India’s broken exam system needs a radical overhaul
The recently published newspaper reports on the second NEET paper leak and glitches found in the evaluation of the CBSE examination call for immediate attention to the assessment process being followed in the country. There is a need to rethink or reimagine the system of evaluation to get rid of a bygone educational framework and save the future of our country. Last year, some recommendations were made by the National Testing Agency on NET, NEET, and CUET. But these recommendations are not going to serve the purpose. They will limit learners to rigid, quantifiable answers rather than evaluate reasoning, creativity, and understanding of complex issues. The technology of today, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which use reinforcement-based learning, has immense potential to personalise assessments and analyse problem-solving processes.
Consequently, there are currently no restrictions on creating a question paper. Each question on the question paper can be different and yet have an equal level of difficulty for everyone. Furthermore, by utilising AI and AGI, everyone can receive feedback on his or her errors and the marks that have been deducted. It is crucial that forward-thinking and futuristic approaches be used to show the rest of the world that Bharat is leading the way in education and assessment, while simultaneously raising student performance.
Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary education have all been advocated by NEP 2020. Therefore, any kind of restriction on course selection would never be fruitful. We cannot miss Tagore’s vision of the “joy of learning” in the quagmire of searching for solutions to the leakage of question papers. Looking at the vastness of the country and the huge population of aspirants, we need to be more creative in our solutions. We cannot reduce exams and evaluations to a level of mere ritual. Due respect needs to be paid to the variety of ways people learn, think critically, and innovate. Frustration is writ large on the faces of students when they are made to run after scores at the cost of understanding and intelligence.
It is both an art and a science to determine what each student actually needs. Existing mediocre evaluation techniques, which mostly rely on examinations, are focused on rejection. This makes it much more difficult. Thus, the following are the main questions that must be answered: Do these tests fairly represent learning aptitude, critical-thinking abilities, and knowledge absorption? What criteria should be applied to evaluate the relevance of assessments? Can the mental processes cultivated by the taught subject be evaluated using the current evaluation schemes? What standards may be established to comprehend how learning objectives influence conceptual cognitive maps? Are students ready to evolve successful creative ideas and adopt novel approaches? It is truly painful that, after so many years of Independence, we still operate with a beaten one-size-fits-all approach to gauge a student’s ability. Human development is far too complex for uniform methods.
Students need not be treated as passive receptacles of information, which Paulo Freire called the “banking model” of education. He wanted students and teachers to co-create knowledge through active engagement. Such an approach would transform the role of assessments, making them tools for intellectual development rather than instruments of ranking.
Like Freire, Aurobindo Ghose’s notion of “integral education” also considers evaluation as a reflection of a student’s holistic development, not just his ability to recall information under pressure. In 1993, Professor Yash Pal’s report, Learning Without Burden, equated rote learning with “the murder of curiosity”. Expressing dissatisfaction with the current methods of evaluation, he said that essential skills like critical thinking, creativity, and inquisitiveness are being mercilessly killed. Further, in a country riven with social inequalities, Amartya Sen links rigid assessment structures with existing power dynamics, where marginalised groups are often deprived. For this, he blames systemic biases in education.
There is a need to explore various perspectives and tested models on evaluation. The STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) model blends arts and sciences to develop problem-solving and creative thinking among students, breaking down the artificial barriers between different fields of knowledge. This is strongly reiterated in NEP 2020, which recommends project-based learning, portfolios, performance tasks, and formative assessments across all levels of education. There can also be a model that includes the appraisal of a learner’s capacity or capability through his or her role as a team member in completing assigned duties. It can be argued that students can continuously develop if assignments are given individually throughout the semester. On the other hand, if numerous assignments are given throughout the semester to a team, an individual, as a team member, may achieve better performance. Therefore, instead of being restricted only to objective, subjective, or group tests, assessment can be a combination of these categories to reach an accurate evaluation of each learner.
Group tasks are generally of two types. In the first type, one bigger problem is divided into parts. Each learner solves his or her part and then the solutions are integrated. In the second type, all team members work together to address the problem and then integrate the solutions. Both approaches play a part in assessing the learner both individually and collectively.
Thus, a reimagined evaluation system is imperative, as the current framework, with its fixation on rigid, uniform assessments, fails to capture the breadth of intellectual growth and creativity needed in today’s world. This call to reform the assessment method is not merely an educational aspiration but a moral obligation on our part as academicians.
Prem Kumar Kalra is former Director, IIT Jodhpur, and Jyoti K Verma is Head, Department of English, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra; Views presented are personal.
