Intermittent evaluation of learns knowledge has become a norm to assess their comprehension of what is being taught. Nowadays, this is more usually being done via examinations rather than intermittent continual assessment. This practice has associated pros and cons,both of which will be discussed further.
Firstly, examination may not be a true test of understanding or knowledge because it is influenced by a number of factors. It may overwhelm knowledge seekers with feelings of fear,anxiety or panic. Sudden panic could result in temporary loss of what was being studied. Consequently,this could result in failure of the examinations. Furthermore, examination questions are usually all more all encompassing and thorough, including questions from what was taught over a long period of time resulting in students having to prepare extensively and study hard, sometimes forfeiting sleep. This often leads to exhaustion and fatigue, with students having to read without comprehension, subsequently leading to a fail in the examinations. In contrast, continuous assessment seeks to intermittently test a student at short intervals, and as such, a less intense preparation is needed for it. Hence,it may be a better test of understanding.
Despite these drawbacks associated with examinations, it is still advantageous because it is a more comprehensive form of testing and students who pass could be a said to have a good overall comprehension of knowledge that was imparted. Moreover, fixing an examination makes these knowledge seekers more attentive in class and give consideration to studying after each learning session to achieve a better comprehension and exam score.
Unlike examinations, continuous assessments explores only short term knowledge as it is most often fixed after shorter learning sessions.
In conclusion, while there is a declining trend towards intermittent assessment as opposed to examination, this practice has associated pros and cons as discussed above.