It
is indisputable that more students than ever are evaluated by examinations in
modern educational practices. (무엇과 비교해서 시험을 통한 평가가 증가했는지를 적어주셔야 합니다. 이 경우 continual assessment 가 되겠죠. 항상 비교우위를 점하는 것이 중요합니다.) Although there are some drawbacks of tests as an
assessment tool, I would argue that there are far more benefits.
On
the one hand, I recognise some compelling reasons to believe that exams are not
the best method to determining educational progress of each student. Firstly,
pupils are liable to focus more on rote rehearsal rather than to pursue
consistent learning. Most of them tend to put a short-term effort into examinations
with the sole aim of getting good grades. Secondly, there are rare
opportunities for students to make amends on their mistakes. No matter how hard
they persevered, they are often misjudged by one single performance failure on
a test day. Finally, examinations may provoke inordinate tension and competition
among schoolchildren, to the detriment of wholesome development or productive
learning.
Notwithstanding
the negatives mentioned above, I still believe that exams can be seen as
well-suited for evaluating student learning. The first and foremost reason is
that students suffer less pressure due to the limited timeframe of evaluation
periods. By contrast, constant assessments throughout semester are likely to be
a major stress to young learners. Another reason is that standardised tests are
specifically and strategically designed to measure what needs to be measured,
and provide each curriculum with a clear structure. Plus, test results will
help educators to gain a broad understanding of their pupils; they can adjust
their educational programmes accordingly and give a tailored support to each learner.
In
conclusion, despite a few downsides to administering tests in order to judge
learning status, it seems to me that students and schools can gain more than
they lose from it.