Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.653

Impact of Proctoring Environments on Student Performance: Online vs Offline Proctored Exams  

LEE, Jung Wan (School of International Economics and Trade, Anhui University of Finance and Economics)
Publication Information
The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business / v.7, no.8, 2020 , pp. 653-660 More about this Journal
Abstract
The paper examines the impact of proctoring environments on student performance in two different exam proctoring environments: online versus offline proctored exams. This study employs a set of aggregated data from 1,762 students over the eight-year period from 2009 to 2016 in a university. Although there were nine courses offered, they could have been counted more than once as students may appear several times to take exams for different courses. This study employs independent samples t-test and regression analysis to compare the means of two independent groups and to test the hypothesis. The results of the independent samples t-test and the regression analysis indicate that there is no difference in the mean scores of exams and, therefore, the findings suggest that the exam proctoring environment is unlikely related to student performance even when students take their exams either in online proctoring or offline proctoring environments. This study concludes that the proctoring environment unlikely results in a statistically significant difference of exam scores and, thus, the exam proctoring environment does not appear to cause any change in student performance. The findings suggest that the exam proctoring environments does not appear to impact on student academic achievements and assessments.
Keywords
Online Proctoring; Offline Proctoring; Online Education; Online Assessment; Academic Achievement; Student Performance;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Abdollahi, A., Horng, S.-J., & Lim, H. (2016). A solution-based intelligent tutoring system integrated with an online game-based formative assessment: development and evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 787-808. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9433-x   DOI
2 Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 83-93. doi:10.1007/BF02504800   DOI
3 Kaufman, T. E. (2009). Performance management and school reform: A multi-case study of middle and high school performance management for instructional improvement. Dissertation No.3385021. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
4 Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students' metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549-561. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9266-1   DOI
5 Liu, J. (2013). The assessment agent system: design, development, and evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 197-215. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9286-5   DOI
6 Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35-57.   DOI
7 Meijer, J., & Riemersma, F. (2002). Teaching and testing mathematical problem solving by offering optional assistance. Instructional Science, 30(3), 187-220.   DOI
8 Pearson VUE. (2019). The global leader in computer-based testing. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from Person VUE: https://home.pearsonvue.com/About-Pearson-VUE/What-we-do.aspx
9 Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 3-18. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9119-8   DOI
10 Prometric. (2019). The Prometric network is global and robust. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from Prometric: https://www.prometric.com/en-us/about-prometric/pages/global-network-strength.aspx
11 Rovai, A. P. (2000). Online and traditional assessments: What is the difference? The Internet and Higher Education, 3(3), 141-151.   DOI
12 Stack, S. (2015). The Impact of Exam Environments on Student Test Scores in Online Courses. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(3), 273-282. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1012173   DOI
13 Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students' approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279-294.   DOI
14 Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008). The effects of hands-on experience on students’ preferences for assessment methods. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 69-88.   DOI
15 Van Gog, T., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brinke, D. J., & Prins, F. J. (2010). Formative assessment in an online learning environment to support flexible on-the-job learning in complex professional domains. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 311-324. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9099-0   DOI
16 Wouters, P., van der Spek, E. D., & van Oostendorp, H. (2011). Measuring learning in serious games: a case study with structural assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 741-763. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9183-0   DOI
17 Birenbaum, M., & Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning orientations and learning strategies of pre-service and in-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 32(2), 213-225.   DOI
18 Anstine, J., & Skidmore, M. (2005). A small sample study of traditional and online courses with sample selection adjustment. Journal of Economic Education, 36(2), 107-127.
19 Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). Students' approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 359-374.   DOI
20 Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53(6), 749-768.   DOI
21 Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12.   DOI
22 Corn, J. O. (2010). Investigating the quality of the school technology needs assessment (STNA) 3.0: A validity and reliability study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 353-376. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9140-y   DOI
23 Greiff, S., Wustenberg, S., Holt, D. V., Goldhammer, F., & Funke, J. (2013). Computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: concept, implementation, and application. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 407-421. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9301-x   DOI
24 Cousins, J. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In T. Kellaghan. & D. L., Stufflebeam (eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp. 245-266). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
25 Deal, W. F. (2002). Distance learning: Teaching technology online. Technology Teacher, 61(8), 21-27.
26 Examity. (2019). Online Proctoring All Day and All of the Night. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from: http://examity.com/
27 Grijalva, T. C., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College Student Journal, 40(l), 180-186.
28 Guerra-Lopez, I., & Toker, S. (2012). An application of the impact evaluation process for designing a performance measurement and evaluation framework in K-12 environments. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(2), 222-235.   DOI
29 Harmon, O. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat? Journal of Economic Education, 39(2), 116-125.   DOI
30 Hartman, K. (2016). Eduventures' 2016 higher education predictions: a year to unite. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from Eduventures Inc.: http://www.eduventures.com/2016/01/eduventures-2016-higher-ed-predictions-a-year-to-unite/
31 Hollister, K. K., & Berenson, M. L. (2009). Proctored Versus Unproctored Online Exams: Studying the Impact of Exam Environment on Student Performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 271-294. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00220.x   DOI