В статье выполнен обзор современных исследований, посвящённых проблеме экзаменационного тестирования в онлайн-обучении. Указан основной современный вызов для системы образования, по мнению одного из коллективов исследователей данной проблемы. Перечислены основные преимущества онлайн-образования. Рассмотрено влияние на образование таких факторов, как изменение менталитета абитуриентов, наиболее популярные причины для развития стресса у обучающихся с применением онлайн-технологий. Представлена текущая степень проникновения онлайн-технологий в образование. Показаны приёмы повышения результативности онлайн-обучения. Также в статье затронуты вопросы безопасности обучаемого при онлайн-обучении, вопросы саморегуляции обучаемого. Рассмотрены не менее важные вопросы диетических привычек, сна, физической активности, привычки курения во время онлайн-образования. Дана оценка онлайн-образования работодателями. Исследована оценка онлайн-образования со стороны студентов, изменение уровня стресса при сдаче дистанционных экзаменов на результаты сдачи экзамена. Даны теоретические и практические рекомендации, с помощью которых можно повысить качество онлайн-образования в общем и повысить эффективность проведения экзаменационного тестирования при онлайн-обучении с помощью трехэтапной модели проведения экзамена в частности.
The article provides an overview of modern research on the problem of exam testing in online learning. The main modern challenge for the education system is indicated, according to one of the teams of researchers of this problem. The main advantages of online education are listed. The influence on education of such factors as the change in the mentality of applicants, the most popular reasons for the development of stress in students using online technologies is considered. The current degree of penetration of online technologies in education is presented. The techniques of improving the effectiveness of online learning are shown. The article also touches upon the issues of safety of the trainee during online training, issues of self-regulation of the trainee. Equally important issues of dietary habits, sleep, physical activity, smoking habits during online education are considered. The assessment of online education by employers is given. The assessment of online education by students, the change in the stress level when passing distance exams on the results of the exam is investigated. Theoretical and practical recommendations are given with the help of which it is possible to improve the quality of online education in general and to increase the effectiveness of examination testing in online learning using a three-stage model of the exam in particular.
1. Wenli Huang, Yanhong Qian, Nanyan Xu. The signaling effects of education in the online lending market: Evidence from China. Economic Modelling. 2020. No. 92. P. 268–276.
2. Yiannis Kountouris. Higher education and fertility: Evidence from reforms in Greece. Economics of Education Review. 2020. Vol 79. Р. 102059. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775720305458 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
3. Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira, Ramiro Gonçalves, José Martins, Frederico Branco. The social impact of technology on millennials and consequences for higher education and leadership. Telematics and Informatics. 2018. No 35. P. 954–963.
4. Yanqiao Zheng, Xiaoqi Zhang, Yu Zhu. Overeducation, major mismatch, and return to higher education tiers: Evidence from novel data source of a major online recruitment platform in China. China Economic Review. 2021. No 66. Р. 101584. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp13868.pdf (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
5. Erica L. Rowe, Jasmine M. Pittman, Beverly S. Hamilton. Use of an in-house comprehensive exam as a predictor for academic success. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 6. P. 643–651.
6. Lokanath Mishra, Tushar Gupta, Abha Shree. Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2020. Vol 1. Р. 100012. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374020300121 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
7. Muthuprasad T., Aiswarya S., Aditya K.S., Girish K. Jha. Students’ perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2021. Vol 3. Р. 100101. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3596056 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
8. Violeta Milićević, Nebojša Denić, Zoran Milićević, Ljiljana Arsić, Milica Spasić-Stojković, Dalibor Petković, Jelena Stojanović, Mirjana Krkic, Nataša Sokolov Milovančević, Aleksandra Jovanović. E-learning perspectives in higher education institutions. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 2021. Vol 166. Р. 120618. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162521000500 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
9. Ahmed N. Al-Ahmari, Abdulrazag M. Ajlan, Khalid Bajunaid, Naif M. Alotaibi, Husam Al-Habib, Abdulrahman J. Sabbagh, Amro F. Al-Habib, Saleh S. Baeesa. Perception of Neurosurgery Residents and Attendings on Online Webinars During COVID-19 Pandemic and Implications on Future Education. World Neurosurgery. 2021. Vol. 146. P. e811-e816.
