Examination: Need for Paradigm Shift

A+ A A-

With the establishment of Tribhuvan University in 1959, Nepal formally set off on a journey of higher education. Since then, two distinct camps of opinions have ensued. An argument in one camp suggests that this move was rather late, while the opposed opinion contends that the momentum slackened now than in the past.

Notwithstanding these views, what is discernible is that Nepal has not made any momentous transformation in the field of higher education. In this article, I explain why and where Nepali higher education has got stuck.

The Nepali education system could not make substantial progress due to the traditional concept of the examination system. The reason is not far away to detect. Tribhuvan University holds around 81 percent of the total number of students, therefore it would be reasonable to start our discussion with the examination system of Tribhuvan University. 'Students do not like to read in my classroom' is the widespread worry of all teachers. The Authority of the university seems rather reluctant to address this issue. If asked why they do not like to focus on the study in their classrooms, the common response is that their marks are not counted for the final examination.

Their response is hard to disagree with. Whether or not they are present in the classrooms, submit assignments, make presentations, their activities do not matter for the so-called ‘best exam practice'. Even if students work hard, write more papers, participate in discussions, their activities remain practically worthless for their final score due to the ‘three hours exam’.

Since there is no room for students, creativity, students fall back on ‘guess paper knowledge’ and they go for the ‘guide content’.

Students neglect their classes and internal activities; teachers also follow suit. Teachers are not responsible for any of the results of their students; they enter a classroom and deliver lectures for one hour without any discussion, presentation, innovation, and even feedback.

Therefore, not only students are reluctant to the session; teachers also are inactive, passive, and discharge their responsibility only perfunctorily. The prospect of research is even bleaker.

It is unfortunate to note that professors shy away from the research project. Why? Because they do not need any publications to the continuity of their tenure so long as they have the grace of political leaders.

If the existing examination system ruins the innovativeness of all stakeholders (students and teachers) then, why should we stick to this system so tenaciously? And what has kept us from overhauling it? Among many, there might be several factors: monetary, power-exercise, and status-quo mentality of authority.

For example, many people might lose significant economic benefits if the university adopts the new evaluation system; similarly, they cannot exercise their power if there is no central exam; likewise, people who are in power might be confused whether there is another way of the evaluation system.

Therefore, there does not seem to have any change in basic assumptions in higher education unless we bring the examination into a classroom.

Pundits of the final examination may find a solution in Semester System; in the semester, teachers own 40 percent while the University board exam holds the remaining 60 percent. I have again reservations even in this type of evaluation system because, in practice, final examination snatches that given 40 percent of internal evaluation.

If teachers are given authority to evaluate the students, then why is there the presence of the university in the name of the so-called final examination? People may question the efficacy of internal evaluation. Undoubtedly, if we need the real judgment of the students’ quality, teachers’ presence is mandatory.

If teachers/professors are given the full authority to evaluate students, they will do it thoroughly and no teacher is likely to escape this responsibility. Even if semester students have been engaging with the dean office’s examinations, students and even teachers do not have much trust in this exam.

Therefore, if we break the rules of restrained examination, we can bring about a tangible change in the basic assumptions in education.

Besides Tribhuvan University, other universities are also in operation in Nepal and some are also in the pipeline. New universities also failed to prove the new technique of examination hence they have fallen in the same vicious cycle as the TU.

It is, however, heartening to find that a few universities are intending to reform their conventional system, however, the success is far from satisfactory.

COVID-19 pandemic has triggered debates about restructuring the examination system among educationists. University authority seems not to budge an inch and remain firm to continue the customary type of examinations. Researchers opine that when a student is enrolled in a subject, he should be judged from the very beginning; at the end of the semester/year, he should receive his score based on his performance during his session. Moreover, the examination should also encompass all the activities throughout a year/semester like reading, writing, speaking, listening, presenting, discussing, and many other activities inside the classrooms.

Hence, we should not limit them to a three-hour writing examination.

Thus, we must adopt more advanced, scientific, and inclusive methods in the quality judgment of students. If we apply this kind of evaluation system in universities, the envisioned change will not only enrich the attributes of students but also enhance teachers’ creativity and will make them more responsible.

This kind of examination system also generates interest among students. If students are active and eager to study their subject matter, teachers are automatically encouraged to be supportive; hence, teachers’ evaluation becomes far better than an evaluation of an abstract ‘examination board’.

So, if we want to end the anomalies of the 3-hour exam system, make our education more vibrant and productive, then we need a decisive breakthrough from the traditional mindset of examination.

Although a long time has passed by, Nepali universities have not applied innovative and scientific approaches to the examination system yet. We have wasted many decades in futile academic activities and fed our students with stale knowledge.

Therefore, it is high time that we adopted an approach that will lend novelty and creativity to our evaluation system and produce qualified human resources.

प्रकाशित मिति: मंगलबार, साउन १३, २०७७ १८:२०