Final-exam score distributions under the DOT format did not differ significantly from the proctored midterm distributions of the same population (Kolmogorov-Smirnov p = 0.1574; equal-variance t-test p = 0.7997).¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Standard tests found no significant difference between the midterm (conventional physical proctoring) and final (DOT format) score distributions. → Mengzhou Li 2021

Evidence¶

Mengzhou Li 2021¶

Mengzhou Li, Lei Luo, Sujoy Sikdar, Navid Ibtehaj Nizam, Shan Gao, Hongming Shan, Melanie Kruger, Uwe Kruger, Hisham Mohamed, Lirong Xia and Ge Wang. (2021). Optimized collusion prevention for online exams during social distancing. npj Science of Learning 6:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00083-3

q2 · i? · design · r2

Analysis of the 78 students' final exam scores on the DOT platform against the midterm exam as a control group. Anderson-Darling tests confirmed normality (p = 0.1570 midterm, p = 0.3004 final); the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and equal-variance t-test found no significant differences.

"we confirmed that both sample sets were drawn from the same normal distribution using the two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test48 (p = 0.1574). As an additional test, we applied the two-sample t-test for equal variance 49 and confirmed that the two distributions have the same mean ( p = 0.7997)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a real undergraduate final exam, the DOT optimized question assignment reduced the average collusion gain to 0.0073% from 19.23% under the conventional simultaneous common-question scenario. — related
• A post-exam survey found the DOT-format online exam well received: 76.9% of students rated time sufficiency 3 or above and 80.8% rated interface convenience 3 or above on 5-point scales. — related