마킹 기능이 컴퓨터기반 읽기 평가의 결과 및 수험자의 인식에 미치는 영향

신상근

서지반출

국문초록

컴퓨터 기반 읽기 평가의 타당도를 연구한 선행 연구에서 많은 수험자들이 지면과는 달리 컴퓨터 화면에 글자를 쓰거나 표시를 하는 등의 마킹 전략을 사용하지 못하는 불편함 때문에 점수가 낮아졌다고 인식하는 것으로 보고되고있다. 이는 수험자의 언어 능력이 아닌 평가가 실시되는 방식이 평가 결과에 결과를 미칠 가능성을 시사하므로 컴퓨터기반 평가의 구인 타당도를 확보하기 위해서는 마킹 전략의 사용 여부가 평가 결과에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구가필요하다. 컴퓨터와는 달리 테블릿의 경우 디지털 잉크 기능을 활용하여 밑줄을 긋거나 표시를 하는 디지털 펜 기능을 제공할 수 있기 때문에 본 연구에서는 마킹 전략이 가능한 테블릿기반 읽기 시험을 개발하여 마킹 기능 제시 여부가 평가 결과와 수험자의 인식에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 지필 평가 상황에서 수험자가 마킹 하는 정도를 알아보기 위해 사전검사로 실시한 지필검사에 수험자가 사용한 마킹의 정도를 분석한 결과 전체 시험의 20%정도 마킹한 것으로 드러나 평가 상황에서 수험자가 지문과 문항에 마킹하는 비율이 높지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 이어서 마킹이 허용된 태블릿 컴퓨터 집단 수험자가 지필평가와 테블릿 평가에 한 마킹의 정도에 차이가 없는 것으로 나타나 테블릿 읽기 평가 환경이 지필 평가와 유사한 평가 환경을 만들어 낸것으로 밝혀졌다. 마지막으로 마킹 허용 여부가 평가 결과에 미친 영향을 분석해 본 결과 마킹이 허용된 집단과 허용되지않은 집단의 평가 결과에 유의미한 차이는없는 것으로 드러났다.|Prior studies on computer-based reading tests reported that test-takers believed that their test performance was adversely affected because they were not able to employ marking strategies. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the marking function on test-takers’ performance and their perception in a computer-based reading test. The participants were 46 college students, and they were divided into an experimental group and a control groups. The analyses of the amount of marking on a paper-based reading test showed that the amount of marking was less than 20%. The results also revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of marking the experimental group made on the paper-based and the tablet-based tests, indicating that similar testing conditions had been created. Finally, the analysis of the participants’ performance on the tablet-based test showed that the provision of the marking function did not have any significant effects on the test scores.

영문초록

Prior studies on computer-based reading tests reported that test-takers believed that their test performance was adversely affected because they were not able to employ marking strategies. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the marking function on test-takers’ performance and their perception in a computer-based reading test. The participants were 46 college students, and they were divided into an experimental group and a control groups. The analyses of the amount of marking on a paper-based reading test showed that the amount of marking was less than 20%. The results also revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of marking the experimental group made on the paper-based and the tablet-based tests, indicating that similar testing conditions had been created. Finally, the analysis of the participants’ performance on the tablet-based test showed that the provision of the marking function did not have any significant effects on the test scores.

I. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 1
II. 이론적 배경 3
III. 연구 내용 및 방법 5
 1. 연구대상 5 
 2. 연구 도구 6
 3. 자료 분석 7
IV. 연구결과 8
 1. 사전검사 마킹 비율 8
 2. 시험 모드별 마킹 비율 분석 9
 3. 마킹 기능 허용 여부가 평가 결과에 미치는 영향 9
 4. 수험자 인식 10
IV. 결론 및 제언 12
Abstract 17

키워드

컴퓨터기반 읽기 평가 마킹 전략 구인 타당도 디지털 잉크 기술 computer-based reading test marking strategy construct validity digital ink technology

참고문헌 (41건)

