To what extent might digital mid-unit assessments improve student attainment in Year 8 Geography?

Mr G. Davies

Contents

Introduction

1.1. Research context

1.2. Rationale

1.3. Student attainment

1.4. Digital learning

1.5. Moving to digital assessment

1.6. Digital multiple choice assessment

1.7. Mid-unit tests

1.8. Aim

1.9. Objectives

1.10. Hypotheses

Methodology

2.1. Key project activities

2.2. Phase 1: Pre-intervention

2.2.1. Research structure

2.2.2. Value added test scores

2.3. Phase 2: Intervention

2.3.1. Questionnaire

2.4. Phase 3: Reflection

Data Analysis

3.1. Raw average value added

3.2. Control groups: Class 2, Class 4 and Class 5

3.3. Test groups: Class 1 and Class 3

3.4. Questionnaire

Discussion

4.1. Median value added test scores

4.2. Pupil responses to mid-unit tests

Conclusion

5.1. Summary

5.2. Further research

References

1. Introduction

1.1 Research Context

Dr Challoner’s Grammar School is an all boys, state funded Academy Grammar School, with a sixth form which became co-educational in 2016. The age range of Dr. Challoner’s Grammar School is from 11-18. Year 8 was chosen for the study as they are a non-examined year group, and therefore there would be no discernible impact on external results such as GCSEs or A Levels. The medium of action research was chosen because it enables engagement and practical application of the latest theories in education, at the same time as improving classroom practice (Lim, 2007).

1.2 Rationale

There is extensive research on the integration of mobile devices into teaching and learning, in terms of student application to increase their learning power (Penuel, 2006; Frohberg et al., 2009; Zucker and Light, 2009; Bebell and O'Dwyer, 2010; Hwang and Tsai, 2011; Fleischer, 2012). In addition, research has shown that the traditional approach of end of unit assessments are an effective diagnosis of student progress and attainment (Scalise & Gifford, 2006). However, to ensure a more effective and detailed diagnosis of students’ progress, mid-unit tests can be employed (Callear and King, 1997; Thewall, 2000; Zakrzewski and Bull, 1998). Yet there is little research on the effectiveness of mid-unit assessments on student attainment and progress in schools (Breslow et al., 2013). As Sung et al. (2016) argues, researchers must find the ‘key’ to matching the unique features of digital devices to pedagogic challenge. The pedagogic challenge identified is the effectiveness of mid-unit assessments on student attainment, and therefore progress.

1.3 Student attainment

There are many ways student attainment is measured, however the most common way is by value added scores (Saunders, 2010). The current system of contextualised value added was introduced in 2004, with minor alterations after this date. These figures allow student progress to be measured, and are more effective than the raw results, which take no account of prior attainment (Ray, 2006). Therefore all value added scores are based against the student’s cognitive ability tests, which they undertook at the beginning of Year 7, when they started secondary school (see Hill, H. et al., 2011).

1.4 Digital learning

Over the past two decades mobile technology has been gradually introduced into classrooms, which has led to students being able to carry their own digital devices (Sung, et al. 2016). There has been a global implementation of one-to-one computing programs, and as such, there has been great potential for developing and facilitating more innovative educational methods (Bebell & O'Dwyer, 2010; Fleischer, 2012; Zucker & Light, 2009). These pedagogical developments will not only help subject content learning, by extending the learning environment, but will also enable the development of higher-level skills among students, such as problem solving and improvement of communication, thus increasing learning power (Comeaux, 2005; Warschauer, 2007).

There has been extensive research into integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning, in terms of learning activities within classrooms (e.g. Penuel, 2006; Frohberg et al., 2009; Hwang and Tsai, 2011). Bebell & O’Dwyer (2010) note that teachers made changes to their methods of teaching when they had access to one-to-one digital devices, resulting in students participating with a deeper engagement in their learning. This increased engagement with learning, and positive impact on learning by mobile devices has been supported by several other studies (Fleischer, 2012; Zucker and Light, 2009).

