**5. A recent research with smartphones**

Three groups of students have attained to the smartphone exams at Cyprus Science University. The first group of students are the students who were liking coming to classroom and listening to teachers in the classroom. The second group of students were preferring to come to some of the courses and to follow the other courses from mobile technologies. The third group of students were mostly working and were not able to come to class; therefore, they were following the courses from their smartphones. This research is based on a qualitative research design that meanings, perceptions, and awareness of the prospective teachers have a potential impact to retrieve the qualitative findings within an inductive process.

Seventy-five volunteer students who enrolled English I course in Guidance and Psychological Counseling program became part of this research. Volunteer participation provided a ground for confidentiality and trustworthiness within the process. In this research, trustworthy mobile phones and mobile exam programs were used as instrument tools. The mobile exam questions were distributed to students on the exam time. Students who took the exam and teachers who were the invigilators during smartphone exams had been given special training about how to use smartphones and how to access to the mobile exam via smartphones. Therefore, there were not any problems with the usage of smartphones.

At the end of mobile exams, the average scores of mobile and paper exams were compared, and students' results were driven from these comparisons. Blended course students' English paper exam results (M = 87.76; SD = 12.81) were higher than the English mobile course students' English paper exam results (M = 84.48; SD = 14.44), which was higher than the traditional course students' paper exam results (M = 83.24; SD = 14.60). Traditional course students' English mobile exam results (M = 73; SD = 16.46) is higher than the blended course students' English mobile exam results (M = 72.60; SD = 23.14), which is slightly higher than the mobile course students' English mobile exam results (M = 72.53; SD = 19.28). These results can be seen in **Table 1**.

Students had *English paper exams* in three different classes: traditional, blended, and mobile. There was a normal distribution between the marks and an equal number in three groups; one-way ANOVA was used to check if there was a meaningful difference between these three groups. According to the results of this test, there was not a significant difference between the three groups of F(2, 72) = 1.86, p = 0.16. The achievement of students in traditional, blended, and mobile classes in *English mobile exams* was also calculated statistically. There was not meaningful significant difference between three groups on F(2, 72) = 0.53, p = 0.95 (see **Table 2**).

These results can be interpreted as mobile exams which are also possible in education, and it's just a choice of the examiners whether they want to make paper exams or mobile exams.

Paper exam results of the two courses are used to make comparisons. In these comparisons, students belonging to three different groups are taken into consideration.

Blended course students' *English paper exam results* (M = 87.76; SD = 12.84), which are higher than the mobile course students' *English paper exam results* (M = 84.48; SD = 14.44), are higher than the *English paper exam* results of traditional class (M = 83.24; SD = 14.60).

Traditional course students' *computer paper exam* results (M = 94.44; SD = 5.88) are higher than the blended course students' *computer paper exam* results (M = 89.04; SD = 11.17), which are slightly higher than the mobile course students' *computer paper exam results* (M = 86.76; SD = 14.23). These results can be seen in **Table 3**.

*Blended course students' English paper exam results* and *traditional course students' computer paper exam results* were the highest among the students' groups.


**105**

*Using Wearable Devices in Educational Assessment: Smartphone Exams*

*One-way ANOVA results for English paper exams and English mobile exams.*

**Sum of squares**

English paper exams Between groups 706.16 2 353.080 1863 0.163 Within groups 13643.92 72 189.499

Total 14350.08 74 English mobile exams Between groups 40.67 2 20.33 0.053 0.948 Within groups 27478.00 72 381.64

Total 27518.67 74

English paper exams Traditional 25 83.24 14.60 2.92

Computer paper exams Traditional 25 94.44 5.88 1.18

**Df Mean square**

**N Mean Std. deviation Std. error**

Blended 25 87.76 12.84 2.57 Mobile 25 84.48 14.44 2.89 Total 75 85.16 13.93 1.61

Blended 25 89.04 11.17 2.23 Mobile 25 86.76 14.23 2.85 Total 75 90.08 11.31 1.30

**F Sig.**

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the *English paper exam results and computer paper exam results of traditional, blended, and mobile groups of students.* There was a significant effect of three groups of F(2, 72) = 0.70, p = 0.50 in English

Although there was a meaningful difference in paper exams of computer and English courses; there was not any significant difference in their mobile exams as it

