Skip to Main Content

University of Tennessee

About ITC

Newsletter: Fall 2008

Online Testing vs Traditional Testing:
Two UT Studies


With the explosion of the internet and more opportunities to use technology to deliver instruction, online testing is easier than ever. But can it stand up to traditional--timed, proctored, and closed-book--exams? On the other hand, what if online testing can encourage a more holistic understanding of the material? And what about student honesty?

Students testing with paper and on laptops

This article presents the findings of two research projects that were funded via Project RITE (Research of Instructional Technology in Education) that specifically looked at online testing. Project RITE was implemented in 2006 to support research of the effectiveness of technology use in teaching. To date, 17 projects have been funded between the Knoxville and Martin campuses.

Four general categories have been represented in the Project RITE research: online testing, evaluation of tools and broader issues, collaboration and social interaction, and learning environments. This article focuses on the outcomes of the research in online testing. These research projects are: 1. The Effects of Open-Book Testing in Online Learning Environments. (2006) Glenda Rakes, Department of Educational Studies, UT Martin. 2. The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning. (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville.

Project 1

Dr. Glenda Rakes examined student achievement on proctored traditional exams versus open-book online exams.

This study hypothesized that online students' performance on timed, unproctored, open-book examinations would be significantly lower than traditional students' performance on timed, proctored, closed-book examinations because students do not understand the requirements and preparation needed for successful performance on open-book tests. Indeed, during the study, the students who took the traditional proctored exams scored significantly higher on the midterm and final than the online students.

The second part of Dr. Rakes' research looked at the difference between student achievement on an online open-book test with tutoring provided on how to prepare for this type of test versus an online open-book test without tutoring. Students who received the online tutorial scored significantly higher on the midterm and final than those students who did not receive the tutorial.

According to Rakes, the significance of these findings is that “faculty preparing for examinations for online students should consider open-book exams as a viable assessment alternative that can help quiet concerns regarding academic honesty and provide an opportunity to assess higher-order thinking skills.”

Additionally, the preparation required to successfully complete an open-book exam can prepare students for the work environment where employees need to use multiple pieces of information to answer a question, solve a problem, or develop a work plan.

Project 2

Dr. Greenberg examined the student achievement difference between in-class exams and online exams.

The students who took the exams in class had 75 minutes with no access to course materials (performance-centered approach). The students who took the test online in Blackboard were allowed unlimited attempts over one week, received feedback that indicated if their answer was correct or incorrect, and could use course materials to assist in taking the test (learner-centered approach). There was no significant difference in outcome between the two test methods.

During focus groups, instructors perceived that the in-class exams damaged relationships with the students. They felt that their teaching methods changed to prep students for the in-class test, traditional lecture occurred more, and there was less time for experiential activities and real-world tasks.

According to Dr. Greenberg, “Offering assessments with which students can actively engage, gain feedback, ask questions about, and feel genuine competence toward can help students move out of the stands and onto the playing field.”

In summary, both researchers have found online testing to be a valuable assessment and teaching method. Dr. Rakes points out that open-book tests have “the potential to measure students' ability to organize and use or apply information rather than simply memorizing it.” And Dr. Greenberg offers that “technology affords the opportunity to find effective methods of learner-centered evaluation, to encourage students to become more deeply involved in learning experiences, and to become more self-regulated and persistent learners within the realities of a system where grades still count.”

So, if you've been reluctant to try online testing, you can read Drs. Rakes' and Greenberg's full reports and perhaps you'll be tempted!

Download a pdf file of the Fall 2008 Newsletter
(Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)



Learn more about Project RITE

View the 2009 Project RITE Call for Proposals


Email This Link