The use of supporting materials in examinations remains a contested issue in educational assessment, particularly in quantitatively demanding disciplines such as statistics. While closed-book exams are traditionally associated with academic rigor, alternative formats including formula sheets and open-book exams are increasingly adopted to reduce cognitive load and support conceptual understanding. However, empirical evidence comparing different types of support materials within the same assessment context remains limited.

This study investigates how different examination formats influence student achievement and assessment experience in an undergraduate introductory statistics course. Specifically, it compares four conditions: closed-book exams, instructor-prepared formula sheets, student-prepared formula sheets, and fully open-book exams. The research addresses two main questions: (1) Do different types of supporting materials affect students’ exam performance and pass rates? and (2) How do these formats influence students’ perceptions of usefulness and preferences regarding assessment design?

Grounded in theories of cognitive load and assessment validity, the study conceptualizes supporting materials as tools that may shift assessment focus from memorization to application and reasoning. By examining both performance outcomes and student perceptions, the research contributes to ongoing debates regarding fairness, rigor, and pedagogical effectiveness in assessment practices. The international relevance of this work lies in its implications for higher education instructors seeking evidence-based flexibility in exam design across diverse educational contexts.

A randomized between-subjects experimental design was employed with 191 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory statistics course. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four examination conditions: closed-book, instructor-prepared formula sheet, student-prepared formula sheet, or fully open-book. All students completed the same midterm examination under standardized conditions. Quantitative performance measures included exam scores and pass/fail outcomes. In addition, students completed post-exam survey items assessing perceived usefulness of the exam format and preferences for future assessments. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance for exam scores, non-parametric comparisons where appropriate, chi-square tests for pass rates, and logistic regression models examining the relationship between assessment format and likelihood of passing. Perception measures were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis tests and post hoc comparisons. Ethical approval was obtained in accordance with institutional guidelines, and participation in perception surveys was voluntary and anonymized.

Results indicated no statistically significant differences in exam scores or pass rates among the four specific assessment formats. However, when the three supported conditions were combined and compared with the closed-book condition, a modest performance advantage emerged for exams allowing supporting materials. In contrast, substantial differences were observed in students’ perceptions. Participants in all supported formats reported significantly higher perceived usefulness of the assessment and expressed strong preference for the format they experienced. These perception effects were consistent across all types of supporting materials. The findings suggest that while the specific form of support material has limited impact on achievement, access to any form of support plays a central role in shaping students’ assessment experience. This highlights the importance of considering affective and motivational dimensions of assessment alongside performance outcomes. From an assessment design perspective, the results provide empirical evidence that instructors can adopt flexible examination formats without compromising academic standards, while simultaneously enhancing student engagement and confidence.

Sanborn, A. N., & Thuente, D. J. (2012). Learning and memory from open-book tests. Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 509–519. Song, Y., & Thuente, D. J. (2015). The impact of cheat sheets on exam performance. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 1–20. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.