Three groups of students have attained to mobile, blended, and traditional courses for 3 months. Results of the questionnaires bring out the conclusion of compatibility and standardization. The results show that students are as good at paper exams as they are at mobile exams. Therefore, we can conclude that smartphones can be used as assessment tools in mobile English exams and the choice does not affect the students' success at the end-of-course exams. This gives a huge flexibility to the courses and freedom to teachers and students. The positive side of using smartphones is for teachers, who do not need to grade numbers of exam papers at the end of each exam. Neither should they have huge amounts of papers for examinations; thus, they save time and money. When we integrate mobile learning environments into our classrooms, teachers are required to know how to use and support that technology [51]. This may be a negative side in a smartphone usage for some teachers. Some of the limitations of this study are that it assumes that there is not an effect of sex on the results and it is restricted only with 75 first form psychology department students. Further studies about this can also be delivered to measure effect of mobile exams on other courses and with different groups of students.

paper exams as well as computer paper exams. F(2, 72) = 3.23, p = 0.046 (see **Table 4**).

can be seen in **Table 5**.

*English and computer paper exams.*

**Table 2.**

**Table 3.**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84324*

#### **Table 1.**

*English paper exams and English mobile exams.*


#### *Using Wearable Devices in Educational Assessment: Smartphone Exams DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84324*

#### **Table 2.**

*Wearable Devices - The Big Wave of Innovation*

results can be seen in **Table 1**.

exams or mobile exams.

tional class (M = 83.24; SD = 14.60).

*English paper exams and English mobile exams.*

consideration.

**Table 3**.

there were not any problems with the usage of smartphones.

use smartphones and how to access to the mobile exam via smartphones. Therefore,

compared, and students' results were driven from these comparisons. Blended course students' English paper exam results (M = 87.76; SD = 12.81) were higher than the English mobile course students' English paper exam results (M = 84.48; SD = 14.44), which was higher than the traditional course students' paper exam results (M = 83.24; SD = 14.60). Traditional course students' English mobile exam results (M = 73; SD = 16.46) is higher than the blended course students' English mobile exam results (M = 72.60; SD = 23.14), which is slightly higher than the mobile course students' English mobile exam results (M = 72.53; SD = 19.28). These

At the end of mobile exams, the average scores of mobile and paper exams were

Students had *English paper exams* in three different classes: traditional, blended, and mobile. There was a normal distribution between the marks and an equal number in three groups; one-way ANOVA was used to check if there was a meaningful difference between these three groups. According to the results of this test, there was not a significant difference between the three groups of F(2, 72) = 1.86, p = 0.16. The achievement of students in traditional, blended, and mobile classes in *English mobile exams* was also calculated statistically. There was not meaningful significant differ-

These results can be interpreted as mobile exams which are also possible in education, and it's just a choice of the examiners whether they want to make paper

Paper exam results of the two courses are used to make comparisons. In these comparisons, students belonging to three different groups are taken into

are higher than the blended course students' *computer paper exam* results

*computer paper exam results* were the highest among the students' groups.

Blended course students' *English paper exam results* (M = 87.76; SD = 12.84), which are higher than the mobile course students' *English paper exam results* (M = 84.48; SD = 14.44), are higher than the *English paper exam* results of tradi-

Traditional course students' *computer paper exam* results (M = 94.44; SD = 5.88)

(M = 89.04; SD = 11.17), which are slightly higher than the mobile course students' *computer paper exam results* (M = 86.76; SD = 14.23). These results can be seen in

*Blended course students' English paper exam results* and *traditional course students'* 

English paper exams Traditional 25 83.24 14.60 2.92

English mobile exams Traditional 25 73.00 16.46 3.29

**N Mean Std. deviation Std. error**

Blended 25 87.76 12.81 2.57 Mobile 25 84.48 14.44 2.89 Total 75 85.16 13.96 1.60

Blended 25 72.60 23.14 4.63 Mobile 25 72.00 18.43 3.69 Total 75 72.53 19.28 2.27

ence between three groups on F(2, 72) = 0.53, p = 0.95 (see **Table 2**).

**104**

**Table 1.**

*One-way ANOVA results for English paper exams and English mobile exams.*


#### **Table 3.**

*English and computer paper exams.*

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the *English paper exam results and computer paper exam results of traditional, blended, and mobile groups of students.* There was a significant effect of three groups of F(2, 72) = 0.70, p = 0.50 in English paper exams as well as computer paper exams.

