essay on online examination

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A systematic review of online examinations: A pedagogical innovation for scalable authentication and integrity

Kerryn butler-henderson.

a College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1322, Launceston, Tasmania, 7250, Australia

Joseph Crawford

b Academic Division, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1322, Launceston, Tasmania, 7250, Australia

Digitization and automation across all industries has resulted in improvements in efficiencies and effectiveness to systems and process, and the higher education sector is not immune. Online learning, e-learning, electronic teaching tools, and digital assessments are not innovations. However, there has been limited implementation of online invigilated examinations in many countries. This paper provides a brief background on online examinations, followed by the results of a systematic review on the topic to explore the challenges and opportunities. We follow on with an explication of results from thirty-six papers, exploring nine key themes: student perceptions, student performance, anxiety, cheating, staff perceptions, authentication and security, interface design, and technology issues. While the literature on online examinations is growing, there is still a dearth of discussion at the pedagogical and governance levels.

• • There is a lack of score variation between examination modalities.
• • Online exams offer various methods for mitigating cheating.
• • There is a favorable ratings for online examinations by students.
• • Staff preferred online examinations for their ease of completion and logistics.
• • The interface of a system continues to be an enabler or barrier of online exams.

1. Introduction

Learning and teaching is transforming away from the conventional lecture theatre designed to seat 100 to 10,000 passive students towards more active learning environments. In our current climate, this is exacerbated by COVID-19 responses ( Crawford et al., 2020 ), where thousands of students are involved in online adaptions of face-to-face examinations (e.g. online Zoom rooms with all microphones and videos locked on). This evolution has grown from the need to recognize that students now rarely study exclusively and have commitments that conflict with their University life (e.g. work, family, social obligations). Students have more diverse digitally capability ( Margaryan et al., 2011 ) and higher age and gender diversity ( Eagly & Sczesny, 2009 ; Schwalb & Sedlacek, 1990 ). Continual change of the demographic and profile of students creates a challenge for scholars seeking to develop a student experience that demonstrates quality and maintains financial and academic viability ( Gross et al., 2013 ; Hainline et al., 2010 ).

Universities are developing extensive online offerings to grow their international loads and facilitate the massification of higher learning. These protocols, informed by growing policy targets to educate a larger quantity of graduates (e.g. Kemp, 1999 ; Reiko, 2001 ), have challenged traditional university models of fully on-campus student attendance. The development of online examination software has offered a systematic and technological alternative to the end-of-course summative examination designed for final authentication and testing of student knowledge retention, application, and extension. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the initial response in higher education across many countries was to postpone examinations ( Crawford et al., 2020 ). However, as the pandemic continued, the need to move to either an online examination format or alternative assessment became more urgent.

This paper is a timely exploration of the contemporary literature related to online examinations in the university setting, with the hopes to consolidate information on this relatively new pedagogy in higher education. This paper begins with a brief background of traditional examinations, as the assumptions applied in many online examination environments build on the techniques and assumptions of the traditional face-to-face gymnasium-housed invigilated examinations. This is followed by a summary of the systematic review method, including search strategy, procedure, quality review, analysis, and summary of the sample.

Print-based educational examinations designed to test knowledge have existed for hundreds of years. The New York State Education Department has “the oldest educational testing service in the United States” and has been delivering entrance examinations since 1865 ( Johnson, 2009 , p. 1; NYSED, 2012 ). In pre-Revolution Russia, it was not possible to obtain a diploma to enter university without passing a high-stakes graduation examinations ( Karp, 2007 ). These high school examinations assessed and assured learning of students in rigid and high-security conditions. Under traditional classroom conditions, these were likely a reasonable practice to validate knowledge. The discussion of authenticating learning was not a consideration at this stage, as students were face to face only. For many high school jurisdictions, these are designed to strengthen the accountability of teachers and assess student performance ( Mueller & Colley, 2015 ).

In tertiary education, the use of an end-of-course summative examination as a form of validating knowledge has been informed significantly by accreditation bodies and streamlined financially viable assessment options. The American Bar Association has required a final course examination to remain accredited ( Sheppard, 1996 ). Law examinations typically contained brief didactic questions focused on assessing rote memory through to problem-based assessment to evaluate students’ ability to apply knowledge ( Sheppard, 1996 ). In accredited courses, there are significant parallels. Alternatives to traditional gymnasium-sized classroom paper-and-pencil invigilated examinations have been developed with educators recognizing the limitations associated with single-point summative examinations ( Butt, 2018 ).

The objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) incorporate multiple workstations with students performing specific practical tasks from physical examinations on mannequins to short-answer written responses to scenarios ( Turner & Dankoski, 2008 ). The OSCE has parallels with the patient simulation examination used in some medical schools ( Botezatu et al., 2010 ). Portfolios assess and demonstrate learning over a whole course and for extracurricular learning ( Wasley, 2008 ).

The inclusion of online examinations, e-examinations, and bring-your-own-device models have offered alternatives to the large-scale examination rooms with paper-and-pencil invigilated examinations. Each of these offer new opportunities for the inclusion of innovative pedagogies and assessment where examinations are considered necessary. Further, some research indicates online examinations are able to discern a true pass from a true fail with a high level of accuracy ( Ardid et al., 2015 ), yet there is no systematic consolidation of the literature. We believe this timely review is critical for the progression of the field in first stepping back and consolidating the existing practices to support dissemination and further innovation. The pursuit of such systems may be to provide formative feedback and to assess learning outcomes, but a dominant rationale for final examinations is to authenticate learning. That is, to ensure the student whose name is on the student register, is the student who is completing the assessed work. The development of digitalized examination pilot studies and case studies are becoming an expected norm with universities developing responses to a growing online curriculum offering (e.g. Al-Hakeem & Abdulrahman, 2017 ; Alzu'bi, 2015 ; Anderson et al., 2005 ; Fluck et al., 2009 ; Fluck et al., 2017 ; Fluck, 2019 ; Seow & Soong, 2014 ; Sindre & Vegendla, 2015 ; Steel et al., 2019 ; Wibowo et al., 2016 ).

As many scholars highlight, cheating is a common component of the contemporary student experience ( Jordan, 2001 ; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009 ) despite that it should not be. Some are theorizing responses to the inevitability of cheating from developing student capacity for integrity ( Crawford, 2015 ; Wright, 2011 ) to enhancing detection of cheating ( Dawson & Sutherland-Smith, 2018 , 2019 ) and legislation to ban contract cheating ( Amigud & Dawson, 2020 ). We see value in the pursuit of methods that can support integrity in student assessment, including during rapid changes to the curriculum. The objective of this paper is to summarize the current evidence on online examination methods, and scholarly responses to authentication of learning and the mitigation of cheating, within the confines of assessment that enables learning and student wellbeing. We scope out preparation for examinations (e.g. Nguyen & Henderson, 2020 ) to enable focus on the online exam setting specifically.

2. Material and methods

2.1. search strategy.

To address the objective of this paper, a systematic literature review was undertaken, following the PRISMA approach for article selection ( Moher et al., 2009 ). The keyword string was developed incorporating the U.S. National Library of Medicine (2019) MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms: [(“online” OR “electronic” OR “digital”) AND (“exam*” OR “test”) AND (“university” OR “educat*” OR “teach” OR “school” OR “college”)]. The following databases were queried: A + Education (Informit), ERIC (EBSCO), Education Database (ProQuest), Education Research Complete (EBSCO), Educational Research Abstracts Online (Taylor & Francis), Informit, and Scopus. These search phrases will enable the collection of a broad range of literature on online examinations as well as terms often used synonymously, such as e-examination/eExams and BYOD (bring-your-own-device) examinations. The eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed journal articles or full conference papers on online examinations in the university sector, published between 2009 and 2018, available in English. As other sources (e.g. dissertations) are not peer-reviewed, and we aimed to identify rigorous best practice literature, we excluded these. We subsequently conducted a general search in Google Scholar and found no additional results. All records returned from the search were extracted and imported into the Covidence® online software by the first author.

2.2. Selection procedure and quality assessment

The online Covidence® software facilitated article selection following the PRISMA approach. Each of the 1906 titles and abstracts were double-screened by the authors based on the eligibility criteria. We also excluded non-higher education examinations, given the context around student demographics is often considerably different than vocational education, primary and high schools. Where there was discordance between the authors on a title or abstract inclusion or exclusion, consensus discussions were undertaken. The screening reduced the volume of papers significantly because numerous papers related to a different education context or involved online or digital forms of medical examinations. Next, the full-text for selected abstracts were double-reviewed, with discordance managed through a consensus discussion. The papers selected following the double full-text review were accepted for this review. Each accepted paper was reviewed for quality using the MMAT system ( Hong et al., 2018 ) and the scores were calculated as high, medium, or low quality based on the matrix ( Hong et al., 2018 ). A summary of this assessment is presented in Table 1 .

Summary of article characteristics.

QAS, quality assessment score.

2.3. Thematic analysis

Following the process described by Braun and Clarke (2006) , an inductive thematic approach was undertaken to identify common themes identified in each article. This process involves six stages: data familiarization, data coding, theme searching, theme review, defining themes, and naming themes. Familiarization with the literature was achieved during the screening, full-text, and quality review process by triple exposure to works. The named authors then inductively coded half the manuscripts each. The research team consolidated the data together to identify themes. Upon final agreement of themes and their definitions, the write-up was split among the team with subsequent review and revision of ideas in themes through independent and collaborative writing and reviewing ( Creswell & Miller, 2000 ; Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). This resulted in nine final themes, each discussed in-depth during the discussion.

There were thirty-six (36) articles identified that met the eligibility criteria and were selected following the PRISMA approach, as shown in Fig. 1 .

PRISMA results.

3.1. Characteristics of selected articles

The selected articles are from a wide range of discipline areas and countries. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the selected articles. The United States of America held a vast majority (14, 38.9%) of the publications on online examinations, followed by Saudi Arabia (4, 11.1%), China (2, 5.6%), and Australia (2, 5.6%). When aggregated at the region-level, there was an equality of papers from North America and Asia (14, 38.9% each), with Europe (6, 16.7%) and Oceania (2, 5.6%) least represented in the selection of articles. There has been considerable growth in publications in the past five years, concerning online examinations. Publications between the years 2009 and 2015 represented a third (12, 33.3%) of the total number of selected papers. The majority (24, 66.7%) of papers were published in the last three years. Papers that described a system but did not include empirical evidence scored a low-quality rank as they did not meet many of the criteria that relate to the evaluation of a system.

When examining the types of papers, the majority (30, 83.3%) were empirical research, with the remainder commentary papers (6, 16.7%). Of the empirical research papers, three-quarters of the paper reported a quantitative study design (32, 88.9%) compared to two (5.6%) qualitative study designs and two (5.6%) that used a mixed method. For quantitative studies, there was a range between nine and 1800 student participants ( x ̄  = 291.62) across 26 studies, and a range between two and 85 staff participants ( x ̄  = 30.67) in one study. The most common quantitative methods were self-administered surveys and analysis of numerical examination student grades (38% each). Qualitative and mixed methods studies only adopted interviews (6%). Only one qualitative study reported a sample of students ( n  = 4), with two qualitative studies reporting a sample of staff ( n  = 2, n  = 5).

3.2. Student perceptions

Today's students prefer online examinations compared to paper exams ([68.75% preference of online over paper-based examinations: Attia, 2014 ; 56–62.5%: Böhmer et al., 2018 ; no percentage: ( Schmidt, Ralph & Buskirk, 2009 ); 92%: Matthíasdóttir & Arnalds, 2016 ; no percentage: Pagram et al., 2018 ; 51%: Park, 2017 ; 84%: Schmidt, Ralph & Williams & Wong, 2009 ). Two reasons provided for the preference is the increased speed and ease of editing responses ( Pagram et al., 2018 ), with one study finding two-thirds (67%) of students reported a positive experience in online examination environment ( Matthíasdóttir & Arnalds, 2016 ). Students believe online examinations allows a more authentic assessment experience ( Williams & Wong, 2009 ), with 78 percent of students reporting consistencies between the online environment and their future real-world environment ( Matthíasdóttir & Arnalds, 2016 ).

Students perceive the online examinations saves time (75.0% of students surveyed) and is more economical (87.5%) than paper examinations ( Attia, 2014 ). It provides greater flexibility for completing examinations ( Schmidt et al., 2009 ) with faster access to remote student papers (87.5%) and students trust the result of online over paper-based examinations (78.1%: Attia, 2014 ). The majority of students (59.4%: Attia, 2014 ; 55.5%: Pagram et al., 2018 ) perceive that the online examination environment makes it easier to cheat. More than half (56.25%) of students believe that a lack of information communication and technology (ICT) skill do not adversely affect performance in online examinations ( Attia, 2014 ). Nearly a quarter (23%) of students reported ( Abdel Karim & Shukur, 2016 ) the most preferred font face (type) was Arial, a font also recommended by Vision Australia (2014) in their guidelines for online and print inclusive design and legibility considerations. Nearly all (87%) students preferred black text color on a white background color (87%). With regards to onscreen time counters, a countdown counter was the most preferred option (42%) compared to a traditional analogue clock (30%) or an ascending counter (22%). Many systems allow students to set their preferred remaining time reminder or alert, including 15 min remaining (35% students preferred), 5 min remaining (26%), mid-examination (15%) or 30 min remaining (13%).

3.3. Student performance

Several studies in the sample referred to a lack of score variation between the results of examination across different administration methods. For example, student performance did not have significant difference in final examination scores across online and traditional examination modalities ( Gold & Mozes-Carmel, 2017 ). This is reinforced by a test of validity and reliability of computer-based and paper-based assessment that demonstrated no significant difference ( Oz & Ozturan, 2018 ), and equality of grades identified across the two modalities ( Stowell & Bennett, 2010 ).

When considering student perceptions, of the studies documented in our sample, there tended to be favorable ratings of online examinations. In a small sample of 34 postgraduate students, the respondents had positive perceptions towards online learning assessments (67.4%). The students also believed it contributed to improved learning and feedback (67.4%), and 77 percent had favorable attitudes towards online assessment ( Attia, 2014 ). In a pre-examination survey, students indicated they preferred to type than to write, felt more confident about the examination, and had limited issues with software and hardware ( Pagram, 2018 ). With the same sample in a post-examination survey, within the design and technology examination, students felt the software and hardware were simple to use, yet many students did not feel at ease from their use of an e-examination.

Rios and Liu (2017) compared proctored and non-proctored online examinations across several aspects, including test-taking behavior. Their study did not identify any difference in the test-taking behavior of students between the two environments. There was no significant difference between omitted items and not-reached items. Furthermore, with regards to rapid guessing, there was no significant difference. A negligible difference existed for students aged older than thirty-five years, yet gender was a nonsignificant factor.

3.4. Anxiety

Scholars have an increasing awareness of the role that test anxiety has in reducing student success in online learning environments ( Kolski & Weible, 2018 ). The manuscripts identified by the literature scan, identified inconsistencies of results for the effect that examination modalities have on student test anxiety. A study of 69 psychology undergraduates identified that students who typically experienced high anxiety in traditional test environments had lower anxiety levels when completing an online examination ( Stowell & Bennett, 2010 ). In a quasi-experimental study ( n  = 38 nursing students), when baseline anxiety is controlled, students in computer-based examinations had higher degrees of test anxiety.

In 34 postgraduate student interviews, only three opposed online assessment based on perceived lack of technical skill (e.g. typing; Attia, 2014 ). Around two-thirds of participants identified some form of fear-based on internet disconnection, electricity, slow typing, or family disturbances at home. A 37 participant Community College study used proximal indicators (e.g. lip licking and biting, furrowed eyebrows, and seat squirming) to assess the rate of test anxiety in webcam-based examination proctoring ( Kolski & Weible, 2018 ). Teacher strategies to reduce anxiety in their students include enabling students to consider, review, and acknowledge their anxieties ( Kolski & Weible, 2018 ). Responses such as students writing of their anxiety, or responding to multiple-choice questionnaire on test anxiety, reduced anxiety. Students in the test group and provided anxiety items or expressive writing exercises, performed better ( Kumar, 2014 ).

3.5. Cheating

Cheating was the most prevalent area among all the themes identified. Cheating in asynchronous, objective, and online assessments is argued by some to be at unconscionable levels ( Sullivan, 2016 ). In one survey, 73.6 percent of students felt it was easier to cheat on online examinations than regular examinations ( Aisyah et al., 2018 ). This is perhaps because students are monitored in paper and pencil examinations, compared to online examinations where greater control of variables is required to mitigate cheating. Some instructors have used randomized examination batteries to minimize cheating potential through peer-to-peer sharing ( Schmidt et al., 2009 ).

Scholars identify various methods for mitigating cheating. Identifying the test taker, preventing examination theft, unauthorized use of textbook/notes, preparing a set-up for online examination, unauthorized student access to a test bank, preventing the use of devices (e.g. phone, Bluetooth, and calculators), limiting access to other people during the examination, equitable access to equipment, identifying computer crashes, inconsistency of method for proctoring ( Hearn Moore et al., 2017 ). In another, the issue for solving cheating is social as well as technological. While technology is considered the current norm for reducing cheating, these tools have been mostly ineffective ( Sullivan, 2016 ). Access to multiple question banks through effective quiz design and delivery is a mechanism to reduce the propensity to cheat, by reducing the stakes through multiple delivery attempts ( Sullivan, 2016 ). Question and answer randomization, continuous question development, multiple examination versions, open book options, time stamps, and diversity in question formats, sequences, types, and frequency are used to manage the perception and potential for cheating. In the study with MBA students, perception of the ability to cheat seemed to be critical for the development of a safe online examination environment ( Sullivan, 2016 ).

Dawson (2016) in a review of bring-your-own-device examinations including:

• • Copying contents of USB to a hard drive to make a copy of the digital examination available to others,
• • Use of a virtual machine to maintain access to standard applications on their device,
• • USB keyboard hacks to allow easy access to other documents (e.g. personal notes),
• • Modifying software to maintain complete control of their own device, and
• • A cold boot attack to maintain a copy of the examination.

The research on cheating has focused mainly on technical challenges (e.g. hardware to support cheating), rather than ethical and social issues (e.g. behavioral development to curb future cheating behaviors). The latter has been researched in more depth in traditional assessment methods (e.g. Wright, 2015 ). In a study on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), motivations for students to engage in optional learning stemmed from knowledge, work, convenience, and personal interest ( Shapiro et al., 2017 ). This provides possible opportunities for future research to consider behavioral elements for responding to cheating, rather than institutional punitive arrangements.

3.6. Staff perception

Schmidt et al. (2009) also examined the perceptions of academics with regards to online examination. Academics reported that their biggest concern with using online examinations is the potential for cheating. There was a perception that students may get assistance during an examination. The reliability of the technology is the second more critical concern of academic staff. This includes concerns about internet connectivity as well as computer or software issues. The third concern is related to ease of use, both for the academic and for students. Academics want a system that is easy and quick to create, manage and mark examinations, and students can use with proficient ICT skills ( Schmidt et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, staff reported in a different study that marking digital work was easier and preferred it over paper examinations because of the reduction in paper ( Pagram et al., 2018 ). They believe preference should be given to using university machines instead of the student using their computer, mainly due to issues around operating system compatibility and data loss.

3.7. Authentication and security

Authentication was recognized as a significant issue for examination. Some scholars indicate that the primary reason for requiring physical attendance to proctored examinations is to validate and authenticate the student taking the assessment ( Chao et al., 2012 ). Importantly, the validity of online proctored examination administration procedures is argued as lower than proctored on-campus examinations ( Rios & Liu, 2017 ). Most responses to online examinations use bring-your-own-device models where laptops are brought to traditional lecture theatres, use of software on personal devices in any location desired, or use of prescribed devices in a classroom setting. The primary goal of each is to balance the authentication of students and maintain the integrity and value of achieving learning outcomes.

In a review of current authentication options ( AbuMansoor, 2017 ), the use of fingerprint reading, streaming media, and follow-up identifications were used to authenticate small cohorts of students. Some learning management systems (LMS) have developed subsidiary products (e.g. Weaver within Moodle) to support authentication processes. Some biometric software uses different levels to authenticate keystrokes for motor controls, stylometry for linguistics, application behavior for semantics, capture to physical or behavioral samples, extraction of unique data, comparison of distance measures, and recording decision-making. Development of online examinations should be oriented towards the same theory of open book examinations.

A series of models are proposed in our literature sample. AbuMansoor (2017) propose to use a series of processes into place to develop examinations that minimize cheating (e.g. question batteries), deploying authentication techniques (e.g. keystrokes and fingerprints), and conduct posthoc assessments to search for cheating. The Aisyah et al. (2018) model identifies two perspectives to conceptualize authentication systems: examinee and admin. From the examinee perspective, points of authentication at the pre-, intra-, and post-examination periods. From the administrative perspective, accessing photographic authentication from pre- and intra-examination periods can be used to validate the examinee. The open book open web (OBOW: Mohanna & Patel, 2016 ) model uses the application of authentic assessment to place the learner in the role of a decision-maker and expert witness, with validation by avoiding any question that could have a generic answer.

The Smart Authenticated Fast Exams (SAFE: Chebrolu et al., 2017 ) model uses application focus (e.g. continuously tracking focus of examinee), logging (phone state, phone identification, and Wi-Fi status), visual password (a password that is visually presented but not easily communicated without photograph), Bluetooth neighborhood logging (to check for nearby devices), ID checks, digitally signed application, random device swap, and the avoidance of ‘bring your own device’ models. The online comprehensive examination (OCE) was used in a National Board Dental Examination to test knowledge in a home environment with 200 multiple choice questions, and the ability to take the test multiple times for formative knowledge development.

Some scholars recommend online synchronous assessments as an alternative to traditional proctored examinations while maintaining the ability to manually authenticate ( Chao et al., 2012 ). In these assessments: quizzes are designed to test factual knowledge, practice for procedural, essay for conceptual, and oral for metacognitive knowledge. A ‘cyber face-to-face’ element is required to enable the validation of students.

3.8. Interface design

The interface of a system will impact on whether a student perceives the environment to be an enabler or barrier for online examinations. Abdel Karim and Shukur (2016) summarized the potential interface design features that emerged from a systematic review of the literature on this topic, as shown in Table 2 . The incorporation of navigation tools has also been identified by students and staff as an essential design feature ( Rios & Liu, 2017 ), as is an auto-save functionality ( Pagram et al., 2018 ).

Potential interface design features ( Abdel Karim & Shukur, 2016 ).

