The Examination System: A Proposal For More Meaningful Learning In African Schools R. L. Wendel

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.