i-manager Publications

A Comparison of Online vs. Proctored Final Exams in Online Classes

Stuart S. Gold*, Abraham Mozes-Carmel**

*Professor of Research Methods, Statistics and Conflict Management, Nova Southeastern University

**Adjunct Professor, Management and MIS courses, Nova Southeastern University.

Periodicity:April - June'2009
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.6.1.212

Abstract

This study examined the question of the relationship between the modality used to administer a final exam and the student outcomes achieved on the final exam in online university courses. This question directly addressed the issues of 1) the ongoing and dynamic growth of online university offerings and 2) the need for online universities to employ processes that will scale to allow for effective management of large numbers of online course takers. The study was a large-scale study that incorporated data from 100 online courses and over 1800 students across the full range of undergraduate course offering at the institution studied. The results indicate that in the university environment studied there was not a statistically significant difference between the average final exam score obtained irrespective of the modality used to administer the exam. The results of the study indicated that the use of sophisticated online exam software is a viable alternative to the use of proctored final exams. However, it is not necessarily sufficient to merely provide an online final exam. The environment studied also chose to take a number of measures to assure the academic rigor of the online exam and to minimize the ability of the student to access other online resources while taking the exam.

Keywords

Distance Education, Hybrid Courses, Online Education, Online Courses, Student Retention, Student Satisfaction, Online Final Exams, And Proctored Final Exams.

How to Cite this Article?

Stuart S. Gold and Abraham Mozes-Carmel (2009). A Comparison of Online vs. Proctored Final Exams in Online Classes. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 76-81. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.6.1.212

References

[1]. Bushweller, K. (1999, April). Generation of cheaters.The American School Board Journal, 186(4), pp. 24-32.

[2]. Bloom, B., & Masia, B. Krathwohl, D., (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives the Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook II Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

[3]. Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: how to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[4]. James, R., McInnis, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). On-line assessment. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from

[5]. Quilter, S. M., & Chester, C. (2001). The relationship between web-based conferencing and instructional outcomes. Retrieved July 31, 2003, from Wilson SelectPlus database.

[6]. Rowe, N. C. (2004, Summer). Cheating in online student assessment: beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VII.

[7]. Smith, P. & Dillon, C. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: conceptual considerations. The American Journal of Distance Education 13(2), pp. 6-23.

[8]. Trochim, W. M. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

[9]. Wellman, G. S., & Marcinkiewicz, H. (2004, December). Online learning and time-on-task: impact of proctored vs. un-proctored testing. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8.

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Single Article

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Online	15	15

ADD TO CART

Options for accessing this content:

If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.