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%,