In this day and age, many education systems in the world use some form of examinations as part of their evaluation of school-goers. A prime example for this is in Viet Nam, students have to sit a multitude of exams, namely mid-term tests, end-of-term tests and many other extra tests. There is a contention that this method of assessment represents too much testing. Is an examination a good way of capturing a pupil’s knowledge and understanding or does ongoing assessment and intelligence tests of aptitude provide a fairer view of attainment and intelligence?
On the one hand, examinations undoubtedly have a number of downsides. First and foremost, the pressure attached to exams, due to the stress involved in intense revision, is extremely detrimental to the student. Not only can this pressure cause a pupil to perform less well in the exam than he or she would in a stress-free environment, it can also lead to breakdowns or worse. School drop-outs, discipline problems and even suicides are increasingly widespread, often owing to worry about poor grades and the effect that failure in one set of exams will have on the future. Schools and parents are frequently culpable in reminding the student of the consequences of failure, and hence increasing the pressure.
On the other hand, I wholeheartedly believe that the merits of examinations outweigh their drawbacks. They can evaluate students' ability to apply the knowledge they have learned to an unfamiliar question, and to convey their knowledge to the examiner. Exams are intended to make pupils use what they have learned to answer a question they have not encountered before. They should not be spoon-fed the answer by teachers and should expect the examinations to surprise them. Moreover, pressure is a fact of working life, as are deadlines, and both need to be prepared for and tested. The number of people who cannot handle pressure is very small and there is no indication that they would manage the increased workload that curricula without exams would involve. Last but not least, there is nothing that can replace exams. Intelligence tests are often chosen as an alternative but they are highly controversial and can only differentiate between right and wrong answers. They cannot judge whether the pupil used the right thought process in reaching the answer, and cannot measure creativity, initiative, hard work, structure and the ability to communicate. All of these qualities are evaluated by examinations.
In this day and age,
many
education systems in the world
use
some
form of
examinations
as part of their evaluation of school-goers. A prime example for this is in
Viet
Nam, students
have to
sit a multitude of exams,
namely
mid-term
tests
,
end
-of-term
tests
and
many
other extra
tests
. There is a contention that this method of assessment represents too much testing. Is an
examination
a
good
way of capturing a
pupil’s
knowledge and understanding or does ongoing assessment and intelligence
tests
of aptitude provide a fairer view of attainment and intelligence?
On the one hand,
examinations
undoubtedly
have a number of downsides.
First
and foremost, the
pressure
attached to exams, due to the
stress
involved in intense revision, is
extremely
detrimental to the student. Not
only
can this
pressure
cause a
pupil
to perform less well in the exam than he or she would in a
stress
-free environment, it can
also
lead to breakdowns or worse. School drop-outs, discipline problems and even suicides are
increasingly
widespread,
often
owing to worry about poor grades and the effect that failure in one set of exams will have on the future. Schools and parents are
frequently
culpable in reminding the student of the consequences of failure, and
hence
increasing the pressure.
On the other hand
, I
wholeheartedly
believe that the merits of
examinations
outweigh their drawbacks. They can evaluate students' ability to apply the knowledge they have learned to an unfamiliar question, and to convey their knowledge to the examiner. Exams
are intended
to
make
pupils
use
what they have learned to
answer
a question they have not encountered
before
. They should not be spoon-fed the
answer
by teachers and should
expect
the
examinations
to surprise them.
Moreover
,
pressure
is a fact of working life, as are deadlines, and both need to
be prepared
for and
tested
. The number of
people
who cannot handle
pressure
is
very
small
and there is no indication that they would manage the increased workload that curricula without exams would involve. Last
but
not least, there is nothing that can replace exams. Intelligence
tests
are
often
chosen as an alternative
but
they are
highly
controversial and can
only
differentiate between right and
wrong
answers
. They cannot judge whether the
pupil
used
the right
thought
process in reaching the
answer
, and cannot measure creativity, initiative,
hard
work, structure and the ability to communicate. All of these qualities
are evaluated
by
examinations
.