In any subject or for any skill, the abilities of students vary. Some are naturally good, some learn to be good, some struggle to learn and some can never really acquire the skill. This is not abnormal. This is how people (even grown-ups) perform on any skill, craft or trade.
If an exam is given to test an ability and we were to plot how many students did how well, it would follow a Bell-shaped curve. A few students would do very well, majority of students would do ok and a few would have done not so well - making the graph look like a Bell. If you are testing a skill and your exam shows this curve then you should celebrate - because your test was fair to all and balanced.
A balanced test is telling you with confidence that those who are on a lower side of the Bell need your help, those in the middle of the Bell need to understand and work harder and those on the upper side of the Bell should work on advance skills. Everyone need to work towards better.
This is not how most exams look though. Most often teachers think that if majority of students get more than 60-70% marks then they have learnt well and teaching was a success. The trouble is, when everyone gets good marks, you are testing very little. And if you get less than 40% then you have failed. They automatically create two casts - those who pass easily and those who fail bitterly. Such exams say more about the exams themselves (was it easy or hard) than they say about the students (who are good and bad performers). They say very little about who is where on that skill. Exams should not to tools to fail students or even pass them.
A good balanced exam will be one in which students follow a Bell-shaped distribution of performance, with majority getting marks close to 50%. In such an exam, there is no pass or fail. Everyone has passed ! Some need to learn more, some need to work harder and some need a greater challenge.
As a teacher one needs to aware of what an exam is testing. Are we measuring students abilities ? Are the marks artefacts of the way we give exams ? Exams should be used to set a passing bar ? or Should exams evaluate abilities and take remedial actions.
If an exam is given to test an ability and we were to plot how many students did how well, it would follow a Bell-shaped curve. A few students would do very well, majority of students would do ok and a few would have done not so well - making the graph look like a Bell. If you are testing a skill and your exam shows this curve then you should celebrate - because your test was fair to all and balanced.
A balanced test is telling you with confidence that those who are on a lower side of the Bell need your help, those in the middle of the Bell need to understand and work harder and those on the upper side of the Bell should work on advance skills. Everyone need to work towards better.
This is not how most exams look though. Most often teachers think that if majority of students get more than 60-70% marks then they have learnt well and teaching was a success. The trouble is, when everyone gets good marks, you are testing very little. And if you get less than 40% then you have failed. They automatically create two casts - those who pass easily and those who fail bitterly. Such exams say more about the exams themselves (was it easy or hard) than they say about the students (who are good and bad performers). They say very little about who is where on that skill. Exams should not to tools to fail students or even pass them.
A good balanced exam will be one in which students follow a Bell-shaped distribution of performance, with majority getting marks close to 50%. In such an exam, there is no pass or fail. Everyone has passed ! Some need to learn more, some need to work harder and some need a greater challenge.
As a teacher one needs to aware of what an exam is testing. Are we measuring students abilities ? Are the marks artefacts of the way we give exams ? Exams should be used to set a passing bar ? or Should exams evaluate abilities and take remedial actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment