The Repository @ St. Cloud State

Open Access Knowledge and Scholarship

Date of Award


Culminating Project Type


Degree Name

English: Teaching English as a Second Language: M.A.




College of Liberal Arts

First Advisor

James Robinson

Second Advisor

Eric Reynolds

Third Advisor

Isolde Mueller

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Keywords and Subject Headings

testing smart technology assessment paper-based


Mobile devices are becoming increasingly more ubiquitous. This trend is especially true with

young people. An instructor’s job is to best service their students. If there are possible testing

means that are available, it is the responsibility of instructors to know if these mobile devices are as

capable of performing assessments as traditional paper and pencil tests. It is the purpose of this

research to evaluate if there is a difference in actual performance in Mobile Device Testing (MDT)

versus Paper Based Testing (PBT) and if there are any perceived differences. Participants (N=150) of

university EFL learners in South Korea were broken into groups, two different EFL tests were given,

the majority received PBT first followed by the MDT and the remaining performed the tests in

reverse order. Upon completion of both tests, the participants completed a survey evaluating both

testing mediums. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), F-tests and t-tests were used to validate the

comparability of the two different EFL tests, check for overall correlation and test direct comparisons

of one group versus another. The results found that the tests were comparable in the performance

of the participants, there was no overall group that had a variance that could be attributed to the

testing medium, students perceived no difference in difficulty based on testing medium, and that

students actually preferred the MDT method over the PBT. These results indicate that MDT is a

viable alternative to PBT due to the comparability in performance and student motivational factors.