Re-examining examiners

Satish Kumar Sarma

(Satish Kumar Sarma is former Head of the Department of Economics, Biswanath College, Kalyanpur, Biswanath Chariali).

The examination system of our country is not free from anomalies. We can’t ignore the fact that there are some examiners who do not evaluate the answer scripts properly and as a result there are ‘alarming variations in awarding marks’. Many university students are of the opinion that as the success rate of students getting better grades after revaluation has been remarkably good during the past few years, the number of students applying for revaluation in the university has been on the rise. Some students even think that revaluation is an alternative route to getting a pass grade.

Questioning the quality

If this is common in many universities, it does erode the confidence of students and their parents in the examination system. The disturbing phenomenon makes us raise these questions. Are all teachers, who are assigned the assessment duty, competent examiners? Are the examiners given clear guidelines on how to mark the answer scripts? Do they have sufficient time to go through the answers and evaluate the scripts? Is there a proper monitoring system to check whether the scripts have been marked as per the standard? Do the examiners get a decent amount of money as fee for marking scripts?

To mark examination answer scripts properly, the examiner should possess adequate subject knowledge, understand the questions, know the answers to the questions, and have skills required to evaluate answers based on certain criteria. It means that the teacher should be competent enough to mark examination scripts. When these scripts are marked by another competent examiner, the scripts should not have many variations in marks. So, it is essential to help teachers acquire competence.

Many examiners say that the time given to them to mark a required number of scripts is not sufficient. For example, how is it possible for an examiner to mark 30 three-hour examination scripts within three hours? Within the three-hour period, the examiner should familiarize oneself with the questions and the answers, marking scheme, mark the scripts, and enter the marks. Definitely, many are not able to do justice to the students and ‘fair assessment’ does not take place. The irony is that some examiners complete the process within two hours and ask the examination board chief to give them more scripts to mark.

Normally, students who are not satisfied with the results and are confident of getting better grades apply for revaluation. When their scripts are evaluated and marked by sincere and competent examiners, they get the grade they deserve. In this case, the examiners who failed to mark the scripts properly will be found to be guilty and disciplinary actions will be taken against them. But, some examiners follow a different strategy in order not to be caught for their improper evaluation.

Loopholes

Once, as the Head Examiner in Economics of the then TDC Part - I Exam, at random, when I checked five answer scripts marked by an examiner I found many discrepancies. The examiner had awarded marks between 50 and 60 but when I remarked the scripts, not a single script was found to be worth above 40 marks. The strategy followed by the teacher was to pass all the students so that he / she might not be caught and punished. Will students who deserve just an ‘F’ grade, when given a pass grade, apply for revaluation? In this case the ‘magnanimously insincere’ teachers may not be punished if there is no proper monitoring system in place. If, at random, a few scripts of each examiner are checked by some experts, such ‘magnanimous insincerity’ will not be rampant.

Here are some suggestions to improve the assessment system – (1) improving the quality of marking is essential. Periodical training sessions in testing and evaluation should be arranged for teachers to become more competent examiners; (2) there should be a proper monitoring mechanism. In the absence of it, examiners might not take evaluation seriously. (3) in a large-scale examination, double valuation is not possible. Random checking and re-marking of a few scripts by more competent examiners could be done, (4) the system should attract experienced examiners to mark the scripts by remunerating them decently, (5) taking disciplinary action against examiners who fail to follow the guidelines is also important.

Competence and fairness are the hallmarks of a good examiner. While it is the responsibility of the authorities and the system to make teachers more competent examiners, it is the duty of teachers to become more sincere examiners. Putting themselves in the shoes of a student can help the controller and the assessor to contribute to fair assessment.