Online Summative Assessment and Its Impact on Students’ Academic Performance, Perception and Attitude Towards Online Exams: University of Sharjah Study Case

  • Hussein M. ElmehdiEmail author
  • Al-Mehdi Ibrahem
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)


In this paper we present the results of a study carried out at the University of Sharjah (UOS) over the past three semesters to evaluate the impact of online exams on the performance of students and examines student perceptions, attitude and feedback on online assessment in comparison to traditional in-class exams. The study (1493 respondents) aims to answer questions on effectiveness and impact of online assessment, especially those related to time management, preparation, reliability, fairness, security, grading, prompt feedback and possible impact on students’ performance. The survey also aims at identifying possible risks associated with online assessment at the UOS. The results indicate that there is no clear indication of improvement in the overall class GPA or in the overall passing percentage of the class. Student’s opinion and perception on online assessment seem to be divided among the 1493 students who responded to the online survey. More than half of the students preferred online exams over traditional paper-based exams. Students’ opinion was more in favor of online exams in questions related to the added values and benefits of online exams, especially those related to logistics and improving teaching and learning. No age or gender biases were found in any of the areas investigated. The results of our study support the UOS’s effort to integrate online summative assessments into teaching and learning, which will in turn improve the quality of education through accurate and fair assessment. UOS need to raise awareness among staff and students on the values of online testing in improving course assessment and help facilitate testing logistics.


Online summative assessment Student performance Education quality Course outcomes 



The author would like to acknowledge and appreciate the chancellor of the University of Sharjah, Prof. Hamid Al Naimiy, for supporting our research and the Office for Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies for funding the project. Thanks go to colleagues at the Registration Department, the Academic Computing Section at the Information Technology Centre and the Admissions Department for providing technical and preparing the data used in the analysis presented in the paper.


  1. 1.
    Buchanan, T.: Potential of the internet for personality research. In: Birnbaum, M.H. (ed.) Psychological Experiments on the Internet. Academic Press, San Diego (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dermo, J.: Implementing online assessment: finding the right path for an HE institution. In: Ladwa, A. (ed.) E-learning in HE, pp. 8–9. JISC Regional Support Centre Yorkshireand Humber, Leeds (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butler, D.L.: The impact of computer-based testing on student attitudes and behavior. The Technol. Sour. January/February (2003). Available online:
  4. 4.
    Agarwal, R., Day, E.A.: The impact of the Internet on economic education. J. Econ. Educ. 29(2), 99–115 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duchastel, P.: A web-based model for university instruction. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 25, 221–228 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wheeler, S.: Instructional design in distance education through telematics. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 1(1), 31–44 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caruso, J., Kvavik, R.: Students and Information Technology, 2005: Convenience, Connection, Control and Learning. Educause Center for Applied Research (2005). Available at
  8. 8.
    Buchanan, T.: Using the World Wide Web for formative assessment. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 27(1), 71–79 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchanan, T.: Potential of the internet for personality research. In: Birnbaum, M.H. (ed.) Psychological Experiments on the Internet. Academic Press, San Diego (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M.: Formative and summative assessments in the classroom (2007). Retrieved from:
  11. 11.
    Dermo, J.: E-assessment and the student learning experience: a survey of student perceptions of E-assessment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 40(2), 203–214 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bocij, P., Greasley, A.: Can computer-based testing achieve quality and efficiency in assessment? Int. J. Educ. Technol. 1(1), 17p (1999). Available online:
  13. 13.
    Hollister, K.K., Berenson, M.L.: Proctored versus unproctored online exams: studying the impact of exam environment on student performance. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 7(1), 271–294 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Summers, Jessica J., Waigandt, Alexander, Whittaker, Tiffany A.: A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innov. High. Educ. 29(3), 233–250 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gikandi, J.W., Morrow, D., Davisa, N.E.: Online formative assessment in higher education: a review of the literature. Comput. Educ. 57(4), 2333–2351 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oppenheim, A.N.: Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Continuum International, London (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Physics and AstronomyUniversity of SharjahSharjahUAE
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations