a. 242,001 94,981
b. 600,000 + 80,000 + 900 + 100 six hundred eight thousand, nine hundred one
122
Appendix I
Computer-Based Assessment Answer Key
123
Online Assessment Questions
Answer Key
The following assessment will be given through Google
Forms
Solve each problem. Write your answer in the space provided.
1. 4,362 x 6 = 26,172
2. Some sand weighs 5,600 pounds. It is divided equally among 7 trucks. How
many pounds of sand are in each truck?
800 pounds of dirt
3. Use the distributive property to solve the following problem.
a. 30 × 61
1,830
4. Round 45,291 to the nearest hundred.
45,300
5. Find the difference between 641,583 and 212,594.
428,989
6. Match the following definitions to the example on the right. Write the correct
letter in the blank.
__a__Expanded Form a. 4,000 + 100 + 3
__b__Word Form b. three thousand, six hundred, fifty-one
__d__Standard Form c. 5 hundreds, 2 tens, 3 ones
__c__Unit Form d. 289
7. Solve 456 x 3
1,368
124
8. Solve the following multiplication facts.
a. 5x3=15
b. 6x4=24
c. 7x5=35
d. 8x9=72
e. 4x11=44
9. 36,282 + 94,981
131,263
10. Compare the two numbers by using the symbols <, >, and =. Write the
correct symbol in the circle.
a. 242,001 94,981 >
b. 600,000 + 80,000 + 900 + 100 six hundred eight thousand, nine hundred one >
