Introduction

Today, the rapid advances in artificial intelligence have led to profound implications in the functioning of academic systems. For example, it has had profound consequences on education ( 1 ) and research ( 2 ) in the higher education system. In reaction to this progress, education systems have also grown rapidly so that electronic learning has been accepted and merged with the education system ( 3 - 4 ). Therefore, today, e-learning has been accepted as a significant part of the higher education system ( 5 ). As to conceptualization of this word, e-learning is defined as a kind of distance learning that is done entirely through electronic channels such as the Internet or using support tools ( 6 - 9 ). Meanwhile, student evaluation is a key factor in electronic exams and learning scenarios ( 10 ). The electronic exam is one of the foremost imperative instruments for evaluating students’ performance. Hence, under current circumstances and the predominance of COVID-19, planning and arranging for e-exams is fundamental in two ways.

First, along with the development of information and communication technologies, e-exams have increased ( 11 ). Unlike traditional pen-and-paper exams, e-exams do not restrain professors from assessing and evaluating students. Thus, e-exams can be used for diagnostic, formative assessments, or both ( 12 ). Although there is no commonality and universal point of view among researchers regarding the advantages and challenges of e-exams, the trends of education systems, and whether or not they direct the higher education systems to this kind of exam, from the first point of view, according to many researchers, e-exams have many positive effects and advantages in measuring and evaluating the learners’ performance ( 13 - 16 ). In contrast to the first group, some researchers have identified challenges that cast doubt on the effectiveness of e-exams by evaluating the student's performance ( 17 - 20 ). There have always been such contradictions. Proponents and opponents have their views and arguments. The critical point is that the education system is moving towards an intelligent future and institutionalization of these university tools. Thus, identification and analysis of the advantages and challenges of e-exams, particularly for the education system of developing countries, can be a problem solver.

The second necessity is the prevalence of COVID-19, which requires students to take exams and courses virtually. In this regard, there have been many arguments about the quality of education, the actual level of students' learning, how to evaluate students' performance, and so on ( 21 - 23 ). This is a critical issue, as e-exams are the final step and measure students' knowledge and cognitive ability. Accordingly, a significant problem in the current situation is that the use of electronic platforms to assess and give exams in all universities worldwide is inevitable. If the exams cannot evaluate the student's knowledge, irreparable consequences will occur. Many case studies have dealt with the issue of online assessment of students using different methodologies ( 24 - 28 ). Accordingly, this study aimed to identify the advantages and challenges of electronic exams based on Iranian and international studies.

Methods

The methodology of this research consists of six sections as follows:

Conceptual Framework

This research is based on an interpretive paradigm. Qualitative research is related to the paradigm of interpretivism. In this paradigm, unlike the paradigm of positivism, there is a belief that things are different from physical phenomena and meanings stem from the human’s mind and perception. Therefore, it pays special attention to the conditions and context ( 29 ).

Method

This research was conducted using the meta-synthesis method of Sandelowski and Barroso ( 30 ). The meta-synthesis research method is one of the types of meta-study methods and is considered a qualitative research method. Indeed, meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses the information of the findings extracted from other studies in the field of the related topic. In the meta-synthesis method, the researcher combines the secondary data of the results of other studies to respond to the results of his study and obtain new results. In the next step, we used the Shannon entropy technique for weighting. Shannon's entropy is a method used to measure the weight of elements based on the degree of dispersion and frequencies observed in a table of values. This method is mostly used to measure the importance of criteria in a decision matrix in multi-criteria decision-making. Also, the use of Shannon's entropy in content analysis is of interest to researchers.

