The theft of several MEQ final examinations last June, has focussed attention once again on the controversies that surround such government examinations.

Why do we have MEQ examinations? Do they really accomplish what they are supposed to do, that is evaluate students' competence in a specific subject area?

Unfortunately this is usually not the case. To the contrary, MEQ uses the complicated "Holmes Formula", which not only measures a student's examination results, but also incorporates into the final mark, the classroom, school, and even regional averages, to hide the poor results. In doing this, MEQ admits that the students do not respond properly to the examinations, and that the results of their tests are therefore not reliable. This indicates that the tests are inappropriate, ineffective, and impractical.

In 1965, Bruner pointed out that, "It is obvious that an examination can be bad in the sense of emphasising trivial aspects of a subject. Such examinations can encourage teaching in a disconnected fashion and learning by rote." He also pointed out, however, "that examinations can be allies in the battle to improve curricula and teaching."

The MEQ History examinations, for example, have almost consistently emphasised rote learning. Although the recent English Language Arts examinations have shown an effort to make the whole process more realistic and relevant to the students, the Secondary English Language Arts Evaluation Team of the the PAPT-PACT Curriculum Council still feels that "the concept of using standardised provincial exams is not consistent with the philosophy of this program".

If evaluation is to be fair, students and teachers must understand and believe in the classification system. Unfortunately, the MEQ evaluation procedures often look arbitrary. As a result classification and certification do not indicate a standard of competence but more an effort by MEQ to let a certain number of students pass and fail. Either an examination evaluates properly or it does not. If it does, then the results should stand, even if 60 per cent of the students should fail. But MEQ apparently is not convinced of the validity of its own examinations and has repeatedly adjusted the marks to hide disastrous results. So a 40 per cent becomes a 60 per cent, making a farce out of the whole evaluation process, because it has nothing to do with with assessing students' competence.

The resulting negative attitude towards examinations expressed by so many students is therefore not surprising. When they were asked by a newspaper reporter how they felt about the sale of exam questions, they showed that they saw the whole process as nothing but a game.

Teachers are in a quandary. They want their students to pass the final examination, but they also feel that these examinations emphasise the trivial aspects of the various subjects, and tend to encourage teaching in a disconnected fashion and learning by rote. Instead of synthesising the important things they have learned, students study for the examination, memorise endless disjointed facts, which they instantly forget after examination.

Evaluation should be primarily for Instructional purposes. It should enable educators to measure the competence of students in reference to the agreed objectives. It should allow teachers to take appropriate remedial action. It should decide the ranking of the students, in terms of their success in realising the agreed objectives. It should inform the instructor of the appropriateness of the programme and teaching strategies, so that procedures to improve course design can be devised.

If students have successfully realised the objectives of a programme, then in terms of actual evaluation test scores, this would mean that a large percentage of the students should obtain most of the objectives. It should be the educational system's aim to destroy the normal distribution curve found in a pre-test, taken before the learning programme, and to replace it with the skewed distribution toward the higher end of the curve. Instead we seem to have a system that skews the outcomes towards the lower end of the curve. As a result a student's High School Leaving Certificate bears little relationship to specific standards. The consequence is a decline in faith in the value of the certificate on the part of receiving institutions.

If MEQ feels that it should be in the business of administering final examinations, and there are many of us who have valid reasons to object to that, then it should do the job well. Students, teachers, colleges, as well as industry would have much greater confidence in students' MEQ examination results if they knew that the marks obtained truly represented an evaluation of quality and excellence.

 

PAPT - Sentinel, November 1990, vol.6, nr.3