Griffith University researchers found numeracy, spelling and reading subjects were most affected by the transition from paper testing to online testing which started in 2018.

The paper shared that the aims of the transition to online testing were to enhance engagement, ensure equity, improve result turnaround times, secure data, and future-proof the system.

Despite challenges such as coordinating across jurisdictions and ensuring internet access, the digitisation promised a more adaptable, efficient, and secure testing environment, and aimed to reduce the time required for marking and feedback, allowing teachers to adjust their teaching strategies more effectively.

Head of Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics Professor Alberto Posso says the shift to online testing may have worsened educational inequalities.

“Even modest score reductions can accumulate and compound disadvantage,” Posso says.

“NAPLAN results can influence placement in selective programs or school applications.

“Lower test scores can put low-income students at risk of reduced opportunities and long-term inequalities.”

The study showed children in Grade 3 and Grade 5 had been disproportionately disadvantaged by the transition to online testing, and numeracy showed the largest decline.

Specifically, online testing decreases average test scores by between 0.05 and 0.25 standard deviations (depending on the specification), while test scores from schools in the lowest income quintile are found to be between 0.10 and 0.17 standard deviations lower than those in the highest quintile.

Researchers analysed data from ACARA, covering 10,529 schools between 2008 and 2023.

Income records from the Australian Taxation Office were then correlated to examine the link between household income and school performance.

The paper authors argue that the significant disparities across income and socioeconomic groups at the postcode and school levels may be borne from low levels of familiarity with computers in lower income households.

“We acknowledge, however, that we cannot rule out within-school effects driving our results,” they state in the report.

“That is, the evidence in favour of household-driven effects is largely circumstantial. The policy implications of our findings are, therefore, that interventions should target the digital divide in both schools and homes to be more effective when addressing disparities created by switching to online testing.” 

Posso says the fact that students in the lowest income group scored lower than their peers in the highest income group, highlighted the need for targeted support for disadvantaged communities, such as equal access to digital resources and training for students, teachers, and parents.

The researchers acknowledged that while online testing offers benefits like increased efficiency and security, it is essential to continually assess its impact on equity.

“Without sufficient support, online testing risks worsening educational inequalities, particularly for disadvantaged students, and slowing social mobility efforts,” they wrote in the report.

“As online testing becomes more ubiquitous, educators need to acknowledge that not all students are equally prepared to succeed, which could result in inefficiencies where poorer students are unfairly penalized in admissions and educational outcomes.”

The paper ‘Online testing and educational inequality: Evidence from a national standardized test in Australia’ can be viewed here.