Standardized and collective exams in a university context is a practice borrowed from assessment or curricular practices at secondary levels, as per many research results in education sciences. It was the practice in universities in Europe till late 70'. Many university administrators in various departments, in higher education contexts in the Arab world, are still borrowing secondary or preparatory/ language centers' assessment/testing practices to be implemented in a university context. Due to the mass or sections syndrome, administration prefers to administer those exams collectively. Yet, this practice is didactically and pedagogically ( even etymologically) not sound and leads to negative learning results / outcomes. Micro learning is much preferred at this level of education, since it leads ti completion of the learning task due to the fact that students can easily follow up the stream of thought about a concept in literature or any types of declarative type of knowledge / the techniques and topological patterns of a translation in a translation context or application of concepts their dynamics in the case of applied linguistics or may be theoretical linguistics as well. If other instructors or faculty involve in standardizing the exam , then students wont produce the same quality outcomes due the lack of the 'close continuum' of the stream of though and reasoning.There is a kind of interruption in achieve this ideal learning and outcome. At the final stage of exams, it is a different story.
If we take many of the the English departments in the Arab region for example, or an entire faculty of languages and English we see that it is inhabited by three non- mutually intelligible types of disciplines : Linguistics, Translation and literature..in addition, of course, to the Language institute/Center. Despite this, the way the administration leads the exam is the same ( can you place questions in Drama, research methods, technical translation or general translation, or interpreting techniques...in the same way you assess language or preparatory year students?). The knowledge/ content framework, pedagogies and practices ( professional practices in the case of translation ; interpreting) are definitely not the same. Then, why applying a model of assessment (usually a result of industry/factory line of production model) on all classes?? .
Students are compared to a chain of production line. They are placed in lanes and lines. We are not looking at their learning , but we are waiting for them to come at the end of the line to submit their copy and NOT to manifest in various ways their level of learning and performance, but to submit to us a paper in which they wrote what they memorized by heart. Just the idea that he/she will be in a mass production area or line scares him and let him devour ( or not) the content. It is not that 1 hr which will determine the REAL HIM/HER ( EVIDENCE OF LEARNING), but a series of formative and sumative assessment methods DURING THE ENTIRE SEMESTER. The mid, even the final, exam should not always be UNIFIED. It depends on many variables, such as the nature of the discipline at stake.
Hence, knowledge and skills about the design of university assessment is lacking. In a university context, the assessment is discipline specific. In translation or interpreting, the discipline has a professional vocation; therefore the assessment should be geared towards assessing skills, knowledge, behaviour and values ....and not only what they study in their textbooks ( content). We cannot only evaluate students on what they study in their textbooks and administer standard exams to annihilate what is remaining from their learning experience.
Students are compared to a chain of production line. They are placed in lanes and lines. We are not looking at their learning , but we are waiting for them to come at the end of the line to submit their copy and NOT to manifest in various ways their level of learning and performance, but to submit to us a paper in which they wrote what they memorized by heart. Just the idea that he/she will be in a mass production area or line scares him and let him devour ( or not) the content. It is not that 1 hr which will determine the REAL HIM/HER ( EVIDENCE OF LEARNING), but a series of formative and sumative assessment methods DURING THE ENTIRE SEMESTER. The mid, even the final, exam should not always be UNIFIED. It depends on many variables, such as the nature of the discipline at stake.
Hence, knowledge and skills about the design of university assessment is lacking. In a university context, the assessment is discipline specific. In translation or interpreting, the discipline has a professional vocation; therefore the assessment should be geared towards assessing skills, knowledge, behaviour and values ....and not only what they study in their textbooks ( content). We cannot only evaluate students on what they study in their textbooks and administer standard exams to annihilate what is remaining from their learning experience.
Education needs proper investment: recruitment of competent faculty that have pedagogical knowledge about their discipline ( and the profession/practice as deemed possible) to take the burden of designing sound exam methods that could lead to outstanding and lifelong outcomes. Certainly not the mass/ line/ lane model.
So, we see and judge that our faculty colleagues need to do that task -at least during their MIDs 1 and 2 and may be the final as well ( case of translation and interpreting), because if we claim that student translators will be able to operate confidently in the profession upon their graduation, then we need to prepare activities , knowledge content and assessment methods that could address how to improve students performances at the levels of knowledge, skills, and behaviour/values.The standardized exam is not a model for that type of assessment I am afraid.
So, we see and judge that our faculty colleagues need to do that task -at least during their MIDs 1 and 2 and may be the final as well ( case of translation and interpreting), because if we claim that student translators will be able to operate confidently in the profession upon their graduation, then we need to prepare activities , knowledge content and assessment methods that could address how to improve students performances at the levels of knowledge, skills, and behaviour/values.The standardized exam is not a model for that type of assessment I am afraid.
In good practices around the world, especially in a higher education context, the hot topics now are about disciplines-specific pedagogies/didactics/ assessment methods. We cannot mix all in one pot . These areas of knowledge are FUNDAMENTALLY not the same. Of course, in poor practices, such as the case of some universities in the Arabic context, we still think that to teach in a university context ( English department and else) we only need to have :
- Text book X
- Lecture till chapter x,y,z.....To do MID1 /2 and then Finals in a mass. Get coordinators to coordinate between faculty and get questions for the exam.
- Call the army of invigilators to invigilate the villain students.
- They call all faculty during the exam time 'instructors' to diminish from their status and professional profile/ stand as if they were objects or chess pieces that they could move or mobilize when and where they want to. A full, associate and assistant professors are all rushed out to do at least 4 or 5 invigilation in a very miserable, stressful, unhealthy, unethical and non-pedagogical environment ( there are university contexts where they do this).
Approaching exams in such as way leads to :
- Killing the mission of the university, since such a way of assessment goes against students success and learning of life long, durable, social and interpersonal skills and abilities that often are stated in that university's mission statement/objectives/ outcomes. Institutional inconsistency is unacceptable.
- Undermining, diminishing and demeaning the professional status and abilities of faculty, who are placed in the position of 'guides' , 'servants' , teachers of textbooks' and exam correctors...the same method applied in primary or secondary curriculum practices. They forgot that faculty ( especially those graduated from good international institutions) have their academic freedom they gained form their long doctoral training and ability to engage in knowledge production; therefore, these powers get scrapped once unhealthy administrative and assessment practices are implemented unscrupulously. Faculty barely manage to produce a decent/empirical article in a year, due to this type of academic practices. They become mere teachers of textbooks to facilitate the task of administrators to organize their preferred practice : factory/army and counter assessment type of evaluations inherited from the early practices of curriculum ( beginning twentieth century) at secondary ( or may be ) primary schools.
FELKA
FELKA
