(二)引入法律闭卷考试

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Legal Education Review Pub Date : 2018-11-30 DOI:10.53300/001c.6366
Cathy Sherry, L. Terrill, J. Laurens
{"title":"(二)引入法律闭卷考试","authors":"Cathy Sherry, L. Terrill, J. Laurens","doi":"10.53300/001c.6366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past half century there has been a move towards open book examinations in many tertiary institutions. However, the body of research on open book and more traditional closed book exams is diverse and even contradictory in its findings. Law-specific research is almost non-existent. This article discusses the findings of an empirical research project on the introduction of a closed book exam in the compulsory subject Land Law, in an institution that has only used open book exams. The closed book exam and subsequent research were motivated by concerns about the way in which contemporary students do open book exams, particularly after the invention of the internet. The study found that academic concerns about open book exams had some validity, particularly in relation to heavy reliance on notes, including other students’ notes during the exam. The authors conclude that there are advantages and disadvantages to both open and closed book exams, and that both have a role to play in a balanced assessment strategy.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Re)Introducing a Closed Book Exam in Law\",\"authors\":\"Cathy Sherry, L. Terrill, J. Laurens\",\"doi\":\"10.53300/001c.6366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the past half century there has been a move towards open book examinations in many tertiary institutions. However, the body of research on open book and more traditional closed book exams is diverse and even contradictory in its findings. Law-specific research is almost non-existent. This article discusses the findings of an empirical research project on the introduction of a closed book exam in the compulsory subject Land Law, in an institution that has only used open book exams. The closed book exam and subsequent research were motivated by concerns about the way in which contemporary students do open book exams, particularly after the invention of the internet. The study found that academic concerns about open book exams had some validity, particularly in relation to heavy reliance on notes, including other students’ notes during the exam. The authors conclude that there are advantages and disadvantages to both open and closed book exams, and that both have a role to play in a balanced assessment strategy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Education Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6366\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的半个世纪里,许多高等教育机构都采取了开卷考试的做法。然而,关于开卷考试和更传统的闭卷考试的研究结果是多样化的,甚至是相互矛盾的。专门针对法律的研究几乎不存在。本文讨论了一项实证研究项目的结果,该项目是在一个只采用开卷考试的机构中引入土地法必修科目闭卷考试的。闭卷考试和随后的研究是出于对当代学生开卷考试方式的担忧,尤其是在互联网发明之后。研究发现,学术界对开卷考试的担忧有一定的道理,尤其是在严重依赖笔记的情况下,包括考试期间其他学生的笔记。作者得出结论,开卷和闭卷考试都有优点和缺点,两者都在平衡的评估策略中发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(Re)Introducing a Closed Book Exam in Law
In the past half century there has been a move towards open book examinations in many tertiary institutions. However, the body of research on open book and more traditional closed book exams is diverse and even contradictory in its findings. Law-specific research is almost non-existent. This article discusses the findings of an empirical research project on the introduction of a closed book exam in the compulsory subject Land Law, in an institution that has only used open book exams. The closed book exam and subsequent research were motivated by concerns about the way in which contemporary students do open book exams, particularly after the invention of the internet. The study found that academic concerns about open book exams had some validity, particularly in relation to heavy reliance on notes, including other students’ notes during the exam. The authors conclude that there are advantages and disadvantages to both open and closed book exams, and that both have a role to play in a balanced assessment strategy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Legal Education Review
Legal Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
66.70%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Computing Legal Analysis: A Guided Approach to Problem Solving in Contract Law Keep it Real: The Case for Introducing Authentic Tasks in the Undergraduate Law Degree Student Evaluations of Teaching: Understanding Limitations and Advocating for a Gold Standard for Measuring Teaching Effectiveness Trial Advocacy and Nitojutsu Legal Clinical Education in China: A Literature Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1