Modeling University Examinations
Dr. Aftab Ahmad Khan
Examination Management System within University is an exercise envisaging a working of an integrated system with the support of a well designed mechanism having integrated components that diligently takes care of time management, credibility and authenticity of meeting out the requirements of university as a system. It is basically a portfolio that enables university to make available the best human resource to the society. Its management places university among the top ranking universities who handle the complete life cycle of a foolproof examination management (both online/ offline). Therefore, it signifies target oriented program management, handling large amount of data with proper backup recovery system.
University Examinations basically serve three main purposes.
* Selection function of eligible candidates for examination,;
* Certifying function entailing finding out and reporting what a student has achieved, whether they have graduated and what they know and are able to do;
* Reviewing the effectiveness of instruction, accountability and motivates students and teachers to perform well.( Work Culture).
Examination everywhere in the world is basically a key transformational phase in the education system. Institutions not only prepare students for higher education, but also equip them for the world of work and life in general. Undeniably, examinations at all levels exert a powerful influence over the lives of students and their future. As a consequence, examinations have been the focus of much policy debate. The debate includes the negative consequences of examinations, catering for a more diverse candidature, assessing a wider range of curricular outcomes, and ensuring the integrity of assessment processes and the accuracy of results
Since Examinations have enormous consequences for students and their families’, getting a good result is of paramount importance. The nature of the activity by virtue of its own reasons therefore, generates a challenge to the examination management system on two levels prominently. i.e
* Owing to the high-stakes nature, examination management systems throughout remain vulnerable to a number of problems including cheating, corruption and anti-educational practices such as excessive drilling, leakage of question papers, ill-mannered evaluation process and commercial tutoring;
* Increased educational opportunities at all levels place demands on examination systems for a more diverse candidature and access to a wider range of curricular outcomes.
These are matters that are closely scrutinized by the public, the media and Government watchdog agencies. Whereas in the past, examination in the university system may have enjoyed unquestioned authority, this is now challenged and there is a public expectation of transparency of processes and the right to appeal “Results”. This makes necessary for all examination systems to institute well documented and defensible policies, and to implement quality assurance processes that minimize errors and lead to continuous improvements.
With the advent of increasing economic activity and IT operations greater opportunities are made available for all young people to gain access to a higher education facility, so examination systems come under pressure to cater for greater numbers of candidates and a greater diversity of aptitudes, abilities and interests. Sheer numbers of candidates implies the need for better logistics, more trained supportive staff and greater automation of examination processes. These are matters that are relatively straightforward to solve, although requiring significant effort and resources.
Catering for a wider range of abilities among candidates presents a more complex challenge, because it means educating the public. Once the majority of students stays in universities and affiliated Colleges to complete their education, the difference in abilities between the bottom and top ten percent of examination candidates may be equivalent to few more years of education; and there is often an increase in the proportion of less academically able students sitting in examinations. This in turn generates a public perception that education standards are falling, even though they may be on the rise. Simply failing large numbers of candidates is not an acceptable solution when the aim is to educate all students to high standards: the solution seems to seek to provide better information about what students actually know and are able to do, by analyzing examination results. This implies movement from a normative approach of reporting results only (wherein fixed percentages of students are allocated different grades, regardless of the standard of work they produce) to Standards Referencing approach. In this approach candidates’ results are reported with reference to a set of defined standards of performance. There are no fixed percentages – these can go up or down – but there are fixed standards. This means that it is possible to know whether standards are changing over time. In addition, under Standards-Referenced reporting, standards are transparent. There are written descriptors of what the typical student who is awarded a particular grade knows what are his abilities. This in turn explicitly facilitates teaching and learning i.e the outcome of academic work culture in the academia. Wherein students are made known what they have to do to aspire for the higher grades and teachers also know what they have to do to assist students to get better results with a question format that minimize demands on memory and maximize demands on the ability. What basically is proposed is that assessment should bring out ability of students to apply information as opposed to memorizing it and examination process should altogether eliminate answer type responses which prompts extensive demands on memory and does not bring out evaluation about oral language ability, the ability to undertake an extended investigation into a topic, undertaking laboratory work or practical assignments, creating a portfolio of extended writing or artwork, demonstrating information technology skills, and a range of general competencies such as the ability to work as a member of a team and to display initiative, creativity and perseverance.
Reporting Result Approach to examinations is also being criticized on account of its restricted attention to those outcomes that are conversant to paper-and-pencil assessment within a time frame of one to three hours. Whatever maybe the case, no one can deny that it is clearly a defining moment as far as system of education in UT goes. With each reform needed to bring relevance of examinations to society, the impelling forces are required to bring about the transformation. Having said so thus, while making examination an error free and robust the first and foremost requirement is to experiment gradually to Standards Referencing approach by decentralization of whole exercise of examination wherein greater responsibility is transferred to the teachers who teach. This will make Examinations “internal” and an integral part of the teaching process.
Further, during the course of evaluation the evaluator must point out mistakes, illegibility, irrelevant parts, unnecessary repetitions, wrong diagrams, portions out of context etc. in the evaluated script.
Besides, transparency in the evaluation system requires marking of the student’s ability throughout the year via seminars, unit tests, etc. The attendance must be made mandatory. There is also need for auditing of answer sheets checked by the evaluator.
The answer sheets must be selected at random from each examination centre and rechecking must be done. Along with an increase in remuneration, the question papers should be a blend of narrative, alternative response type, simple recall type, matching type and filling the gap/completion type questions.
The percentages and divisions be awarded separately for theory exams, internal assessment practical and vocational training. The subjectivity of evaluation by different examiners can be reduced by awarding the result of the candidate on percentage basis. This will enable to maintain a uniform standard in different universities. Last but not the least, the credibility of candidate should be judged on separate guidelines for the simple reason that the number of students taking the first degree examinations is the highest in universities. There are four kinds of candidates for whom meaningful pattern has to evolve. These are the private and the regular students. Further, there is a gradation in type of the latter ones on the basis of type of examination in which they appear. These are the theory papers, theory and practical and exami-nations that include theory, practical as well as vocational components.
As for the private students, university must have a distance education cell and evaluation of such students must be made on periodic basis through reply sheets. For regular students, the stress should be on practical examinations which should be conducted throughout the year. Vocational students should be guided to be more involved in practical training undertaken in industry, laboratories, institutions or social organizations. At the post-graduate level, it is recommended that no marks be awarded in practicals. The pass candidate may be placed depending on his performance as A, B or C
The examiner’s on the other hand is not flawless either. They hardly read the whole answer / complete answer script before awarding marks. Reason: Maybe it is due to illegible writing or repetition or time constraint or too little remuneration is just another story. Again, the assessment is not fool proof either. Usually one finds guilt on the face of the examiner who has promoted the student on personal bias. On top of it, India is faced with another menace: leakage of question papers. It may take place during any of the stages: be it during paper setting, moderators, press, proof readers, confidential section of the university or at the examination center itself!
(The author is former Degree College Principal)
Follow our WhatsApp channel