Written Exams Should Be Open Book For Science Subjects.

I will first start with refutals.1. Con states "What is important to realize here is that Pro's system of examination will not analyze the science students' ability to intake information over a given period and reorganize that information into an organized time-restricted answer but rather will bias the entire process to those capable to intake information so phenomenally fast in comparison with their rivals. "Con assumes that students will not study for open book exams. As Con mentioned, an exam is a task one undertakes to display their ability to intake information prior to the exam. As there is a given period prior to the exam, students who are unable to "intake information phenomenally fast" will still have the time to study and prepare themselves. Pro in no way implies that open booked exams include zero prior examination period (such as classes, lectures and etc).2. For Con's definition or examination, I will accept the first two. However the third definition provided by Con clashes with my definition that I mentioned earlier. "These do NOT include laboratory test, oral test and other such test where additional steps are required (such as painting, dancing, performing, etc)"3. Con's first argument uses the examples of science in the medical field. Con assumes that open book exams extends to practical examination. Note to Con, the topic of this is "Written Exams" and NOT "ALL EXAMS". In the medical field, the simulation for medical work environment are provided to students through the practical exams. Thus Con's point here is out of topic.4. Con talks about the bell curve next which talks about the grading method for examinations. There is no stopping open book exams to be graded with the bell curve method too. Once again, Con went out of topic.5. I will address Con's point on pressure during my arguments below.6. Con questions "How on Earth is one to even know what they are researching, or to even fathom what needs to be discovered, if they haven't got an extremely sufficient foundation of scientific knowledge on which to base their work? " Once again, Con assumes zero learning/study period prior to exams. Con fails to understand that open-booked exams does not mean "no need to study exam". Now for my arguments.1. Age of technology. In the past closed book written exams were preferred because it was difficult to research information. If a doctor needs to refer to a text book in the past, it would mean a trip to the library and back. I agree that this is most inconvenient for the doctor, thus the need to memorize for closed book exams. However in today's world where information is as easy as a flick to turn on a smart phone, why should science that works on advancing to the future, be stuck using methods from the past? 2. Understanding. The greatest difference between an open book exam and close book exam is the method of study. Closed book exams usually have questions similar to the examples given in classes. Students tend to memorize and redo the same questions over and over again, not to understand them, but to memorize. Students will always check pass years paper and learn them by heart. But when you come out to the real world, the modern society needs not people who are like text books that can spew out information word for word. The science community needs people who are able to understand and think what those formulas and theories mean. "Students used to study for closed book examinations by analysing past years’ examination questions, spotting likely questions that will be repeated, preparing for model answers to these questions and memorising them. However, all this changed after the open book mid-term examination. The students knew that unless they understood the concepts, they would not be able to pass the final examination as they would have no way to prepare model answers in advance. " [1]3. Bigger Learning CurveOpen-book exams promote a bigger learning curve in students. This is because students have less memorizing and more understanding to do. Take math for example. I believe you and I can do simple equations such as 4x5=20. You would probably have memorized 4x5 during primary school. But lets take a bigger number, eg 154x123. Why is it that we do not memorize such big multiplications? It is simply because the more we have to memorize, the slower it is to advance. The important part is to understand how multiplication works and you can come out with the answer no matter how big the figure is. Since open book exams promotes understanding more, it is possible for the lecturer to include more syllabus during classes compared to in closed book exams. 4. Cramming. If you have taken written exams before, you would definitely be familiar with this term. Cramming is the process whereby students cram as much information as their brains can handle, only to vomit them all out during the examination. Cramming causes the brains to store the information in the short term memory which would defeat the purpose of education. "When you are “cramming”, you are essentially reading a list of facts to yourself and trying to commit them to memory. Unfortunately most of these things won’t actually be committed to memory and will be forgotten in a few hours. " [2]It is possible to ace closed book exams by cramming. On the other hand, it is literally impossible to cram for an open book exam. 5. Adaptability. Con mentioned "those pursuing research careers in science do all of their jobs open-book". How does one prepare for an open-book job without doing open-book exams? Although the Internet is full of information, students need understand which information are right and which are wrong. Without researching and understanding the material in advance, it would be easy to fail an open book exam due to bad information as well as plagiarism. Open book exams trains students the ability to research materials and distinguish right from wrong. " In this respect, the open book examination is closer to the working environment where the employee has access to manuals and examples of past work to draw on. " [3]6. Pressure. I will now address my 5th refutal to Con as mentioned above. There is no reason to assume open-book exams are easy. . Take a physics paper for example. There could be multiple variables that makes it difficult. The value of gravity itself may not even be a constant 9.81 due to location and etc. Some variables may be denoted with a single alphabet. Some variables may even share the same alphabet [4](E can mean both electric field (N C-1) or Energy (J)). Angles can either be stated in degrees or radian. Unless the student prepares himself well, walking unto an open book exam would be disastrous. There are numerous ways a lecturer can modify an exam questions where unsuspecting students will be caught off guard. "In the first part of this study, results indicated that unproctored, open book tests were not necessarily easier for students than traditional tests" [5]To wrap up round 2, as Pro I have refuted all of Con's arguments. I have also provided proof of why "Written Exams" should be "open-booked" exams. Con has made a huge assumption that "open-booked" exams are easy and there is no study/learning period prior to the examination. I would like to remind Con that this debate is "Open-Booked" vs "Closed-booked" and has nothing to do with the lecture/lesson periods prior to the examination. I would also like to remind Con that "Open-Booked" exams does NOT mean plagiarism is allowed with or without consent from original author. References,[1] . http://www.ln.edu.hk... [2] . http://www.laymanpsychology.com...[3] . http://www.bcs.org...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . https://oit.utk.edu...