Paradigms and Prospects of e-Assessment: A Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/irjmmc.v6i5.89056Keywords:
e-Assessment, formative assessment, technology, feedback, e-authentication, peer assessment, elf-assessmentAbstract
E-Learning is becoming more popular as a result of technological advancement. The focus of the e-learning environment is inclusivity and accessibility for all learners with diverse geographical and cognitive backgrounds, where students get the opportunity to learn at their own pace, place, and time. The growing adoption of e-learning in education is not only creating a new platform for teaching and learning but also raising the issues of e-assessment. Cooper's (1988) method of organizing knowledge synthesis was used in this study. This review paper is focused on concretizing the existing knowledge in the e-assessment based on the findings of the research articles. The article published from 2012 to 2024, focusing on the concept of e-assessment, strategies of e-assessment and issues in the implementation of e-assessment were included in this study. The review revealed three major findings related to e-assessment conception and perception, e-assessment of, for, and as learning, and issues of authentication and authorship in e-assessment. Based on the findings of the reviewed literature, it can be concluded that e-assessment could be a firm alternative to existing paper-based traditional assessment. The findings imply that effective implementation of e-assessment requires well-designed feedback-rich and learner-centered assessment practices supported by improved teacher competencies, inclusive digital infrastructure, and reliable measures to ensure authenticity and academic integrity.
Downloads
References
1. Acosta-Gonzaga, E., & Walet, N. R. (2018). The role of attitudinal factors in mathematical on-line assessments: A study of undergraduate STEM students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 710–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1401976
2. Adesemowo, A. K., Johannes, H., Goldstone, S., & Terblanche, K. (2016). The experience of introducing secure e-assessment in a South African university first-year foundational ICT networking course. Africa Education Review, 13(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1186922
3. Adhikari, K. P., Joshi, D. R., Belbase, S., Sharma, L., & Khanal, B. (2023). Mathematics teachers’ self-reported practices of formative assessments in teaching mathematics online. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.324603
4. Adhikari, K. P., Joshi, D. R., Khadka, J., & Khanal, B. (2024). Effect of preference and management of e-assessment system on its quality assurance process. Journal of Educators Online, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2024.21.3.9
5. Adhikari, K. P., Joshi, D. R., & Sharma, K. P. (2022). Factors associated with the challenges in teaching mathematics online during COVID-19 pandemic. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 3(2), ep22014. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12225
6. Aldon, G., & Panero, M. (2020). Can digital technology change the way mathematics skills are assessed? ZDM - Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1333–1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01172-8
7. Alruwais, N., Wills, G., & Wald, M. (2018). Advantages and challenges of using e-assessment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(1), 34–37. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.1.1008
8. Appiah, M., & Tonder, F. (2018). E-assessment in higher education: A review. International Journal of Business Management and Economics Research, 9(6), 1454–1460.
9. Bahar, M., & Asil, M. (2018). Attitude towards e-assessment: influence of gender, computer usage and level of education. Open Learning, 33(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1503529
10. Baleni, Z. G. (2012). Why and how academic staff adopt e-assessment in a higher education institution (HEI). In H. Beldhuis (Ed.), 11th European Conference on e-Learning (Vol. 28, pp. 28–36). Academic Publishing International Limited.
11. Bloom, T. J., Rich, W. D., Olson, S. M., & Adams, M. L. (2018). Perceptions and performance using computer-based testing: One institution’s experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.10.015
12. Brady, M., Devitt, A., & Kiersey, R. A. (2019). Academic staff perspectives on technology for assessment (TfA) in higher education: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3080–3098. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12742
13. Broughton, S. S., Robinson, C. C., & hernandez-martinez, P. (2013). Lecturers’ perspectives on the use of a mathematics-based computer-aided assessment system. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 32(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrt008
14. Brown, G. T. L., & Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2007). Students’ conceptions of assessment and mathematics: Self-regulation raises achievement. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 7, 63–74. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ815623
15. Brown, K., & Lally, V. (2018). Rhetorical relationships with students: A higher education case study of perceptions of online assessment in mathematics. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918761938
16. Callan, V. J., Johnston, M. A., Clayton, B., & Poulsen, A. L. (2016). E-assessment: challenges to the legitimacy of VET practitioners and auditors. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 68(4), 416–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2016.1231214
17. Cheng, K. H., & Hou, H. T. (2015). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.822416
18. Coats, H. (2018). Research and governance architectures to develop the field of learning outcomes assessment. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, & C. Kuhn (Eds.), Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education Cross-National comparisons and perspectives (pp. 3–18). Springer.
19. Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550
20. Cornard, D., & Openo, J. (2018). Assessment strategies for online learning: Engagement and authenticy. AU Press.
21. Debuse, J. C. W., & Lawley, M. (2016). Benefits and drawbacks of computer-based assessment and feedback systems: Student and educator perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12232
22. Demir, M. (2018). Using online peer assessment in an Instructional Technology and Material Design course through social media. Higher Education, 75(3), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0146-9
23. Deutsch, T., Herrmann, K., Frese, T., & Sandholzer, H. (2012). Implementing computer-based assessment – A web-based mock examination changes attitudes. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1068–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.013
24. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2013). Getting to the core of learning: Using assessment for self-monitoring and self-regulation. In M. Mok (Ed.), Self-Directed Learning Oriented Assessments in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 123–137). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4507-0_7
25. Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning. Sage Publishing. http://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/book/assessment-learning-1
26. Faniran, V. T., & Ajayi, N. A. (2018). Understanding students’ perceptions and challenges of computer-based assessments: a case of UKZN. Africa Education Review, 15(1), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1292112
27. Fyfe, G., Fyfe, S., Meyer, J., Ziman, M., Sanders, K., & Hill, J. (2014). Students reflecting on test performance and feedback: An on-line approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.801063
28. Helfaya, A. (2019). Assessing the use of computer-based assessment-feedback in teaching digital accountants. Accounting Education, 28(1), 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1501716
29. Holmes, N. (2015). Student perceptions of their learning and engagement in response to the use of a continuous e-assessment in an undergraduate module. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881978
30. Holmes, N. (2018). Engaging with assessment: Increasing student engagement through continuous assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417723230
31. Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., Chapai, K. P. S., & Bhattarai, A. R. (2023). Effectiveness of online training on digital pedagogical skills of remote area teachers in Nepal. International Journal of Professional Development, Learners and Learning, 5(2), ep2311. https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/13666
32. Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., Khanal, J., & Belbase, S. (2023). Impact of digital skills of mathematics teachers to promote students’ communication behavior in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13495
33. Joshi, D. R., Khanal, B., & Adhikari, K. P. (2025). Effects of digital pedagogical skills of mathematics teachers on academic performance. International Journal of Educational Reform, 34(4), 665–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879231164615
34. Joshi, D. R., Khanal, B., & Belbase, S. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions toward student support in using information and communication technology in mathematics learning. The International Journal of Technologies in Learning, 29(2), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0144/CGP/v29i02/57-73
35. Joshi, D. R., Neupane, U., Singh, J. K., Khanal, B., & Belbase, S. (2024). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on academic activities of academicians in Nepal. Journal of Education, 204(2), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574231153183
36. Joshi, D. R., & Rawal, M. (2021). Mathematics teachers standing on the utilization of digital resources in Kathmandu, Nepal. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 2(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/9679
37. Joughin, G. (2009). Introduction: Refocusing assessment. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education (pp. 1–11). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8905-3_1
38. Khadka, J., Acharya, D., Joshi, D. R., & Adhikari, K. P. (2024). Digital assessment in higher education of Nepal: preference and practice. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 16(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2024.10064317
39. Khadka, J., Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., & Khanal, B. (2023). Teachers’ humanistic role in teaching mathematics online during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.324951
40. Khan, S., & Khan, R. A. (2019). Online assessments: Exploring perspectives of university students. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9797-0
41. Khanal, B., Devkota, K. R., Acharya, K. P., Chapai, K. P. S., & Joshi, D. R. (2024). Evaluating the competencies of university teachers in content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2360854
42. Khanal, B., Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., Khadka, J., & Bishowkarma, A. (2022). Factors associated with the problems in teaching mathematics through online mode: A context of Nepal. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v10i3.3097
43. Khanal, B., Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., & Khanal, J. (2022). Problems of mathematics teachers in teaching mathematical content online in Nepal. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijvple.312845
44. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.117.471
45. Laamanen, M., Ladonlahti, T., Uotinen, S., Okada, A., Bañeres, D., & Koçdar, S. (2021). Acceptability of the e-authentication in higher education studies: Views of students with special educational needs and disabilities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00236-9
