Zilles, C., & Deloatch, R. T., & Bailey, J., & Khattar, B. B., & Fagen-Ulmschneider, W., & Heeren, C., & Mussulman, D., & West, M. (2015, June), Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23726

\bibitem{asee_peer_23726}
  Zilles, C., \& Deloatch, R. T., \& Bailey, J., \& Khattar, B. B., \& Fagen-Ulmschneider, W., \& Heeren, C., \& Mussulman, D., \& West, M. (2015, June), \emph{Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.23726

Craig Zilles, Robert Timothy Deloatch, Jacob Bailey, Bhuwan B. Khattar, Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider, Cinda Heeren, David Mussulman, and Matthew West.  "Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/23726 Internet.  04 Feb, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_23726}
  Craig Zilles, Robert Timothy Deloatch, Jacob Bailey, Bhuwan B. Khattar, Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider, Cinda Heeren, David Mussulman, and Matthew West.
  "Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/23726 Internet.  04 Feb, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_23726
author = "Craig Zilles, Robert Timothy Deloatch, Jacob Bailey, Bhuwan B. Khattar, Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider, Cinda Heeren, David Mussulman, and Matthew West"
title = "Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/23726}
number = {10.18260/p.23726}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences    In a large (200+ students) class, running exams is a logistical nightmare. Such examsrequire conflict exams and figuring out how to address the full range of Bloom’s taxonomylearning goals in a manner that can be efficiently graded to give quick student feedback.Typically, these exam hassles lead instructors to have a few, large, multiple-choice intenseexams, which can be suboptimal for student learning.    In this paper, we pursue a different vision, enabled by making a computer a central part ofthe testing process. We envision a computerized testing center, proctored 60-80 hours/week.When a course assigns a (computerized) exam, the professor specifies a range of days for theexam and the student reserves a time of their convenience. When the student arrives, theyare ushered to a machine that has been booted into the specified exam configuration (manydifferent exams are being run in the testing center concurrently). The student logs in andis ushered through their exam. Each exam consists of a random selection of parameterizedproblems meeting coverage and difficulty criteria, so each exam is different. The networkingon the machine is configured to prevent unauthorized communication. The system displaysand controls the remaining time for the exam.    We see two main advantages of this approach. First, we centralize all of the hasslesof running exams, so course staff no longer have to manage the scheduling, staffing, andpaper shuffling of running exams. As such, we drastically lower the effort of running exams,making more frequent, lower stakes testing and second chance testing practical.    Second, we greatly broaden the kinds of questions that can be machine graded. Mostlarge classes rely at least partially on scantrons for automation, but many of the questionsthat we want to ask aren’t multiple choice. With a computer involved, you can ask (andauto-grade) any question that can be objectively scored; you can ask students to designcircuits, do graphical problems like drawing acceleration vectors, write code, write equations,draw force diagrams, align genetic sequences, etc. Furthermore, as modern engineering ispracticed in a heavily computer-supported environment, we can have them use industrystandard software to solve design and analysis problems. This is particularly compelling inprogramming classes, where students can compile, test, and debug their problems beforesubmitting them for grading.    In this paper, we’ll describe our experiences with a prototype computerized testing laband running all of a 200-student computer organization class’s exams using computerizedtesting. We’ll discuss the mechanics of operating the testing lab, the work required by theinstructor to enable this approach (e.g., generating a diversity of equivalent difficulty prob-lems), and the student response, which has been strongly positive: 75% prefer computerizedtesting, 12% prefer traditional written exams, and 13% had no preference.
AU  - Craig Zilles
AU  - Robert Timothy Deloatch
AU  - Jacob Bailey
AU  - Bhuwan B. Khattar
AU  - Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider
AU  - Cinda Heeren
AU  - David Mussulman
AU  - Matthew West
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Computerized Testing: A Vision and Initial Experiences
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/23726
DO  - 10.18260/p.23726
ER  -