Open-book versus closed-book exams as a part of hybrid education in computer science and humanities in the post-COVID era

This paper delves into the longstanding debate surrounding the efficacy of open-book versus closed-book examinations in the context of higher education, with a specific focus on courses within the domains of Information Science and Humanities. The choice between these two examination formats has significant pedagogical implications, as it shapes the learning experience, assesses the depth of understanding, and influences student outcomes. To elucidate the advantages and drawbacks of each approach, this study employs a mixed-methods research design, incorporating quantitative data from student performance metrics and qualitative insights from surveys and interviews. The authors examine these two phenomena in a hybrid learning environment, which has proven to be a resulting effective tool for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. They explore how the cognitive demands and assessment criteria differ between these two modes of examination, considering the distinctive nature of disciplines within Information Science and Humanities. In Information Science, open-book exams are often regarded as aligned with real-world scenarios, reflecting the accessibility of information resources in professional contexts in the post-COVID era. In contrast, closed-book exams emphasize memory recall and analytical reasoning skills. We investigate whether these distinctions translate into varied learning outcomes, student satisfaction, and long-term knowledge retention. Within the Humanities subjects, where critical thinking, analysis, and interpretation are paramount, the debate between open-book and closed-book exams gains further complexity. We examine how each format influences the development of critical thinking skills, the ability to synthesize and apply knowledge, and the cultivation of a deep understanding of complex texts and concepts. Additionally, this paper explores the role of technology and digital resources in shaping the dynamics of open-book exams, and whether this evolution in the accessibility of information has altered the outcomes in Information Science courses compared to Humanities courses. The findings from this study provide valuable insights for educators, curriculum designers, and administrators in Information Science and Humanities programs, helping them make informed decisions about the most appropriate examination format for their courses. By considering the unique characteristics of these disciplines, the research contributes to the ongoing conversation surrounding assessment methods in higher education and offers a nuanced perspective on the open-book versus closed-book examination dilemma.