3.9. Technology issues

None of the studies that included technological problems in its design reported any issues ( Böhmer et al., 2018 ; Matthíasdóttir & Arnalds, 2016 ; Schmidt et al., 2009 ). One study stated that 5 percent of students reported some problem ranging from a slow system through to the system not working well with the computer operating system, however, the authors stated no technical problems that resulted in the inability to complete the examination were reported ( Matthíasdóttir & Arnalds, 2016 ). In a separate study, students reported that they would prefer to use university technology to complete the examination due to distrust of the system working with their home computer or laptop operating system or the fear of losing data during the examination ( Pagram et al., 2018 ). While the study did not report any problems loading on desktop machines, some student laptops from their workplace had firewalls, and as such had to load the system from a USB.

4. Discussion

This systematic literature review sought to assess the current state of literature concerning online examinations and its equivalents. For most students, online learning environments created a system more supportive of their wellbeing, personal lives, and learning performance. Staff preferred online examinations for their workload implications and ease of completion, and basic evaluation of print-based examination logistics could identify some substantial ongoing cost savings. Not all staff and students preferred the idea of online test environments, yet studies that considered age and gender identified only negligible differences ( Rios & Liu, 2017 ).

While the literature on online examinations is growing, there is still a dearth of discussion at the pedagogical and governance levels. Our review and new familiarity with papers led us to point researchers in two principal directions: accreditation and authenticity. We acknowledge that there are many possible pathways to consider, with reference to the consistency of application, the validity and reliability of online examinations, and whether online examinations enable better measurement and greater student success. There are also opportunities to synthesize online examination literature with other innovative digital pedagogical devices. For example, immersive learning environments ( Herrington et al., 2007 ), mobile technologies ( Jahnke & Liebscher, 2020 ); social media ( Giannikas, 2020 ), and web 2.0 technologies ( Bennett et al., 2012 ). The literature examined acknowledges key elements of the underlying needs for online examinations from student, academic, and technical perspectives. This has included the need for online examinations need to accessible, need to be able to distinguish a true pass from a true fail, secure, minimize opportunities for cheating, accurately authenticates the student, reduce marking time, and designed to be agile in software or technological failure.

We turn attention now to areas of need in future research, and focus on accreditation and authenticity over these alternates given there is a real need for more research prior to synthesis of knowledge on the latter pathways.

4.1. The accreditation question

The influence of external accreditation bodies was named frequently and ominously among the sample group, but lacked clarity surrounding exact parameters and expectations. Rios (2017, p. 231) identified a specific measure was used “for accreditation purposes”. Hylton et al. (2016 , p. 54) specified that the US Department of Education requires “appropriate procedures or technology are implemented” to authentic distance students. Gehringer and Peddycord (2013) empirically found that online/open-web examinations provided more significant data for accreditation. Underlying university decisions to use face-to-face invigilated examination settings is to enable authentication of learning – a requirement of many governing bodies globally. The continual refinement of rules has enabled a degree of assurance that students are who they say they are.

Nevertheless, sophisticated networks have been established globally to support direct student cheating from completing quick assessments and calculators with secret search engine capability through to full completion of a course inclusive of attending on-campus invigilated examinations. The authentication process in invigilated examinations does not typically account for distance students who have a forged student identification card to enable a contract service to complete their examinations. Under the requirement assure authentication of learning, invigilated examinations will require revision to meet contemporary environments. The inclusion of a broader range of big data from keystroke patterns, linguistics analysis, and whole-of-student analytics over a student lifecycle is necessary to identify areas of risk from the institutional perspective. Where a student has a significantly different method of typing or sentence structure, it is necessary to review.

An experimental study on the detection of cheating in a psychology unit found teachers could detect cheating 62 percent of the time ( Dawson & Sutherland-Smith, 2017 ). Automated algorithms could be used to support the pre-identification of this process, given lecturers and professors are unlikely to be explicitly coding for cheating propensity when grading multiple hundreds of papers on the same topic. Future scholars should be considering the innate differences that exist among test-taking behaviors that could be codified to create pattern recognition software. Even in traditional invigilated examinations, the use of linguistics and handwriting evaluations could be used for cheating identification.

4.2. Authentic assessments and examinations

The literature identified in the sample discussed with limited depth the role of authentic assessment in examinations. The evolution of pedagogy and teaching principles (e.g. constructive alignment; Biggs, 1996 ) have paved the way for revised approaches to assessment and student learning. In the case of invigilated examinations, universities have been far slower to progress innovative solutions despite growing evidence that students prefer the flexibility and opportunities afforded by digitalizing exams. University commitments to the development of authentic assessment environments will require a radical revision of current examination practice to incorporate real-life learning processes and unstructured problem-solving ( Williams & Wong, 2009 ). While traditional examinations may be influenced by financial efficacy, accreditation, and authentication pressures, there are upward pressures from student demand, student success, and student wellbeing to create more authentic learning opportunities.

The online examination setting offers greater connectivity to the kinds of environments graduates will be expected to engage in on a regular basis. The development of time management skills to plan times to complete a fixed time examination is reflected in the business student's need to pitch and present at certain times of the day to corporate stakeholders, or a dentist maintaining a specific time allotment for the extraction of a tooth. The completion of a self-regulated task online with tangible performance outcomes is reflected in many roles from lawyer briefs on time-sensitive court cases to high school teacher completions of student reports at the end of a calendar year. Future practitioner implementation and evaluation should be focused on embedding authenticity into the examination setting, and future researchers should seek to understand better the parameters by which online examinations can create authentic learning experiences for students. In some cases, the inclusion of examinations may not be appropriate; and in these cases, they should be progressively extracted from the curriculum.

4.3. Where to next?

As institutions begin to provide higher learning flexibility to students with digital and blended offerings, there is scholarly need to consider the efficacy of the examination environment associated with these settings. Home computers and high-speed internet are becoming commonplace ( Rainie & Horrigan, 2005 ), recognizing that such an assumption has implications for student equity. As Warschauer (2007 , p. 41) puts it, “the future of learning is digital”. Our ability as educators will be in seeking to understand how we can create high impact learning opportunities while responding to an era of digitalization. Research considering digital fluency in students will be pivotal ( Crawford & Butler-Henderson, 2020 ). Important too, is the scholarly imperative to examine the implementation barriers and successes associated with online examinations in higher education institutions given the lack of clear cross-institutional case studies. There is also a symbiotic question that requires addressing by scholars in our field, beginning with understanding how online examinations can enable higher education, and likewise how higher education can shape and inform the implementation and delivery of online examinations.

4.4. Limitations

This study adopted a rigorous PRISMA method for preliminary identification of papers for inclusion, the MMAT protocol for identifying the quality of papers, and an inductive thematic analysis for analyzing papers included. These processes respond directly to limitations of subjectivity and assurance of breadth and depth of literature. However, the systematic literature review method limits the papers included by the search criteria used. While we opted for a broad set of terms, it is possible we missed papers that would typically have been identified in other manual and critical identification processes. The lack of research published provided a substantial opportunity to develop a systematic literature review to summarize the state of the evidence, but the availability of data limits each comment. A meta-analysis on quantitative research in this area of study would be complicated because of the lack of replication. Indeed, our ability to unpack which institutions currently use online examinations (and variants thereof) relied on scholars publishing on such implementations; many of which have not. The findings of this systematic literature review are also limited by the lack of replication in this infant field. The systematic literature review was, in our opinions, the most appropriate method to summarize the current state of literature despite the above limitations and provides a strong foundation for an evidence-based future of online examinations. We also acknowledge the deep connection that this research may have in relation to the contemporary COVID-19 climate in higher education, with many universities opting for online forms of examinations to support physically distanced education and emergency remote teaching. There were 138 publications on broad learning and teaching topics during the first half of 2020 ( Butler-Henderson et al., 2020 ). Future research may consider how this has changed or influenced the nature of rapid innovation for online examinations.

5. Conclusion

This systematic literature review considered the contemporary literature on online examinations and their equivalents. We discussed student, staff, and technological research as it was identified in our sample. The dominant focus of the literature is still oriented on preliminary evaluations of implementation. These include what processes changed at a technological level, and how students and staff rated their preferences. There were some early attempts to explore the effect of online examinations on student wellbeing and student performance, along with how the changes affect the ability for staff to achieve.

Higher education needs this succinct summary of the literature on online examinations to understand the barriers and how they can be overcome, encouraging greater uptake of online examinations in tertiary education. One of the largest barriers is perceptions of using online examinations. Once students have experienced online examinations, there is a preference for this format due to its ease of use. The literature reported student performance did not have significant difference in final examination scores across online and traditional examination modalities. Student anxiety decreased once they had used the online examination software. This information needs to be provided to students to change students’ perceptions and decrease anxiety when implementing an online examination system. Similarly, the information summarized in this paper needs to be provided to staff, such as the data related to cheating, reliability of the technology, ease of use, and reduction in time for establishing and marking examinations. When selecting a system, institutions should seek one that includes biometrics with a high level of precision, such as user authentication, and movement, sound, and keystroke monitoring (reporting deviations so the recording can be reviewed). These features reduce the need for online examinations to be invigilated. Other system features should include locking the system or browser, cloud-based technology so local updates are not required, and an interface design that makes using the online examination intuitive. Institutions should also consider how it will address technological failures and digital disparities, such as literacy and access to technology.

We recognize the need for substantially more evidence surrounding the post-implementation stages of online examinations. The current use of online examinations across disciplines, institutions, and countries needs to be examined to understand the successes and gaps. Beyond questions of ‘do students prefer online or on-campus exams’, serious questions of how student mental wellbeing, employability, and achievement of learning outcomes can be improved as a result of an online examination pedagogy is critical. In conjunction is the need to break down the facets and types of digitally enhanced examinations (e.g. online, e-examination, BYOD examinations, and similar) and compare each of these for their respective efficacy in enabling student success against institutional implications. While this paper was only able to capture the literature that does exist, we believe the next stage of literature needs to consider broader implications than immediate student perceptions toward the achievement of institutional strategic imperatives that may include student wellbeing, student success, student retention, financial viability, staff enrichment, and student employability.

Author statement

Both authors Kerryn Butler-Henderson and Joseph Crawford contributed to the design of this study, literature searches, data abstraction and cleaning, data analysis, and development of this manuscript. All contributions were equal.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

• Abdel Karim N., Shukur Z. Proposed features of an online examination interface design and its optimal values. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 64 :414–422. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• AbuMansour H. 2017 IEEE/ACS 14th international conference on computer systems and applications (AICCSA) 2017. Proposed bio-authentication system for question bank in learning management systems; pp. 489–494. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aisyah S., Bandung Y., Subekti L.B. 2018 international conference on information technology systems and innovation (ICITSI) 2018. Development of continuous authentication system on android-based online exam application; pp. 171–176. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Hakeem M.S., Abdulrahman M.S. Developing a new e-exam platform to enhance the university academic examinations: The case of Lebanese French University. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science. 2017; 9 (5):9. doi: 10.5815/ijmecs.2017.05.02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alzu'bi M. Proceedings of conference of the international journal of arts & sciences. 2015. The effect of using electronic exams on students' achievement and test takers' motivation in an English 101 course; pp. 207–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amigud A., Dawson P. The law and the outlaw: is legal prohibition a viable solution to the contract cheating problem? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020; 45 (1):98–108. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1612851. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson H.M., Cain J., Bird E. Online course evaluations: Review of literature and a pilot study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2005; 69 (1):34–43. doi: 10.5688/aj690105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ardid M., Gómez-Tejedor J.A., Meseguer-Dueñas J.M., Riera J., Vidaurre A. Online exams for blended assessment. Study of different application methodologies. Computers & Education. 2015; 81 :296–303. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Attia M. Postgraduate students' perceptions toward online assessment: The case of the faculty of education, Umm Al-Qura university. In: Wiseman A., Alromi N., Alshumrani S., editors. Education for a knowledge society in Arabian Gulf countries. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; Bingley, United Kingdom: 2014. pp. 151–173. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett S., Bishop A., Dalgarno B., Waycott J., Kennedy G. Implementing web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education. 2012; 59 (2):524–534. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education. 1996; 32 (3):347–364. doi: 10.1007/bf00138871. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Böhmer C., Feldmann N., Ibsen M. 2018 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) 2018. E-exams in engineering education—online testing of engineering competencies: Experiences and lessons learned; pp. 571–576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botezatu M., Hult H., Tessma M.K., Fors U.G. Virtual patient simulation for learning and assessment: Superior results in comparison with regular course exams. Medical Teacher. 2010; 32 (10):845–850. doi: 10.3109/01421591003695287. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3 (2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler-Henderson K., Crawford J., Rudolph J., Lalani K., Sabu K.M. COVID-19 in Higher Education Literature Database (CHELD V1): An open access systematic literature review database with coding rules. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 2020; 3 (2) doi: 10.37074/jalt.2020.3.2.11. Advanced Online Publication. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butt A. Quantification of influences on student perceptions of group work. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2018; 15 (5) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chao K.J., Hung I.C., Chen N.S. On the design of online synchronous assessments in a synchronous cyber classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2012; 28 (4):379–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00463.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chebrolu K., Raman B., Dommeti V.C., Boddu A.V., Zacharia K., Babu A., Chandan P. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 2017. Safe: Smart authenticated Fast exams for student evaluation in classrooms; pp. 117–122. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Q. Proceedings of ACM turing celebration conference-China. 2018. An application of online exam in discrete mathematics course; pp. 91–95. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chytrý V., Nováková A., Rícan J., Simonová I. 2018 international symposium on educational technology (ISET) 2018. Comparative analysis of online and printed form of testing in scientific reasoning and metacognitive monitoring; pp. 13–17. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford J. University of Tasmania, Australia: Honours Dissertation; 2015. Authentic leadership in student leaders: An empirical study in an Australian university. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford J., Butler-Henderson K. Digitally empowered workers and authentic leaders: The capabilities required for digital services. In: Sandhu K., editor. Leadership, management, and adoption techniques for digital service innovation. IGI Global; Hershey, Pennsylvania: 2020. pp. 103–124. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford J., Butler-Henderson K., Rudolph J., Malkawi B., Glowatz M., Burton R., Magni P., Lam S. COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Teaching and Learning. 2020; 3 (1):9–28. doi: 10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J., Miller D. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice. 2000; 39 (3):124–130. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daffin L., Jr., Jones A. Comparing student performance on proctored and non-proctored exams in online psychology courses. Online Learning. 2018; 22 (1):131–145. doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson P. Five ways to hack and cheat with bring‐your‐own‐device electronic examinations. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 47 (4):592–600. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12246. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson P., Sutherland-Smith W. Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018; 43 (2):286–293. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1336746. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson P., Sutherland-Smith W. Can training improve marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating? A multi-disciplinary pre-post study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (5):715–725. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1531109. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A., Sczesny S. Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: Have times changed? In: Barreto M., Ryan M.K., Schmitt M.T., editors. Psychology of women book series. The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. American Psychological Association; 2009. pp. 21–47. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis S., Barber J. Expanding and personalizing feedback in online assessment: A case study in a school of pharmacy. Practitioner Research in Higher Education. 2016; 10 (1):121–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fluck A. An international review of eExam technologies and impact. Computers & Education. 2019; 132 :1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fluck A., Adebayo O.S., Abdulhamid S.I.M. Secure e-examination systems compared: Case studies from two countries. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. 2017; 16 :107–125. doi: 10.28945/3705. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fluck A., Pullen D., Harper C. Case study of a computer based examination system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2009; 25 (4):509–533. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1126. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehringer E., Peddycord B., III Experience with online and open-web exams. Journal of Instructional Research. 2013; 2 :10–18. doi: 10.9743/jir.2013.2.12. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giannikas C. Facebook in tertiary education: The impact of social media in e-learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2020; 17 (1):3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gold S.S., Mozes-Carmel A. A comparison of online vs. proctored final exams in online classes. Journal of Educational Technology. 2009; 6 (1):76–81. doi: 10.26634/jet.6.1.212. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross J., Torres V., Zerquera D. Financial aid and attainment among students in a state with changing demographics. Research in Higher Education. 2013; 54 (4):383–406. doi: 10.1007/s11162-012-9276-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guillén-Gámez F.D., García-Magariño I., Bravo J., Plaza I. Exploring the influence of facial verification software on student academic performance in online learning environments. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2015; 31 (6A):1622–1628. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hainline L., Gaines M., Feather C.L., Padilla E., Terry E. Changing students, faculty, and institutions in the twenty-first century. Peer Review. 2010; 12 (3):7–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hearn Moore P., Head J.D., Griffin R.B. Impeding students' efforts to cheat in online classes. Journal of Learning in Higher Education. 2017; 13 (1):9–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrington J., Reeves T.C., Oliver R. Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2007; 19 (1):80–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong Q.N., Fàbregues S., Bartlett G., Boardman F., Cargo M., Dagenais P., Gagnon M.P., Griffiths F., Nicolau B., O'Cathain A., Rousseau M.C., Vedel I., Pluye P. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information. 2018; 34 (4):285–291. doi: 10.3233/EFI-180221. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hylton K., Levy Y., Dringus L.P. Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers & Education. 2016; 92 :53–63. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jahnke I., Liebscher J. Three types of integrated course designs for using mobile technologies to support creativity in higher education. Computers & Education. 2020; 146 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103782. Advanced Online Publication. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson C. 2009. History of New York state regents exams. Unpublished manuscript. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan A. College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior. 2001; 11 (3):233–247. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1103_3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karp A. Exams in algebra in Russia: Toward a history of high stakes testing. International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education. 2007; 2 (1):39–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp D. Australian Government Printing Service; Canberra: 1999. Knowledge and innovation: A policy statement on research and research training. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolagari S., Modanloo M., Rahmati R., Sabzi Z., Ataee A.J. The effect of computer-based tests on nursing students' test anxiety: A quasi-experimental study. Acta Informatica Medica. 2018; 26 (2):115. doi: 10.5455/aim.2018.26.115-118. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolski T., Weible J. Examining the relationship between student test anxiety and webcam based exam proctoring. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2018; 21 (3):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar A. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings. 2014. Test anxiety and online testing: A study; pp. 1–6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li X., Chang K.M., Yuan Y., Hauptmann A. Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 2015. Massive open online proctor: Protecting the credibility of MOOCs certificates; pp. 1129–1137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y., Guba E. Sage Publications; California: 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. [ Google Scholar ]
• Margaryan A., Littlejohn A., Vojt G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Computers & Education. 2011; 56 (2):429–440. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthíasdóttir Á., Arnalds H. Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computer systems and technologies 2016. 2016. e-assessment: students' point of view; pp. 369–374. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitra S., Gofman M. Proceedings of the twenty-second americas conference on information systems (28) 2016. Towards greater integrity in online exams. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohanna K., Patel A. 2015 fifth international conference on e-learning. 2015. Overview of open book-open web exam over blackboard under e-Learning system; pp. 396–402. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4) doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. 264-249. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mueller R.G., Colley L.M. An evaluation of the impact of end-of-course exams and ACT-QualityCore on US history instruction in a Kentucky high school. Journal of Social Studies Research. 2015; 39 (2):95–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2014.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen H., Henderson A. Can the reading load Be engaging? Connecting the instrumental, critical and aesthetic in academic reading for student learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2020; 17 (2):6. [ Google Scholar ]
• NYSED . 2012. History of regent examinations: 1865 – 1987. Office of state assessment. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/hsgen/archive/rehistory.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Oz H., Ozturan T. Computer-based and paper-based testing: Does the test administration mode influence the reliability and validity of achievement tests? Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2018; 14 (1):67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pagram J., Cooper M., Jin H., Campbell A. Tales from the exam room: Trialing an e-exam system for computer education and design and technology students. Education Sciences. 2018; 8 (4):188. doi: 10.3390/educsci8040188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park S. Proceedings of the 21st world multi-conference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics. WMSCI 2017; 2017. Online exams as a formative learning tool in health science education; pp. 281–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel A.A., Amanullah M., Mohanna K., Afaq S. Third international conference on e-technologies and networks for development. ICeND2014; 2014. E-exams under e-learning system: Evaluation of onscreen distraction by first year medical students in relation to on-paper exams; pp. 116–126. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrović J., Vitas D., Pale P. 2017 international symposium ELMAR. 2017. Experiences with supervised vs. unsupervised online knowledge assessments in formal education; pp. 255–258. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rainie L., Horrigan J. Pew Internet & American Life Project; Washington, DC: 2005. A decade of adoption: How the internet has woven itself into American life. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiko Y. University reform in the post-massification era in Japan: Analysis of government education policy for the 21st century. Higher Education Policy. 2001; 14 (4):277–291. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8733(01)00022-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rettinger D.A., Kramer Y. Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education. 2009; 50 (3):293–313. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9116-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rios J.A., Liu O.L. Online proctored versus unproctored low-stakes internet test administration: Is there differential test-taking behavior and performance? American Journal of Distance Education. 2017; 31 (4):226–241. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2017.1258628. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodchua S., Yiadom-Boakye G., Woolsey R. Student verification system for online assessments: Bolstering quality and integrity of distance learning. Journal of Industrial Technology. 2011; 27 (3) [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt S.M., Ralph D.L., Buskirk B. Utilizing online exams: A case study. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC) 2009; 6 (8) doi: 10.19030/tlc.v6i8.1108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwalb S.J., Sedlacek W.E. Have college students' attitudes toward older people changed. Journal of College Student Development. 1990; 31 (2):125–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seow T., Soong S. Proceedings of the australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education, Dunedin. 2014. Students' perceptions of BYOD open-book examinations in a large class: A pilot study; pp. 604–608. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheppard S. An informal history of how law schools evaluate students, with a predictable emphasis on law school final exams. UMKC Law Review. 1996; 65 :657. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sindre G., Vegendla A. NIK: Norsk Informatikkonferanse (n.p.) 2015, November. E-exams and exam process improvement. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steel A., Moses L.B., Laurens J., Brady C. Use of e-exams in high stakes law school examinations: Student and staff reactions. Legal Education Review. 2019; 29 (1):1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stowell J.R., Bennett D. Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2010; 42 (2):161–171. doi: 10.2190/ec.42.2.b. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan D.P. An integrated approach to preempt cheating on asynchronous, objective, online assessments in graduate business classes. Online Learning. 2016; 20 (3):195–209. doi: 10.24059/olj.v20i3.650. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner J.L., Dankoski M.E. Objective structured clinical exams: A critical review. Family Medicine. 2008; 40 (8):574–578. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• US National Library of Medicine . 2019. Medical subject headings. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Vision Australia . 2014. Online and print inclusive design and legibility considerations. Vision Australia. https://www.visionaustralia.org/services/digital-access/blog/12-03-2014/online-and-print-inclusive-design-and-legibility-considerations [ Google Scholar ]
• Warschauer M. The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry. 2007; 1 (1):41–49. doi: 10.1007/s11519-007-0001-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wibowo S., Grandhi S., Chugh R., Sawir E. A pilot study of an electronic exam system at an Australian University. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2016; 45 (1):5–33. doi: 10.1177/0047239516646746. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams J.B., Wong A. The efficacy of final examinations: A comparative study of closed‐book, invigilated exams and open‐book, open‐web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2009; 40 (2):227–236. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00929.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright T.A. Distinguished Scholar Invited Essay: Reflections on the role of character in business education and student leadership development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2015; 22 (3):253–264. doi: 10.1177/1548051815578950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yong-Sheng Z., Xiu-Mei F., Ai-Qin B. 2015 7th international conference on information technology in medicine and education (ITME) 2015. The research and design of online examination system; pp. 687–691. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Online Assessment Tools

• Psychometric Tests
• Behavioral Tests
• Cognitive Tests
• Technical Tests
• Spoken English Tests
• Test Library
• Coding Tests
• Advanced Coding Simulators
• Online Coding Interviews
• Coding Test Library
• Campus Intelligence
• Student Engagement
• Screening Assessments
• Interviews & GDs
• Technical Hiring
• Sales Hiring
• Blue-Collared Hiring

Learning and Development

• High-Potential Identification
• Succession Planning
• Leadership Development
• Skills Gap Analysis
• Learning Agility & Proximity
• Training Effectiveness

ONLINE EXAMINATION

• Entrance Exam
• Semester Exam

Trusted by More Than 6000 Clients Worldwide

• Client Success Stories

• Research & Reports
• Case Studies

Top 14 objectives of recruitment and selection

AI & Future of work

Examination and Proctoring

Recruitment

• Online Interviews
• Virtual ADCs
• Request a demo
• subscribe to blog

Get awesome marketing content related to Hiring & L&D in your inbox each week

Stay up-to-date with the latest marketing, sales, and service tips and news.

By using our offerings and services, you are agreeing to the Terms of Services and License Agreement and understand that your use and access will be subject to the terms and conditions and Privacy Notice

Thank you for subscribing! Let's take the HR world by storm now!

Suvarna Kartha

Recruiter, sap.

Mettl’s assessments have been the biggest filter in our recruitment process. Their platform has helped us reach out to a higher volume our applicant numbers. Mettl constantly keeps innovating on their products and tries to introduce a new aspect to everything.

Trusted by thousands of leading brands

GET A FREE DEMO

Just drop in your details here and we'll get back to you.

Examination and Proctoring | 4 Min Read

The advantages and disadvantages of an online examination system

Table of contents, introduction.

As technology continues to advance and change the assessment landscape, online exams have become a common feature of the modern-day evaluation system. With the shift from traditional examinations to digital alternatives, it is essential for candidates and educators to have an understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of online examinations.

In this guide, we will explore the various aspects of online exams, including their flexibility, accessibility, and the difficulties they present. We will also look at the advantages and disadvantages of this assessment method in greater depth.

The advantages of an online examination system

There are many advantages of online examination systems, such as security, customization, reliability, high interactivity, reduced turnaround time, and better accessibility.

1. Environment-friendly

The traditional pen-and-paper exams have detrimental effects on the environment. Considering the waste of paper, online examinations minimize natural resource usage. In a world where addressing the climate change crisis is our utmost priority, this method substantially safeguards the environment.

The adverse environmental impact of cutting down trees for paper is reduced with the online examination, ensuring that institutions and organizations can go paper-free and not print exam papers and create a paper record of applicants.

2. Technologically advanced

In the past, a leading challenge for organizations and institutes was to conduct offline exams at scale. The cost and coordination involved in managing examinations at a large scale increase exponentially.

One of the benefits of an online examination system is reducing this hassle and using technology to conduct assessments at scale. Recruiters and exam coordinators can scale their evaluations without challenges and improve access to assessments and education.

3. Economical

When considering the human, logistic and administrative costs associated with the traditional exam setting, it’s easy to distinguish an online exam system as a cost-effective system to conduct exams at scale. There is no need for candidates to assemble in large, spacious test centers to take the assessment. The flexibility of time and venue is feasible for both candidates and evaluators.

Multiple factors are involved in setting up an examination, including invigilators to manage exams successfully, administrators to ensure convenience for candidates, etc. Online examinations eliminate redundant and expensive processes, ensuring evaluation efficiency and quality.

4. Quick turnaround time

One of the leading benefits of online examinations is that it reduces the time invested in overseeing the entire examination process. The exam platform saves precious time for both candidates and examiners, which would otherwise be spent on repetitive tasks. Examiners only need to upload the contact details of the participants and invite them to the assessment. Further, the results are generated instantly for quick evaluation during events like recruitment drives.

5. Highly secure 

An online examination system ensures secure execution. There is less room for cheating or other such unfaithful practices due to advanced proctoring and cheating controls, such as video and audio monitoring. In this secure system, candidates also embrace the results without contesting the outcomes, which encourages positive growth.

6. Easy-to-use

Online examinations are easy and seamless for the administration and candidates. The examiners can easily set up the questionnaire, determine the grading, and send invites to participants. Candidates and students can take these examinations remotely anytime, anywhere. Additionally, there’s less chance of question paper leaks as every participant gets a randomly selected set of questions as per the arrangement determined by the examiner.

7. Auto grading

An advanced online examination system has an automated grading system. This technology allows for a flawless scoring mechanism even when there are hundreds of candidates involved in the evaluation. This saves time for the proctor and ensures fairness for the candidates involved.

Automated scoring finds the correct answers by comparing the respondents’ replies against the model answer. Interestingly, MCQs are extensively used in online tests because they make automatic scoring simpler.

The disadvantages of an online examination system

Online examinations have improved the evaluation process, ensuring high efficiency, simpler execution, and desired output. However, there are both merits and demerits of online examination. Explore the limitations of online examinations and how to overcome them using the right proctoring technology.

1. Challenges in technology adoption

Implementing a new system may create a minor disruption and require a period of familiarization by the users. Additionally, any transition from traditional methodology to the online mode will require some investment to upgrade the systems. However, familiarizing both candidates and evaluators with appropriate training may minimize the transition challenges. Such training should educate evaluators and candidates about the features and benefits of an online examination system.

2. Infrastructural barriers

In remote locations where there is a shortage of electricity, lack of stable internet connection, and other basic challenges, online examinations may be difficult. Therefore, while shifting to the online mode, examiners must consider giving candidates appropriate time to arrange the necessary equipment for the test.

3. Difficulty in grading long answer-type

Even though online examinations have eased the invigilators’ job, the problem arises mostly with long answer-type questions. Subjective answers require manual grading, for which examiners need to invest additional time. With advanced proctoring technology, the grading of subjective questions can be streamlined using different norming techniques, support from external invigilators, and insightful reports.

4. Susceptible to cheating

Test takers often resort to impersonation and the use of external help via smartphones or smartwatches. The systems used by candidates also offer multiple cheating opportunities, such as connecting external storage devices, screen sharing, etc.

Mercer | Mettl’s highly secure examination platform features advanced AI-based proctoring with a three-step authentication process and secure browsing. It flags many malpractices, such as impersonation and use of PDF, lending to credible online exams.

5. Transitioning to open-book exams

Usually, the format of online exams is perceived as akin to open-book exams. Unlike a traditional exam setting where external materials are not permitted inside the exam hall, there is no such provision in the digital format.

An advanced online platform such as Mercer | Mettl offers several benefits to address the challenges of remote proctoring . If a candidate deviates from their computer screen to use reference material, seeks support from another person or attempts to open multiple tabs on the browser, proctors will flag such suspicious behavior and take appropriate action.

There are merits and demerits of an online examination system , as mentioned above. While technology continues to simplify processes for educational institutions and organizations, it has limitations. However, choosing the right online examination platform can help you avert such drawbacks. An easy-to-use, robust, secure examination platform with all the latest AI-based anti-cheating measures enables you to get credible results quickly.

How Mercer | Mettl can help?

Mercer | Mettl’s online examination system helps conduct high-stakes assessments on its secure examination platform, preloaded with online proctoring. The tool enables companies to manage the end-to-end online assessment process. From online registration, test creation, and center management to real-time reporting, the entire process is centered on helping clients conduct assessments effortlessly and efficiently.

1. What are the disadvantages of an online examination?

The disadvantages of online examination include: i) Difficulty in technology adoption ii) Infrastructure management challenges iii) Grading of subjective questions iv) Susceptibility to cheating

2. What is the advantage of online assessments?

Advantages of online assessments include: i) Flexibility to the assessors to design, schedule, administer and grade exams ii) Instant test evaluation and report generation iii) Auto grading of objective questions iv) Economical and time-efficient execution

Originally published April 2 2018, Updated February 16 2024

Vaishali Parnami

Vaishali has been working as a content creator at Mercer | Mettl since 2022. Her deep understanding and hands-on experience in curating content for education and B2B companies help her find innovative solutions for key business content requirements. She uses her expertise, creative writing style, and industry knowledge to improve brand communications.

About This Topic

Online Examination

Online examination, also known as virtual examination, is conducted remotely on a computer with high-speed internet. Like a classroom exam, it is time-bound and usually supervised through a webcam and proctor, making it cheating-free, secure and easily scalable.

Related Topics:

Online Remote Proctoring

Online Assessment

Related Products

Examination software with advanced proctoring.

Highly secure and seamless online examination platform

Mercer | Mettl's Semester Exam Tool

Don't defer your semester exams, conduct virtual semester exams in a secure and scalable manner

Reinvent Online Education with Mercer | Mettl

Conduct 1 lac+ proctored online entrance exams in a day

Related posts

Ensuring academic integrity: Securing online exams

Five problems top five universities faced while shifting online and how they solved them

Why universities must consider the online mode of examinations and how

Would you like to comment.

Please write a comment before submitting

Thanks for submitting the comment. We’ll post the comment once its verified.

What is it really like to take an online exam?

A new development as a result of the covid-19 pandemic is online exams. student anna rees talks through how she did hers and why she thinks they may be better than the traditional exam hall model.

The Covid-19 pandemic has altered everyone’s lives significantly and students certainly weren’t exempt. We were unable to return to university and sit our examinations as normal and so many universities resorted to online exams.

In our current global situation, exams might not seem a priority. But, for students, exam stress combined with pandemic stress makes for a pretty hectic time. Here’s my experience with online exams and how they actually ended up alleviating my stress levels.

Discover the University of Liverpools' online postgraduate courses

What were my online exams?  

I had three online exams in total. Two were essay-based, where the titles were released on a certain date and we were given two weeks to write the essays.

We were expected to reference as we would for an essay, just on a smaller scale. Our word counts were also reduced to 750 from the usual 2,000 because of the shortened time frame.

My third exam was a multiple-choice exam. I had 37 questions and 1.5 hours to complete them. All three of these exams were open book, but we were still expected to complete them alone, as in a normal exam.

How do you study for an online exam? 

This was something I found quite difficult. I’m going to be sitting at home, surrounded by the entirety of my notes for the year. Do I revise or do I just scramble through my notes to find what I’m looking for when I need it? Luckily, I chose the former. It seemed a good idea to have my notes organised and summarised so that I could access them easily in the exam.

Although I didn’t revise as thoroughly as I would for a normal exam, I made sure to rewrite my notes for the semester, summarising as I went so that I could condense my notes. I then put all my notes on to a Word document, and added a contents page at the top so that I could find what I was looking for easily.

The search bar tool came in handy too. It’s not easy to find a single case study among 100 pages of notes. So, I’d search for the word I needed, and found it quickly.

For me, the key was to be prepared. Make sure your notes are organised so that you can find what you need quickly in the exam. Don’t be fooled by the fact that it’s online, this does not change the fact that it is an exam.

Tips for studying online and at home for university students 5 revision techniques to help you ace exam season (plus 7 more unusual approaches) Video: Five essential studying tips for students How to stop procrastinating – from a procrastination psychologist

How did I take the exams?  

Perhaps the strangest part of all was sitting down at my desk to take a university exam, in my pyjamas with a cup of tea. If you had asked me my perfect exam conditions (if those even exist), that is how I would have described them. I really benefited from the new circumstances and I was definitely less stressed. There was no big, hot exam hall, intimidating invigilators or hundreds of students alongside you. 

When the essay exams were released, I sat at my computer for the next few hours and did the first exam. It seemed silly to use the entire two-week period when I could dedicate my full attention over a couple of days and get it done. Every so often, I’d go downstairs for a drink or a break, which for me was key.

Don’t expect yourself to do it all in a day, Rome wasn’t built in a day, right? I’ve never been so stress-free in an exam in my life. I can only hope that my exam quality benefited from this too.

In terms of anti-cheating measures, for my multiple-choice exam, they created a bank of questions, so each person had a different test with different questions. This was the only anti-cheating measure that I was aware of, but this might have been different across other exam formats or subjects. We were told that we were trusted not to cheat, but no distinct measures were put into place except for this. 

Online exams or in-hall exams?  

The online exam experience was beneficial for me. I found myself thinking less about having time to get everything down and remembering things, but instead enjoying studying. I felt I had time to read into topics and really study them, rather than memorising things for an exam.

I deem exams to be a major flaw in the education system as they are. I usually find myself cramming so much information in that I don’t learn anything.

My entire schooling, I’ve had to revise a heap of materials to regurgitate them in an exam. And for what benefit? Shouldn’t we be assessed on our ability to use and transform information rather than simply memorising it?

This has led me to praise the online examination system. It was less stressful, less complicated and assessed capabilities beyond memorisation. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I enjoyed taking these exams, but they were about as good as an exam could get. 

Online exams for essay subjects, I can say, work rather well. The scope for cheating is limited anyway, because who can copy an entire essay? There’s also that thing called plagiarism to worry about. Why do students need to sit in an exam hall, costing the university time, staff and money, when they could be sitting it in the comfort of their own homes?

I cannot comment on the effectiveness of online exams for other exam formats, such as maths, where cheating would perhaps be easier. Or for physics, where you are often expected to handwrite equations. However, for essay-based subjects, I fully support the online system for exams. I deem it to be effective, stress-reducing and technologically forward. 

My advice for taking an online exam  

Do not panic, but revise and organise. 

Take time to prepare your notes in the best way for you. Don’t think you can get away with not revising, because you’ll probably just end up making things stressful for yourself during the exam, which no one needs. Find comfort in knowing that you have power over the exam, perhaps more so than you ever have. Stay in your pyjamas or dress up for the occasion. Have a cup of tea or hot water bottle by your side if you need it. Don’t feel like you need to copy the conditions of a normal exam to a tee. This is your exam, be as comfortable as possible so you can do your best.

Other people might try to cheat or work together, but the important thing is to focus on your own work and have trust in your revision. You can do an exam alone in a hall, so you can do it alone at home.

Read more:  How to deal with exam stress

Discover the University of Liverpools' online postgraduate courses

Register free and enjoy extra benefits

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Studying solo: how to prepare for online exams at home

How you approach revision can take off some of the pressure when sitting university exams alone and from home

A fter about 17 years in formal education, some university students are being asked to take their final exams online – in a different format than they’ve ever experienced. This comes on top of a pandemic that has already taken a toll on their mental health .

But there are upsides, too. Remote exams are more flexible, more mindful of individual needs, and acknowledge the pressures students are under. Here are some ways students can tailor their revision to make the most of online assessment.

Create a revision routine

First, decide what topics to cover, and what kinds of knowledge or learning the exam is testing. Tutors can help with this, as well as past papers and sample answers.

Once you’ve got your exam timetable, divide the remaining time by the number of topics to create a study schedule. Building routine into your revision is especially important right now, according to Delroy Hall, senior counsellor and wellbeing practitioner at Sheffield Hallam University. “Covid-19 and the pandemic has now disrupted all that [routine], so we have to be intentional in how we manage our lives.”

Hall recommends the Pomodoro technique, too : 25 minutes of study followed by a five-minute break, then repeat. This is helpful if you feel overwhelmed by revision or struggle to stay focused.

Learn concepts – not just words

Start reviewing course notes, marked essays, lecture videos and important source material. But, Hall says, “learn concepts and ideas, don’t memorise lots of text”. Open book exams let you show you know how to apply learning, not what you can remember. But while this takes some pressure off, hunting for sources during a test can be distracting.

One solution is to make summary sheets with key ideas, quotes and analysis. This active revision helps you understand and remember information, and also makes it easier to find what you need during the exam.

Ideally you’ll start revision early, with existing notes to review rather than learning new material. “We’ve got more stress than normal, so you want to do what you can to release that,” Hall says.

Don’t panic if you’ve left it late, though. Make a plan, but prioritise topics by the time available. Hall’s “worry sheet” technique can also help. Fold a sheet of paper in half, and fill one side with things you can control (such as meal times and bed times) and the other with things you can’t (when the vaccine will be ready). Then focus on doing the things you can control, and let the rest take care of itself.

Tackle exam anxieties

Sitting exams online, alone and during a pandemic is a huge thing – it’s OK to feel anxious or angry about it. There are also ways to manage the worries. Try to minimise stress by creating an exam space that is separate from your revision zone: sit at a desk or the kitchen table, for example, rather than in bed.

Check if your university has exam walkthroughs online. These show what the process will be like, from logging in to uploading answers. Try to download, log in and practise using any recommended software in advance. And if you’re worried about not having a computer or internet connection during the exam, ask your university to loan you a laptop, dongle, or other essential kit.

If 24- and 48-hour exams are new to you, go through a dry run of these, too. It’s not about staying at your desk for days. You’ll feel and perform better with a schedule that balances cranking out answers with eating, sleeping and relaxing.

• Tips for students
• Higher education
• Universities
• Advice for students

Most viewed

Skip to Content

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

Creating and Administering Online or Remote Exams: Considerations and Effective Practices

COVID-19 and the dramatic increase in remote, hybrid, and online teaching have prompted many CU faculty and instructional support staff to rethink many elements of their courses and question previously held assumptions about how people learn. How to administer exams is a particularly thorny issue, especially for courses with large enrollments for which fact-based, multiple choice exams are the norm. This guide highlights key considerations, concerns, and effective practices for remote and online exams.

A few things to keep in mind as you work with students during this time:

• Start with care and trust. Remember that we are still in the midst of a pandemic and that this is not the “new normal,” but rather a constantly changing environment with an overwhelming amount of information and daily disruptions contributing to additional stress. Meaningful teaching and long-lasting learning depend on the mutual trust of educator and learner. This has never been truer than it is now, when the where and how of teaching and learning are so disrupted.
• We can’t always see the challenges. Researchers have found that people are suffering profound mental health effects associated with the pandemic . It is common to have feelings of fear and anxiety, loneliness, depression, and negative impacts on existing health conditions. CU students may have trouble concentrating, sleeping, or eating, and may increase substance use during this time – all of which have substantive impacts on learning and decision-making.
• Be straightforward, clear, and accommodating. The pandemic has had inequitable and compounding effects on CU students and their families. A survey conducted at research universities at the end of spring 2020 found that students – especially first-generation students – suffered financial hardships that may have prevented them from returning this fall. Many of these students do not have access to adequate technology or the internet, and often face food and housing insecurity.

Effective Practices for Online Exams

Done well, exams can be effective assessments of learning, and can be used to help students focus attention on key concepts and materials. Facing an exam in an unfamiliar format or with unusual expectations can contribute to additional stress and test-taking anxiety that can interfere with students’ abilities to effectively demonstrate what they have learned. Educators should be mindful of the ways in which exams can be designed and administered to support students and their learning.

Align Assessments to Course Learning Outcomes 

When deciding whether to use an exam to assess learning, consider how the assessment aligns with learning goals . Do the exam content and format allow students to demonstrate their understanding of key course concepts or ask them to apply skills learned in the course? Good assessments in any teaching modality starts with clear alignment of learning tasks to course learning goals. Assessments should focus on what instructors want students to know or be able to do and not punish students for hidden or implicit expectations (e.g., writing syntax errors).

Use Multiple Low-Stakes Assessments Rather than Fewer High-Stakes Exams

Research shows that low stakes assessments promote learning by providing frequent formative feedback and multiple opportunities for improvement. Low-stakes assessments reduce testing anxiety and build student confidence as learners . Low-stakes assignments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning throughout the semester, as well as foster a feeling among students that they are making measurable progress. Brief writing assignments such as one-minute essays, rapid response activities using tools like Clickers, Quizzes in Canvas, Mentimeter , peer- and self-assessments using rubrics, and online discussion forums can keep students engaged and allow instructors to check in on their learning.

Create Exams that Require Higher Order Thinking

If one of the course goals is for students to demonstrate higher-order thinking skills, create exams that allow students to demonstrate learning through analysis, synthesis, or application of concepts to new scenarios . This approach asks students to think critically and tackle tough problems.

Consider Open-Book Exams

“Open-book” exams encourage students to use their course resources to synthesize or evaluate information and go deeper into concepts . Open-book exams tap into students’ critical thinking, analysis, and application skills. Have students show their work, explain answers, interpret data visualizations, or draw connections between ideas. Make sure to clearly communicate your expectations for what resources students are allowed to use, and whether or not they are allowed to work with other students.

Design Assessments with Equity in Mind

Inequities in higher education persist under normal conditions and have come into sharp relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. We must be careful not to inadvertently further or exacerbate inequity through pedagogical or technological choices. The information provided here is meant to support meaningful, learner-centered assessment. Creating assessments with equity in mind means involving students in the assessment process such as using student-generated exam questions; offering flexible options for students to demonstrate their learning; and being able to adapt your exam strategy to student needs .

Concerns about Cheating

Faculty may be concerned about cheating and the effects on learning and grades. While the strategies discussed in the previous section minimize the opportunity for cheating, some students will still choose this path. The following recommendations directly address these concerns while minimizing the need for proctoring.

Encourage Accountability with the CU Honor Code.

Ask students to sign a pledge or write a statement in their own words that they will uphold the Honor Code. CU’s Honor Code states, "On my honor, as a University of Colorado Boulder student I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance." You can include the CU Honor Code statement at the beginning of the online quiz or in the exam instructions.

Use an Exam with Random Item Generator

Canvas Quizzes can draw from a bank of test questions and randomly assign questions to individual students based on set parameters. Some question types allow the instructor to populate test items with different values so that students must solve the same kind and level of problem but cannot share answers with others.

Randomize Answer Options

If your exam includes multiple choice questions, you can randomize the order of options so each student is presented with a random order. This setting is available in the Quizzes tool in Canvas. This will make it more difficult for students to share correct answers.