고보라, 김남순(2009). 컴퓨터기반 TOEIC 시험에서의 영어 읽기 불안. 현대영어영문학, 53(1), 19-40.
노윤오(2011). 고등학생의 영어 독해력 측정을 위한 컴퓨터기반평가와 지필기반 평가 결과 비교. 석사학위논문. 한국교원대학교.
장진태, 이지헌(2010). 중학생 영어학습자의 상·하위권 수준별 독해전략. 교과교육학연구, 14(4), 737-758.
정현준(1999). 인터넷 학습을 활용한 영어 읽기 교수-학습 방안에 관한 연구. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning, 2(2), 207-244.
진수경(2005). 컴퓨터기반평가와 지필평가 수행 결과 비교: 한국 대학생의 영어 독해 평가 중심으로. 석사학위논문. 이화여자대학교.
천귀영(2002). 컴퓨터 활용 초등영어 듣기·읽기평가의 적용 가능성에 관한 연구. 석사학위논문. 서울교육대학교.
Alderson, C.(2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F.(1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A.(1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F.(2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language testing, 17(1), 1-42.
Boo, J.(1997). Computerized versus paper-and-pencil assessment of educational development: Score comparability and examinee preferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Bridgeman, B., Lennon, M. L., & Jackenthal, A.(2001). Effects of screen size, screen resolution, and display rate on computer-based test performance (ETS RR-01-23). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Chapelle, C. A.(2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. A.(2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Chapelle, C. A., & Douglas, D.(2006). Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, I-C., Kim, K-S., & Boo, J.(2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295-320.
Choi, S. W., & Tinkler, T.(2002). Evaluating comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer-based assessment in a K-12 setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
Cohen, A.(1984). On taking language tests: What the students report. Language Testing, 1, 70-81.
De Ridder, I.(2000). Are we conditioned to follow links? Highlights in CALL material and their impact on the reading process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 183-195.
Dillon, A.(1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.
Educational Testing Service.(1996). The Official Guide to the TOEFL Test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service.(2012). The Official Guide to the TOEFL® Test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Fulcher, G.(2003). Interface design in computer based language testing. Language Testing, 20(4), 384-408.
Higgins, J., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T.(2005). Examining the Effect of computer-based passage presentation on reading test performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(4), 4-35.
Khalifa, H., & Weir, C. J.(2009). Examining reading: Studies in language testing 29. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kobrin, J. L., & Young, J. W.(2003). The cognitive equivalence of reading comprehension test items via computerized and paper-and-pencil administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(2), 115-140.
Lee, H. W., & Lim, K. Y.(2013). Does digital handwriting of instructors using the iPad enhance student learning? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 241-245.
Lee, A. J., Moreno, E. K., & Sympson, J. B.(1986). The effects of mode of test administration on test performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(2), 467-474.
Lee, S. Y.(2004). A study on comparability on paper-based and computer-based reading test scores. English Teaching, 46, 239-268.
Leeson, H. V.(2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 1-24.
Ockey, G. J.(2007). Construct implications of including still image or video in computer-based listening tests. Language Testing, 24(4), 517-537.
Ockey, G. J.(2009). Developments and Challenges in the Use of Computer‐Based Testing for Assessing Second Language Ability. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 836-847.
O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A.(1997, March). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems(pp. 335-342). ACM.
Pino-Silva, J.(2008). Student perceptions of computerized tests. ELT Journal, 62(2), 148-156.
Pommerich, M., & Burden, T.(2000). From simulation to application: Examinees react to computerized testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
Pomplun, M., Frey, S., & Becker, D. F.(2002).The score equivalence of paper and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 337-354.
Rawson, R. E., & Quinlan, K. M.(2002). Evaluation of a computer-based approach to teaching acid/base physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(2), 85-97.
Siozos, P., Palaigeorgiou, G., Triantafyllakos, G., & Despotakis, T.(2009). Computer based testing using “digital ink”: Participatory design of a tablet PC based assessment application for secondary education. Computers & Education, 52(4), 811-819.
Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D., & Jamieson, J.(1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Testing, 49(2), 219-74.
Tseng, H-M., Tiplady, B., Macleod, H. A., & Wright, P.(1998). Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 599-610.
Willis, C. L., & Miertschin, L.(2004, October). Tablet PC's as instructional tools or the pen is mightier than the'board!. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Information technology education (pp. 153-159). ACM.

구매하기 (4,600)

장바구니

국문초록

영문초록

목차

키워드

참고문헌 (41건)