presentation of papers on examination and evaluation policies

Evaluation and Policy Evaluation

• Living reference work entry
• Later version available View entry history
• First Online: 09 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Steve Jacob 4  

138 Accesses

• Accountability
• Evaluation approaches
• Evaluation criteria
• Culturally responsive evaluation
• Systematic inquiry

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Alkin, M., & Christie, T. (Eds.). (2023). Evaluation roots. Theory influencing practice (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Bamberger, M., & Mabry, L. (2019). RealWorld evaluation. Working under budget, time, data and political constraints (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Birch, L. M., & Jacob, S. (2019). “Deliverology” and evaluation: A tale of two worlds. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34 (2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.3138/CJPE.53365

Article   Google Scholar  

Campbell, M., & Ng, R. G. (1988). Program evaluation and the standpoint of women. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 22 , 41–50.

Dubois, C.-A., Champagne, F., & Bilodeau, H. (2011). Historique de l’évaluation. In A. Brousselle, F. Champagne, A.-P. Contandriopoulos, & Z. Hartz (Eds.), L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes (pp. 28–48). Presses de l’Université de Montréal.

Forss, K., Lindkvist, I., & McGillivray, M. (2021). Long term perspectives in evaluation. Increasing relevance and utility . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003058250

Book   Google Scholar  

Furubo, J. E., & Vestman, O. K. (2011). Evaluation: For public good or professional power? In P. Eliadis, J. E. Furubo, & S. Jacob (Eds.), Evaluation: Seeking truth or power? Transaction Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351297844

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Sage Publications.

Hood, S., Hopson, R. K., & Kirkhart, K. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation. Theory, practice, and future implications. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 281–317). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch12

Jacob, S., & Boisvert, Y. (2010). To be or not to be a profession: Pros, cons and challenges for evaluation. Evaluation. The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 16 (4), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389010380

Lawarée, J., Jacob, S., & Ouimet, M. (2020). A scoping review of knowledge syntheses in the field of evaluation across four decades of practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101761

OECD. (2021). Applying evaluation criteria thoughtfully . OECD Edition. https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en .

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Stockmann, R., Meyer, W., & Taube, L. (2020). The institutionalisation of evaluation in Europe: A synthesis. In R. Stockmann, W. Meyer, & L. Taube (Eds.), The institutionalisation of evaluation in Europe (pp. 483–522). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32284-7

Thomas, V. G., & Campbell, P. B. (2020). Evaluation in today’s world. Respecting diversity, improving quality, and promoting usability . Sage Publications.

Thomas, V. G., Madison, A., Rockcliffe, F., DeLaine, K., & Lowe, S. M. (2018). Racism, social programming, and evaluation: Where do we go from here? American Journal of Evaluation, 39 (4), 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018772910

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laval University, Quebec City, Canada

Steve Jacob

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Jacob .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Social and Public Policy, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Minna van Gerven

Department of Political Science, University of Montreal, Montréal, Canada

Christine Rothmayr Allison

Institute of Political Science, University of Münster, Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

Klaus Schubert

Section Editor information

Department of Political Science, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Institute for Political Science, Universität Münster, Münster, Germany

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Jacob, S. (2023). Evaluation and Policy Evaluation. In: van Gerven, M., Rothmayr Allison, C., Schubert, K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Public Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_15-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_15-1

Received : 12 March 2023

Accepted : 15 March 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-90434-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-90434-0

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_15-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_15-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.82(10); 2018 Dec

Best Practices on Examination Construction, Administration, and Feedback

Mary elizabeth ray.

a The University of Iowa College of Pharmacy, Iowa City, Iowa

Kimberly K. Daugherty

b Sullivan University College of Pharmacy, Louisville, Kentucky

Lisa Lebovitz

c University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland

Michael J. Rudolph

d University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky

Veronica P. Shuford

e Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, Virginia

Margarita V. DiVall

f Northeastern University School of Pharmacy, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts

g Editorial Board Member, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education , Arlington, Virginia

Examinations are typically used in higher education to objectively assess student learning, and they are also used as a frequent assessment tool in the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum. This paper describes best practices and provides examples for faculty to build reliable and valid examinations, ensure examination security and deter academic misconduct, and enhance student learning and achievement of course objectives. Colleges and schools of pharmacy can incorporate these concepts into comprehensive examination policies and focus faculty development efforts on improving the examination purpose, design, and experience for both faculty and students.

INTRODUCTION

Examinations are a frequent assessment method used in higher education to objectively measure student competency in attaining course learning objectives. 1,2 Examinations can serve as powerful motivators by communicating to students which concepts and material are particularly important. 2,3 Faculty may then use the results to identify student misconceptions, evaluate learning objectives/activities, and make decisions regarding instructional practices. 4

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education standards hold pharmacy programs accountable to ensure the validity of individual student assessments and integrity of student work. 5 Among specific requirements and suggestions, faculty should ensure that examinations take place under circumstances that minimize academic misconduct, confirm the identity of students taking the examination, and consider examination validation and enhancement to ensure appropriate student progression. 5 Sound principles for examination construction and validation may not be fully understood by all faculty. Additionally, uniform agreement is lacking on the best procedures for examination administration, and whether examinations should be returned to students or retained by faculty. This commentary provides an overview for best practices in examination construction and blueprinting, considerations for ensuring optimal and secure administration of examinations, and guidance for examination reviews and feedback on student performance.

Examination Construction

For an examination to be psychometrically sound, it must be reliable and valid. An examination is considered reliable if the results it generates are consistent and reproducible, such that a student would perform similarly on multiple versions of the examination. An examination is considered valid if it is both reliable and measures the student’s knowledge and skill(s) that it intends to measure. The goal of validity for examinations is to ensure that a representative sample of the intended learning objectives is measured, and that students have satisfied the minimum performance level to be competent with respect to the stated objectives. 1,2

There are four important principles that faculty need to consider when creating a content-valid examination. First, establish the purpose of the examination and take steps to ensure that it measures the desired construct(s). Second, link items on the examination to the course learning objectives and the intended teaching taxonomies. Third, ensure that items are clearly written and well-structured; items that are ambiguous or lack congruence with the objectives may confuse students and directly affect examination scores. The last principle specifies that experts in the field should review the examination to ensure the other three principles have been met. 6

Use of Backward Course Design

Backward course design is an effective method that helps faculty determine which learning objectives, outcomes, and competencies should be assessed and how. 2,7,8 In backward course design, the faculty identifies desired results (outcomes) first, then determines acceptable evidence to demonstrate outcome achievement, and lastly designs the relevant learning experiences with specific objectives. When using examinations as an assessment strategy, faculty must consider which learning objectives are best assessed using this method.

Once the objectives have been specified, faculty need to determine the type of evidence needed to demonstrate student achievement; whether the examination is primarily formative in nature (intended to provide feedback to the student) or summative (to show achievement of the intended outcome(s), and the highest level of expected outcome achievement using Bloom’s taxonomy (eg, knowledge, application, synthesis). 8 This information may then be used to develop an examination blueprint, also called a test specification document, which lays the necessary foundation for the item development process.

Examination Blueprinting

Examination blueprinting is one method for faculty to ensure that their assessments align with the intended student learning objectives and levels of learning, and should be completed prior to examination construction. 2,9 The process should consider the total amount of time allotted for the examination, which should dictate the number of questions, the distribution of items between topics, and item difficulty. The primary purpose of blueprinting is to maximize examination validity; however, despite its usefulness, a 2003 study found that only 15% of 144 United States and Canadian medical schools required course directors to develop assessment blueprints prior to writing assessments. 10,11 Blueprinting was also among the least used best practices for examination construction among nursing faculty. 12 Pharmacy literature lacks on the subject of test blueprinting; however, national examinations such as PCOA and licensing examinations do describe their comprehensive blueprinting methodologies. 13,14

When blueprinting, faculty must also consider logistics such as the total number of items and overall length of the examination. Time spent on each item will vary based on the level of difficulty of the question, as well as the volume of reading associated with the question. For example, it takes much less time for a student to answer a question with a simple stem based on strict memorization of fact than to read a long and detailed patient case, think critically about the information, and synthesize an answer. Faculty should consider only including auxiliary information when truly needed to answer the question; it can be frustrating for students to spend examination time reading a long case only to be asked a question they could have answered without it. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) allows three hours to complete the 225-item Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) examination (0.8 minute per question), and six hours to complete a 250-item NAPLEX examination (1.44 minute per question). 13,14 Allocating at least 1 minute per question is a reasonable place to start, and adjustments can be made based on data collected from examinations, particularly if an electronic system is available to collect such data.

Faculty should use blueprinting to reduce two key validity threats: construct representation and construct-irrelevant variance. Issues with construct representation (more specifically misrepresentation, underrepresentation, or overrepresentation) occur when there is under-, over-, or biased sampling of the selected examination content. Faculty can minimize this threat to validity by ensuring proportional representation of content covered within the examination. The blueprint for item allocation and overall weighting should be proportional to the coverage of course content. In a simple scenario where all topics are considered equally important and are delivered using similar instructional methodologies, examination items should be divided among topics proportionally. For example, when writing a 50-item therapeutic examination assessing diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension with 30%, 30%, and 40% course content coverage respectively, the examination should contain 15 questions each for diabetes and hyperlipidemia, and 20 questions for hypertension. Faculty can support the validity of their examination by planning properly for construct representation.

