Advertisement

The Emergence of Large-Scale Computer Assisted Summative Examination Facilities in Higher Education

  • Silvester Draaijer
  • Bill Warburton
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 439)

Abstract

A case study is presented of VU University Amsterdam where a dedicated large-scale CAA examination facility was established. In the facility, 385 students can take an exam concurrently. The case study describes the change factors and processes leading up to the decision by the institution to establish the facility, the start-up of the facility, the foreseen optimization of the use of the facility, threats to the sustainability of the facility and possible future developments. Comparisons are made with large-scale CAA practice at the University of Southampton in the UK. The conclusions are that some specific coincidental situations may be needed to support the decision by senior management to establish such a facility. Long-term sustainability of the dedicated facility is expected to be dependent on the payment structure, the scheduling possibilities and on the educational and assessment benefits that can be achieved. Hybrid models of dedicated facilities and regular computer rooms for CAA seem likely to be adopted, thus balancing cost and benefits. The case shows that sustained effort in building up expertise and momentum are needed to result in viable and sustainable CAA exam facilities.

Keywords

e-Assessment CAA Computer-Assisted Assessment CBT Computer- Based Testing CBE. Exams Proctoring Inviligation Innovation in Higher Education Change Management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clauser, B., Schuwirth, L., Newble, D.: The use of computers in assessment. In: Int. Handb. Res. Med. Educ. (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warburton, W.: Quick win or slow burn: modelling UK HE CAA uptake. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 34, 257–272 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Draaijer, S., Parsons, R.: Transformatie en online toetsen. In: van Geloven, M.P., van der Wende, M.C., van der Veen, J. (eds.) Van Trend Naar Ttransformatie. ICT-Innovaties in Het Hoger Onderwijs, ch. 13. Wolters-Noordhoff (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jager, S.: Implementation of digital testing at the University of Groningen (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keijzer, M.: SURF: Casusbeschrijving: digitale toetsafname bij TU Delft (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mogey, N., Paterson, J., Burk, J., Purcell, M.: Typing compared with handwriting for essay examinations at university: letting the students choose. ALT-J 18, 29–47 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gunn, C.: Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J 18, 89–103 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fullan, M.: Change forces: The sequel (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kotter, J.P.: Winning at change. Lead. Lead. 27–33 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Noort, G., Willemsen, L.M.: Online damage control: The effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. J. Interact. Mark. 26, 131–140 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khazanchi, D., Reich, B.H.: Achieving IT project success through control, measurement, managing expectations, and top management support. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 699 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kopalle, P.K., Lehmann, D.R.: Strategic management of expectations: The role of disconfirmation sensitivity and perfectionism. J. Mark. Res. 38, 386–394 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartog, R., Draaijer, S., Rietveld, L.C.: Practical Aspects of Task Allocation in Design and Development of Digital Closed Questions in Higher Education. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 13 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoonenboom, J.: Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Comput. Educ. 71, 247–256 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eckert, P.: Communities of practice. ELL 2, 683–685 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of practice. Communities 22, 57 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warburton, W., Robinson, G.: Robust Delivery of CAA Exams. In: Whitelock, D., Warbuton, W., Wills, G., Gilbert, L. (eds.) CAA 2013 International Conference. University of Southampton (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shephard, K., Warburton, B., Maier, P., Warren, A.: Development and evaluation of computer-assisted assessment in higher education in relation to BS7988. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 31, 583–595 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dermo, J., Eyre, S.: Secure, reliable and effective institution-wide e-assessment: paving the way for new technologies. In: Presented at the CAA 2008 International Conference. University of Loughborough (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Kezar, A.: Understanding the Nature of Higher Education Organizations: Key to Successful Organizational Change. In: Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century, pp. 59–77 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miles, M.B.: Unraveling the Mystery of Institutionalization. Educ. Leadersh. 41, 14–19 (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewin, K.: Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change, pp. 238–244 (1961)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schein, E.H.: Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Syst. Pract. 9, 27–47 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvester Draaijer
    • 1
  • Bill Warburton
    • 2
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of SouthamptonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations