With the busiest time of year for assessment in full swing, any disruption to the running of exams is big news. Whether professional or academic qualifications, the most important element for any candidate is being able to take the expected exam in the expected place at the expected time.
Awarding bodies moving from paper-based to digitally delivered assessments devote considerable time and resources to testing and refining new methodologies. The ability to deliver valid, relevant and secure tests for every candidate depends on it.
For all the testing in the world, the effectiveness of one element of digital assessment can only be known once it collides with the very circumstances it’s designed to handle. And that is the support systems when something goes wrong.
Mistakes in the administration of paper-based are rare, but not unheard of. However, the familiarity of the overall process can make them less discombobulating for the candidates. If errors in question text or missing papers become apparent on the day of the exam there is little that can be done immediately. Invigilators provide a human presence that can defuse a stressful situation. The candidates and invigilators must make the best of the situation and trust that the awarding body will make suitable arrangements afterwards.
Digital assessment is different
It’s a relatively new experience for many candidates with new modes of failure creating new anxieties. A technology failure feels particularly bad. Individual candidates probably cannot find the cause of any problem and how or when it might be fixed.
Remote candidates cannot know whether the issue affects everyone taking the exam, or them alone. The onus is on them to find the solution to a technical problem, prompting likely overwhelming demand on the available support options in the process. Without a collective response or the reassuring presence of an in-person invigilator, the candidate will probably feel demoralised, questioning their own competence.
Positive candidate experience does not end when the candidate logs out of the digital system or leaves the exam hall. Candidates rightly expect the marking process to be on point and deliver accurate grades on schedule. Those not sitting an exam have skin in the game too with school-based assessments. Teachers need to know how candidates fared. Planning of future teaching, their own professional pride and the reputation of their institution can be impacted by publicly available results. Any delay or inaccuracy can have wide ranging implications.
For awarding bodies switching to digital assessment, avoiding issues involves extensive testing of differing scenarios, realistic contingency planning and selecting the right partners to work with.
This is particularly important if a particular digital exam depends on a specific element of technology, such as a certain software integration.
-
How well embedded is that integration in the overall assessment platform?
-
Can you reduce the potential points of failure to as few as possible?
-
Is it proven by repeated use by many candidates test after test?
While awarding bodies rightly focus on user interface when designing digital assessments, the technology propping up that candidate experience is equally as important.