Data Collection

Meta-synthesis method of Sandelowski and Barroso with seven steps was used in the first step ( 30 ). In the first step, research questions were designed. In the second step, a systematic literature review was performed. Keywords such as electronic exams, online exams, electronic assessment, and online assessment in Iranian databases including Magiran, Noormags, SID and Comprehensive Portal of Humanities, and international databases including Science Direct, Springer, Wiley Online Library, ERIC, Sage, Taylor & Francis, PubMed and Emerald from 2005 to 2021 were used. In the third step, suitable research was selected; the inclusion criteria of the articles were as follows: the type of study: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed, considering the desired time limit and access to the full text of the article. The criterion for excluding articles was articles that did not fit the topic and use of the PRISMA form. In this way, by extracting the findings of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed studies, these findings were integrated into each other as key concepts based on similarities and differences. These findings were used to answer the first and second research questions in identifying advantages and challenges. Based on PRISMA screening, 94 articles were selected, including 37. In Figure 1, the screening steps of articles are displayed.

Figure 1. Flow diagram illustrating the screening process

The fourth step was extracting and taking notes from the information in the article. Nevertheless, for the sake of brevity, the details of the articles (referring to the extracted codes separately from the articles) have been avoided. The bibliographic characteristics of the selected articles are shown in Table 1.

Data Analysis

The fifth step was to compile, synthesize, and analyze the research findings. In this step, for qualitative content analysis, Graneheim et al.'s model method ( 63 ) was employed. This model has six stages. In this research, in the first stage, after selecting the selected articles, the key parts of the articles were implemented in a Word file. In the second step, the texts of the articles were read several times, and meaning units were extracted. In the third stage, meaningful units were abstracted, and the codes were selected, whereby obvious and hidden concepts were identified. In the fourth step, the researchers categorized the codes that indicated the same topic into classes and subclasses by constantly comparing the differences and similarities. In this process, if there were any ambiguous cases, it was reviewed by the research team members. In the fifth stage, at the interpretation level, the classes were summarized so that the abstract and main concepts were extracted. In the final stage, the information obtained from the interpretation and report was presented. Below is a practical example of the data analysis process (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Practical example of the data analysis process

Data Validation

The sixth step was to validate the findings. In this step, peer debriefing of the findings was used. This is one of the validation techniques in qualitative research and is considered one of the accreditation approaches to qualitative data ( 64 ).

In the second phase, to answer the third research question, "which of the challenges and advantages of electronic exams are more important and weighted?”, the Shannon entropy technique was used. Shannon's entropy method is powerful in data processing in content analysis. Shannon's entropy in information theory is an index to measure uncertainty expressed by a probability distribution. There are several methods to determine the weight of indicators. One of the best methods is Shannon's entropy ( 65 ), and the findings are analyzed using the following formula:

$E_j=\mathrm{-K}{\sum }_{\mathrm{i=1}}^m{P}_{\mathrm{ij}}*ln{P}_{\mathrm{ij}}^i=\mathrm{1.2....mk}=\frac{1}{lnm}$

$w_j=\frac{d_j}{\sum d_j}{d}_j=1-E_J$

Ethical Considerations

Ethics in education and research is one of the most important components of higher education ( 66 ). Ethical considerations have also been taken into consideration in this research. In this study, there was an attempt to carefully extract the concepts from the articles and to observe confidentiality in mentioning the titles of the articles.

Results

The answers to the first research question, “What are the most important challenges of e-exams?”, after taking notes of the texts of the articles, the key concepts were counted to answer this question. Then, the key concepts were classified into sub-categories based on their commonalities and differences (Table 2).

To answer the second question, “What are the essential advantages of e-exams?”, after taking notes on the articles, the key concepts were extracted. Then, the key concepts were classified into sub-categories based on their commonalities and differences (Table 3).

Tables 4 and 5 report the results of weighing the most important challenges and advantages of electronic exams. The first column is data normalization. The third column is (E) calculation. The second column is the calculation of the standard error value, and the last column is the value (W), which represents the weight of each of the challenges and advantages.

According to Table 4, the challenges (complexity and challenges after investigation and weak infrastructure) had greater weight and importance based on Shannon's entropy technique than other challenges.

In the ranking based on the table above, the most important advantage of electronic exams is the advantages after exam implementation.

