CMI Unit Test Item Presentation/Feedback and its Effect on Final Examination Performance: Staff Study

Abstract

The instructional benefits of computer managed test administration are not well defined. This study addressed the instructional characteristics of computer delivered unit tests administered with several types of item feedback in different modes of presentation. The PHOENIX CBT system was used to compare the levels of achievement on final exam scores to the modes of test presentation and the degree and types of feedback provided during the unit tests. The effects of immediate and delayed feedback as well as sequential and random course objective presentation were addressed in the study. The results of the study provide suggestions to computer managed authoring systems developers and testing personnel on how to structure their tests for most efficient presentation to the students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arkin

R. M.

and Walts

E. A.

, Performance Implications of Corrective Testing, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75: 4, pp. 561–571, August 1983.

Bender

T. A.

, Improving the Use of Classroom Feedback, Presentation American Educational Research Association, 68th Conference, New Orleans, LA, April 23–27, 1984.

Hail

J. G.

, The Effects of Using Immediate Feedback Answer-Until-Correct Test Procedures on Retention, Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(7-A): 2285, January 1983.

Peeck

, Effects of Informative Feedback in Relation to Retention of Initial Responses, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10: 4, pp. 303–313, October 1985.

Roberts

F. C.

and Park

L. C.

, Feedback Strategies and Cognitive Style in Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 11: 2, pp. 63–74, June 1984.

Jelden

D. L.

, Effectiveness of Computer Based Education: The UNC PHOENIX System, Staff Study-1986, University of Northern Colorado-Greeley, Greeley, CO, available from ERIC (EDRS).

Vitulli

W. F.

, Effects of Immediate Feedback on Computer-Assisted Testing of ESP Performance, Psychological Reports, 51: 2, pp. 403–408, October 1982.

Hagerty

N. K.

, Development and Implementation of a Computer-Managed Instruction System in Graduate Training, Technical Report No. 11, Florida State University, CAI Center, Tallahassee, FL, June 30, 1970.

Gallagher

P. D.

, An Investigation of Instructional Treatments and Learner Characteristics in Computer-Managed Instruction Course, Technical Report No. 12, Florida State University, CAI Center, Tallahassee, FL, June 30, 1970.

10.

Lawler

R. M.

, An Investigation of Selected Instructional Strategies in an Undergraduate Computer-Managed Instruction Course, Technical Report No. 19, Florida State University, CAI Center, Tallahassee, FL, April 30, 1971.

11.

Schroth

M. L.

, Directive Concept Formation: S-R Hypothesis Versus Cognitive Theory, Journal of General Psychology, 110: 1, pp. 87–92, January 1984.

12.

Plake

B. S.

Melican

G. J.

Carter

, and Shaughnessy

M. J.

, Differential Performance of Males and Females on Easy to Hard Item Arrangements: Influence of Feedback at the Item Level, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43: 4, pp. 1067–1075, Winter 1983.

13.

Homa

and Cultice

, Role of Feedback, Category, Size, and Stimulus Distortion on the Acquisition and Utilization of Ill Defined Categories, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10: 1, pp. 83–94, January 1984.