in collaboration with Dr Dimitri Mortelmans (University of Antwerp)
1. Estimate how much time it will take for you to correct the exam in advance
For large groups of students, you should think carefully about how much time you are willing and able to spend per exam. For example, if you have every student write a paper and you estimate that correcting one paper will take (at least) 15 minutes, then for a group of 100 students, this comes down to 100 x 15 minutes = 25 hours of work. Make sure this is a realistic number, taking into account the deadline for submitting all final marks to the student administration.
When you have a large group of students taking oral exams, it’s important to estimate the time per student well in advance. Provide enough time for the students to answer all the questions they were asked to prepare. Skipping straight to a quick discussion of the last question would undermine the reliability of your assessment. Be sure to allot some extra time for one student to leave and the next one to come in.
2. Choose an examination method that suits the nature of the programme component
When choosing a particular examination method, you should first and foremost look at the learning objectives of the programme component. Only then will you get a valid test – a test that measures what it is supposed to measure. If there is a strong emphasis on knowledge, consider a multiple-choice exam for large groups. This can be organised through Blackboard. Insight and knowledge application are more difficult to gauge using multiple-choice questions, but it is not impossible. For large groups, the extra time it takes to draw up the exam questions is no match for the time saved during correction, which can be done almost automatically.
Of course, in a Professional Communication programme component, learning objectives such as ‘writing a report of a public meeting with an attractive form and relevant content’ cannot be assessed by means of multiple-choice questions. Nor does an oral test allow you to focus on writing skills, for instance. Some aspects are still best assessed by having students write a paper.
Once you’ve checked which exam forms would be ideal/possible in view of the learning objectives, you can let other (more practical) elements play a role in the choice you make. As a lecturer, you might have a personal preference (or distaste) for certain examination methods. Certain preconditions (the availability of a computer room, how long the exam can take, whether or not you can call on an assistant to help correct the exams, etc.) will also determine what is realistically achievable.
3. Think about follow-up care
Besides exam time and correcting time, make sure that your schedule also includes some time for ‘follow-up care’. Keep in mind that in large groups of students, several students will come by after the exams to ask what exactly they did wrong and why it was wrong. Students are entitled to proper feedback and guidelines that can help them better assess their own strengths and weaknesses, so they have a better chance of success next time. Providing such follow-up care to students who ask for it is an integral part of your education mandate.
4. Protect yourself against legal action
Some students come by to review their corrected exams not because they want follow-up care, but because they have doubts about the way you corrected their exam. They want to see whether you can justify the marks you gave, so always be prepared for this. Provide clear assessment criteria. Always take notes during oral exams to refer back to.
5. Prepare to be bored
Exams taken by large groups of students can take days to correct. So, whenever possible, include questions that you find fascinating and that make you curious what answers or solutions students will come up with. A statistics exam, for example, lends itself perfectly to including a case study on the chances of survival on the Titanic, or, if you prefer something more recent, on the payback effect of installing solar panels. Include an original question based on what you’re doing in your research, or in your practice as a physiotherapist or lawyer, and who knows, you might get some interesting ideas from the answers the students come up with.
Want to know more?
Centre of Expertise for Higher Education (2013). Vijftig onderwijstips. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant
Stes, A. (2009). Toetsing: wat, waarom, wie, wanneer, welke vorm? In: Van Petegem, P. (Red.) (2009). Praktijkboek activerend hoger onderwijs (pp. 190–210). LannooCampus.
Bender, W. (2003). Toetsen in het hoger onderwijs. Assen: Van Gorcum.
BVdatabank website. Steekkaart meerkeuzevragen.
Clement, M., & Laga, E. (Eds.) (2006). Steekkaarten doceerpraktijk. Garant.
De Neve, H., & Janssen, P. J. (1992). Succesvol examineren in het hoger onderwijs. Leuven: Acco.
Dousma, T., Horsten, A., & Brants, J. (1997). Tentamineren. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Teaching and Learning Center (2010). Techniques for writing multiple-choice items that demand critical thinking. Teaching Effectiveness Program. University of Oregon.
Van Berkel, H. (1999). Zicht op toetsen. Toetsconstructie in het hoger onderwijs. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Van Berkel, H., & Bax, A. (2002). Toetsen in het Hoger Onderwijs. Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.