Discussion

Today, university systems are faced with a complex situation. On the one hand, there are technological developments that progressively open new fields and horizons for academic systems. It has forced university systems to make changes in their specialties, governance methods, and infrastructures by using these technologies. Meanwhile, unknown crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic have plagued the world. Academic systems have also faced special conditions ( 67 ). In line with these changes and developments, e-exams had a significant impact on the trend in the history of education as today they are used at all higher education levels around the world ( 68 ).

Note that electronic exams have received more attention after the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic. Another critical point is the contradictory views on e-exams despite the inevitable action of academic systems after the epidemic. In the section on challenges of e-exams, in the sub-category of poor technical knowledge and skills manpower is not trained enough in technological fields. Faculty members, students, and staff need more skills to use new technologies. Inadequate experience plays a key role in the technical knowledge of manpower corresponds to the findings of several studies ( 5 , 11 , 18 , 19 , 47 , 69 ). In line with the findings of this research, in a study, one of the serious weaknesses of the electronic exams was the technical knowledge of faculty members and the resistance in changing and accepting this type of exam ( 54 ).

The sub-category of security challenges: One of the most important challenges in the field of new technologies is the challenge of security and privacy. This sub-category is in accordance with the findings of some studies ( 3 - 5 , 8 , 11 , 14 , 19 , 24 ). The sub-category of complexity and challenges in designing exams considers that if the questions are not designed correctly, it is not possible to accurately evaluate the students. Due to the nature of e-exams, it is difficult to design questions for some fields of study. sub-category corresponds to the results of several studies ( 11 , 17 - 19 , 24 , 26 ). The criticisms include designing standard questions, the compilation of questions for technical-statistical courses, and the capacity of these exams to evaluate and measure the real achievements of students’ learning.

The sub-category of complexity and challenges during the exam: Challenges during the implementation of e-exams are significant. Some of these challenges are related to students, and others are linked to technological facilities. The sub-category corresponds to the findings of other studies ( 2 , 4 - 6 , 9 , 17 , 20 , 69 ). In the sub-category of complexity and challenges after the examination, there are also problems after the exam. The main challenges are related to the feedback from the exam and the evaluation of the student's learning. The sub-category is in accordance with the results of other research ( 5 , 6 , 25 , 69 ). The sub-category of the lack of infrastructure corresponds to the findings of other investigations ( 6 , 11 , 16 , 19 , 24 ). The sub- category of the lack of cultural readiness corresponds to the results of ( 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 19 , 24 , 26 , 47 , 69 ). The sub-category of improvement in in teaching and learning process is in the same line with the findings of ( 3 , 4 , 10 , 12 , 19 , 24 , 26 ). The sub-category of the effectiveness of student assessment is consistent with the results of ( 3 , 6 , 19 , 20 , 26 ). For example, nowadays AI technologies, such as Writerly, Google Docs, and Perceptive, are being utilized to provide timely and effective feedback, facilitate peer assessment across various disciplines ( 70 ). The sub-category of advantages in designing exams corresponds to the findings of ( 4 , 10 - 12 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 69 ). The sub-category of advantages during exam implementation corresponds to the results of ( 4 , 6 , 9 , 11 - 13 , 18 , 20 ). Finally, the sub-category of advantages after exam implementation corresponds to the results of ( 6 , 10 - 12 , 18 - 20 ).

Conclusion

Using a content analysis-based comprehensive literature review, this research attempted to reveal the most important challenges and advantages of e-exams from different aspects due to the existing contradictory views. There were some limitations in this study. Only the published articles in the abovementioned databases, in both English and Persian languages, were selected. There might be other studies that have been published in other languages and have not been considered. In this research, books, dissertations, and research projects that have been published as research libraries, and are known as gray literature, have yet to be addressed. Therefore, the subsequent research is suggested to monitor the current situation of medical universities and the universities by quantifying one of the sub-categories of this study. Finally, policy recommendations for Iran's health higher education system are provided.