Set Time Limits

While it is important to provide sufficient time for students to complete the exam so that they can account for competing issues such as their living situation and access to technology, setting a time limit for students to complete the exam could also reduce the opportunities to violate academic honesty. Remember to allow extended time for students who have accommodations through Disability Services .

Canvas Tools for Online Exams

Quizzes in canvas.

Instructors can administer online exams using the Quizzes tool in Canvas , CU Boulder’s learning management system. The tool has several question types available, including Multiple Choice, Matching, Numerical, Formula, and Essay. Most of the question types can be auto-graded. Instructors can control when a quiz is available and how much time students have to complete a quiz, as well as which results are released to students and when they are released. Quizzes makes it easy to adjust the exam availability window, time limit, and number of attempts for individual students (e.g., if a student needs to take an exam at a different time or needs extra time to complete it). Quizzes also integrates with Proctorio .

Instructors can get support for setting up their exams in Canvas from OIT’s Learning Technology Consultants . OIT offers training sessions on Quizzes in Canvas, both as live sessions and as on-demand recordings . 

Exam setting and configurations strategies to minimize academic dishonesty:

• Set exam time limit
• Randomize the order of multiple-choice question answers
• Randomize the order of questions
• Create a question bank and set the exam to pull a randomized set of questions for each student
• Set the exam to not release correct answers to the students until all the students complete the exam

Assignments in Canvas

The Assignments tool in Canvas can be used to evaluate papers and a variety of project formats, including video. Assignments has a flexible rubric tool that can help make grading faster and more consistent. Rubrics are also a great way to set student expectations for the quality of work. Speedgrader allows instructors to leave comments and annotations directly on student papers, as well as to provide overall text and video comments on student submissions.

Online Exam Proctoring Software: Proctorio

The Office of Information Technology (OIT) supports Proctorio , an online exam proctoring software that is available for faculty to enable in their Canvas courses. Proctorio simulates an in-person testing experience through automated user authentication and monitoring of the test taker. Proctorio requires that exam takers have a computer with camera, speaker and microphone. Proctorio is a robust platform that meets CU’s privacy and security policies; however it must be noted that some faculty and students have expressed concerns about its use in college courses.

Uses for Proctorio

Faculty may choose to use online exam proctoring out of concerns for academic integrity, for verifying the test-taker’s identity, or for administering multiple-choice exams to courses with large enrollments. CU faculty who use the tool say that it is easy to use and reduces cheating. Proctorio gives instructors granular control over the types of test taker behaviors they would like to monitor. For information about Proctorio’s features and training sessions, visit OIT’s Proctorio service page .

Concerns About Online Exam Proctoring

Online exam proctoring has generated concerns from educators and student privacy rights proponents over the invasive methods that the platform uses to monitor student body and eye movements, access the student’s computer, and surveil the student’s surroundings. Instructors and students have likewise noted inequities such as students’ limited access to technology or bandwidth, stressful test conditions or shared living spaces with no access to private places to take the exam. Online proctoring platforms like Proctorio can also be incompatible with assistive technology such as screen readers, tablet computers, or outdated computer systems.

In July 2020, the Remote Exam Working Group in the College of Engineering & Applied Science recommended against using Proctorio, citing privacy concerns and the sense of mistrust that its use can create between students and instructors. For more information and recommendations, read their report, Remote Exam Best Practices .

If You Decide to Use Proctorio...

Offer a practice exam before the actual test. This will help reduce stress, as well as work out any potential issues. Step-by-step instructions on how to set up a practice test as well as a pre-built practice test that you can upload to your course are available in the Set Up a Practice Quiz tutorial on the OIT website.

Provide an alternate arrangement. If remote proctoring must be used in your classes, allow exemptions or alternatives for students who have limited connectivity or do not have access to the technology or equipment required for using Proctorio, and for those who need to take the exam in another time zone. Alternatives will also need to be extended to students with disability accommodations, students who do not feel safe exposing their environment, and those who express mental health concerns. Please consult OIT's Proctorio Accessibility page  for information about limitations of the tool for users with disabilities.

Include a statement about online proctoring in the syllabus. It is recommended that instructors include information about Proctorio in the course syllabus, as well as link to the Proctorio security and privacy information and explain what to expect should students need an exception from using Proctorio . OIT provides a suggested syllabus statement that you can adapt to your course.

Above all, do not require a higher level of proof of learning in an online class than you would in a face-to-face course.

Further Reading & Resources

For more information or assistance with creating effective assessments:

CU Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science Remote Exam Best Practices

Office of Information Technology Learning Technology Consultants

  OIT Proctorio Service Page

  OIT Canvas Service Page

  Bay View Alliance Resources for Assessing Student Learning Online

• Assessment in Large Enrollment Classes
• Classroom Assessment Techniques
• Creating and Using Learning Outcomes
• Early Feedback
• Five Misconceptions on Writing Feedback
• Formative Assessments
• Frequent Feedback
• Online and Remote Exams
• Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
• Student Peer Assessment
• Student Self-assessment
• Summative Assessments: Best Practices
• Summative Assessments: Types
• Assessing & Reflecting on Teaching
• Departmental Teaching Evaluation
• Equity in Assessment
• Glossary of Terms
• Attendance Policies
• Books We Recommend
• Classroom Management
• Community-Developed Resources
• Compassion & Self-Compassion
• Course Design & Development
• Course-in-a-box for New CU Educators
• Enthusiasm & Teaching
• First Day Tips
• Flexible Teaching
• Grants & Awards
• Inclusivity
• Learner Motivation
• Making Teaching & Learning Visible
• National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity
• Open Education
• Student Support Toolkit
• Sustainaiblity
• TA/Instructor Agreement
• Teaching & Learning in the Age of AI
• Teaching Well with Technology

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing Essays for Exams

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

What is a well written answer to an essay question?

Well Focused

Be sure to answer the question completely, that is, answer all parts of the question. Avoid "padding." A lot of rambling and ranting is a sure sign that the writer doesn't really know what the right answer is and hopes that somehow, something in that overgrown jungle of words was the correct answer.

Well Organized

Don't write in a haphazard "think-as-you-go" manner. Do some planning and be sure that what you write has a clearly marked introduction which both states the point(s) you are going to make and also, if possible, how you are going to proceed. In addition, the essay should have a clearly indicated conclusion which summarizes the material covered and emphasizes your thesis or main point.

Well Supported

Do not just assert something is true, prove it. What facts, figures, examples, tests, etc. prove your point? In many cases, the difference between an A and a B as a grade is due to the effective use of supporting evidence.

Well Packaged

People who do not use conventions of language are thought of by their readers as less competent and less educated. If you need help with these or other writing skills, come to the Writing Lab

How do you write an effective essay exam?

• Read through all the questions carefully.
• Budget your time and decide which question(s) you will answer first.
• Underline the key word(s) which tell you what to do for each question.
• Choose an organizational pattern appropriate for each key word and plan your answers on scratch paper or in the margins.
• Write your answers as quickly and as legibly as you can; do not take the time to recopy.
• Begin each answer with one or two sentence thesis which summarizes your answer. If possible, phrase the statement so that it rephrases the question's essential terms into a statement (which therefore directly answers the essay question).
• Support your thesis with specific references to the material you have studied.
• Proofread your answer and correct errors in spelling and mechanics.

Specific organizational patterns and "key words"

Most essay questions will have one or more "key words" that indicate which organizational pattern you should use in your answer. The six most common organizational patterns for essay exams are definition, analysis, cause and effect, comparison/contrast, process analysis, and thesis-support.

Typical questions

• "Define X."
• "What is an X?"
• "Choose N terms from the following list and define them."

Q: "What is a fanzine?"

A: A fanzine is a magazine written, mimeographed, and distributed by and for science fiction or comic strip enthusiasts.

Avoid constructions such as "An encounter group is where ..." and "General semantics is when ... ."

• State the term to be defined.
• State the class of objects or concepts to which the term belongs.
• Differentiate the term from other members of the class by listing the term's distinguishing characteristics.

Tools you can use

• Details which describe the term
• Examples and incidents
• Comparisons to familiar terms
• Negation to state what the term is not
• Classification (i.e., break it down into parts)
• Examination of origins or causes
• Examination of results, effects, or uses

Analysis involves breaking something down into its components and discovering the parts that make up the whole.

• "Analyze X."
• "What are the components of X?"
• "What are the five different kinds of X?"
• "Discuss the different types of X."

Q: "Discuss the different services a junior college offers a community."

A: Thesis: A junior college offers the community at least three main types of educational services: vocational education for young people, continuing education for older people, and personal development for all individuals.

Outline for supporting details and examples. For example, if you were answering the example question, an outline might include:

• Vocational education
• Continuing education
• Personal development

Write the essay, describing each part or component and making transitions between each of your descriptions. Some useful transition words include:

• first, second, third, etc.
• in addition

Conclude the essay by emphasizing how each part you have described makes up the whole you have been asked to analyze.

Cause and Effect

Cause and effect involves tracing probable or known effects of a certain cause or examining one or more effects and discussing the reasonable or known cause(s).

Typical questions:

• "What are the causes of X?"
• "What led to X?"
• "Why did X occur?"
• "Why does X happen?"
• "What would be the effects of X?"

Q: "Define recession and discuss the probable effects a recession would have on today's society."

A: Thesis: A recession, which is a nationwide lull in business activity, would be detrimental to society in the following ways: it would .......A......., it would .......B......., and it would .......C....... .

The rest of the answer would explain, in some detail, the three effects: A, B, and C.

Useful transition words:

• consequently
• for this reason
• as a result

Comparison-Contrast

• "How does X differ from Y?"
• "Compare X and Y."
• "What are the advantages and disadvantages of X and Y?"

Q: "Which would you rather own—a compact car or a full-sized car?"

A: Thesis: I would own a compact car rather than a full-sized car for the following reasons: .......A......., .......B......., .......C......., and .......D....... .

Two patterns of development:

• Full-sized car

Disadvantages

• Compact car

Useful transition words

• on the other hand
• unlike A, B ...
• in the same way
• while both A and B are ..., only B ..
• nevertheless
• on the contrary
• while A is ..., B is ...
• "Describe how X is accomplished."
• "List the steps involved in X."
• "Explain what happened in X."
• "What is the procedure involved in X?"

Process (sometimes called process analysis)

This involves giving directions or telling the reader how to do something. It may involve discussing some complex procedure as a series of discrete steps. The organization is almost always chronological.

Q: "According to Richard Bolles' What Color Is Your Parachute?, what is the best procedure for finding a job?"

A: In What Color Is Your Parachute?, Richard Bolles lists seven steps that all job-hunters should follow: .....A....., .....B....., .....C....., .....D....., .....E....., .....F....., and .....G..... .

The remainder of the answer should discuss each of these seven steps in some detail.

• following this
• after, afterwards, after this
• subsequently
• simultaneously, concurrently

Thesis and Support

• "Discuss X."
• "A noted authority has said X. Do you agree or disagree?"
• "Defend or refute X."
• "Do you think that X is valid? Defend your position."

Thesis and support involves stating a clearly worded opinion or interpretation and then defending it with all the data, examples, facts, and so on that you can draw from the material you have studied.

Q: "Despite criticism, television is useful because it aids in the socializing process of our children."

A: Television hinders rather than helps in the socializing process of our children because .......A......., .......B......., and .......C....... .

The rest of the answer is devoted to developing arguments A, B, and C.

• it follows that

A. Which of the following two answers is the better one? Why?

Question: Discuss the contribution of William Morris to book design, using as an example his edition of the works of Chaucer.

a. William Morris's Chaucer was his masterpiece. It shows his interest in the Middle Ages. The type is based on medieval manuscript writing, and the decoration around the edges of the pages is like that used in medieval books. The large initial letters are typical of medieval design. Those letters were printed from woodcuts, which was the medieval way of printing. The illustrations were by Burn-Jones, one of the best artists in England at the time. Morris was able to get the most competent people to help him because he was so famous as a poet and a designer (the Morris chair) and wallpaper and other decorative items for the home. He designed the furnishings for his own home, which was widely admired among the sort of people he associated with. In this way he started the arts and crafts movement.

b. Morris's contribution to book design was to approach the problem as an artist or fine craftsman, rather than a mere printer who reproduced texts. He wanted to raise the standards of printing, which had fallen to a low point, by showing that truly beautiful books could be produced. His Chaucer was designed as a unified work of art or high craft. Since Chaucer lived in the Middle Ages, Morris decided to design a new type based on medieval script and to imitate the format of a medieval manuscript. This involved elaborate letters and large initials at the beginnings of verses, as well as wide borders of intertwined vines with leaves, fruit, and flowers in strong colors. The effect was so unusual that the book caused great excitement and inspired other printers to design beautiful rather than purely utilitarian books.

From James M. McCrimmon, Writing with a Purpose , 7th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980), pp. 261-263.

B. How would you plan the structure of the answers to these essay exam questions?

1. Was the X Act a continuation of earlier government policies or did it represent a departure from prior philosophies?

2. What seems to be the source of aggression in human beings? What can be done to lower the level of aggression in our society?

3. Choose one character from Novel X and, with specific references to the work, show how he or she functions as an "existential hero."

4. Define briefly the systems approach to business management. Illustrate how this differs from the traditional approach.

5. What is the cosmological argument? Does it prove that God exists?

6. Civil War historian Andy Bellum once wrote, "Blahblahblah blahed a blahblah, but of course if blahblah blahblahblahed the blah, then blahblahs are not blah but blahblah." To what extent and in what ways is the statement true? How is it false?

For more information on writing exam essays for the GED, please visit our Engagement area and go to the Community Writing and Education Station (CWEST) resources.

Essay Exams

What this handout is about.

At some time in your undergraduate career, you’re going to have to write an essay exam. This thought can inspire a fair amount of fear: we struggle enough with essays when they aren’t timed events based on unknown questions. The goal of this handout is to give you some easy and effective strategies that will help you take control of the situation and do your best.

Why do instructors give essay exams?

Essay exams are a useful tool for finding out if you can sort through a large body of information, figure out what is important, and explain why it is important. Essay exams challenge you to come up with key course ideas and put them in your own words and to use the interpretive or analytical skills you’ve practiced in the course. Instructors want to see whether:

• You understand concepts that provide the basis for the course
• You can use those concepts to interpret specific materials
• You can make connections, see relationships, draw comparisons and contrasts
• You can synthesize diverse information in support of an original assertion
• You can justify your own evaluations based on appropriate criteria
• You can argue your own opinions with convincing evidence
• You can think critically and analytically about a subject

What essay questions require

Exam questions can reach pretty far into the course materials, so you cannot hope to do well on them if you do not keep up with the readings and assignments from the beginning of the course. The most successful essay exam takers are prepared for anything reasonable, and they probably have some intelligent guesses about the content of the exam before they take it. How can you be a prepared exam taker? Try some of the following suggestions during the semester:

• Do the reading as the syllabus dictates; keeping up with the reading while the related concepts are being discussed in class saves you double the effort later.
• Go to lectures (and put away your phone, the newspaper, and that crossword puzzle!).
• Take careful notes that you’ll understand months later. If this is not your strong suit or the conventions for a particular discipline are different from what you are used to, ask your TA or the Learning Center for advice.
• Participate in your discussion sections; this will help you absorb the material better so you don’t have to study as hard.
• Organize small study groups with classmates to explore and review course materials throughout the semester. Others will catch things you might miss even when paying attention. This is not cheating. As long as what you write on the essay is your own work, formulating ideas and sharing notes is okay. In fact, it is a big part of the learning process.
• As an exam approaches, find out what you can about the form it will take. This will help you forecast the questions that will be on the exam, and prepare for them.

These suggestions will save you lots of time and misery later. Remember that you can’t cram weeks of information into a single day or night of study. So why put yourself in that position?

Now let’s focus on studying for the exam. You’ll notice the following suggestions are all based on organizing your study materials into manageable chunks of related material. If you have a plan of attack, you’ll feel more confident and your answers will be more clear. Here are some tips: 

• Don’t just memorize aimlessly; clarify the important issues of the course and use these issues to focus your understanding of specific facts and particular readings.
• Try to organize and prioritize the information into a thematic pattern. Look at what you’ve studied and find a way to put things into related groups. Find the fundamental ideas that have been emphasized throughout the course and organize your notes into broad categories. Think about how different categories relate to each other.
• Find out what you don’t know, but need to know, by making up test questions and trying to answer them. Studying in groups helps as well.

Taking the exam

Read the exam carefully.

• If you are given the entire exam at once and can determine your approach on your own, read the entire exam before you get started.
• Look at how many points each part earns you, and find hints for how long your answers should be.
• Figure out how much time you have and how best to use it. Write down the actual clock time that you expect to take in each section, and stick to it. This will help you avoid spending all your time on only one section. One strategy is to divide the available time according to percentage worth of the question. You don’t want to spend half of your time on something that is only worth one tenth of the total points.
• As you read, make tentative choices of the questions you will answer (if you have a choice). Don’t just answer the first essay question you encounter. Instead, read through all of the options. Jot down really brief ideas for each question before deciding.
• Remember that the easiest-looking question is not always as easy as it looks. Focus your attention on questions for which you can explain your answer most thoroughly, rather than settle on questions where you know the answer but can’t say why.

Analyze the questions

• Decide what you are being asked to do. If you skim the question to find the main “topic” and then rush to grasp any related ideas you can recall, you may become flustered, lose concentration, and even go blank. Try looking closely at what the question is directing you to do, and try to understand the sort of writing that will be required.
• Focus on what you do know about the question, not on what you don’t.
• Look at the active verbs in the assignment—they tell you what you should be doing. We’ve included some of these below, with some suggestions on what they might mean. (For help with this sort of detective work, see the Writing Center handout titled Reading Assignments.)

Information words, such as who, what, when, where, how, and why ask you to demonstrate what you know about the subject. Information words may include:

• define—give the subject’s meaning (according to someone or something). Sometimes you have to give more than one view on the subject’s meaning.
• explain why/how—give reasons why or examples of how something happened.
• illustrate—give descriptive examples of the subject and show how each is connected with the subject.
• summarize—briefly cover the important ideas you learned about the subject.
• trace—outline how something has changed or developed from an earlier time to its current form.
• research—gather material from outside sources about the subject, often with the implication or requirement that you will analyze what you’ve found.

Relation words ask you to demonstrate how things are connected. Relation words may include:

• compare—show how two or more things are similar (and, sometimes, different).
• contrast—show how two or more things are dissimilar.
• apply—use details that you’ve been given to demonstrate how an idea, theory, or concept works in a particular situation.
• cause—show how one event or series of events made something else happen.
• relate—show or describe the connections between things.

Interpretation words ask you to defend ideas of your own about the subject. Don’t see these words as requesting opinion alone (unless the assignment specifically says so), but as requiring opinion that is supported by concrete evidence. Remember examples, principles, definitions, or concepts from class or research and use them in your interpretation. Interpretation words may include:

• prove, justify—give reasons or examples to demonstrate how or why something is the truth.
• evaluate, respond, assess—state your opinion of the subject as good, bad, or some combination of the two, with examples and reasons (you may want to compare your subject to something else).
• support—give reasons or evidence for something you believe (be sure to state clearly what it is that you believe).
• synthesize—put two or more things together that haven’t been put together before; don’t just summarize one and then the other, and say that they are similar or different—you must provide a reason for putting them together (as opposed to compare and contrast—see above).
• analyze—look closely at the components of something to figure out how it works, what it might mean, or why it is important.
• argue—take a side and defend it (with proof) against the other side.

Plan your answers

Think about your time again. How much planning time you should take depends on how much time you have for each question and how many points each question is worth. Here are some general guidelines: 

• For short-answer definitions and identifications, just take a few seconds. Skip over any you don’t recognize fairly quickly, and come back to them when another question jogs your memory.
• For answers that require a paragraph or two, jot down several important ideas or specific examples that help to focus your thoughts.
• For longer answers, you will need to develop a much more definite strategy of organization. You only have time for one draft, so allow a reasonable amount of time—as much as a quarter of the time you’ve allotted for the question—for making notes, determining a thesis, and developing an outline.
• For questions with several parts (different requests or directions, a sequence of questions), make a list of the parts so that you do not miss or minimize one part. One way to be sure you answer them all is to number them in the question and in your outline.
• You may have to try two or three outlines or clusters before you hit on a workable plan. But be realistic—you want a plan you can develop within the limited time allotted for your answer. Your outline will have to be selective—not everything you know, but what you know that you can state clearly and keep to the point in the time available.

Again, focus on what you do know about the question, not on what you don’t.

Writing your answers

As with planning, your strategy for writing depends on the length of your answer:

• For short identifications and definitions, it is usually best to start with a general identifying statement and then move on to describe specific applications or explanations. Two sentences will almost always suffice, but make sure they are complete sentences. Find out whether the instructor wants definition alone, or definition and significance. Why is the identification term or object important?
• For longer answers, begin by stating your forecasting statement or thesis clearly and explicitly. Strive for focus, simplicity, and clarity. In stating your point and developing your answers, you may want to use important course vocabulary words from the question. For example, if the question is, “How does wisteria function as a representation of memory in Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom?” you may want to use the words wisteria, representation, memory, and Faulkner) in your thesis statement and answer. Use these important words or concepts throughout the answer.
• If you have devised a promising outline for your answer, then you will be able to forecast your overall plan and its subpoints in your opening sentence. Forecasting impresses readers and has the very practical advantage of making your answer easier to read. Also, if you don’t finish writing, it tells your reader what you would have said if you had finished (and may get you partial points).
• You might want to use briefer paragraphs than you ordinarily do and signal clear relations between paragraphs with transition phrases or sentences.
• As you move ahead with the writing, you may think of new subpoints or ideas to include in the essay. Stop briefly to make a note of these on your original outline. If they are most appropriately inserted in a section you’ve already written, write them neatly in the margin, at the top of the page, or on the last page, with arrows or marks to alert the reader to where they fit in your answer. Be as neat and clear as possible.
• Don’t pad your answer with irrelevancies and repetitions just to fill up space. Within the time available, write a comprehensive, specific answer.
• Watch the clock carefully to ensure that you do not spend too much time on one answer. You must be realistic about the time constraints of an essay exam. If you write one dazzling answer on an exam with three equally-weighted required questions, you earn only 33 points—not enough to pass at most colleges. This may seem unfair, but keep in mind that instructors plan exams to be reasonably comprehensive. They want you to write about the course materials in two or three or more ways, not just one way. Hint: if you finish a half-hour essay in 10 minutes, you may need to develop some of your ideas more fully.
• If you run out of time when you are writing an answer, jot down the remaining main ideas from your outline, just to show that you know the material and with more time could have continued your exposition.
• Double-space to leave room for additions, and strike through errors or changes with one straight line (avoid erasing or scribbling over). Keep things as clean as possible. You never know what will earn you partial credit.
• Write legibly and proofread. Remember that your instructor will likely be reading a large pile of exams. The more difficult they are to read, the more exasperated the instructor might become. Your instructor also cannot give you credit for what they cannot understand. A few minutes of careful proofreading can improve your grade.

Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind in writing essay exams is that you have a limited amount of time and space in which to get across the knowledge you have acquired and your ability to use it. Essay exams are not the place to be subtle or vague. It’s okay to have an obvious structure, even the five-paragraph essay format you may have been taught in high school. Introduce your main idea, have several paragraphs of support—each with a single point defended by specific examples, and conclude with a restatement of your main point and its significance.

Some physiological tips

Just think—we expect athletes to practice constantly and use everything in their abilities and situations in order to achieve success. Yet, somehow many students are convinced that one day’s worth of studying, no sleep, and some well-placed compliments (“Gee, Dr. So-and-so, I really enjoyed your last lecture”) are good preparation for a test. Essay exams are like any other testing situation in life: you’ll do best if you are prepared for what is expected of you, have practiced doing it before, and have arrived in the best shape to do it. You may not want to believe this, but it’s true: a good night’s sleep and a relaxed mind and body can do as much or more for you as any last-minute cram session. Colleges abound with tales of woe about students who slept through exams because they stayed up all night, wrote an essay on the wrong topic, forgot everything they studied, or freaked out in the exam and hyperventilated. If you are rested, breathing normally, and have brought along some healthy, energy-boosting snacks that you can eat or drink quietly, you are in a much better position to do a good job on the test. You aren’t going to write a good essay on something you figured out at 4 a.m. that morning. If you prepare yourself well throughout the semester, you don’t risk your whole grade on an overloaded, undernourished brain.

If for some reason you get yourself into this situation, take a minute every once in a while during the test to breathe deeply, stretch, and clear your brain. You need to be especially aware of the likelihood of errors, so check your essays thoroughly before you hand them in to make sure they answer the right questions and don’t have big oversights or mistakes (like saying “Hitler” when you really mean “Churchill”).

If you tend to go blank during exams, try studying in the same classroom in which the test will be given. Some research suggests that people attach ideas to their surroundings, so it might jog your memory to see the same things you were looking at while you studied.

Try good luck charms. Bring in something you associate with success or the support of your loved ones, and use it as a psychological boost.

Take all of the time you’ve been allotted. Reread, rework, and rethink your answers if you have extra time at the end, rather than giving up and handing the exam in the minute you’ve written your last sentence. Use every advantage you are given.

Remember that instructors do not want to see you trip up—they want to see you do well. With this in mind, try to relax and just do the best you can. The more you panic, the more mistakes you are liable to make. Put the test in perspective: will you die from a poor performance? Will you lose all of your friends? Will your entire future be destroyed? Remember: it’s just a test.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Axelrod, Rise B., and Charles R. Cooper. 2016. The St. Martin’s Guide to Writing , 11th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Fowler, Ramsay H., and Jane E. Aaron. 2016. The Little, Brown Handbook , 13th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Gefvert, Constance J. 1988. The Confident Writer: A Norton Handbook , 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Kirszner, Laurie G. 1988. Writing: A College Rhetoric , 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Woodman, Leonara, and Thomas P. Adler. 1988. The Writer’s Choices , 2nd ed. Northbrook, Illinois: Scott Foresman.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• India Today
• Business Today
• Reader’s Digest
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• Aaj Tak Campus
• India Today Hindi

Online examinations: A boon or a bane?

With covid-19 playing havoc with exam schedules, online examinations are slowly becoming mainstream. but are online examinations a boon or bane here are the advantages and disadvantages of online exams..

Listen to Story

• The education system all across the world has gone through a paradigm shift, in terms of resources, and mode.
• Now ‘online teaching and examinations’ have become a new normal.
• Here are the pros and cons of the same.

When 2019 was heading towards its completion, and everyone was busy planning for their New Year resolutions, then came the unwelcomed pandemic, which is now popular with the name of Covid-19.

Let’s have a look at what is next:

The education system all across the world has gone through a paradigm shift, not just in terms of resources and content but also in terms of mode, when the world was entirely under lockdown for almost six months.

Since the rise of the pandemic, teaching moved online and that too at a considerably high degree both in schools and universities worldwide. Now ‘online teaching and examinations’ have become a new normal. In this lockdown, Information Technology has emerged as a superhero.

• Fakhroddin Noorbehbahani 1 ,
• Azadeh Mohammadi 1 &
• Mohammad Aminazadeh 1  

61 Citations

20 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In recent years, online learning has received more attention than ever before. One of the most challenging aspects of online education is the students' assessment since academic integrity could be violated due to various cheating behaviors in online examinations. Although a considerable number of literature reviews exist about online learning, there is no such review study to provide comprehensive insight into cheating motivations, cheating types, cheating detection, and cheating prevention in the online setting. The current study is a review of 58 publications about online cheating, published from January 2010 to February 2021. We present the categorization of the research and show topic trends in the field of online exam cheating. The study can be a valuable reference for educators and researchers working in the field of online learning to obtain a comprehensive view of cheating mitigation, detection, and prevention.

Similar content being viewed by others

Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance

Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?

Cheating is in the Eye of the Beholder: an Evolving Understanding of Academic Misconduct

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Today, distance education has been transformed into online settings, and the COVID-19 pandemic has raised online learning significantly across the world. The COVID-19 enforced the closing of traditional learning all over the world, resulting in 1.5 billion students and 63 million educators shifting from face-to-face learning to online learning. This situation has revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the digital transformation of education (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2020 ).

In (Martin et al., 2020 ), it has been shown that the online learning publications are continuously being increased from 2009 to 2018, and one of the leading research themes is course assessment. Course assessment is very challenging in online learning due to the lack of direct control over students and educators.

For an educational institution, assessment integrity is essential because it affects institutional reputation. It is necessary to employ traditional cheating detection besides prevention methods and new digital monitoring and validation techniques to support assessment integrity in online exams (Fluck, 2019 ).

The study (Watson & Sottile, 2010 ) has reported that students are remarkably more likely to get answers from others during online exams or quizzes compared to live (face-to-face) ones. Therefore, preserving the integrity of online exams is more challenging. There are some strategies to mitigate online exam cheating, such as getting offline (face-to-face) proctored exam, developing cheat-resistant questions (e.g., using subjective measures instead of objective measures), and lessening the exam score percentage contributing to the overall course grade.

Traditional cheating methods include, hiding notes in a pencil case, behind ruler, or clothes, writing on arms/hands, leaving the room, etc. (Curran et al., 2011 ). Technological advances and online learning have enhanced education, however, they also have facilitated cheating in courses (Turner & Uludag, 2013 ). For instance, an examinee could use a mobile phone to text someone to get the answer. Although this would be difficult in the exam hall, some examinees could text without looking at the mobile phone. Applying scientific calculators, Mp3 players calculator, and wireless equipment such as an earphone and a microphone are other tools that facilitate cheating in offline exams (Curran et al., 2011 ).

Although cheating motivations in online and offline exams are not significantly different (Turner & Uludag, 2013 ), detecting and mitigating online cheating could be more intricate. This is because, in addition to traditional cheating methods that also could be exploited in online exam cheating, there exist various technologies and tools that could be applied for cheating in online exams more easily. For example, using remote desktop and share screen, searching for solutions on Internet, using social networks, etc.

Cheating in an online setting is more convenient than a traditional offline exam. Accordingly, detecting and preventing online cheating is critical for online assessment. Therefore, this issue is one of the biggest challenges that MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) summative assessment faces.

Recent researches imply that a critical issue in online education is academic dishonesty and cheating. Today, paid services exist that impersonate students in online courses to ensure their identity. In recent years, proctoring technologies such as identity authentication, keystroke recognition, and webcam proctoring will be extended to secure online exams (Xiong & Suen, 2018 ). Apart from direct proctoring, there are some techniques such as controlling the browser, limiting exam time, randomizing questions and choices, etc. However, it seems cheating in online courses is pretty common (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020 ).

Although one of the most critical challenges in online learning is to mitigate and handle cheating, there is no comprehensive literature review and classification in this field. Hence, in this paper, we present a systematic mapping review of researches in online examination cheating. The research questions are as follows:

RQ1: What are the publication trends in online cheating?

RQ2: What are the main reasons for online cheating?

RQ3: What are the cheating types in online exams?

RQ4: How can online cheating be detected?

RQ5: How can online exam cheating be prevented?

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 , the research method is described, including study selection criteria, databases and search strategy, and study selection. Section 3 presents review results and provides the answers to research questions. Sections 4 and 5 discuss the results and conclude the paper, respectively.

The current study is a literature review about cheating in online exams. A literature review identifies, selects, and synthesizes primary research studies in order to provide a picture of the topic under investigation. According to (Page et al., 2021 ), a record is the title or abstract (or both) of a report indexed in a database or website, and a report is a document (in paper or electronic format) supplying information about a particular study. It could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report, or any other document providing relevant information. The current literature search has been performed based on the well-established PRISMA principles (Page et al., 2021 ).

2.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The main criteria for the articles considered in the current review are as follows.

Inclusion criteria:

Researches should be written in English.

Records should be retrieved utilizing the designed search query.

Studies should be published between January 2010 and February 2021.

In cases where several papers reported the same study, only the most recent ones were included (i.e., theses and papers extracted from theses, extended version of papers published in journals).

Exclusion criteria:

Papers merely related to methods applicable to traditional cheating types, detection, and prevention are eliminated.

Studies not related to research questions are ignored.

Articles only related to cyber-attacks to online exam systems are excluded.

Low-quality researches are discarded (i.e., studies published by non-reputable publishers without peer review, too short review time, and so on, studies with poor theoretical background, experimental evaluation, or structure).

2.2 Databases and search strategy

We applied a wide range of databases as our primary source, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. We also added the publications which had cited the extracted records. Records were searched using the following search terms for the title, keywords, and abstract sections.

(Cheat OR e-Cheating OR Fraud OR Dishonesty OR Anti-cheating OR Cheat-resistant OR Abnormal behavior OR Misconduct OR Integrity OR Plagiarism) AND

(Electronic OR Online OR Digital OR Virtual OR Cyber OR Academic) AND

(Exam OR e-Exam OR Course OR e-Course OR Assessment OR e-Assessment OR Test OR e-Test OR Environment OR e-Environment) AND

(Prevent OR Detect OR Mitigate OR Reduce OR Minimize OR Monitor OR Proctor OR Reason OR Motivation OR Type OR Deter OR Control).

2.3 Study selection

The search result included 289 records, 26 of which were duplicated, and so they were deleted. From 263 screened records, 54 records were excluded by examining either the title or the abstract. In the next step, 12 reports were eliminated because they were not retrieved because were not accessible. Furthermore, after full-text eligibility checking, 144 reports have been excluded according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as mentioned earlier. ‌

This resulted in 53 reports that along with 5 other reports (obtained from citation searching and assessed for eligibility), were finally selected for literature review about online cheating. The flow of information through different phases of the review is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram depicted in Fig. 1 .

The PRISMA flow diagram

After selecting 58 studies, three domain experts were asked to assign a Credibility Score (CS) to each study. After evaluation of each study, experts agreed on a credibility score ranging from 0 to 5 based on the following criteria: publisher credibility, number of citations per year, theoretical and experimental quality, and organization and structure. CS statistics are as follows: mean = 3.81, SD =0.79, min = 2.5, max =5.

A summary of online cheating research papers and their study themes is presented in Table 1 . (Appendix 1 .)

Several findings emerged as a result of the research synthesis of the selected fifty-eight records on online cheating. The selected studies were categorized into four main topics, namely Cheating reasons, Cheating types, Cheating detection, and Cheating prevention, as shown in Fig. 2 . All subsequent classifications reported in this paper have been provided by the authors. The studies under every four main topics are investigated by three experts, and a list of items is extracted for each category. Notably, some studies were corresponded to multiple main topics. Next, several brainstorming sessions have been conducted to classify each main topic further. To extract the classifications, the XMind tool has been employed, which is a professional and popular mind mapping software.

Online cheating research classification

In the following sub-sections, the detailed analysis of the review results is described according to the five research questions we defined to drive the research.

3.1 Publication trends

In Fig. 3 , the number of publications per year is displayed (in this study, the final publication date is applied). In 2017, the greatest number of studies corresponding to the conducted review have been published. As shown in Fig. 4 , the dominant publication type is journal papers with 53% of the total publications. In terms of the average citations of the selected studies regarding their classes, the maximum average citations belong to the journal papers with an average citation of 19.65 (see Fig. 5 ).

Number of publications per year

Distribution of publication per types

Average citation per publication type

There are 747 works cite the selected studies related to the review. As displayed in Fig. 6 , the greatest and lowest shares of the total citations pertain to the journal articles and the theses, respectively. The number of publications per research theme is shown in Fig. 7 . The cheating prevention and detection themes are the most prevalent research themes in online cheating. In the following four subsections, the studies under each of the four research themes are described and classified thoroughly.

Distribution of publications according to citations

Number of publications per research theme

3.2 Cheating reasons

The primary reason for cheating is that examinees feel the rewards outweigh the risks (Lancaster & Clarke, 2017 ). There exists a wide variety of reasons why candidates decide to commit cheating, still, they could be categorized into four general reasons, namely Teacher-related, Institutional, Internal, and Environmental reasons. The complete classification of the cheating reasons is displayed in Fig. 8 , which is described in the following sections.

Cheating reasons

3.2.1 Teacher-related reasons

All the reasons related to the teacher or the course instructor are put into this category. Maeda ( 2019 ), has observed that the student’s relationship with the teacher has crucial influences on academic integrity. Teachers’ unethical behaviors, such as favoring those who have bribed over those who have not, or favoring the students who participated in private tutoring sessions, motivate the oppressed students to cheat. The author also found that teachers’ low interest in students’ depth of learning, which also results in a poor pedagogical style, could be an important reason that motivates students to participate in any kind of unethical behavior (Maeda, 2019 ).

Course difficulty could motivate the examinees to cheat. Some students blamed their teachers for complicated and complex course materials. In some specific cases, this reason could be a consequence of students’ lack of perseverance. They find cheating as a way to relieve these difficulties (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019 ).

As a result of distributed learning with online courses and examinations, Moten et al. ( 2013 ), have expressed that students feel isolated in an online environment. They often become frustrated when they do not get the help they immediately need, for instance, the night before an exam. This situation is closely dependent on the presence time of the teacher in online communication environments.

Some teachers restrain from punishing the cheaters appropriately due to ethical issues. This could be due to the sympathy of some teachers with cheaters. After listening to the cheater’s excuses and justifications, the teacher might give them a second chance. Sometimes, teachers are worried about the consequences of punishments and the corresponding pressures that cheaters experience, hence they don’t punish the cheater or the punishment is too mellow.

This increases the students’ courage to cheat during online exams due to decreased risk of being punished after being caught and implies that cheating penalties are insignificant over the long run (Topîrceanu, 2017 ).

Exam design is one of the most important contributing factors that motivates examinees to cheat in the exam. Weakly designed exams such as similar multiple-questions for every examinee or easy accessibility of solutions over the web, can make it easy to cheat. On the other hand, questions being too complex and irrelevant to course materials, forces students to commit cheating during online exams (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ).

3.2.2 Institutional reasons

In (Maeda, 2019 ), it is observed that the rules and policies of the institution are directly related to the number of unethical behaviors occurrences. It is found that institutions with stricter regulations and better commitment to strengthening academic integrity, face much less cheating behavior between their students. Institutional policies not only create an anti-cheating atmosphere, but also makes dishonest academic behaviors challenging to take place. Also, Backman ( 2019 ) emphasizes that if it becomes easy for students to cheat, they will cheat.

Impulsiveness is a crucial reason why students try to cheat during online examinations. They feel isolated and disconnected, so they may imagine they won’t get caught or the instructor does not care if they commit academic dishonesty. Unethical behaviors have a direct relationship with the student’s impulsiveness (Moten et al., 2013 ).

Moreover, in an isolated environment, due to the lack of face-to-face communications with teachers, students have much less respect for their teachers that leads to increasing misbehaviors. That is why teachers should personalize the online environment for students by calling their names or listening to their voices, so that online classes become more engaging and interactive for students (Moten et al., 2013 ).

Dobrovska ( 2017 ), expressed that the poor quality of the institution’s online learning system discourages students from learning the course materials, and makes it difficult for them to learn, hence, they are more motivated to cheat.

Academic aptitude is one of the most important and underrated reasons leading students to commit misbehaviors. It means educational institutions don’t discriminate between students and ignore their unique abilities, skills, and different levels of preparedness for a specific task. This makes unprepared students feel frustrated about that particular task or course, which leads them to seek help from more talented and prepared students in that specific context (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019 ).

3.2.3 Internal reasons

Another category of cheating reasons is internal motivators. The motivators over which the candidate has complete control, including intrinsic factors, personality and psychological characteristics, lie in this category. The internal reasons are divided into three subcategories as follows.

Student’s academic performance

One significant internal factor is the student’s academic performance. There are several reasons that could result in poor academic performance as follows: lack of learning and skills to find resources, students unwillingness to follow recommended practices, inability to seek appropriate help, procrastination, poor time management (Dobrovska, 2017 ), and lack of confidence in their ability to learn course materials (Norris, 2019 ).

Low intrinsic interest in the course materials

Low intrinsic interest in the course is another reason mentioned in (Dobrovska, 2017 ), which could be caused by a lack of sufficient interest in course materials and subjects or the mindset that these materials and knowledge are unnecessary and unimportant for future life (Norris, 2019 ).

Personal characteristics

There is a strong relationship between students’ moral attitudes toward cheating and their level of participation in academic misbehaviors (Maeda, 2019 ). Therefore, conscientious belief is considered as an internal reason stopping students from unethical behaviors. However, it has been shown that religious beliefs do not necessarily lower cheating behaviors (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ).

Other reasons included in studies are student’s laziness for sufficient home preparation before the exam (Dobrovska, 2017 ), competition with others and the desire to get ahead (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019 ), desire to help other peers (Moten et al., 2013 ) and the student’s thrill of taking risk (Hylton et al., 2016 ).

3.2.4 Environmental reasons

The reasons mentioned in this section highly depend on the atmosphere and type of environment a student is in, either during the online exam or beforehand in social media or communication with people. We put these reasons in four major categories: Peers’ behavior, Parents’ attitudes, Personal issues and, Social factors.

Peers’ behavior

Peers could influence individuals in a manner that their cheating motivations are increased. In an academic environment, however, it is primarily because of the competing objectives, such as the desire to get ahead in scores. This depends on the amount of competition in the academic environment (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019 ).

Experimental research among Cambodian students, has figured out that being among a group of cheaters, psychologically drives the students to repeat their peers’ actions and commit cheating. In addition, there is high pressure on those who do not collaborate with peers, or reject participating in their group work. It is found that they are blamed for being odd and unkind (Maeda, 2019 ).

According to (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ), being in an environment where peers’ cheating remains undetected, gives this kind of feeling to non-cheaters that they are setting back in scores and are unfairly disadvantaged compared to those cheaters.

Parents’ attitude

Parents’ acceptance of cheating behaviors, massively affects the student’s mindset toward these behaviors. As expressed in (Maeda, 2019 ), parents’ behaviors toward their child’s cheating, vary from complete unacceptance to active involvement and support. Another reason related to parents’ attitudes is putting their children under pressure to achieve good or higher than average grades (Backman, 2019 ).

Personal issues

Personal issues could be mental and physical health problems (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019 ), problems within the family (e.g., parents arguing, separation and divorce, etc.), and fear of failure in exams and its further consequences like financial and time setbacks (Hylton et al., 2016 ).

Societal factors

Poor economic conditions and the development level of a country are examples of societal factors affecting students’ motivation to cheat and achieve academic success (Maeda, 2019 ).

Countries with various cultures, social expectancies, and people’s attitudes have different behaviors regarding academic performance. In some countries, academic performance and grades are known to be crucial for success in life, whereas, in other countries, academic performance is relatively low valued. This range of different expectations from students leads to various social beliefs and behaviors toward cheating (Maeda, 2019 ). In research presented in (Holden et al., 2020 ), it is shown that a primary reason could be the existence of a cheating culture. Some students may cheat because they desire to portray a better image of themselves to their society (Norris, 2019 ). Another societal factor influencing cheating behaviors is the technology evolution that strengthens cheating motivation (Maeda, 2019 ). This is because technology brings about increased access to cheating resources. The evolution of technology, specifically search engines and social media, makes it easier for students to cheat.

3.3 Cheating types and facilitators

To mitigate cheating behaviors effectively and efficiently, cheating methodologies, types, and facilitators should be known. Cheating is performed either individually or by the cooperation of others (called group cheating). Figure 9 displays the complete classification of cheating types.

• Cheating types

3.3.1 Individual cheating

Individual cheating is carried out without any assistance from any person. This type of cheating could be categorized as using forbidden materials and other types are described as follows.

Using forbidden materials

Individual cheating can occur by using forbidden materials during the exam, such as looking at a textbook or a cheat sheet (Fontaine et al., 2020 ), (Holden et al., 2020 ), searching the web, using offline electronic resources such as images, voices, etc. (Korman, 2010 ), (Holden et al., 2020 ), or even using objects in the exam room to hide notes.

Other types

Other types of individual cheating include accessing the questions and solutions before the exam, which Korman ( 2010 ) refers to as “unauthorized intelligence”. Another dishonest behavior is social engineering, which is grade negotiation with the teacher through fake facts and exploiting personal sympathy.

3.3.2 Group cheating

Cheating methods through cooperation with others could be categorized as Impersonation, and Collaboration types.

Impersonation

Impersonation means employing someone to take the exam for the examinee, either the whole exam or some parts of it (Korman, 2010 ), (Holden et al., 2020 ). It can occur in forms of voice conversion, face presentation attack and face impersonation, fake identity matching to a stored biometric, and attack on the keystroke dynamics (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ). These are attacks on the biometric system to bypass the authentication mechanisms. The other impersonation techniques include remote desktop control by a third party (Kasliwal, 2015 ), (Gruenigen et al., 2018 ), sharing the screen with a third party (Gruenigen et al., 2018 ), (Bawarith, 2017 ), and credential sharing, which is impersonation via shared username and password of an academic account or LMS (Learning Management System) (Dobrovska, 2017 ).

Collaboration

Collaboration is defined as getting any kind of help from others to answer the exam questions. It could be in the form of sign language communications that come in numerous forms, such as foot-tapping, pencil or any object dropping during the proctored exam, abnormal coughing, or suspicious actions (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ).

Listening to a third party’s whispers behind the camera (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ), any type of communication which is unauthorized such as sending or receiving messages, or voice and video calls (Korman, 2010 ), are also considered as collaborative cheating.

Other cheating methods in this category are remote desktop control (Kasliwal, 2015 ) and sharing the screen with others to collaborate with others about questions (Gruenigen et al., 2018 ), applying small hidden micro cameras to capture images and record videos for sharing with other peers (Bawarith, 2017 ), and finally, organizational cheating which is a result of institution’s personnel corruption (Korman, 2010 ).

The last one, as Korman ( 2010 ) showed, can take place when personnel help candidates to cheat. Changing the exam grade or exam answers after the exam (exam integrity corruption), giving the solutions to the candidate during the exam, or just bribing the proctor not to report the cheating or not to punish after being caught (Kigwana & Venter, 2016 ) are instances of organized cheating.

Contract work is a type of collaboration that means doing work with the help of someone else under the obligations of a contract. Contract workers may provide some or all of the exam answers. In this case, sometimes impersonating the student through the whole academic course is reported (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ).

3.3.3 Cheating facilitators

Methods discussed here act as cheating facilitators to support the process of cheating. In other words, these facilitators can be applied to perform any kind of cheating. A study presented in (Peytcheva-Forsyth et al., 2018 ), indicates that technology in general, is the leading facilitator of cheating practices. Cheating facilitators are classified as shown in Fig. 10 .

Cheating facilitators

Three different methodologies are used by students to facilitate cheating, either individually or in a group, described as follows.

Interrupting to get more time

Sometimes examinees try to buy more time to work more on the exam answers. For instance, the examinee may report an error about the exam system or exam proctoring software to convince the teacher to restart the exam session. This enables the candidate to get more time for cheating and finding the solutions during this interval when the session is closed (Motenet al., 2013 ). Another interruption method is to submit corrupted answer files by the candidate. In this case, the teacher reports that the files were corrupted and asks the candidate to resubmit the answer files. Most of the time, during the first submission and the second one, there exists at least one day, which implies the candidate gets at least one more day to answer the exam questions (Moten et al., 2013 ).

Other more classical methods to interrupt are toilet requests during the exam (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ), communication break and delay in answering oral exam right after a question is asked (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ), circumventing the exam process at a specific time with different excuses, and postponing taking the exam (Fontaine et al., 2020 ), (Korman, 2010 ). By deferring taking the exam, students can buy more time to become more prepared, either by studying more, or getting access to the exam questions and solutions.

Employing multiple devices

In proctored exams, either by a camera or software, students try to use multiple devices and answer the questions with the primary one while cheating via the secondary device. Several types of devices could be employed as the second device, such as computers and laptops (Moten et al., 2013 ), smartwatches (Wong et al., 2017 ), smart glasses such as Google glasses (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ), smartphones and tablets (Korman, 2010 ), programmable and graphical calculators to store notes and formulas (Kigwana & Venter, 2016 ), and tiny earpieces for remote voice support during the exam (Bawarith, 2017 ).

Other facilitators

Redirecting the webcam to hide something from its field of view (Sabbah, 2017 ), (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ), or disabling the webcam or microphone completely (Srikanth & Asmatulu, 2014 ) are other tricks used to facilitate cheating.

By using virtual machines on a computer, the user can run a virtual operating system on the primary one. This technique would hide the activities done on the second operating system from the software or the human proctoring the primary operating system. (Kasliwal, 2015 ).

Corrupting the exam system’s integrity to change the exam results after being held (e.g., changing the scores or answers after the examination) is another notable case (Korman, 2010 ). Lastly, in (Parks et al., 2018 ), the authors have investigated that social media and channels operating on them could act as cheating facilitation environments.

3.4 Cheating detection

Cheating detection methods can be categorized into during the exam and after the exam detection methods. Further classification of the cheating detection methods is presented in Fig. 11 .

• Cheating detection

3.4.1 Cheating detection during the exam

To ensure academic integrity in online examinations, it is essential to detect cheating during the exam. Cheating detection can be partitioned into two main categories, namely, continuous authentication and online proctoring. Continuous authentication methods verify the identity of test-takers, and online proctoring monitors the examinees to detect any misbehavior during the exam. In the following, we will mention different techniques in each category.

Continuous authentication

One of the main types of cheating is impersonating. Therefore, it is essential to authenticate students before exam registration and prevent unauthorized candidates from taking the examination. In addition, it is necessary to validate the identity of the test-taker during the exam continuously. The continuous authentication systems are mainly based on biometric or behaviometric modalities and can be categorized into unimodal and multimodal schemes.

Unimodal authentication is the automatic recognition and identification of candidates using a unique characteristic. This characteristic could be either static (physiological) such as the face, fingerprint, hand geometry, and iris, or could be dynamic (behavioral) such as voice, handwriting, keystroke, and mouse dynamics (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ).

As a unimodal authentication system, Arnautovski ( 2019 ) designed a face recognition system, which captures the image of the test-taker at random time intervals. The facial recognition module continuously verifies the examinee’s identity by comparing captured images to the image from the exam registration process. In (Aisyah et al., 2018 ), an Android-based online exam application is implemented that takes photos of the examinee with random intervals and a web-based application lets the admin or supervisor of examination validate pictures of participants. In addition, Idemudia et al. ( 2016 ) proposed a system that tracks and detects faces continuously to verify the candidates. If the authentication failure remains for more than a few seconds, the system will stop the examination.

In (Sabbah, 2017 ), a scheme called ISEEU is proposed, in which each examinee’s session is streamed using a webcam. A proctor monitors the video screens and can generate alerts when any suspicious action is detected. He et al. ( 2018 ) proposed an anti-ghostwriter system using face recognition methods. The ghostwriter merges the student’s photo and their photo to make a fake one, or they change their appearance to mislead the examiners. The experimental results in (He et al., 2018 ), indicate that the proposed framework can detect ghostwriters with an acceptable level of accuracy.

Since some candidates may refuse to use a camera due to privacy concerns, Bilen et al. (2020) suggested that instructors offer their students two options. An examinee can agree to use a camera during the exam. In this situation, the record will be used as evidence if they are accused of cheating. However, if the examinee doesn’t accept using a camera, the instructor can claim cheating without providing evidence to the student.

In (Bawarith, 2017 ), the system authenticates the examinees continuously through an eye tracker. The data obtained from the eye tracker are translated into a set of pixel coordinates so that the presence or absence of eyes in different screen areas can be investigated.

Multimodal biometric authentication systems utilize different biometric or behaviometric traits simultaneously, which makes impersonating more difficult. In this regard, Bawarith et al. ( 2017 ) proposed a system that utilizes fingerprint and eye-tracking for authentication. The eye tribe tracker is used to continuously ensure that test-takers are the ones they are claiming to be. Whenever the system detects the examinee is no longer present in front of the screen, the system is locked, and the test-taker must be authenticated again via fingerprint.

In (Sabbah, 2017 ), a multimodal scheme called SABBAH is proposed, which adds continuous fingerprint and keystroke dynamics to the ISEEU scheme (Sabbah, 2017 ). In contrast to ISEEU, SABBAH uses an automatic system to detect fingerprint, keystroke, or video violations. Traore et al. ( 2017 ) proposed a system that continuously authenticates examinees using three complementary biometric technologies, i.e., face, keystroke, and mouse dynamics. In this system, test-takers are continuously authenticated in the background during the exam, and alarms are created and sent to the instructor through the proctoring panel.

Online proctoring

Online proctoring is essential to promote academic integrity. Alessio et al. ( 2017 ) reported significant grade disparities in proctored versus un-proctored online exams. Online proctoring can be categorized into human and automated proctoring. In human proctoring, a human proctor monitors the students remotely to detect suspicious behavior. In contrast, in automated proctoring, the cheating behaviors are flagged or detected automatically by the proctoring system.

Recently, several technologies have been developed to facilitate proctoring online exams remotely. For example, Kryterion™ Live Video Monitoring and ProctorU allow users to be monitored by a human proctor via a webcam during examination (Hylton et al., 2016 ). In (Reisenwitz, 2020 ), substantial support for online proctoring is provided. The results show a significant difference between the scores of exams that were not proctored and those proctored using ProctorU software.

Some systems can capture screenshots of the candidates’ PCs at random times during the examination (Migut et al., 2018 ). Consequently, if examinees use any forbidden resource on their computer, it will be shown to the proctor. Alessio ( 2018 ) applied video proctoring via a webcam at Miami University. The results demonstrate that students are less likely to cheat when monitored with a webcam during online testing.

In another study, kiosk-based remote online proctored examinations are compared with tests administered under a traditional proctoring environment. In kiosk-based proctoring, the test is taken on special computer kiosks located at accessible places such as libraries. The kiosks are equipped with enhanced webcams and are supervised online by a live remote proctor. The results indicated that examinees’ scores obtained under online kiosk-based proctoring are comparable to examinations taken in test centers with onsite proctors (Weiner & Hurtz, 2017 ).

A different approach for cheating detection is a class mole that means the instructor enrolls in students’ groups under another name as a mole to detect and combat collusion. In this way, they can discover dishonest students when they discuss cheating amongst themselves (Moten et al., 2013 ).

Human proctoring is costly and labor-intensive. Therefore, different automated proctoring systems are proposed to monitor the students during the examination and detect unauthorized behavior. In the following, we discuss several automated methods.

Chuang et al. proposed a semi-automatic proctoring system that employs two factors, namely, time delay in answering the questions and head-pose variation, to detect suspicious behavior. Afterward, a human proctor could use more evidence to decide whether a student has cheated (Chuang et al., 2017 ).

Garg et al. ( 2020 ) proposed a system to detect the candidate’s face using Haar Cascade Classifier and deep learning. If the examinee’s face moves out of the examination frame or multiple faces are detected in the frame, the test will automatically be terminated, and the administrator will receive a notification. In (Fayyoumi & Zarrad, 2014 ), a two-second candidate video is taken during the examination period. The images in the video are analyzed to verify whether the examinee is looking somewhere other than their screen. If the test-taker doesn’t focus on their screen, it may indicate cheating behaviors such as looking at an adjacent PC or reading from an external source.

In (Hu et al., 2018 ), the proposed system uses a webcam to monitor candidates' head posture and mouth state to detect abnormal behavior. Through the rule-based reasoning method, the system can detect suspicious behavior such as turning heads and speaking during the online examination.

Prathish et al. ( 2016 ), developed a multimodal system for online proctoring. The system captures audios and videos of the candidates as well as their active windows. If yaw angle variations, audio presence, or window changes are detected in any time frame, it can be considered an indicator of cheating. Consequently, the captured video, audio, and system usage are fed into a rule-based inference system to detect the possibilities of misbehaviors. ProctorTrack is another automated online exam proctoring product that employs facial and audio recognition, body movements, and computer activity monitoring to detect any suspicious action during examination (Norris, 2019 ).

Atoum et al., ( 2017 ) developed a system that can detect a wide variety of cheating behaviors during an online exam using a webcam, wearcam, and microphone. Using wearcam makes it possible to monitor what the student observes. It helps to detect any phone or text in the testing room that is prohibited. In addition, by using the wearcam, the system can detect another form of cheating that is reading from books, notes, etc. Furthermore, the system can estimate the head gaze of the test-taker by combining the information from the webcam and wearcam. Another form of cheating is getting verbal assistance from another person in the same room, or remotely via a phone call. The system can detect this kind of cheating using the microphone and speech detection. Considering the mentioned aspects, the proposed multimedia system can perform automatic online exam proctoring.

Saba et al. ( 2021 ), developed an automatic exam activity recognition system, which monitors the body movements of the students through surveillance cameras and classifies activities into six categories using a deep learning approach. The action categories are normal performing, looking back, watching towards the front, passing gestures to other fellows, watching towards left or right, and other suspicious actions. Movement recognition based on video images is highly dependent on the quality of images. Therefore, Fan et al. ( 2016 ), employed a Microsoft Kinect device to capture the examinee’s gesture. The duration and frequency of the detected action events are then used to distinguish the misbehavior from the normal behavior.

The system presented in (Mengash, 2019 ) includes a thermal detector attached with a surveillance camera and an eye movement tracker. When examinees intend to cheat, their body will emit a specific range of heat, and the emitted heat will trigger the camera to focus and detect the candidate’s face. Then the eye tracker detects eye movements, and the system detects the cheating intentions of the test-taker. There are other biometric-based methods for cheating detection. For example, keystroke and linguistic dynamics can detect stress, which indicates suspicious behavior (Korman, 2010 ).

Diedenhofen and Musch ( 2017 ), developed a JavaScript application called PageFocus, which can be added to the test page and run in the background. Whenever the examinee switches to a page other than the test page, a defocusing event is registered. The script captures when and how frequently defocusing and refocusing events occur on the test page. Another method is to permit students to get to just a couple of sites that are whitelist. If the examinee tries to open a site that is not allowed (one from blacklist), the instructor will be informed through an Android application or Internet (Kasliwal, 2015 ).

Tiong and Lee ( 2021 ), proposed an e-cheating intelligent agent composed of two modules, namely the internet protocol (IP) detector and the behavior detector. The first module could monitor the examinees’ IP addresses and enable the system to alert if a student changes their device or location. The second module detects abnormal behavior based on the speed of answering questions. Another method for cheating detection is comparing the IP addresses of the examinees to check whether two participants are in the same place (Bawarith, 2017 ).

3.4.2 Cheating detection after the exam

Even though different methods are employed to prevent students from cheating, some will still cheat during the examination. Consequently, a bunch of techniques is proposed to detect cheating students after the exam. This way, the reliability of online assessments will be improved. In the following, we will discuss different methods of cheating detection after the exam.

Video monitoring

The University of Amsterdam has developed a system that records the student’s video screen and the environment during the exam. Later a human proctor views the recording and flags and reports any suspicious behavior (Norris, 2019 ). Proctoring software proposed in (Alessio et al., 2017 ), records everything students do during the examination. After the exam, the recordings can be reviewed by the professor, teaching assistants, or employees of the proctoring vendor to identify cheating behaviors.

Human proctoring is a tedious and time-consuming process. To reduce the time and cost of proctoring, an automatic system can be employed to detect and flag suspicious events using machine learning methods. In this regard, Cote et al. ( 2016 ) proposed a system for the automatic creation of video summaries of online exams. The proposed method employs head pose estimations to model a normal and abnormal examinee’s behavior. Afterward, a video summary is created from sequences of detected abnormal behavior. The video summaries can assist remote proctors in detecting cheating after the exam.

Jalali and Noorbehbahani ( 2017 ), implemented an automatic method for cheating detection using a webcam. During the exam, images are recorded every 30 seconds by a webcam for each candidate. After the exam, the recorded images are compared with reference images of that student. If the difference exceeds a threshold, the image will be labeled as a cheating state.

Li et al. ( 2015 ), proposed a Massive Open Online Proctoring framework that consists of three components. First, the Automatic Cheating Detector (ACD) module uses webcam video to monitor students, and automatically flag suspected cheating behavior. Then, ambiguous cases are sent to the Peer Cheating Detector (PCD) module, which asks students to review videos of their peers. Finally, the list of suspicious cheating behaviors is forwarded to the Final Review Committee (FRC) to make the final decision.

Other methods

There are various ways of cheating, and therefore, different methods are used to detect cheating after the exam. For example, one of the cheating behaviors is to collude and work on tests together. However, most learning management systems allow the instructor to view IP addresses. Therefore, if different students submit their assessments by the same IP address in a short time frame, it could be detected and considered as a sign of collusion (Moten et al., 2013 ).

In addition, statistical methods can be used to analyze student responses to assessments and detect common errors and the similarities of answers (Korman, 2010 ). Mott ( 2010 ) stated that the distribution of identical incorrect responses between examinee pairs is a Polya distribution. The degree of cheating for each examination will follow the skewness or third central moment of the distribution.

Predictive analytics systems implicitly collect data while the students interact with the virtual learning environment. The collected data, which include student’s location, access patterns, learning progress, device characteristics, and performance, is used to predict trends and patterns of student behavior. Consequently, any unusual pattern may indicate suspicious behavior (Norris, 2019 ). Answering an examination takes a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, another indicator of dishonest behavior is an extremely short interval between the access time and the completion of the assessments, which can be detected by log time analysis (Moten et al., 2013 ).

In (Bawarith et al., 2017 ), an E-exam management system is proposed that classifies participants as cheating or non-cheating based on two parameters, namely the total time and the number of times the examinee is out of the screen. The focus of the test-taker is recorded using an eye tracker during the exam.

Kasliwal (Kasliwal, 2015 ), designed an online examination tool that captures the network traffic during the exam using a kismet server. The captured package can then be analyzed to determine the frequency of URLs accessed by students. If one of the URLs is getting accessed more frequently or very rarely, it could be considered suspicious.

To detect plagiarism in papers or essay-type questions, platforms such as DupliChecker.com Footnote 1 or Turnitin.com Footnote 2 can be used. These websites compute a similarity index and show all potential plagiarisms. Based on the similarity index, the instructor decides about further actions (Moten et al., 2013 ).

A weakness of similarity detection software is that it computes the resemblance of a submitted assessment with others' works and cannot detect an original text written by others for the student in question. Stylometry discovers this issue by checking the consistency of the delivered contents with other texts written by the same student. If the style of a text does not match with the previous works of that student, it may indicate complicity (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ). Opgen-Rhein et al. ( 2018 ) presented an application that employs machine learning methods to learn the programming styles of students. This work is based on the assumption that the programming style of each student is unique, and therefore, the model can be used to verify the author of assignments.

Another way of cheating detection is using a cheating trap, which means creating websites that could be found when the students search for answers. The solutions in trap websites are incorrect, and consequently, dishonest students could be detected (Korman, 2010 ). However, this method contradicts professional ethics.

In addition, the teacher can search the internet by hand periodically and try to find all possible web pages that provide solutions matching the exam questions. This approach could be applied to create a pool of potential solutions from the internet that will be used for plagiarism detection purposes after the exam (Norris, 2019 ).

3.5 Cheating prevention

After discussing and analyzing the examinees’ motivations for cheating and the reasons which directly or indirectly drive them to commit unethical actions during online examinations, a great deal of concern is gathered around how to decrease cheating in online exams and lower the probability of these actions taking place.

We categorized cheating prevention into two major types, namely, before-exam prevention and during-exam prevention. Figure 12 displays the classification of the cheating prevention methods.

• Cheating prevention

3.5.1 Before-exam prevention

To prevent examinees from cheating, there exist several methods that should be implemented before the exam is held. Each will be discussed in detail as follows.

Exam design

In any situation that prevention is concerned, a proven and low-cost approach is a “cheat-resistant” design -A design that inherently prevents some specific cheating types from happening. This is why exam design is so critical. A cheat-resistant exam design, by its nature, prevents a range of possible forms of cheatings from occurring.

One way of achieving a good design is developing personalized exams for each candidate separately. There are several ways to do so, such as parameterization (Manoharan, 2019 ), which is a set of fixed questions with variable assumption values, using data banks with a large pool of questions to select questions randomly (Manoharan, 2019 ), (Norris, 2019 ) or implementing an AI-based method to produce unique exams (Chua & Lumapas, 2019 ).

Li et al. ( 2020 ) has put effort into designing a method for randomizing the question orders for each candidate. Their general idea is to show the questions one by one, and besides that, each student gets a different question at a time. This research mathematically proves that examinees cannot get much cheating gain.

In (Manoharan, 2019 ), the author has investigated an approach to personalizing multiple-choice examinations using the macro. Macro is a computer program fragment that stores data. It has a set of particular inputs for generating random exams based on a question bank. This method could bring freedom and flexibility to the exam design, but it needs basic programming skills.

Another aspect of exam design concentrates specifically on question design. Some of the most valuable methods are listed below.

Using novel questions: This type of question design is so unique in design and phrasing that it becomes very challenging to be plagiarized even with searching the web (Nguyen et al., 2020 ).

Using knowledge-based questions instead of information-based questions: These questions challenge the level of knowledge. The answers are not on the web or in reference books, and they need critical thinking and reasoning (Nguyen et al., 2020 ).

Using essay questions rather than multiple-choice questions: During an online exam, multiple-choice questions are highly susceptible to cheating. Hence, long essay questions are preferred (Varble, 2014 ).

Using questions with specific assumptions and facts: Although giving extra and not useful facts may mislead any candidate, even those taking the exam honestly, it will reduce the possibility of web-based plagiarism considerably by making it less straightforward to search online (Nguyen et al., 2020 ).

Having an open-book exam: Open-book exam questions should test students’ understanding, critical reasoning, and analytical skills. Since the answers to these questions are not found in any sources directly, open-book exams may reduce the cheating opportunity (Varble, 2014 ), (Backman, 2019 ).

Finally, other methods not placed into the above categories are mentioned below.

Showing questions one by one without the option of going backward is effective in cheating prevention. If it is employed besides strict time limitations and random question series, collaborative cheating will become quite challenging (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ), (Backman, 2019 ). By setting strict time limitations, the students do not have enough time to handle cheating, therefore, exam cheating efforts are reduced (Backman, 2019 ).

Cluskey et al. ( 2011 ), emphasize low-cost approaches for addressing online exam cheating. They introduce online exam control procedures (OECP) to achieve this target. Taking the exam only at a defined time and avoiding postponing it for any reason, or changing at least one-third of the questions in the next exam, are some instances of these procedures.

Authentication

Authentication is mainly for impersonation prevention before examinations. It could be done classically by checking the school ID badges or government-issued ID by the webcam (Moten et al., 2013 ) or by a more modern approach like biometrics through fingerprint, palm vein scan (Korman, 2010 ), eye vein scan (Kigwana & Venter, 2016 ), voice, and keystroke biometrics (Norris, 2019 ).

An interesting method to prevent cheating has been presented in (Moten et al., 2013 ). Students should call the instructor at a predetermined time to get the password. After the students’ voices are recognized by the instructor, they are authenticated and receive a random password for exam entrance. The password is valid until the end of the exam time limit, thus this method makes cheating more difficult (Moten et al., 2013 ).

The last method of authentication is the one discussed in (Norris, 2019 ) which uses challenge questions. These are the questions only the student will know, for instance, student ID or personal information. In (Ullah, 2016 ), an approach is proposed that creates and consolidates a student’s profile during the learning process. This information is collected in the form of questions and answers. The questions are pre-defined or extracted from a student’s learning activities. A subset of questions is used for authentication, and the students should answer these questions correctly to get access to the online examination. This approach ensures that the person taking the exam is the same one who has completed the course.

