Page 9 - SUBSEC_April2017_WorkingDocument_Neat

13. Dr Marcia Potter, Deputy Chair informed the SUBSEC that based on feedback from
discussions she had on the discourse at the meeting on e-testing, there still appeared to be much
discomfort going forward with Option 2. She asked that, before moving forward with a final
position, CXC ensures that everyone understands and is comfortable with the logistics involved in
utilizing that option.

14. Dr Jeffrey Blaize, Dominica representative, enquired whether structures would be put in
place to assist territories with expediting their readiness for full e-testing. The Registrar informed
the SUBSEC that CXC had sent to each territory a list of minimum requirements and had also
requested information on the state of readiness based on those requirements. Members heard that
these were dispatched in the third quarter of 2016 and, to date, CXC had not received the requested
information. Members heard also that the organization would conduct monthly meetings with
Local Registrars to stay abreast of issues and concerns related to the process as well as to take
them through the steps of what was required. The SUBSEC noted that a meeting, to which
technical personnel from the Ministries have been invited, had been scheduled for late October
2016. At that meeting, CXC would discuss the fundamentals of the system and the varying
options. The Registrar reported however, that utilizing internal data, the organization had
calculated that most countries would be able to enter students for e-testing in some subjects. The
SUBSEC heard that the system would be opened in the coming weeks to allow relevant
stakeholders repeated practice in order to develop familiarity. Members heard that by the third
week of October 2016, all handbooks and guidelines would be sent to stakeholders. The Registrar
reminded members that while CXC was ready to offer e-testing in all subjects, countries could
exercise their right to Option 2.

15. The Chairman reminded the SUBSEC that the recommendation recognizes the diversity of
readiness across the region as well as explains the benefits to be derived from moving forward
with e-testing.

16. Mr Sukrishnalall Pasha, University of Guyana representative, enquired, against the
background that some countries have indicated that they do not have enough devices to facilitate
e-testing, whether Option 2 had a backup should any issues arise with the devices being used on
examination day. The Registrar informed the SUBSEC that once CXC received feedback on
readiness from territories, the organization could explore other types of contingencies. He further
stated that what CXC had discovered was that, in some countries, candidates were doing online
examinations in their schools to fulfil other interests and that indicated that students already have
access to other e-testing platforms. The Registrar stressed the importance of forwarding
information to CXC on the number of devices available for e-testing in each territory so that that
information can be used to make critical decisions.

17. Mr Edward pointed out that in some schools in St. Lucia, the Electronic Document
Preparation and Management (EDPM) examination was taken in batches because of the
availability of a limited number of devices. He asked whether the same principle could apply
where students would be allowed to sit their examinations in batches and whether the timetable
would be adjusted to accommodate batch sittings. The Registrar informed the SUBSEC that CXC
had taken steps to accommodate batch sittings with a process called scheduling which matches the
number of sessions with the number of available devices. He advised members that it was
therefore very important that CXC gets information on the number of devices countries have that
meet the required specifications so that scheduling could be done prior to the examinations.

5|Page