1.5 Moving to digital assessment

Effective assessment of students is vital in terms of understating the learners’ knowledge acquisition. Eyal (2012) argues that effective assessment includes both systematic and non-systematic collection of information on a student’s progress. Therefore tests are only a part of the assessment process of students’ learning. However evaluating the effectiveness of non-systematic assessment is a challenge, due to its qualitative and subjective nature. In contrast, a test is a systematic process by which an aspect of learning can be

quantitatively evaluated (Suen & Parkes, 2002). This is still the most common way of assessing student progress, and their achievements in education. However testing has been criticised for several decades by academics and practitioners alike for a variety of reasons, including the separation between the teaching-learning process and evaluation process, and the quantitative data produced, which does not contribute to student progress (Eyal, 2012). Despite these criticisms, assessment provides an accurate and thorough picture from which practical conclusions can be drawn and student progress can be quantitatively evaluated (Suen & Parkes, 2002; Wagner, 1997).

Digital assessment is vital to the role of a teacher in a technology-rich environment, as we arguably move away from paper into the digital nexus (Eyal, 2012). Over the last decade, learning management systems (LMS) have been introduced, which are software applications used for the administration and delivery of educational programmes (Ellis, 2009). These have helped to streamline the teaching, learning and assessment processes. An LMS allows teachers to develop digital assessments (in this case tests), send them to students, receive their answers digitally and generate feedback for the students (Wang et al. 2004). An example of a widely used LMS in education would be Google Classroom and the wider Google Apps for Education programmes.

Tests are a systematic approach in the sense that the teacher sets the criteria for assessment, collects the results and plans for future instruction. Yet by creatively using the digital assessment data and feedback by personalising it, constructivist learning can be promoted, enabling teachers to address a variety of learning styles (Scalise & Gifford, 2006). Constructivism states that learning is an active and subjective process, contextualising the process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it (Vygotsky, 1978). In addition, it aids the process of remembering activities and events, allowing teachers to undertake interventions more effectively and in a timely manner (Dede et al., 2002; Smith, 2006). Furthermore, it can be used as a diagnostic tool, always at hand for reporting and parent consultations, without the need to request students’ exercise books or folders. The data can be analysed in real time, so that problems can be solved as soon as they arise (He & Tymms, 2005). An LMS can streamline teacher workload allowing more time for monitoring the performance of students and giving detailed, personalised feedback (Eyal, 2012). The collection of this data is easy and efficient, allowing students time to reflect on their feedback in class. Thewall (2000) noted that digital computer based assessments are complementary to traditional assessment methods and can enhance the value of education by complementing traditional assessment methods, being an addition to a written assessment.

1.6 Digital multiple choice assessment

Multiple choice tests, if used creatively, can promote constructivist learning. Constructivism states that learning is an active and subjective process, contextualising the process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it (Vygotsky, 1978). One of the many advantages of multiple choice assessments is the ability to include graphics, sound and animation, allowing for a multimedia response. Yet one of the criticisms of traditional multiple choice tests is that they encourage the intentional learning of correct answers, instead of higher order thinking (Bennett, 2001; Resnick & Resnick, 1992). The integration of multimedia into digital multiple choice assessments enables higher order thinking (Scalise and Gifford 2006). Therefore, a multiple choice test as an end of unit test is an effective form of assessment and, as Scalise and Gifford (2006) go on to note, is an effective and detailed diagnosis of student attainment.

1.7 Mid-unit tests

Mid-unit tests have been employed for some time, especially in higher education in the United States of America (Callear & King, 1997; Thewall, 2000 Zakrzewski & Bull, 1998). Breslow et al. (2013) researched what materials were used to revise and study for mid-unit tests and final assessments, and direct further research to understanding how to help students learn more per unit time. However, there is a blind acceptance of the effectiveness of mid-unit tests, and no clear understanding in the literature as to whether they increase student attainment or not. While mid-unit tests ensure a more effective and detailed diagnosis of student’s progress, which is important (Callear and King, 1997; Thewall, 2000; Zakrzewski and Bull, 1998),it is equally important to analyse their effect on student attainment.

1.8 Aim

To analyse the extent to which digital mid-unit assessments improve student attainment in Year 8 Geography.

1.9 Objectives

To compare value added test scores in Year 8 Geography over time (Ray, 2006).
To compare opinions between classes on the effectiveness of mid-unit tests in Year 8 Geography (Breslow et al., 2013)

1.10 Hypotheses

H0: Mid-unit tests will have no impact on student attainment in Year 8 Geography.

H1: Mid-unit tests will have a positive impact on student attainment in Year 8 Geography. H2: Mid-unit tests will have a negative impact on student attainment in Year 8 Geography.

2. Methodology

2.1 Key project activities

The study was divided into three phases: pre-intervention, intervention and reflection. This is common practice in action research projects; it allows teachers to apply and test theories within an educational context (Lim, 2007). Table 1 illustrates the actions and phases, along with a timeline throughout the project.

Date	Action	Phase
November to February	Remove mid-unit tests from two topics: Far East and Climatic Hazards	Pre-intervention
February to March	Reinstate mid unit tests for Coasts topic & distribute questionnaire	Intervention
April	Analyse final data and write up	Reflection

Table 1. The structure of the project

2.2 Phase 1: Pre-intervention

2.2.1 Research structure

A mixed methods approach of quantitative and qualitative data was used to understand the extent to which digital mid-unit assessments improve student attainment in Year 8 Geography. The rationale behind this was the student value added data can give an idea of whether student attainment is either positive, negative or has no change. Questionnaires on the other hand, can give a deeper insight into what extent the digital mid-unit assessments improve student attainment in Year 8 Geography. Gal and Ograjenšek (2010) argue, in the journal International Statistical Review, that statisticians involved in investigations in the behavioural or cognitive patterns of people need to use qualitative techniques such as questionnaires, interviews or focus groups to uncover, and form a deeper understanding of the quantitative data.

2.2.2 Value added test scores

Five Year 8 classes were studied across the department, with two test groups and three control groups. Year 7 end of year exam value added was used to determine control and test groups. Value added data for the tests and exam is illustrated in Table 2. Value added scores were used as Ray (2006) noted that value added is more effective than raw results in measuring student attainment and progress.

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5

Year 7 end of

year exam

0.06

-2.48

-1.06

-4.22

-6.22

Test group or

control group

Test group

Control group

Test group

Control group

Table 2. Value added scores scores for five Year 8 classes

2.3 Phase 2: Intervention

Mid unit tests were given throughout the study period to the control groups: Class 2, Class 4 and Class 5. In contrast, the test groups were given mid unit tests in the Climatic Hazards topic, after two topics of geography were undertaken: Population and Development and The Far East. Questionnaires were given to all five year 8 classes at the end of the study period. Mid unit tests were short multiple choice tests consisting of 10 questions.

2.3.1 Questionnaire

A questionnaire were given to each class via Google Forms after the reinstatement of the mid unit tests for Climatic Hazards. The questionnaire design is illustrated in Table 3. It was made clear to every Year 8 class before the questionnaire was undertaken that if they had an answer that was not listed, it was imperative that they write that answer in the space provided.

Question number	Question	Answer choices
1	Have mid-unit tests helped you improve in the Population and Development topic?	● Yes ● No ● Did not undertake
2	Have mid-unit tests helped you improve in the Far East topic?	● Yes ● No ● Did not undertake
3	Have mid-unit tests have helped you improve in the Climatic Hazards topic?	● Yes ● No ● Did not undertake
4	Have mid-unit tests helped you improve in the Coasts topic?	● Yes ● No
5	Have mid-unit tests have helped you improve in Geography over the year?	● Yes ● No
6	If you have answered YES to any of the above questions: why have the mid-unit tests helped you improve in Geography over the year?	● Helped me to learn factual knowledge I can use in the end of topic test ● Helped me to keep the knowledge clear in my head throughout the year ● Gave me areas to focus on for the end of topic test ● All of the above ● Other (short answer)
7	If you have answered NO to any of the above questions: why have the mid-unit tests not helped you to improve in Geography over the year?	● They have not helped me to learn factual knowledge ● They have not helped me with the longer answer element of the end of topic text ● Other (short answer)

Table 3. Questionnaire design

2.4 Phase 3: Reflection

Dependent on the difference between the quantitative data provided by the value added, and qualitative data provided by the questionnaire, interviews would be undertaken to form a deeper understanding of the quantitative data Gal and Ograjenšek (2010). However the reasons given by the students on the questionnaire was very informative, giving in-depth reasons and understanding as to why the differences between the

quantitative and qualitative data existed, therefore individual or group interviews were not necessary for the study. See section 4 for a detailed discussion and reflection on the data, which is presented in section 3.

3. Data Analysis

The structure of this section is as follows: the quantitative data is presented first and the qualitative data second. The first quantitative data presented is the raw value added data, given in a table (section 3.1). Secondly value added data from the control groups (Class 2, Class 4 and Class 5) is presented in the form of box and whisker diagrams (section 3.2), finally the value added data from the test groups (Class 1, Class 3) is presented in the form of box and whisker diagrams (section 3.3). The qualitative data is presented in the form of pie charts generated by Google Forms (section 3.4).

3.1 Raw average value added

The raw value added data in Table 4 presents no correlation from the Population and Development through to the Climatic Hazards topic. In addition, there is no difference in trend between test and control groups. There are some cases where the mid-unit tests give a positive value added (Class 2 Population and Development mid-unit test, 1.35), yet the end of unit test is negative value added (Class 2 Population and Development end of unit test, -0.75). There are other cases where both mid and end of unit tests are positive value added, however there was a drop from mid unit test to end of unit test (Class 5 Climatic Hazards mid unit test, 2.87; Class 5 Climatic Hazards end of unit test 1.93).

	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3	Class 4	Class 5
Year 7 end of year exam	0.06	-2.48	-1.06	-4.22	-6.22
Test group or control group	Test group	Control group	Test group	Control group	Control group
Population and development mid-unit test	-	1.35	-	-1.24	3.37
Population and Development end of unit test	0.26	-0.75	-6.10	-7.67	-1.82
Far East mid-unit test	-	-3.18	-	-0.63	1.97
Far East end of unit test	2.26	0.09	-2.59	-5.24	-1.09
Climatic Hazards mid-unit test	-0.34	6.47	4.45	4.13	2.87
Climatic Hazards end of unit test	-5.34	0.65	-3.83	-4.42	1.93

Table 4. Raw average value added for all Year 8 classes

3.2 Control groups: Class 2, Class 4 and Class 5

Figure 3 illustrates Class 2 test scores over time and presents no trend. There is a relatively even spread amongst the quartiles for every test, with the exception of the Climatic Hazards mid unit test where all pupils attained either zero or positive value added.

Figure 3. Class 2 value added test scores

Figure 4 illustrates Class 4 value added scores over time. There is a slight increase in the median end of unit test scores over time, however the mid unit median scores are higher than the end of unit test scores.

Figure 4. Class 4 value added test scores

Figure 5 illustrates Class 5 value added test scores over time. The end of unit test median scores have increased over time from negative in the Population and Development end of unit test to a positive score in the Climatic Hazards end of unit test.

Figure 5. Class 5 value added test scores

3.3 Test groups: Class 1 and Class 3

Figure 6 illustrates value added test scores over time, the median decreases. However the median is positive for the first three tests, yet becomes negative on the final test. In addition, quartiles three and four were positive for the first three tests, in contrast to the last test where quartiles one, two and three were negative. The range of plot for the Climatic Hazards end of unit test is much smaller than the Climatic Hazards mid unit test.

Figure 6. Class 1 value added test scores

Figure 7 illustrates value added test scores over time for Class 3. The medians have increased over time, until the last test, being the end of unit Climatic Hazards test.

