Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
provide a way to get the data out of the program for manipulation. Only the numbers of
students taking the survey and summary percentages by section are shown, with no
provision to obtain the data in a raw form to use. The Blackboard administrators at the
university were unable to determine how to extract the data. Excel was used to attempt to
determine the totals overall, but the method was imprecise and clumsy.
A second survey was completed at the end of the semester. Students were asked not
to complete the survey until they had completed the course, that is, either passed all three
exams or taken advantage of every opportunity to take the exams. The second survey was
also Web-based, but Access was used to collect the data, which made the data more accurate
and easier to manipulate.
Students received points for completing both surveys. The Blackboard program
reported which students had taken the survey, but did not allow survey responses to be
matched to student names. The last question of the second survey required students to go
to the Blackboard program to indicate they had completed the survey. Again, responses were
not tied to student names.
FIRST SEMESTER RESULTS
The overall results of the proficiency testing were much better than anticipated. At the
end of the first semester, 81% of students had passed all three exams, 11% had passed two
exams, 5% had passed one exam, and 3% had passed no exams. It is important to remember
that all three exams had to be passed to get better than a D in the course. Of the students who
did not pass all three exams, 2% of the 600 students would have received a grade higher than
D had they passed the exams; the remainder of the 19% who did not pass all three would have
received a D or F in the course, even if they had passed all three exams.
More important than merely passing exams is the ability to apply the skills in other
situations. Students were asked on the second survey if they felt prepared to use Word, Excel,
and PowerPoint to complete assignments in other classes. Of the responding students, 92%
indicated that they felt they knew enough to use the software.
During the semester, students frequently complained that no points were assigned to
the proficiency exams. However, when asked at the end of the semester, 76% advocated
keeping the pass/fail scoring, and only 14% recommended assigning a point value to the
exams.
The methods of studying for the exams were disappointing. When asked how they
studied, the students responded: 60% already knew the skills, and 40% used trial and error
on the exams. However, in another question, they were asked if they used the Course CBT
to study, and 54% indicated they had used it at least once. Based on the number of times most
students took the exams, trial and error was probably the most common method.
The Friday afternoon testing sessions, held in a 30-station lab, were not heavily used
until the end of the semester. Until mid-semester, the greatest number attending was 10.
Several weeks, no students came to the session. Until mid-semester, the graduate assistant
proctor was also available to provide tutoring on the software during the sessions. Only one
person took advantage of tutoring. Toward the end of the semester, attendance greatly
increased at the Friday sessions. In the last three weeks, lines could be seen at the sessions,
with a minimum of 50 students per week taking exams, and many others being turned away.
