Examination Scheme at Secondary School Level in Pakistan:Composite Vs Split
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Examination is one and the only instrument for the assessment of different features of teaching learning process. Major objectives of the study were: To compare the students’ results; teachers instructional and assessment practices and administrative affaires of the school principals under composite and split scheme of examination at secondary school level. Stratified sampling technique was used to select 64 secondary schools in the Province of Punjab, Pakistan. All the principals (n=64) and secondary school teachers, with the experience of at least 10 years (n=340) in those selected schools were contacted for the purpose of data collection. Two questionnaires were constructed to collect data from the principals and teachers. Three years result of students studied in those selected schools under composite (2005, 2007 and 2008) and three years results under split scheme of examination (2006, 2009 and 2010) was compared. Data were analyzed with the help of SPSS version 15.0. The major conclusions of the study were: Teachers and students use traditional methods of pedagogy such as lecture method and rote memorization under both examination schemes; principals and teachers feel difficulty to manage the things and often claim time deficiency under split scheme; students’ results under split scheme of examination were better as compared to composite scheme of examination. Key words: Split; Composite; Examination; Secondary School Level; PedagogyResume: L'examen est le seul instrument pour evaluer les differentes caracteristiques des processus d'enseignement. Les principaux objectifs de l'etude etaient les suivants: Pour comparer les resultats des eleves, les professeurs d’enseignement et la pratique d'evaluation, et des affaires administratives des directeurs d'ecole sont sous le regime de split et compose au niveau du secondaire. La technique d'echantillonnage stratifie a ete utilisee pour selectionner 64 ecoles secondaires dans la province de Punjab, au Pakistan. Dans ces ecoles selectionnees , Tous les directeurs d'ecole (n = 64) et les enseignants du secondaire, avec l'experience d'au moins 10 ans (n = 340) ont ete contactes dans le but de la collecte des donnees. Deux questionnaires ont ete faites pour recueillir des donnees de l'ecole et les enseignants. On compare les etudes de 3 ans qui ont ete faites par les etudiants dans des ecoles selectionnees sous le regime des composes (2005, 2007 et 2008) et et des ecoles qui sont au regime de scission de l'examen (2006, 2009 et 2010). Les donnees ont ete analysees a l'aide du logiciel SPSS version 15.0. Les principales conclusions de l'etude etaient: les enseignants et les eleves utilisent des methodes traditionnelles de la pedagogie comme la methode de lecture et de memorisation sous les deux regimes d'examen; les directeurs et les enseignants se sentent mal a gerer les choses et pretendent souvent qu’ils n’ont pas assez de temps sous le regime de scission; les resultats des eleves sous le regime scission de l'examen sont meilleurs que ceux qui sont sous regime compose de l'examen. Mots cles: Split; Compose; Examen de niveau secondaire; La pedagogie
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".