Paper-I: Teaching and Research Aptitude (Common Paper)
What Paper-I tests
Paper-I is the common aptitude paper: 50 objective questions × 2 marks = 100 marks, drawn from ten declared units - teaching aptitude, research aptitude, comprehension, communication, mathematical reasoning and aptitude, logical reasoning, data interpretation, ICT, people/development/environment, and the higher education system. It is attempted in the same computer-based session as Paper-II and carries no negative marking, so every item should be answered.
Core rules that decide answers
- Research aptitude: distinguish fundamental vs applied and quantitative vs qualitative designs; know probability vs non-probability sampling (random, stratified, cluster vs purposive, quota, snowball) and the canonical sequence: problem → literature review → hypothesis → design → data collection → analysis → report.
- Higher education: Radhakrishnan Commission (1948–49), Kothari Commission (1964–66), NEP 2020's 5+3+3+4 structure; UGC as coordinating body, NAAC for accreditation, AICTE/NCTE for professional and teacher education.
- ICT: SWAYAM for MOOCs, OER reuse rights, LMS vs CMS, blended and flipped classroom models.
- Comprehension: the passage, not your subject knowledge, is the sole authority.
Worked example (syllogism)
Premises: (1) No historian is a mathematician. (2) All epigraphists are historians. Step 1 - standardise the forms: (1) is an E-proposition, (2) an A-proposition. Step 2 - the middle term is historian; it is distributed in (1) as the predicate of a negative proposition, so a universal negative conclusion is licensed. Step 3 - conclusion: No epigraphist is a mathematician, and by conversion, no mathematician is an epigraphist. Step 4 - reject "Some mathematicians are not epigraphists": it asserts a predicate that the premises never distribute.
Traps that cost marks
- Skipping questions because you expect negative marking - there is none.
- Importing Paper-II facts into a comprehension or reasoning item.
- Missing the negative qualifier ("which is NOT", "except") in teaching-aptitude stems.
- Confusing formative (during learning, diagnostic) with summative (end-of-course, judgemental) assessment.