La evaluación universitaria en el marco de las Tecnologías de la Información

Asuaga, Carolina and Golpe, Ana and Hochsztain, Esther (2012): La evaluación universitaria en el marco de las Tecnologías de la Información. Published in: III Jornadas de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración (November 2012)

Abstract

The changes that have occurred because of the possibility of accessing the technologies of information includes the teaching-learning processes.

The objective of this work is to show a project to carry out assessment using the Moodle platform, with the implementation of a pilot plan in the first half of 2013.

Methodologically, the paper starts with a literature review about the computer-based assessment systems (CBA), then its describe the characteristics of the questionnaires on the Moodle platform.

Finally, the project object of the work is presented and an example of the results in July 2012, consisting of the design of an assessment in Cost Management.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: The university computer based assessment and the thecnology
• Language: Spanish
• Keywords: CBA; Tecnology; multiple choice; múltiple opción; moodle
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics > A20 - General; A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics > A22 - Undergraduate

References

Bugbee, A. C. (1996): “The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing” Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-299.

Budiño, G. (2011). Gestión de comunidades virtuales. Revista Quantum 6(1), 4-11.

Buzetto-More, N., & Alade, A. (2006): “Best practices in e-assessment.” Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 251-269.

Cagiltay, N et al (2010): “How can we get benefits of computer-based testing in engineering education?” Computer applications in Engineering education. Publicado en línea en Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com)

Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). “Assessment, technology, and change”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309-328.

Deutsch, T et al (2012): “Implementing based assessment - A web-based mock examination changes attitudes” Computers & Education. Volume 58, Issue 4, 1068–1075

Develin, M (2003): Advice on online assessment. en Assessing learning in Australian universities: ideas, strategies and resources for quality in student assessment. Ed. James, M et al. Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Melbourne.

Dorup J (2004): “Experience and attitudes towards information technology among first-year medical students in Denmark: longitudinal questionnaire survey” J Med Internet Res 6:e10

Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1993). “How many options is enough for a multiplechoice item?” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 999–1010.

Haladyna, T. M. (2004): Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Gretes, J.A., & Green, M. (2000). “Improving undergraduate learning with computer-assisted assessment” Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (1), 46-54.

Hochlehnert, A et al (2011): “Does Medical Students' Preference of Test Format (Computerbased vs. Paper-based) have an Influence on Performance?” BMC Medical Education 11:89

James W et al (2010): “Perspectives on the Integration of Technology and Assessment” Journal of Research on Technology in Education Volume 43 Number 2 119–134

Kalogeropoulos , N et al (2011): “Computer-based assessment of student performance in programing courses· Computer applications in Engineering education. Publicado en línea en Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com);

Mitkov, R & Karamanis, N (2006): “A computer-aided environment for generating multiple-choice test items”. Natural Language Engineering: Special Issue on using NLP for Educational Applications, 12(2):177–194, Llorens, F., & Calderón, J. J. (2012). El bazar de los locos: the Twitter experience

Morrison S, Free K.(2001): “Writing multiple-choice test items that pro mote and measure critical thinking.”J Nurs Educator. 40:17-24

Moreno, R et al (2004): “Directrices para la construcción de ítems de elección múltiple” Psicothema. Vol. 16, nº 3, 490-49

Rodés, V., Pintos, G., Pérez, A., Correa, N., Budiño, G., Peré, N. & Dos Santos, S. (2009). Análisis de procesos de cambio tecnológico y organizacional para la integración de TIC en la Universidad de la República. XIII Congreso Internacional de Educación a Distancia. Cread–Udec/Mercosur/Sul, Concepción, Chile.

Rodríguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 24,3-13.

Terzis, V & Economides, A (2011): “The acceptance and use of computer based assessment”. Computers & Education. Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 1032–1044

Toki, I. & Caukill, M. (2003). Prevalence of online assessment? Causative factors. Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 1(2).

Uruguay, M (2012): Informe MoodleMoot Uruguay 2012 http://es.calameo.com/read/001745121a25b3393d399