Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The debate around on-screen marking (OSM) often suffers from a false choice: either accept every flaw in implementation or abandon the system altogether. The reality is more nuanced. OSM is not inherently flawed. In fact, it represents a global best practice adopted by many of the world’s most respected examination and assessment bodies. The challenge lies not in the concept but in the quality of execution.
advertisement
Across the world, large-scale examinations have increasingly moved towards digital evaluation because it offers several advantages over traditional paper-based marking. These include improved examiner monitoring, reduced logistical delays, enhanced traceability, better quality control, and the ability to use analytics to detect anomalies in marking patterns. Prestigious assessment organisations, like the International Baccalaureate Organisation, have successfully used digital evaluation systems for years.
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence makes the case for OSM even stronger. AI-powered assessment analytics can identify examiner bias, detect unusually harsh or lenient marking, flag inconsistencies across evaluators, and recommend moderation interventions in real time. Such capabilities are impossible — or at best extremely difficult — to implement in a purely paper-based system. AI can act as an intelligent quality assurance layer, helping ensure fairness and consistency without replacing the professional judgment of human examiners.
However, transitions of this scale are rarely seamless. Every major examination reform experiences an adjustment period. In the initial years, a hybrid model is often the most sensible approach. Traditional evaluation practices and OSM can coexist, allowing examination authorities to build examiner confidence, refine workflows, improve vendor capabilities, and gather evidence on outcomes. During this phase, continuous calibration, examiner training, and robust moderation become essential.
What should not happen is a retreat into outdated practices simply because the first implementation encountered difficulties. If a vendor performs poorly, the solution is to improve procurement, strengthen oversight, and enhance system design; not to discard the entire methodology. No one argues that aviation should return to manual navigation because a software system once failed. Similarly, educational assessment should not abandon digital evaluation because of implementation shortcomings.
The history of educational reform shows that innovations often face resistance before becoming standard practice. OSM today is where many transformative technologies once were: promising, imperfect, and evolving. With the integration of AI-driven quality controls, examiner training, and better operational management, digital evaluation systems are likely to become even more reliable and transparent than traditional methods.
The real question, therefore, is not whether OSM should continue; it is how to implement it better. Examination systems should focus on improving governance, technology, vendor accountability, and examiner preparedness while preserving the advantages of digital evaluation. Progress is rarely achieved by returning to the past; it is achieved by learning from mistakes and refining what works.
In an era where education is increasingly data-driven and technology-enabled, abandoning OSM would be a step backwards. The wiser course is to strengthen it, supplement it with AI-based quality assurance, and allow the system the time needed to mature into the robust assessment framework it has the potential to become. This version positions OSM as a globally accepted best practice, acknowledges genuine implementation concerns, and argues for AI-assisted improvement rather than a return to purely manual systems.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
