A QUALITATIVE META-ANALYSIS OF ONLINE ASSESSMENTBY: BRODY MORRISON

Steps of Meta-Analysis

1: Identification of theme using 20 open and subscription journals.

2: Identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3: Identification of 15 articles related to the theme.

Steps of Meta-Analysis

4: A synthesis of studies was conducted in terms of: Purposes Frameworks Methods Findings Conclusions Implications

Methods of Analysis 2Studies (Alphabetical)

Open/ Subscription

Journal Title

Akdemir, Ayse, and Oguz (2008) Subscription

Journal of Distance Education

Ashton, Beever, Korabinki, and Youngson (2005)

SubscriptionBritish Journal of Educational

Technology

Bocij and Greasley (1999) OpenInternational Journal of Educational

Technology

Byrnes and Ellis (2006) OpenAustralasian Journal of Educational

Technology

Chang and Tseng (2009) SubscriptionBritish Journal of Educational

TechnologyEonomides. A. Anastasios (2009)

Subscription Computers in the Schools

Gaytan and McEwen (2007)

SubscriptionThe American Journal of Distance

EducationGulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner (2004)

SubscriptionEducational Technology Research

and DevelopmentHeo and Chow (2005) Open Educational Technology and SocietyJian and Hamp-Lyons (2006)

Subscription Open Learning

Kalyuga and Sweller (2005)

SubscriptionEducational Technology Research

and DevelopmentSiozos, Palaigeorgiou, and Triantafyllakos (2009)

Subscription Computers and Education

Walker, Topping, and Rodrigues (2007)

Subscription Learning Media and Technology

Wong, W., and Yeung (2001)

SubscriptionInnovations in Education and

Teaching InternationalÖzden, Ertürk, and Sanli (2004)

Open Journal of Distance Education

Methods

The majority of the studies were conducted in post-secondary education with three in secondary and the intermediate level.

Of the studies: 40% quantitative 26% qualitative 33% mixed method

Studies (Alphabetical) Education Level Method

Akdemir, Ayse, and Oguz (2008) Post-secondary QuantitativeAshton, Beever, Korabinki, and Youngson (2005)

Post-secondary Qualitative

Bocij and Greasley (1999) Post-secondary Mixed Method

Byrnes and Ellis (2006) Post-secondary Quantitative

Chang and Tseng (2009) Intermediate Quantitative

Eonomides. A. Anastasios (2009) Post-secondary Quantitative

Gaytan and McEwen (2007) Post-secondary Quantitative

Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner (2004)

Post-secondary Qualitative

Heo and Chow (2005) Post-secondary Mixed Method

Jian and Hamp-Lyons (2006) Post-secondary Qualitative

Kalyuga and Sweller (2005) Secondary Quantitative

Siozos, Palaigeorgiou, and Triantafyllakos (2009)

Secondary Mixed Method

Walker, Topping, and Rodrigues (2007)

Post-secondary Qualitative

Wong, W., and Yeung (2001) Post-secondary Mixed Method

Özden, Ertürk, and Sanli (2004) Post-secondary Mixed Method

Findings

Purposes Frameworks Methods Findings Conclusions Implications

References Num

Study

1 Akdemir, Omur., Ayse, Oguz, Ayse. (2008). Computer-based testing: An alternative for assessment of Turkish undergraduate students. Computers and Education, 51, 1198-1204.

2 Ashton, S. H., Beever, E. C., Korabinki, A. A., and Youngson, A. Martin. (2005). Investing the medium effect in computer-aided assessment of school Chemistry and college Computing national examinations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 771-787.

3 Bocij, Paul, Greasley, Andrew. (1999). Can computer-based testing achieve quality and efficiency in assessment? International Journal of Educational Technology 1(1). Retrieved February 10th, 2010, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ijet/v1n1/bocij/

4 Byrnes, Rod., Ellis, Allan. (2006). The prevalence and characteristics of online assessment in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 104-125.

5 Chang, Chi-Cheng, Tseng, Kuo-hung. (2009). Use and performances of Web-based portfolio assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (2), 358-370.

6 Eonomides, A. Anastasios. (2009). Conative Feedback in Computer-based Assessment. Computers in the Schools 26, 207-223.

7 Gaytan, Jorge, McEwen, C. Berly. (2007). Effective Online Instructional Assessment Strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.

8 Gulikers, T.M. J., Bastiaens, J. T., Kirschner, A. P. (2004). A Five-Dimensional Framework for Authentic Assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 1042-1629.

ReferencesNum

Study

9 Heo, Misook, Chow, Anothony. (2005). The Impact of Computer Augmented Online Learning and Assessment Tool. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 113-125.

10 Jian, Niu, Hamp-Lyons, Liz. (2006). Progress assessment in Chinesedistance education: the voices of learners. Open Learning, 21(2), 111-123.

11 Kalyuga, Slava, Sweller, John. (2005). Rapid Dynamic Assessment of Expertise to Improve the Efficiency of Adaptive E-learning. Educational technology research and development, 53(3), 1042-1629.

12 Siozos, P., Palaigeorgiou, G. T., Triantafyllakos, T. D. (2009). Computer based testing using “digital ink”: Paritipatory design of a Tablet PC based assessment application for secondary education. Computers and Education, 52, 811-819.

13 Walker, J. David., Topping, Keith., Rodrigues, Susan. (2007). Student reflections on formative e-assessment: expectations and perceptions. Learning Media and Technology, 33(3), 221-234.

14 Wong, K. C., Wong. W., Yeung, H. C. (2001). Student Behaviour and Performance in Using a Web-Based Assessment System. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(4), 339-346.

15 Özden, M. Y., Ertürk, I., Sanli, Reflik. (2004) Students’ Perceptions of Online Assessment: A Case Study. Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 77-92.