Take-home examination proctoring technologies: Undergraduate mathematics education students’ perceptions in an open distance learning environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38140/ijer-2025.vol7.1.19Keywords:
Online proctoring system, take-home examination, students’ perceptions, open distance learningAbstract
Many higher education institutions (HEIs) in both developed and developing countries have migrated to take-home examinations (THEs), which require monitoring, just as traditional venue-based examinations do. The purpose of this existential phenomenological study was to explore undergraduate mathematics education students’ perceptions of the use of remote proctoring during examinations at an open and distance learning institution in South Africa. Perception theory was employed to examine the usefulness and ease of use of technology to guide the study. The interpretive paradigm was used to qualitatively analyse the collected data. Twenty-four undergraduate mathematics education students enrolled in the Teaching Mathematics in FET (TMS3725) module were purposively sampled to respond to an open-ended questionnaire. The data were captured in a table and grouped according to question items. Thematic analysis was conducted to analyse the data collected from the questionnaires. The findings revealed positive perceptions of the usefulness and usability of online proctoring systems. However, negative perceptions related to the drawbacks of using online proctoring systems included students’ reactions to these systems and potential technical problems. It is recommended that students continue attending online proctoring workshop sessions to become familiar with technological software that can be both useful and easy to use during examinations. Additionally, the technical team should continue to provide support to students in using online proctoring systems during examinations.
References
Adan?r, G. A., & Ç?nar, M. (2021). The acceptance and use of an online exam system by online learners: Implementation of the UTAUT model. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 11(3), 412-430. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.830529
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students' use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885
Almutawa, A. M., & Sruthi, S. (2021). Online proctoring and assessment in distance learning during COVID-19. EDUlearn, 21, 5887–5895.
Andreou, V., Peters, S., Eggermont, J., Wens, J., & Schoenmakers, B. (2021). Remote versus on-site proctored exam: Comparing student results in a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 21, 1–9.
Arnò, S., Galassi, A., Tommasi, M., Saggino, A., & Vittorini, P. (2021). State-of-the-art of commercial proctoring systems and their use in academic online exams. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(2), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.20210401.oa3
Balash, D. G., Kim, D., Shaibekova, D., Fainchtein, R. A., Sherr, M., & Aviv, A. J. (2021). Examining the examiners: Students' privacy and security perceptions of online proctoring services. In Seventeenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, 2021 (pp. 633–652). USENIX.
Berkey, D., & Halfond, J. (2015, July 20). Cheating, student authentication and proctoring in online programs. New England Board of Higher Education.
Broadbent, D. E. (1959). Perception and communication. Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000
Castaño, M., Noeller, C., & Sharma, R. (2020). Implementing remotely proctored testing in nursing education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing.
Chukwuere, J. (2021). The impact of social media on students’ social interaction. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(7), 1–15.
Churchill, S. D. (2021). Essentials of existential phenomenological research. American Psychological Research: in press, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000257-000
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021). Good proctor or “Big Brother”? Ethics and online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy and Technology, 34(4), 1581–1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dawson, P. (2020). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge.
De Santis, A., Bellini, C., Sannicandro, K., & Minerva, T. (2020). Students’ perception on e-proctoring system for online assessment. Enhancing the human experience of learning with technology. New challenges for research into digital, open, distance & networked education, European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) Proceedings. Research workshop, Lisbon, October 21–23. https://doi.org/10.38069/edenconf-2020-rw0018
Fawns, T., & Schaepkens, S. A. (2022). Matter of trust: Online proctored exams and the integration of technologies of assessment in medical education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 34(4), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2048832
Gudiño Paredes, S., Jasso Peña, F. D. J., & de La Fuente Alcazar, J. M. (2021). Remote proctored exams: Integrity assurance in online education? Distance Education, 42(2), 200–218.
Hamamoto Filho, P. T., Bicudo, A. M., & Cecilio-Fernandes, D. (2021). Preserving cornerstones of students’ assessment in medical education during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–3.
Harnett, M., Butler, P., & Rawlins, P. (2023). Online proctored exams and digital inequalities during the pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39, 1103–1115.
Hollister, K. K., & Berenson, M. L. (2009). Proctored versus unproctored online exams: Studying the impact of exam environment on student performance. Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 271–294.
Hosseini, M. M., Egodawatte, G., & Ruzgar, N. S. (2021). Online assessment in a business department during Covid-19: Challenges and practices. International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100556
Irwanto. (2002). Psikologi umum [General psychology]. Jakarta: PT Prenhallindo.
Kharbat, F. F., & Abu Daabes, A. S. (2021). E-proctored exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A close understanding. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6589–6605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10458-7
Langenfeld, T. (2020). Internet-based proctored assessment: Security and fairness issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12359
Lee, K., & Fanguy, M. (2022). Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13182
Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Bligh, B., & Lu, X. S. (2021). Adoption of online teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A systematic analysis of changes in university teaching activity. Educational Review, 74(3), 460–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1978401
Lilley, M., Barker, T., & Meere, J. (2016). Remote live invigilation: A pilot study. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.408
Linden, K., & Gonzalez, P. (2021). Zoom-invigilated exams: A protocol for rapid adoption to remote examinations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1323–1337. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13109
Methi, L. M. (2023). A novice academic’s reflections on the implementation of proctored examination: An auto-ethnographic account. South African Journal of Higher Education, 37(6), 255–270.
Meulmeester, F., Dubois, E. A., van Krommenhoek, E. C., de Jong, P. G. M., & Langers, A. M. J. (2021). Medical students’ perspectives on online proctoring during remote digital progress test. Medical Science Educator, 31, 1773–1777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01420-w
MRCPUK. (2020). Preparing for your MRCP (UK) Part 2: Online examination. Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom.
Mutuwa, A. M. (2021). Students’ perspective towards online proctoring in exams during COVID-19. Journal of Engineering, 10(9), 6–11.
Nicola-Richmond, K., Dawson, P., & Partridge, H. (2023). Online proctored exams: Rhetoric vs reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 43, 1–14.
Nigam, A., Pasricha, R., Singh, T., & Churi, P. (2021). A systematic review on AI-based proctoring systems: Past, present and future. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10597-x
Raman, R., Sairam, B., Veena, G., Vachharajani, H., & Nedungadi, P. (2021). Adoption of online proctored examinations by university students during Covid-19: Innovation diffusion study. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10581-5
Reisenwitz, T. H. (2020). Examining the necessity of proctoring online exams. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(1), 118-124.
Selwyn, N., O’Neill, C., Smith, G., Andrejevic, M., & Gu, X. A. (2021). Necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media International Australia, 186(1), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X211005862
Solso, R. L., MacLin, K. M., & MacLin, O. H. (2007). Cognitive psychology (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Stapleton, P., & Blanchard, J. (2021). Remote proctoring: Expanding reliability and trust. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 1243–1243). ACM Digital Library.
Thoha, M. (2003). Perilaku organisasi, konsep dasar dan aplikasi [A text about organisational behaviour]. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
UNESCO. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education. http://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education/artifical-intelligence
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Williamson, K., & Johnson, G. (2018). Research methods, information, systems and context (2nd ed.). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2018.1466638
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 Tšhegofatšo Phuti Makgakga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