§ Using technology acceptance models tailored to the organizational structure of each university to better adapt to the implementation of electronic exams.

§ Holding students' digital skills empowerment workshops to enhance their digital literacy in applying electronic exams.

§ Designing smart security systems to prevent cheating on electronic exams.

§ Developing deterrent laws in the event of cheating on electronic exams and facilitating laws in the implementation of electronic exams in universities.

§ Employing specialists in designing standard electronic exam questions by holding courses for developing the design skills of standard online faculty members.

§ Making changes in university culture to create digital culture as well as reducing academic resistance to adopting new technologies and electronic exams by applying change management processes.

§ Recruiting new specialist human resources in universities with the development of digital skills of current employees through a variety of strategies such as reverse mentoring.

§ Developing a standard guide and principles in the field of designing and implementing electronic exams.

Authors’ Contribution

All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors. To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists. All authors have agreed to the submission and that the manuscript is not currently under submission in any other journal.

Funding/Support

This research did not receive any outside funding or support.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Jafari F, Keykha A. Identifying the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in higher education: a qualitative study. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. 2024; 16(4):1228-45.
2. Keykha A, Behravesh S, Ghaemi F. ChatGPT and Medical Research: A Meta-Synthesis of Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism. 2024; 12(3):135-47.
3. Al-Fraihat D, Joy M, Sinclair J.Paper presented at: ;
4. Al-Fraihat D, Joy M, Sinclair J. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in human behavior. 2020; 102:67-86.
5. Dahlstrom E, Brooks DC, Bichsel J. The current ecosystem of learning management systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives. USA: Educause; 2024.
6. Lizcano D, Lara JA, White B, Aljawarneh S. Blockchain-based approach to create a model of trust in open and ubiquitous higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2020; 32:109-34.
7. Wong TL, Xie H, Zou D, Wang FL, Tang JK, Kong A, et al. How to facilitate self-regulated learning? A case study on open educational resources. Journal of Computers in Education. 2020; 7:51-77.
8. Aljawarneh SA. Reviewing and exploring innovative ubiquitous learning tools in higher education. Journal of computing in higher education. 2020; 32(1):57-73.
9. Ng EM. Fostering pre-service teachers' self-regulated learning through self-and peer assessment of wiki projects. Computers & Education. 2016; 98:180-91.
10. Lara JA, Aljawarneh S, Pamplona S. Special issue on the current trends in E-learning Assessment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2020; 32:1-8.
11. Adegbija MV, Fakomogbon MA, Daramola FO. The new technologies and the conduct of e-examinations: a case study of National Open University of Nigeria. British Journal of Science. 2012; 3(1):59-66.
12. Baleni ZG. Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 2015; 13(4):228-36.
13. Dreher C, Reiners T, Dreher H. Investigating factors affecting the uptake of automated assessment technology. Journal of Information Technology Education; Research. 2011; 10(1):161-81.
14. Hodgson P, Pang MY. Effective formative e-assessment of student learning: a study on a statistics course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2012; 37(2):215-25.
15. Nguyen Q, Rienties B, Toetenel L, Ferguson R, Whitelock D. Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 76:703-14.
16. Snodgrass SJ, Ashby SE, Rivett DA, Russell T. Implementation of an electronic objective structured clinical exam for assessing practical skills in pre-professional physiotherapy and occupational therapy programs: examiner and course coordinator perspectives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2014; 30(2):152-66.
17. Cramp J, Medlin JF, Lake P, Sharp C. Lessons learned from implementing remotely invigilated online exams. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 2019; 16(1):10.
18. James R. Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative examinations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2016; 13:1-3.
