Main Article Content


This study was designed to explore student perceptions on 'open-book' examination system and the benefit of allowing access for online material to students during exam. The data was collected from 92 graduate students, age between 22 to 60 years old, 67% fall within the 28 to 50 age bracket. The instrument was a questionnaire consisting of 14 items to measure perceptions on 'open-book' exam. Open items about  allowing students to access internet during 'open-book' exam was included in the instrument. The findings indicate that for various reasons, students (86.8 %) prefer open-book exam than closed-book exam. Students perceive open-book exam as more suitable for graduate study, inhibit remember-level knowledge , reduce exam anxiety , and encourage students to be well prepared for the exam. Some students consider that allowing students for free internet access during open book exam will benefit students, since they will be able to complement their answer with further analysis using online material. However, setting up a scheme for open-book exam and allowing students internet access during the exam will require a comprehensive, well-thought and well-developed exam items and procedure. This is truly a challenging task for lecturers and teachers. This study concludes that students have a positive perception in regards to open-book exam and use of internet in open-book exam. It is advisable to use open book exam as an alternatif assessment system in various levels of education, while at the same time investigating dimensions which affects the effectiveness of this system.




Penelitian ini merupakan studi eksploratori, bertujuan untuk mengkaji persepsi mahasiswa terhadap sistem ujian akhir 'buka buku', dan kemungkinan memberikan kebebasan kepada mahasiswa mengakses informasi online selama ujian. Responden penelitian sebanyak 92 mahasiswa magister, berusia 22 - 60 tahun, 67% berusia antara 28 sampai dengan 50 tahun. Â Instrumen berupa kuesioner yang terdiri atas 14 pertanyaan tertutup tentang sistem ujian 'buka buku' menggunakan skala Likert 1-5, dan pertanyaan terbuka tentang kebebasan menggunakan internet dalam ujian 'buka buku'. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pada umumnya (86.8%) mahasiswa mempunyai persepsi yang positif terhadap sistem ini dan sebagian besar (77%) lebih menyukai sistem ujian 'buka buku' daripada 'tutup buku'. Sistem ini dinilai lebih sesuai untuk jenjang pendidikan pascasarjana yang sejalan dengan prinsip pendidikan yang baik karena tidak mengandalkan hafalan, mengurangi kecemasan mahasiswa dalam ujian, dan membuat mahasiswa lebih serius mempersiapkan diri. Penggunaan internet secara bebas dalam ujian sistem 'buka buku' dinilai baik karena mahasiswa dapat melengkapi jawabannya dengan analisis materi internet yang diakses. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa mempunyai persepsi yang positif terhadap sistem ujian 'buka buku' dan penggunaan internet dalam sistem ini, baik karena pertimbangan akademik maupun psikologis. Oleh sebab itu, sistem ujian ini dapat lebih luas digunakan pada berbagai jenjang pendidikan sebagai alternatif sistem ujian. Pada saat yang sama, perlu dilakukan kajian lebih lanjut mengenai pengaruh sistem ini pada mahasiswa, serta berbagai strategi untuk menjadikan sistem ujian ini efektif.

Article Details

How to Cite
Suciati. (2016). Persepsi Mahasiswa terhadap Sistem Ujian ’˜Buka Buku’: Studi pada Program Pascasarjana. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 1(1), 1-18.


  1. Agarwal, P. & Roediger, H. 2011. Expectancy of an Open-Book Test Decreases Performance on a DelayedBlosed-book Test. Memory, 19(8), hlm. 836-852.
  2. Beebe, R., Vonderwell, S., & Boboc, M. 2010. Emerging patterns in transferring assessment practices from face-to- face to online environments. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, (8)1.
  3. Bernstein, D. A. 2010. Essentials of Psychology. Edisi 5. California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  4. Bloxham, S. & Boyd, P. 2007. Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: a Practical Guide. Berkshire: Open University Press.
  5. Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. 2007. Assessment for the Longer Term. In D. Boud & N.Falchikov (eds.) Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London & New York: Routledge.
  6. Broyles, I.L., Cyr, P.R. & Korsen, N. 2005. Open Book Tests: Assessment of Academic Learning in Clerkships. Medical Teacher 5, hlm. 456–462.
  7. Cluskey, G.R., Ehlen, C., & Raibon, M.H. 2010. Thwarting Online Exam Cheating Without Proctor Supervision. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 4, hlm. 1-7 Garrison, D. R. 2011. E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Routledge.
  8. Gharib, A., William Phillips, Noelle Mathew. 2012. Cheat Sheet or Open-Book? A Comparison of the Effects of Exam Types on Performance, Retention, and Anxiety. Psychology Research, 2, (8), hlm. 469-478.
  9. Heijne-Penninga, M., Kuks, JBM, Hofman, W.H. & Cohen-Schotanus, J. 2010. Inûuences of Deep Learning, Need for Cognition and Preparation Time on Open- and Blosed-book Test Performance. Medical Education, 44(9), hlm.. 884–89. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03732.x.
  10. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J. & Litjens, J. 2008. The Quality of Guidance and Feedback to Students, Higher Education Research & Development, 27 (1), hlm. 55–567.
  11. Jensen, P. A. & Moore, R. 2009. Students’ Perceptions of Their Grades Throughout an Introductory Biology Course: Effect of Open-Book Testing. Journal of College Science Teaching.
  12. Krasne, S., Wimmers, P.F., Relan, A. & Drake, T.A. 2006. Differential Effects of Two Types of Formative Assessment in Predicting Performance of First-year Medical Students.
  13. Advances in Health Science Education, 11(3), hlm. 155-171.
  14. Phillips, G. 2006. Using Open-Book Tests to Strengthen the Study Skills of Community-College Biology Students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49( 7), Hlm. 574-582.
  15. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J. & O’Donovan, B. 2010. Feedback: All That Effort, But What Is The Effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 35 (3), hlm. 277–289.
  16. Manning, M. L., & Bucher, K. T. 2005. Teaching in the Middle School. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  17. McDowell, L., Smailes, J., Sambell, A. & Wakelin, D. 2008. Evaluating Assessment Strategies through Collaborative Evidence-Based Practice: Can One ool Fit All? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, (2) hlm. 143–53.
  18. Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Sambell, A. 2006. Supporting Diverse Students: Developing Learner Autonomy Via Assessment. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. London: Routledge, hlm. 158-168.
  19. Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R.B., & Wilson, V. 2006. Measurement and Assessment in Education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
  20. Sambell, K., McDowell, L., Montgomery, C. 2013. Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
  21. Smith, C.D, Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R. & McPhail, R. 2013. Assessment Literacy and Student Learning: TheCcase for Deliberately Developing Students’ ‘Assessment Literacy’.
  22. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (1), hlm. 44-60.
  23. Sternberg, R.J. 2008. Assessing What Matters. Educational Leadership. 65(4) hlm. 20-26.
  24. Tan, K. 2013. A Framework for Assessment for Learning: Implications for Feedback Practices within and beyond the Gap. International Scholarly Research Notices, http://
  25., diakses 4 Januari 2015.
  26. Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. & Schuwirth, L. W. T. 2005. Assessing Professional Competence: from Methods to Programmes. Medical Education, 39(3) hlm. 309–317.
  27. Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. 2007. Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in Online Learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), hlm. 309-328.
  28. Wilen, W., Hutchinson, J., & Ishler, M. 2008. Dynamics of Effective Secondary Teaching . (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Williams, J.B. 2006. The Place of the Closed Book, Invigilated Final Examination in a Knowledge Economy. Educational Media International, 43, (2) hlm. 107–119.
  29. Williams, J. B., & Wong, A. 2009. The Efficacy of Final Examinations: A Comparative Study of Closed-Book, Invigilated Exams and Open-Book Open-Web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2) 227-236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00929.x