Scoring Essays on an iPad Versus a Desktop Computer: An Exploratory Study

Q3 Social Sciences ETS Research Report Series Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1002/ets2.12349
Guangming Ling, Jean Williams, Sue O'Brien, Carlos F. Cavalie
{"title":"Scoring Essays on an iPad Versus a Desktop Computer: An Exploratory Study","authors":"Guangming Ling,&nbsp;Jean Williams,&nbsp;Sue O'Brien,&nbsp;Carlos F. Cavalie","doi":"10.1002/ets2.12349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recognizing the appealing features of a tablet (e.g., an iPad), including size, mobility, touch screen display, and virtual keyboard, more educational professionals are moving away from larger laptop and desktop computers and turning to the iPad for their daily work, such as reading and writing. Following the results of a recent survey of individuals who serve as ETS raters, more than 40% reported that they would prefer to use an iPad or other type of tablet to score essays. However, iPad-based essay scoring could affect scoring accuracy and scoring time because the smaller screen and other features of an iPad may also affect raters' reading comprehension and score assigning processes. To address this issue, we invited 10 experienced raters to score holistically 40 essays for a graduate admission test using a desktop computer and an iPad following a counterbalanced design. We compared the raters' scores against the criterion scores and analyzed scoring times, scoring behaviors, and raters' answers to a structured interview after the scoring experiment. The results reveal no obvious differences between the two devices in the scoring accuracy or average scoring time per essay, which suggests that scoring on an iPad may not reduce scoring quality or scoring productivity for essays that are holistically scored as compared to scoring the essays on a desktop computer. We also found a few iPad-specific issues that raters reported, including issues associated with the invisible scrolling bar and the extra scrolling needed to reach the score-assignment panel, difficulty navigating between the prompt and the essay response, and oversensitivity of the touch screen.</p>","PeriodicalId":11972,"journal":{"name":"ETS Research Report Series","volume":"2022 1","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ets2.12349","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ETS Research Report Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ets2.12349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recognizing the appealing features of a tablet (e.g., an iPad), including size, mobility, touch screen display, and virtual keyboard, more educational professionals are moving away from larger laptop and desktop computers and turning to the iPad for their daily work, such as reading and writing. Following the results of a recent survey of individuals who serve as ETS raters, more than 40% reported that they would prefer to use an iPad or other type of tablet to score essays. However, iPad-based essay scoring could affect scoring accuracy and scoring time because the smaller screen and other features of an iPad may also affect raters' reading comprehension and score assigning processes. To address this issue, we invited 10 experienced raters to score holistically 40 essays for a graduate admission test using a desktop computer and an iPad following a counterbalanced design. We compared the raters' scores against the criterion scores and analyzed scoring times, scoring behaviors, and raters' answers to a structured interview after the scoring experiment. The results reveal no obvious differences between the two devices in the scoring accuracy or average scoring time per essay, which suggests that scoring on an iPad may not reduce scoring quality or scoring productivity for essays that are holistically scored as compared to scoring the essays on a desktop computer. We also found a few iPad-specific issues that raters reported, including issues associated with the invisible scrolling bar and the extra scrolling needed to reach the score-assignment panel, difficulty navigating between the prompt and the essay response, and oversensitivity of the touch screen.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
iPad与台式电脑的作文评分:一项探索性研究
认识到平板电脑(如iPad)的吸引人的特点,包括尺寸、移动性、触摸屏显示和虚拟键盘,越来越多的教育专业人员正在从更大的笔记本电脑和台式电脑转向iPad进行日常工作,如阅读和写作。根据最近对ETS评分员的调查结果,超过40%的人表示他们更愿意使用iPad或其他类型的平板电脑来评分。然而,基于iPad的作文评分可能会影响评分的准确性和评分时间,因为iPad较小的屏幕和其他功能也可能影响评分者的阅读理解和评分过程。为了解决这个问题,我们邀请了10位经验丰富的评分员,按照平衡设计,使用台式电脑和iPad对研究生入学考试的40篇论文进行了全面评分。我们将评分者的得分与标准得分进行了比较,并分析了评分时间、评分行为以及评分者在评分实验后对结构化访谈的回答。结果显示,两种设备在评分准确性或每篇文章的平均评分时间上没有明显差异,这表明,与在台式电脑上评分相比,在iPad上评分可能不会降低评分质量或评分效率。我们还发现了一些评分者报告的ipad特有的问题,包括与看不见的滚动条和到达评分面板所需的额外滚动有关的问题,在提示和文章回答之间导航困难,以及触摸屏过于敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ETS Research Report Series
ETS Research Report Series Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Building a Validity Argument for the TOEFL Junior® Tests Validity, Reliability, and Fairness Evidence for the JD‐Next Exam Practical Considerations in Item Calibration With Small Samples Under Multistage Test Design: A Case Study Practical Considerations in Item Calibration With Small Samples Under Multistage Test Design: A Case Study Modeling Writing Traits in a Formative Essay Corpus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1