University World News Africa Edition
Muki Moeng 25 July 2024
My perspective is that exams are definitely still important and relevant as they are a window into whether learning has taken place with regard to a particular body of work. This is the basic principle of assessment.
Higher education exams naturally take many different forms. Some are set papers whereby the student sits down and writes. In others, such as in medical degrees, the exam takes the form of the student performing virtual surgery on a virtual anatomy dissection table, or, in the study of education, the student teacher is assessed in the classroom.
What are we assessing?
Exams are certainly not an end unto themselves, they are part of assessment in its totality, and the question we ask ourselves as university educators is: What are we assessing?
From here, we determine the kind of assessment required and the weight end-of-year exams should carry in the final mark in relation to continuous assessment (all the tests, examinations, tasks, activities, orals and projects done throughout the year) and other assessment factors, such as skills and attitude. Attitude is extremely important as part of assessment, as the student needs to be pursuing their chosen profession for their commitment.
We know that many students’ nerves get the better of them when it comes to writing exams, and this has to do with how the culture of exams has evolved as the final determinant of their future.
Students are naturally scared of this and, as educators, we work hard to create an environment in which the exam is not regarded as a punishment – it is not a tactic to fail learners.
We want them to succeed, and we offer them the support they need to achieve a successful outcome in the exams. This requires ongoing assessment of learning by the lecturer to identify students who are at risk of failing, and then to adjust our teaching accordingly, including bringing in tutors to assist these learners, and track and monitor their progress.
Continuous assessment
For the matriculation (matric), or National Senior Certificate, the end-of-year examination still accounts for 75% of the total mark, and continuous assessment accounts for 25%. Exams at school level are an important form of standardised national testing to help teachers across the board to assess learners in as fair a manner as possible.
In a system where the matric end-of-year mark was hypothetically based only on continuous assessment, there would be huge discrepancies, as some schools might adjust the marks to show excellent student performance when, in reality, the students did not understand the content.
While I support end-of-year exams at school, I believe there is too much emphasis on them and that the percentage of continuous assessment in the total mark should be higher.
At university level, there is far more flexibility about how much the end-of-year exams carry in the total mark.
The percentage is determined by the specific curriculum content, but the pass mark across the board remains 50%. Each department determines how best to assess their students, through a combination of end-of-year exams, continuous assessment, practicals, projects and work-integrated learning. The combination has to be approved by the university’s senate as the top academic body of the institution.
For example, in chemistry, there is significant laboratory work; in architecture and engineering, there are large projects, so you have to work out a balance between the final exam marks and the practical or project marks.
In the same vein, work-integrated learning happens outside the classroom where students are interns in the workplace or you have student teachers in the classroom, and their skill and understanding has to be assessed in situ.
Modules in certain disciplines have continuous assessment and no end-of-year exams. In the university where I teach, our faculty of education, for example, bases most of the module marks on continuous assessment, but continuous assessment doesn’t always work for modules in other disciplines.
We have found that some of the assignments and projects in certain disciplines do not capture individual performance, whereas, in exams, you know this is the individual’s work.
And, where there is a professional body as in accounting, the students have to sit for exams, as do law students for the bar exam.
No one-size-fits-all
There is no one-size-fits-all, hence assessment has to be done in response to each respective subject and curriculum.
To help inform this, at the start of the year, teachers and lecturers have to do a baseline assessment of where their students are at in terms of their academic levels. This is particularly important in the first year of university as it is a significant jump from school, and lecturers need to determine the level the students are at, and how to support those who need more academic support.
Another issue that is increasingly being raised is the question of artificial intelligence (AI) and how this can be used to cheat or plagiarise in exams or assessments.
It is a tricky one and that is why we have, in many instances, reintroduced physical attendance to write exams, instead of online. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that some students were using AI during exams, and while we do have tools to detect this, they aren’t always definitive.
During exams, our students are not allowed to have smartphones with them unless it is an open-book exam. From the pandemic we also quickly learned that, in an online environment, our approach to questions had to change, and the questions asked today are increasingly reflective, critical thinking questions, interpretive questions, and questions for analysis.
For example, we would no longer ask straightforward dates, such as: When did the Netherlands’ Jan van Riebeeck arrive in South Africa? We would ask a far more interpretive question, such as: What was Jan van Riebeeck’s impact on the first nations in the colonial settlement of the Cape?
With students having technology at their fingertips, it is essential to get them to reflect critically on what they have learned.
Beyond, memorising, students need to interpret what they have learned. When they do use AI as input for writing an essay, they need to reference the source and critique the AI information; then provide their own interpretation.
At the university where I teach, we have a statement about AI, and we are very intentional about having a statement and not a policy as we don’t want to police students and lecturers.
In many instances, we encourage the use of AI as a developmental tool and teach students how best to use it and understand it but, at the same time, guide them to be critical about what they find through AI and internet searches.
Sources like YouTube and the internet are very useful for lecturers and students. In the flipped classroom, students are asked to read a particular chapter or watch a particular video ahead of class, which they then discuss in class.
Digitalisation and universal broadband is so essential to current learning. During the pandemic, learners and students in the townships and deep rural areas often did not have online access, which put them at a severe disadvantage.
The South African government has pledged that there will be broadband access throughout the country, it is hoped by the end of 2024, which will make a significant difference to learning. Our top teachers and lecturers could, for example, offer lessons and lectures online throughout South Africa. This would help so many learners and students to understand and enjoy different subjects and, ultimately, perform better in their exams.
Dr Muki Moeng is the deputy vice-chancellor for learning and teaching at Nelson Mandela University, which is situated in the coastal city of Gqeberha, in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. The university also has a campus in the city of George. This is a commentary.