Clustering means partitioning students into several groups based on a predefined similarity measure. In (Topîrceanu, 2017 ), random and strategic clustering methods are proposed to break friendships during the exam, as cheating prevention techniques. The advantages of random clustering are time and cost efficiencies; however, it is imprecise, and some clusters may include unbroken friendships.

Breaking friendships through clustering relies on two hypotheses (Topîrceanu, 2017 ):

Students tend to communicate and cheat with the people they know and feel close to.

An individuals’ relationship with others on social networks is closely related to their real-life relationships with people.

Regarding the second hypothesis, social network analysis could find students’ close friends and people they know. After clustering students, a unique set of exam questions are prepared for each cluster. Consequently, the collaboration of friends to cheat during the online exam becomes challenging.

Lowering cheating motivation

Approaches expressed in this section are based on mental and psychological aspects driving students toward academic misbehaviors, and the work being done to reduce these behaviors through controlling mental drivers.

There are several tactics to develop students’ moral beliefs encouraging them to avoid unethical behaviors. For instance, implementing honor systems helps build a healthy and ethical environment (Korman, 2010 ). Another tactic is clarifying academic integrity and morality ideals through establishing educational integrity programs (Korman, 2010 ).

As Korman ( 2010 ) further investigated, changing the students' perception about the goal of studying, could decrease cheating. This could be done by reminding them why learning matters and how it affects their future success. In (Varble, 2014 ), it is stated that emphasizing the actual value of education will lead to the same result.

Varble ( 2014 ), indicates that by improving students’ skills such as time management skills, their academic performance will be highly enhanced; accordingly, their academic misbehaviors will be declined. The risks of being caught and the significance of punishments, are inversely related to students’ motivation for cheating.

Varble ( 2014 ) also mentions that applying formative assessment rather than summative assessment effectively reduces examinees’ desire for cheating due to improving their learning outcomes. Formative assessments aim to enhance the candidates’ learning performance rather than testing them. On the other hand, summative assessments mostly care about measuring candidates’ knowledge and are used to check if they are eligible to pass the course or not.

As an additional description about getting a formative assessment to work, Nguyen et al., ( 2020 ) mention that increasing the exam frequency forces students to study course materials repeatedly, resulting in longer retention of information and knowledge in students’ minds. This brings about alleviating candidates’ motivation for cheating (Nguyen et al., 2020 ). Varble ( 2014 ), also suggests that reducing the value of each test lowers the reward gained by the cheaters over each test; consequently, the motivation for cheating is declined.

A cost-efficient and effective method to lower cheating motivation is to declare the cheating policy for examinees before the exam starts (Moten et al., 2013 ). Warning students of the consequences of being caught makes them nervous and can significantly decrease cheating. It is necessary to have a confirmation button, so that no excuses can be made by cheaters after the exam. It is such effective that in two experiments, it decreased the number of cheatings by 50% (Corrigan-Gibbs et al., 2015 ). It is worth mentioning that in the online environment, having an honor system is much less effective than warning about the consequences of cheating if being caught (Fontaine et al., 2020 ).

3.5.2 During-exam prevention

Most cheating prevention methods were discussed in the before-exam section; still, there exist some during-exam prevention tactics, which are presented in this sub-section.

Think-aloud request

A rarely mentioned method called Think-aloud request was discussed in (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ). In this method, a request is sent to the student to think aloud about a specific subject (or current question) at random times during the exam. The student has to respond to the request orally, and the voice is recorded for further investigation and cheating detection (e.g., slow response and voice impersonation detection). This mechanism forces students to continuously be ready for responding, which reduces the chance of student cheating. The authors have also mentioned that this system and its questions could be implemented by an AI agent.

Cheat-resistant systems

Using cheat-resistant systems will inherently prevent some kinds of cheatings, although they are costly to be implemented (Korman, 2010 ). Using a browser tab locker (Chua & Lumapas, 2019 ) is one of them that prevents unauthorized movements and also identifies them by sniffing their network packets. Another method is using wireless jammers (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ) to disrupt any radio signals (Internet) in an area which usually is the examination hall, during semi-online exams.

In (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ), some valuable suggestions are given for oral exams. One is conducting the oral exam as a flow of short questions and answers, instead of a long initial question and an extended answer afterward. This is because a flowing dialogue significantly reduces the chance of the examinee following someone else’s cues of the solution. They have also suggested that asking the examinee to respond quickly, will facilitate achieving this goal. Besides that, if candidates delay, they may be known suspicious. If a candidate was detected suspicious by the instructor, it is good to interrupt the current question with a new question. This will neutralize the effort made by a third party to help the candidate answer the question.

Another suggestion presented in (Chirumamilla & Sindre, 2019 ), is to prepare a big pool of questions for oral exams to prevent questions repetition. As a result, the candidates cannot adjust themselves to the questions asked from previous candidates.

Bribery is a kind of organizational cheating. In (Kigwana & Venter, 2016 ) it is indicated that by assigning a random human proctor for the exam right before it started, bribery and beforehand contractions between examinee and proctor would be impossible.

4 Discussion

There is no doubt that online education has changed significantly in recent years. One of the main challenges in online education is the validity of the assessment. Specifically, during the COVID19 pandemic, the integrity of online examinations has become a significant concern. Cheating detection and prevention are hot topics in online assessments. In addition, it is needed to conduct more research on cheating motivation and cheating types. In this research, we review and classify online exam cheating comprehensively.

In this review, only publications written in English were investigated. This could result in review bias, however, it is too difficult and infeasible to review studies in all languages. Many systematic mapping researches consider only publications in English, such as (Nikou & Economides, 2018 ) (Martin et al., 2020 ) (Noorbehbahani et al., 2019 ) (Wei et al., 2021 ).

Figure 3 indicates that the publications trend is decreasing, contrary to the hypothesis that online learning is rising, especially with the emergence of the COVID-19. Notably, in this study, online cheating researches have been reviewed. So, Fig. 3 specifically corresponds to online cheating publications not online learning studies in general. However, more investigations of online cheating studies from February 2021 onwards are required to further analyzing the trends.

Several reviewed studies have made no distinction between cheating detection and prevention (Bawarith, 2017 ; Bawarith et al., 2017 ; Korman, 2010 ; Tiong & Lee, 2021 ). They employed detection methods to identify dishonest behaviors. Then preventive actions such as making an alarm to the student, or closing the browser tab are performed to deter student cheating. Regarding this definition of prevention, several studies have applied these terms interchangeably, confusing the reader. In this study, we define cheating prevention as strategies and methods that try to prevent the occurrence of cheating in online exams. Considering the latter definition, we attempted to provide a better review and clearer classification to the readers.

One limitation in this domain is the lack of statistics on the popularity of the types, methods, and tools. In (Sabbah, 2017 ), the most common cheating behaviors and their average risks have been discussed; however, the results are limited to 10 cheating types. Hence, more investigation is required to determine the prevalence of each cheating type and cheating motivation.

An important cheating reason that is overlooked by researchers is learning styles. Students and educators have different preferred learning styles (auditory, visual, kinesthetic and read/write). If teachers and educational institutes don’t consider this issue, the course will not be apprehensible for some students, and consequently, they will be motivated to cheat.

Another issue that should be addressed is to evaluate the feasibility of cheating detection and prevention methods. If the equipment for securing online exams is expensive, the students cannot afford it. Therefore, this factor should be considered when developing detection and prevention methods. Cluskey et al. ( 2011 ), believe that some solutions (e.g., proctors) that detect cheating during online exams are too costly, and their costs outweigh their benefits in some cases. Therefore, cost-effective systems and methods should be implemented.

Privacy and convenience are also vital for examinees. If employed security mechanism for online exams violates privacy and disturbs student convenience, the evaluation will not be practical due to induced stress. Accordingly, these aspects should be considered in cheating detection and prevention systems.

5 Conclusion

In this study, cheating in online exams is reviewed and classified comprehensively. It provides the reader with valuable and practical insights to address online exam cheating. To mitigate students cheating, first, it is necessary to know cheating motivations and cheating types and technologies. Furthermore, cheating detection and prevention methods are needed to combat forbidden actions. Detection methods without applying prevention methods could not be effective. As cheating detection and prevention methods are evolved, new cheating types and technologies emerge as well. Consequently, no system can mitigate all kinds of cheating in online exams, and more advanced methods should be employed. It seems the most efficient strategy for cheating handling is to lower cheating motivation.

It should be mentioned that we have not covered studies related to technical attacks and intrusions to online exam systems and teacher devices. This topic could be considered for conducting another review study.

The impact of COVID-19 on online learning and cheating in online exams could be analyzed in future work.

Another future work is to explore how ignoring students’ learning styles in teaching and assessment could affect cheating motivation.

Privacy issues, user convenience, and enforced costs of cheating detection and prevention technologies need to be examined in other studies.

In this study, publications from 2010 to 2021 have been reviewed. More investigations are required to review accepted but unpublished studies and publications in 2022.

http://www.duplichecker.com

http://www.turnitin.com

Aisyah, S., Bandung, Y., & Subekti, L. B. (2018). Development of Continuous Authentication System on Android-Based Online Exam Application. In 2018 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation, ICITSI 2018 (pp. 171–176). Padang, Indonesia: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITSI.2018.8695954

Alessio, H. (2018). The Impact of Video Proctoring in Online Courses. Journal on Excellence in Col- Lege Teaching, 29 (3), 1–10.

Google Scholar  

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores. Online Learning, 2013 (1), 1–16.

Amigud, A., & Lancaster, T. (2019). 246 reasons to cheat: An analysis of students’ reasons for seeking to outsource academic work. Computers and Education, 134 , 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.017

Article   Google Scholar  

Arnautovski, L. (2019). Face recognition technology in the exam identity authentication system - implementation concept. In 2nd International Scientific Conference MILCON’19 (pp. 51–56). Olsztyn, Poland.

Atoum, Y., Chen, L., Liu, A. X., Hsu, S. D. H., & Liu, X. (2017). Automated Online Exam Proctoring. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 19 (7), 1609–1624. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2017.2656064

Backman, J. (2019). Student s ’ Experiences of Cheating in the Online Exam Environment.

Bawarith, H. R. (2017). Student Cheating Detection System in E-exams . KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY.

Bawarith, R., Basuhail, A., Fattouh, A., & Gamalel-din, P. S. (2017). E-exam Cheating Detection System. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 8 (4), 176–181.

Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021). Online Cheating Amid COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 182 , 196–211.

Chirumamilla, A., & Sindre, G. (2019). Mitigation of Cheating in Online Exams: Strengths and Limitations of. In Biometric Authentication in Online Learning Environments (pp. 47–68). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7724-9.ch003

Chua, S. S., & Lumapas, Z. R. (2019). Online Examination System with Cheating Prevention Using Question Bank Randomization and Tab Locking. 2019 4th International Conference on Information Technology (InCIT) , 126–131.

Chuang, C. Y., Craig, S. D., & Femiani, J. (2017). Detecting probable cheating during online assessments based on time delay and head pose. Higher Education Research and Development, 36 (6), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303456

Cluskey, G. R. C. Jr, Ehlen, C. R., & Raiborn, M. H. (2011). Thwarting Online Exam Cheating without Proctor Supervision, 4 , 1–7.

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015). Deterring cheating in online environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , 22 (6). https://doi.org/10.1145/2810239

Cote, M., Jean, F., Albu, A. B., & Capson, D. (2016). Video Summarization for Remote Invigilation of Online Exams. In 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (pp. 1–9). NY, USA.

Curran, K., Middleton, G., & Doherty, C. (2011). Cheating in Exams with Technology. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 1 (2), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcee.2011040105

Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2 , 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033

Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2017). PageFocus: Using paradata to detect and prevent cheating on online achievement tests. Behavior Research Methods, 49 (4), 1444–1459. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0800-7

Dobrovska, D. (2017). Technical Student Electronic Cheating on Examination. In M. E. Auer, D. Guralnick, & J. Uhomoibhi (Eds.), Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 525–531). Springer International Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fan, Z., Xu, J., Liu, W., & Cheng, W. (2016). Gesture based Misbehavior Detection in Online Examination. In The 11th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (pp. 234–238). NagoyaF, Japan.

Fayyoumi, A., & Zarrad, A. (2014). Novel Solution Based on Face Recognition to Address Identity Theft and Cheating in Online Examination Systems. Advances in Internet of Things, 4 (April), 5–12.

Fluck, A. E. (2019). An international review of eExam technologies and impact. Computers & Education, 132 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.008

Fontaine, S., Frenette, E., & Hébert, M. (2020). Exam cheating among Quebec’s preservice teachers : the influencing factors. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16 (14), 1–18.

Garg, K., Verma, K., Patidar, K., Tejra, N., & Petidar, K. (2020). Convolutional Neural Network based Virtual Exam Controller. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems, ICICCS 2020 (pp. 895–899). Secunderabad, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICCS48265.2020.9120966

Gruenigen, D. Von, de Azevedo e Souza, F. B., Pradarelli, B., Magid, A., & Cieliebak, M. (2018). Best practices in e-assessments with a special focus on cheating prevention. In 2018 {IEEE} Global Engineering Education Conference, {EDUCON} 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain, April 17-20, 2018 (pp. 893–899). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363325

He, H., Zheng, Q., Li, R., & Dong, B. (2018). Using Face Recognition to Detect “ Ghost Writer ” Cheating in Examination. In Edutainment, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 11462, pp. 389–397). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23712-7

Holden, O., Kuhlmeier, V., & Norris, M. (2020). Academic Integrity in Online Testing: A Research Review. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rjk7g

Hu, S., Jia, X., & Fu, Y. (2018). Research on Abnormal Behavior Detection of Online Examination Based on Image Information. In 10th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC) (Vol. 02, pp. 88–91). Hangzhou, China: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IHMSC.2018.10127

Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Computers & Education Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers & Education, 92–93 , 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002

Idemudia, S., Rohani, M. F., Siraj, M., & Othman, S. H. (2016). A Smart Approach of E-Exam Assessment Method Using Face Recognition to Address Identity Theft and Cheating. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security , 14 (10), 515–522. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/

Jalali, K., & Noorbehbahani, F. (2017). An Automatic Method for Cheating Detection in Online Exams by Processing the Students Webcam Images. In 3rd Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology (E-Tech 2017), Tehran, Iran (pp. 1–6). Tehran, Iran.

Kasliwal, G. (2015). Cheating Detection in Online Examinations.

Kigwana, I., & Venter, H. (2016). Proposed high-level solutions to counter online examination fraud using digital forensic readiness techniques. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2016 , 407–414.

Korman, M. (2010). Behavioral detection of cheating in online examination. Retrieved from https://pure.ltu.se/ws/files/31188849/LTU-DUPP-10112-SE.pdf

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2017). Rethinking Assessment By Examination in the Age of Contract Cheating. Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017 .

Li, M., Sikdar, S., Xia, L., & Wang, G. (2020). Anti-cheating Online Exams by Minimizing the Cheating Gain, (May). https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202005.0502.v1

Li, X., Yueran, K. C., & Alexander, Y. (2015). Massive Open Online Proctor : Protecting the Credibility of MOOCs Certificates, 1129–1137.

Maeda, M. (2019). Exam cheating among Cambodian students : when , how , and why it happens. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1613344

Manoharan, S. (2019). Cheat-resistant multiple-choice examinations using personalization. Computers and Education, 130 , 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.007

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159 , 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009

Mengash, H. (2019). Automated Detection for Student Cheating During Written Exams: An Updated Algorithm Supported by Biometric of Intent. In First International Conference on Computing (pp. 303–3111). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36368-0

Migut, G., Koelma, D., Snoek, C. G., & Brouwer, N. (2018). Cheat Me Not: Automated Proctoring Of Digital Exams On Bring-Your-Own-Device. In The 23rd Annual ACM Conference On In- novation And Technology In Computer Science Education (p. 388). New York, NY, USA.

Moten, J. M. Jr, Fitterer, A., Brazier, E., Leonard, J., Brown, A., & Texas, A. (2013). Examining Online College Cyber Cheating Methods and Prevention Measures. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 11 (2), 139–146.

Mott, J. H. (2010). The Detection and Minimization of Cheating During Concurrent Online Assessments Using Statistical Methods. Collegiate Aviation Review, 28 (2), 32–46.

Nguyen, J. G., Keuseman, K. J., & Humston, J. J. (2020). Minimize Online Cheating for Online Assessments During COVID-19 Pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00790

Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-based assessment: A literature review of publications in major referred journals from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 125 , 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.006

Noorbehbahani, F., Salehi, F., & Jafar Zadeh, R. (2019). A systematic mapping study on gamification applied to e-marketing. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing , 13 (3). https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-08-2018-0103

Norris, M. (2019). University online cheating - how to mitigate the damage. Research in Higher Education Journal, 37 , 1–20.

Opgen-Rhein, J., Küppers, B., & Schroeder, U. (2018). An application to discover cheating in digital exams. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series . Koli, Finland. https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279740

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Mckenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372 ,. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

Parks, R. F., Lowry, P. B., Wigand, R. T., Agarwal, N., & Williams, T. L. (2018). Why students engage in cyber-cheating through a collective movement: A case of deviance and collusion. Computers and Education, 125 , 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.003

Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Aleksieva, L., & Yovkova, B. (2018). The impact of technology on cheating and plagiarism in the assessment – The teachers’ and students’ perspectives. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2048 (Vol. 020037, pp. 1–11).

Prathish, S., Athi Narayanan, S., & Bijlani, K. (2016). An intelligent system for online exam monitoring. In Proceedings - 2016 International Conference on Information Science, ICIS 2016 (pp. 138–143). Dublin, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOSCI.2016.7845315

Reisenwitz, T. H. (2020). Examining the Necessity of Proctoring Online Exams. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20 (1), 118–124.

Saba, T., Rehman, A., Jamail, N. S. M., Marie-Sainte, S. L., Raza, M., & Sharif, M. (2021). Categorizing the Students’ Activities for Automated Exam Proctoring Using Proposed Deep L2-GraftNet CNN Network and ASO Based Feature Selection Approach. IEEE Access, 9 , 47639–47656. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068223

Sabbah, Y. W. (2017). Security of Online Examinations. In Data Analytics and Decision Support for Cybersecurity (pp. 157–200). Springer International Publishing.

Srikanth, M., & Asmatulu, R. (2014). Modern Cheating Techniques, Their Adverse Effects on Engineering Education and preventions. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 42 (2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.7227/IJMEE.0005

Tiong, L. C. O., & Lee, H. J. (2021). E-cheating Prevention Measures: Detection of Cheating at Online Examinations Using Deep Learning Approach -- A Case Study, XX (Xx), 1–9. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09841

Topîrceanu, A. (2017). Breaking up friendships in exams: A case study for minimizing student cheating in higher education using social network analysis. Computers and Education, 115 , 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.008

Traore, I., Nakkabi, Y., Saad, S., & Sayed, B. (2017). Ensuring Online Exam Integrity Through Continuous Biometric Authentication. In Information Security Practices (pp. 73–81). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48947-6

Turner, S. W., & Uludag, S. (2013). Student perceptions of cheating in online and traditional classes. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE , (October 2013), 1131–1137. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6685007

Ullah, A. (2016). Security and Usability of Authentication by Challenge Questions in Online Examination . University of Hertfordshire.

Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. del C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). Trends in Educational Research about e-Learning: A Systematic Literature Review (2009–2018). Sustainability , 12 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153

Varble, D. (2014). Reducing Cheating Opportunities in Online Test Online Tests, 3 (3).

Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses?. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 13 (1).

Wei, X., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2021). Assessment of cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning outcomes in massive open online courses: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 163 , 104097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104097

Weiner, J. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2017). A comparative Study of Online Remote Proctored Vs Onsite Proctored. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 18 (1), 13–20.

Wong, S., Yang, L., Riecke, B., Cramer, E., & Neustaedter, C. (2017). Assessing the usability of smartwatches for academic cheating during exams. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI 2017 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098568

Xiong, Y., & Suen, H. K. (2018). Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges and future directions. International Review of Education, 64 (2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9710-5

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Computer Engineering, University of Isfahan, Azadi square, 8174673441, Isfahan, Iran

Fakhroddin Noorbehbahani, Azadeh Mohammadi & Mohammad Aminazadeh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fakhroddin Noorbehbahani .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests/competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A. & Aminazadeh, M. A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Educ Inf Technol 27 , 8413–8460 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10927-7

Download citation

Received : 26 October 2021

Accepted : 31 January 2022

Published : 07 March 2022

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10927-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Online exam
• Cheating motivations
• Systematic mapping review.
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Essay on My Preparation for Examination

Students are often asked to write an essay on My Preparation for Examination in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on My Preparation for Examination

Understanding the syllabus.

My preparation for examinations begins with understanding the syllabus. I carefully read through all the topics to know what I need to study.

Making a Study Plan

Next, I create a study plan. This includes allocating time for each subject, ensuring I cover all the topics.

Study Materials

I gather all necessary study materials, including textbooks, notes, and reference books. These resources help me understand the subject better.

Finally, I revise all the topics. This helps me remember what I’ve studied and ensures I’m ready for the exam.

250 Words Essay on My Preparation for Examination

The first step in my preparation for any examination is a thorough understanding of the syllabus. I go through each topic, noting down the areas that require more attention. This helps me in creating a comprehensive study plan, ensuring that no topic is left unattended.

Creating a Study Plan

Next, I create a study plan, dividing my time efficiently among all subjects. I prioritize topics based on their weightage in the exam and my comfort level. I make sure to allocate time for revisions and solving sample papers. This step-by-step approach keeps me organized and reduces stress.

Adopting Effective Study Techniques

I adopt various study techniques like active recall, spaced repetition, and the Feynman technique. These methods have been scientifically proven to enhance understanding and retention. I also make use of visual aids like diagrams and mind maps to simplify complex topics.

Healthy Lifestyle Choices

A healthy lifestyle is integral to my exam preparation. I maintain a balanced diet, regular exercise schedule, and ensure adequate sleep. This not only keeps me physically fit but also enhances my mental agility and concentration.

Regular Assessments

I regularly assess my preparation by solving previous year question papers and timed mock tests. This helps me gauge my understanding of the topics and also familiarizes me with the exam pattern.

Stress Management

Finally, managing stress is crucial during exam preparation. I practice mindfulness and meditation to keep anxiety at bay. I also take short breaks during study hours to relax and rejuvenate.

In conclusion, my preparation for examinations is a balanced mix of strategic planning, effective study techniques, healthy lifestyle choices, regular assessments, and stress management. This approach not only ensures thorough preparation but also builds confidence to face any examination.

500 Words Essay on My Preparation for Examination

Introduction.

Examinations are an integral part of a student’s academic life. They are not merely a test of knowledge, but a trial of one’s discipline, perseverance, and time management skills. As a college student, I have found that a strategic approach to exam preparation is crucial. This essay will shed light on my personal strategies for exam preparation.

