Yapay Zekâ Temelli Gözetimli Çevrimiçi Sınavlar: Uzaktan Eğitim Öğrencilerinin Deneyimlerine Yönelik Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 65, 2728 - 2748, 30.09.2025

Emine Aruğaslan

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1543471

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yapay zekâ temelli gözetimli çevrimiçi sınavlara ilişkin uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin görüşlerini belirlemektir. Veriler, Türkiye’de bir üniversitenin uzaktan eğitim önlisans programına kayıtlı 34 öğrenciden toplanmıştır. Öğrencilerin gözetimli çevrimiçi sınavlara ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemek için araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen bir anket kullanılmıştır. Anket verileri, içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda belirlenen temalar altı kategori altında gruplanmıştır: Esneklik ve Erişilebilirlik, Duygusal Faktörler, Destek Hizmetleri, Sınav Koşulları, Sınav Erişim Sorunları ve Kişisel Faktörler. Bu kategoriler, öğrencilerin çevrimiçi sınav deneyimlerinin çeşitli yönlerini kapsamlı bir şekilde ele almakta ve karşılaşılan fırsatlar ile zorluklar hakkında derinlemesine bilgiler sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, çalışma, öğrencilerin çevrimiçi sınavlar sırasında yaşadıkları duygusal durumlar ve aldıkları destek hizmetleri hakkında önemli bilgiler içermektedir. Çalışma, öğrencilerin çevrimiçi sınavların güvenilirliğini yüz yüze sınavlarla eşdeğer gördüklerini ortaya koymuştur. Sonuçlar, doğru altyapı, yazılım ve ekip ile gözetimli çevrimiçi sınavların geleneksel ortamlara eşdeğer güvenilir bir ortam sağlayabileceğini önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uzaktan Eğitim , yapay zeka temelli çevrimiçi gözetimli sınav , öğrenci deneyimleri , çevrimiçi sınav.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Proctored Online Exams: A Study on the Experiences of Distance Education Students

Öz

The purpose of this study is to ascertain distance education students' views on their experiences with Artificial intelligence-based (AI-based) proctored online exams. Data were collected from 34 students enrolled in a distance education associate degree program at a university in Turkey. A researcher-developed questionnaire was employed to ascertain students' views on proctored online exams. The content analysis method was used to analyze the data from the questionnaire. Themes determined from the analysis are grouped under six categories: Flexibility and Accessibility, Affective Factors, Support Services, Exam Conditions, Exam Access Issues, and Personal Factors. These categories comprehensively review various aspects of students' online exam experiences, providing in-depth insights into the opportunities and challenges encountered. Additionally, the study includes important information regarding students' emotional states during online exams and the support services they receive. The study revealed positive student perceptions, equating the reliability of online exams with face-to-face exams. Results suggest that with the right infrastructure, software, and team, proctored online exams can provide an environment as reliable as traditional settings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Distance education , artificial intelligence-based online proctored exam , student experiences , online exam

