ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluating open-note exams: Student perceptions and preparation methods in an undergraduate biology class.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Turning "what is on the exam" panic into prep: AI-generated study guide and multi-format questions in biology.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Studying with Friends in Introductory Biology Is Associated with Low Impact Study Strategies and No Improvement of Exam Scores.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Lessons for Medical and Health Education Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although closed-note exams have traditionally been used to evaluate students in undergraduate biology classes, open-note exams are becoming increasingly common, though little is known about how students prepare for these types of exams. We investigated student perceptions of and their preparation habits for online open-note exams in an undergraduate biology class, as compared to their previous experiences with closed-note exams in other classes. Specifically, we explored the following research questions: (1a) How do students perceive open-note exams impact their exam scores, their anxiety, the amount they studied, and the amount their peers studied? (1b) How do these perceptions impact performance outcomes? (2a) How do students prepare for open-note exams? (2b) How do these preparation methods impact performance outcomes? Results demonstrate students perceived increased exam scores, decreased exam-anxiety, decreased study time spent personally, and decreased study time spent by their peers for open-note exams, as compared to past experiences with closed-note exams. Open-ended survey responses analyzed through first- and second-cycle analyses showed students adapted their study habits by focusing on note preparation and broad conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization. Using linear mixed effects models to assess student performance, we found students who focused on understanding, note preparation and using external resources outperformed students who did not report those study habits. As institutions shift towards flexible and scalable assessments that can be used in face-to-face or online environments, the use of open-note exams can promote effective study habits and reward higher-order thinking with intentional guidance from the instructor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.