 |
| Trust In God Nursery And Primary School Bujong-Bamendankwe |
|
|
While discussion
rages in the United States between prescribed content versus inquiry learning,
the battle of educational method is even more fierce and frustrating, when an
American educator goes to Africa to teach. Nothing I had heard or read about
the education system adopted by the former British colonies prepared me for the
limitations the British Examination System imposed upon me. Not only are
American educators deprived of many of their teaching methods, but we cannot
discuss the difficulties with our African colleagues who are British trained.
The communication gap is so wide that understanding what the other is saying
appears impossible. It is somewhat like being confined to a narrow path but
finding that to get somewhere you need to be able to re–chart a course from
numerous alternatives.
Perhaps it is
desirable to briefly describe the two approaches; the single examination system
that is historically British and the multiple examination system that seems to
be American.
This single
examination philosophy has so permeated African education that proposals for
change are seen as a degradation of the system. Persons who have been educated
in the system most often reject revision suggestions without serious
consideration. Historically, students were admitted to a University based upon
their individual potential that was recognized by a scholar at the institution.
The selection of elite to study individually in residence for several years was
followed by an examination by the faculty before the granting of a degree. More
recently, admission to university is based upon one’s lower‑school written
examinations, held at the end of that particular level of schooling. Many
African nations now require that interim examinations be passed annually in
order to have some check on a student who may not be worthy but on whom
resources are spent before finding out that he miserably failed his final year
examinations. The final evaluation is
carefully prepared by external examiners in order to insure objectivity, and
then it is scored twice, internally and externally. The student’s fate rests
with a faculty committee that quickly assesses the student based on his test
scores. As a result of careful examination, preparation and making, the result
is considered to be accurate and fair.
To the person
who has survived this system dominated by crucial final examinations, it is
perhaps difficult to accept the suggestion that these life‑death examinations
may be crude instruments that gibe unreliable measurements of the individual’s
learning. Rather, it may be more of an endurance test. The suggestion that a
revision of the examination system could a revision of the examination system
could assist students to learn material more easily and with greater
understanding, as opposed to it presently hindering learning, may seem
threatening even to an educator who is a
redact of the system. Before one can suggest some modification to the single
examination system, it is necessary to demonstrate to some degree that tests
are not infallible, that they may not even measure something important.
Discrepancies
have arisen out of misinterpretation of questions by the examiners and of
answers by the examiners. When three or four year’s work is being measured in
one panic‑filled week, the student finds that his customary approach to
studying is drastically changed into a hectic atmosphere void of reference
materials and of adequate time. Previous examination papers are studied
carefully for clues as to what types of questions may appear this year and
thus, if guessed correctly, a student can increase his chances for improving
his score. It becomes a gambling game preparing in detail for those you expect
to be offered, and covering the other probabilities with lesser preparation.
Additional variable such as psychological tension can greatly influence the
student’s performance in view of the critical situation. The reliability of the
test cannot be improved by more careful critical marking by external examiners.
In fact, the examinations become more unreliable when marked by one examiner
who looks for factual knowledge and another who emphasizes conceptual
understanding. The examinee is placed in the position of being responsible for
technical, factual knowledge and his ability to read and think under extreme
pressure‑an experience he had a year ago and in which he lacks considerable
skill as an examination‑taker.
It may be that
the single examination system actually discourages learning. A frequent remark
heard among students in Tanzania was, “when we revise just before the
examination, it will all become clear” this faith in cramming before the
examination is not conducive to long‑term meaningful learning; in flack, most
of the students failed to get a “clear” concept of the subject but memorized
only isolated elements, seldom “seeing” interrelationship. Even during the
year’s lectures students sit passively soaking up the teacher’s conclusions
until the frantic nearness of the examination shocks them into an active search
for alacrity among all the “facts” recorded in one’s exercise book. In most
learning situations, one lecture is built upon another and when students do not
get the essentials of the daily elements, acquiring of the subject is highly
unlikely. In this manner, the teacher performs to a no receptive audience,
inadequately prepared to understand the progression of knowledge and therefore
actually wasting time going over details that seldom get conceptualized even
during the frantic cramming period.
It might be
argued that the single examination system does not build self‑discipline as it
is designed to do. While self‑discipline is needed in order to push oneself
toward passing the examination, it is not a quality that effectively teaches
one how to study and learn when it is applied only once a year. More meaningful
learning would be possible if additional incentives were provided during the
year which would help prepare the student for this year‑end test. Multiple
tests given during the year would provide experiences similar to working under
examination conditions, help in reducing emotional tension during later tests,
and cause one to develop better the habits beneficial for greater learning. The
stifling of creativity in the student by the single examination system causes
one to think mechanically, not intuitively as in a problem‑solving fashion.
Conditioned by an entire system that limits the student to studying only what
is in the syllabus, only what will be on the examination, simultaneously causes
the teacher to also disregard any attempt at creative teaching. Unless he can
have new information included on the final examinations, it is futile to
introduce and challenge students to discuss knowledge in a creative fashion. As
the single examination now exists, it effectively discourages creativity in
students, teachers and examiners.
If the single
examination system appears to have serious weaknesses, then that suggestions
can be made for revising it in a positive way. It has not been the intention of
this article to advocate abolishing the single examination system; rather, to
suggest supplementing it is the intent. Previously reference was made for
multiple testing during the year, each year, not only one comprehensive final
examination at the end of a two, three, or four‑year period. Multiple tests may
take many forms depending upon the subject being taught and the teacher‑student
relationship. Advisable may be periodic one‑hour tests that supplement the
final examinations. These frequent tests would act as incentives for the
students to study effectively throughout the year, not just at the close of the
year. They permit the teacher to know better how effective his teaching really
is. Simultaneously with providing the teacher with feedback regarding the
quality of his teaching, the student gains indications of his own progress (or
lack of progress) periodically throughout the term. This knowledge the student
wants so that he can take corrective measures about his learning before it is
too late and he fails his single year‑end examination.
Periodic tests
not only provide evaluation criteria for both student and teacher, but they
also would tend to improve the efficiency of the learning process. While some
students might not prepare for these periodic examinations, thinking they are
only practice tests, the periodic exercise should be averaged in the final
marks so that the student will take the examinations seriously.
The frequency of
periodic tests should be a minimum of two. One during the middle of a term and
one at the end. If the students needed more appraisal of their learning under
test conditions, additional examinations could be given during the term. The
frequency of tests in also dependent upon the amount of new material that has
been introduced. Should a student fail a test, he may be given the opportunity
to retake it, with or without being required to do additional work as a
prerequisite for retaking the examination. It is suggested that periodic tests
do not create that much extra work for the staff. Preparations for a one‑hour
examination are a little more than preparing for a lecture that would normally
be given. Marking the test might be three or four hours per class. This is not
extra work if meaningful learning is the aim of the students and the
instructor. Of great educational value is the class discussion over the test
immediately after it is taken, if that is possible. Certainly, after the test
has been marked, it should be discussed and any discrepancies in marking will
surely be found by the students, especially if it is in their favour.
How then might
this proposal for periodic examinations correspond with the present single
examination system? The suggestion is to forward the periodic test results to
the External Examiners after marking and discussion with the students. This
enables both the examiners and the teachers to suggest modifications in
learning while there is still time before the final examination. It might also
be advisable to collect the test papers and send three to five typical papers
to the examiners. These might consist of
one very good paper, one or two average papers, and one or two poor, one or two
average papers, and one or two poor, but passing, papers. A distribution of the
marks for all the test papers could be transmitted as well. The external
examiner would be encouraged to send criticisms or suggestions back to the
instructor. If there were doubts about
the marking scale, all the test papers could be submitted. If the examiner questioned
the material being covered, he might request a more detailed outline of topics
than appears in the syllabus.
