Internal assessment revisited.

T. Singh,Anshu
2009-03-01
Abstract:INTRODUCTION In 1997, the Medical Council of India (MCI) made an announcement regarding the assessment pattern of medical graduates. In a major departure from earlier regulations, the 1997 MCI regulations on Graduate Medical Education (GME) made it mandatory for undergraduate students to pass their internal assessment (IA) before they could appear for their final university examinations. These MCI regulations specify that IA shall be based on day-to-day assessment, evaluation of assignments, preparation for seminars, clinical case presentations, and so on. They go on to say that ‘periodical examinations shall be conducted throughout the course’. The number of examinations to be held has been left to the institution concerned. The ways in which a student participates in the learning process during the semesters should also be evaluated. Further, the IA should take into account a student’s performance in clinical case study/ problem-solving exercises, participation in projects for community healthcare, and proficiency in carrying out practicals and skills required for small research projects. The student’s performance in multiple-choice question tests on the completion of the teaching programme of an organ system should also be considered. A perusal of these guidelines makes it clear that the intention was to have a system of assessment that does not focus primarily on knowledge, but on the manner in which knowledge is acquired. IA is not viewed as another type of examination in which external examiners are not used. Instead, it is designed to look at a different set of competencies. The emphasis on dayto-day observations, in contrast to snapshot observations, is important because it brings into focus the process and final product of learning. It has been over 10 years since this change was effected. However, IA has not been implemented in the way it seems to have been visualized. Further, as the MCI guidelines are only suggestive and not prescriptive, there is much variation in the pattern of IA followed by various universities, especially with regard to the competencies assessed. The only areas of consensus seem to be the weightage given to IA and the cutoff criteria. Worse, IA is frequently viewed as an examination without external regulation and, therefore, prone to abuse. A number of academic frauds specifically related to IA have been reported, both in the media as well as in the scientific literature. Even in the best of settings, the conventional final summative examination (with external examiners) has a number of limitations. These include the following:
What problem does this paper attempt to address?