19. Allan S. Migration and transformation: a sociomaterial analysis of practitioners’ experiences with online exams. Research in Learning Technology. 2020; 28:1-14.
20. Karim NA, Shukur Z. Proposed features of an online examination interface design and its optimal values. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 64:414-22.
21. Kobayashi M. Does anonymity matter? Examining quality of online peer assessment and students’ attitudes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2020; 36(1):98-110.
22. Assuring quality in online education: Practices and processes at the teaching, resource, and program levels. USA: Taylor & Francis; 2023.
23. Rudolph J, Tan S, Crawford J, Butler-Henderson K. Perceived quality of online learning during COVID-19 in higher education in Singapore: Perspectives from students, lecturers, and academic leaders. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 2023; 22(1):171-91.
24. Habibi H. Pathology of Electronic Tests in Payame Noor University. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies. 2017; 6(16):43-66.
25. Wibowo S, Grandhi S, Chugh R, Sawir E. A pilot study of an electronic exam system at an Australian university. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2016; 45(1):5-33.
26. Al-Mashaqbeh IF, Al Hamad A. New Jersey, United States: IEEE; 2010.
27. Adedoyin OB, Soykan E. Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive learning environments. 2023; 31(2):863-75.
28. Stowell JR, Bennett D. Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2010; 42(2):161-71.
29. Alharahsheh HH, Pius A. A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 2(3):39-43.
30. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. springer publishing company. USA: Springer; 2006.
31. Reedy A, Pfitzner D, Rook L, Ellis L. 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. 2021; 17(1):9.
32. Heidarzadeh A, Hashemi HZ, Parvasideh P, Larijani ZH, Baghdadi P, Fakhraee M, et al. Opportunities and challenges of online take-home exams in medical education. Journal of Medical Education. 2021; 20(1):1-10.
33. Ebaid IE. Cheating among accounting students in online exams during Covid-19 pandemic: exploratory evidence from Saudi Arabia. Asian Journal of Economics, Finance and Management. 2021; 3(1):211-21.
34. Qalawa SA, Elgazzar SE, Saleh M, Alsalamah SM, Soliman MT, Ibrahim NM, et al. An investigation of satisfaction regarding electronic exams among KSA nursing students: a multiuniversity study. Int J Innov Creat Change. 2021; 15(2):514-31.
35. Abdelrahim Y. How COVID-19 quarantine influenced online exam cheating: A case of Bangladesh university students. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University. 2021; 56(1):802-12.
36. Elsalem L, Al-Azzam N, Jum'ah AA, Obeidat N, Sindiani AM, Kheirallah KA. Stress and behavioral changes with remote E-exams during the Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study among undergraduates of medical sciences. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2020; 60:271-9.
37. Ngqondi T, Maoneke PB, Mauwa H. A secure online exams conceptual framework for South African universities. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2021; 3(1):100132.
38. Elsalem L, Al-Azzam N, Jum'ah AA, Obeidat N. Remote E-exams during Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of students’ preferences and academic dishonesty in faculties of medical sciences. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2021; 62:326-33.
39. Sharma NK, Gautam DK, Rathore S, Khan MR. WITHDRAWN: CNN Implementation for Detect Cheating in Online Exams During COVID-19 Pandemic: A CVRU Perspective. Mater Today Proc. 2021; 27:1.
40. bin Muhammad A, Al-Shehri AK, Al Harthi MA. The Degree of Availability of Skills Needed to Build and Employ Electronic Exams for Faculty Members at the University of Jeddah in Light of the Global Trend in E-Learning. EDUCATIO: Journal of Education. 2021; 6(1):14-28.
41. Clark TM, Callam CS, Paul NM, Stoltzfus MW, Turner D. Testing in the time of COVID-19: A sudden transition to unproctored online exams. Journal of chemical education. 2020; 97(9):3413-7.
42. Meridani M, Behbahani S, Ebadi E, Chupani F. Design and implementation of online test system to evaluate students and improve the quality of education. Journal of Educational Studies. 2020; 7(2):1-15. Persian
43. Ilgaz H, Adanır G. Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them? Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25(2):1255-69.
