Many people believe that formal "pen and paper' examinations are not the best method of assessing educational achievement. What is your view of examinations?
Many people state traditional written examns are not the best method to meassure a person's profit from education. In my opinion, these pen and paper exams are a fair way to evaluate a student as will be expounded below.
People who think exams are useless when assessing adwuired knowledge argue this doesn't put the studient in a real situation, therefore, onely continous learning should be considered to say whether a student pass a subject or not. But in my opinion written final task shoulnd't be excluded as far as they give a fair result of the general achievement obtaiden along the academic year.
Other evidence used against written exams is the possibility of cheating it offers to a group of students performing the same examn at the same moment. It makes them to consider better alternatives such as oral examination or group assingments. The first option breaks the condition of equallity for every student, moreover, it may be a very subjective evaluation method. In the other hand, working in groups doesn't solve the problem of cheating, and doens't offer a sample of individual effort.
Some of the detractors of final examns think is wrongful to put a student under such a preassure to weigh up if they deserve to pas a whole subject only by their rendering in a certain moment. But I think they can find this situation in their everyday as a proffessional when all their efforts are reduced to the ability they demonstrate in an instant: as surgeons, lawyers, teachers or engineers,...just a decission can change everything.
To conclude, there must be a lot of aspect to evaluate in a student, but all of them meet in the point of a global examination, that makes much easier the work of putting a mark in a subject.
Many people state traditional written examns are not the best method to meassure a person's profit from education. In my opinion, these pen and paper exams are a fair way to evaluate a student as will be expounded below.
People who think exams are useless when assessing adwuired knowledge argue this doesn't put the studient in a real situation, therefore, onely continous learning should be considered to say whether a student pass a subject or not. But in my opinion written final task shoulnd't be excluded as far as they give a fair result of the general achievement obtaiden along the academic year.
Other evidence used against written exams is the possibility of cheating it offers to a group of students performing the same examn at the same moment. It makes them to consider better alternatives such as oral examination or group assingments. The first option breaks the condition of equallity for every student, moreover, it may be a very subjective evaluation method. In the other hand, working in groups doesn't solve the problem of cheating, and doens't offer a sample of individual effort.
Some of the detractors of final examns think is wrongful to put a student under such a preassure to weigh up if they deserve to pas a whole subject only by their rendering in a certain moment. But I think they can find this situation in their everyday as a proffessional when all their efforts are reduced to the ability they demonstrate in an instant: as surgeons, lawyers, teachers or engineers,...just a decission can change everything.
To conclude, there must be a lot of aspect to evaluate in a student, but all of them meet in the point of a global examination, that makes much easier the work of putting a mark in a subject.