Figure 7. Class 3 value added test scores

3.4 Questionnaire

Figure 8 illustrates that the classes which undertook the Population and Development mid unit test an overwhelming 73.7% agreed that they helped them improve in the Population and Development topic. Whereas 26.3% disagreed with this.

Figure 8. Have mid-unit tests helped students improve in the Population and Development topic? 12

Figure 9 illustrates 77.3% agree that mid unit tests have helped them improve in the Far East topic. However 22.7% disagree with this statement.

Figure 9. Have mid-unit tests helped students improve in the Far East topic? Figure 10 illustrates that 80.5% of pupils felt that a mid-unit test helped them improve on the Climatic Hazards unit. Whereas 19.5% disagreed with the statement that the mid-unit test helped them improve on the Climatic Hazards unit.

Figure 10. Have mid-unit tests helped students improve in the Climatic Hazards topic? 13

Figure 11 illustrates that 84.6% of pupils across Year 8 who responded to the survey felt that mid-unit tests helped them improve in Geography over the year, whereas a minority of 15.4% felt mid-unit tests had not helped them improve in Geography over the year.

Figure 11. Have mid-unit tests helped students improve in Geography over the year? Figure 12 illustrates 30.3% of students felt mid-unit tests gave them areas to focus on for their end of topic tests, whereas 13.9% felt that mid-unit tests helped them to learn the factual knowledge needed for the end of topic tests and 12.3% to retain the knowledge. In addition 23.8% felt that all three of the aforementioned reasons were relevant to them. However 19.7% gave other reasons, these are analysed in section 4. Figure 12. Reasons for why mid-unit tests have helped students improve in Geography over the year

Figure 13 illustrates 23.6% felt that mid-unit tests had not helped them improve on the end of unit test written element, and 16.9% felt mid-unit tests had not helped them to learn factual knowledge. In addition, just under 60% gave other reasons which are discussed in section 4.

Figure 13. Reasons for why mid-unit tests have not helped students improve in Geography over the year 15

4. Discussion

4.1 Median value added test scores

The value added test scores indicated a lack of increased progress over time for each class, with or without the mid unit tests. There was no correlation in the median value added. There are many possible reasons for this: firstly the structure of mid-unit tests compared to end of unit tests; secondly the timing of tests; thirdly the time taken by pupils to revise for mid-unit and end of unit tests and finally the teaching styles varying from class to class.

Firstly the structure of the mid unit tests differed from the structure of the end of unit tests. The mid-unit tests were undertaken on digital devices, consisting of ten multiple choice questions. However, end of unit tests were undertaken partially on digital devices and partially on paper, consisting of multiple choice questions on a digital device and longer answer questions on paper. In terms of value added, the mid-unit tests have not increased what Cormeaux (2005) and Warschauer (2007) term ‘learning power’. This is the development of higher level skills such as problem solving and improvement in communication, or subject content learning. This is most probably due to the multiple choice nature of the mid-unit tests. The lack of content, and encouragement of the intentional learning of correct answers, could have contributed to the higher medians in the mid-unit tests than the end of unit tests, resulting in a lack of correlation in the median value added on test data (Bennett, 2001; Resnick & Resnick, 1992).

Secondly, the timing of tests undertaken by five different Year 8 classes could have had an impact on the median value added data. The digital collection of the mid-unit test data was easy, efficient, and feedback was given in a timely manner (Eyal, 2012). Year 8 classes were undertaking their mid-unit tests at slightly different times, due to school timetabling. Scalise and Gifford (2006) do note that while mid-unit tests are an effective diagnosis tool, they go on to note that pupils can knowingly or unknowingly share test questions and or answers with other classes. This transfer of information could have impacted on the median value added data, however it is unlikely due to the spread of raw test scores and value added scores (see figures 3 to 7).