F(2, 72) = 3.23, p = 0.046 (see **Table 4**).

Although there was a meaningful difference in paper exams of computer and English courses; there was not any significant difference in their mobile exams as it can be seen in **Table 5**.

Three groups of students have attained to mobile, blended, and traditional courses for 3 months. Results of the questionnaires bring out the conclusion of compatibility and standardization. The results show that students are as good at paper exams as they are at mobile exams. Therefore, we can conclude that smartphones can be used as assessment tools in mobile English exams and the choice does not affect the students' success at the end-of-course exams. This gives a huge flexibility to the courses and freedom to teachers and students. The positive side of using smartphones is for teachers, who do not need to grade numbers of exam papers at the end of each exam. Neither should they have huge amounts of papers for examinations; thus, they save time and money. When we integrate mobile learning environments into our classrooms, teachers are required to know how to use and support that technology [51]. This may be a negative side in a smartphone usage for some teachers. Some of the limitations of this study are that it assumes that there is not an effect of sex on the results and it is restricted only with 75 first form psychology department students. Further studies about this can also be delivered to measure effect of mobile exams on other courses and with different groups of students.


#### **Table 4.**

*One-way ANOVA results.*


#### **Table 5.**

*One-way ANOVA results for computer mobile and English mobile exams.*

This research was significant in its own ways of research and its findings; and it aims to compare the success of students in English paper exams and English mobile exams, as well as discussing smartphone pros and cons as assessment tools.

#### **5.1 Internet access problems**

From the previous experiences, it was observed that there were Internet accessibility problems when all the students tried to access the exam at the same time. Therefore, students are divided into groups and entered the exam. Even with smaller groups, it was observed that the questions were emerging slowly. By increasing the speed of Internet access, this problem was elevated.

#### **5.2 Print screen and copy problems**

Mostly, students had tried to find a way to cheat or to disobey the given rules; and they tested the programs by their own ways. They tried to take screenshots of the program, and this was prevented successfully. The students who tried to do this were warned by the course teacher. One student tried to shade the questions and cheat; this was also successfully prevented by displaying him a warning message.

#### **5.3 Translation problems**

The exam started when the teacher had made an active link on the Internet. Since the students used translation programs in their daily lives, their smartphones

**107**

**Figure 3.**

*Using Wearable Devices in Educational Assessment: Smartphone Exams*

instantly converted the exam to the students' native language, which was a critical problem for a language exam. Technicians corrected the problem quickly; however, it was a nasty thing. There are several possible solutions to this problem: additional codes can be included to the exam software to prevent such a case; the software can be distributed to students offline and can be programmed to send the results to the teachers' smartphone. Another possible solution to this may be instead of distributing exam papers to the students, teachers can distribute smartphones with restricted facilities to students, and they can collect these at the end of the exams to

We are residing in a planet where technology is contemporary in our life routines. The more that you know, the more that you want to know! Knowledgeable people are generally more keen on learning new technological devices. People's relatively high rates of prior experience with computers and smartphones may partially explain the sample's high willingness to accept smart wearable devices [4]. Today, smartphones are one of the vastest revolutions in individuals' life spans. Smartphones are becoming increasingly popular, both in formal and informal educational environments. Although benefits and obstacles in using smartphones as assessment tools can be discussed, "70 percent of students and teachers agree that they prefer to write work and notes on their computers rather than writing on paper" [52], and recent studies shows that students are as successful in smartphone

There are different students with different social needs: some are keen on being virtually social, and some are keen on being physically social (see **Figure 3**). Some research studies show that the younger physically social students are more successful than the younger virtually social ones [53, 54]; a solution to these would be improving wearable technologies in a way that students can both be physically and

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84324*

be used for future exams.

**6. Wearable devices in future**

exams as they are in written exams.

*Physically virtual and virtually social [53, 54].*

virtually social!

## *Using Wearable Devices in Educational Assessment: Smartphone Exams DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84324*

instantly converted the exam to the students' native language, which was a critical problem for a language exam. Technicians corrected the problem quickly; however, it was a nasty thing. There are several possible solutions to this problem: additional codes can be included to the exam software to prevent such a case; the software can be distributed to students offline and can be programmed to send the results to the teachers' smartphone. Another possible solution to this may be instead of distributing exam papers to the students, teachers can distribute smartphones with restricted facilities to students, and they can collect these at the end of the exams to be used for future exams.
