By Dr. C. R. Kharlukhi
While going through the secondary school science syllabus and the State Board Class X question paper of this year, a mismatch was detected between what the syllabus projected to achieve and what the Meghalaya Board of School Education (MBOSE) Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) question paper 2025 actually delivered. The mismatch will be clear if we first go through the two documents separately and then connecting them together to see the bigger picture.
The syllabus for Class X science was downloaded from the website of the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya. It was prepared by the Directorate of Educational Research and Training (DERT) since February 2024. The syllabus was based on Learning Outcomes (LOs) prescribed by the NCERT, NIPUN Bharat and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023 and aligned with the NCERT Textbooks (Meghalaya Edition). According to the document, learning outcomes articulate what a student should know, understand and be able to do after completing a topic or a lesson. They serve as measurable and observable indicators of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that students should acquire. Learning outcomes provide a framework for assessment and evaluation.
As an illustration, with regards to the subject science, students of Class 10 are expected to have learning outcomes such as – differentiating and classifying materials, objects, organisms, phenomena, processes based on properties and characteristics; planning and conducting investigations and experiments to arrive at and verify facts, principles, phenomena or to seek answers to queries on their own; applies scientific concepts in daily life and solving problems and exhibits creativity in designing models using eco-friendly resources. It is indeed encouraging to see a well-designed outcome-based syllabus by the DERT, of which the accomplishment of the stated LOs will bring about a positive impact in the way students learn science. When science is taught keeping these LOs in mind, then students will learn beyond recall and acquire scientific values, capacities and dispositions such as curiosity, creativity, evidence-based thinking, and sound decision-making. Considering the dismal performance of the State in the recent PGI grading, DERT’s move towards an outcome-based syllabus is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
As mentioned earlier, LOs provide a framework for assessment and evaluation. Naturally, it is expected that the MBOSE question papers for Class X examinations would be designed to measure the achievement of the LOs that have been carefully mapped in the syllabus. But surprisingly, that was not the case. This is where you will notice the mismatch that has been mentioned earlier. This mismatch will be clearly understood when we look at the following points-
1. The Education Department, Government of Meghalaya, has published a Guidebook, an initiative under the Chief Minister’s Initiative to Maximize Pass Achievement and Classroom Triumph (CM IMPACT). This guidebook was introduced with good intentions, that is, to solve the problem of the consistent gaps in performance and varying results across the different districts, to enhance educational outcomes and to help students excel academically and reach their full potential. With this goal in mind, the guidebook contains a list of questions with related answers, from MCQs to Long Answer questions for Health and Physical Education, Social Science, English, Mathematics and Science and Technology. The idea is that students can familiarize themselves with the type of questions that might appear in the examination.
2. In addition to the list of questions and answers, a question paper design (not a detailed blueprint, as mentioned in the guidebook) of the Board Examination was also included in the guidebook detailing the sections of the question paper (Sections A, B, C and D), the type of questions (Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), Very Short Answer, Short Answer and Long Answer questions), the marks for each question, the number of questions to be attempted and the number of questions given and the total marks for each section. At one glance, the design seemed comprehensive, all the details are provided, making it easier for paper setters to design the question papers accordingly, because the very purpose of a question paper design is to guide paper setters prepare the right questions. However, upon a closer analysis, one will find that the design fails to highlight the most important and crucial criteria, and that is, the Learning outcomes or competencies that are to be tested from students. A valid question paper must reflect the outcomes it intends to measure. Since LOs form the basis of assessment, their absence from the design raises few questions-
i. How will paper setters identify which LOs to asses?
ii. How much weightage should be distributed between the Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) such as knowledge and understanding and the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) such as application, analysis and evaluation?
iii. On what basis are the question papers prepared?
The answers to these questions will become clear when the MBOSE SSLC Question Paper for Science and Technology, 2025 is examined.
3. The MBOSE SSLC Question Paper for Science and Technology, 2025, as indicated in the question paper design given in the guidebook, has four sections –
a. Section A contains 30 MCQs in which students must attempt all questions. Twenty-one questions (70%) of the thirty questions, were found to be taken directly from the CM Impact guidebook and remaining questions from the textbook.
b. Section B contains thirteen (13) Very Short Answer (VSA) type questions, of which students must answer only ten (10) questions. Out of the 13 questions, it was found that 10 (76.9%) questions were taken from the guidebook and remaining questions from the textbook. However, students could attempt only the ten questions taken form the guidebook, which would mean that they attempted 100% of the VSA questions taken from the guidebook.
c. Section C contains eight (8) Short Answer (SA) type questions, of which students must attempt only six (6). It was found that out of the eight SA questions, six (75%) of them were from the guidebook and the rest from the textbook. However, since students must attempt only six questions, we can also conclude that that they would attempt 100% of the SA questions taken directly from the guidebook.
d. Section D contains five (5) Long Answer (LA) type questions, of which students must attempt only three (3). It was found that all (100%) of the five questions were guidebook questions.
4. The above findings regarding the MBOSE SSLC question paper for Science and Technology, 2025 reveal the following points-
a. The high percentage of questions taken directly from the guidebook creates doubt regarding the genuine achievement of LOs by the students. With ready-made questions and answers available months in advance, students could easily memorize the answers even without understanding. This goes against the direction of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 which advocates for a shift from rote memorization to a more competency-based assessment, evaluating a student’s ability to apply knowledge rather than just their capacity to recall facts.
b. The reason for not highlighting the LOs to be tested in the question paper design of the guidebook is now clear. Even though the guidebook had a mix of LOTS as well as HOTS questions, it becomes meaningless since the answers are already provided. As an illustration, a numerical problem in the question paper (Question Number 55 b) used exactly the same values as the problem in the guidebook (Question Number 15 ii). Students therefore need not think critically, they simply recall the solution.
c. Now think of students who appeared and will be appearing the Board Examinations through a Central Board. They are not so privileged as their MBOSE counterparts as they do not have ready-made questions with ready-made answers. They will be truly tested on their HOTS. The question arises-Is this fair? Will it cause a problem in the Class XI admission? A competent student with 85% score passing from a Central Board examination may just be overlooked over a rote-memorized Impact student with 90% score.
d. Another serious observation from this discussion is the mismatch between the LO-based syllabus and the Guidebook-driven question paper. The question paper failed to deliver what the syllabus intended the students to achieve.
e. Efforts to train teachers with the new pedagogies of teaching according to the NCF-SE 2023 would be meaningless if teacher’s efforts in the classroom are not appreciated. What is the point of teachers working hard and helping students understand and apply concepts if at the end of the day their students are not genuinely evaluated?
f. Another cause of concern is the rippling effect that this kind of evaluation will create. The students’ tendency to be spoon fed, their habit of rote-memorization and their inability to think on their own (not a fault of their own but because they were not made to think) will surely have a negative impact in their higher studies.
g. In effect the first objective of the CM Impact Guidebook to Maximize Pass Achievement has been successfully achieved, from a 55.80% pass percentage last year to a record breaking 87.10% pass percentage in the 2025 SSLC Examination. But as the analysis suggests, this improvement is likely the result of spoon-feeding rather than genuine academic progress.
h. The second objective of the Guidebook is Classroom Triumph. Has this objective been achieved? To answer this, we must ask the following questions-
· Was the question paper outcome-based where LOs are being identified in the question paper design and aligned with the syllabus?
· Did the guidebook serve only as a referral to the type of questions that students may expect in the examination and NOT be the question paper itself?
· Were the students really evaluated on their HOTS and not only on their LOTS?
If the answers to these questions is a resounding YES then we can say there has been Classroom Triumph. But, sadly, the answers to these questions, based on the points discussed, is a sad NO. If this trend continues, where rote memorization is prioritized over genuine understanding, where recalling of facts is awarded over analytical thinking, where quantity is given prominence over quality, then the examination process becomes superficial where students’ capabilities and competencies are not being tested, thereby questioning the achievement of learning outcomes.
To really create an “impact” on students’ learning, there must be a shift from memory-based evaluation to competency-based evaluation as advocated by the NEP 2020, where the guidebook no longer becomes a source of questions for the Board’s question paper but serve only as a reference to the type of questions that students might expect in the question paper. Only then can the system empower students and prepare them for a rapidly changing world.
