Quality of exams depends on quality of instruments used for evaluating answers





There seem to be a growing tendency of late, both in the media and among certain quarters, to take a swipe at the exam evaluation system. But we need to understand the very evaluation process so that the pronouncedly aggressive stance of the exam critics doesn't reinforce tension and anxiety in the minds of students.

 

There was a hue and cry recently when some students who had got very high marks in four subjects veri fied the poor marks they got in one and ended up with a 400% difference in the corrected total in that particular subject. These are aberrations and normal in a public examination where the number of variables (students) is very large. As the entire system of evaluation is based on human intervention, research has proved that there is `standard error of measurement' (SEM) of 5-7% built into it. There could be wrong totalling, wrong transfer of assessed marks on the title page, non-assessed portions or supplementary sheets being omitted.

The problem arises when we do not factor in such mishaps. The system blinks automatically when students get high marks in 3-4 subjects but poor marks in 1-2 subjects and vice-versa. The system then must take the pain to pull out the answer scripts and have a relook at those copies to sort out the discrepancies, if any . In my experience, around 70% of such discrepancies are found and the marks modified before the declaration of result. It's when these discrepancies are corrected after the announcement of results that frenzy ensues. To ensure that evaluation process is not unfair to a student, board officials need think of the importance of 3 Is: Imagination, Investigation and Involvement.

In today's scenario, even if a student gets 94%, his family is not happy . They want a scrutiny or verification of the results, and, of late, a re-evaluation. The critics say this brings transparency into the system. What is worth considering, however, is that like all issues, this also has another side. When higher studies depend on marksbased elimination rather than selection, allowing reevaluation can create chances of malpractices and manipulation that will be difficult to check in a large system like board exams.Extending the existing system of verification in which totalling mistakes and unassessed omissions are taken care of to re-evaluating will create chaos and confusion in the sys tem. The environment in which the original evaluation is carried out cannot be recre ated in the re-evaluation. For one, the re evaluator will begin with the notion that the answer script has been given inadequate marks in the original evaluation.

We need to accept that examination is part of the continuum of education. Why do we gleefully , and at times sadistically , create an aura of awe around exams? What does this psychology suggest? If examination is the body , then evaluation and assessment are the soul. In our pursuit of material fulfilment, we have neglected the soul for an ornamented body. When so much of limelight is focused on the body , the young become oblivious to the more important and more beautiful soul. Parents are geared towards examinations, teaching is oriented towards examination, learning is condi tioned by examination and examination itself is determined by examination. It is an excellent case of the tail wagging the dog.

The quality of examination is deter mined by the quality of instruments used for evaluation. The validity and reliability quotients will improve if these instruments are prepared and administered with great care. The designing of question papers, de velopment of scoring procedures, training of examiners and, of course, effective ad ministration are some areas that deserve a lot of attention.