10. Kyungmee Lee. Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: A historical review. Internet and Higher Education. 2017. Vol 33. P. 15–23.
11. Poonam Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shailendra Palvia, Sanjay Verma. Online business education research: Systematic analysis and a conceptual model. The International Journal of Management Education. 2019. No. 17. P. 26–35.
12. Amanda M. Grossman, Leigh R. Johnson. How employers perceive online accounting education: Evidence from Kentucky. Journal of Accounting Education. 2017. No. 40. P. 19–31.
13. Brian M. Nagle, K. Bryan Menk, Stephen E. Rau. Which accounting program characteristics contribute to CPA exam success? A study of institutional factors and graduate education. Journal of Accounting Education. 2018. No. 45. P. 20–31.
14. Sabianca Delva, RN, BSN, Manka Nkimbeng, MPH, RN, Sotera Chow, MA, Susan Renda, DNP, ANP-BC, CDE, FAAN, Hae-Ra Han, PhD, RN, FAAN, Rita D’Aoust, PhD, ANP-BC, CNE, FAAN. Views of regulatory authorities on standards to assure quality in online nursing education. Nursing Outlook. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: nursingoutlook.org/article/S0029-6554(19)30067-3/fulltext (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
15. Please cite this article as: B. Jamalpur, Kafila, K.R. Chythanya, K.S. Kumar, A Comprehensive Overview of Online Education – Impact on Engineering Students during COVID-19, Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785321008464 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
16. Atika Qazi, Khulla Naseer, Javaria Qazi, Hussain AlSalman, Usman Naseem, Shuiqing Yang, Glenn Hardaker, Abdu Gumaei. Conventional to online education during COVID-19 pandemic: Do develop and underdeveloped nations cope alike. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020. No 119. Р. 105582. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740920320053 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
17. William H. Money, Benjamin P. Dean. Incorporating student population differences for effective online education: A content-based review and integrative model. Computers & Education. 2019. No 138. P. 57–82.
18. Laura Hopkins, MD; Brittany S. Hampton, MD; Jodi F. Abbott, MD; Samantha D. Buery-Joyner, MD; LaTasha B. Craig, MD; John L. Dalrymple, MD; David A. Forstein, DO; Scott C. Graziano, MD; Margaret L. McKenzie, MD; Archana Pradham, MD; Abigail Wolf, MD; Sarah M. Page-Ramsey, MD. To the point: medical education, technology, and the millennial learner. American Journal of obstetrics and Gyneologe. 2017. Vol 218. No. 2. P. 188–192.
19. María del Carmen Gallego Sánchez, Carmen De-Pablos-Heredero, Jose-Amelio Medina-Merodio, Rafael Robina-Ramírez, Luis Fernandez-Sanz. Relationships among relational coordination dimensions: Impact on the quality of education online with a structural equations model. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 2021. Vol. 166. 120608. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162521000408 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
20. Laurie E.C. Delnoij, Kim J.H. Dirkx, José P.W. Janssen, Rob L. Martens. Predicting and resolving non-completion in higher (online) education – A literature review. Educational Research Review. 2020. no. 29. vol. 100313. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/77834436/Delnoij_2020_Predicting_and_resolving_non_completion_in.pdf (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
21. Colleen Carraher Wolverton. Utilizing synchronous discussions to create an engaged classroom in online executive education. The International Journal of Management Education. 2018. No. 16. P. 239–244.
22. Heidi Hartikainen, Netta Iivari, Marianne Kinnula. Children’s design recommendations for online safety education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2019. Vol. 22. 100146. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212868917300764 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
23. Marloes Broeren, Anita Heijltjes, Peter Verkoeijen, Guus Smeets, Lidia Arends. Supporting the self-regulated use of retrieval practice: A higher education classroom experiment. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2021. No. 64. 101939. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: repub.eur.nl/pub/133520/Repub_133520_O-A.pdf (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
24. Maria Theobald, Henrik Bellhäuser, Margarete Imhof. Identifying individual differences using log-file analysis: Distributed learning as mediator between conscientiousness and exam grades. Learning and Individual Differences. 2018. Vol. 65. P. 112–122.
