The Effects of Exam Setting on Students’ Test-Taking Behaviors and Performances: Proctored Versus Unproctored
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the biggest challenges for online learning is upholding academic integrity in online assessments. In particular, institutions and faculties attach importance to exam security and academic dishonesty in the online learning process. The aim of this study was to compare the test-taking behaviors and academic achievements of students in proctored and unproctored online exam environments. The log records of students in proctored and unproctored online exam environments were compared using visualization and log analysis methods. The results showed that while a significant difference was found between time spent on the first question on the exam, total time spent on the exam, and the mean and median times spent on each question, there was no significant difference between the exam scores of students in proctored and unproctored groups. In other words, it has been observed that reliable exams can be conducted without the need for proctoring through an appropriate assessment design (e.g., using multiple low-stake formative exams instead of a single high-stake summative exam). The results will guide instructors in designing assessments for their online courses. It is also expected to help researchers in how exam logs can be analyzed and in extracting insights regarding students' exam-taking behaviors from the logs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".