PRESENTED BY:

PAUL M. WASANGA

THE ROLE OF EXAMINATION RESULTS AS A FEED BACK TOOL:

THE KENYA EXPERIENCE

First READ Global Conference: Developing

a Vision for Assessment Systems

September, 30 – October 2, 2009

Introduction Reporting examination results is one of the few

opportunities that policymakers have to converse with teachers and the broader education community about the substance of education.

However, discussions among educators tend to focus on the peripherals of teaching and learning such as:-funding, construction, salaries, resources and other factors unrelated to teaching.

Although these issues are essential to operating an educational system, they are not the core.

3

• The core is teaching and learning. Reporting

examination results allows policymakers to

focus public attention on what children are

learning and what it is that facilitates or hinders

their learning.

• If a testing system is designed and

implemented properly, test results can provide

policymakers with solid, reliable and regular

evidence of what is and what is not working in

schools.

•Policymakers can use this information to make informed

and sound decisions about the education system.

Promoting Dialogue

•Examination results should be reported and

disseminated to spur discussion and action – not

to blame or accuse.

•The results should be viewed by all relevant

groups and individuals as data useful for

highlighting strengths and weaknesses and as a

tool for solving problems.

•The Kenya National Examinations Council

(KNEC) reports examination results in a way that

helps teachers solve instructional problems.

•KNEC publishes the Kenya Certificate of Primary

Education (KCPE) and the Kenya Certificate of Secondary

Education (KCSE) Examination Newsletters which provide

suggestions to help teachers improve on instruction.

•This method exemplifies the notion of a dialogue with

teachers about – teaching and learning.

•These two newsletters target questions that candidates

find difficult as evidenced by their performance in such

questions for discussion.

•The discussions in these reports hinge on how

the teachers should have handled the topic

tested to enhance candidates’ performance. The

reports point out the weaknesses portrayed by

the candidates. The examples given below serve

to explain this point.

Example 1

Question 4:

from the year 2002 KCPE Examination Newsletter was found difficult by

candidates and its discussion quoted from the Newsletter is as shown

below:-

The facility index of this question 4 was 0.28989 (i.e 28.89% of the total

candidature 540,069 scored it correct) and thus too low and hence the

reason why the question needed to be discussed in the newsletter.

Candidates were supposed to “Fill in the blanks spaces in the passage (part

of it) using the best answer from the choices given.” That is:-

“Drug abuse can be 1 as a result the use of a drug to the point where the

user‟s health is affected 2 where it becomes difficult for the user to live 3

responsible life. It is 4 recognized that drug abuse 5 young people ….”

Question 4 (Choices)

A. Now B. therefore C. Still D. again

Response Pattern

Option A* B C D

% Choosing option 28.89 44.49 20.61 5.29

Mean Mark in other Questions

24.97 26.97 20.13 23.40

In this question, candidates were expected not only to

determine the grammatical correctness of the work or

structure given but also to select the best in the context

given. The work „recognized’ signals both a realization

and indeed a new development.

•In the KCPE Newsletter the best and the poorest

candidates compositions are published to help

the teachers see the structure of such

compositions and improve their teaching.

•The Newsletter further gives several other

compositions work different marks between the

weakest and the strongest candidates for

teachers to see the variety of compositions from

the cohort.

•This kind of information assists teachers to

improve their teaching and at the same time

dialogue is open between teachers, KNEC

subject specialists and the public as a whole in

matters that touch on effectiveness of teaching

and learning of the particular subject.

Sharing Responsibility

Kenya has many stakeholders involved in creating and

maintaining an effective education system. The reports can

help the following groups make critical decisions:

•Teachers and principals

•Curriculum developers

•School inspectors and education officers

•Test developers

•Parents and Policy makers

•The year 2000 KCSE Examination results indicated a

dismal performance for girls as compared to boys. Out of

the 33 subjects offered in this examination girls

performed better than boys in only five (5) subjects.

•These subjects were English, Kiswahili, Home

Science, Music and Typewriting and Office Practice,

further to this, the same results indicated a comparatively

poor performance for girls in Mathematics and Science

subjects and under enrollment of girls in Physics as

shown in the Table 1.

Table 1: Performance in 2000 KCSE Mathematics and

Science Examinations By Gender

Subject Number Sat Mean Performance

Female Male Female Male

Mathematics 84,013 97,967 13.42% 18.67%

Biology 49,757 59,718 30.23% 33.6%

Physics 11,276 28,516 29.48% 32.74%

Chemistry 50,442 64,883 27.72% 31.76%

PhysicalScience

32,294 30,847 18.27% 21.23%

This information spurred a national debate which

culminated in two government policy decisions:

•The Kenya Government lowered the university

entry cut off points by one (1) for girls as

compared to that of boys;

•The government ordered research to investigate

the causes of this scenario and at the same time

recommend intervention strategies to improve

enrollment and performance of girls in Science

and Mathematics.

Table 2: Candidates’ Performance in Some KCSE Examination

Subjects for Year 2003 by Gender

Subject Code & Name Female Male

No. Sat Mean %

No. Sat Mean%

101 English 95,620 32.83 110,809 32.46

121 Mathematics (compulsory) 95,615 16.05 110,865 22.10

231 Biology (optional) 91,108 27.23 95,295 31.35

232 Physics (optional) 16,094 29.07 40,403 32.28

233 Chemistry (optional) 92,615 24.04 106,132 29.30

441 Home Science (optional) 9,323 53.93 551 49.05

444 Woodwork (optional) 13 50.61 1,188 47.66

445 Metalwork (optional) 5 50.40 359 55.98

446 Building Construction (optional) 11 43.81 716 50.94

450 Aviation Tech. (optional) 1 67.00 32 68.68

449 Drawing and Design (optional) 39 39.35 1,525 52.77

Researchers could use such results to investigate several

aspects of the education sector eg. factors associated

with:-

•Poor candidates performance in Mathematics and

Sciences as compared to the other subjects;

•Using test results, researchers can identify which schools

and classrooms to observe to find the subtle factors that

may help or hinder student learning.

TAILORING REPORTS TO THE RELEVANT AUDIENCE

•When the KCSE examination results are released,

performance indices of all secondary schools are

provided

•Currently there are about 5,500 secondary schools in

Kenya

•This information is given in the four categories of

secondary schools in Kenya:

•National Schools (18)

•Provincial schools (1,020)

•District (3,762)

•Private (700) schools

•The performance index and ranking of the schools always

spur national debate and policymakers take keen interest

to find out why a school has performed poorly.

•These orders of merit are made to spur debate on the

issue of accountability and efficiency. In the year 2000 for

example one of the National Schools (*Garbatula)

performed very poorly due top lack of adequate facilities

(see table below).

•The school was downgraded to a district school until

facilities are upgraded to the level of a National School by

the Government.

Position Name Performance Index

Performance Index by Grade

Starehe B. Centre & School 10.2475 B+

Alliance High School 10.8967 B

Alliance Girls H. School 9.2222 B

Kenya High School 8.6598 B

Moi Forces A. Lanet 8.1590 B-

Maseno School 7.9644 B-

Nakuru High School 7.7381 B-

Utumishi Academy 7.5887 B-

Limuru Girls School 7.4246 C+

*Garbatula High School 3.5806 D+

THE RANKING OF THE 18 NATIONAL SCHOOLS

THANK YOU!