Advertisement

The Potential Use of the Flexilevel Test in Providing Personalised Mobile E-Assessments

  • Andrew PyperEmail author
  • Mariana Lilley
  • Paul Wernick
  • Amanda Jefferies
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9192)

Abstract

Sixteen students took a test that included a Flexilevel stage and a standard Computer Based Test (CBT) stage. The results were analysed using a Spearman’s Rank Order correlation and showed a significant positive correlation (rs = 0.58, p <=0.05). This was taken to provide support for the notion that it is possible to provide shorter Flexilevel objective tests that are as efficacious as CBTs. Implications that this finding may have for the use of the Flexilevel Test in mobile learning contexts is discussed.

Keywords

Flexilevel E-assessment Mobile assessment Computerised adaptive testing Mobile and/or ubiquitous learning Personalization Technology enhanced learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Baddeley, A.: Is Working Memory Still Working? Am. Psychol. 56, 849–864 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Betz, N.E., Weiss, D.J.; Empirical and simulation studies of flexilevel ability testing (Research Report 75-3) University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Minneapolis (1975)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordon, N. (2014). “Flexible Pedagogies: technology-enhanced learning.” Higher Education Academy, NIACE. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/TEL_report_0.pdf [last accessed 06/03/2015]
  4. 4.
    Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). “New technologies, new pedagogies: Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning.” Final report to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lilley, M., & Pyper, A. (2009). “The application of the flexilevel approach for the assessment of computer science undergraduates.” In Human-Computer Interaction. Interacting in Various Application Domains (pp. 140-148). Springer Berlin Heidelberg Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lord, F.M.: The self-scoring flexilevel test. J. Educ. Meas. 8, 147–151 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lord, F.M.: Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayer, R.E.: Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am. Psychol. 63(8), 760 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendoza, A. (2013). “Mobile user experience: patterns to make sense of it all.” Morgan Kaufmann Publishers IncGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Monsell, S.: Task switching. Trends in cognitive sciences 7(3), 134–140 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V. & Kuorelahti, J. (2005) “Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2005Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oviatt, S. (2006). “Human-centered design meets cognitive load theory: designing interfaces that help people think.” In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 871-880). ACM, 2006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pyper, A., & Lilley, M. (2010). “A comparison between the flexilevel and conventional approaches to objective testing.” In Proceedings of CAA 2010 International Conference, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pyper, A., Lilley, M., Wernick, P., Jefferies. A (2014) “A simulation of a Flexilevel test.” Paper presented at HEA STEM Annual Conference 2014, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sandy J. J. Gould, Anna L. Cox, Duncan P. Brumby (2013) “Frequency and Duration of Self-Initiated Task-Switching in an Online Investigation of Interrupted Performance Human Computation and Crowdsourcing: Works in Progress and Demonstration Abstracts” AAAI Technical Report CR-13-01Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sweller, J. (2010). “Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.” Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138. Multimedia learningGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Traxler, J.: Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: the moving finger writes and having writ. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 8(2) 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dawood, Mohammad, Fieseler, Michael, Büther, Florian, Jiang, X., Schäfers, Klaus P.: A Multi-resolution Optical Flow Based Approach to Respiratory Motion Correction in 3D PET/CT Images. In: Zhang, David (ed.) ICMB 2008. LNCS, vol. 4901, pp. 314–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ward, C.: Preparing and Using Objective Questions. Nelson Thornes Ltd, Cheltenham (1980)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weiss, D.J., Betz, N.E.: Ability Measurement: Conventional or Adaptive? (Research Report 75-3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Pyper
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mariana Lilley
    • 1
  • Paul Wernick
    • 1
  • Amanda Jefferies
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations