Pandemic exams: one in three say MATSEC students ignored COVID rules

A survey among 851 candidates for the Maltese matriculation exams has revealed that 33% felt social distancing rules during exam sessions went ignored by candidates.

While nearly 90% think the authorities did take the right steps to protect students, one in three students sitting for their O and A levels in September felt that COVID precautions and regulations were not respected by fellow students.

Only 2,892 out of the 5,158 original SEC candidates (57.5%) opted to sit for the September session. This was due to the fact that after the MATSEC Examinations Board cancelled the May session at the height of the pandemic, candidates due to sit for their SEC were given another option: that of being awarded a ‘predicted level’ of achievement based on school mock exam results.

Those sitting for their matriculation certificate, as well as private SEC candidates and candidates from institutions which did not have mock exams, had to sit for the September session.

The MATSEC feedback survey reveals that many students expected that the stress and uncertainty caused by the pandemic should be taken into consideration by examiners when correcting their papers

Indeed participants not receiving a ‘predicted level’ expressed their disappointment at not receiving that same grade from a similar exercise.

Respondents were asked to fill a questionnaire in which they were asked to state their agreement or disagreement with various statements related to the September session.

While an absolute majority of respondents agreed that sufficient health mitigation measures were published by the Ministry for Health to minimize the spread of COVID-19 (87.7%) during exams, and that these measures were properly adopted by examination centers (88.1%), a third (33%) disagreed that candidates had observed the measures; many reported that candidates were not even wearing their masks properly and were grouping together outside examination centres.

Several respondents argued that candidates should not have been left waiting outside; that entering and exiting examination centres should have been better controlled to avoid candidates getting caught in bottleneck; and that older participants should have been placed in separate rooms.

Some of the responses were however rather contradictory: a number of students complained of the heat, failing to understand that windows had to be left open for ventilation while indoor fans could not directed at candidates, due to COVID rules. Then again, others complained that fans were actually directed towards candidates, increasing the risk of transmission.

Most respondents (74.9%) agreed that the removal of oral, aural and practical components was needed to limit the risk of transmission, though 59.3% of the respondents also agreed that removing these components made the assessment unfair in those particular subjects. In their comments, some suggested that oral examinations should have taken place with mitigation measures, such as increased distance, better time-tabling of the examination, and masks worn by both examiners and candidates.

In retrospect, most respondents (63.8%) also agreed that examinations should have been held in May as was initially planned, citing in their comments that the rate of infections was lower in May than in September and that the excessive waiting time increased their anxiety.

Many complained that exams should have been held online, similar to the method adopted by the University of Malta, or that written examinations are an obsolete method of assessing performance.

Only 36.3% of respondents to the survey indicated being school candidates who received a ‘predicted level’.  The vast majority (69.6%) said the ‘predictive level’ exercise “does not accurately reflect differences in achievement between students who will be competing for the same schools and workplaces”.

However, 83.8% agreed that it was “a good initiative to reduce candidates’ stress and workload during this time of uncertainty” and 81.8% agreed a similar exercise should have been carried out for A level candidates.

Then again, 72.2% felt that this initiative allowed individuals to work less and still get results.

From the responses to these multiple-choice questions, it remains unclear whether respondents were positive or not towards the ‘predicted level’ exercise or not, as respondents at times agreed to rather opposite statements.

While 58% agreed that the ‘predicted level’ should have been based on the mock examination, 66% also agreed that the ‘predicted level’ should have been based on the last three years of secondary schooling.

A number of respondents, especially those sitting for science subjects, claimed that questions did not cover topics learned in schools, with particular emphasis on science subjects, specifically Chemistry and Biology. Others commented that not all online teaching experiences were positive and this impacted their performance.