Examiner (Part I)
It occurred to me, as my life as an examinee continued on, that there was some sort of irony at work as I taught others to be model examinees while I myself was not always confident that I was such. At the same time I was an examiner, and through the years, I learnt a lot about being one.
Essentially, an examiner has three duties.
It is also a great asset if the examiner is an excellent communicator, proofreader and fact-checker. This means that the tests constructed are more likely to be free of ambiguity, repetition and/or impossibility. This makes the examination more valid, reliable and useful; it also makes it easier to assess the returns.
Essentially, the examiner can take one of two paths.
The first is better for entrance examinations and lower-level tests: an examiner attempts to find out what is not known by a process involving brute force. This means that papers are set requiring direct responses (such at the filling-in of blanks). If the candidate does not give an appropriate response, it is easy to see this and eliminate the candidate.
The second is complicated and better for high-level testing: an examiner attempts to find out what is known while keeping the bounds of examination within the syllabus. This means that questions are open-ended, and that wily candidates may escape the net by judicious ambiguity and cleverness of phrase, the use of obvious structures (such as neat paragraphs and tables) designed to disguise the lack of real information, and other such manoeuvres.
The first kind does not require a very intelligent examiner. A machine (or another human) can be programmed to assess the candidate's responses. The second requires an examiner who knows his material, the syllabus, and the structure of the paper and its rubrics exceedingly well. Sadly, this kind of examiner is rare.
Essentially, an examiner has three duties.
- The examiner must communicate to the examinees exactly what is being tested and how.
- The examiner must construct a valid, reliable and useful test.
- The examiner must mark the test exactly, accurately and precisely.
It is also a great asset if the examiner is an excellent communicator, proofreader and fact-checker. This means that the tests constructed are more likely to be free of ambiguity, repetition and/or impossibility. This makes the examination more valid, reliable and useful; it also makes it easier to assess the returns.
Essentially, the examiner can take one of two paths.
The first is better for entrance examinations and lower-level tests: an examiner attempts to find out what is not known by a process involving brute force. This means that papers are set requiring direct responses (such at the filling-in of blanks). If the candidate does not give an appropriate response, it is easy to see this and eliminate the candidate.
The second is complicated and better for high-level testing: an examiner attempts to find out what is known while keeping the bounds of examination within the syllabus. This means that questions are open-ended, and that wily candidates may escape the net by judicious ambiguity and cleverness of phrase, the use of obvious structures (such as neat paragraphs and tables) designed to disguise the lack of real information, and other such manoeuvres.
The first kind does not require a very intelligent examiner. A machine (or another human) can be programmed to assess the candidate's responses. The second requires an examiner who knows his material, the syllabus, and the structure of the paper and its rubrics exceedingly well. Sadly, this kind of examiner is rare.
Labels: Examinations
etched with acid at 12:43:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home