Assessment in synchronous online higher education: a systematic review and conceptual purpose framework

Synchronous online teaching has become routine in higher education, yet how assessment operates within live sessions has received limited systematic attention. Searching seven bibliographic databases for English-language full texts, this systematic review synthesised 133 empirical studies of assessment in synchronous online higher education. The literature has grown mainly since the pandemic and is concentrated in medicine and health. Quizzes, oral formats, and performance tasks predominate; instructors remain the principal assessors, while peer and self-assessment are rare. Outcomes are more often mixed or qualified than clearly positive, and favourable perceptions alone are not evidence of learning gains. Few studies use controlled designs or address validity, identity, and integrity, so the evidence supports feasibility rather than general effectiveness. The review proposes a conceptual framework for prospective validation in which live assessment evidence serves three overlapping uses (monitoring understanding, judging performance, and supporting peer and self-evaluation), with gamification as a cross-cutting design layer. Live assessment should be designed from its purpose: monitoring formats suit immediate adjustment, performance formats need explicit criteria and moderation matched to stakes, and collaborative formats need shared criteria and defined roles. Institutions should pilot before scaling, and future research needs controlled, multi-site studies with explicit validity arguments.