Why student evaluation in the new curriculum is most challenging

The National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB) has proposed a new evaluation method for secondary and higher secondary students that will require students to sit for five hours of testing for each subject: four hours of "practical" group work and an hour of "theoretical" written test. Three series of such tests are to be held at the end of Classes 10, 11 and 12; the practical test will comprise 50 percent of the final marks. An NCTB appointed teachers' pool will conduct the practical tests. The proposed new method of evaluation has added to the already high level of concern and anxiety of parents and educators about the risks and uncertain outcomes of the new curriculum implementation process.

We know something about the validity and reliability of written examinations, but not much about the long group-work-based practical tests. How stressful will the long four-hour practical and one-hour written tests for each subject be for students in three public examinations? Given the experience of practical exams in science subjects at present, how fair and valid will these examinations be? How skilled, professional and objective will the examiners be? Are we going backwards from the goal of allaying high-stake public examination stress on students? More importantly, how sure are we that something useful will actually be measured by practical tests in the form of group work as part of a public examination?

While generally recognising the need for curriculum reform, questions have been raised about how ready the school system is and whether the minimum conditions exist regarding teachers' capabilities, student-teacher ratio, and the basic learning environment for the ambitious curriculum changes proposed. The authorities keep assuring the public that the "experiential" teaching-learning and "continuous" school-based assessment by teachers will bring about a dramatic change in our schools—that students will turn away from memorising guidebooks and notebooks, no private tutoring and coaching will be needed, and students will not only acquire knowledge but also learn its practical application. It is difficult to trust these assurances when one observes that the practical situation of over 90 percent of the schools—both in rural and urban areas—have not changed, and no plans seem to exist to make the necessary changes. These changes call for major investments, good planning with short- and long-term strategies, and their effective implementation.

A most complex and challenging area in education everywhere, even in developed nations, is valid, reliable and fair assessment of what students have learned in the classroom and through their own efforts. Good assessment is supposed to indicate to what extent the teaching-learning activities have helped students to learn what they are supposed to learn. It also provides feedback about what might have been the weaknesses in teaching-learning and the remedial steps that could be taken (provided that there is capacity and a plan to take remedial measures to help the lagging students).

Two broad forms of learning assessment are practised, known as formative (continuous classroom-based assessment by teachers) and summative (assessment at the end of a year or a stage, usually a written test). The former is more about assessment for learning, to help each student learn better; the latter is assessment of what students have learnt and how the school has performed. Both are important and complementary to each other, but their purposes and methodologies are different, and therefore combining these into one composite assessment result is meaningless.

Teachers' capabilities and skills and the essential conditions for good pedagogy in the school and the classroom, including a manageable class size and the learning content and materials (curriculum, textbooks, learning aid, etc), determine what happens in the classroom and whether students learn. Meeting these conditions also determine if student assessment, both formative and summative, can provide useful information regarding student, teacher and school performance, and what remedial measures can be taken to improve performance. Again, there has to be the technical capacity and scope for teachers, schools, the NCTB and education boards, etc to assess and analyse the student assessment results and to act upon the findings of said analysis.

Apart from the practical obstacles to implementing the new pedagogy and the proposed learning assessment method, which have been noted above, what has not received enough attention and scrutiny is the scientific validity and soundness of the premises underlying the proposed system.

Scientific understanding of learning theory suggests that intelligence or learning capacity of students is complex and multi-dimensional. Harvard University psychologist Howard Gardner's proposition of at least seven kinds of intelligence is now widely accepted. Linguistic, visual, spatial, logical-mathematical, kinaesthetic, inter- and intra-personal communication as forms of intelligence suggest that each learner learns in uniquely different ways, and all pedagogy cannot be confined to a set pattern. Memorising facts and information as well as critically thinking about what is in memory, and reasoning about and application of facts and information in practical situations have a necessary place in learning—each individual constructing knowledge and figuring out its use in his/her own way. Everything important to know and to make use of in life cannot be put in a school curriculum. Nor can everything be tested as part of assessment. It is always a sampling of knowledge and skills considered significant. The sampling and measurement requires good technical skills, good judgement about what items are significant, and how these are put together in a test. Still, the process, tools, and the assessment results require to be regularly analysed and refined to maintain the validity, reliability and fairness of the system.

Another aspect of the new curriculum is to move streams (science, humanities, and commerce), which start from Class 9 now, to the higher secondary level of Class 11. Ten common subjects for all students up to Class 10 will be Bangla, English, mathematics, science, history and social science, digital technology, life and livelihood, religious teachings, health safety, and arts and culture. The implications of this common curriculum up to Class 10 for pedagogy and assessment can be the subject of another article. International curriculum thinking and practices (such as O and A Levels) suggest that half of the subjects such as digital technology, life and livelihood, religious teachings, health safety, and arts and culture can be made optional, and more academically inclined students could be given options, such as taking science courses (physics, chemistry, biology), advanced mathematics, and computer science. Actually, some of the subjects in the common curriculum can be better handled as systematic co-curricular activities. For this curriculum option to work, schools have to have qualified teachers and lab facilities for the subjects offered; again, investment and plans are necessary for creating the conditions for effective pedagogy and student assessment.

The old curriculum introduced a decade ago attempted in its own way to make a selection of content and a choice of pedagogic experiences. The problem was with the poor capacity to implement the pedagogy in the classroom, mainly because of deficits in teachers' skills, capabilities and professionalism. These deficits remain and put at risk the more ambitious and complex pedagogy and learning assessment proposed. Squaring the circle requires a holistic approach to create the essential conditions for better pedagogy and learning assessment as well as looking critically at the technical soundness of both pedagogy and assessment methods envisaged.

Dr Manzoor Ahmed is professor emeritus at BRAC University, chair of Bangladesh ECD Network (BEN), adviser to Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE), and associate editor at the International Journal of Educational Development. Views expressed in this article are the author's own.