Rethinking Assessment: Why Exams Aren’t the Answer in Large Classrooms

I was talking to a colleague yesterday, and he raised the issue of growing student numbers. Faced with an ever-expanding classroom, he shared his concern that he might have to revert from continuous assessment to exams. His reasoning (which to be honest, from a lecturers perspective of increased class sizes, was fair) was that exams could streamline the process, addressing the challenge of increasing student workload while also curbing the misuse of AI tools. But as we continued our conversation, it became clear to me that this approach, though seemingly practical, is incredibly short-sighted.

At first glance, exams might seem like the easy solution to large class sizes and concerns around academic integrity. However, reverting to exam-based assessment undermines much of what we know about effective learning today, particularly when we consider models of learning such as constructivism, which has become central to third-level education.

Exams tend to focus on the memorisation and regurgitation of facts within a limited timeframe, rewarding those who can perform well under pressure rather than those who have deeply understood and internalised the material. This approach overlooks the complex, iterative process of learning, which requires time, reflection, and application.

Exams may also hinder the development of critical skills such as problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration—skills that are more vital than ever in today’s rapidly changing world. What’s more, in large classrooms, exams can reinforce a passive learning environment where students are encouraged to absorb information rather than actively engage with it.

Constructivist learning theory emphasises that students build knowledge through experiences, reflection, and interaction with their environment. Learning, in this context, is an active process in which students are encouraged to make meaning rather than passively absorb facts. For third-level students, this is particularly essential as they transition into self-directed learners and problem-solvers.

Exams, by their nature, do not accommodate this model of learning. They do not foster the deep, reflective engagement that constructivism demands. Instead, they prioritise surface-level learning, where the goal is to “pass the test” rather than to develop a robust, transferable understanding of the subject matter.

So, what’s the alternative, especially when dealing with large classrooms? There are several innovative and scalable methods of assessment that align much better with constructivist principles:

1. Project-Based Learning (PBL): Rather than testing students’ ability to recall information, PBL allows them to apply what they’ve learned to real-world scenarios. This encourages collaboration, problem-solving, and creativity—skills that exams rarely assess.
2. Portfolios: Portfolios allow students to curate their work over time, demonstrating both their learning process and the final outcomes. This type of assessment encourages reflection, self-assessment, and the development of critical thinking.
3. Peer Assessment: Engaging students in the process of evaluating each other’s work not only reduces the grading burden on lecturers but also fosters collaborative learning and critical engagement with the material.
4. Reflection Journals or Blogs: Asking students to regularly reflect on what they’ve learned helps to promote deeper learning and continuous engagement with the material. This type of assessment also allows for the integration of personal experiences, which is a key tenet of constructivist learning.
5. Take-Home Assessments or Open-Book Exams: While still technically an "exam," these formats encourage students to engage with materials critically and apply their knowledge rather than just recall it.

What struck me most in my colleague's reasoning was the implicit assumption that assessment methods could be shaped by lecturer workload (which to be fair is what sometimes happens to me), rather than by student learning needs. While it’s understandable that managing large groups can be overwhelming, we cannot let practical constraints drive decisions about how we assess learning. If we put the convenience of grading before the quality of education, we risk prioritising efficiency over meaningful student engagement.

Innovative assessment methods may take more time and effort to implement, but the payoff is far greater: students who are actively engaged, learning in ways that are relevant to the world outside the classroom, and developing the critical skills they need for lifelong success.

In the face of growing class sizes and technological challenges, reverting to exams might seem like the easiest solution. But if we are truly committed to fostering deep, meaningful learning for our students, we need to move beyond short-term fixes and invest in assessment methods that align with the principles of constructivist learning. By doing so, we not only help our students succeed in the classroom but also prepare them for the complexities of the world beyond it.