The methods of evaluating one student’s abilities have sparked a debate among people. While some believe that periodic exams are the most effective approach, others argue that repeated tests are better. This essay will discuss both types of evaluation and give personal opinions.
Proponents of formal examination contend that it provides students with a standardized and objective method of evaluating their overall abilities. This is because students are examined under the same controlled condition, which would ensure fairness and minimize cases of bias. Moreover, this approach also encourages learners to study more diligently. When students only have one single exam during their studying period, they would take it seriously and strive hard to achieve the best results; otherwise, they might not have another chance to improve their score.
On the other hand, advocates for repeated assessment argue that such an approach would be more precise and well-rounded to measure one student’s progress and capacities. Persistent evaluation often includes various tasks such as presentations, projects, small tests, and assignments, which could examine one student’s skills more comprehensively without being confined to memorizing ability. Moreover, continuous assessment can avoid the risk of unpredictable situations as students’ progress is tracked over time. This is especially more advantageous than for those who take one single exam because unexpected difficulties such as illness or anxiety can negatively impact their final outcome.
In conclusion, while formal exams provide standardization and objectivity, continuous assessment offers a more comprehensive evaluation of students’ abilities. A balanced approach combining both methods would be the most effective way to ensure fairness while accurately measuring students’ progress.