article:
http://imgur.com/a/WQjKRThis was written in 1 hr. Would like someone to recommend a mark out of 10 because teacher gave this a 6/10 while benchmarked gave it an 8 using VCAA criteria which is quite a big difference.
‘Don’t ban the exam’ [Insight 2012]
In response to suggestions that exams should not be utilised to measure a student’s academic ability, Bronwyn Leigh’s article published in the November 2011 edition of ‘Learning Now’, suggests in a reasonable tone that exams are still necessary in measuring academic ability and a balance between exams and other assessments is the most feasible option. Letters from Brian Stanfield and Deborah James support Leigh’s stance on the use of theses while Jonathon Rivers believes that theses are a suitable alterative that promotes new skills. The visual of rows of chairs and tables underpins Leigh’s stance on the viability of exams as an assessment tool.
Leigh’s title ‘Don’t ban the exam’, forthrightly displays her stance on the issue of exams as an assessment tool. The title may present itself as alarming to concerned educators who may immediately be inclined to disagree. However, Leigh’s opening anecdote shows that she has experienced the conditions of the exams, lending her credibility and highlighting that she can empathise with readers, allowing them to at least consider her viewpoint. Leigh believes that there is “very little research” against exams and that “most of us can guess the claims made against exams,” setting the stage for educators to be inclined to believe that the arguments against are generic and flimsy. As the article is written for educators, this also suggests that most educators have already heard the evidence against, thus positioning the claims against to be trivial.
Leigh highlights the importance of pressure in the ‘real world’ – “image being a doctor” to show the importance of exam-like conditions in situations that could determine a patient’s life or death. The use of “image”, combined with “bloodied, distraught” and “victim”, emotively evokes imagery in the educator’s minds, fostering a sense of fear which may allow them to believe that exam pressure is needed for real-life situations and therefore, the exams should be allowed to stay. The reference to being a teacher, presents an unsavoury situation for educators, who do not want these kinds of teachers in education and as a result, they may be apt to believe that exams are necessary for the student’s future careers and if not utilised correctly, they may negatively impact future generations as well.
Leigh’s refutation of the viability of theses as an assessment technique demonstrates the unfair nature of this form of assessment. The use of “ten-thousand words” demonstrates the scale of the theses and educators may believe that this is too much for students, causing them to support exams instead. BY describing theses as “highly individual” and suggesting that schools can “exploit the system”, Leigh plants doubts in the educators’ minds as to how these potential problems may be avoided, demonstrating that theses present too many risks and are therefore unfair and inconsistent as an assessment tool. Thus, educators may be inclined to believe that exams are the most reliable form of assessment and should therefore stay. Brian Stanfield’s letters immediately highlights the severity of theses as an exam replacement by describing the use of theses as a “real danger” and suggesting that they can be ”manipulated”, allowing educators to question the reliability of theses as a replacement. The mention of the socio-economic gap suggests that the theses will only make the assessment more unfair for poorer students, thus questioning their reliability and planting doubts in the educator’s minds as to their viability as a replacement. This reinforces Leigh’s argument that theses may present problems in terms of fairness and consistency. Furthermore, Deborah James’ letter suggests through an anecdote, that theses may make student life unfair as they may cause a person to “not sleep, not eat and not go out”. This tricolon repeatedly highlights the severe consequences that theses can cause on a student’s health and wellbeing intended to show that theses are not fair, not only as a form of assessment but unfair on the life of the student as well. In contrast, Jonathan Rivers’ argument that students should be challenged to write a thesis, presents a challenge for educators, as they have been utilising the exams for many years, to find a new form of assessment. The use of “sacrificing” connotes a loss of opportunity and potential in students as they are not challenged in their education which may cause educators to believe that theses are a viable option that just needs to be fairly assessed to work.
The visual of empty rows of chairs and tables support Leigh’s argument that exams are still the fairest option for assessment. The equal size of each table and chair suggests that the exam is the fairest way to assess students as there is no opportunities for inequality or inconsistency as everyone has to sit the same exam. The visual’s placement next to the article – “long, isolating rows of single tables and chairs” adds fuel to her anecdote providing a visual representation of her experiences which resonates with readers who have felt the same way. As such, educators may be apt to consider her views as she can empathise with students and fellow educators, having been both herself.
Leigh’s use of language through anecdotes, imagery and other devices promotes her view that exams are still the fairest way to assess students. By refuting common arguments against exams and questioning the reliability of the thesis, Leigh discredits the other alternatives to demonstrate that exams are the fairest and most suitable form of assessment in its current state. The visual, Stanfield’s and Jones’ letter both support Leigh’s arguments against theses while Rivers’ letter raises concerns about the level of difficulty in education. Nonetheless, both pieces are persuasive in their own right.
Home
Help
Search
Login
