Explaining Why Students Flunk Exams

Pretend that the following question posed by an interviewer in the Miss Teen USA 2007 competition was indeed one administered on an examination paper. On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 equals no answer and 10 signifies maximum strength, give the respondent a grade, using the following pointers: content, clarity, composition, confidence, and cognition. In this case, content means the inclusion of relevant details. Clarity means the level of comprehensibility. Composition means construction of information. Confidence means demonstration of communication skills to carry the weight of the respondent’s knowledge. Cognition means the brainpower behind the given details that gives an indication of the respondent’s mental state or concentration.

The question therefore reads “Recent polls have shown that a fifth of Americans can’t locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?” Now this is an opinionated interrogative, which should give a student ample leverage in delivering her response. However, it’s not in all cases that a student stops to tease the question apart, to realize how much it depends on her to execute, according to this kind of flexibility. Sometimes a student becomes so tense that the question that has been home delivered to her on a platter, leaves a poisonous taste on that pupil’s tongue. Once again, take a listen to the above interview, where the interviewer must have thought she came across very clearly with her question. However, if you try to make sense of the interviewee, the feeling between them both might not be mutual. Well, the person posing might have been dazed by the end of the respondent’s circumlocution, but some innocent bystander managed to make sense out of nonsense and put together the video below:

Now, for the purpose of this exercise, there is no excuse for intelligibility of words. Hence, the work is indeed cut out to apply the pointers given above, to see why students fail exams with fading colors. Let’s say each criterion weighs 2 points and there are five of them. That gives a total of ten points that should go up for grabs. One might want to revisit the question before grading the response for its content. The respondent mentions availability of maps, the names of a few places, and education. This is where many students err, thinking that in answering, they can put down a multiplicity of details, even touching on others, hoping that the examiner could just choose what is necessary and discard the rest. In the case under review, this respondent rambles and rattles off a whole lot of incoherent data, and hopes for the best. However, there is just one bit that carries a little weight, but is quickly dissipated by the volume of her message. In other words, it’s like there’s a statement that makes three quarters sense, but an assessor has to spread the cost over the five or so nonsensical ones that accompany it. Hence, the ratio for content amounts to about .25 out of 2. And that is being generous, because her grammar was off beat, and under the old school regime, that would have nullified the balance. But going by today’s curriculum, as long as the examiner can get into the mind of the respondent to elicit what the incumbent is getting at, the point should be well taken.

The clarity of her answer is what has everybody laughing. At first, she references the connection correctly by using the appropriate conjunction ‘because’, but thereafter she loses even a person whose brain is focused on a laser beam. Yes, the question is one that’s pertinent to geography, but that doesn’t mean that she has good reasons to go globe-hopping haphazardly. Again, the magnitude of her sentences against the one that spells sense might be less than .25, but amounts to approximately the same, when rounded to the nearest hundredths. Communication is the key, and if a student knows her answer but fails to bring it out, for whatever reasons, she loses points, even if she is Miss Teen USA.

The composition or structuring of her answer also leaves a lot to be desired. She tries to peg everything to the US, obviously demonstrating that she has the wisdom to make connections, but also evidently saying that she missed the point by miscalculating the keyword in the question. For her to get it right, she might need to rephrase the question to highlight those keywords and phrases: Why do you think Americans, according to recent polls, can’t locate the US on a world map? In this case, she should identify ‘think’ and ‘Americans can’t locate the US’ as keyword and expression to guide her construction. She started off well, albeit with a redundancy “I personally believe” and as said before, ends that sentence with a veritable allusion. Her second sentence gets off to a similar start referencing education, but how she ends it, intertwining South Africa and ‘the Iraq’ is indeed a moot for a guessing game. And for someone, whose first language is presumably English, the use of ‘like’ immediately followed by ‘such as’ puts an examiner at odds, salvaging anything on her behalf, out of the 2 marks for composition.

Sometimes a student seems to mistake answering questions for going on a trip where she can fit everything into a hold-all bag until she arrives, and then her luggage can be sorted out. In giving responses, whether in writing or verbally, it’s necessary to structure the pieces to show that the question is understood beyond the shadow of a doubt. That prevents the situation where a lot is said and the question remains unanswered. When an examiner poses a question, a particular type of response is anticipated from the marker’s end. It is the duty of a student to figure out what that expected answer could be, before attempting to reply. A student, who figures out what the examiner has in mind, before putting pen to paper, stands a better chance of arranging the answer to suit that expectation.

The confidence level of this respondent is way below par. Her diction gives her away. The repetitious nature of ungrammatical sequences plays the greatest part in picturing the respondent as an unprepared pupil. Lack of preparedness drains her confidence levels to cause her tongue to tie up under pressure. Hence, she might have said a hundred words, but they were only coming out of an open mouth. Even her last one failed to make her end on a bright note. Therefore, out of 2, she might score 0.

As for her cognition, she obviously understands where she is at the beginning. However, it seems like she loses concentration, as her brain appears to shift focus causing some confusion. It’s like a flu bug suddenly disables her mental capacity, causing lagging, in which case she needs a dose of antihistamine to get her head back where it belongs. .25 out of 2 might be all she deserves for this segment. In total, this is a definite failure in most assessors’ register, and the student is recommended for remedial help. Signed, sealed and delivered.