Construct-irrelevant variance (CIV) occurs when there are flawed item formats, such as when examination items are written at an inappropriate level of difficulty (eg, too hard or too easy) or the wrong question format is chosen. CIV is often seen as a systematic error that either inflates or deflates a test score, which introduces bias. 15 Item difficulty will also depend on the level of the learners and the learning objectives being assessed. Using a range of difficulty (minimally difficult to very difficult) is helpful to ensure that the examination can be completed within the allotted time. This is particularly important for examinations with questions from multiple instructors.

The last step in the examination construction is test item development. 9 Multiple-choice item writing is not easy, and many pharmacy faculty members have never received formal training related to this critical skill. 16 Developing test items requires a significant amount of practice and appropriate feedback. It is helpful for new faculty to field-test items before they are used on examinations, and to use peer expert reviewers to establish validity of items. 2,9,12 In-depth coverage regarding examination question writing is beyond the scope of this commentary, however there are many resources related to best practices in item writing, including proper selection of question format which helps to avoid construct-irrelevant variance. 2,3,17

EXAMINATION ADMINISTRATION

Examination security.

After the assessment is created, it requires administration under proper conditions. Policies for examination administration should be designed with input from both faculty and students to outline expectations for student conduct and provide protocols for security to minimize opportunities for dishonesty. Well-developed policies should also identify penalties associated with policy infractions. Unfortunately, when it comes to cheating, cost (ie, potential punishment) versus benefit (ie, better grades) is sometimes an ethical dilemma for students. Ip and colleagues found that 11.8% of pharmacy students admitted to academic dishonesty while in pharmacy school, motivated primarily by fear of failure, stress, and procrastination. 18 Cheating as an undergraduate student was the only reliable predictor of cheating in pharmacy school. It is wise for faculty and programs to assume that dishonesty will occur without concerted prevention efforts; consistency among faculty and administrators regarding setting expectations, and reinforcing the examination policy and code of conduct, creates a culture of academic integrity. 19

The first step in ensuring examination security is to maximize attendance. At institutions with multiple campuses, examinations should be administered during the same time period. Examination times should ideally be scheduled to avoid conflict with commonly attended professional events, to avoid the need for make-up examinations. Policies limiting the scope of acceptable absences and requiring advanced notification with documentation for anticipated absences (eg, meeting brochure) may serve as a deterrent. In the case where absence cannot be avoided, acquiring identification is key unless the student is well known to the proctor to prevent dishonesty through use of a surrogate.

To maximize examination integrity, makeup examinations should be administered after the regularly scheduled examination for the course is administered. Testing the same outcomes on a make-up examination through different assessment questions or in a different fashion (eg, essay instead of multiple choice) may reduce requests for make-ups to those absolutely necessary. However, having a different make-up test has several implications such as perception of fairness to all students (eg, extra study time or less desirable examination formats), faculty workload, and scheduling challenges when large numbers of students are excused from the initial test date. A creative measure might include administration of the make-up examination with a proctor off-site, such as when a faculty member attends the same conference with students. Remote proctoring services using technology are also available. 20,21

Students must be on time for examinations, both for security purposes and to prevent distracting others who have started the examination. Many programs either set an established cut-off time for entry or employ policies that prohibit entry of new examination takers after the first examination taker has left the room. Though in theory this practice seems logical if one assumes that examination security has been compromised, unless a different examination is offered for makeup, it may make more sense to have the student begin the examination rather than delay further. Penalties such as having less time to complete the examination or automatic point deductions may motivate a tardy student for future timeliness. For electronic examinations, late arrivals require students to open their examinations to ensure they did not begin their examination after unauthorized receipt of a password from someone already in the testing room. Students should not be excused from the examination room without good reason; only one student at a time should be permitted to exit and only after ensuring their materials are secure.

Examination Proctors

The number of trained proctors should be chosen to maximize security and limit distractions. NABP uses a proctor to student ratio of 1:25 for the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment - and the College Board uses a ratio of 1:34. 22 Regardless of ratio, proctors should be assigned to actively observe, circulate around the room, and attend to students for collection of examination materials or examination upload confirmation. It is also good practice to include at least one faculty member to assist in supervision and assume responsibility in the case of cheating or unforeseen emergencies. The faculty proctor need not have material on the examination to proctor, since answering questions during the examination may create an unfair advantage between students.

Proctors should receive specific training in how to establish and maintain a secure examination environment, as well as handle dishonesty and other emergent situations. The most important aspect of such training is that they avoid distraction and take the task at hand seriously. Too often, proctors including faculty proctors, may be found sitting with their heads down, looking at their phones, or grading papers. Proctors, or invigilators (ie, one who is vigilant), should walk up and down the aisles and make eye contact with students. 23 Problems with cheating often occur in situations where a vigilant proctor may have made the difference.

Remote examination proctoring is becoming available through a variety of vendors for use during large examination administrations, with distance-learning students, for make-up examinations, or other instances when it is difficult to secure skilled proctors. In remote proctoring, students take examinations while monitored using web-cam computer technology, as well as fingerprint scanners to verify student identity. Software records audio and video of the student, as well as the 360 degree room environment, and may be “tagged” and reviewed when cheating is suspected. Remote proctoring has been shown to serve as a deterrent of cheating, but requires further investigation. 20,21

Deterring Academic Misconduct

Random examination seating either by chart or at the direction of proctors may enhance security. Students have greater difficulty coordinating collaborative methods of cheating or proactively “planting” unauthorized materials if they do not know where they will sit. Seating charts also allow for seats to be blocked (eg, back rows) to ensure easy movement and viewing by proctors. To decrease the burden of randomizing every time, faculty should prepare several versions of a seating chart for each cohort in advance and choose the final version at exam time. Seating charts may also aid in confirming attendance. For additional security and verification of attendance, students may be asked for identification, to wear ID badges, sign an attendance log, or even provide biometric confirmation. 24

Another strategy to deter cheating is through administration of different versions of the examination. 25 Examination content and items may be kept identical among versions, but placed on the examination in different order. With paper examinations, avoid using different color paper or large font headings indicating examination version to prevent collusion between students with the same version. Electronic testing allows for randomization of sequence and item choices. Programs using electronic testing may consider the use of privacy screens as an additional, but not foolproof, security measure. If used, it is recommended that specifications and estimated cost for screens are included in the technology requirement policy; there is great variation in type, cost, and viewing angle limits of available options on the market.

Careful consideration should be paid to restricting items from students at their seats to those essential for taking the examination (eg, sharpened No. 2 pencil and computer). Bulky coats, hoodies, and hats may be restricted (with exceptions made for religious purposes), to prevent students from hiding notes or other items. Even the simplest of items may be suspect including pens, mechanical pencils, tissue packets, food, and drinks, which is also why board examinations do not permit these items. 14 Certainly, any items that transmit information such as smart watches and cellphones should be prohibited. Faculty should consider restriction of watches and activity monitors entirely, communicating time via room clock or electronic testing software. This alleviates the need for proctors to assess whether each item is suspect, and prevents notes from being hidden beneath the face or band. Similarly, distribution of non-programmable calculators or use of electronic examination calculators is recommended. Lastly, faculty should strongly consider creation of and distribution of uniform reference materials (eg, calculation formulas) and scratch paper (ideally of an alternate color), so proctors may easily identify them. All restrictions should be outlined within the exam administration policy to ensure consistency in expectations by students and proctors. Periodic conversations, surveys, or focus groups with students may further inform faculty and administrators of how effective these measures are at deterring cheating.

All students are expected to adhere to the Code of Conduct of their program, which should address matters of cheating (including aiding someone else) as well as the inappropriate use of technology resources. Students should take measures to protect their own work and be cautious of behaviors that give the appearance of cheating (eg, talking, wandering eyes, possessing restricted items). Having a secure examination environment and good proctoring may deter cheating; however, both students and proctors who witness or become aware of acts of academic dishonesty during an examination or examination review session should be encouraged to report the concern. Students should alert a proctor of suspicious behavior discretely but immediately, so the situation may be assessed, ideally with the assistance of a faculty member. Of note, Rabi and colleagues determined that classroom atmosphere can influence cheating behaviors and suggested that faculty who appear more approachable and less intimidating can reduce cheating in the classroom. 25

Perhaps the best way to deter cheating is to reinforce expectations and apply punishment for infractions. Faculty should take seriously any reports of cheating on examinations, or in any assessment. Sharing de-identified statistics regarding reports of cheating and resultant consequences lends credibility to the importance of reporting for all stakeholders. 26 Having no consequences for cheating sends a message to those cheating and others that there is minimal risk in doing so. Those who are honest and do not cheat are left feeling discouraged and their efforts devalued. Interestingly, for cases of cheating, nursing students most frequently suggested receipt of a zero on the assessment, and expulsion from either the program or university. 23 Further investigation is needed as to whether pharmacy student opinions regarding punishments for academic dishonesty differ from their nursing counterparts.

Post-examination Review and Feedback

Some institutions have policies and procedures regarding student reviews of completed examinations, and whether students may keep the examinations. In the absence of institutional policy, faculty often debate the pros and cons of returning examinations to students. As part of the student’s educational record under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), students have a right to access, inspect, and review examinations. However, unless there is no reasonable way for the student to access their records, this right does not entitle them to receive a permanent copy. 27

Both the pros and cons of returning examinations must be considered. Pros primarily relate to logistical factors: if examinations are returned for students to keep, faculty may not need to schedule large group or individual meeting viewing sessions, fewer individual questions may come from students about their performance, and storage room for paper examinations is not necessary. However, these time savings are offset by the need to develop new questions during each course iteration because there is an inherent risk that students may share old examinations with future student cohorts. Future student performance may also be compromised since review of old examinations places the focus on a limited cross-section of previously tested material, rather than comprehensive review.

