Effects of Response Mode and Time Allotment on College Students' Writing

References

• Arnold, V., Legas, J., Obler, S., Pacheco, M. A., Russell, C., & Umbdenstock, L. (1990). Do students get higher scores on their word-processed papers? A study of bias in scoring hand-written vs. word-processed papers. Whittier, CA: Rio Hondo College. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED 345818).
   Google Scholar
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, J. N., & Cizek, G. J. (2006). Effects of composition mode and self-perceived computer skills on essay scores of sixth graders. Assessing Writing, 11, 148–166.
   Google Scholar
• Conlan, G. (1986). “Objective” measures of writing ability. In K. L. Greenberg, H. S. Wiener, & R. A. Donavan (Eds.), Writing assessment: Issues and strategies (pp. 109–125). New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, L., Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2004). Writing performance assessments: How important is extended time? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 132–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1), 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, S. N., & Marquart, A. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary school students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 5–27.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound testing accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174–181.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1–51.
   Google Scholar
• Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of Written Language. (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, G., & Gosden, R. (2004). Fair play for students with disability. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 225–238.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, E. A. (1994). Defining essential writing skills for college graduates. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Konur, O. (2002). Assessment of disabled students in higher education: Current public policy issues. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 131–152.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowski, L., Lovett, B. J., Parolin, R., Gordon, M., & Codding, R. S. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 17–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, R. L., & Miller, M. D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching. (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., & Sireci, S. G. (2007). Validity issues in test speededness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(4), 29–37.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 248–262). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• MacCann, R., Eastment, B., & Pickering, S. (2002). Responding to free examination questions: Computer versus pen and paper. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 173–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattern, K., Camara, W., & Kobrin, J. L. (2007). SAT Writing: An overview of research and psychometrics to date (Research Note RN-32). New York: College Board.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, R. P. (2003). Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. Edison, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93–120.
   Google Scholar
• Powers, D. E. (2005). “Wordiness”: A selective review of its influence, and suggestions for investigating its relevance in tests requiring extended written responses (ETS Research Memorandum RM-04–08). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Powers, D. E., & Fowles, M. E. (1996). Effects of applying different time limits to a proposed GRE writing test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 433–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers, D. E., Fowles, M. E., Farnum, M., & Ramsey, P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 220–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retrieved January 28, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3). Retrieved January 28, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html.
   Google Scholar
• Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education. (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (NCEO Technical Report No. 42). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Truell, A. D., Alexander, M. W., & Davis, R. E. (2004). Comparing postsecondary marketing student performance on computer-based and handwritten essay tests. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20, 69–78.
   Google Scholar
• Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13 (1), 99–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar