Advertisement

The Eighth Validation Study: The Effects of Key Demographic Variables on Markers’ Perceived Ease of Use and Acceptance of Onscreen Marking

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides an account of the penultimate study described in this book. The study aimed to investigate the effects of three key demographic factors: the language of marking; gender; and age on marker reactions to onscreen marking. A total of 1743 markers completed a post-marking questionnaire consisting of two previously validated scales, i.e., Ease of Use in the OSM Environment and Acceptance of OSM scales. Rasch analysis results showed that the two scales had good psychometric properties. Markers generally reported finding the system easy to use and showed positive acceptance of OSM. Markers marking in both English and Chinese had higher perceived ease of use and acceptance than markers who marked only in English or only in Chinese. Gender also had a significant impact on markers’ responses to the two scales – favouring males. Age was not a significant factor in influencing markers’ perceived ease of use but slightly surprisingly, older markers revealed a significantly higher level of acceptance than younger markers.

References

  1. Ahmad, T. B. T., Madarsha, K. B., Zainuddin, A. M., Ismail, N. A. H., & Nordin, M. S. (2010). Faculty’s acceptance of computer based technology: Cross-validation of an extended model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 268–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anshel, M. H., Weatherby, N. L., Kang, M., & Watson, T. (2009). Rasch calibration of a unidimensional perfectionism inventory for sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Broos, A. (2005). Gender and information and communication technologies (IT) anxiety: Male self assurance and female hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 8(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, C.-H., & Chien, Y.-H. (2005). Effect of dynamic display and speed of display movement on reading Chinese text presented on a small screen. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 865–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coniam, D. (2009a). A comparison of onscreen and paper-based marking in the Hong Kong public examination system. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coniam, D. (2009b). Discrepancy essays: Natural phenomenon or problem to be solved? Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 14(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
  8. Coniam, D. (2011). A qualitative examination of the attitudes of liberal studies markers towards onscreen marking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1042–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coniam, D. (2013). The increasing acceptance of onscreen marking – The ‘tablet computer’ effect. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 119–129.Google Scholar
  10. Coniam, D., & Yeung, A. (2010). Markers’ perceptions regarding the onscreen marking of liberal studies in the Hong Kong public examination system. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(3), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elder, C., Knoch, U., Barkhuizen, G., & von Randow, J. (2007). Individual feedback to enhance rater training: Does it work? Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 2(3), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2008, 24(1), 108–122.Google Scholar
  13. Linacre, J. M. (1997). Communicating examinee measures as expected ratings. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(1), 550–551. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt111m.htm.Google Scholar
  14. Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
  15. Linacre, J. M. (2006). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS/MINISTEP: Rasch-model computer programs. Chicago: Winsteps.com.Google Scholar
  16. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2008). Gender differences in the online reading environment. Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright.Google Scholar
  20. Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C., Cave, K., & Well, A. (2007). Eye movements during information processing tasks: Individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Research, 47(21), 2714–2726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sam, H. K., Othman, A. E. A., & Nordin, Z. S. (2005). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 205–219.Google Scholar
  22. Sieverding, M., & Koch, S. C. (2009). (Self-)Evaluation of computer competence: How gender matters. Computers & Education, 52, 696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sun, F. C., Morita, M., & Stark, L. W. (1985). Comparative patterns of reading eye movement in Chinese and English. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 502–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suto, I., Nadas, R., & Bell, J. (2011). Who should mark what? A study of factors affecting marking accuracy in a biology examination. Research Papers in Education, 26(1), 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suri, S. (2003). Attitudinal barriers amongst teachers in distance teaching institutions of India, Paper presented at the Forum on ICTs and Gender: Optimizing Opportunities, Kuala Lumpur, 20–23 August.Google Scholar
  26. Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsai, J. L., & McConkie, G. W. (2003). Where do Chinese readers send their eyes? In J. Huona, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 159–176). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3.Google Scholar
  29. Yan, Z., & Coniam, D. (2013). Assessing the ease of use in the environment and markers’ acceptance of onscreen marking: A Rasch measurement perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(5), 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yan, Z., & Coniam, D. (2014). The effects of key demographic variables on markers’ perceived ease of use and acceptance of onscreen marking. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yen, N.-S., Tsai, J.-L., Chen, P.-L., Lin, H.-Y., & Chen, A. L. P. (2011). Effects of typographic variables on eye-movement measures in reading Chinese from a screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30, 797–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zarrett, N. R., & Malanchuk, O. (2005). Who’s computing? Gender and race differences in young adults’ decisions to pursue an information technology career. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionThe Education University of Hong KongTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations