Bulletin Special Supplement Jun 1965

teacher that students should learn to wo rk for themselves, it is possible that such a convention in the examination paper w i l l help h i m somewhat to achieve this aim. (v) I f, finally, an examination paper contains compulsory or unavoidable questions w h i ch are based neither on part of the advertised syllabus, nor on material w h i ch ha s in fact been studied in the course, nor even on a convention made evident in previous years — if i n short an i mp o r t a nt part of an examination cannot be prepared for in any way, then it is certain that weaker students w i l l become demoralised and that their confidence in themselves and in their teachers w i l l be impaired, because they are unable to k n ow wh at is being asked of them. L 6 .3 These examples may be regarded as self- evident. A n umb er of points flow f r om t h em. First, and most clearly, it is i mp o r t a nt that the d r aw i n g- u p of examination papers should be treated as a very serious d u t y, w h i ch w i ll reflect decisions taken o n teaching p o l i c y; it should not be considered a secondary matter or dealt w i t h at a late stage i n the academic year. I t is desirable that, in al l subjects, attention should be paid to the effectiveness of th e tests as a means of assessing the candidate's grasp o f a subject and the q u a l i ty of his m i n d, and also to the effect of the examination on the attitude of the students to their wo rk for this examination in subsequent years. L 6 . 4 I t is i mp o r t a nt that, save only in exceptiona l circumstances, examiners, if they happen to be the same teachers w h o have conducted the courses, should not be content to set papers containing only questions w h i ch could be satisfactorily answered by a diligent candidate who has done no more than learn his lecture notes. We are aware that this is a hard d o c t r i n e; but it is not an u n d u ly idealistic one. We j u s t i fy it on the f o l l ow i ng grounds. I n an earlier section we distinguished between " c o a x i n g" and " c o a c h i n g "; we should like n ow to distinguish between "coaching" and " c r a mm i n g ". I n " c o a c h i n g" a student, the aim is to lead h i m to understand a subject, grasp the concepts involved acquire confidence in their proper application to relevant concrete examples and acquire familiarity w i t h the central core o f material or facts or operations. I n " c r a mm i n g" the aim is solely to p ut the student i n a position to pass the next examination, whether or not he really understands the subject. I n f o r ma t i on and techniques are fed into h i m w i t h o ut regard to the digestion of principles. Examinations conceived in a certain spirit and framed in a certain way can, in almost any discipline, encourage this " c r amm i n g" approach by b o th teacher and student. Wh en this happens, the teacher is no longer serving the cause of education, and the student, if he is mome n t a r i ly pleased at having passed, is on the long view being done a serious disservice. T h e re is no more certain way of leading students to regard teaching as " c r a mm i n g" than to allow t h em to believe t h a t they have done all they need to do wh en they have memorised their lecture notes or the contents of a handbook regarded uncritically as " t r u e ". We do not w i sh to belittle the value of lecture-notes or of handbooks; clearly they are i mp o r t a nt in various ways, We are concerned rather w i t h the spirit in wh i ch the student approaches their use, and we assert that the f o r m sometimes taken by examinations can be decisively h a r m f ul in the matter. L6.5 F r om this it follows that th e features noted under (i) and (iii) in paragraph 2 above are prejudicial to good teaching. Feature ( i i ) is highly desirable as a reinforcement of " c o a x i n g" (the best students) and "coaching" (the less strong) �； and feature (iv) is a means of reducing excessive reliance by the student on other people's effort. But it must be insisted that the features can only be satisfactorily i n t r o d u c ed as and wh en effect is given to our recommendations, under paragraphs 5.15 and 5.16 on th e q u a n t i t y of material included in a given course. I f the positive role played by the examiner in the teaching process is enhanced, it must be noted that w i t h this responsibility mu st go an increased b u r d en of wo r k, particularly in the task of f r am i ng questions wh i c h, w i t h o ut elicitin g a mere repetition of topics selectively studied, nevertheless enables a student to b r i ng to bear u p on the questions he treats the fundamental insights an d techniques wh i ch he has acquired in the f o l l ow i ng of the course. L 6 .6 I n wh at goes before, we have assumed a system of examination, in wh i c h, f r o m force of circumstances, the teacher and the examiner are one and th e same person. T h e re are in principle t wo major alternative ways of c o n d u c t i ng examinations: (i) a system in w h i ch each course, broadly, is examined by the teacher w h o has conducted it, w o r k i ng perhaps alongside colleagues in the same discipline or Colleg e or De p a r t me n t, ( i i ) a system in wh i ch examinations are conducted, quite impersonally or even anonymously by a board of examiners quite distinct f r om ( t h o u gh not necessarily excluding) the various teachers of the courses. Bo th systems have advantages and disadvantages, w h i ch it wo u ld be a l o ng task to enumerate: we shall in what follows me n t i on only those w h i c h are relevant. We are in any case concerned here w i t h the resources open to the Un i v e r s i ty and its colleges. We may distinguish, to begin w i t h, between degree examinations c om i ng in the later part of the student's career and the earlier examinations in particular the first and second year examinations. L 6 .7 As regards first and second year examinations, we assume that the Colleges are responsible for all the wo rk of students, that they set and w i l l n o r ma l ly continue to set the paper s wh i ch test the progress of students, and that to do this they w i l l draw ma i n ly on their own resources. I t seems clear therefore that Departments mu st be responsible for 38