46. Lafuente Martínez, M., Álvarez Valdivia, I. M., & Remesal Ortiz, A. (2015). Making learning more visible through e-assessment: implications for feedback. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9091-8
47. Lin, C. Y., & Wang, T. H. (2017). Implementation of personalized e-assessment for remedial teaching in an e-learning environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(4), 1045–1058. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00657a
48. Liu, J., Guo, X., Gao, R., Fram, P., Ling, Y., Zhang, H., & Wang, J. (2019). Students’ learning outcomes and peer rating accuracy in compulsory and voluntary online peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 835–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1542659
49. Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2
50. Martínez-Sierra, G., Valle-Zequeida, M. E., Miranda-Tirado, M., & Dolores-Flores, C. (2016). Social representations of high school students about mathematics assessment. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1119336
51. Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova, B. (2018). Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0025-x
52. Nguyen, J. G., Keuseman, K. J., & Humston, J. J. (2020). Minimize online cheating for online assessments during covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3429–3435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00790
53. Noor Davids, M. (2017). Student responses to an ICT-based e-assessment application for the teaching practicum/ teaching practice module. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 13(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2017070102
54. Okada, A., Noguera, I., Alexieva, L., Rozeva, A., Kocdar, S., Brouns, F., Ladonlahti, T., Whitelock, D., & Guerrero-Roldán, A. E. (2019). Pedagogical approaches for e-assessment with authentication and authorship verification in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3264–3282. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12733
55. Okada, A., Whitelock, D., Holmes, W., & Edwards, C. (2019a). e-Authentication for online assessment: A mixed-method study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12608
56. Okada, A., Whitelock, D., Holmes, W., & Edwards, C. (2019b). e-Authentication for online assessment: A mixed-method study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12608
57. Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26). https://www.academia.edu/download/3250666/OkoliSchabram2010SproutsLitReviewGuide.pdf
58. Patronis, M., Ishtaiwa-Dweikat, F. F., Al Awad, M., & Aburezeq, I. M. (2019). Attitudes and perceptions towards summative e-assessment for free-text responses: A case study of a UAE university. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2019010102
59. Pattalitan, A. P. (2016). The implications of learning theories to assessment and instructional scaffolding techniques. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 695–700. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-9-9
60. Petrović, J., Pale, P., & Jeren, B. (2017). Online formative assessments in a digital signal processing course: Effects of feedback type and content difficulty on students learning achievements. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3047–3061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9571-0
61. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9
62. Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 17(5), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609
63. Snekalatha, S., Marzuk, M., Meshram, S. A., Uma Maheswari, K., Sugapriya, G., & Sivasharan, K. (2021). Medical students’ perception of the reliability, usefulness and feasibility of unproctored online formative assessment tests. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1152/ADVAN.00178.2020
64. Timmers, C. F., Braber-Van Den Broek, J., & Van Den Berg, S. M. (2013). Motivational beliefs, student effort, and feedback behaviour in computer-based formative assessment. Computers and Education, 60(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.007
65. Ukobizaba, F., Nizeyimana, G., & Mukuka, A. (2021). Assessment strategies for enhancing students’ mathematical problem-solving skills: A review of literature. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(3), 1945. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9728
66. van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers and Education, 58(1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020
67. Veenman, M. V. J., & van Cleef, D. (2019). Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: students’ self-reports versus on-line assessment methods. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 51(4), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-1006-5
68. Wafubwa, R. N., & Csíkos, C. (2021). Formative assessment as a predictor of mathematics teachers’ levels of metacognitive regulation. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14158a
69. Walvoored, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institution, departments, and general education. CA: Jossey-Bass.
70. Wang, P., & Jeffrey, R. (2017). Listening to learners: An investigation into college students’ attitudes towards the adoption of e-portfolios in English assessment and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1451–1463. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12513
71. Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268
72. Yin, S., Chen, F., & Chang, H. (2022). Assessment as learning: How does peer assessment function in students’ learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 13(June), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912568
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Research Journal of MMC (IRJMMC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
