The Problem With Binary Marking Systems

Over the years, I have been privileged to serve in various capacities within the world of Quran competitions — as a teacher coaching eager students, as a judge carefully assessing reciters, and as an organiser wrestling with the logistics and practicalities that enable these events to run smoothly. Through all these roles, one seemingly simple but deeply consequential issue stands out: the standard binary system of marking, where an answer or recitation element is marked simply as right or wrong, correct or incorrect — a “tick” or no “tick”, a “1” or a “0”.

At first glance, this method appears objective and efficient. It promises a sense of clarity: you either made a mistake, or you didn’t. But as I have observed, and sometimes painfully experienced, the reality is far more nuanced — and binary marking brings with it a raft of unintended consequences for students, judges, and the overall quality of Quranic competitions.

What Is a Binary Marking System?

For those unfamiliar with the term, a binary marking system in Quran competitions refers to the practice of scoring participants with only two options for each judging criterion: completely correct (full marks) or incorrect (no marks). There is no space for partial marks, degrees of accuracy, or acknowledgement of close attempts. For example:

• If a student recites a verse and makes a mistake with one word, the answer is considered wrong — zero points. Had it been perfect, they get a “1”.
• If asked to name three qualities of a companion and a participant mentions two fully and one only partially, their answer is recorded as right or wrong — nothing in between.

This approach is popular for its apparent simplicity and speed in marking — but therein lies its main flaw.

Why Binary Marking Systems Fall Short in Quran Competitions

1. Oversimplifies the Nature of Recitation and Memorisation

Quranic recitation (tilawah) and memorisation (hifz) demand tremendous effort. Participants pour hundreds of hours into perfecting their pronunciation, intonation, memory, and fluency. By reducing all this to an “either/or” outcome, we overlook the subtleties of performance:

• Minor slips versus major errors: Consider a participant who forgets a harakah (short vowel) versus one who skips half a verse. Both receive zero for that section under a binary approach, but the gravity of the mistakes is worlds apart.
• Nuanced Tajweed: Correcting ‘qalqala’ or elongating a ‘madd’ fractionally less than ideal is not the same as completely ignoring a Tajweed rule. Yet binary marking treats them identically.

In effect, binary marking erases the gradations of effort and achievement that are so critical in Quranic learning. This can demotivate students who are progressing, albeit imperfectly, and fails to distinguish between common slips and genuine misunderstanding or negligence.

2. Unfairly Penalises Close Attempts and Effort

I still remember a young competitor who recited a long passage flawlessly, but stumbled momentarily over a difficult word, quickly correcting herself. Under binary marking, all her previous accuracy counted for nothing for that segment. The zero did not reflect her skill or knowledge; it simply mirrored a fleeting imperfection.

This pattern is common: judges are forced to ignore how close a participant came to the correct answer, rewarding only isolated perfection. For students, especially those who are less confident or who struggle with nerves, this feels harsh. It can lead to:

• Increased anxiety before and during competition
• Reduced willingness to participate in future events
• Perception of injustice, especially if small errors negate immense hard work

For a system meant to nurture love of the Quran, these negative outcomes are troubling.

3. Distorts Final Rankings and Feedback

When all mistakes — regardless of seriousness — are treated equally, competition rankings become skewed. For instance:

• A participant who makes two minor slips may be ranked below someone who makes a single, glaring mistake.
• Feedback becomes unhelpfully blunt: “You made three errors,” when in reality, one error was trivial and the others more significant.

This lack of discrimination hampers both fair competition and the educational mission of these events. Participants are often left confused about where they went wrong and which areas need focus. As a teacher, it’s disheartening to see talented students lose heart — or fail to understand precisely how and where they can improve.

4. Places Unnecessary Pressure on Judges

Judging Quran competitions is already a humbling responsibility; you hold the aspirational work of students in your hands. With a binary system, judges face uncomfortable choices:

• Is this mistake serious enough to warrant a zero, or do I overlook it?
• If I choose leniency, am I being unfair to others? If I am strict, am I discouraging genuine learning?

Binary scoring, by its rigidity, strips judges of the ability to apply experienced discernment or show measured understanding. This can foster inconsistency (as some judges lean harsh, others lenient) and, worse, lead to accusations of bias or favouritism.

What Happens When We Use More Nuanced Marking?

When competitions adopt systems that allow for partial marking, everything changes — for the better. Even simple grading scales like “0”, “0.5”, “1” or “Correct / Almost Correct / Incorrect” allow us to reward effort, encourage improvement, and recognise close achievement.

• Participants receive marks that more closely match the quality of their recitation or memorisation.
• Judges can meaningfully differentiate between minor slips and larger misunderstandings.
• Final scores and rankings become more reflective of actual ability.
• Feedback becomes targeted and constructive, supporting future learning.

In my own experience, moving away from binary systems led to greater satisfaction across the board. Students felt their hard work was respected. Parents and teachers saw scores that truly reflected progress and areas for development. Judges felt liberated to offer honest, specific feedback without fear of penalising effort unduly.

Common Objections to Nuanced Marking — And How to Overcome Them

Despite these benefits, some organisers and coaches still argue for binary systems, often citing the following reasons:

• “It’s faster to mark.” True, but at what cost? The time saved is often offset by lost educational value and participant satisfaction.
• “It’s more objective.” In fact, binary systems often encode more subjective judgement — judges have to decide whether something is “good enough” for a ‘1’ without clear criteria.
• “It’s easier for all ages to understand.” While simplicity has value, clarity does not mean we must ignore accuracy. Even young children can be given simple feedback like “almost there” or “nearly perfect”.

Addressing these concerns requires designing marking rubrics that are clear, transparent, and easy for both judges and participants to understand. Some practical tips include:

• Define what constitutes a minor slip versus a major error. Make these definitions public, so everyone knows what to expect.
• Train judges — especially new ones — using sample recitations or written questions, and discuss as a group where to assign partial marks.
• Use marking software that allows partial scoring and provides space for quick comments.

Advice for Organisers, Judges, and Teachers

For Organisers

• Avoid defaulting to binary marking. Explore and pilot more nuanced rubrics, even if it takes extra planning.
• Invest in judge training, so all scoring is as consistent and fair as possible.
• Engage with teachers and students for feedback after each event, and revise your marking system as needed.

For Judges

• Discuss any uncertainties with fellow judges before the competition starts.
• When in doubt, favour marks that reflect effort and closeness, especially for younger or less experienced participants.
• Provide brief, targeted feedback — even a sentence makes a world of difference for motivation.

For Teachers and Students

• Prepare for competitions by practising with marking rubrics, not just aiming for “perfect or bust”.
• Encourage students to see marks as feedback, not judgment.
• After competitions, reflect on both the process and the results – what did the marking system highlight? What did it miss?

In Conclusion

Binary marking may seem efficient and fair, but in the lived reality of Quran competitions, it too often obscures real achievement, devalues effort, and diminishes the educational mission we all share. We owe it to our students — and to the Quran itself — to set higher standards for how we assess, support, and celebrate this beautiful journey of learning.

If you need help with your Quran competition platform or marking tools, email info@qurancompetitions.tech.