CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Education during COVID-19 pandemicE-Learning and COVID-19Educational Innovations and Challenges

Tryst with the unknown: navigating an unplanned transition to online examinations

Mumtaz, Sabiha, Parahoo, Sanjai K., Gupta, Namrata, Harvey, Heather L.·2023·Quality Assurance in Education
DOI 10.1108/qae-12-2021-0197
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: This paper aims to investigate the major challenges faced and lessons learned during the unplanned transition to online examinations (OE) at a traditional university following the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach: This exploratory study involved two distinct samples (110 students and 30 instructors) drawn from a large public university and triangulated the qualitative and quantitative data to analyze how the university navigated the unplanned transition to OE. Findings: The university faced several challenges related to a lack of proper institutional infrastructure, non-familiarity of the stakeholders with OE, lack of effective communication, limited student access to technology resources because of socio-economic impediments and academic integrity issues. Practical implications: Short- and medium-term recommendations are proposed to enable continuity of teaching and learning in future emergency situations, including the establishment of technology-enabled exam centers, as well as strategies to assure instructor readiness for OE, academic integrity among students and the validity of the evaluation procedure for future OE. Originality/value: This study shows how the unplanned transition to OE in a public university exposed new challenges for conducting OE, particularly in resource challenged emerging countries, where full integration of OE was a new experience and prior knowledge of potential issues was lacking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/qae-12-2021-0197

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent studies have indicated a higher prevalence of dishonesty in online assessments compared to traditional face-to-face assessments.

    “However, the implications of AI on academic integrity require careful consideration, particularly as recent studies have indicated a higher prevalence of dishonesty in online assessments compared to traditional face-to-face assessments (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022;Mumtaz et al., 2023).”

    From Ethical use of artificial intelligence based tools in higher education: Are future business leaders ready? (2025) · cites this paper as Mumtaz et al., 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mumtaz, S., Parahoo, S. K., Gupta, N., & Harvey, H. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Wollongong in Dubai (AE)
  • Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University (AE)
  • Limestone College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Quality Assurance in Education
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2022-04-14
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
4-17
ISSN
0968-4883 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/qae-12-2021-0197
OpenAlex
W4224115028
Cited by
8
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Quality Assurance in Education (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
  • Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
Keywords
online examinations, COVID-19 pandemic, academic integrity, institutional infrastructure, access to technology, socioeconomic barriers, teacher readiness, emergency remote teaching, assessment validity, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review