# Digital Innovation in Assessment During Lockdown: Perspectives of Higher Education Teachers in Portugal

Ana Amélia Carvalho, Daniela Guimarães, Célio Gonçalo Marques, Inês Araújo, Sónia Cruz

► To cite this version:

Ana Amélia Carvalho, Daniela Guimarães, Célio Gonçalo Marques, Inês Araújo, Sónia Cruz. Digital Innovation in Assessment During Lockdown: Perspectives of Higher Education Teachers in Portugal. IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE), Aug 2022, Hiroshima, Japan. pp.400-411, 10.1007/978-3-031-43393-1_37. hal-05533325

HAL Id: hal-05533325

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05533325v1

Submitted on 2 Mar 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Digital Innovation in Assessment During Lockdown: Perspectives of Higher Education Teachers in Portugal

Ana Amélia Carvalho<fnref n="1" />(✉), Daniela Guimarães<fnref n="1" />(✉), Célio Gonçalo Marques<fnref n="2" />(✉), Inês Araújo<fnref n="1" />(✉), and Sónia Cruz<fnref n="1" />(✉)

**Abstract.** During the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown policies forced higher education teachers to adopt remote teaching. This disruptive situation challenged teachers to continue delivering classes and carrying out assessment online. In order to investigate higher education teachers’ perceptions about the online assessment, a survey was conducted in Portugal. The study focuses on digital tools and methodologies used in online assessment, first-time digital tools used, and the tools and methodologies that teachers intend to maintain in face-to-face assessment, as well as confidence in students’ results. Data was collected online from May to July 2021. Participants (n = 868) were from all fields of science and technology. Most of them (80%) reported the use of new assessment tools and methodologies during this period. The majority (72%) has confidence in the results obtained by the students. However, some of them (36%) reported academic fraud situations. Digital tools related to summative assessment are the most prevalent, but methodologies related to formative assessment were also used. Some teachers (49%) intend to use methodologies and tools in face-to-face classes used for the first-time during the lockdown.

**Keywords:** Digital Assessment · Innovation · Higher Education

## 1 Introduction

This paper focuses on the consequences of COVID-19 pandemic on education, particularly on assessment during educational lockdown. The move from face-to-face education to online technologies forced teachers and students to adapt to a new teaching and learning context. Video conferencing and collaborative platforms became widely used and infrastructure for internet access had to be reinforced.

Online learning challenged teachers and students and brought up serious issues to those with limited internet access. Even in countries with good internet infrastructure,

<footnote n="1">¹ University of Coimbra, LabTE, CEIS20, 3000 Coimbra, Portugal
(anaameliac,inesaraujo)@fpce.uc.pt, Danidesg@gmail.com,
Soniacatarinacruz@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Polytechnic Institute of Tomar, LIED, TECHN&ART, 2300 Tomar, Portugal
Celiomarques@ipt.pt</footnote>
there are questions about the ability of teachers and students to interact effectively through video conferencing. Although some teachers had already online teaching competencies, others were not prepared at all. In a very short period, higher education institutions provided training to teachers. They had to cope with increased preparatory work, difficulty gauging students' understanding, and encouraging students' class participation [1, 2]. Due to all this effort to adapt to remote emergency teaching, several questions emerged related to assessment online. Did teachers carry out assessment during lockdown? What kind of digital tools did they use? After emergency remote teaching will they continue to use those digital tools? Did the pandemic contribute to accelerating the appropriation of technology? These are some of the questions that we intend to answer with an online survey that addressed higher education teachers in Portugal.

This paper presents a descriptive study aiming to understand the online assessment, the new tools and methodologies used and the ones that teachers intend to keep in their classes, and the confidence on students results.

# 2 Emergency Remote Teaching

Emergency remote teaching was a solution to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Such practice is quite different from distance education or well-planned online learning experiences [3].

## 2.1 Digital Education in Higher Education

Some higher education institutions (HEI) had educational support to prepare instructors to teach, and to update their training particularly with the pedagogical integration of new educational technologies, apps, or videoconferencing systems. During the last decade, several Portuguese institutions started to offer training to their teachers.

Portuguese legislation for distance learning programs (Decree Law 133/2019) and the Portuguese Agency for Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation, responsible for the Evaluation and Accreditation of programs on higher education, demand pedagogical training. Due to this demand several institutions are developing courses to promote pedagogical training. However, several teachers are always resistant to change and avoid training.

During COVID-19 lockdowns, HEI moved to courses taught online. This was a new situation. It had been necessary to train teaching staff and to improvise quick solutions [3]. There was a general lack of preparation of HEI, teachers, and students [4].

In Portugal, even before the general lockdown decreed by the government on the 16th March 2020, most HEI were already on remote online classes. Training was needed. Each institution made an effort to solve this problem. Two important stages to train teachers for remote teaching emerged: synchronous tools and then online assessment.

First of all, the training focused on using videoconferencing systems. It was a possible solution for keeping classes going on. To complement the teachers training during lockdown, several webinars and workshops were organized to help teachers. As noted by Suswanto et al. [5], learning through online media, such as Google Classroom, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams, has been successfully implemented during pandemic.
Along with the lockdown, another problem arose: assessment online. This was the second stage in training for remote teaching. Tools for questionnaires and quizzes online were the most demanded. Training also addressed the use of LMS to do tests and the use of proctoring systems, for example, Exame.net, to avoid academic fraud. Most institutions sent guidelines for online assessment to help teachers and to minimize academic fraud.

## 2.2 Digital Innovation and Assessment

The integration of digital technologies in educational innovation “can result in a range of fundamentally different ways of learners and teachers’ access, engage with, and build knowledge” [6, p. 2310]. Innovation in education, according to UNICEF, means solving a real problem in a new, simple way to promote equitable learning. Innovation demands creativity, and creative people demonstrate the trait of openness to experience.

Using digital tools in teaching practices is not always synonymous of digital innovation. Genlott et al. [7] consider the existence of a “first-order change”, related with an adjustment to the practice, by doing the same things done before, but using new ways to do it, and a “second-order change” that implies a redefinition of the nature of activities. The authors also emphasize the existence of intrinsic barriers to the “second-order change”, mostly related to traditional classroom practices. “People may adopt the mechanical parts of an innovation without adopting its purposes, theories and evaluation measures. In that case the innovation is lost” [7, p. 3025].

The way students learn is shaped by the structure of assessment. Teachers need to be aware of this when selecting assessment methods and in thinking about the relationship between formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment is more focused on the process of learning itself, referred to as assessment for learning [8, 9]. It enables students to develop their learning through assess and feedback. It gives student opportunities to experiment, make mistakes and take risks. It helps students to identify their own gaps. Also, it promotes teacher reflections about the contents that need to be reinforced. By contrast, summative assessment is assessment of learning, is punctual, and it quantifies students’ learning with a mark. What teachers do with assessment information determines whether the event is formative or summative. Formative and summative assessments in conjunction with appropriate feedback systems are used to support learning in higher education [4].

Although some doubts can arise in teachers’ confidence about online assessment [4, 10–12], there is evidence of no differences between the academic performance when students went online [11, 13].

## 2.3 Cheating

Cheating is the antithesis of mastery forms of motivation and student engagement [14]. Mastery approach goals are counterintuitive to cheating behavior [15]. Cheating is also dependent on how performance is evaluated [16–18]. The authors determined that students were more likely to commit fraud when the focus was on results-based evaluation, instead of process-based evaluation.
Most university courses tend to use result-based evaluation, in typical learning conditions [19]. However, some institutions changed this focus when instruction and assessment moved into remote delivery.

Students report being almost four times more likely to be dishonest in online courses (42%) than in-person courses (10%) [20]. King and Case [21] identified that the percentage of students who admitted to academic cheating activity increased over a five-year period, but almost three in four students felt it was either very easy or somewhat easy to cheat on an online exam.

Academic fraud is a problem that HEI cannot ignore. It is important to clarify students what academic fraud is and its ethical and legal implications, something that many institutions already do. A possible solution is to rethink the type of assessment.

# 3 Method

We used a single-administration survey [22] to collect higher education teachers’ perspectives about online assessment.

The questionnaire has demographic questions and four dimensions, namely: i) online assessment, ii) use of some digital tools for first-time, iii) confidence in students’ results, and iv) intention to keep the same kind of assessment used during lockdown in face-to-face classes.

In order to describe the sample, the demographic questions were about gender, age, service years as a teacher in HE, and the field of science and technology (FOS), classification in the Frascati Manual.

## 3.1 Procedures

In May 2021, we posted a link to the questionnaire on social media platforms including Facebook and LinkedIn, and we also contacted higher education institutions to send the link to their teaching staff. However, some HEI declined to undertake the questionnaire, due to being overwhelmed with requests to answer questionnaires.

The questionnaire is in line with the Ethical Charter published by the Portuguese Society of Education Sciences [23]. The questionnaire was approved by the Ethics Committee and the Data Protection Committee.

After clicking the link, participants accessed an informational letter outlining the details of the study, the estimated time - approximately 4 min - to fill in the questionnaire, and the consent to collect data.

The questionnaire was anonymous, and the respondents’ participation was voluntary. The questionnaire was available on LimeSurvey, from May to July 2021.

## 3.2 Participants

A convenience sample of 868 higher education Portuguese teachers answered the questionnaire, 53.5% were female and 46.5% male. Their age ranged from 24 to 70 years old. Their average age is 51.6, the mode is 53 years, and the median is 53 years old. They were from all fields of science and technology (FOS), in the following order of
respondents: Social Sciences (28.3%), Engineering and Technologies (23.9%), Exact and Natural Sciences (19.8%), Medical and Health Sciences (14.2%), Humanities (12.6%), and Agricultural Sciences (1.2%).

Most of the sample were highly experience in teaching in higher education (Table 1). More than 60% of respondents had 21 to 40 years of teaching experience, followed by 11 to 20 years (15.8%). Lastly, teachers with less and with more teaching experience, namely up to 5 years (13.4%) and over 41 years (3.9%).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Service years as a teacher in higher education.</caption><thead><tr><td>Length of service</td><td>f</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>up to 5 years</td><td>116</td><td>13.4</td></tr><tr><td>6 to 10 years</td><td>59</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>11 to 20 years</td><td>137</td><td>15.8</td></tr><tr><td>21 to 30 years</td><td>305</td><td>35.1</td></tr><tr><td>31 to 40 years</td><td>217</td><td>25.0</td></tr><tr><td>Over 41 years</td><td>34</td><td>3.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

Most of the teachers (81%) carried out online assessment during HEI' lockdown.

# 4 Results and Discussion

From a sample of 868 teachers of HEI with classes online due to confinement, 701 did online assessment. Several reasons were pointed out by 19% of respondents for the non-appliance of assessment: 10% did not need to do it and 5% did not feel confident with the results. Other reasons with less expression (until 1%) were also mentioned, such as: the use of other assessment methods, assessment was carried out in face-to-face due to institution decision, the assessment took place after the lockdown period, they did not know how to carry it out, and because they had a previous bad experience.

## 4.1 Institutional Guidelines for Assessment Online

For most of the HEI, assessment online was something new. According to respondents, most of them (78.9%) reported that their institutions created guidelines for conducting the online assessment.

To keep the camera always on was the most common guideline provided by the HEI according to 66.9% of respondents. Record the session during the assessment (14.7%), use two cameras (one pointing to the hands and the other pointing to the face) during the test (14.7%), and sign a declaration of non-copying honor (13.3%) were also guidelines to teachers. Other guidelines were also mentioned, but with lower percentage, such as: students should have the microphone on, to include the non-copying declaration of honor in the heading of the test, to confirm the students' identification when conducting
assessment, and to use tools specially designed for online assessment. However, some recommendations were abandoned since they were not aligned with the General Data Protection Regulation, especially the ones that invaded the privacy of learners like the obligation of having the camera always on or the recording of the online assessment session.

## 4.2 Online Assessment

Online assessment carried out by teachers during lockdown is presented in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Assessment online.</caption><thead><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>f</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tests (e.g., MSWord, Moodle, MSTeams...)</td><td>565</td><td>80,6</td></tr><tr><td>Group work</td><td>386</td><td>55,1</td></tr><tr><td>Individual work</td><td>354</td><td>50,5</td></tr><tr><td>Multimedia presentations by students</td><td>260</td><td>37,1</td></tr><tr><td>Oral tests</td><td>213</td><td>30,4</td></tr><tr><td>Handwritten activities (photographed)</td><td>164</td><td>23,4</td></tr><tr><td>Online Quizzes</td><td>135</td><td>19,3</td></tr><tr><td>Students participation in forums</td><td>95</td><td>13,6</td></tr><tr><td>Videos made by students</td><td>90</td><td>12,8</td></tr><tr><td>Peer review</td><td>88</td><td>12,6</td></tr><tr><td>Portfolios</td><td>71</td><td>10,1</td></tr><tr><td>Students participation in chats</td><td>44</td><td>6,3</td></tr><tr><td>Concept maps</td><td>36</td><td>5,1</td></tr><tr><td>Mental maps</td><td>22</td><td>3,1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Most of the teachers evaluated students through tests, whether using MS Word, Moodle, or MS Teams (80.6%), online quizzes (19.3%), oral tests (30.4%) or even through handwritten activities (23.4%) that were photographed or digitally scanned and sent by email, social networks, or learning management system. Teachers also used group work (55.1%), individual work (50.5%) and students' presentations, both multimedia (37.1%) and videos (12.8%).

With lower percentage, students' participation in forums (13.6%) and in chats (6.3%), assessment based on peer review (12.6%), and portfolios (10.1%). Finally, concept maps (5.1%) and mental maps (3.1%), as knowledge representation assessment.
## 4.3 Digital Tools Used for the First Time in Assessment

Teachers were asked if, during lockdown, they started using digital tools for assessment that, usually, they did not use. Most teachers (80.3%) answered positively.

Inquired about which digital tools they used for the first time in assessment, the most used are tests (71%), questionnaires (28.8%), and online quizzes (14.2%).

With lower percentage, they used Padlet or similar (8%), Drive (5.5%), and portfolios (5%). Finally, with minimum representation, concept maps (2.8%), mental maps (1.8%), wikis (1.4%), and blogs (1.1%).

## 4.4 Confidence in Students’ Results

Three aspects were considered related to results achieved: teachers’ confidence in the results achieved by students, if the results were better or worst than those achieved usually in face-to-face, and finally if they identified cheating.

### Results Achieved

Teachers were invited to compare results achieved in assessment during lockdown with results usually achieved in their courses (see Fig. 1).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Students’ results worsen or improved during lockdown.</figcaption></figure>

For almost half of the teachers the results remained the same (47.5%), for some the results improved (33.6%), and for a few they worsened (18.8%). Teachers’ perceptions are in line with other studies [11, 13].

### Confidence in Online Results

Teachers were questioned about their confidence in online assessment during faculty closure, through a five points scale, from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (very confident) (see Table 3).

Most of the teachers were confident with the results achieved (72.2%), and some were not confident (27.8%). The mean of the data is 3.18, the mode 4 and the median is 3.
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Teachers confidence in results achieved online during lockdown.</caption><thead><tr><td>Confidence in students results</td><td>f</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Not at all confident</td><td>72</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Slightly confident</td><td>123</td><td>17.5</td></tr><tr><td>Confident</td><td>188</td><td>26.8</td></tr><tr><td>Quite confident</td><td>246</td><td>35.1</td></tr><tr><td>Very confident</td><td>72</td><td>10.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.5 Cheating During Online Assessment

Respondents were asked if they had identified some kind of cheating. Some identified some cheating (36.2%), all others did not (63.8%). Different strategies of cheating were reported, namely: students cooperated with each other to answer the test (24.5%), students consulted not allowed information or tools during the test (18.8%), students sent the answers to other colleagues (18.4%), the test was answered by someone else (5.3%), students got illegitimate (qualified) help during the test (4.4%), and students gained access to the test, before it was carried out, with the help of someone (0.1%).

Teachers were asked to compare online summative assessment with face-to-face summative assessment, and to point in which one do teachers consider it is easier for students to commit fraud (see Table 4). The majority considered it easier to commit fraud in online assessment (79.2%), than in face-to-face (1.0%) assessment. For some (13.6%) there are no differences and others (6.3%) do not know. These results about being easier to cheat online are similar to those obtained by other studies [17, 20, 21].

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Easier for students to commit fraud: online or face-to-face.</caption><thead><tr><td>Easier to commit fraud</td><td>f</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Online assessment</td><td>555</td><td>79.2</td></tr><tr><td>Face-to-face assessment</td><td>7</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>There are no differences</td><td>95</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>I do not know</td><td>44</td><td>6.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

We also collected data from students (n = 3,754). They considered that it is easier to cheat during online assessment (57.9%) than during face-to-face assessment (4.9%), others considered that there are no differences (16.2%), and some do not know (21.1%). These results coincide with the opinions of Portuguese teachers on academic fraud and with other studies [17, 20, 21].

Although students recognized that it is easier to cheat online, they would prefer to be assessed face-to-face (65.7%) than online (34.3%).
## 4.6 Assessment Used that Teachers Intend to Keep

After this upgraded effort to assess students online, we asked teachers if they intend to keep some of the tools or methods used during lockdown in their face-to-face classes. Surprisingly, half of them do not (51.2%), and others are divided into maybe (32.7%) and yes (16.1%).

Those that intend to keep the assessment used during lockdown in face-to-face classes and those that answered maybe (n = 342), selected the options presented in Table 5. The most selected are: group work, individual work, and tests. A second set follows, comprising multimedia presentations by students, online quizzes, students' participation in forums, peer review, and videos made by students. A third set includes students' participation in chats, concept maps, portfolios, and mental maps.

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Keeping in face-to-face assessment used during lockdown</caption><thead><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>f</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Group work</td><td>198</td><td>57.9</td></tr><tr><td>Individual work</td><td>180</td><td>52.6</td></tr><tr><td>Tests (e.g., MSWord, Moodle, MSTeams, Classroom)</td><td>175</td><td>51.2</td></tr><tr><td>Multimedia presentations by students</td><td>144</td><td>42.1</td></tr><tr><td>Online quizzes</td><td>106</td><td>31.0</td></tr><tr><td>Students participation in forums</td><td>77</td><td>22.5</td></tr><tr><td>Peer review</td><td>68</td><td>19.9</td></tr><tr><td>Videos made by students</td><td>67</td><td>19.6</td></tr><tr><td>Students participation in chats</td><td>31</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>Concept maps</td><td>30</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>Portfolios</td><td>23</td><td>6.7</td></tr><tr><td>Mental maps</td><td>17</td><td>5.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to the selection presented on Table 5, teachers gave priority to student's reflection, creativity and collaborative work.

There is a moderate Pearson correlation between the assessment done online and the assessment teachers intend to keep, related to mental maps (r = 0.71), concept maps (r = 0.68), peer review (0.61), videos made by students (r = 0.60), students' participation in chats (r = 0.57), group work (r = 0.54), and online quizzes (r = 0.53).

## 4.7 Limitations and Future Directions

Although our findings provide important insights into online assessment during emergency remote learning, there are some limitations. First, participants represent a convenience sample of higher education teachers who used social media platforms or accepted
the invitation sent by email by their institutions to participate in the study. As such, these findings cannot be generalized to all teachers. Nonetheless, the number of respondents is quite high.

Second, the questionnaire was short to stimulate respondents, and some topics were not deeply investigated. In future research we intend to interview teachers to better understand their challenges and difficulties, as well as the impact of this experience in their teaching and assessment practices. Particularly, the appropriation of digital tools used for online assessment, and if they returned to the most commonly used assessment of learning, instead of an assessment for learning.

As a recommendation, we advise teachers to design courses with diversity of assessment to minimize cheating. They need training about assessment practices [24, 25], and preventing cheating techniques [24], taking advantage of the innovation for conducting assessments during the confinement due to COVID-19.

Higher education teachers need to step forward in what concerns assessment and take advantage of the digital tools and alternative assessment methods that can further engage students even in face-to-face assessment, rather than limit assessment to the most traditional methods usually used in HEI.

# 5 Conclusion

From one moment to the next, HEI had to adapt to remote teaching due to the pandemic. This situation exposed major discrepancies both in terms of ownership of the technology and in terms of skills to use it. Not all teachers and students had convenient access to the Internet, adequate equipment and appropriate spaces, and few had pedagogical training in the use of technology.

From a sample of 868 teachers of higher education with online classes due to lockdown, 701 (81%) did online assessment. As online teaching was something new for many teachers, most of them reported that their institutions created guidelines for conducting online assessments, as occurred worldwide [3, 4].

Most teachers evaluated students through tests, whether using MSWord, Moodle or MS Teams. They also used group work, individual work, students' multimedia presentations, oral tests or even handwritten activities that were photographed or digitally scanned and sent by email, social networks, or learning management systems, trying to avoid cheating.

Tests, questionnaires, and online quizzes were the digital tools most used for the first time in assessment. Some teachers used Padlet or similar, Drive, and portfolios. A few teachers used concept maps, mental maps, wikis, and blogs.

Although most teachers recognized the higher likelihood of fraudulent attempts in online assessment, than in face-to-face, they were confident on the results achieved by students. These findings are in line with other studies [11, 13, 17].

Using summative and formative assessment may be a more efficient way of reducing possible fraud situations, focusing on process-based assessment, and reducing result-based assessment [4, 16, 17]. Moreover, formative assessment, as reported, is more effective on academic motivation and self-regulation skill [26].
Despite teachers' effort to assess students online during the lockdown, half of the teachers do not intend to add some of the tools or methods used when returning to face-to-face classes. It seems that some teachers could not perceive usefulness or ease of use, as identified in other studies [27].

The pandemic contributed to accelerating the appropriation of technology and the digital innovation in assessment, but there is still a long way to go. Teachers and institutions should take advantage of the lessons learned during the pandemic to promote the improvement of teaching and learning practices [24–27], including assessment practices.

## References

1. Azizan, S., et al.: Online learning and COVID-19 in higher education: the value of IT models in assessing students' satisfaction. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) **17**(3), 245–278 (2022)

2. Rose, S.: Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA **323**(21), 2131–2132 (2020)

3. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A.: The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review (2020). https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

4. Guangul, F., Suhail, A., Khalit, M., Khidhir, B.: Challenges of remote assessment in higher education in the context of COVID-19: a case study of Middle East College. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. **32**(4), 519–535 (2020)

5. Suswanto, B., Sulaiman, A., Sugito, T., Weningsih, S., Sabiq, A., Kuncoro, B.: Designing online learning evaluation in times of Covid-19 pandemic. Int. Educ. Res. **4**(1), p18–p18 (2021)

6. Howard, S., Schrum, L., Voogt, J., Sligte, H.: Designing research to inform sustainability and scalability of digital technology innovations. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. **69**(4), 2309–2329 (2021)

7. Genlott, A., Grönlund, Å., Viberg, O.: Disseminating digital innovation in school-leading second-order educational change. Educ. Inf. Technol. **24**(5), 3021–3039 (2019)

8. Oldfield, A., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., Timmis, S.: Assessment in a digital age: a research review. Bristol: University of Bristol (2013). http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/education/migrated/documents/researchreview.pdf

9. Stiggins, R., Chappuis, J.: An Introduction to Student-Involved Assessment for Learning, 6th edn. Pearson, New York (2012)

10. Pauli, M., Ferrell, G.: The future of assessment: five principles, five targets for 2025. JISC, Bristol (2020). https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/the-future-of-assessment

11. Hope, D., Davids, V., Bollington, L., Maxwell, S.: Candidates undertaking (invigilated) assessment online show no differences in performance compared to those undertaking assessment offline. Med. Teach. **43**(6), 646–650 (2021)

12. Stack, A., et al.: Investigating online tests practices of university staff using data from a learning management system. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. **36**(4), 72–81 (2020)

13. Jaap, A., Dewar, A., Duncan, C., Fairhurst, K., Hope, D., Kluth, D.: Effect of remote online exam delivery on student experience and performance in applied knowledge tests. BMC Med. Educ. **21**(1), 1–7 (2021)

14. Daniels, L., Goegan, L., Parker, P.: The impact of COVID-19 triggered changes to instruction and assessment on university students' self-reported motivation, engagement and perceptions. Soc. Psychol. Educ. **24**(1), 299–318 (2021)

15. Pulfrey, C., Vansteenkiste, M., Michou, A.: Under pressure to achieve? The impact of type and style of task instructions on student cheating. Front. Psychol. **10**, 1624 (2019)
16. Daumiller, M., Janke, S.: The impact of performance goals on cheating depends on how performance is evaluated. AERA Open **5**(4) (2019)

17. Tuah, N., Naing, L.: Is online assessment in higher education institutions during COVID-19 pandemic reliable? *Siriraj Med. J.* **73**(1), 61–68 (2021)

18. Şenel, S., Şenel, H.C.: Remote assessment in higher education during COVID-19 pandemic. *Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ. 181–199 (2021)

19. Yüksel, H., Gündüz, N.: Formative and summative assessment in higher education: opinions and practices of instructors. *Eur. J. Educ. Stud. **3**(8), 336–356 (2017)

20. Watson, G., Sottile, J.: Cheating in the digital age: do students cheat more in online courses? *Online J. Dist. Learn. Adm. **13**(1) (2010). https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=eft_faculty

21. King, D., Case, C.: E-cheating: incidence and trends among college students. *Issues Inf. Syst. **15**(1) (2014)

22. Fowler Jr, F.: Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications (2013)

23. SPCE – Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação (2020). *Carta Ética. SPCE*. https://bit.ly/3IcCahg. Accessed 15 Dec 2021

24. Yazici, S., Yildiz Durak, H., Aksu Dünya, B., Şentürk, B.: Online versus face-to-face cheating: the prevalence of cheating behaviours during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic among Turkish University students. *J. Comput. Assist. Learn. **39**(1), 231–254 (2023)

25. Latif, M.M.M.A., Alhamad, M.M.: Emergency remote teaching of foreign languages at Saudi universities: teachers’ reported challenges, coping strategies and training needs. *Educ. Inf. Technol. (2023)*

26. Ismail, S.M., Rahul, D.R., Patra, I., Rezvani, E.: Formative vs. summative assessment on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. *Lang. Test. Asia **12***, 40 (2022)

27. Saleem, I., Shamsi, M.A., Magd, H.: Impact assessment of ease and usefulness of online teaching in higher education in post Covid era. *Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. **13**(1), 102–113 (2023)