Procrastination and Online Exam Proctoring: Exam Anxiety and Exam Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates academic procrastination in online exam proctoring environments, drawing on responses from 321 undergraduate students. It focuses on three key constructs: (1) the role of procrastination in online exam proctoring; (2) the impact of procrastination on performance in online proctored exams; and (3) the relationship between exam anxiety, procrastination, and online proctoring. The findings reveal: (1) a strong link between academic procrastination and poor performance in online proctored exams; (2) a significant correlation between procrastination and increased exam anxiety in online proctoring environments; and (3) that students who procrastinate have less favorable attitudes toward online exam proctoring.Keywords: procrastination, online proctoring, exam anxiety, exam performance Procrastination et surveillance des examens en ligne : anxiété et performance relatives aux examensRésumé : Cette étude explore la procrastination académique dans les contextes de surveillance d’examens en ligne, à partir des réponses de 321 étudiants de premier cycle. Elle se concentre sur trois axes principaux : 1) le rôle de la procrastination dans la surveillance des examens en ligne ; 2) l’impact de la procrastination sur la performance aux examens surveillés en ligne ; 3) le lien entre l’anxiété liée aux examens, la procrastination et la surveillance en ligne. Les résultats montrent : 1) une forte corrélation entre procrastination et faibles performances dans le cadre des examens en ligne surveillés; 2) une association significative entre procrastination et hausse de l’anxiété en contexte de surveillance en ligne ; 3) une attitude plus négative envers la surveillance numérique chez les étudiants procrastinateurs.Mots-clés : procrastination, surveillance en ligne, anxiété aux examens, performance aux examens
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".