2 indeed used 3 times within a few sentences. Two uses deleted.
source | link

It is easy to explain the most immediate disadvantage of allowing "aids" during exams: many students misjudge the situation, thinking that having books and/or papers means they can study less. In particular, they often misjudge information access time.

But, indeed, many students benefit from some form or degree of open-access exams, because they indeed can relax a little about memorization and data.

And, indeed, in real life, although there are obvious benefits to having things in one's head, it's not possible to have everything there, and it's simply not the way things work. So it is a bit exaggerated to conduct exams in such artificial environments.

Similarly, although allowing "aids" reduces stress (and misleads some students), the necessarily-repetitive aspects of memory-oriented teaching/learning have their own benefits, that seem not achieved by less "primordial" teaching/learning. The point is not only memorization per se, but the repetitive aspect, which is often misguidedly downplayed in contexts where it is pretended that we all have nearly-perfect memories.

In brief: "drill" is pretty inhuman(e), or can be, but has benefits not achievable otherwise. Simultaneously, having books and papers available during exams is much more like real life, and changes the emphasis of the exam from memory to function (ideally), but will mislead a substantial number of students who've grown up trying to "game" the system.

But perhaps the real point is the exam-design itself, not the circumstances.

My own choice has been to always do open-book-open-notes exams, but/and designed to strongly favor people who have the information in their heads. This design criterion can be taxing to fulfill if one allows essentially unlimited internet access, for example, and the course is a cliched one like Calculus I. One device which I have found useful, both because it promotes useful skills and because it complicates "gaming the system" is the requirement of coherent writing, full sentences, good grammar. Not just skeletal formulaic junk splashed on a page... working toward a formula to be circled at the end. Explanations are not (yet?) so easily found by Googling. Of course I tell people in advance that they will need to be able to do this, and the homework would give feedback.

It is easy to explain the most immediate disadvantage of allowing "aids" during exams: many students misjudge the situation, thinking that having books and/or papers means they can study less. In particular, they often misjudge information access time.

But, indeed, many students benefit from some form or degree of open-access exams, because they indeed can relax a little about memorization and data.

And, indeed, in real life, although there are obvious benefits to having things in one's head, it's not possible to have everything there, and it's simply not the way things work. So it is a bit exaggerated to conduct exams in such artificial environments.

Similarly, although allowing "aids" reduces stress (and misleads some students), the necessarily-repetitive aspects of memory-oriented teaching/learning have their own benefits, that seem not achieved by less "primordial" teaching/learning. The point is not only memorization per se, but the repetitive aspect, which is often misguidedly downplayed in contexts where it is pretended that we all have nearly-perfect memories.

In brief: "drill" is pretty inhuman(e), or can be, but has benefits not achievable otherwise. Simultaneously, having books and papers available during exams is much more like real life, and changes the emphasis of the exam from memory to function (ideally), but will mislead a substantial number of students who've grown up trying to "game" the system.

But perhaps the real point is the exam-design itself, not the circumstances.

My own choice has been to always do open-book-open-notes exams, but/and designed to strongly favor people who have the information in their heads. This design criterion can be taxing to fulfill if one allows essentially unlimited internet access, for example, and the course is a cliched one like Calculus I. One device which I have found useful, both because it promotes useful skills and because it complicates "gaming the system" is the requirement of coherent writing, full sentences, good grammar. Not just skeletal formulaic junk splashed on a page... working toward a formula to be circled at the end. Explanations are not (yet?) so easily found by Googling. Of course I tell people in advance that they will need to be able to do this, and the homework would give feedback.

It is easy to explain the most immediate disadvantage of allowing "aids" during exams: many students misjudge the situation, thinking that having books and/or papers means they can study less. In particular, they often misjudge information access time.

But many students benefit from some form or degree of open-access exams, because they can relax a little about memorization and data.

And, indeed, in real life, although there are obvious benefits to having things in one's head, it's not possible to have everything there, and it's simply not the way things work. So it is a bit exaggerated to conduct exams in such artificial environments.

Similarly, although allowing "aids" reduces stress (and misleads some students), the necessarily-repetitive aspects of memory-oriented teaching/learning have their own benefits, that seem not achieved by less "primordial" teaching/learning. The point is not only memorization per se, but the repetitive aspect, which is often misguidedly downplayed in contexts where it is pretended that we all have nearly-perfect memories.

In brief: "drill" is pretty inhuman(e), or can be, but has benefits not achievable otherwise. Simultaneously, having books and papers available during exams is much more like real life, and changes the emphasis of the exam from memory to function (ideally), but will mislead a substantial number of students who've grown up trying to "game" the system.

But perhaps the real point is the exam-design itself, not the circumstances.

My own choice has been to always do open-book-open-notes exams, but/and designed to strongly favor people who have the information in their heads. This design criterion can be taxing to fulfill if one allows essentially unlimited internet access, for example, and the course is a cliched one like Calculus I. One device which I have found useful, both because it promotes useful skills and because it complicates "gaming the system" is the requirement of coherent writing, full sentences, good grammar. Not just skeletal formulaic junk splashed on a page... working toward a formula to be circled at the end. Explanations are not (yet?) so easily found by Googling. Of course I tell people in advance that they will need to be able to do this, and the homework would give feedback.

1
source | link

It is easy to explain the most immediate disadvantage of allowing "aids" during exams: many students misjudge the situation, thinking that having books and/or papers means they can study less. In particular, they often misjudge information access time.

But, indeed, many students benefit from some form or degree of open-access exams, because they indeed can relax a little about memorization and data.

And, indeed, in real life, although there are obvious benefits to having things in one's head, it's not possible to have everything there, and it's simply not the way things work. So it is a bit exaggerated to conduct exams in such artificial environments.

Similarly, although allowing "aids" reduces stress (and misleads some students), the necessarily-repetitive aspects of memory-oriented teaching/learning have their own benefits, that seem not achieved by less "primordial" teaching/learning. The point is not only memorization per se, but the repetitive aspect, which is often misguidedly downplayed in contexts where it is pretended that we all have nearly-perfect memories.

In brief: "drill" is pretty inhuman(e), or can be, but has benefits not achievable otherwise. Simultaneously, having books and papers available during exams is much more like real life, and changes the emphasis of the exam from memory to function (ideally), but will mislead a substantial number of students who've grown up trying to "game" the system.

But perhaps the real point is the exam-design itself, not the circumstances.

My own choice has been to always do open-book-open-notes exams, but/and designed to strongly favor people who have the information in their heads. This design criterion can be taxing to fulfill if one allows essentially unlimited internet access, for example, and the course is a cliched one like Calculus I. One device which I have found useful, both because it promotes useful skills and because it complicates "gaming the system" is the requirement of coherent writing, full sentences, good grammar. Not just skeletal formulaic junk splashed on a page... working toward a formula to be circled at the end. Explanations are not (yet?) so easily found by Googling. Of course I tell people in advance that they will need to be able to do this, and the homework would give feedback.