The right amount of pressure: Implementing time pressure in online exams

Abstract

Beginning in December 2019, a new type of coronavirus spread worldwide, becoming a pandemic. To limit the spread almost all universities stopped classroom teaching and moved to online teaching (Telles-Langdon, 2020). However, the virus continues to spread, online teaching is still ongoing, and universities now have to consider how to deal with exams, asking whether they want to postpone, eliminate them, or conduct them online (Crawford et al., 2020).As online exams are at risk of facilitating student dishonesty by cheating, one possible solution is to proctor students while they are taking exams (Fask et al., 2014). As proctoring is an expensive solution to minimize the risk of student cheating and also questionable for reasons of data protection, Cluskey et al. ( 2011) published recommendations on how proctoring can function without a machine or a person who watches over the students during the entire exam period and is also cost-effective at the same time. The recommendations consisted of eight control procedures (Cluskey et al., 2011).The control procedures describe how to present the exams to students digitally and how to display their questions (Cluskey et al., 2011). However, Cluskey et al. did not specify their recommendations on how time pressure should be implemented. To provide further insights into this issue, this paper reports on the results of an experiment comparing different types of time pressure; namely, the same amount of time for each question, different amounts of time for each question, a total amount of time for the entire exam, rather than breaking time periods down per question. This study aimed to ascertain the CONTACT Matthias Stadler

In the nexus of integrity and surveillance: Proctoring (re)considered

“…Many articles mentioned particular challenges in selecting and implementing online proctoring solutions and in the process, discussed potential alternatives. Stadler et al (2021) note that online proctoring ‘resources are often challenging to implement … or may conflict with existing data protection laws’ (p. 219).…”

“…It is clear from Gamage et al (2020) and others (e.g. Bens, 2020; Dawson, 2020; Holden et al, 2020; Stadler et al, 2021) that ensuring assessment security and academic integrity emerges from consideration of issues such as the quality regimes of accreditation bodies, institutional reputation, and students' investment in graduating from institutions whose integrity and quality were seen to be intact. However, the extent to which tensions between student privacy and using proctoring software were considered when selecting a way forward is less evident.…”

“…Stadler et al (2021) note that online proctoring 'resources are often challenging to implement … or may conflict with existing data protection laws' (p. 219). browser (to prevent use of other browsers during an exam); video conferencing software to monitor students; randomized questions; multiple exam versions; limited exam time, etc.…”

Tools for simultaneous online and in‐person teaching in a Linear Circuit Analysis subject

“…Regarding time pressure, the analysis presented in [30] compared different time pressure strategies, focused on reducing cheating in nonproctored exams and, at the same time, maximizing students' performance. According to this analysis, the optimum strategy is equal time allocation for all tasks, as compared to other options like individual allocation of time or allocation based on task length.…”

Dimensions of Assessment in Online and Open Education in Terms of Purpose, Function and Theory

“…Russell (2019) discussed the role of digital technologies in summative assessment in general while Russell (2018) discussed crucial issues of accessibility in this context. As elaborated in and Stadler, Kolb, and Sailer (2021), time limits are an important issue in online summative assessments. To reiterate, online test proctors are expensive and intrusive; they can also be bypassed by workarounds that proliferate online.…”