Perhaps the biggest drawback to returning examinations without a formalized review process is that students lose an opportunity to learn from and reflect on their performance. Reflection on assessments can help develop a student’s metacognition and improve learning. 28 This impact should encourage those faculty who wish to maintain control of examination content to strongly consider providing students with an opportunity for review and guidance to reflect on their performance.

Logistically, examination review may be accomplished in many ways, from inviting students to review and discuss their examination during office hours to scheduling several small group review sessions, or holding class-wide optional or mandatory review sessions. The last option may be the most efficient use of time for large enrollment courses, although faculty must take measures to maintain examination-like security during such sessions such as having proctors and prohibiting student use of cameras and note-taking. Some electronic testing software allows students to review the full examination or those marked as incorrect, either during a review session or immediately following completion and closure of their examination. The positives of the latter review approach is that students receive immediate feedback while already in a secure testing environment. Consideration must be paid to whether active test takers have the potential to view the examination screens of those in review mode; a privacy screen may be helpful. Immediate electronic examination review should be restricted if make-up examinations are pending.

Electronic testing software can also provide students with personalized learning reports that provide a snapshot of their performance, alone and/or compared to their peers, in areas that instructors have tagged as valuable (eg, programmatic outcomes, specific content area, complexity of learning achieved). Longitudinal reports on individual and class cohort performance are also beneficial so that students can reflect on their own growth over time in the program, and gauge their progress compared to peers.

Regardless of the method of examination delivery or whether full examinations are provided to students, a post-examination reflective activity or assignment is an effective method to enhance metacognition. An “exam wrapper” or cognitive wrapper assignment focuses on examination preparation instead of content. Through the use of guided questions, students self-assess their study skills and set goals for changes needed to improve future examination performance. 29 This activity inculcates the most basic habits of lifelong learning, addressing both cognitive and behavioral regulation. Content reflection is even more essential for long-term competency development, which is the overarching outcome in pharmacy programs. A broad example is when the faculty retains the examination but shares cohort performance data by topic during a live review or as a post-examination assignment; students are prompted to describe their pre-examination understanding of the concepts within that topic, review faculty feedback and identify the essential concepts, and then reflect on their knowledge gaps. A more specific example is when faculty return individual examinations to students for an open-book assignment, and students document the essential concepts and explain their thought process for each question (in the case of multiple choice examinations, why the correct answer is correct and the wrong answers are wrong). 30

Faculty members at pharmacy schools and colleges must consider strategies to ensure examination validity and security. Best practices described in this paper and discussions among faculty and students should inform comprehensive school-wide examination-related policies that focus on implementing measures to ensure student identify and deter academic misconduct. Faculty development should focus on appropriate examination construction and blueprinting, optimization of examination administration, and providing meaningful feedback for metacognitive learning after the examination. Additional sharing of best practices is encouraged to expand on the literature in these important areas.

• Alumni & Friends
• Academic Calendar

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

You are here, examination policies and best practices.

Final Examination Policies and Procedures Policy on administration of final exams Off-cycle Courses: Special Instructions Changes in the final examination schedule Scheduling adjustments for individual students Absence from final examinations Disruptions of final examinations

General Examination Procedures Suggested best practices Scheduling examinations outside of class time Make-up examinations policy Test modifications for students with disabilities Construction noise during an exam

CLAS Policy on Administration of Final Exams

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences expects all courses to include appropriate procedures for evaluating student performance. For many undergraduate courses, these procedures will include a final exam, a final paper or project, or some other cumulative activity appropriate to the discipline and to the course.

• Final examinations, whether in an on-campus or an online course, must be given during the one-week period set aside by the University for this purpose; likewise, final examinations must be given at the time specified on the Registrar's Final Examination Schedule page.
• However, please note the exception for off-cycle courses ; in these courses that also end at the fall or spring "close of classes" date , final exams must be given during the last week of classes . (For more information, see this p age ).
• No exams or quizzes of any kind may be given during the last week of a course, including both on-campus or online courses. However, please note that this policy does not extend to makeup exams or to labs even if the lab is graded and has components of a quiz associated with the lab experience.
• All courses are assigned a final examination time within the final examination week.

CLAS does not support changes to the modality of a final exam from an in-person modality to an online modality. Changes of this nature can cause confusion for students, and issues related to the need for access to technology and internet arise.

If an emergency arises and the instructor is unable to attend their final exam time and place, instructors should work with the department to find a solution. If the only solution is to offer the exam online, they should contact the department DEO and Associate Dean Lang for permission for the undergraduate final exam to have its modality changed.

• Take-home final exams must use the specified final exam period as the last possible time that the take-home exam may be turned in.
• In courses where papers or projects rather than a final examination constitute the last evaluation activity, instructors may use the scheduled final exam period as the due date for the project/paper.
• Instructors also may use the final examination period to meet with students to discuss the papers/projects.
• Information on the use of the final examination period and its duration should be told to students as soon as possible. Although final exams are not scheduled by the Registrar until around the fifth week of the semester, instructors should still put as much information about the final exam as possible in the syllabus, including its duration and a reminder to students not to plan travel until the exam date and time is announced.

Final Examination Schedule

Instructors administering final examinations are required to use the date, time, and location, if applicable, as assigned by the Office of the Registrar.

While examination periods are scheduled for a two-hour duration, the Office of the Registrar does not require instructors to use the full two-hour period. Students should be notified well in advance of the exam if the exam period will be shortened.

Students should be prepared to be on campus until the last exam period of final exam week.

Once final exam information is released to students, around the fifth week of the semester, making changes is challenging and approval is not guaranteed. If changes are needed, they should be requested right away. Changes to undergraduate exam times, places, and modalities require approval from the DEO and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.

For more information from the Registrar about final exams, visit this  page .

Scheduling Adjustments for Individual Students

Instructors may make arrangements with individual students to take final examinations at times other than the regularly scheduled time if circumstances warrant.

Students who have two or more final exams/assessments scheduled for the same exam period or more than two final exams/assessments scheduled for the same exam day qualify to request a makeup final examination time from their instructors.

However, students are required to contact the instructors of the courses involved to register their intent to take advantage of this opportunity and must do so within two weeks (14 days) of being notified by the Office of the Registrar of their final examination week schedule. It is up to the instructors of the courses involved to work in cooperation with their students to schedule appropriate makeup final examination arrangements according to the makeup final examination scheduling policies.

Absence from Final Examinations

If a student is absent from a final examination but is otherwise in good standing with only the final exam to complete, the instructor should report the student's grade in MAUI without the exam. If the student has an acceptable reason for being absent, the instructor should arrange to give the student a makeup examination during the student's next period in residence or earlier, if at all possible. After the remaining work is completed, the instructor may submit a grade change. The remaining required course work should be completed, and the grade changed, within one additional semester (excluding summer or winter sessions). Another option is for an instructor to assign a mark of Incomplete, see Incomplete Policy .

If a student does not have a satisfactory excuse for missing a final examination, the instructor may assign the grade earned by the student without the score from the exam included in this final grade.

Disruptions of Final Examinations

In the unlikely event that a final examination is disrupted by events other than construction noise (see Class Disruptions ) such as by a fire alarm, electrical outage, tornado warning, or other unpredictable incident, instructors must make whatever immediate decision seems appropriate to insure the safety of students.

When possible, instructors should maintain examination security (for instance, by having students turn in examination papers as they leave the room). If the incident is of short duration, sufficient time may have elapsed (or remain) that the instructor may be able to simply shorten the examination.

The instructor should contact the DEO for help in creating an equitable solution to the grading problems that the disruption causes. In most cases, especially with large classes, it will not be possible to schedule a makeup examination. In situations where exam security has been maintained, some portion of credit may be allocated for the examination. In other cases, it may be appropriate to recalculate grades without including an examination grade.

Departments and instructors should strive to ensure that no student is unfairly penalized or favored by the policy adopted. The Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education can also advise faculty and departments.

Suggested Best Practices

It is vital to make sure exams are administered fairly, with the following best practices recommended by faculty. Departments may want to review this list and choose options that will work for its students and instructors.

Check student IDs when they enter the classroom and check them off a class list or ask students to sign the list as the ID card is checked.

Make sure to give each student only one scantron form and to collect only one from each student at the end of the exam.

Create multiple forms of one exam; some instructors use up to five different formats. Use different questions or the same questions scrambled. Warn students that the exams differ and that misconduct will be apparent when the exam is graded.

Use assigned seating so friends do not sit together. This can be done formally in larger lecture rooms by creating labels with corresponding seat numbers from the room and by placing a label on each exam, handing out the exams randomly. (For smaller classes, this can be done informally by directing students to one side of the room or the other.) Some instructors require students to sit in alternate rows, if possible, with each row receiving different versions of the exam.

Tell students about the CLAS Code of Academic Honesty and remind them about the importance of academic integrity and the consequences of misconduct.

Include a pledge on your exam that the students sign. Here is a sample statement: “I do my own work and I do not cheat. I understand that cheating hurts other students and that it diminishes my own learning.”

Use Turnitin for any written work, including take-home exams (available as a feature on the ICON dropbox from Canvas) and tell students how Turnitin works.

Make sure all backpacks are closed and that laptops, phones, books, notebooks, papers, or other informational sources are left in the backpack under the desk or in the front of the room. This removes the temptation of looking at a cell phone. Tell students that if their phones or other device are visible, this will be counted as cheating. Many instructors also forbid translators and calculators, a policy which the College endorses since students should know or learn the vocabulary used in your class (unless related SDS accommodations apply).

Announce that students must remain in the room until they turn in their examinations. Permission to leave the room is granted by the instructor only in emergencies.

Proctor the exam by walking up and down the rows; the room should never be left unattended. Each proctor should oversee no more than 50 -75 students.

Stop cheating as soon as it is seen; move the student to a new location, noting the student’s name and where the student was in the exam when the misconduct occurred. When the exam is graded, review this exam carefully.

Collect all copies of the exam when students are done, putting them in a large envelope, thus helping to ensure the exams are not taken or lost.

Use different exams if students take the exam on different days or at different times.

Be sure to report academic misconduct by using the online reporting form . The College tracks students who commit academic misconduct, even if the student moves to another UI undergraduate college.

Scheduling Midterm Exams Outside of Class Time

Instructors must be particularly careful about scheduling examinations outside of class time, which may cause scheduling conflicts for many students. The Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education developed with representatives from all the undergraduate colleges the following University examination policies :

• Some courses schedule midterm examinations outside of the regular class period and at times these conflict with a student's other classes or exams. The University has established policies to govern these situations as noted on the Office of the Registrar's website under Midterm Exam Policies .
• When instructors plan to give exams outside of class time, they should announce the dates and times at the first class meeting and list them on the course syllabus for distribution at the first class meeting.
• When there is conflict between an exam scheduled outside of class time and a regularly scheduled course, the regularly scheduled course will take precedence.
• When there is a conflict between two or more exams scheduled outside their regular class times, makeup exams should be assigned according to  makeup exam precedence rules .
• When there is a conflict between an exam scheduled outside of class time and other scheduled and required course activities (e.g. performances, meetings, lectures), the required course activity will take precedence.
• When there is a conflict between an exam scheduled outside of class time and other scheduled, non-required course activities or personal obligations, the exam will take precedence. However, exams not scheduled and announced in class at least 14 days in advance will not have priority under this policy.
• Instructors must offer reasonable options, including makeup time and location, without penalty to students who miss exams due to conflicts described above.
• The makeup exam, if different, should be as equivalent as possible in content, difficulty, form, and time limits to the original. The standards for scoring and grading the makeup exam should be equivalent to those used with the original exam as well.

Note: The College will not authorize the scheduling of examinations on Saturdays or Sundays (except in courses that are regularly scheduled to meet on Saturdays or Sundays).

Make-up Examinations Policy

University regulations require that students be allowed to make up examinations which have been missed due to illness, religious holy days, military service obligations, including service-related medical appointments, jury duty, or other unavoidable circumstances or other University-sponsored activities ( Policy Manual, IV-8.1 ). Instructors must offer reasonable options without penalty to students who have missed examinations for legitimate reasons.

It is the student's responsibility to contact the instructor as soon as possible about the reasons for a missed exam and, if the instructor so wishes, to provide appropriate documentation.

Make-up examinations should be scheduled at a reasonable time and location. The make-up examination, if different, should be equivalent to the original in form, content, difficulty, and time limits, and the standards for scoring and grading should be equivalent to those used for the original examination.

Test Modifications for Students with Disabilities

Student Disability Services (141 UCC, 335-1462), can help instructors arrange appropriate modifications for students with disabilities while protecting academic standards. Staff members are specifically trained and have access to the confidential information needed to make determinations of the appropriateness of testing modifications; they have experience in determining specific classroom modifications and can suggest approaches that have proved to be fair and equitable. For more information, see this page: Process for implementing exam accommodations . 

See Accommodating Students with Disabilities and Related SDS Information for more information about students with disabilities.

Construction Noise During an Exam

The policy of the University's Operations and Maintenance office is to stop construction immediately when the work disturbs an examination in progress. The instructor in charge of an examination should promptly report such problems to Operations and Maintenance (335-5071) or to the construction workers, asking them to contact their supervisor.

See Class Disruptions for information on other disruptions.  

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Examination and Evaluation Policy under Autonomy

1.  Examination Pattern

A.  Continuous Assessment (40 marks) – 40 % weightage will be distributed as follows:

• Continuous Assessment I (Test) – 20
• Continuous Assessment II  (Project/Presentation/Field   Work/Review & Attendance) (20 marks)

B.  Semester End Examination (60 marks) -60% weightage

• 4 questions of 15 marks each with internal Or 5 questions of 12 marks each with internal choice
• Equal weightage to each module of the syllabus.
• The break- up of 12/15 marks will be decided by the respective Board of
• Practical Examination (50 marks) – 50% for B.Sc. Information Technology and B.Sc. Fashion Design .

2.  Pattern

Continuous Assessment will be of 40 marks. There shall be two Continuous Assessment in each semester.

• CA I is for 20 marks which will be in the form of test
• CA II will be for 20 marks which will be in the form of Projects of quality, Research, Review of articles, field work, presentation, to be decided by the Department in the departmental meeting in consultation with the Coordinator.

3.  Moderation

There will be no moderation of Continuous Assessment Test.

4. Re-verification/Revaluation of Answer Papers

• Re-verification of Continuous Assessment test papers can be done at the discretion of examination committee after discussion with head of the department, vice principal and principal. The matter will be referred to by the subject teacher
• There is no facility for re-valuation of Continuous Assessment test

5. Continuous Assessment II

• Continuous Assessment II will be for 20
• 10 marks will be based on projects, research, review of articles, field work, presentation, etc. and will be to be decided by the Department in the departmental meeting in consultation with the
• 10 marks will be allotted to the students on the basis of his / her active participation in the classroom (attendance).
• The following scale will be applied for conversion of attendance into marks:

6. Semester End Examination

a.     Conduct

• Semester End Examination will carry 60
• Student will be allowed to appear for the Semester End Examination provided he/she fulfils the attendance criterion. If a student fails to clear the examination in the first attempt, the student will get a second chance to appear for the examination in the next same semester (ATKT) Examination.
• If a student is unable to appear for the Semester End examination on medical ground, participation in sports, cultural or other activities representing the college at the university or state or national or international level, He will get a chance to appear for additional examination in the same
• Student is not allowed to appear for the Semester End Examination if he / she fails to comply with the attendance criterion. If a student fails to clear the examination in the first/second attempt or is not allowed to write the examination due to default in attendance, the student will get a chance to appear for the examination at the end of the same academic

b.     Pattern of Semester Question Paper

• Semester examination question paper should be based on the syllabus taught in the classroom in that semester and as prescribed by the Board of studies and approved by Academic Council of Ramanand Arya D.A.V. College.
• Total marks of each semester examination will be
• Four questions of 15 marks each with sub question and internal choice to be
• Equal weight age to be given to each module
• The assigned value 15/ 12 marks per question will to be decided by the Board of Studies of the concerned department and should be clearly assign in the question paper setting.

c.     Moderation

• Moderation will be applicable to all evaluated answer scripts of first year, second year and third year semester examination.
• Moderation will be available only for first attempt and not for subsequent
• Moderation of answer paper will be done in the CAP
• Moderator preferably should be an external teacher having sufficient years of teaching experience in the concerned subject.

d.     Declaration of the Result

• After receiving the moderated hard copy of the mark list, the Chief Controller and Controller of Examination will review the results and decide the gracing policy in consultation with the Coordinator of each The Examination Committee will be responsible for checking the posting of moderated marks.
• After gracing the result can be declared and a copy of result will posted on the website through website in charge

e.     Gracing Policy

• Gracing will be done after considering the overall performance in the
• Up to a maximum 1% of the grand total per semester can be added to any course(s) to fulfill the passing norms in case of failure in only one
• Grade up-liftment: A student can be uplifted for higher grade (only for A+ to O)

if required marks is less than 3 in a subject. This can be allotted to a maximum of two subjects and a maximum of 3 marks.

• General gracing if necessary will be carried out by the examination committee in consultation with Principal.
• A Student will be entitled to 10 grace marks which will be added to his or her even semester mark sheet of the academic year in which he or she has represented the college in sports, cultural, NSS, or DLLE at the university level subject to approval from the chief controller of examination.
• If he or she has cleared all the subject maximum 10 marks will be added to total and in case of student who has failed, it can be added to the subjects provided after adding to the subjects he/she passes. If the students still fail he/she will not get any grace marks.

7.  Practical Examination

• If a student does not appear in the practical examination, due to some unavoidable circumstances, he / she will be given an additional attempt after receipt of the The student will have to pay additional examination fee for the same.
• Evaluation Scheme: Practical examination will be conducted for each practical subject for 50 marks, which has to be completed in 2 hours duration. These 50 marks are distributed in the following three components:-
• Practical questions – 40 marks: two questions of 20 marks
• Journal- 5 marks: certified journal, covering the entire

(C) Viva-Voice – 5 marks

8. Provision for student with special abilities

• Students with Dyslexia, Dysgraphia & Dyscalculia or visually impaired / low / vision / physically challenged will be offered facilities of extra time, writer and special seating
• They are required to apply to the Examination Committee 15 days prior to the examination along with the latest certified supporting

9.    Grade Improvement

A student who is not satisfied with the grade he / she have obtained can apply for improvement of grade after completion of last semester.

Online Examination and Evaluation System

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.