Examinations remain one of the main ways of testing students’ knowledge, with norm and criterion-referenced being two of the most common methods of evaluation. While the former relies on assessing learners against an average “norm,” the latter allows grading pupils against equal-for-all criteria. However, their differences go beyond disparities in evaluation, recognizing which may help create better testing conditions.
Each method of evaluation allows for achieving different results and stimulating students’ motivation. While norm-referenced exams allow inspiring pupils who aspire to be better than their peers, it also creates an unbalanced grading ground. On the other hand, criterion references exams allow assessing learners of different backgrounds without prejudice, which, nonetheless, creates the issue of standardized testing’s impartiality to anything beyond the set criteria. However, this evaluation method perseveres and continues its implementation into education because standardization allows not only supporting students but also helps facilitate their mobility to other institutions, both vertically and horizontally. Thus, while norm-based evaluation allows assessing learners in situations where they should be compared to their peers, such as testing for kindergarten, assessment against criteria is more beneficial when determining erudition.
Maintaining a personalized approach to students remains essential for a teacher, which requires testing not only for pre-set criterion but also surveying for emotional skills, assessing pupils’ projects for creativity, and allowing freedom of expression. The usefulness of such a varied approach lies in the differences between learners. Thus, creating a level ground in all aspects of learning becomes one of the teacher’s primary goals.