Assessing Psychology Student Applied Knowledge of Statistics via Open-book Multiple Choice Online Exams
References
- Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861–876. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1391
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
- Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. (Second edition).
- Carnegie Mellon University. (2023). Open Learning Initiative, Carnegie Mellon.
https://oli.cmu.edu - Daffin, L. W., & Jones, A. A. (2018). Comparing student performance on proctored and non-proctored exams in online psychology courses. Online Learning, 22(1), 131–145.
- Duffy, C., & Sas, N. (2020). Australia’s university sector hit by job losses, fall in international students and Federal Government reform — so what’s next? ABC News.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12654828 - Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 49(4), 471–485. DOI: 10.1177/1440783313504059
- Goedl, P. A., & Malla, G. B. (2020). A Study of Grade Equivalency between Proctored and Unproctored Exams in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(4), 280–289. DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2020.1796376
- Griffith, J. D., Adams, L. T., Gu, L. L., Hart, C. L., & Nichols-Whitehead, P. (2012). Students’ attitudes toward statistics across the disciplines: A mixed-methods approach. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2), 45. DOI: 10.52041/serj.v11i2.328
- Harmon, O. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2010). Are online exams an invitation to cheat? The Journal of Economic Education, 39(2), 116–125. DOI: 10.3200/JECE.39.2.116-125
- Hift, R. J. (2014). Should essays and other “open-ended”-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine? BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 249–249. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2
- Jensen, S. A. (2011). In-class versus online video lectures. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 298–302. DOI: 10.1177/0098628311421336
- Johanns, B., Dinkens, A., & Moore, J. (2017). A systematic review comparing open-book and closed-book examinations: Evaluating effects on development of critical thinking skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 27, 89–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2017.08.018
- Lukhele, R., Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (1994). On the relative value of multiple-choice, constructed response, and examinee-selected items on two achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 234–250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1994.tb00445.x
- Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X018002005
- Milone, A. S., Cortese, A. M., Balestrieri, R. L., & Pittenger, A. L. (2017). The impact of proctored online exams on the educational experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 108–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.037
- Myyry, L., & Joutsenvirta, T. (2015). Open-book, open-web online examinations: Developing examination practices to support university students’ learning and self-efficacy. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 119–132. DOI: 10.1177/1469787415574053
- Nielsen, P. L., Bean, N. W., & Larsen, R. A. A. (2018). The impact of a flipped classroom model of learning on a large undergraduate statistics class. Statistics Education Research Journal, 17(1), 121.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A541103811/AONE?u=unisa&sid=AONE&xid=90bb761e . DOI: 10.52041/serj.v17i1.179 - Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Wilson, V. A. (2003). Statistics Anxiety: Nature, etiology, antecedents, effects, and treatments--a comprehensive review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 195–209. DOI: 10.1080/1356251032000052447
- Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–40. DOI: 10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x
- Schmidt, S. M. P., Ralph, D. L., & Buskirk, B. (2009). Utilizing online exams: A case study. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 6(8), 1–8. DOI: 10.19030/tlc.v6i8.1108
- Stowell, J. R. (2015). Online open-book testing in face-to-face classes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 7–13. DOI: 10.1037/stl0000014
- Tu, W., & Snyder, M. (2017). Developing conceptual understanding in a statistics course: Merrill’s First Principles and real data at work. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 579–595.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/45018569 . DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9482-1 - Theophilides, C., & Koutselini, M. (2000). Study Behavior in the closed-book and the open-book examination: A comparative analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(4), 379–393. DOI: 10.1076/edre.6.4.379.6932
- Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002
- Williams, J. B., & Wong, A. (2009). The efficacy of final examinations: A comparative study of closed-book, invigilated exams and open-book, open-web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 227–236. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00929.x
- Winquist, J. R., & Carlson, K. A. (2014). Flipped statistics class results: Better performance than lecture over one year later. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(3), 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/10691898.2014.11889717
DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.211 | Journal eISSN: 2001-7480
Language: English
Page range: 58 - 69
Submitted on: Apr 1, 2022
Accepted on: Aug 3, 2023
Published on: Aug 16, 2023
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
© 2023 Sarven Savia McLinton, Sharon Elizabeth Wells, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.