44. Afacan Adanır G, İsmailova R, Omuraliev A, Muhametjanova G. Learners’ Perceptions of Online Exams: A Comparative Study in Turkey and Kyrgyzstan. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2020; 21(3):1-17.
45. Shraim K. Online Examination Practices in Higher Education Institutions: Learners' Perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2019; 20(4):185-96.
46. Simsek I, Balaban M, Ergin H. The Use of Expert Systems in Individualized Online Exams. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET. 2019; 18(2):116-27.
47. Cramp J, Medlin J, Lake P, Sharp C. Lessons learned from implementing remotely invigilated online exams. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 2019; 16(1):10.
48. Aisyah S, Bandung Y, Subekti L. USA: IEEE; 2018.
49. Ranjdoost S. Comparison of satisfaction with holding electronic and traditional exams of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences students. Medicine and cultivation. 2018; 27(1):38-55. Persian
50. Hassanzadeh N, Pak Seresht M, Talebian A, Behnameh D. Identifying and ranking the challenges of conducting the electronic exam of the Technical and Vocational Education Organization studied: Areas of implementation of North Khorasan and Razavi. Training Quarterly. 2017; 6(22):1-20. Persian
51. Faghihi A, Daryazadeh S, Yamani N. Medical Students’ Experiences of Pre-Internship Electronic Exam in Isfahan and Kashan Universities of Medical Sciences in 2016. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2017; 17:15-31. Persian
52. Ganji Arjenaki B. Surveying The Quality of Electronic Tests in The Student Satisfaction. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2017; 10(3):180-8. Persian
53. Tasdemır S, Balcı M, Cabi A, Altin M, Cabi O. The design and application of online exam system supported by database. International Journal of Applied Mathematics Electronics and Computers. 2015; 3(3):204-7.
54. Kuikka M, Kitola M, Laakso M. Challenges when introducing electronic exam. Research in Learning Technology. 2014; 22:1-17.
55. Ramu T, Arivoli T. A framework of secure biometric based online exam authentication: An alternative to traditional exam. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2013; 4(11):52-60.
56. Ramos MC, Velasquez JE. Design and Development of an Online Exam Maker and Checker. International Journal of Computers & Technology. 2013; 10(5):1598-640.
57. Gehringer E, Peddycord B. Experience with online and open-web exams. Journal of Instructional Research. 2013; 2:10-8.
58. Tao J, Li Z. A Case Study on Computerized Take-Home Testing: Benefits and Pitfalls. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning. 2012; 8(1):33-43.
59. Rao N, Harshita P, Dedeepya S, Ushashree P. Cryptography–analysis of enhanced approach for secure online exam process plan. International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications. 2011; 2(8):52-7.
60. King C, Guyette J, Piotrowski C. Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students' views. Journal of Educators Online. 2009; 6(1):1-5.
61. Dermo J. e‐Assessment and the student learning experience: A survey of student perceptions of e‐assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2009; 40(2):203-14.
62. Jung I, Yeom H. Enhanced security for online exams using group cryptography. IEEE transactions on Education. 2009; 52(3):340-9.
63. Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. 2017; 56:29.
64. Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative health research. Nurse Educ Today. 2016; 26(13):1802-11.
65. Azar A. Extension and development of Shannon's entropy method for data processing in content analysis. Humanities. 2001; 37:1.
66. Keykha A, Imanipour M. Meta-synthesis of professional ethics elements in higher education. JMED. 2020; 15(1):53-70.
67. Keykha A. Extraction and Classification of Smart University Components to Provide a Conceptual Framework: A Meta-Synthesis Study. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management. 2022; 8(4):75-112.
68. Thomas P, Price B, Paine C, Richards M. Remote electronic examinations: student experiences. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2002; 33(5):537-49.
69. Esposito C, Su X, Aljawarneh SA, Choi C. Securing collaborative deep learning in industrial applications within adversarial scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 2018; 14(11):4972-81.
70. Asadi M, Taheri T. Enhancing Peer Assessment and Engagement in Online IELTS Writing Courses through a Teacher’s Multifaceted Approach and AI Integration. Technology Assisted Language Education. 2024; 2(2):94-117.