Warning: main(/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/footer/footer.html): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 162

Warning: main(/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/footer/footer.html): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 162

Warning: main(): Failed opening '/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/footer/footer.html' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 162

Warning: main(/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/header/header.html): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 29

Warning: main(/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/header/header.html): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 29

Warning: main(): Failed opening '/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/header/header.html' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 29

Warning: main(/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/sidenav/sidenav.html): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 35

Warning: main(/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/sidenav/sidenav.html): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 35

Warning: main(): Failed opening '/home/a1620/public_html/learningnet-india.org/lni/includes/sidenav/sidenav.html' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/content/c/r/y/crystalcoding/html/learningnet-india.org/lni/data/publications/revive/vol4/v4-2-a.php on line 35
 Revive Volume 4, 2006

Contents

Examination Reform
by K. Ramakrishnan

Professor Ramakrishnan was director of the School of Management, Bharathiar University. Prior to his entry into academia, he worked for Esso Eastern Inc for a little more than five years. He has been a consultant to private as well as public sector enterprises and to international agencies.

The following observations are relevant for examinations which are meant to certify competence of the candidates at the end of terminal stages such as the 12th standard and above. Below that level the word ‘examinatio’n is not appropriate; there should be only periodic assessments by teachers to provide constructive feedback to students and help them progress through the education programme. Yes, that means there would not be detentions of students in classes up to the 12th. Some students may be asked to do extra time for catching up in some subjects of the lower standards even while they are attending classes of a higher level for some other subjects.
  1. Purpose of examinations
    1. The primary aim must be to assess the candidates’ ability to apply the concepts learnt during the course; it should not be designed to test the ability to regurgitate without understanding theoretical concepts. In other words the exam should not expect to assess the student’s expositional ability (the ability of the teacher or the book writer), but his/her understanding.
    2. The examination in any particular subject must largely be pertinent to the knowledge and skills expected to be learnt in that course. Hence the design of the exam must be such that the candidate’s performance depends largely on her learning in that course and not on her language skills or skills in carrying out elaborate computations accurately under the pressure of time.
    3. The examination should be able to discriminate between those who have failed to acquire even the essentials and those who have acquired significant mastery in the subject. In other words a good examination, even in nonquantitative subjects, must lead to a significant spread of scores (if properly evaluated) rather than a concentration of scores in the range of 40% to 60%.
    4. The examination should largely aim at assessing how much the candidate knows rather than how much he does not know. In the same vein it may also be suggested that the design of the questions, subdivisions and associated marks must be such that the candidate does not get penalized cumulatively and harshly for simple arithmetic errors committed under pressure of time.
    5. Basic questions such as the desirability of open book examination must be considered. At least part of the examination process can be open book so that the students do not spend their time learning formulas by rote but learn how to apply them in different situations. A compromise could be to let students refer to something akin to Clark’s Tables - a standard booklet containing all the formulas relevant for the subject. Choosing the correct formula is evidence enough of the student’s understanding.

  2. Some specifics
    1. A three-hour (180 minutes) examination means that an average student should be able to secure approximately 5% — 6% of marks for every 10 minutes of correctly done work. Such an observation, however, ignores the time required to read the question, think and recheck for errors. Hence it may be fair to suggest that a question which can be read and answered in 10 minutes must be given a weight of approximately 8%. This must be the guideline while deciding on the complexity of any question. This also means that questions which require entirely non-quantitative responses must not expect responses longer than 100 words for a weight of 8%. Normal writing speed (if the writing has to be legible) is roughly 10 words per minute. The candidates must be told about the word limit and warned that unnecessarily long responses are likely to lose credit. After all, students are also expected to learn to be brief and to the point.
    2. In keeping with 1(c) about 60% of the examination must be to assess the grasp of the above it may be desirable to have a large number of subdivisions worth around 5%, or less, rather than whole questions carrying 10% or more. It may also be desirable to let the students answer as many of the subdivisions as they can rather than requiring them to answer whole questions.

  3. Process of Evaluation
    1. One important principle to be followed while evaluating the responses must be to give the benefit of doubt to the examinee. In spite of careful scrutiny (one is not sure that the examiners and the administrators pay enough attention to this aspect) there may be errors or ambiguities in the question paper. This may lead even the competent student to get confused and commit serious mistakes. The examiner should consider all possible valid assumptions by an average student and responses based on each of those assumptions must be given credit.
    2. As already pointed out, the arithmetic mistake in one of a sequence of steps may lead to the final answer being incorrect. But if the logic of the steps is correct, credit must be given. It is true that arithmetic rigor also is a part of professional training, but in real life one is hardly expected to solve problems within a time limit of 30 minutes and use the answer to decide something immediately. Peer checks, etc. are available. Hence we need not place undue emphasis on arithmetic skills alone.

  4. Model papers and solution schemes
    1. Either a bank of questions or a model question paper may be sent to the examiners who are asked to set the papers. Their paper must be accepted only if they submit a scheme containing acceptable responses as well as the allocation of marks (including partial credits for incomplete responses).
    2. The model papers must be available to the student community. Once the evaluation is completed the solution schemes must be duplicated and given not only to all examiners but also to all stakeholders (preferably by placing it in a website) for public scrutiny
Next >>