The Effects of Exam Setting on Students’ Test-Taking Behaviors and Performances: Proctored Versus Unproctored

Denizer Yildirim, Hale Ilgaz, Alper Bayazıt, Gökhan Akçapınar
{"title":"The Effects of Exam Setting on Students’ Test-Taking Behaviors and Performances: Proctored Versus Unproctored","authors":"Denizer Yildirim, Hale Ilgaz, Alper Bayazıt, Gökhan Akçapınar","doi":"10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the biggest challenges for online learning is upholding academic integrity in online assessments. In particular, institutions and faculties attach importance to exam security and academic dishonesty in the online learning process. The aim of this study was to compare the test-taking behaviors and academic achievements of students in proctored and unproctored online exam environments. The log records of students in proctored and unproctored online exam environments were compared using visualization and log analysis methods. The results showed that while a significant difference was found between time spent on the first question on the exam, total time spent on the exam, and the mean and median times spent on each question, there was no significant difference between the exam scores of students in proctored and unproctored groups. In other words, it has been observed that reliable exams can be conducted without the need for proctoring through an appropriate assessment design (e.g., using multiple low-stake formative exams instead of a single high-stake summative exam). The results will guide instructors in designing assessments for their online courses. It is also expected to help researchers in how exam logs can be analyzed and in extracting insights regarding students' exam-taking behaviors from the logs.","PeriodicalId":22544,"journal":{"name":"The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges for online learning is upholding academic integrity in online assessments. In particular, institutions and faculties attach importance to exam security and academic dishonesty in the online learning process. The aim of this study was to compare the test-taking behaviors and academic achievements of students in proctored and unproctored online exam environments. The log records of students in proctored and unproctored online exam environments were compared using visualization and log analysis methods. The results showed that while a significant difference was found between time spent on the first question on the exam, total time spent on the exam, and the mean and median times spent on each question, there was no significant difference between the exam scores of students in proctored and unproctored groups. In other words, it has been observed that reliable exams can be conducted without the need for proctoring through an appropriate assessment design (e.g., using multiple low-stake formative exams instead of a single high-stake summative exam). The results will guide instructors in designing assessments for their online courses. It is also expected to help researchers in how exam logs can be analyzed and in extracting insights regarding students' exam-taking behaviors from the logs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考试设置对学生考试行为和成绩的影响:监考与非监考
在线学习面临的最大挑战之一是在在线评估中维护学术诚信。特别是各院校和院系十分重视网络学习过程中的考试安全和学术不诚信问题。本研究的目的是比较在有监考和无监考的网络考试环境下学生的考试行为和学习成绩。采用可视化和日志分析的方法对学生在监考和非监考环境下的在线考试日志记录进行比较。结果显示,虽然在考试的第一道题上花费的时间、考试的总时间以及每道题的平均和中位数时间之间存在显著差异,但监考组和非监考组学生的考试成绩之间没有显著差异。换句话说,已经观察到,通过适当的评估设计(例如,使用多个低风险的形成性考试而不是单个高风险的总结性考试),可以在不需要监考的情况下进行可靠的考试。研究结果将指导教师为他们的在线课程设计评估。它还有望帮助研究人员分析考试日志,并从日志中提取有关学生考试行为的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Research, Writing, and Creative Process in Open and Distance Education: Tales From the Field, edited by Dianne Conrad (Open Book Publishers, 2023) Identifying Pedagogical Design and Implementation of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms Perceived Utility and Learning by Dominican University Students in Virtual Teaching–Learning Environments: An Analysis of Multiple Serial Mediation Based on the Extended Technology Acceptance Model Editorial - Volume 25, Issue 2 Exploring Teachers’ Digital Literacy Experiences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1