The aim of this study was to investigate university students’ experiences of open-book, open-web online examinations compared to traditional class examinations concerning preparing, responding, and learning. The data (N = 110) were collected by an online survey from the university students who took an online examination. The students used approximately the same time to study for an online examination as for faculty examination, but over half of them reported using more time for responding and learning more from an online examination compared to a faculty examination. The study supports the earlier findings that assessment methods are essential for students’ learning experiences and that self-efficacy beliefs are essential in positive learning experiences. It also indicates that self-efficacy is affected differently for different students by the online context and that the individual differences in experiencing the learning environment should be taken into account in assessment procedures.
AgarwalPKRoedigerHLIII (2011) Expectancy of an open-book test decreases performance on a delayed closed-book test. Memory19(8): 836–52.
2.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman & Company.
3.
BeckV (2014) Testing a model to predict online cheating—Much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education15(1): 65–75.
4.
BiggsJBTangC (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 3rd edn.Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
5.
BirenbaumM (1996) Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In: BirenbaumMDochyF (Eds) Alternatives in Assessment of Achievement, Learning Processes and Prior Knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer, pp. 3–30.
6.
CassadyJCJohnsonRE (2002) Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology27(2): 270–95.
7.
Chamorro-PremuzicTFurnhamA (2008) Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences44(7): 1596–603.
8.
ChenGGullySMWhitemanJ-A. (2000) Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology85(6): 835–47.
9.
DochyFMcDowellL (1997) Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation23(4): 279–98.
10.
DochyFMoerkerkeG (1997) The present, the past and the future of achievement testing and performance assessment. International Journal of Educational Research27(5): 415–32.
11.
DupeyratCMarinéC (2005) Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology30: 43–59.
12.
DweckCSLeggetEL (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review95(2): 256–73.
13.
ElliotAJMcGregorHA (1999) Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology76(4): 628–44.
14.
ElliotAJMcGregorHA (2001) A 2 * 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80(3): 501–9.
15.
FenollarPRománSCuestasPJ (2007) University students’ academic performance: An integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology77(4): 873–91.
16.
GibbsGSimpsonC (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education5(1): 2–31.
17.
GreenbergKLesterJNEvansK. (2009) Student learning with performance-based, in-class and learner-centered, online exams. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education20(3): 383–93.
18.
GuligersJTMBastiaensTJKirschnerPA. (2006) Relations between student perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approaches and learning outcome. Studies in Educational Evaluation32(4): 381–400.
19.
Heijne-PenningaMKuksJBMJofmanWHA. (2010) Influences of deep learning, need for cognition and preparation time on open- and closed-book test performance. Medical Education44(9): 884–91.
20.
HembreeR (1988) Correlates, causes, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research58(1): 47–77.
21.
HerringtonJReevesTCOliverR. (2004) Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education16(1): 3–29.
22.
HollisterKKBerensonML (2009) Proctored versus unproctored online exams: Studying the impact of exam environment on student performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education7(1): 271–94.
23.
HuangC (2011) Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychological Review23(3): 359–88.
24.
KaragiannopoulouEMilienosFS (2013) Exploring the relationship between experienced students’ preference for open- and closed-book examinations, approaches to learning and achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation19(4): 271–96.
25.
KhareALamH (2008) Assessing student achievement and progress with online examinations: Some pedagogical and technical issues. International Journal of E-Learning7(3): 383–402.
26.
KrathwohlD (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice41(4): 212–8.
27.
Llamas-NistalMFernández-IglesiasMJGonzàlez-TatoJ. (2013) Blended e-assessment: Migrating classical exams to the digital world. Computers & Education62(1): 72–87.
28.
MillerCMLParlettM (1974) Up to The Mark: A Study of the Examination Game. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.
29.
MogeyNCowanJPattersonJJ. (2012) Students’ choices between typing and handwriting in examinations. Active Learning in Higher Education13(2): 117–28.
30.
RichardsonMAbrahamCBondR (2012) Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin138(2): 353–87.
31.
SambellKMcDowellL (1998) The construction of the hidden curriculum: Messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education23(4): 391–402.
32.
SchmidtSMPRalphDLBuskirkB (2009) Utilizing online exams: A case study. Journal of College Teaching & Learning6(8): 1–8.
33.
SchönDA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
34.
SchunkDA (1984) Sequential attributional feedback and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology76(6): 1159–69.
35.
ScoullerK (1998) The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education35(4): 453–72.
36.
ScoullerKProsserM (1994) Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education19(3): 267–79.
37.
SnyderBR (1971) The Hidden Curriculum. New York: Knopf.
38.
Springer SargentCCurcioA (2012) Empirical evidence that formative assessments improve final exams. Journal of Legal Education61(3): 379–405.
39.
StowellJRBennetD (2010) Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research42(2): 161–71.
40.
StruyvenKDochyFJanssensS (2005) Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education30(4): 325–42.
41.
TaitHEntwistleNJ (1996) Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. Higher Education31(1): 97–116.
42.
TheophilidesCDionysiouO (1996) The major functions of the open book examinations at the university level: A factor analytic study. Studies in Educational Evaluation22(2): 157–70.
43.
WilliamsJB (2006) The place of the closed-book, invigilated final examination in a knowledge economy. Educational Media International43(2): 107–19.
44.
WilliamsJBWongA (2009) The efficacy to final examinations: A comparative study of closed-book, invigilated exams and open-book, open-web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology40(2): 227–36.
45.
YangYTaylorJ (2013) The role of achievement goals in online test anxiety and help-seeking. Educational Research and Evaluation19(8): 651–64.
