Effects of test media on different EFL test-takers in writing scores and in the cognitive writing process

References

• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Breland, H., Lee, Y.-W., & Muraki, E. (2005). Comparability of TOEFL CBT essay prompts: Response-mode analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 577–595.10.1177/0013164404272504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridgeman, B., & Cooper, P. (1998, April). Comparability of scores on word-processed and handwritten essays on the graduate management admissions test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Bridwell, L. S., Sirc, G., & Brooke, R. (1985). Revising and computing: Case studies of student writers. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 172–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J., White, S., McCloskey, M., Soroui, J., & Chun, Y. (2011). Effects of computer versus paper administration of an adult functional writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 16, 49–71.10.1016/j.asw.2010.11.001
   Google Scholar
• Chen, K. T. (2012). Elementary EFL teachers’ computer phobia and computer self-efficacy in Taiwan. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.tojot.net/articles/v11i2/11210.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chua, Y. P., & Don, Z. M. (2013). Effects of computer-based educational achievement test on test performance and test takers’ motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1889–1895.10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flower, L., & Hayes, R. J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.10.2307/356600
   Google Scholar
• Fulcher, G. (1999). Computerizing an English language placement test. ELT Journal, 53, 289–299.10.1093/elt/53.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Gao, B. L. (2007). A comparative study of COPT and DOPT. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 2, 73–76.
   Google Scholar
• Genc, H. (2012). An evaluation study of a CALL application: With BELT or without BELT. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 44–54.
   Web of Science ®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, 2–51.
   Google Scholar
• Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 39–57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• He, Q., & Tymms, P. (2005). A computer-assisted test design and diagnosis system for use by classroom teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 419–429.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00148.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org
   Google Scholar
• Hsiao, H.-C., Tu, Y.-L., & Chung, H.-N. (2012). Perceived social supports, computer self-efficacy, and computer use among high school students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 167–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imhof, M., Vollmeyer, R., & Beierlein, C. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2823–2837.10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, Y., & Wu, J. (2010). A preliminary study of the validity of the Internet-based CET: Factors affecting test-takers’ perception of and performance on the test. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 2, 3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers’ performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9, 4–26.10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-J. (2002). A comparison of composing processes and written products in timed-essay tests across paper-and-pencil and computer modes. Assessing Writing, 8, 135–157.10.1016/S1075-2935(03)00003-5
   Google Scholar
• Leeson, H. V. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 1–24.10.1207/s15327574ijt0601_1
   Google Scholar
• Li, Q. H. (2006). Equivalence studies of paper-and-pencil based language testing and computer based language testing: A survey. Foreign Language World, 4, 73–78.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Q. H., & Kong, W. (2009). Computer-based language testing and its validation. Foreign Language World, 3, 66–72.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A. (1988). The impact of computers on the writing process. Exceptional Children, 54, 536–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCann, R., Eastment, B., & Pickering, S. (2002). Responding to free response examination questions: Computer versus pen and paper. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 173–188.10.1111/bjet.2002.33.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCutchen, D. (1986). Doman knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.10.1016/0749-596X(86)90036-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, A. S. (2002). The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessments. Computers & Education, 39, 299–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuwirth, C. M. (1990). Does word processing improve students’ writing? A critical appraisal and assessment. (Final Report to FIPSE). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED329994.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, J. T., Pauli, R., & Bray, D. E. (2007). Mood change and computer anxiety: A comparison between computerised and paper measures of negative affect. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2875–2887.10.1016/j.chb.2006.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA computer-based assessment of student skills in science. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda
   Google Scholar
• Owston, R. D., Murphy, S., & Wideman, H. H. (1992). The effects of word processing on students’ writing quality and revision strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 249–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaw, C. Y. (2012). Replacing paper-based testing with computer-based testing in assessment: Are we doing wrong? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 655–664.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.077
   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 Education Measurement, 31, 220–233.10.1111/jedm.1994.31.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohman, D. G. (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16, 106–112.10.2307/354885
   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), 1–47. Retrieved 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. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2000). Effects of computer versus paper administration of a state-mandated writing assessment. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/PDF/ComputerVsPaperStateWriting.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Tao, W. (2004a). Effects of handwriting and computer-print on composition scores: A follow-up to Powers, Fowles, Farnum, & Ramsey. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(1). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=1
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Tao, W. (2004b). The influence of computer-print on rater scores. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(10). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=10
   Google Scholar
• Scheuermann, F., & Pereira, A. G. (2008). Towards a research agenda on computer-based assessment: Challenges and needs for European Educational Measurement ( JRC Scientific and Technical Reports). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–388.10.2307/356588
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Y. C. (2007). A contrast analysis and study of anxiety in test of spoken English between computer-aided and traditional form. Journal of Changchun Normal University ( Humanities and Social Sciences), 4, 23–26.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C., Jamieson, J., Eignor, D., & Kirsch, I. (1998). The relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based TOEFL test tasks ( TOEFL Research Reports 61: ETS Research Report 98–8). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D., & Jamieson, J. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Learning, 49, 219–274.10.1111/lang.1999.49.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vispoel, W. P., Rocklin, T. R., & Wang, T. (1994). Individual differences and test administration procedures: A comparison of fixed-item, computerized-adaptive, and self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 53–79.10.1207/s15324818ame0701_5
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C., O’Sullivan, B., Jin, Y., & Bax, S. (2007). Does the computer make a difference? The reaction of candidates to a computer-based versus a traditional hand-written form of the IELTS writing component: Effects and impact. IELTS Research Reports, 7, 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Whithaus, C., Harrison, S. B., & Midyette, J. (2008). Keyboarding compared with handwriting on a high-stakes writing assessment: Student choice of composing medium, raters’ perceptions, and text quality. Assessing Writing, 13, 4–25.10.1016/j.asw.2008.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe, E. W., & Manalo, J. R. (2004). Composition medium comparability in a direct writing assessment of non-native English speakers. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 53–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zou, X. L., & Zhang, X. N. (2013). Effect of different score reports of Web-based formative test on students’ self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 66, 54–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar