Premium
The efficacy of final examinations: A comparative study of closed‐book, invigilated exams and open‐book, open‐web exams
Author(s) -
Williams Jeremy B.,
Wong Amy
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
british journal of educational technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.79
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1467-8535
pISSN - 0007-1013
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00929.x
Subject(s) - quality (philosophy) , dimension (graph theory) , computer science , process (computing) , open source , mathematics education , psychology , medical education , medicine , epistemology , philosophy , mathematics , pure mathematics , software , programming language , operating system
Abstract Educators have long debated the usefulness (or otherwise) of final examinations; a debate that has typically revolved around the relative merits of closed‐book exams, open‐book exams, take‐home exams or their substitution by some other assessment format (eg, project work). This paper adds a new dimension to the debate by considering how the final examination assessment instrument might be enhanced through harnessing the power of technology, more specifically, how the learner experience of the final examination might be made more authentic and, in the process, more constructively aligned with stated learning outcomes. The authors report on the latest findings of an ongoing research project evaluating the effectiveness of ‘open‐book, open‐web’ (OBOW) examinations delivered by an online university, vis‐à‐vis a closed‐book, invigilated alternative. Earlier research had indicated that the OBOW model receives the strong endorsement of students in a number of respects, most particularly the quality of the learning outcomes.