Introduction
Online examination is a widely utilised strategy for higher education assessment due to its numerous benefits for universities, academic staff, and students. Exemplar benefits of online assessment include increased student flexibility to complete the exam and automated marking, decreasing academic workload (Huber et al., 2024). However, within the wider sector, online examinations have been shown to inflate grades due to students completing exams in groups or as open-book exams, meaning knowledge acquisition is inadequately tested (Newton & Essex, 2023). A phenomenon which became prominent during the rapid shift to online assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To mitigate this, invigilation of online assessments using approaches known as proctoring has been suggested. Proctoring software utilises recording or artificial intelligence-based approaches to monitor student information associated with potential academic misconduct, thus ensuring online examinations are conducted under comparable conditions to in-person examinations (Nigam et al., 2021). With knowledge acquisition one of the key intended learning outcomes of physiology-based modules, developing a detailed understanding of proctored online examinations may benefit students and staff. This study aims to evaluate the impact of implementing online examination proctoring on student academic attainment, experience, and wellbeing.
Methods
Physiology-aligned module grade analysis was conducted using exam board data from 2022/23 (Unproctored) and 2023/24 (Proctored) academic years following ratification by internal and external moderation. The student experience was evaluated by the completion of an anonymous survey following the completion of proctored examinations. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale containing negative, neutral, and positive options. Survey questions related to student experience, academic integrity, and wellbeing. This study was approved by the University of Salford's ethical review board (Ethics ID: 11889).
Results
Evaluation of student attainment following proctoring implementation revealed a leftward shift in grade distributions following the addition of proctoring to online exams. This resulted from average exam grades significantly decreasing from 65.8±12.4% (n=307) to 57.8±15.9% (n=274) following the addition of proctoring (P<0.0001). When compared to students’ coursework grades achieved in the same academic year, the disparity in attainment between assessment styles significantly increased from 7.7±14.5 % to 12.4±18.2 % following the implementation of exam proctoring (n=273-300; P=0.0006). Irrespective of proctoring status, there was a positive correlation between coursework attainment and exam attainment (Unproctored: R=0.33, P<0.0001, n=300; Proctored: R=0.32, P<0.0001, n=270).
A total of 36 students completed the student experience and wellbeing survey following proctored exams. Students stated that they believed proctoring negatively impacted their attainment (41.7% of respondents) but decreased academic misconduct (55.6%) and ensured exam conditions (72.2%). Only a third of respondents had positive experiences using proctoring with 38.9% stating they had a negative experience. Students revealed they were more nervous before proctored exams compared to unproctored ones (77.8%). The majority of students surveyed (72.2%) found proctoring easier and less stressful in subsequent proctored exams.
Conclusion
These data show that exam proctoring is an effective tool to combat grade inflation whilst simultaneously ensuring academic conduct and rigour in online examinations. However, its implementation may adversely impact student experience, which should be accounted for before its implementation.