Proctoring effects on exam performance are mixed, and technical difficulties and cheating were reported in open-book online exams¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr1–r2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? One study highlighted a negative impact of proctoring on performance and completion time, while another found no significant proctoring effect. → Mizori R 2025
q2 i? Technical challenges (hardware limitations, internet connectivity) affected performance and completion, and cheating was reported with distinct patterns in open-book and invigilated exams. → Mizori R 2025 (2)
Evidence¶
Mizori R 2025¶
Mizori R, Sadiq M, Ahmad MT, Siu A, Ahmad RR, Yang Z, et al. (2025). STEM exam performance: Open‐ versus closed‐book methods in the large language model era. The Clinical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13839
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Narrative review of included studies' proctoring findings. The review reports Daffin and Jones found proctoring negatively affected performance and time, whereas Balasubramanian et al. found no significant difference; the effect does not replicate across studies.
"Jr et al.'s 16 study highlighted the negative impact of proctoring on performance and time taken to complete exams. In contrast, Balasubramanian et al. did not find significant differences in exam performance due to proctoring."
Mizori R 2025 (2)¶
Mizori R, Sadiq M, Ahmad MT, Siu A, Ahmad RR, Yang Z, et al. (2025). STEM exam performance: Open‐ versus closed‐book methods in the large language model era. The Clinical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13839
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1
Narrative synthesis of practical issues in online OBE delivery. The review reports technical problems "sometimes leading to early submission" and cheating in Mohanna and Patel's study, with distinct patterns across exam types; measures included variability in exam questions.
"Problems ranged from hardware limitations to internet connectivity, sometimes leading to early submission and affecting student performance. Cheating was also reported in the study by Mohanna and Patel's study, with distinct patterns observed in open‐book and invigilated exams."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Proctored online exams show no effect on students' exam performance — related
- Time delay and head pose variations relative to the screen were significant predictors of cheating, yielding 75.6% average detection accuracy — related
- Remote proctoring supported assessment continuity and uninterrupted student progression during institutional closures — related
- Students prefer open-book exams, citing reduced stress and less intrusive oversight, and OBEs offer institutions logistical advantages — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.