Publishing Top Achievers’ Examination Results on Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review of Educational, Ethical, and Cultural Implications
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4314-8112
Abstract
Schools increasingly publish lists and photographs of "top achievers" on social media after high-stakes examinations such as the Cambridge O Levels. While such practices are intended to celebrate academic success and enhance institutional reputation, they raise questions about motivation, equity, privacy, and cultural values. This systematic literature review synthesizes 34 studies and policy documents (2010–2025) across educational psychology, child-rights frameworks, and Islamic educational philosophy. Findings indicate that recognition can support motivation when framed around mastery and effort, but rapid public announcements amplify social comparison, marginalize the majority of learners, and create risks to children's privacy. Policy guidance stresses consent and data minimization, while Islamic philosophy emphasizes humility (adab), sincerity of intention (niyyah), and the common good (maslahah). The review concludes that public, early top achievers' posts are not best practice. Instead, inclusive, cohort-based recognition and consent-driven processes better align with educational and ethical responsibilities. Recommendations include a decision matrix for schools and a policy checklist for safer recognition.
Keywords: Social media; academic achievement; recognition; adolescent well-being; privacy; child rights; Islamic education; systematic review
1. Introduction
Public recognition of academic success has long been embedded in educational traditions, most often expressed through prize-giving ceremonies, certificates, and official celebrations. In recent years, the growth of digital platforms has transformed recognition practices. Schools now increasingly publish lists and images of their "top achievers" on social media within hours of high-stakes examination results being released, particularly in contexts such as the Maldives where Cambridge O Levels serve as a benchmark of school performance.
Although these practices aim to celebrate student success and showcase institutional excellence, they also raise important concerns. From an educational psychology perspective, recognition may foster motivation but can also intensify unhealthy competition and exclusion. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) found that motivational beliefs strongly shape how students interpret achievement, while Ryan and Deci (2020) emphasized that recognition promotes sustained learning when linked to intrinsic goals rather than external comparisons. Nesi and Prinstein (2015) demonstrated that adolescents exposed to achievement-based social comparison on social media report higher levels of depressive symptoms and reduced self-esteem. Thus, recognition that is framed competitively, especially in online spaces, can be detrimental for many learners.
"Recognition that is framed competitively, especially in online spaces, can be detrimental for many learners."
From a digital rights perspective, the publication of names, grades, and images of minors raises immediate safeguarding concerns. International policy guidance has become increasingly explicit: the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (OHCHR, 2021) urges that children's data must only be shared with informed consent, UNESCO (2022) warns of long-term digital footprints, and UNICEF (2021) encourages schools to foster digital civic responsibility. Bessant (2024) adds that the use of school social media platforms for publicity may undermine children's rights to privacy and autonomy, creating tensions between institutional marketing and ethical responsibility.
From an Islamic educational philosophy perspective, recognition must align with values of humility (adab), sincerity of intention (niyyah), and communal well-being (maslahah). In'ami and Wekke (2025) argue that education should nurture dignity and justice rather than boastfulness. Qur'anic guidance (31:18; 53:32) cautions against arrogance and praises humility. In this light, immediate competitive postings may conflict with ethical principles by prioritizing institutional prestige over the collective flourishing of students.
It is also essential to distinguish between formal recognition ceremonies and immediate social media postings. The former—such as prize-giving days or graduation events—have long served as valuable opportunities for community celebration, often inclusive of multiple forms of achievement. By contrast, immediate social media postings occur within hours of exam results, functioning less as student-centered recognition and more as institutional public relations. This distinction matters because the risks of exclusion, privacy violations, and ostentation are amplified when recognition is expressed competitively and publicly.
Despite ongoing debates, no systematic review has yet synthesized insights from psychology, rights, and philosophy to evaluate whether this recognition practice is educationally and ethically sound. This study addresses this gap by drawing together evidence and offering recommendations relevant to the Maldivian context and comparable small-island states.
Aims and Research Questions
The aim of this review is to evaluate the educational, ethical, and cultural implications of publishing top achievers' examination results on social media and to propose evidence-informed recommendations for schools.
This review was guided by the following research questions:
- What are the educational psychology impacts of publishing top achievers' results on social media (motivation, social comparison, equity)?
- What are the digital rights and ethical implications of publicly sharing minors' exam outcomes online?
- How can Islamic educational philosophy (adab, niyyah, maslahah) inform ethical best practices for student recognition?
- What evidence-informed recommendations can guide schools toward inclusive and responsible recognition practices?
2. Method
2.1 Databases Searched
To ensure both breadth and depth, searches were conducted across multiple international and educational databases, including ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, JSTOR, the UNESCO Repository, and the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). These databases were selected for their comprehensive coverage of educational psychology, policy, and child-rights literature, ensuring relevance to the study's focus.
2.2 Search Terms
The search process was conducted in two stages to balance breadth and specificity.
- Stage 1 – Broad Boolean Search
("academic achievement" OR "exam results" OR "student performance") AND ("social media" OR "school publicity" OR "online publication") AND ("student motivation" OR "social comparison" OR "privacy" OR "child rights")
- Stage 2 – Refined Search Terms
("school social media" OR "publication of exam results" OR "top achievers") AND ("motivation" OR "equity" OR "privacy" OR "Islamic education")
Filters Applied
- Language: English
- Publication years: 2010–2025
- Document types: Peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, policy documents
- Search fields: Titles and abstracts
2.3 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
- Inclusion: Peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, and policy documents; published in English between 2010–2025; addressing recognition, motivation, social comparison, privacy/data protection, or Islamic educational philosophy.
- Exclusion: Anecdotal blogs, corporate promotional material, non-school contexts, and non-English sources.
2.4 Data Analysis
Data were extracted on authorship, country, research design, thematic focus, and key findings. A thematic synthesis approach was used to categorize findings into three domains: (i) educational psychology, (ii) digital rights and policy, and (iii) Islamic educational philosophy.
2.5 PRISMA Flow and Search Results
The PRISMA framework guided the identification and screening process. The detailed counts for each database and round are provided below (click to expand):
Table 1. Search results by resource and screening stage
(click to expand)
▶
| Resource |
Results of Round 1 |
Results of Round 2 |
Eligible after Screening |
| ERIC | 4,200 | 95 | 21 |
|---|
| Google Scholar | 14,300 | 123 | 5 |
|---|
| JSTOR | 2,000 | 37 | 3 |
|---|
| Scopus | 3,800 | 42 | 6 |
|---|
| Web of Science | 2,600 | 29 | 4 |
|---|
| UNESCO Repository | 800 | 16 | 6 |
|---|
| EASNIE | 150 | 11 | 4 |
|---|
| Total | 27,850 | 353 | 49 |
Table 1. Search results by resource across two rounds, with items eligible after screening.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the search and screening process
(click to expand)
▶
Out of 27,850 initial results, 353 records were identified through refined searches, and 49 articles were deemed eligible after screening. Following full-text review, 34 sources were included in the synthesis.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Overview of Included Articles
The 34 included sources comprised peer-reviewed studies, UN and government policy documents, and conceptual works in Islamic philosophy. Most psychology-oriented studies were empirical, while policy and rights literature was largely normative or legal. Only a few works addressed small-island contexts directly, underscoring the importance of contextualizing insights for the Maldives. For clarity, Table 2 presents a selected subset of key sources (n = 13) that were most central to the analysis, while the full set of 34 included sources is captured in the PRISMA flow and listed in the References.
Table 2. Selected included sources (n = 13)
(click to expand)
▶
| Author(s) & Year |
Country/Context |
Method/Type |
Focus/Findings |
| Eccles & Wigfield (2002) | USA | Theoretical review | Motivational beliefs shape learning goals |
| Deci, Koestner & Ryan (1999) | Multiple (Meta-analysis) | Meta-analysis | Extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation |
| Ryan & Deci (2020) | Global | Conceptual review | Self-determination theory in education |
| Nesi & Prinstein (2015) | USA | Survey study | Social media comparison linked to depressive symptoms |
| Harlen (2014) | UK | Policy review | Equity and fairness in assessment |
| Bessant (2024) | UK | Policy research | Social media and children's rights to privacy/autonomy |
| OHCHR (2021) | UN (Global) | Legal/policy framework | Digital rights of children online |
| UK DfE (2023) | UK | Gov. policy guidance | Consent and data protection in schools |
| UNESCO (2022) | UNESCO (Global) | Policy report | Data protection and children's digital footprint |
| UNICEF (2021) | UNICEF (Global) | Policy guidance | Digital civic responsibility in schools |
| Hattie (2012) | Global | Meta-synthesis | Visible learning – evidence on achievement drivers |
| Ball (2003) | UK | Critical policy analysis | Performativity and pressures in education |
| In'ami & Wekke (2025) | Indonesia/Malaysia | Conceptual/philosophical | Adab, humility, and justice in Islamic education |
Table 2. Selected included sources (n = 13), with country/context, method, and focus of findings.
3.2 Characteristics of Included Studies
Educational psychology studies included meta-analyses (Deci et al., 1999), survey-based adolescent research (Nesi & Prinstein, 2015), and theoretical syntheses (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Policy sources were primarily international (OHCHR, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; UNICEF, 2021), with limited local Maldivian contributions.
Table 3. Best practice framework: recommendations linked to psychology, policy, and Islamic bases
(click to expand)
▶
| Recommendation | Psychology Basis | Policy Basis | Islamic Basis |
|---|
| Cohort-level summaries | Limits harmful comparisons; emphasizes collective progress | UNICEF & UNESCO guidance on inclusive recognition | Maslahah (public good) |
| Delay named recognition | Preserves dignity; reduces immediate social comparison | UK DfE & ICO consent expectations | Adab (dignity, propriety) |
| Broaden recognition (academic, arts, service) | Motivates more students; values diverse strengths | Equity in assessment (Harlen, 2014) | ʿAdl (justice) |
| Ensure consent | Protects autonomy; respects student/parent choice | OHCHR General Comment No. 25 | Niyyah (sincerity of intention) |
| Humble framing | Supports intrinsic motivation; avoids performative metrics | Safeguarding & privacy principles | Humility; avoidance of arrogance |
Table 3. Best practice framework mapping recommendations to psychological, policy, and Islamic rationales.
Islamic philosophy sources emphasized textual and conceptual analysis (In'ami & Wekke, 2025). This uneven distribution highlights a lack of localized empirical research and underscores the need to interpret findings with contextual sensitivity for small-island settings.
Across these sources, consistent best practices emerged, including cohort-level recognition, delayed or private celebration, informed consent, and humility in framing achievements. These practices are synthesized in Table 3 (Best Practice Framework), which maps each recommendation to psychological, policy, and Islamic rationales.
3.3 Risk–Benefit Comparison
While schools may achieve reputational benefits and some students may feel pride from recognition, risks include exclusion, harmful social comparison, equity concerns, and potential breaches of privacy rights. These contrasts are summarized in Table 4, which highlights the tension between institutional gains and potential harms to learner well-being and rights.
Table 4. Risk–benefit comparison of recognition practices in schools' social media use
(click to expand)
▶
| Dimension | Potential Benefits | Risks / Challenges |
|---|
| Motivation | Recognition inspires effort among some students | Undermines intrinsic motivation for non-featured students |
| Equity | Highlights academic excellence | Marginalizes majority of students |
| Well-being | Top achievers gain pride & validation | Upward social comparison harms self-esteem |
| Privacy & Rights | Transparency of outcomes | Exposure of minors' data & images |
| Institutional Reputation | Boosts school branding & parental trust | May lead to competitive boasting among schools |
Table 4. Risk–benefit comparison of recognition practices in schools' social media use.
4. Discussion (Aligned with RQs)
4.1 Educational Psychology and Student Motivation (RQ1)
Recognition has long been shown to influence student motivation. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) and Ryan and Deci (2020) emphasize that recognition is most effective when it highlights effort, mastery, and growth rather than comparative ranking. However, when schools publish only a small subset of "top achievers' posts" on social media, the context changes. Social comparison is intensified, as many students are excluded from recognition and perceive themselves as less capable. Nesi and Prinstein (2015) demonstrate that adolescents exposed to online academic rankings are more vulnerable to depressive symptoms and reduced self-esteem.
This distinction is critical: ceremonial recognition provides community and context that can support motivation, while social media postings amplify competitive pressures, risk humiliation for non-featured students, and shift the meaning of recognition from encouragement to comparison.
4.2 Digital Rights and Ethical Considerations (RQ2)
From a policy perspective, the evidence is consistent and cautionary. International standards (OHCHR, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; UNICEF, 2021) emphasize that children's personal data must be handled with strict safeguards, requiring informed consent and minimization of exposure. Rapid postings with names and images of minors rarely secure informed consent, and often prioritize institutional reputation over child protection. Bessant (2024) further documents how such practices undermine children's digital autonomy.
This can also be situated within the broader culture of performativity in education. Ball (2003) argued that schools are under increasing pressure to publicly demonstrate success through metrics, league tables, and visibility. Immediate social media postings of exam results extend this performative logic: they act less as recognition for students and more as institutional marketing. By contrast, policy guidance such as that from the UK Department for Education (2023) provides explicit guardrails, requiring schools to ensure compliance with data protection law when publishing exam results.
4.3 Islamic Educational Philosophy (RQ3)
Islamic philosophy provides a distinct moral lens for evaluating recognition practices. Core concepts such as adab (dignity), niyyah (sincerity of intention), and maslahah (public good) establish ethical criteria for educational practice (In'ami & Wekke, 2025). Public boasting (riya') is discouraged, and humility is consistently emphasized.
Qur'anic guidance reinforces this principle: "Do not turn your face away from people in arrogance, nor walk upon the earth exultantly" (Qur'an 31:18), and "Do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him" (Qur'an 53:32). These verses caution against arrogance and self-praise. Applied to education, immediate competitive postings risk crossing into ostentation, where institutional prestige is prioritized over the collective flourishing of students. By contrast, ceremonial recognition that values diverse achievements may be more consistent with Islamic educational ethics.
4.4 Implications for Practice (RQ4)
The synthesis of evidence points to clear implications for schools. Recognition practices should prioritize inclusivity, consent, and humility. Best practices include:
- Using cohort-level announcements (e.g., overall pass rates, group achievements) rather than publishing individual rankings.
- Recognizing diverse achievements beyond academics, such as service, creativity, and personal improvement.
- Ensuring opt-in consent for any named or visual recognition.
- Framing recognition in language that emphasizes effort, collective progress, and humility.
These implications align with Table 3 (Best Practice Framework) and illustrate how insights from psychology, digital rights, and Islamic philosophy converge on similar principles of fairness and protection. Harlen (2014) and Hattie (2012) both show that recognition which emphasizes effort and inclusivity has far stronger long-term educational value than narrow comparative rankings.
4.5 Overall Synthesis
Recognition itself is not inherently problematic; its form and timing determine its impact. Ceremonial recognition, framed inclusively, can foster community pride and align with educational psychology, rights frameworks, and Islamic ethics. Immediate social media postings of top achievers' results, however, often function primarily as institutional public relations. This reframes recognition as competition, intensifies social comparison, undermines equity, and risks children's rights violations.
This dynamic can be further understood through Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), which holds that motivation is supported when recognition enhances autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Ceremonial recognition tends to support competence and relatedness, while social media postings undermine autonomy and often erode relatedness. In addition, Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory situates recognition within multiple layers of influence: while ceremonies are grounded in the microsystem of school and family, online postings escalate to the exosystem of public opinion and macrosystem of competitive policy culture, amplifying pressures on students.
An integrated reading of these theories, combined with psychology, rights, and Islamic philosophy, points toward recognition practices that balance excellence with equity, safeguard dignity, and promote collective well-being.
