Digital vs Direct Assessment: Distributional Shifts in Student Speaking and Writing Proficiency Profiles

This study evaluates potential distributional shifts across physical and remote online assessment modes in the English Exit Test (EET699) at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Melaka Branch, Melaka City Campus. Drawing from institutional records comprising N = 925 student outcomes, the performance profiles of an Online Cohort (Cohort 20244, N = 588) and a Physical Cohort (Cohort 20252, N = 337) across the Faculty of Business Administration and Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management were compared. Proficiency parameters were mapped directly onto the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale (A1 to C2). Descriptive analyses reveal that B1 remained the dominant modal proficiency band for both assessment modes. Inferential Chi-Square (χ²) tests of independence on consolidated CEFR bands demonstrated no statistically significant association between assessment modality and performance distribution at the pre-specified α = 0.05 level for either Speaking (χ² = 5.9082, d f = 3, p = 0.1162, V = 0.080) or Writing (χ² = 7.2701, d f = 3, p = 0.0638, V = 0.089). However, descriptive observations showed slightly wider score dispersion in remote online testing, including higher concentrations in top-tier bands (C1) in writing alongside isolated lower-tier dropouts (A1/A2). Rather than demonstrating direct causal effects or confirmed cheating, these trends highlight administration-mode effects, potential construct-irrelevant variance, and assessment-security vulnerabilities that warrant cautious institutional policy design.

EET699, CEFR, Online Assessment, Face-to-Face Testing

1. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anson, C. M., & Anson, I. G. (2017). Assessment and technology: The digital transformation of collegiate writing metrics. Journal of Writing Assessment, 10(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. El Mortaji, L. (2022). Public speaking and online peer feedback in an EFL environment: Analysis of student communication anxieties. Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 512–531. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Green, A. (2013). Exploring language assessment and testing: An accessible introduction. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hazaea, A. N. (2023). Digital instructional systems and remote assessment engagement in higher education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5), 812–830. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kamarudin, N. A. (2019). Understanding the intention to engage in academic dishonesty among private tertiary institution undergraduates in Melaka, Malaysia. Journal of Ilmi, 9, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kamarudin, N. A., Sopian, A., Hamzah, F., & Sharifudin, M. A. S. (2024). Motivational perspectives on student cheating behaviour: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(3), 1116–1125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Karim, M. N., Kamarudin, S., & Rahman, N. A. (2021). The impact of online high-stakes testing on student performance profiles. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 204–215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Zhang, M., & Bowles, M. (2020). Format effects in second language writing tasks: A comparative assessment of computer-mediated and paper-based modalities. Language Testing, 37(3), 289–304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests