Search

Background: The use of e‐exams in higher education is increasing. However, the role of student diversity in the acceptance of e‐exams is an under‐researched topic. In the current study, we considered student diversity in terms of three sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and second language) and three dispositional student characteristics (computer anxiety, test anxiety, and technology openness). Objectives: The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between student diversity and acceptance of e‐exams. Methods: Our research combined cross‐sectional analyses (N = 1639) with data from a natural experiment on the introduction of e‐exams versus the established paper‐pencil exams (N = 626) and used both self‐report and institutional data. Sociodemographic and dispositional characteristics were indirectly related to pre‐exam acceptance via expectancy variables from the Technology Acceptance Model framework. Results and Conclusions: Comparisons of post‐exam acceptance showed that practical experience with the e‐exam led to a significant increase in e‐exam acceptance, and that students with low openness toward technology particularly benefited from this effect. Students' exam performance (i.e., grades) was unrelated to the exam format or their pre‐exam acceptance of the e‐exam format, and this was true across students' sociodemographic and dispositional characteristics. Takeaway: Student diversity plays a role in e‐exam acceptance, but its influence is mitigated by first‐hand experience with e‐exams. The practical implications for higher education institutions aiming to implement e‐exams are discussed. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: The use of e‐exams in higher education is increasingThe role of student diversity for e‐exam acceptance is unclearTechnology acceptance is predicted by expectancies towards new system What this paper adds: We investigated students' sociodemographic and dispositional diversityDiversity predicted e‐exam acceptance via the expectanciesIn a natural experiment, first‐hand experience increased e‐exam acceptanceNo difference between performance in e‐exams and paper‐pencil‐exams found Implications of the study findings for practitioners: Higher education institutions implementing e‐exams should consider diversitySupport for older students and students with low technology openness neededNo student groups systematically disadvantaged by e‐exam implementationPractice rooms can increase experience with new system before exam [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the experiences of students with chronic illnesses in UK universities. Sixty-seven students with chronic illnesses completed an online survey with open-ended questions about their experiences in higher education. Questions covered four main topics: academic work; university staff; social and extracurricular activities; and participants' miscellaneous opinions. Using thematic analysis, the data were analysed with references to the social model of disability and social representations of chronic illness. Participants wrote of misconceptions surrounding chronic illnesses, a sense of inequality, and feeling undervalued. Many staff members seemed to lack understanding and so 'policed' academic regulations rather than accommodating for their chronic illnesses. However, some participants wrote of social and academic 'allies' who offered understanding and proactive support. The findings add substance to the chronic illness literature with the focus on students at university, and we offer recommendations to universities for improving inclusivity for students with chronic illnesses. Disabled students with energy-limiting chronic illnesses are frustrated by a lack of support and feel that they have fewer opportunities than non-disabled students. Some university staff may hold negative views of disabled individuals, and so provide inadequate support. This can lead to students' reluctance to disclose chronic illnesses. Students with chronic illnesses felt that some staff and peers did not class chronic illnesses as 'real' disabilities and felt that they were perceived lesser than those with visible disabilities. Some students proudly owned the label of 'disabled' to educate others, including staff, who sometimes used university regulations inappropriately to excuse not adjusting support for disabled students. Some staff and students were perceived as supportive allies. Universities must listen to disabled students and those with chronic illnesses to ensure they fulfil their legal and moral obligations of providing equality of opportunity, enabling all students to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]