Thirdly, the time taken to revise by the pupils for mid-unit tests compared to end of unit tests. Educational researchers such as Scalise and Gifford (2006) and Eyal (2012) have illustrated pupils who are more engaged or conscientious in their studies are more likely to work harder for their tests, however are not necessarily going to have increased attainment. Breslow et al. (2013) noted that further research was required on this topic, and while this project's aim was not to specifically analyse this area, conclusions can be drawn in terms of revision time, as pupils are less likely to revise harder for a mid-unit test than an end of unit test. If pupils had revised a lot harder for end of unit tests there would be an expectation that end of unit test median value added would be equal to or higher to the mid-unit test scores. However, as there is no correlation (see figures 3 to 7), revision time has not had an effect on median value added test scores.

Finally the teaching styles varying from class to class, which could have an impact on the variation in the median value added data (Scalise and Gifford, 2006). While all Year 8 classes are mixed ability, a variety of teaching styles for differing classes Scalise and Gifford (2006) argue can influence final attainment. However, three of the five Year 8 classes were taught by one teacher: Class 2, Class 3 and Class 5. These three classes showed no correlation in their test score value added over time, contradicting the reason presented by Scalise and Gifford (2006) concerning the teacher’s influence on test score value added.

To summarise: the first reason given, concerning the structure of the mid-unit and end of unit tests is the most likely cause of the variation in the median value added data due to the lack of content, and encouragement of the intentional learning of correct answers, potentially contributing to the higher medians in the mid-unit tests. The three other reasons stated are highly unlikely to have influenced the mid-unit value added test scores.

4.2 Pupil responses to mid-unit tests

Even though there was a lack of correlation in the median value added, the pupil responses revealed that for each topic (Population and Development, The Far East, Climatic Hazards) over 70% of pupils felt that mid-unit

tests helped them improve in their end of unit test. In addition, over time the proportion of pupils taking the view that mid-unit tests helped them improve in their end of unit test increased from 73% to over 80%. This increase indicates that pupils have become more apt in learning and applying their points for improvement from their mid-unit tests. This process of constructing knowledge, rather than acquiring it, is a clear application of constructivist learning, and is intricate to the learning process (Vygotsky, 1978).

Due to the questionnaire design, pupils were asked why they felt mid-unit tests had or had not helped them improve in geography over the year. For example, a factor which was common across all classes is the difference between factual knowledge and written answers, as one student noted: ‘[They h]elped me to learn factual knowledge I can use in the end of topic test’ they felt that the nature of mid-unit tests did not ‘[help] me with the longer answer element of the end of topic text [sic]’. While this is an important point, if longer answers were introduced into mid-unit tests, this could lead to an invalidation of the end of unit tests, and take longer to assess. Due to the nature of mid-unit tests, the data is meant to be analysed in real time, so that problems can be solved as soon as they arise, therefore using them as a quick diagnostic tool halfway through a topic, rather than an in-depth analysis of performance (He & Tymms, 2005). The overwhelming majority of reasons given by pupils, in addition to the reasons presented in Figure 12, such as helping students to learn the factual knowledge needed for the end of topic tests and retainment of knowledge, were concerning, as one student noted ‘Made me remember the stuff I forgot and what I need to revise’. The mid-unit tests could therefore be viewed as a way to aid students’ revision, allowing them to self assess their progress halfway through a topic, giving them areas to focus their revision on (Breslow et al., 2013).

5. Conclusion

5.1 Summary

Therefore while mid-unit tests have had no effect, positive or negative, on student attainment over the year, the alternative hypotheses are rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted: mid-unit tests will have no impact on student attainment in Year 8 Geography.

The project has illustrated value of digital mid-unit tests in terms of increased engagement with learning, as it allowed students the ability to immediately get feedback on their tests, and in most cases gave the students areas to focus on for their end of topic tests (Fleischer, 2012; Zucker and Light, 2009). While mid-unit tests did not help them with their longer written answers, it needs to be made clear that mid-unit tests are a snapshot, rather than a test on everything. In addition, longer answer practice is undertaken in class or for homework. Furthermore, digital mid-unit tests allow for added data on students for use at parents’ evenings, as they give a more detailed and effective diagnosis of a student’s progress (Callear and King, 1997; Thewall, 2000; Zakrzewski and Bull, 1998).

