Questions for different learning outcomes
Combine choice questions, written responses, fill-in-the-blank and drag-and-drop tasks. Coding tasks use an external execution service.
EDUCATION
Let learning show. Keep assessment trustworthy.
Create admissions and academic assessments, organise student groups and deliver exams with the controls each course needs. Use answer grading and session evidence to support teachers’ decisions.
Configured around your programme and exam rules
Identity · Environment · Session evidence
Remote & testing-centre examsCloud & on-premise optionsHuman-led integrity decisions
BUILT AROUND YOUR PROGRAMME
Make integrity part of a good exam experience.
Groups and controlled access
Import participant lists, organise groups and configure invitations, exam windows, duration and attempts.
Teachers remain part of assessment
Assign open written answers for manual grading. Examine a flagged session separately before applying your institution’s rules.
EXPLORE THE WORKFLOW
Support students. Equip your reviewers.
Connect preparation, the live session and post-exam review without losing sight of the learner.
WORKFLOW / 01
Start with what students need to demonstrate.
Create or import questions, choose supported task types and set dates, duration, attempts and scoring. Publish clear equipment and exam instructions before inviting the group.
- Reuse questions across the relevant course assessments
- Check written-answer grading and coding-service dependencies
- Rehearse the participant journey before exam day
WORKFLOW / 02
Match monitoring to the assessment.
Use the configured camera, screen and environment checks for the exam format. Explain permitted resources and any extra-camera requirements in advance.
- Remote or campus-based exams
- Camera and screen context
- Rules for permitted resources
WORKFLOW / 03
Give faculty evidence for a fair review.
Review flagged moments alongside the recordings and exam rules. Use the same context when considering a student’s explanation or appeal.
- Session event records
- Human review of risk signals
- Context for student appeals
LMS & ASSESSMENT WORKFLOW
Connect the pieces your institution already uses.
Map the route from your learning platform to the exam session and back to review. Confirm integration scope, candidate access and responsibilities with your technical and academic teams.
- Candidate access and session handoff
- Assessment-platform integration scope
- A pilot before the first cohort
EXAM MATERIALS
Protect the questions you invest in.
Bring content protection into the exam setup alongside monitoring and candidate rules. Technical controls work best when the physical environment and permitted resources are considered too.
- ContentProtect in the exam setup
- Device and software context
- Clear boundaries for open-book exams
SEE IT IN YOUR WORKFLOW
Discuss your workflowStart with your exam.
Walk through your format, security requirements and review process.
PLAN THE DETAILS
Different academic goals. Explicit rules.
Configure the workflow around the academic purpose and the resources students may use.
- 01Admissions
- Set applicant groups, permitted resources and identity requirements. The admissions team determines how the exam contributes to its decision.
- 02Course and final exams
- Match question types and manual grading to learning outcomes. Agree attempts, permitted references and how teachers handle contested results.
- 03LMS-based delivery
- Keep course activity in the existing LMS where the agreed integration supports it. Validate exam launch, participant matching and result handling.
- 04Student circumstances
- Agree accommodations, supported devices and the route for technical help in advance. Monitoring settings should reflect the actual exam rules.
FROM SETUP TO ACCEPTANCE
Start with one representative course.
Agree the expected outcome, then verify it in a representative workflow for your organisation.
What the setup should deliver
Ready-to-run assessment
A checked question set, student groups and clear participation instructions.
Separate assessment and integrity review
Teachers grade answers; authorised reviewers examine relevant session evidence.
A practical rollout decision
Observed student difficulties and staff review effort inform the next cohort.
What to verify in the pilot
- 01
Check the question set
Validate scoring and manually grade a sample written response.
- 02
Walk through as a student
Test invitation, registration and equipment checks on representative devices.
- 03
Validate the LMS path
Where integrated, verify launch, participant identity and the agreed result handover.
- 04
Review support and appeals
Make sure students know where to ask for help and teachers can explain the reviewed outcome.
Practical guides
FAQ
Answers before your next step
Explore the details before your demo. If your question is not here, talk it through with our team.
Talk to the teamCan students take exams remotely?
Yes. Remote exam workflows are supported. Equipment, camera and connectivity requirements must be confirmed for your setup and communicated before the exam.
Can we keep our current LMS?
An integration can be scoped with your team. Confirm the platform, access flow and data handoff before implementation.
How are individual adjustments handled?
Agree adjustments and exceptions through the institution’s own process. Validate how they interact with monitoring in the pilot; do not treat an agreed exception as misconduct.
Does a flagged event automatically affect a grade?
No. A flag supports integrity review. Academic judgement and any consequences remain with the institution under its exam rules.
Can we reuse our questions?
TrustExam supports creating, editing, importing and reusing questions. Check the import format and scoring behaviour with a representative sample before migrating a question bank.
YOUR NEXT STEP
Build confidence in your next assessment.
Show us a course, sample questions and the way you currently assess students. We can outline the exam setup, LMS requirements and a manageable first cohort.
Book a demoCandidate journey · Environment controls · Evidence review