Proficiency, Facilitators and Barriers to Computer-Based Examination among Postgraduate Students at the University of Port Harcourt
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71637/tnhj.v25i3.1166Keywords:
Computer-based examination, CBE, proficiency, barriers, facilitators, ACE-PUTOR, UNIPORT, postgraduate studentsAbstract
Background: The globalization of higher education, driven by increased integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), has accelerated the adoption of computer-based examinations (CBE). However, limited evidence exists on postgraduate students' proficiency, facilitators, and barriers to effective CBE in sub-Saharan Africa. This study assessed these dimensions at the Africa Centre of Excellence in Public Health and Toxicological Research (ACE-PUTOR), University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Methods: An analytic cross-sectional design was used with a convenience sample of current and past students from the 2020/2021 to 2023/2024 cohorts. A validated structured questionnaire (reliability coefficient: 0.71–0.90), informed by the Technology Acceptance Model and UTAUT, captured perceived proficiency (8 items), facilitators, and barriers (5 items each across technical, academic, and organizational domains). Likert-scale responses were converted to percentage scores. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired sample t-tests, Spearman’s correlation, force field analysis, and generalized linear regression (SPSS v29; significance set at p ≤ 0.05).
Results: Among 137 respondents, most were aged 41–50 (35.0%), female (75.2%), married (81.8%), nurses (71.5%), and Nigerians (77.4%). Laptop use for CBE was high (90.5%). Mean scores were: proficiency 67.5±23.0, facilitators 63.8±19.2, and barriers 40.1±20.6. Only the barrier scale met normality (p=0.257). There was a positive force field score of 23.9 (95% CI: 18.3–29.1, p<0.001). Proficiency in CBE correlated strongly with facilitators (rs=0.73, p<0.001) and weakly negatively with barriers (rs= –0.27, p=0.001).
Conclusion: Psotgraduate students showed moderate CBE proficiency, reinforced by favourable facilitators. Targeted strategies are needed to reduce barriers and enhance digital assessment readiness
Downloads
References
1.Khan MA, Vivek V, Khojah M, Nabi MK, Paul M, Minhaj SM. Learners’ perspective towards e-exams during COVID-19 outbreak: Evidence from higher educational institutions of India and Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 Jun 17;18(12):6534. https://doi,org/10.3390/ijerph18126534
2.Bamigboye OO, Olusesan AA. An analysis on impact of social media for learning in Eastern Cape Universities, South Africa. International Journal of Educational Sciences. 2017 Jun 3;17(1-3):69-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2017.1305755
3.Eltahir ME, Alsalhi NR, Al-Qatawneh SS. Implementation of E-exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A quantitative study in higher education. Plos one. 2022 May 20;17(5):e0266940. . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266940
4.Emdas R. Online learning during COVID-19 pandemic, and possibility of adopting computer-based test. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol. 2021 Aug;13. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsit.2021.13401
5.Ajinaja M. The design and implementation of a computer-based testing system using component-based software engineering. IJCST. 2017 Jan;8(1):58-65.
6.Khoshsima H, Toroujeni SM. Transitioning to an alternative assessment: Computer-based testing and key factors related to testing mode. European Journal of English Language Teaching. 2017 Feb 3. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.268576
7.Oladimeji OF, Mwuese BC. Computer based test: panacea to undergraduate students’ performance in Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ogun State, Nigeria. Educational Research. 2018;9(3):50-7. https://doi.org/10.14303/er.2018.219
8.Alyahya D, Almutairi N. The Impact of Electronic Tests on Students' Performance Assessment. International Education Studies. 2019;12(5):109-19. https://doi,org/105539/ies.v12n5p109
9.Daramola FO. Impact of computer-based test In Nigeria tertiary institutions: A theoretical view. International Journal of Innovative Technology Integration in Education. 2017;1(1):109-16.
10.Alruwais N, Wills G, Wald M. Advantages and challenges of using e-assessment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2018 Jan;8(1):34-7.
11.Amer ME. Effectiveness of using electronic exams in assessment in Saudi Universities: Empirical study. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning. 2020;8(2):61-9. https://doi.org/10.20448/2003.82.61.69
12.Bloom TJ, Rich WD, Olson SM, Adams ML. Perceptions and performance using computer-based testing: One institution's experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2018 Feb 1;10(2):235-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.10.015
13.Zahedi Z, Salehiniya H, Zarei A, Abbaszadeh H. Attitude and satisfaction towards electronic exams in medical sciences faculty members. Research and Development in Medical Education. 2021 Dec 28;10(1):29. https://doi.org/10.34172/rdme.2021.029
14.Omran E, Fathy A, Elsaiad H, Abd-elmonem A. Facilitators and barriers of employing electronic exams as perceived by nursing students and the relation to their satisfaction. Evidence-Based Nursing Research. 2022 Oct 1;4(4):33-43. https://doi.org/10.47104/ebnrojs3.v4i4.256
15.Washburn S, Herman J, Stewart R. Evaluation of performance and perceptions of electronic vs. paper multiple-choice exams. Advances in physiology education. 2017 Dec 1;41(4):548-55. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2016
16.Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal. 2010; 36(3): 503–520. DOI: 10.1080/01411920902989227
17.Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the horizon. 2001 Nov 1;9(6):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
18.Davis FD. Technology acceptance model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption. 1989;205(219):5.
19.Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003 Sep 1:425-78.
20.Julious SA. Calculation of confidence intervals for a finite population size. Pharmaceutical Statistics. 2019 Jan;18(1):115-22.
21.Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Harper & Row. 1951
22.Van de Vliert E. Conflict and conflict management. In A handbook of work and organizational psychology. Psychology Press 2013:351-376.
23.Kim HJ, Hong AJ, Song HD. The roles of academic engagement and digital readiness in students’ achievements in university e-learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2019 Dec;16(1):1-8.
24.Dermo J. e‐Assessment and the student learning experience: A survey of student perceptions of e‐assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2009 Mar;40(2):203-14.
25.Yazon, A. D., Mayer-Smith, J., & Redfield, R. (2019). Integrating e-learning technologies to enhance student performance. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 18(2): 97–106.
26.Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. Barriers to the acceptance of online assessment in China. Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23(6), 2225–2237.
27.Thomas, G., Singh, L., & Klopfenstein, T. (2020). A framework for student e-assessment engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020; 45(6), 856–869.
28.Baleni, Z. G. Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 2015; 13(4), 228-236.
29.Ayo, C. K., Akinyemi, I. O., Adebiyi, A. A., & Ekong, U. O. The prospects of e-examinations implementation in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2019; 8(4), 125–134.
30.Buzzetto-More, N., & Alade, A. J. (2006). Best practices in e-assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education. 2006; 5, 251-269
31.Farag, A., Park, S. Y., & Faulkner, M. (2019). Device type and test performance in computer-based assessments: Evidence from higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 91–104.
32.Toth, Z., Ludányi, R., & Csapó, B. The effects of tablet-based assessment on students’ attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 52, 735–748.
33.Ng, W. Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education. 2012; 59(3), 1065–1078.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Onwuagbaizu Ebele, Daprim Samuel Ogaji
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Journal is owned, published and copyrighted by the Nigerian Medical Association, River state Branch. The copyright of papers published are vested in the journal and the publisher. In line with our open access policy and the Creative Commons Attribution License policy authors are allowed to share their work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations. While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
TNHJ also supports open access archiving of articles published in the journal after three months of publication. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g, in institutional repositories or on their website) within the stated period, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). All requests for permission for open access archiving outside this period should be sent to the editor via email to editor@tnhjph.com.