5.2 Further research

Future studies need to be undertaken on a longer timescale to understand whether mid-unit tests do, or do not, have an impact on student attainment; the suggested timescale is two years to ensure a wealth of data. In addition, other year groups will need to be studied to understand whether there is a variation between different year groups or key stages. Furthermore differing subjects will need to be analysed to understand whether there is a difference between subjects in terms of whether mid-unit tests do, or do not, have an impact on student attainment.

6. References

Bebell, D., and O'Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 5-15.

Bennett, R. E. (2001). How the Internet Will Help Large-Scale Assessment Reinvent Itself. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(5). Accessed on 1 November 2016: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/334/460.

Breslow, L., Pritchard, D.E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G.S., Ho, A.D. and Seaton, D.T., (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8. Accessed 1 November 2016: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1062850.pdf.

Callear, D., and King, T. (1997). Using computer-based tests for information science. Alt-J, 5(1), 27-32. Comeaux, P. (Ed.). (2005). Communication and collaboration in the online classroom. Anker, Boston, MA.

Dede, C., Whitehouse, P., and L’Bahy, T. B. (2002). Designing and studying learning experiences that use multiple interactive media to bridge distance and time. In C. Vrasid & G. Glass (Eds.), Current perspectives on applied information technologies (Vol. 1): Distance education, 1-30.

Ellis, Ryann K. (2009), Field Guide to Learning Management Systems, ASTD Learning Circuits

Eyal, L. (2012) Digital Assessment Literacy—the Core Role of the Teacher in a Digital Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37–49.

Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: a systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7, 107-122.

Frohberg, D., Goth, C., and Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects - a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 307-331.

Gal, I. and Ograjenšek, I. (2010). Qualitative Research in the Service of Understanding Learners and Users of Statistics. International Statistical Review, 78(2), 287-296.

Hattie, J. (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers, Routledge, Abingdon.

He, Q., and Tymms, P. (2005). A computer-assisted test design and diagnosis system for use by classroom teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 419–429.

Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., and Umland, K. (2011) A Validity Argument Approach to Evaluating Teacher Value-Added Scores. American Education Research Journal, 48(3), 794 - 831

Hwang, G. J., and Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 65-70.

Lim, P. T. H. (2007). Action Research For Teachers: A Balanced Model. Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding

Conference, Singapore, May 2007.

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of 1:1 computing initiatives: a research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329-348.

Ray, A. (2006). School Value Added Measures in England. Department for Education and Skills, October 2006. Accessed on 1 November 2016: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderin gDownload/RW85.pdf.

Resnick, L. B., and Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction, Springer Science, New York, 37-76.

Scalise, K., and Gifford, B. R. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing "intermediate constraint" questions and tasks for technology platforms. Journal of Teaching, Learning and Assessment, 4(6).

Smith A. D. (2006). Data analysis helping teachers tailor lessons. The Dallas Morning News. Accessed 1st November 2016: http://texasedequity.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/data-analysis-helping-teachers-tailor.html?m=1#!.

Suen, H. K. and Parkes, J. (2002). Challenges and opportunities in distance education evaluation. DEOSNEWS, 6(7).

Sung, Y-T., Chang, K-E., and Liu, T-C. (2016) The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis, Computers & Education, 94 (2016) 252-275.

Thewall, M. (2000) Computer-based assessment: a versatile educational tool, Computers & Education, 34, 37-49.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner. G. S. (1997). Undergraduate information programs in Australia: A brief survey. Education for Information, 15(2), 171-177.

Wang, T. H., Wang, K. H., Wang, W. L., Huang, S. C., and Chen, S. Y. (2004). Web-based Assessment and Test Analyses (WATA) system: development and evaluation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(1), 59-71.

Warschauer, M. (2007). A teacher's place in the digital divide. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106, 147-166.

Zucker, A. A., and Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323, 82-85.

Zakrzewski, S., and Bull, J. (1998). The mass implementation and evaluation of computer-based assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 141-152.