The first step in my exam preparation is understanding the syllabus thoroughly. This involves identifying key topics, understanding the weightage of each unit, and recognizing the pattern of questions asked in previous years. I often create a study plan, allocating time to each topic based on its importance.

Time Management

Time management is the backbone of my preparation. I divide my study hours into manageable slots, dedicating specific time for each subject. I ensure that I study for at least a few hours every day, increasing the duration as the exam approaches. This consistent effort helps me avoid last-minute cramming.

Active Learning

To ensure effective learning, I employ active studying techniques. I make use of flashcards, mind maps, and mnemonic devices to better retain information. I also practice active recall, a method of studying where I try to remember key points without referring to my notes. This technique has been scientifically proven to enhance memory retention.

Practice and Revision

Practicing with past papers and mock tests is a vital part of my preparation. It helps me understand the exam pattern and improve my time management during the actual exam. I make it a point to revise all topics multiple times, focusing more on my weak areas.

Healthy Lifestyle

While studying is important, maintaining a healthy lifestyle is equally crucial during exam preparation. I ensure that I get a good night’s sleep, eat a balanced diet, and take short breaks during study sessions to avoid burnout. Regular physical exercise also helps me stay focused and reduces stress.

Positive Mindset

Lastly, I believe in the power of a positive mindset. I try to stay calm and composed throughout my preparation, treating exams as a way to enhance my knowledge rather than a burden. I also practice mindfulness exercises to keep anxiety at bay.

In conclusion, my preparation for examinations is a holistic process that involves understanding the syllabus, effective time management, active learning, regular practice and revision, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and fostering a positive mindset. I believe that this approach not only equips me to perform well in exams but also inculcates valuable life skills such as discipline, perseverance, and stress management. As college students, we must remember that exams are not just about grades, but about learning, growing, and preparing for the challenges that lie ahead.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on My Exams
• Essay on Importance of Exams
• Essay on Ice Cream

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

We are Sorry ! Website under maintanence

Please use our mobile apps to practice click here, trending exams, java 8 certification practice, microsoft azure certification exams, itil 4 foundation practice tests, togaf 9 practice tests, jee mains chapters wise previous papers, jee mains previous papers, neet chapterwise previous papers, neet previous papers, upsc nda chapterwise questions, upsc cds chapters wise questions, entrance exams, banking entrance exams, ibps po previous papers, ibps po mains previous papers, ibps po model papers, ibps clerks model papers, ibps clerks previous papers, ibps clerk mains previous papers, ibps rrb office assistant model papers, ibps rrb office assistant previous papers, ibps rrb officers previous papers, ibps rrb officers scale 1 model papers, rbi model papers, rbi grade b previous papers, rbi assistant previous papers, sbi po model papers, sbi po previous papers, sbi junior associate model papers, sbi clerk previous papers, ibps so model papers, defence exams, agniveer vayu iaf group x papers, agniveer vayu iaf group y papers, afcat previous papers, afcat model papers, army group x exam model papers, drdo mts model papers, indian navy entrance test, upsc cds model papers, upsc cds previous papers, upsc nda model papers, upsc nda previous papers, engineering exams, ap eamcet engineering previous papers, ap eapcet engineering previous papers, amu engineering previous papers, bitsat exam previous papers, ap and ts eamcet engineering model papers, chhattisgarh pet previous papers, comedk exam previous papers, cusat (btech) exam previous papers, gujcet previous papers, kcet previous papers, keam previous papers, kvpy exam previous papers, manipal engineering previous papers, mht cet previous papers, srmjee previous papers, ts eamcet engineering previous papers, upsee model papers, upsee previous papers, viteee previous papers, wbjee previous papers, finance entrance exams, ca cpt previous papers, ca cpt model papers, icai ca foundation previous papers, icai ca foundation chapters wise papers, gate exam practice, gate civil engineering previous papers, gate computer science previous, gate electronic & communications previous, gate electrical engineering previous, gate mechanical engineering previous, insurance exams, lic aao previous papers, niacl exam model papers, international exams, gmat exam practice tests, gre practice tests, oxford maths admissions tests, sat practice tests, teas exam practice tests, aieee previous papers, jee advanced model papers, jee advanced previous papers, jee mains model papers, law entrance exams, ailet previous papers, ba llb banaras university, clat previous papers, lsat india practice tests, mba entrance exams, cat exam model papers, cat exam previous papers, cmat exam previous papers, iift exam previous papers, ap icet exam previous papers, mat exam previous papers, snap exam previous papers, ts icet exam previous papers, xat exam previous papers, mca entrance exams, hcu mca exam previous papers, icet exam previous papers, nimcet exam previous papers, pune mca exam previous papers, medical entrance exams, aiims previous papers, aiims nursing exam papers, aipmt previous papers, ap and ts eamcet medical model papers, ap eamcet medical previous papers, auxiliary nurse midwife exam previous papers, b.sc (nursing) general nursing & midwifery, esic staff nurse exam previous papers, gpat exam previous papers, jipmer exam previous papers, neet model papers, rrb paramedical staff nurse exam model papers, ts eamcet medical previous papers, other entrance exams, driving tests (india), mass communication and journalism, nchmct jee previous papers online, ntse previous papers online, nift ug & pg previous papers online, postal exams model papers, sainik school exam previous papers, police exams, ap and telangana police chapterwise, ap police si exam practice tests, ap police constable practice tests, bihar police exam practice tests, delhi police exam practice tests, delhi police head constable previous papers, delhi police exam previous papers, haryana police exam tests, madhya pradesh police constable model papers, madhya pradesh police constable previous papers, maharashtra police constable previous papers, odisha police constable and si exam papers, punjab police constable and si exam papers, rajasthan police exam tests, rajasthan police constable previous, ssc gd constable previous papers, tamilnadu police and si exam papers, telangana police chapterwise questions, telangana police constable model papers, telangana police constable previous papers, telangana police si practice tests, uttar pradesh police constable model papers, uttar pradesh police constable previous papers, uttar pradesh police si exam previous papers, uttar pradesh police si exam model papers, west bengal police si and constable papers, public service commission (psc), appsc previous papers, bpsc cce exam previous papers, chhattisgarh state psc previous papers, jharkand psc exam previous papers, kerala psc exam practice papers, kerala psc veo exam practice papers, maharastra psc exam practice, mppsc exam previous papers, opsc exam previous papers, opsc oas exam previous papers, tamil nadu psc exam practice, telangana psc exam practice, uppsc exam previous papers, wbpsc exam previous papers, rrb entrance exams, rrb alp model papers, rrb alp previous papers, rrb group d previous papers, rrb group d model papers, rrb junior engineer stage 1 model papers, rrb junior engineer stage 1 previous papers, rrb ntpc previous papers, rrb ntpc model papers, rrb rpf si model papers, rrb rpf si previous papers, rrb rpf constable previous papers, ssc je electrical previous papers, ssc je civil previous papers, ssc je mechanical previous papers, ssc cgl model papers, ssc cgl previous papers, ssc cgl tier 2 previous papers, ssc chsl model papers, ssc chsl previous papers, ssc cpo si and asi previous papers, ssc cpo si and asi model papers, ssc multi tasking model papers, ssc multi tasking previous papers, ssc steno grade c and d prev papers, state govt exams, ap grama sachivalayam model papers, appsc group-iii panchayat secretary, chhattisgarh patwari exam previous papers, haryana sachiv exam previous papers, mp patwari exam previous papers, punjab patwari exam previous papers, subjectwise practice, competitive english practice, teacher exams, ap tet exam practice tests, ctet 1 class i-v previous papers, ctet 2 maths science prev papers, ctet 2 social science prev papers, cgtet exam prev papers, reet level 1 previous papers, reet level 2 math science prev papers, reet level 2 social science prev papers, tn tet exam practice tests, tn tet chapterwise practice tests, telangana tet exam practice tests, tripura tet exam prev papers, utet exam prev papers, ugc net previous papers, uptet paper 1 (i-v) previous papers, uptet math and science previous papers, uptet social science previous papers, state eligibility tests, ap set exam previous papers, gujarat set exam previous papers, kset exam previous papers, kerala set exam previous papers, telangana set exam previous papers, upsc entrance exams, upsc civil services previous papers, upsc civil services model papers, upsc capf (ac) previous papers, upsc cisf ac exam previous papers, upsc epfo exam previous papers, quantitative aptitude, algebra and higher mathematics, algebra and applications practice tests, heights and distances practice tests, sets practice tests, trigonometry practice tests, permutations practice tests, probability practice tests, statistics practice tests, progression practice tests, profit and loss practice tests, ratio and proportion practice tests, mixtures and allegations practice tests, partnership practice tests, commercial mathematics, compound interest practice tests, true and banker's discount practice tests, simple interest practice tests, stocks and shares practice tests, data based mathematics, data analysis practice tests, data interpretation practice tests, data sufficiency practice tests, quantitative comparsion practice tests, geometry and mensuration, geometry practice tests, area and perimeter practice tests, mensuration practice tests, volumes practice tests, number system and numeracy, number system practice tests, simplification practice tests, lcm and hcf practice tests, decimals and fractions practice tests, powers and roots practice tests, average practice tests, percentage practice tests, series and odd man out practice tests, logarithms practice tests, surds and indices practice tests, problems based on numbers practice tests, problem solving, chain rule practice tests, time and work practice tests, time and distance practice tests, pipes and cisterns practice tests, trains boats and streams practice tests, races and games practice tests, clocks and calendars practice tests, problems on ages practice tests, study material, cbse class 10 previous papers, cbse class 10 math previous papers, cbse class 10 science previous papers, cbse class 10 social previous papers, cbse class 12 previous papers, cbse class12 business studies previous papers, cbse class 12 chemistry previous papers, cbse class 12 economics previous papers, cbse class 12 english previous papers, cbse class 12 math previous papers, cbse class 12 physical education papers, cbse class 12 physics previous papers, ncert text book class 11 solutions, ncert book class 11 chemistry solutions, ncert book class 11 math solutions, ncert book class 11 physics solutions, ncert text book class 12 solutions, ncert book class 12 chemistry solutions, ncert book class 12 math solutions, ncert book class 12 physics solutions, icse class 10 papers, icse class 10 previous papers, board exam papers, ap state board papers, ap state board class 10 papers, ap state board class 11 papers, ap state board class 12 papers, bihar state board papers, bihar state board class 10 papers, bihar state board class 12 papers, cbse board papers, cbse board class 10 papers, cbse board class 12 papers, gujarat state board papers, gujarat state board class 10 papers, gujarat state board class 12 papers, haryana state board papers, haryana state board class 10 papers, haryana state board class 11 papers, haryana state board class 12 papers, icse board papers, icse board class 10 papers, icse board class 12 papers, jammu and kashmir state board papers, jammu and kashmir state board class 10 papers, jammu and kashmir state board class 11 papers, jammu and kashmir state board class 12 papers, karnataka state board papers, karnataka state board class 10 papers, karnataka state board class 12 papers, kerala state board exams, kerala state board class 11 papers, kerala state board class 12 papers, madhya pradesh state board papers, madhya pradesh state board class 10 papers, madhya pradesh state board class 11 papers, madhya pradesh state board class 12 papers, maharashtra state board exams, maharashtra state board class 10 papers, maharashtra state board class 12 papers, odisha state board papers, odisha state board class 10 papers, odisha state board class 12 papers, tamil nadu state board exams, tamil nadu state board class 10 papers, tamil nadu state board class 11 papers, tamil nadu state board class 12 papers, telangana state board exams, telangana state board class 10 papers, telangana state board class 11 papers, telangana state board class 12 papers, uttar pradesh state board exams, uttar pradesh state board class 10 papers, uttar pradesh state board class 11 papers, uttar pradesh state board class 12 papers, certifications, oracle certifications, salesforce certifications, sap certifications, cloud tech certifications, amazon aws certification exams, microsoft azure ai certification exams, microsoft azure data certification exams, security tech certifications, certified information systems security professional (cissp), comp tia certification exams, cisco certification exams, pmp certification exam tests, pmp & capm practice tests, scrum certification practice tests, six sigma iassc certification (cssc) practice tests, six sigma lean certification (cssc) practice tests, it infrastructure.

Unfortunately, your browser does not meet our new security requirements. Before March 17, 2018, upgrade your browser to the newest version to avoid any interruption in accessing PearsonVUE.com.

To schedule, reschedule or cancel an exam:

• Create account
• Forgot my username
• Forgot my password
• COVID-19 FAQs
• Find a test center
• Find a test center on a military base
• U.S. military community funding eligibility options
• Need help? Contact customer service
• Test accommodations

Related links

• U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) website
• Non-Disclosure/Conduct Policy Statement (PDF)
• What to expect in a Pearson VUE test center
• Online Practice FSOT

The Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT)

The U.S. Department of State strongly encourages candidates to use a personal email address to which they will have regular, long-term access throughout the hiring process. Please consider this carefully before using a .edu or other email that may be attached to any current student or employee roles. Please also note the Department of State will communicate with candidates via the email address they provide at the time of original application and failure to respond by established deadlines may result in the Department of State discontinuing a candidate’s application. Candidates who are current U.S. government employees may not use their U.S. government email addresses for the Foreign Service application, testing, and assessment process.

The Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) is an important part of the FSO selection process, covering the job knowledge, English expression and situational judgement necessary to work as a Foreign Service Officer. The FSOT also includes an essay. View complete information on the FSOT and the selection process .

Please note: New candidates must create a web account before they can submit an application.

FSOT At-Home Online Proctored Testing (OnVUE) Available!

Before the exam

• Visit the FSOT Online Proctoring page and review information on exam policies and procedures, system requirements, and the System Test.
• It is very important to complete the required System Test on the same computer, in the same location, and at the same time as your exam appointment so the System Test can accurately read the computer’s connectivity in that location and timeframe.
• Corporate, university, and military firewalls often cause issues while trying to take your exam. We strongly recommend taking your exam in a setting without an institutional firewall.
• Review the identification requirements below

On exam day

Showing Up : We ask that you log into your Pearson VUE account 30 minutes before your scheduled appointment time to start the check-in process and to allow for any troubleshooting. If you click on the “Begin Exam” button more than 15 minutes after your scheduled exam time, you will be considered a No Show and are unlikely to receive a refund.

Identification : Please be prepared to show one (1) valid form of unexpired, Government-issued personal ID. The Government-issued ID must have your signature and must have your photo. The name on the exam registration in the Pearson VUE system must match the name on the Government issued ID exactly. Please verify that your name listed on your confirmation email matches your identification. *If your identification is not considered valid, you will not be permitted to complete your exam and are unlikely to receive a refund.*

Examples of acceptable identification:

• Driver’s license
• Military ID (including spouse and dependent)
• Identification card (national or local)
• Registration card (such as green card, permanent resident, visa)

Please note that we are unable to accept the following ID’s for an online proctored exam:

• Renewal forms with expired ID’s
• Government-issued name change documents with Government ID

Personal Belongings : FSOT exams are closed-book exams. No personal items should be in the testing room. This includes all bags, purses, wallets, reference materials of any kind (books, notes or papers, etc.), electronic devices except for your cell phone (no tablets, PDAs, watches, calculators, etc.), writing instruments, food, beverages, etc.

Please note that you are required to have a clean and clutter free workstation. During check in, the Proctor will ask you to perform a room and desk scan using your phone or webcam and will inspect any materials near your workstation.

Logging into your Pearson VUE account:

• Login to your Pearson VUE Account
• Click on the Schedule/Reschedule my FSOT
• Click “Begin Exam” and follow the on-screen prompts to complete the check-in process
• Important : the “Begin Exam” button will show up 30 minutes before your exam appointment and will remain available until 15 minutes after your exam appointment. If the “Begin Exam” button is not visible, you are either too early or too late for your exam. Please check your appointment details to make sure you’re trying to start at the proper time.
• During the check-in process, you will be asked for your phone number so Pearson VUE staff can communicate with you while you are checking in for your exam. You will be asked to take a photo on your phone of yourself, your ID, and 4 photos of your room. The check-in process takes approximately 15 minutes for candidates who have previously completed a system test. After you have completed the check-in process, you will be asked to place your phone out of reach, but close enough to be heard.
• Once you have completed the check-in process you will be contacted by a Proctor to begin your exam at your appointment time. You may not be contacted by the Proctor before your appointment time to start the exam.

Facial Comparison Policy

You understand and agree that Pearson VUE may use facial comparison technology for the purpose of verifying your identity during the testing process. It will compare your facial image to the one on your identification and to facial images captured during the testing process and help us further develop, upgrade, and improve this application. If you do not agree to the use of facial comparison technology during your testing session, do not accept this term. You will not be able to complete your registration online. Instead, please call the Pearson VUE call center to complete your registration.

Reporting Unusual Circumstances : Significant and unusual circumstances that occur during the testing process should be reported immediately to the Pearson VUE exam proctor so an incident report can be filed. If you are unable to communicate with the proctor you are required to notify Person VUE ASAP. Please see the following page for help contacting: home.pearsonvue.com/fsot/contact

Reschedule Policy

Rescheduling an exam appointment can be done in your Pearson VUE account 24/7 or by calling Pearson VUE at (888) 572-2276 Mon-Fri, 7-7 Central . You can reschedule your OnVue exam right up to the scheduled appointment time at no cost. If you do not reschedule your appointment before the scheduled appointment time and do not take the exam, it will be considered a No Show and you will forfeit your entire exam fee.

Cancellation Policy

Canceling an exam appointment can be done in your Pearson VUE account 24/7 or by calling Pearson VUE at (888) 572-2276 Mon-Fri, 7-7 Central . You can cancel your OnVue exam right up to the scheduled appointment time at no cost. If you do not cancel your appointment before the scheduled appointment time and do not take the exam, it will be considered a No Show and you will forfeit your entire exam fee.

No Shows : Failure to appear for an exam forfeits the entire exam fee, unless documentation of extenuating circumstances is provided within 10 days, such as: death in the family, serious illness, or military duty. In such circumstances, the candidate should email the State Department at [email protected] as soon as possible, providing documentation and a full description of the situation.

Exam Canceled by Pearson VUE : In the event of an unforeseen circumstance occurring on the day of a scheduled exam, candidates will be given as much advance notice as possible and will not be penalized if Pearson VUE cancels their exam appointment.

For more information on On-VUE : please visit Or home.pearsonvue.com/fsot/onvue

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible, the U.S. Department of State requires that each candidate be:

• A U.S. citizen on the date the candidate submits the registration package
• At least 20 years old and no older than 59 years of age on the day the candidate submits the registration
• At least 21 years old and not yet 60 on the day the candidate is appointed as a Foreign Service Officer
• Open to acceptance of assignments based on the needs of the service

Registering for the FSOT

Candidates complete both registration steps - submitting an application and selecting a seat - during the same five-week period immediately prior to a specific testing window. Applications are valid only for that test and will expire when that testing window closes. The registration period closes three days prior to the opening of the testing window.

If you have a documented need for an accommodation, you must request and receive approval for your accommodation before scheduling your test.

Once an application for a test window is submitted it cannot be changed, and candidates may test only once in a 12-month period. Click here for answers to General FSOT FAQs .

Upcoming Foreign Service Officer Testing Windows

This chart contains relevant dates for upcoming Foreign Service Officer Test. As a reminder you will be able to register – apply and select a seat – for approximately five weeks before each testing window (dates subject to change).

October 2024

February 2025.

*The FSOT is offered at both domestic and overseas locations.

As a part of the registration process, all candidates will be asked to complete their Personal Narratives (PNs). Candidates will be asked to address the following six areas: Leadership Skills, Interpersonal Skills, Communication Skills, Management Skills, Intellectual Skills, and Substantive Knowledge. Each of the six PNs will consist of no more than 1,300 characters. Beginning with the June 2022 FSOT, all candidates who complete the FSOT will proceed to the qualifications and evaluation panel for review.

Pearson VUE On Base Test Centers (OBTC) to Offer the FSOT

The Foreign Service Officer Test is offered at approximately 130 OBTC locations on U.S. military installations in U.S states and territories, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The OBTCs will add additional appointment options during each testing window for those candidates with access to the included military bases.

Click here to learn more about on base testing at Pearson VUE »

Use of Overseas Pearson VUE Testing sites

The Board of Examiners has expanded the number of Pearson VUE testing sites for the FSOT both domestically and overseas. Embassies/Consulates located in other cities may continue to offer the test as their resources permit. Candidates testing in locations outside the U.S. must use their U.S. passports for identification verification.

Please click on find a testing center to find the closest site available.

Plagiarism & AI Policy

• The Department of State prohibits candidates from plagiarizing any portion of their employment application materials to include responses to questions in which candidates must provide a narrative response.  Candidates must create their own responses originally and not copy or adapt them from other sources. The Department analyzes candidate submissions for plagiarism and will discontinue any individual’s candidacy if found to have violated this plagiarism policy. 
• While the Department of State encourages candidates to create their narratives with great care, including correct use of grammar and style, candidates are prohibited from using any artificial intelligence (AI) tool, to include but not limited to ChatGPT, to aid in their written responses.  The Department will discontinue any individual’s candidacy if found to have violated this prohibition on use of AI tools in the application process. 

Find more information on a rewarding career in the Foreign Service . If you have specific questions about the Foreign Service Officer Test you may send them to [email protected] .

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 minutes per response, including time required for searching existing data sources, gathering the necessary documentation, providing the information and/or documents required, and reviewing the final collection. You do not have to supply this information unless this collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. If you have comments on the accuracy of this burden estimate and/or recommendations for reducing it, please send them to: HR/REE, SA-1, H-518. 2401 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20522.

OMB Approval Number: 1405-0008 Expiration Date: 3/31/2021

AUTHORITIES: The information is sought pursuant to 301(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 3941(b)).

PURPOSE: The information solicited on this form will be used to determine eligibility to take the Foreign Service Officer Test, to register for the Foreign Service Officer Test, to assess qualifications for selection as a Foreign Service Officer, and to ensure the integrity of the examination process.

ROUTINE USES: The information solicited on this form may be made available to prepare statistical reports and analyses at the Department of State. Such reports and analyses, which are prepared in such a way that they are not individually identifiable, may be shared outside the Department. This information may also be shared with other federal agencies in response to request for information about hiring or retention of an employee or to Members of Congress in response to an inquiry on behalf of the applicant. More information on the Routine Uses for the system can be found in the System of Records Notice State-31, Human Resource Records.

DISCLOSURE: Providing this information is voluntary. Failure to provide the information requested on this form may result in the user’s inability to submit appropriate responses to the FSOT questionnaire and/or the FSOT and oral exam.