Which exam is better?

There has long been a debate about which exam is better. Proponents of the written exam say that it is better because it can be: a) anonymous, where the evaluator does not know whose work he is reviewing, and b) the result of the written exam can easily be repeated independently. This principle is the basis for the administration of exams and written work in many British universities and in some Russian ones, for example at Shaninka ( www.msses.ru ).

In Russia, a written exam is usually considered testing, the most famous version of which - the Unified State Exam - has practically equalized the concepts of a test, Unified State Exam and a written exam in the minds of Russians. But a written exam in many educational systems is understood not only and not so much as a test , but mainly as an essay - a coherent independent text on a given topic, which in humanities education forms in a student a number of important skills: the ability to express one’s own thoughts in a given amount of text, the ability to treat sources meaningfully and critically, to form and defend one’s own (attention, sedition!) , different from the teacher’s point of view . To check an essay, a set of criteria is used: text structure, relevance to the topic, quality and originality of analysis, argumentation, clarity of statements, accuracy, content, range of literature and sources used, references, language literacy.

I would not classify the test as a written form of testing knowledge in general - a test is a test, i.e. formalized answers to formalized questions, where in many cases the examinee does not write anything at all, but only ticks and circles the answer options. In many areas of science and technology, testing is used successfully - where and when it is necessary to determine whether the test subject knows what is prescribed - rules, instructions, facts. Let us remember that an exam in the form of a test for knowledge of traffic rules when obtaining a driver’s license has been used for a long time and successfully and its form does not cause heated debate.

Proponents of the oral exam, on the contrary, argue that this format is better, since during the oral exam the teacher can ask the student additional questions and more accurately determine the level of his knowledge in the subject. Some teachers prefer that the examinee answer the exam questions exactly as the lecturer dictated during lectures, and in this sense, the form of the verb is very indicative: passed the exam, i.e. as if he returned to the teacher the knowledge taken from him during lectures (in English - to pass an exam). But I agree with those who believe that the meaning of the oral exam is different: it acts as a point of assembly of educational material. And in this sense, a successful oral exam is not one in which the student, without straining, received an excellent mark, but one in which the student (and sometimes the teacher) understands the course material. This is facilitated by a number of factors: the vast number of tickets that need to be mastered in a short session of three days, and the moment when the student with his knowledge is left alone with the teacher (or commission), and the risk of being expelled from the university or deprived of a scholarship if he fails .

So which option is better? If one of the options were better than the others, only it would survive in the global educational environment. But different forms of testing continue to exist in the world insofar as each of them is most suitable for a particular learning situation.

In our country, when trying to answer the question of which is better, exam forms are viewed through a completely different lens: which of them is the most (least) corrupt? Unfortunately, in a society where corruption is alive and well, none of these forms is a protective tool.

What is it? In short, a new, and not only declared, but also current state policy in the field of education, where I would highlight three main points:

1) fair competition in global educational markets;

2) adopting the experience of the most successful countries in the field of education over the past 20 years (South Korea, Finland, Great Britain);

3) revision of the point of view on the global results of the education system. If we are said to have the best education in the world, then why don't we produce the world's best planes, cars, citizens and government systems?

But, alas, the results of educational policy are reflected, oh, not immediately, but I want them to quickly and in accordance with the latest instructions from the leadership.

Alexander Artamonov,
senior researcher Museum laboratories
designing Russian
Institute of Cultural Studies