KNEC’s innovative ways of setting KCSE questions discourages rote learning

There was a time when KCSE candidates could revise almost mechanically using past papers. Schools built entire revision programmes around them, students memorised marking points, and teachers predicted questions with uncanny accuracy. In those days, examinations rewarded familiarity more than understanding. If you had done enough past papers, chances were high that the exam would feel like a repetition with minor twists.

That era is gone. In the last two years, KNEC has deliberately and decisively altered the mode of questioning, especially in humanities subjects such as History and Government and Christian Religious Education. The shift has unsettled many candidates and teachers, particularly those who still believe that past papers are the ultimate key to success.

The contrast between the 2024 and 2025 KCSE examinations illustrates just how radical this change has been. It is not an exaggeration to say the two papers feel like heaven and earth. Where previous exams leaned heavily on predictable content recall and familiar question structures, the newer ones demand interpretation, application, ethical reasoning, and contextual understanding. Candidates are no longer asked simply to reproduce facts or list points as they appear in textbooks. Instead, they are required to think, to read carefully, to draw connections, and to justify their responses. For students who revised by memorising marking schemes, this came as a rude shock.

This transformation has both advantages and disadvantages, but the advantages outweigh the drawbacks. One immediate disadvantage is the discomfort it causes. Learners who have been trained for years to pass exams by spotting questions feel betrayed. Teachers who have relied on recycled notes and prediction-based teaching feel exposed. Anxiety increases when exams stop behaving in familiar ways. Some candidates walk out of the exam room convinced that the paper was unfair simply because it did not resemble what they practised. In the short term, performance may dip as the system adjusts, and complaints inevitably follow.

ALSO READ:

TVET institutions ordered to nominate assessment centre coordinators

However, beyond that initial discomfort lies a more meaningful and defensible examination system. The greatest strength of the new mode of questioning is that it restores the purpose of education. Subjects like History and CRE were never meant to be memory contests. History is about understanding cause and effect, continuity and change, interpretation of events, and lessons for the present. CRE is about moral reasoning, values, application of principles, and reflection on real-life situations. When exams reward these skills, teaching and learning begin to align with the true spirit of the subjects.

Another major advantage is fairness. Predictable exams advantage a narrow group of candidates—those who have access to extensive past-paper drilling, expensive revision materials, and teachers skilled in spotting trends. When questions are predictable, the exam stops measuring learning and starts measuring exposure.

By varying question styles and focusing on unseen contexts, KNEC levels the playing field. A student who has genuinely understood the content and developed thinking skills has a fair chance, regardless of whether they memorised ten years of past papers.

The new approach also discourages rote learning, which has long plagued the Kenyan education system. Memorisation may produce short-term results, but it does little to prepare learners for life beyond school. The 2024 and 2025 exams signal that understanding beats cramming. Candidates must read extracts, interpret scenarios, evaluate actions, and explain significance. These are transferable skills that matter in higher education, the workplace, and civic life. An exam system that promotes them is a step in the right direction.

ALSO READ:

Ex- Bomet Central MP hails Bomet University Charter award, says protests, court battles behind success

For teachers, this shift is an invitation to rethink pedagogy. Teaching to pass predictable exams has been comfortable but limiting. The new questioning style demands deeper classroom engagement, discussion, debate, and exposure to multiple perspectives. It pushes teachers to teach content as living knowledge rather than fixed notes. While this requires more effort and creativity, it ultimately elevates the profession and improves learning outcomes.

Critics argue that the sudden change disadvantages current candidates who were prepared under the old system. That concern is valid, and transitions should ideally be gradual. Yet clinging to a flawed system simply because it is familiar does more harm in the long run. Education systems must evolve, and examinations must reflect that evolution. The shock of change is temporary; the benefits are lasting.

The comparison between the 2024 and 2025 exams may feel extreme, but it underscores a clear message: KCSE is no longer about predicting questions; it is about preparing minds. Past papers are no longer revision manuals but reference tools. They can show trends, yes, but they cannot replace genuine learning. Students who understand this early will thrive; those who resist will struggle.

In the end, the shift by KNEC is a bold but necessary correction. It challenges unhealthy revision cultures, rewards real understanding, and aligns assessment with educational goals. The discomfort it causes should not distract us from its value. If education is to mean more than grades, then examinations must demand more than memory. On balance, the new KCSE questioning style, despite its challenges, is a move in the right direction.

By Ashford Kimani

Ashford teaches English and Literature in Gatundu North Sub-county and serves as Dean of Studies.