Paper or Silicon: Assessing Student Understanding in a Computer-based Testing Environment Using PrairieLearn

Jamal Ardister; Geoffrey Recktenwald; Sara Roccabianca

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: June 26, 2024
Conference Session: Unique Pedagogies for Mechanics Education
Tagged Division: Mechanics Division (MECHS)
Page Count: 17
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--47828
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/47828
Download Count: 53

Geoff Recktenwald is a member of the teaching faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan State University. Geoff holds a PhD in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from Cornell University and Bachelor degrees in Mechanical Engineering

visit author page

biography

Sara Roccabianca Michigan State University orcid.org/0000-0002-7742-9062

visit author page

Sara Roccabianca is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU). She was born and raised in Verona, Italy and received her B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Trento, Italy. S

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Computer-based testing is a powerful tool for scaling exams in large lecture classes. The decision to adopt computer-based testing is typically framed as a tradeoff in terms of time; time saved by auto-grading is reallocated as time spent developing problem pools, but with significant time savings. This paper seeks to examine the tradeoff in terms of accuracy in measuring student understanding. While some exams (e.g., multiple choice) are readily portable to a computer-based format, adequately porting other exam types (e.g., drawings like FBDs or worked problems) can be challenging. A key component of this challenge is to ask “What is the exam actually able to measure?” In this paper the authors will provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of student understanding measurements via computer-based testing in a sophomore level Solid Mechanics course. At Michigan State University, Solid Mechanics is taught using the SMART methodology. SMART stands for Supported Mastery Assessment through Repeated Testing. In a typical semester, students are given 5 exams that test their understanding of the material. Each exam is graded using the SMART rubric which awards full points for the correct answer, some percentage for non-conceptual errors, and zero points for a solution that has a conceptual error. Every exam is divided into four sections; concept, simple, average, and challenge. Each exam has at least one retake opportunity, for a total of 10 written tests. In the current study, students representing 10% of the class took half of each exam in Prairie Learn, a computer-based auto-grading platform. During this exam, students were given instant feedback on submitted answers (correct or incorrect) and given an opportunity to identify their mistakes and resubmit their work. Students were provided with scratch paper to set up the problem and work out solutions. After the exam, the paper-based work was compared with the computer submitted answers. This paper examines what types of mistakes (conceptual and non-conceptual) students were able to correct when feedback was provided. The answer is dependent on the type and difficulty of the problem. The analysis also examines whether students taking the computer-based test performed at the same level as their peers who took the paper-based exams. Additionally, student feedback is provided and discussed.

Citation
Format

Ardister, J., & Recktenwald, G., & Roccabianca, S. (2024, June), Paper or Silicon: Assessing Student Understanding in a Computer-based Testing Environment Using PrairieLearn Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--47828

TY - CPAPER
AB - Computer-based testing is a powerful tool for scaling exams in large lecture classes. The decision to adopt computer-based testing is typically framed as a tradeoff in terms of time; time saved by auto-grading is reallocated as time spent developing problem pools, but with significant time savings. This paper seeks to examine the tradeoff in terms of accuracy in measuring student understanding.
While some exams (e.g., multiple choice) are readily portable to a computer-based format, adequately porting other exam types (e.g., drawings like FBDs or worked problems) can be challenging. A key component of this challenge is to ask “What is the exam actually able to measure?” In this paper the authors will provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of student understanding measurements via computer-based testing in a sophomore level Solid Mechanics course.
At Michigan State University, Solid Mechanics is taught using the SMART methodology. SMART stands for Supported Mastery Assessment through Repeated Testing. In a typical semester, students are given 5 exams that test their understanding of the material. Each exam is graded using the SMART rubric which awards full points for the correct answer, some percentage for non-conceptual errors, and zero points for a solution that has a conceptual error. Every exam is divided into four sections; concept, simple, average, and challenge. Each exam has at least one retake opportunity, for a total of 10 written tests.
In the current study, students representing 10% of the class took half of each exam in Prairie Learn, a computer-based auto-grading platform. During this exam, students were given instant feedback on submitted answers (correct or incorrect) and given an opportunity to identify their mistakes and resubmit their work. Students were provided with scratch paper to set up the problem and work out solutions. After the exam, the paper-based work was compared with the computer submitted answers.
This paper examines what types of mistakes (conceptual and non-conceptual) students were able to correct when feedback was provided. The answer is dependent on the type and difficulty of the problem. The analysis also examines whether students taking the computer-based test performed at the same level as their peers who took the paper-based exams. Additionally, student feedback is provided and discussed.
AU - Jamal Ardister
AU - Geoffrey Recktenwald
AU - Sara Roccabianca
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Paper or Silicon: Assessing Student Understanding in a Computer-based Testing Environment Using PrairieLearn
UR - https://peer.asee.org/47828
DO - 10.18260/1-2--47828
ER -