CBSE’s On-Screen Marking System Faces Scrutiny as Trial Run Reveals Critical Gaps
Amid increasing scrutiny of the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system, reports have emerged highlighting the board’s oversight regarding inconsistencies identified during a recent trial run. Authorities were warned about several significant issues that arose during the preliminary testing phase.
The dry run took place on January 20 and 21, 2026, across five schools, involving staff from Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), as well as state government and private institutions. To prepare teachers for the OSM, a training session was conducted, with senior principals acting as observers who later provided feedback to assist the board in making informed decisions.
Evaluators Raise Concerns Over System Usability
During the pilot testing in Delhi, evaluators raised multiple concerns, particularly emphasizing the necessity for a human interface in the evaluation process. Sources indicated that the OSM system was perceived as “neither teacher-friendly nor learner-centric,” leading to increased cognitive and physical strain on evaluators.
Despite the shift towards digital evaluation, many evaluators expressed a preference for manual review of additional copies. They were hesitant to conduct assessments online due to the heightened cognitive load, time demands, and operational difficulties associated with the digital format.
In response to the evaluators’ concerns, senior CBSE officials assured them that only non-academic subjects, such as Physical Education and Fine Arts, would be evaluated through OSM following the dry run. However, subsequent developments contradicted this assurance.
The implementation of OSM was a topic of discussion during CBSE’s 141st governing body meeting on June 6, 2026, held at the CBSE headquarters in Dwarka. Members suggested that the OSM should only be applied across all subjects after completing pilot projects in select subjects at various Regional Offices of the Board. Although this recommendation was noted, it was not put into action.
Challenges Encountered During the Dry Run
Evaluators faced numerous challenges during the trial run, including discrepancies in marks, the absence of a highlighting tool, and a poorly designed interface.
One significant issue involved marks discrepancies, where Sets 2 and 3 displayed aggregate marks as 70, despite the exam being conducted for 80 marks. This confusion led evaluators to award marks based on the incorrect total. Additionally, variations in question structure across different sets complicated uniform assessment. The inability to navigate back to previously assessed pages forced evaluators to continue marking, even when errors occurred.
The writing section lacked a step-wise marking feature, preventing students from receiving feedback on specific criteria such as format, content, and expression. Sources noted that delays in step-wise marks allocation extended the time required for assessments.
Moreover, the remarks feature was non-functional, hindering evaluators from justifying the marks awarded to students. The absence of a highlighting tool meant that teachers could not mark errors, resulting in a lack of feedback. Concerns were raised about the risk of superficial evaluations, with instances of evaluators awarding marks without thoroughly reviewing answers.
The interface design further complicated the process, making it difficult for teachers to view both the question paper and the marking scheme simultaneously. Overlaps between step marks and overall scores negatively impacted the marking process.
In cases of power outages or network failures, the absence of an auto-save feature resulted in data loss. Evaluators who had previously indicated a willingness to manually check additional copies were reluctant to do so in a digital format. The lack of technical support to address concurrent glitches added to the challenges faced during evaluations.
Lastly, the new evaluation system proved inconvenient for teachers, increasing cognitive load and physical strain during extended working hours. The absence of collaboration and discussion mechanisms among evaluators adversely affected the standardization of marking.
These issues were prominently highlighted by the panel involved in the dry run. Some evaluators’ complaints, including the lack of a remark and save option, as well as the absence of a marking scheme alongside the answer sheets, were acknowledged by the board.
Major Reforms Implemented After Feedback
In response to the evaluators’ feedback, CBSE implemented several changes:
- Ready-made remarks were introduced, enabling teachers to provide critiques.
- Marks display was adjusted to ensure students’ answers remained visible.
- Colour coding was implemented for Higher Education (HE), Assistant Higher Education (AHE), and evaluators.
- A mandatory assessment of answer scripts by HE/AHE was established.
- The marking scheme was directly linked to answer books, allowing examiners to check criteria and award marks.
- A ‘save’ option was added to prevent data loss.
- The marks deletion process was simplified, and issues related to static IP were resolved.
- Server capacity was increased to address internet speed issues.
Despite these updates, the core suggestion to delay the implementation of OSM or address the lack of a human interface was not reflected in the changes made.
As reported by www.timesnownews.com.
Explore the latest digital editions of FAME Delivered in the Magazine section: https://famedelivered.com/magazine/
Published on 2026-06-03 18:21:00 • By FAME Delivered News Desk