Sam Hemsley, Academic Developer, discusses the pedagogical perspectives on high stakes final examinations:

Generative AI has, understandably, led to calls from many academics for a return from online to in-person exams. My role, along with my colleagues in the Educational Enhancement (EE) Team, is to provide pedagogic advice and support for curriculum design best practice and innovation in teaching, learning and assessment. Decisions about when and where in-person exams are permitted, and the resource and infrastructure to support them, are not ours in EE to make. What we can do, however, is provide insights from the pedagogical literature to help colleagues make research informed decisions about how best to assess their students.  

An overview of the pedagogic literature 

A 2024 paper in the journal Higher Education by French, Dickerson, and Mulder, titled ‘A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education’, provides a useful summary of the pedagogic evidence across seven common themes: memory recall and knowledge retention; student motivation and learning; authenticity and real-world relevance; validity and reliability; academic misconduct and contract cheating; stress, anxiety and wellbeing; and fairness and equity. These themes are expanded on at the end of this post where a summary of the pros and cons against each theme is provided.

In summary, French et al’s scoping review identifies that, while high stakes unseen exams can be shown to have certain pedagogic benefits, such as enhancing memory recall, motivating some students, and ensuring academic integrity, the benefits are often outweighed by significant drawbacks related to student well-being, and surface learning strategies. The authors also raise serious questions around the validity and reliability of high stakes exams due to their potential to generate academic inequity owing to differential performances based on gender, socio-economic status, race and ethnicity and disability. They conclude that: 

 “...heavy reliance on high-stakes final examinations in many university subjects is poorly justified by the balance of empirical evidence, and that traditional examinations (closed-book, individual, invigilated, time-constrained, summative, final, and high-stakes) have limited pedagogical value.”

(French et al, 2024, 908) 

Of course, alternatives to exams are not perfect. Nevertheless, against many other measures, coursework, even when high stakes, has been shown to reduce awarding gaps, improve student satisfaction and pass rates and the consistency of marks across types of assessment (see Compton 2023 and sources therein).  Also, a review of the literature on coursework versus examinations as end of module assessments (Richardson 2015), identified that, although larger class sizes can be seen to correlate with lower average student attainment, this is only the case with assessment by examination. In contrast: 

“…the adoption of assessment by coursework appears to attenuate the effect of class size, and the exclusive adoption of assessment by coursework appears to eliminate the effect altogether.”

(Richardson, 2015, 443) 

If we return to the more recent summary of the literature by French et al, they conclude that:  

“While effective exam design and delivery measures can reduce cheating opportunities, academic integrity concerns alone do not provide compelling grounds for maintaining an overreliance on high-stakes examinations. Educational institutions should explore a broader range of assessment methods that better align with the evolving challenges of academic misconduct in the digital age.”

(French et al, 2024, 906) 

This suggests that, high stakes examinations should be used sparingly and in-person assessments used to assure programme level learning outcomes only where other forms of assessment cannot. Such a whole course approach then enables the planning of curricular and assessments so students’ skills and confidence are developed over their degree. This might include, for example, building student skills and confidence in undertaking oral assessment such as vivas (which has, for example, been used in Life Sciences for many years ) or delivering presentations of their work (either in progress or the end product) and responding to questions from the marker.  

The Academic Development team are on hand to support colleagues explore potential alternatives to online or in-person exams. Please explore our guidance and reach out for support.  

A summary of pros and cons 

Provided below is a summary of the key points raised in French et al (2013) and research discussed therein. Note that observations about fairness and equity are woven throughout. 

Memory recall and knowledge retention 

• In-person exams can improve memory recall and retention of information, known as the “testing effect” or “test-enhanced learning”. Studies in cognitive psychology indicate that testing, rather than just studying, produces greater retention of knowledge. 

• However, the format of high-stakes exams, usually as end-of-term assessments, does not align with the most effective ways to enhance long-term retention. Regular, low-stakes tests or quizzes are shown to be more beneficial for knowledge retention. 

Student motivation and learning 

• High-stakes exams can motivate students to study and prepare more diligently, which can lead to better learning outcomes. The pressure to perform well on significant assessments can drive students to engage more deeply with the material. 

• Nonetheless, this type of motivation is often extrinsic, driven by the desire to achieve high grades rather than intrinsic motivation for learning. This can lead to surface learning strategies focused on memorisation rather than a deeper understanding of the material. 

Validity and reliability 

• When well-designed, in-person exams can provide a reliable (i.e. internally consistent and accurate) measure of student achievement and knowledge. They can be standardised and invigilated to ensure fairness and consistency in assessment. 

• However, the literature highlights the validity (i.e. whether it measures what it is supposed to) and reliability of high-stakes exams is undermined by considerable evidence that they have the potential to generate academic inequity due differential performances based on gender, socio-economic status, race and ethnicity, all of which intersects with impacts on wellbeing and student learning, and the limited ability of exams to measure higher-order thinking skills and real-world application.  

Academic Integrity

• In-person, invigilated exams are believed to reduce opportunities for academic misconduct and cheating compared to other forms of assessment. The controlled environment of in-person exams can make it more difficult for students to engage in dishonest practices. 

• Despite this belief, empirical evidence suggests that academic misconduct can still occur in in-person exams, and alternative forms of assessment can also be designed to minimize cheating. 

 Anxiety and wellbeing 

• There is substantial evidence that examinations cause elevated distress and anxiety which some studies suggest can promote study and preparation and improve performance in some. 

• Although the impact of examination anxiety on student performance is inconclusive, the proven adverse effects of examinations on student mental health and wellbeing is concerning, as is the fact that stress can also demotivate learners and lead to surface learning and poor memory retrieval.  

Authenticity and real-world readiness

• Proponents argue that in-person exams can mimic real-world situations where individuals must recall information and make decisions under pressure without external aids, which is relevant in fields like medicine and law. 

• However, the artificial nature of exam conditions often does not reflect the complexities and collaborative nature of real-world tasks, limiting the authenticity and real-world relevance of such assessments. 

Acknowledgment: The key points from French et al provided above are edited from an initial summary generated by a private ChatGPT4 Enterprise.  

References cited: 

Brown, Gavin. (2010). The Validity of Examination Essays in Higher Education: Issues and Responses. Higher Education Quarterly. 64. 276 – 291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00460.x  

Compton, M. (2023) AI text generation: Should we get students back in exam halls? Freedom to Learn blog.14^th March. Available at: https://reflect.ucl.ac.uk/mcarena/2023/03/14/aiexams/.  

French, S., Dickerson, A. & Mulder, R.A. (2024) A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education. High Education 88, 893-918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z  

Richardson, J. T. E. (2014). Coursework versus examinations in end-of-module assessment: a literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(3), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.919628  

Smith, C. (2011). Examinations and the ESL student–more evidence of particular disadvantages. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903173959