25. Michelle L. Rivers, John Dunlosky, Robin Joynes. The contribution of classroom exams to formative evaluation of concept-level knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2019. Vol. 59. 101806. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361476X19304114 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
26. Ilya Prakhov, Maria Yudkevich. University admission in Russia: Do the wealthier benefit from standardized exams? International Journal of Educational Development. 2019. Vol. 65. P. 98–105.
27. Stephen Machin, Sandra McNally, Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela. Entry through the narrow door: The costs of just failing high stakes exams. Journal of Public Economics. 2020. Vol. 190. 104224. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272720300888 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
28. Bryan J. Pesta, John Fuerst, Emil O.W. Kirkegaard, Brent Papaleo. Does intelligence explain national score variance on graduate admissions exams? Intelligence. 2019. Vol. 73. P. 8–15.
29. Anna Smolentseva. Marketisation of higher education and dual-track tuition fee system in post-Soviet countries. International Journal of Educational Development. 2020. Vol. 78. 102265. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0738059320304247 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
30. Joanna K. Hubbard, Brian A. Couch. The positive effect of in-class clicker questions on later exams depends on initial student performance level but not question format. Computers & Education. 2018. Vol. 120. P. 1–12.
31. Timothy J. Fogarty, Alan Reinstein, Mary B. Sasmaz. Is academic performance a zero-sum game? Exploring the nexus between research and education outcomes of U.S. accounting programs. Advances in Accounting. 2021. Vol. 52. 100502. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0882611020300729 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
32. Zhengyang Wu, Tao He, Chenjie Mao, Changqin Huang. Exam paper generation based on performance prediction of student group. Information Sciences. 2020. Vol. 532. P. 72–90.
33. Benjamin Froncek, Gerrit Hirschfeld, Meinald T. Thielsch. Characteristics of effective exams—Development and validation of an instrument for evaluating written exams. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2014. Vol. 43. P. 79–87.
34. Nilgün Aygör, Hülya Burhanzade. The Comparative Analyzes of the Student’s Performance about Matrix in Student Selection Exam (ÖSS) and the Approved Lecture Books of Ministry for the National Education (MEB). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014. Vol. 136. P. 360–369.
35. Peter Kooreman. Rational students and resit exams. Economics Letters. 2013. Vol. 118. P. 213–215.
36. Ilja Cornelisz, Martijn Meeter, Chris van Klaveren. Educational equity and teacher discretion effects in high stake exams. Economics of Education Review. 2019. Vol. 73. P. 1–13.
37. Rattaphon Wuthisatian. Student exam performance in different proctored environments: Evidence from an online economics course. International Review of Economics Education. 2020. Vol. 35. 100196. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1477388020300232 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
38. Jose J. Vazquez, Eric P. Chiang, Ignacio Sarmiento-Barbieri. Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2021. Vol. 90. 101653. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804320306960 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
39. Lina Elsalem, Nosayba Al-Azzam, Ahmad A. Jum’ah, Nail Obeidat, Amer Mahmoud Sindiani, Khalid A. Kheirallah. Stress and behavioral changes with remote E-exams during the Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study among undergraduates of medical sciences. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2020. Vol. 60. P. 271–279.
40. Christina L. Mnatzaganian, Rabia S. Atayee, Jennifer M. Namba, Katharina Brandl, Kelly C. Lee. The effect of sleep quality, sleep components, and environmental sleep factors on core curriculum exam scores among pharmacy students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2020. Vol. 12. P. 119–126.
41. Xiaoxiao Li, Pankaj C. Patel. Weather and high-stakes exam performance: Evidence from student-level administrative data in Brazil. Economics Letters. 2021. Vol. 199. 109698. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176520304584 (дата обращения: 03.08.2022).
42. Margot Vigeant. A portfolio replacement for a traditional final exam in thermodynamics. Education for Chemical Engineers. 2021. Vol. 35. P. 1–6.