A Systematic Review of the Virtues and Vices of Exit Exams in Higher Education
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
572-592
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/ijecs.v3i2.5795
Viewed: 206 times
Downloaded: 184 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:
Samson Worku Teshome1* 
Copyright :
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Exit exams in higher education have become central tools for assessing students' readiness for professional roles or advanced academic pursuits, aiming to uphold accountability, standardization, and quality assurance across educational systems. Designed to evaluate mastery of discipline-specific knowledge, skills, and competencies, their implementation has sparked ongoing debate about their effectiveness and equity. This systematic literature review synthesizes findings from 33 peer-reviewed studies to examine both the advantages and challenges associated with exit exams. The review identifies that exit exams enhance transparency, promote comparability, and align academic outcomes with labor market expectations. However, they also present significant drawbacks, including the risk of over-standardization, elevated psychological stress, and reinforcement of systemic biases. Marginalized student populations are often disproportionately affected, as high-stakes testing can deepen existing educational inequalities and promote surface-level learning due to a "teaching to the test" approach. Technical limitations in digital exam delivery and uneven access to preparatory resources further undermine equitable assessment. Nevertheless, exit exams can offer constructive feedback to both learners and institutions, supporting curricular refinement and improving graduate employability. The review advocates for a more balanced and inclusive assessment model that integrates formative evaluations, leverages flexible technological platforms, and considers student mental well-being. By aligning exit exam practices with holistic educational goals and incorporating qualitative metrics, institutions can develop fairer, more effective frameworks that serve diverse student populations and drive continuous improvement in higher education.
Downloads
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Ackeren, I., Klein, E., & Kuhlee, D. (2012). The impact of statewide exit exams: A descriptive case study of three German states with differing low-stakes exam regimes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(8), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n8.2012
Adale, M. Y., & Kefale, K. B. (2023). A review on implementation challenges and measures of exit exam to enhance and assure the quality of engineering education at Ethiopia HEIs. Journal of Higher Education Research, 8(5), 225–231. https://doi.org/org/10.11648/j.her.20230806.13
Al Ahmad, M., Al Marzouqi, A. H., & Hussien, M. (2014). Exit exam as academic performance indicator. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 13(3), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICeLeTE.2013.6644378
Aniley, A. A. (2023). Comprehensive review on exit examination strategies and its role for enhancement of quality assurance and employability opportunity in engineering and technology programs. IETE Journal of Education, 64(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09747338.2022.2118874
Aristeidou, M., Cross, S., Rossade, K.-D., Wood, C., Rees, T., & Paci, P. (2024). Online exams in higher education: Exploring distance learning students’ acceptance and satisfaction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12888
Athiworakun, C., & Adunyarittigun, D. (2022). Investigating washback effects on teaching: A case study of an exit examination at the higher education level. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(2), 777–800. http://so04.tci-thaijo.org
Ayenew, E., & Yohannes, A. G. (2022). Assessing higher education exit exam in Ethiopia: Practices, challenges and prospects. Science Journal of Education, 10(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20221002.15
Baker, D. (2019). Pathways to racial equality in higher education: Modeling the antecedents of state affirmative action bans. American Research Journal, 56(5), 1861–1895. https://www.Wiley.org/stable/45200627
Benner, A. (2023). Exit examinations, peer academic climate, and adolescents’ developmental outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSP.2012.09.001
Bishop, J. (1999). Are national exit examinations important for educational efficiency? Swedish Economic Policy Review, 6, 349–398. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/75286
Bracey, G. (2009). Mandatory exit exams discourage graduation: Research does not support political claims that exit exams improve graduation results. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 88–95.
Carol, V., & Brown, M. F. (1994). The development of an exit examination in criminal justice for graduating seniors: A case study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 5(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259400083081
Christina, J. J., & Moorthy, D. (2021). Multiple entry and exit options in degree courses. NEP 2020, 135–141. https://www.SematicScholar.net/publication/373069856 Dehury, R. (2017). Exit exams for medical graduates: A guarantee of quality? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2(3), 190–193. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2017.037
Dempster, E. (2012). Comparison of exit-level examinations in four African countries. Journal of Social Sciences, 33, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2012.11893086
El-Hussan, H., et al. (2021). Student perception of curriculum-based exit exam in civil engineering education. Global Engineering Education Conference, 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9454016
Fanjoy, R. (2005). Exit exams for college flight programs: Redundant activity or certification of competency? The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 23(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.18.100333
French, S. (2023). A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education. The International Journal of Higher Education, 88, 893–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.
Houchensen, D. (2023). “Stakes is high”: Culturally relevant practitioner inquiry with African American students struggling to pass secondary reading exit exams. Urban Education, 48(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912456845
Khan, H., Sebu, Gaur, P., Kumar, A., & Rahman, M. u. (2023). Pharmacy exit exam for the upliftment of profession of pharmacy practice in India: A review. International Journal of Pharma Professional’s Research (IJPPR), 14(4), 107–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.48165/ijppronline.2023.14408
Lanahan, B. (2023). Higher education in as politics in Poar-Rose revolution in Georgia: Corruption, tutoring, and higher education entrance exams. Springer NATURE Link, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45194-2_8
Leigh, S. (2012). The classroom is alive with the sound of thinking: The power of the exit slip. The International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 189–196. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Merki, K. (2011). Effects of the implementation of state-wide exit exams on students’ self-regulated learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 196–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.12.001
Palmer, E. J., Duggan, P., Devitt, P. G., & Russell, R. (2010). The modified essay question: Its exit from the exit examination? Medical Teacher, 32(7), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.488705
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
Rosqvist, K., Koivisto, J. M., Vierula, J., & Haavisto, E. (2022). Instruments used in graduating nursing students’ exit exams: An integrative review. Contemporary Nurse, 58(5–6), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2022.2085593
Siddiqui, A. W., Singh, D., Samanta, R., Das, A. M., & Chhetri, P. (2020). Evaluating the role of pharmacy exit exams in advancing pharmacy practice in India: A comprehensive review. Latin American Journal of Pharmacy, 42(10), 1–11.
Slomp, D., Marynowski, R., & Ratcliffe, B. (2020). Consequences and outcomes of policies governing medium-stakes large-scale exit exams. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 431–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09334-8
Teshome, S. W. (2024). Exit exams in higher education: A systematic literature review. Science Journal of Education, 12(4), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241204.14
Teshome, S. W. (2024). The positive and negative effects of exit exams in higher education: A systematic literature review. American Journal of Education and Information Technology, 8(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeit.20240802.14
University of Munich, Germany, & Woessmann, L. (2018). Central exit exams improve student outcomes. IZA World of Labor, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.419
Warren, J. R., & Grodsky, E. (2009). Exit exams harm students who fail them—and don’t benefit students who pass them. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 645–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000908
Weir, T. (2010). Pretest/posttest assessment: The use of an entry/exit exam as an assessment tool for accredited and non-accredited journalism and mass communication programs. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 65(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769581006500203