5. Conclusion
This review finds that while recognition can be a powerful motivator, the practice of publishing top achievers' posts on social media carries significant risks. Evidence from educational psychology shows that recognition framed around mastery and effort supports motivation, whereas competitive online postings intensify social comparison and exclusion. Digital rights frameworks highlight the ethical and legal risks of exposing minors' names and images without consent, often prioritizing institutional publicity over child protection. Islamic educational philosophy further cautions against ostentation, emphasizing humility (adab), sincerity of intention (niyyah), and the collective good (maslahah).
Taken together, the evidence suggests that ceremonial recognition remains valuable when it is inclusive and contextually grounded, while immediate social media postings of top achievers' results are ethically and educationally problematic. Schools should therefore transition toward recognition models that highlight collective achievement, safeguard dignity, and balance institutional and student interests.
6. Policy Recommendations
To translate these findings into practice, schools and policymakers should adopt a structured framework for recognition:
- Consent-first principle: Ministries of Education should issue explicit guidelines requiring opt-in consent before publishing names or photographs of students.
- Cohort-level announcements: Schools should emphasize cohort performance (e.g., overall pass rates, group achievements) rather than publishing individual rankings.
- Broadened recognition frameworks: Recognition should include diverse categories such as service, creativity, and personal improvement, not solely exam results.
- Ethical framing: Language used in recognition should emphasize humility and inclusivity, aligning with adab and maslahah.
- Decision tools: Schools should apply a structured decision matrix (see Table 5) to assess the purpose, risks, and safeguards before posting any exam-related content online.
Table 5. Decision matrix for school use when considering social media posts
(click to expand)
▶
| Test | Question | Proceed if… |
|---|
| Purpose (Niyyah) | Is student flourishing the primary intent (not PR)? | Yes, and purpose is documented. |
| Benefit vs Risk | Does benefit outweigh comparison/privacy risks? | Yes, after review. |
| Data Minimization | Can names/faces be avoided or made opt-in? | Yes, with opt-in/opt-out. |
| Inclusivity | Is the message cohort-centred? | Yes, avoids ranks/league tables. |
| Rights & Consent | Have families been informed/able to object? | Yes, with records kept. |
| Channel Safety | Is audience limited and removal route clear? | Yes, platform controls in place. |
Table 5. Decision matrix guiding schools' choices about publishing exam-related content on social media.
These recommendations align with international policy guidance (OHCHR, 2021; UNESCO, 2022; UNICEF, 2021) and are reinforced by Islamic ethical principles, ensuring that recognition practices foster dignity, equity, and student well-being.
7. Future Research
Future research should focus on empirical studies in small-island developing states (SIDS), including the Maldives, to investigate the long-term effects of recognition practices on student well-being and equity. Longitudinal studies could examine whether social media exposure of exam results has measurable impacts on motivation, anxiety, and identity formation. Comparative research across cultural and policy contexts would also help refine guidelines that balance recognition with safeguarding. Such research would provide much-needed local evidence to complement the international literature synthesized in this review.
References
(click to expand)
▶
- Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
- Bessant, C. (2024). School social media use and its impact upon children's rights to privacy and autonomy. Computers & Education Open, 6, 100185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100185
- Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
- Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
- Harlen, W. (2014). Assessment, standards and quality of learning in primary education. Cambridge Primary Review Trust.
- Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
- In'ami, M., & Wekke, I. S. (2025). Contextualising adab in Islamic education from the perspective of Al-Attas. Journal of Al-Tamaddun, 20(1), 145–158.
- Nesi, J., & Prinstein, M. (2015). Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(8), 1427–1438.
- OHCHR. (2021). General Comment No. 25 on children's rights in relation to the digital environment. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
- UK Department for Education. (2023). Data protection in schools: Publishing exam results.
- UNESCO. (2022). Minding the data: protecting learners' privacy and security. UNESCO Publishing.
- UNICEF. (2021). Digital civic responsibility: Guidance for schools. UNICEF.
- Qur'an 31:18; 53:32.
