ir 5, 1983.

THE OTHER PRESS

PAGE.9

ightmare for Students !

SBSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Ss SSS sss SSS SS SSS SSS SSS SSS SS SSS SSIS SSIS SS SSIS SSSI SSSI SSIS SS SSSI S SSS SS SSIS SSS SOS S SSS SSIS OSS SS SS SS SSSSSS

Even if it were true that the examination
situation were duplicated in real life, one has to
question the need to prepare people for such rare
circumstances.

   
   
  
  
   

The fundamental justification given for the
Mination system is that it,provides for fairness
assessment. Without delving into the some-
what dubious functions of assessment, we should
examine this argument carefully.

Exams, we are told, may cause stress but they do
provide an ‘objective’ and reasonable method of
assessment that is neutral of bias and measures
every student against the same yardstick.

In fact, examinations examine the people who
mark them more than the people who take them.
Apart from the level of evaluation anxiety
numerous other variable factors influence exam-
inations. The state of health of the student, the
amount of sleep the night, psychology and mood
all determine an exam candidate’s performance.
Ability to cope with stress does not, hence,
necessarily indicate understanding of material.

The variables involved in the marking process
are even more comples.

One of thje most comprehensive studies ‘The
Marks of Examiners’ by Hartog and Rhodes with
Cyril Burt (1938) brought toghether large numb-
ers of different university examiners with a range

     
   

 

 

Four Exams in Two Days !!!

Will I Make The Grade ?

of different samples of completed exams in
History, English and Mathematics. The final
outcome of the exercise was that the range of
results (a rough bell curve) of each marker was
roughly the same, but there was no correlation
between individual papers. The variance of marks
for specific papers varied wildly from miserable
failures to acceptable passes. (one paper was
marked 17/100 by one examiner and 78/100 by
another). Different examiners were not marking
consistently poorly or consistently highly-there
was, simply, no consistency. J

Grade averages may be the same for different
examiners, but specific students’ marks may vary
wildly. These variances have been noted in many
studies:The Robins Report (UK 1963), The
Carnegie Corporation conference on examinations
(1963), and Daniels and Schouten ‘The Screening
of Students’ (1970) all reach the conclusion that
exam marking introduces a massive number of
uncontrollable individual variances. As H. Pierron
wrote in Universities Quarterly in 1967:

‘‘All the experimental data has shown that for a
particular performance expressed in terms of an
exam script, assessment by different examiners
produces marks with considerable variability such
that in the determination of these marks the part
played by the examiner can be greater than the
performance of the examinee.’’

Did I Pass?

TTR A TMM

 

 

 

the student.

WHY EXAMS?

If exams can be shown to cause unnesssary
stress, and potential psychological damage with-
out a solid justification on the basis of fairness,
‘objectivity’ or egalitarianism why do they exist ?

Examinations haven’t always been an integral
part of the educational process. The Jesuit order,
well reputed for its humanitarianism, was
responsible for introducing examinations in the
Western world.

The only thing we can really say about exams is
that they foster competition between students. In
a society based upon the principle that competet-
ion is an inherent human characteristic, examina-
tions serve a practical role as a factor in our social
moulding. As students we are trained to see our:
own advancement in terms of direct competition
with our peers for examination marks, grade point
averages and academic ‘recognition’.

In the extreme cases students have reported the
mysterious disappearance of crucial reading
materials from the library before exams, law
students have found pages missing from referen-
ce materials and, in some cases, students have
deliberately misinformed their classmates before
exams. In this respect examinations are attempt-
ing to create a similar environment to the
‘outside world’ where we are encouraged to seek
our social advancement at the expense of others.

On the other hand it is strictly forbidden to
co-operate in examinations. It’s called plagiarism
or ‘cheating’.

Whatever the real social function of examina-
tions may be, we can trust that our universities
will remain silent on the issue. Flimsy justifica-
tions come readily, but substantive proof of the
value of the system has yet to be produced. In the
words of A.P. Ratensis:

‘It is sometimes claimed that students are
graded by universities in the same way that eggs
are graded by packing stations. This, however, is
untrue. There are. only two important variables
determining the quality-of an egg-its size and
freshness-and both of these are pretty accurately
controlled by the packing station.

"the quality of a student’s exam performance is,
however, determined by a mass of-variables, for
example, memory, clarity and originality of
thought, articulateness, luck as to"which quest-
ions appear, none of*which»#s on its own
accurately expressed in the single grade awarded
to each student. Thus from the point of view of
accurate grading, the egg gets a better deal than

 

6%,