Topic:
Formal examinations are the only effective way to access a student's performance. Continuous assessment such as daily observations and projects is not a satisfactory way to do this.
Some proponents of exams argue that formal tests show more efficacy when it comes to assessing scholars' aptitude instead of regular observation or projects. From my perspective, I am opposed to this opinion for some following reasons.
The benefits of regular assessment are plentiful. Engaging students' in projects facilitates them in developing different skills which can reinforce their future career. Supposing that soft skills are nowadays highly entailed by many companies, schools should place more premium on creating opportunities for undergraduates to brush up on skills such as team-working skills, problem-solving and social skills. Those who brim with various skill assets and proficiency are certainly beneficiaries when it comes to the rigorous recruitment competition. Besides, from teachers' perspective, they are provided a comprehensive evaluation on their pupils owing to this method, thereby scheming appropriate learning strategies to employ each students' ability effectively.
Furthermore, regular assessments render transparency compared to formal examination. Tests only offer transient results at the moment the examinees proceed. The results are strenuously guaranteed whether their competence lives up to the grades. Additionally, the act of falsifying test scores is prone to jeopardise the clarity of exams as well as motivation of learners. There is a likelihood that other students regard the case of cheaters as prime examples to imitate, getting distracted from pursuing knowledge for themselves. Whereas projects criticise learners based on their aptitude to emerge the thing they learn with reality, forging the strong bond between theoretical knowledge and practical activities.
In conclusion, I concede that exams play a pivotal role in judging performance of students; however, they should be combined with continuous assessment to acknowledge their genuine adeptness.
Formal examinations are the only effective way to access a student's performance. Continuous assessment such as daily observations and projects is not a satisfactory way to do this.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some proponents of exams argue that formal tests show more efficacy when it comes to assessing scholars' aptitude instead of regular observation or projects. From my perspective, I am opposed to this opinion for some following reasons.
The benefits of regular assessment are plentiful. Engaging students' in projects facilitates them in developing different skills which can reinforce their future career. Supposing that soft skills are nowadays highly entailed by many companies, schools should place more premium on creating opportunities for undergraduates to brush up on skills such as team-working skills, problem-solving and social skills. Those who brim with various skill assets and proficiency are certainly beneficiaries when it comes to the rigorous recruitment competition. Besides, from teachers' perspective, they are provided a comprehensive evaluation on their pupils owing to this method, thereby scheming appropriate learning strategies to employ each students' ability effectively.
Furthermore, regular assessments render transparency compared to formal examination. Tests only offer transient results at the moment the examinees proceed. The results are strenuously guaranteed whether their competence lives up to the grades. Additionally, the act of falsifying test scores is prone to jeopardise the clarity of exams as well as motivation of learners. There is a likelihood that other students regard the case of cheaters as prime examples to imitate, getting distracted from pursuing knowledge for themselves. Whereas projects criticise learners based on their aptitude to emerge the thing they learn with reality, forging the strong bond between theoretical knowledge and practical activities.
In conclusion, I concede that exams play a pivotal role in judging performance of students; however, they should be combined with continuous assessment to acknowledge their genuine adeptness.