Application Of Computer –based Examination System
[A CASE STUDY OF ABIA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ABA]

CHAPTER TWO
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW
Computer-based instruction seems to be the ideal answer for busy individual with a job who needs more education in order to advance or just keep pace professionally (Holt, 1999, Macht, 1998). This is simply referring to a way of keeping learning for far individuals who wish to study and is not close. A report by the university of Illinois, however, has found many campus students take many, if not all of their classes on-line (Regalbuto, 1999), a basic concept of online examination its facilitate around the online learning which is also a very important factor.
As distance and web-based learning becomes more popular and more accessible, high school, college and graduate courses are being offered via the web as part of complete diploma and degree programs by more and more institution. As a result students who cannot gain access to paper examination to higher institution can also write their exams online (Vecter, 1997).
The western Governors University and the university of phoenix online examination use series of comprehensive examination to know what classes their students are required to take. Some of these exams include essay of multiple-choice items while others are project. These high stake, standardized examination are usually administered in proctored, online environments (Carnellale, 2001).
However, multiple choice questions, which are probably the most commonly utilized objective are difficult to write, the items are easy to grade. These items could be constructed to measure simple recall and complex critical thinking skills.
Multiple-choice questions which are effectively used in examination higher order thinking skills, are very difficult to write. These questions can be answered quickly, as instructors can evaluate many different objectives in a single session (Bolton-Lewis, 1998, Davis, 1999, Gay, 1980, Science Education, 1997, Wakeford, 1999). While short answer questions are easy to write, they eliminate guessing, and stress to recall of information rather than recognition, critics feel that this type of question can place too much emphasis on rote learning. However, they can give limited insight into how students can express their thoughts (Davis, 1999, Gay, 1980, Science Education, 1997, Wakeford, 1999). Cheating, rather than having the personal state, that they themselves participate in those activities (Cizek, 1999). Two studies have used course outcome and exam grades in order to show the existences of cheating in specific instances. Ridey and Husband (1998) used a comparison of the grades of 100 students received from web-based class work and those received in traditional on campus classes to show that a significant difference did not exist in the rigor or integrity of the web-based courses. Gighotti, Smegha, Falk and Neiswander (1994) conducted a study to compare computer based online examination to in- class examination. Among other things, the computer base examination grouped scored lower grades than their in-class counter-part. The grades of the computer-based examination were normally distributed, while the grades from
in-class examination group were skewed upwards. Giglotti et al; (1994) attributed this difference to the group that used computer base examination having less opportunity to ask for clarification during the examination. Sloss (1995), attributed this differences to cheating. He noted that, with the computer randomly generating questions, copying would be impossible and meaningless. The skewed results, he suggested, were the results of the poorer students cheating more than the better students, Gighotti, Smergha and Falk (1995) subsequently agreed with Sloss’s comments. Identification checks were done in the computer lab, while none was done for their in-class examination  group.
Several studies have shown that there will be a reduction in cheating when penalties are expected and enforced (Micabe and Trevano, 1993, Michael’s and Mathe, 1989, Mixon, 1996). Micabe and Trevino (1997) found that students uncalistic penalties would not be imposed, unrealistic penalties became positively associated with cheating (Micabe and Trevino, 1997). Attention to classroom examination is an important consideration in attempting to control classroom cheating (Leming, 1990 P.85). This is because sanctions and high risks of detection substantially reduce cheating Genereux and Mclead (1995) found that low instructor vigilance result in more cheating. on the other hand, high instructor vigilance and using relevant course material in composing the examination decrease cheating. Bower (1994) feels the next best system to the honor code was where faculty took control of proctoring. Nuss (1984) found that 24% of the faculty and 21% of students believes that cheating occurred because “No one ever gets punished for it” (Nuss, 1984. P.142).