Reported discrepancies in O-Level English oral not technical in nature or result of malicious act: MOE

WHAT HAPPENED

For the oral exam, candidates first sit at a silent preparation station, viewing exam instructions, a text prompt and a video on a computer screen. After 10 minutes, they are then called to see the oral examiner, who reads out the same text prompt to start the presentation, with a second examiner also present. 

Candidates have two minutes to deliver a planned response, followed by a discussion with the examiners on a topic based on the video clip.

“To be clear, the discrepancies reported were not about what the oral examiners asked. Only that the recollection of the text prompt at the preparation station was different from what the oral examiner read out,” Dr Puthucheary said.

All stations at the examination centres access the same approved, secure, encrypted material from the system, he added.

For this exam, the video showed street barbers at work, with the prompt: “Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?”

The reported discrepancies varied significantly, with different phrases recalled by different students, including some who took the exam at the same centre with the same examination team, Dr Puthucheary said.

Some candidates reported reading “Would you go …”, “Would you be interested …”, “Would you want …” or other variations, he added.

In its investigations, SEAB verified the exam material through system-level checks, logging into candidates’ accounts to confirm the prompt and video they accessed. 

It also reviewed digital logs of the material’s authoring and delivery, as well as logs of what appeared on candidates’ screens during preparation.

Investigations found that oral examiners and candidates accessed the same material at every centre, with no evidence of a system malfunction and no discrepancy between what was shown to candidates and examiners, Dr Puthucheary said. 

All candidates’ and examiners’ accounts accessed only one source, and no cybersecurity incidents were detected.

The mean score for the Jul 15 oral exam was comparable to that of the other four sessions this year, said Dr Puthucheary. The mean score of the 432 candidates who reported discrepancies was also comparable to that of other candidates who sat the exam that day, he added.

“Therefore, as a group, the candidates who reported discrepancies fared as well as other candidates who did not report discrepancies,” he said.

“Putting together the technical details, the distribution pattern of the incidents across the stations, schools and time, as well as the variety of phrases reported by the students, SEAB has concluded that the cause for these incidents was not technical in nature nor the result of a deliberate or malicious act.”