Qualifying with Different Types of Quizzes in an Online EFL course: Influences on Perceived Learning and Academic Achievement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i3.5894Keywords:
quiz types, online learning, EFL course, perceived learningAbstract
This quasi-experimental study explored how different online exam types differentiate learners’ academic achievement and perceived learning. The participants comprised 95 undergraduate students enrolled in an English course at a Turkish university in three groups, each taking a different type of quiz: with multiple-choice, open-ended, and mixed type questions. The results indicated that the academic achievement of the students in multiple-choice and open-ended groups increased and that quiz results improved the most for the multiple-choice group relative to the other groups. The study found a moderate level of significant relationship between cognitive and affective perceived learning and multiple-choice quiz scores. In addition, the study found a weak level of significant relationship between cognitive and affective perceived learning and mixed-design quiz scores, and between cognitive learning and the academic achievement scores of the mixed-design group. Semi-structured online interviews undertaken to further explain the quantitative data displayed positive influences of the different types of quizzes in terms of study behaviors and satisfaction. The findings of this study are expected to shed light for practitioners aiming to use different online assessment types.
References
Alharbi, A. S., & Meccawy, Z. (2020). Introducing Socrative as a tool for formative assessment in Saudi EFL classrooms. Arab World English Journal, 11(3), 372–384. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.23
Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i2.490
Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: Predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x
Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of ’students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID-19. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(3), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2020.73.285.292
Barbera, E., Clara, M., & Linder-Vanberschot, J. A. (2013). Factors influencing student satisfaction and perceived learning in online courses. E-learning and Digital Media, 10(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.3.226
Baturay, M. H. (2011). Relationships among sense of classroom community, perceived cognitive learning and satisfaction of students at an e-learning course. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494821003644029
Brown, G. T., & Wang, Z. (2013). Illustrating assessment: How Hong Kong university students conceive of the purposes of assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 1037–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.616955
Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011). Collaboration and psychological ownership: How does the tension between the two influence perceived learning?. Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9141-z
Çelik, B. (2020). An examination of presage, process and product dimensions in massive open online courses [Doctoral thesis, Middle East Technical University]. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/69117
Cole, A. W., Lennon, L., & Weber, N. L. (2021). Student perceptions of online active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619593
Cui, Y. (2021). Perceived learning outcomes and interaction mode matter: Students’ experience of taking online EFL courses during COVID-19. English Language Teaching, 14(6), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n6p84
Day, I. N., van Blankenstein, F. M., Westenberg, P. M., & Admiraal, W. F. (2018). Explaining individual student success using continuous assessment types and student characteristics. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(5), 937–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1466868
Dobbins, C., & Denton, P. (2017). MyWallMate: An investigation into the use of mobile technology in enhancing student engagement. TechTrends, 61(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0188-y
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6): 617-651. https://doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1449759
Elbasyouny, T. R. B. (2021). Enhancing Students’ Learning and Engagement through Formative Assessment using Online Learning Tools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. British University in Dubai. https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/1842
Fageeh, A. I. (2015). EFL student and faculty perceptions of and attitudes towards online testing in the medium of Blackboard: Promises and challenges. JALT CALL Journal, 11(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v11n1.183
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), n1. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103654.pdf
Holmes, N. (2015). Student perceptions of their learning and engagement in response to the use of a continuous e-assessment in an undergraduate module. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881978
Jakob, J. C., & Afdaliah, N. (2019). Using Oxford Smart Choice Multi-ROM to develop the students’ listening ability. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 4(1), 25–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/e.4.1.25-34
Jazil, S., Manggiasih, L. A., Firdaus, K., Chayani, P. M., & Rahmatika, S. N. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards the use of Google Forms as an online grammar assessment tool. In Proceedings of the International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICONELT 2019). Advances in social science, education and humanities research (pp. 166–169). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200427.033
Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12005
Kılıç, Z., & Çetin, S. (2018). Examination of students’ exam type preferences in terms of various variables. Elementary Education Online, 17 (2), 1051-1065. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.419353
Lin, C. H., Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 730-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12457
Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904271199
Ogange, B. O., Agak, J. O., Okelo, K. O., & Kiprotich, P. (2018). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of formative assessment in an online learning environment. Open Praxis, 10(1), 29–39. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.423669258504414
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in elearning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005
Pan , S. C., Cooke, J., Little, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Foster, E. R., Connor, L. T., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Online and clicker quizzing on jargon terms enhances definition-focused but not conceptually focused biology exam performance. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar54. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0248
Raes, A., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A longitudinal study to understand students’ acceptance of technological reform. When experiences exceed expectations. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09975-3
Rezaei, A. R. (2015). Frequent collaborative quiz taking and conceptual learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415589627
Rinaldi, V. D., Lorr, N. A., & Williams, K. (2017). Evaluating a technology supported interactive response system during the laboratory section of a histology course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1667
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2203
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002
Schneider, J. L., Ruder, S. M., & Bauer, C. F. (2018). Student perceptions of immediate feedback testing in student centered chemistry classes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00183E
Sek, Y. W., Law, C. Y., Liew, T. H., Hisham, S. B., Lau, S. H., & Pee, A. N. B. C. (2012). E-assessment as a self-test quiz tool: The setting features and formative use. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.192
Vayre, E., & Vonthron, A. M. (2019). Relational and psychological factors affecting exam participation and student achievement in online college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 43, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.07.001
Wilson, K., & Healy, T. (2016). Smart choice: Smart learning-on the page and on the move. Workbook with self-study listening. Starter Level. Oxford University Press.
Wongpornprateep, P., & Boonmoh, A. (2019). Students’ perceptions towards the use of VLE in a fundamental English course: A review of Smart Choice Online Practice and Smart Choice On the Move. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 14(2), 91–131. Retrieved from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jsel/article/view/200688
Yadollahi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2011). ICT use in EFL classes: A focus on EFL teachers’ characteristics. World of Journal of English Language, 1(2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v1n2p17
Yang, R. (2017). The use of questions in a synchronous intercultural online exchange project. ReCALL, 30(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000210
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
