Do digital exams and e-assessment provide transparency?

Like the changing of the seasons and the tides of the sea, the e-Assessment Association annual conference was in London again this week. I was a panel guest, ably supported by colleagues Paul Muir and Rory McCorkle, exploring ‘How is e-Assessment (Re)building Trust in Qualifications?’

We asked the audience, “Q: What are the e-Assessment trust gaps we need to address today?” The digital smoke cleared, and the word cloud emerged: ‘Transparency’.

Geoff Chapman, Rory McCorkle & Paul Muir at eAssessment Association conference 2025

Transparency is ‘free from pretence or deceit’, or ‘characterized by visibility or accessibility of information, especially concerning business practices.’ And it got me thinking: are we wanting to unpack what transparency actually means? How do we achieve it? Or are we content with a little white lie and bluster for the sake of an easy life? If we can’t defend exams and assessment, and their currency is besmirched, are we failing learners and wider communities?

The trust gap of transparency in e-assessment and digital exams needs to be addressed. But do people really want it?

It’s easy to mount a moral high horse and be sniffy about the topic. Many tut and frown, believing it uncouth to question England’s school and exam system. It’s laudable to want to be in a world with full accountability and transparency, but what if our nation’s collective psyche is ok with looking the other way, especially when it suits us? From a UK perspective, the undeniable Brit landscape of quotable, lovable-rogue characters of Arthur Daley, Del Boy, or The Fast Show’s Chris the Cockney are woven into its culture.

Is our nation’s psyche hard-wired to look the other way on transparency, as long as there’s a lovable rogue or daintily-toned person involved?

Their less-than-transparent world of dodgy deals, an unorthodox approach to life, ‘cheeky chappie’ persona, and questionable methods, are eminently relatable to many. Or how about the soothing balm of a daintily-toned lady or gentleman patting us on the head to condescend, “All is well, nothing to see here.”? An infantilisation confidence trick by any other name? Opacity doesn’t always wear a sheepskin coat and red polo neck jumper with a necklace.

Opacity doesn’t always wear a sheepskin coat and red polo neck jumper with a gold necklace. It can also be the domain of the daintily-toned gentleman or lady.

In the current media climate, where ‘alternate facts’ are dressed up in an ill-fitting Mr Byrite suit (Blue Inc to younger readers), does everybody really want unexpurgated transparency? Will the truth about exams actually set us free? Or are we just falling into the moment where we have a chat about Father Christmas?

Are people prepared for what transparency actually means? Are we ready to have a ‘chat about Santa’?

I think we’re better than this. Too many avoid an adult discussion on exam transparency – fearful of the media fallout, loss of lifestyle, dealing with a blighted career, a missed honour. So, what can we do?

I’ve written previously on exam taboo fairy stories. Casual invigilation, grade inaccuracy, human marking, maladministration, proxy testers, grade guesstimates, coursework coaching. Juxtaposed with an occasional ‘bad apple’ story as prima facie evidence that the current system is working. But the opaque culture is unaddressed.

One takeaway action I’d like is for trade bodies to do much better in reaching outside their sector bubble. Decades of compound evidence on digital exams and e-assessment need to be more easily available. It should also be accessible in different ways, tailored to reach the different stakeholders. It must pass-the-test of being relevant, accurate, complete, and obtainable in a timely manner.

Trade bodies must reach outside the sector bubble. Tailoring evidence that can be used by different stakeholders to build out the digital stories and underpin transparency.

Digital illuminates and enables transparency. But it still relies on people wanting to do the right thing. Unpacking (digital) assessment processes and procedures need not harm learner or stakeholder confidence. It’s unfair on analogue forefathers to quip that they’re only ‘fetching the suitcase from the (Parcelforce) van’. But digital is here – and it’s high time we gave its auditable transparency the respect that learners deserve.