Paper Based Test Versus Computer Based Test: The Impact on Reading Performance

Authors

  • Muhammad Ali Khan NED University of Engineering & Technology
  • Muhammad Fareed NED University of Engineering & Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21015/vtess.v9i3.647

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to investigate the possible difference in reading comprehension performance through PBT and CBT of Pakistani second-year ESL learners at NED University of Engineering & Technology (NEDUET). For this purpose, n=62 subjects attempted three equivalent tests on each testing mode. For the analysis, paired sample t-test is used to juxtapose the means of test results gleaned from PBT and CBT. The results illustrate, examinees performed significantly better on CBT (M = 6.17) as compare to PBT (M = 5.69) at p < .05 level (note: p = .003). Furthermore, ANOVA is used to find out the potentially significant effect of reading performance on the ESL learners’ preferable testing mode for the future. The post-test result shows that pupils’ reading test performance has no significant main effect on their preference at p > .05 (note: p = .621) because mostly opted for PBT. Additionally, their perceptions about the pros and cons of both the testing modes are also discussed. 

References

Al-amri, S. S. (2009). COMPUTER-BASED TESTING VS. PAPER-BASED TESTING: ESTABLISHING THE COMPARABILITY OF READING TESTS THROUGH THE EVOLUTION OF A NEW COMPARABILITY MODEL IN A SAUDI EFL CONTEXT [University of Essex]. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.496244

Alabi, D. (Mrs. . A. T., Issa, D. A. O., & Oyekunle, R. A. (2012). The Use of Computer Based Testing Method for the Conduct of Examinations at the University of Ilorin. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(3), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v2i3.1775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v2i3.1775

Brown, L. (2008). Using Mobile Learning To Teach Reading TO NINTH-GRADE STUDENTS (Issue November) [Capella University]. https://www.proquest.com/products-services/dissertations/

Chen, G., Cheng, W., Chang, T.-W., Zheng, X., & Huang, R. (2014). A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity matter? Journal of Computers in Education, 1(2–3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0012-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0012-z

Çınar, M., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2019). The effects of reading on pixel vs. paper: a comparative study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 0(0), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1685594

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting And Evaluating Quantitative And Qualitative Research. In Pearson (4th Editio, Vol. 78, Issue 22). Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201

Eno, L. P. (2011). Comparing the Reading Performance of High- Achieving Adolescents: Computers-Based Testing Versus Paper/Pencil [Seton Hall University]. In Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2767&context=dissertations

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Step by Step (12th Editi). Pearson. http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/13163/13479412/George _ Mallery SPSS 19 Answers to Selected Exercises.pdf

Gheytasi, M., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015). The Effect of Smartphone on the Reading Comprehension Proficiency of Iranian EFL Learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.510 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.510

Higgins, J., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2005). Examining the effect of computer-based passage presentation on reading test performance. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(4). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1657

Hosseini, M., Jafre, M., Abidin, Z., & Kamarzarrin, H. (2013). The investigation of Difference between PPT and CBT Results of EFL Learners in Iran : Computer Familiarity and Test Performance in CBT. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 11, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.11.66 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.11.66

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers (1st Editio). Cambridge University Press.

Jamil, M. (2012). PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS REGARDING COMPUTER ASSISTED ASSESSMENT. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 267–277. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ989218.pdf

Korevaar, S. (2015). The impact of computer interface design on Saudi students’ performance on a L2 reading test [University of Bedfordshire]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30317291.pdf

Kosakiewicz, L. (2017). THE IMPACT OF READING DIGITAL TEXT ON COMPREHENSION SCORES [California State University]. https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/bitstream/handle/011235813/1147/KosakiewiczL Spring 2017.pdf?sequence=1

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

Mojarrad, H., Hemmati, F., Gohar, M. J., & Sadeghi, A. (2013). Computer-Based Assessment ( Cba ) Vs . Paper / Pencil-Based Assessment ( Ppba ): an Investigation Into the Performance and Attitude of Iranian Efl Learners ’ Reading Comprehension. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 418–428. http://ijllalw.org/Abstracting---Indexing.html

Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2013). Student achievement in paper, computer/web and mobile based assessment. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 107–114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265397235

Paek, P. (2005). Recent Trends in Comparability Studies. Pearson Educational Measurement, August, 1–34. http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/5FC04F5A-E79D-45FE-8484-07AACAE2DA75/0/TrendsCompStudies_rr0505.pdf

Pomplun, M., Frey, S., & Becker, D. F. (2002). The score equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062002009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062002009

Sangi, N. A. (2008). Electronic assessment issues and practices in Pakistan: A case study. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880802324061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880802324061

Sanni, A. A., & Mohammad, M. F. (2015). Computer Based Testing ( CBT ): An Assessment of Student Perception of JAMB UTME in Nigeria. Computing, Information Systems, Development Informatics & Allied Research Journal, 6(2), 13–28.

Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Reading Across Mediums: Effects of Reading Digital and Print Texts on Comprehension and Calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 0(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794

Solak, E. (2014). Computer versus Paper-Based Reading: A Case Study in English Language Teaching Context. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(1), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.78.4.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.78.4.1

Sterling, T. M. (2012). The Effect of Reading Test Mode Interchangeability and Student Assessment Preferences on Achievement [Walden University]. https://doi.org/UMI : 3257958

Tikka, P. (2013). Reading on Small Displays : Reading performance and perceived ease of reading. http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/14788/

Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.007

Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers and Education, 55(3), 945–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005

Downloads

Published

2021-09-30

How to Cite

Khan, M. A., & Fareed, M. (2021). Paper Based Test Versus Computer Based Test: The Impact on Reading Performance. VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, 9(3), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.21015/vtess.v9i3.647

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2021): July-September

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

                                      

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution  License CC BY