Kaynakça

• 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), 624. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03068-x
• Aristeidou, M., Cross, S., Rossade, K. D., Wood, C., Rees, T., & Paci, P. (2024). Online exams in higher education: Exploring distance learning students' acceptance and satisfaction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 342-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12888
• Arora, S., Chaudhary, P., & Singh, R. K. (2021). Impact of coronavirus and online exam anxiety on self-efficacy: The moderating role of coping strategy. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(3), 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0158
• Bayazit, A., & Aşkar, P. (2012). Performance and duration differences between online and paper–pencil tests. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(2012), 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9190-9
• Brothen, T., & Peterson, G. (2012). Online exam cheating: A natural experiment. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(2), 15–20.
• Chan, J. C., & Ahn, D. (2023). Unproctored online exams provide meaningful assessment of student learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(31), e2302020120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2302020120
• Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021). Good proctor or “big brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy & Technology, 34(2021), 1581-1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1
• Conijn, R., Kleingeld, A., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. (2022). The fear of big brother: The potential negative side‐effects of proctored exams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1521-1534. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12651
• Çivril, H., & Aruğaslan, E. (2023). A study on face-to-face exam experiences of distance education students, Uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin yüz yüze sınav deneyimleri üzerine bir araştırma. The Journal of Limitless Education and Research, 8(1), 117-157. https://doi.org/10.29250/sead.1247453
• Daffin Jr, L. W., & Jones, A. A. (2018). Comparing student performance on proctored and non-proctored exams in online psychology courses. Online Learning, 22(1), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079
• Dermo, J. (2009). e‐Assessment and the student learning experience: A survey of student perceptions of e‐assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00915.x
• Frankl, G., Napetschnig, S., & Schartner, P. (2019). Pathways to Successful Online Testing: eExams with the “Secure Exam Environment” (SEE). In Computer Supported Education: 10th International Conference, CSEDU 2018, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, March 15–17, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 10 (pp. 231-250). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21151-6_12
• Fuller, R., Joynes, V., Cooper, J., Boursicot, K., & Roberts, T. (2020). Could COVID-19 be our ‘There is no alternative’(TINA) opportunity to enhance assessment?. Medical teacher, 42(7), 781-786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2020.1779206
• Han, J., Pan, R., Gao, Y., & Ren, B. (2021). Using design based research to redesign remote proctoring for online learning environments. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(11), 517-522. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.11.1559
• Hollister, K. K., & Berenson, M. L. (2009). Proctored versus unproctored online exams: Studying the impact of exam environment on student performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 271-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00220.x
• Hope, D., Davids, V., Bollington, L., & Maxwell, S. (2021). Candidates undertaking (invigilated) assessment online show no differences in performance compared to those undertaking assessment offline. Medical Teacher, 43(6), 646-650. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2021.1887467
• Howard, D. (2020). Comparison of exam scores and time taken on exams between proctored oncampus and unproctored online students. Online Learning, 24(4), 204-228. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2148
• Ilgaz, H., & Afacan Adanır, G. (2020). Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them?. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2020), 1255-1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10020-6
• Goedl, P. A., & Malla, G. B. (2020). A study of grade equivalency between proctored and unproctored exams in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(4), 280-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1796376
• Gulati, R., West, M., Zilles, C., & Silva, M. (2024, March). Comparing the Security of Three Proctoring Regimens for Bring-Your-Own-Device Exams. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V.1 (pp. 429-435). https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630809
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1910495
• Gunawardena, C. N., & McIssac, M. S. (2003). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 355-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 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
• Kuleva, M., & Miladinov, O. (2024, June). Exploring the Efficacy of Online Proctoring in Online Examinations: A Comprehensive Review. In Environment. Technology. Resources. Proceedings of the 15th International Scientific and Practical Conference (Vol.2, pp. 192-196). https://journals.ru.lv/index.php/ETR/article/view/8058/6368
• Lee, J. W. (2020). Impact of proctoring environments on student performance: Online vs offline proctored exams. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(8), 653-660. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.653
• McGee, P. (2013). Supporting academic honesty in online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), 1-31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1004890.pdf
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publication
• Milone, A. S., Cortese, A. M., Balestrieri, R. L., & Pittenger, A. L. (2017). The impact of proctored online exams on the educational experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 108-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.037
• Pandey, A. K., Kumar, S., Rajendran, B., & Bindhumadhava, B. S. (2020, November). E-parakh: Unsupervised online examination system. In 2020 IEEE region 10 conference (TENCON) (pp. 667-671). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9293792
• Pettit, M., Shukla, S., Zhang, J., Kumar, K. H. S., & Khanduja, V. (2021). Virtual exams: has COVID-19 provided the impetus to change assessment methods in medicine?. Bone & Joint Open, 2(2), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.22.bjo-2020-0142.r1
• Raman, R., Vachharajani, H., & Nedungadi, P. (2021). Adoption of online proctored examinations by university students during COVID-19: Innovation diffusion study. Education and information technologies, 26(6), 7339-7358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10581-5
• Reedy, A., Pfitzner, D., Rook, L., & Ellis, L. (2021). Responding to the COVID-19 emergency: student and academic staff perceptions of academic integrity in the transition to online exams at three Australian universities. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9
• Shraim, K. (2019). Online examination practices in higher education institutions: learners’ perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 185-196. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.640588
• Stack, S. (2015). The impact of exam environments on student test scores in online courses. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(3), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1012173
• Varble, D. L. (2014). Reducing cheating opportunities in online test. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 3(3), 131-149. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/amj/vol3/iss3/9/
• Vazquez, J. J., Chiang, E. P., & Sarmiento-Barbieri, I. (2021). Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 90(2021), 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101653
• Weiner, J. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2017). A comparative study of online remote proctored versus onsite proctored high-stakes exams. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 18(1), 13-20. https://jattjournal.net/index.php/atp/article/view/113061
• Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2019). 21st century assessment: Online proctoring, test anxiety, and student performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(1), 1-10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1227595.pdf
• Woldeab, D., Lindsay, T., & Brothen, T. (2017). Under the watchful eye of online proctoring. In I. E. Alexander & R. K. Poch (Eds.), Innovative Learning and Teaching: Experiments Across the Disciplines (pp. 152–166). Libraries Publishing.
• Wuthisatian, R. (2020). Student exam performance in different proctored environments: Evidence from an online economics course. International Review of Economics Education, 35(2020), 100196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2020.100196
• Wiberg, M., Lyrén, P. E., & Lind Pantzare, A. (2021). Schools, universities and large-scale assessment responses to COVID-19: The Swedish example. Education Sciences, 11(4), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040175v Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.