The main concerns put forth for not allowing
symbolic calculators in examinations are:
What will there be left to examine if
calculators can do symbolic manipulation?
Won’t examinations become much harder
if we need to devise ways where students do not profit from the power
of such calculators?
Are we not signing the “death
warrant” of our own subject by permitting such devices which
“dumb down” algebraic and analytical techniques in a
similar way that scientific calculators have robbed students of
numeracy facility, and some teachers claim, graphics calculators are
slowly diminishing students’ understanding of functions?
Don’t people setting examinations need
to be thoroughly trained (at whose expense?) to be familiar with the
capabilities of all machines on the market so as to be able to set
questions that do not favor students with one machine over students
with a different make?
All of the concerns mentioned above are certainly
valid, and we need to ensure that none of the scenarios that
disadvantage student performance occur. We need to take particular care
that the examinations do not become more difficult, thus making success
even more inaccessible as
here-to-fore. This would certainly serve as a key
factor in de-motivating students to pursue careers in mathematically
related fields, and making our subject more elitist than the popular
conception.
Certainly one way forward is to have a system of
two-tier examinations.
In this system, two papers would form a final
examination whereby one paper would not allow any technology at all and
the second paper would set a minimum standard in technology that
students would be required to have. Opponents to this, however, state
that this would rebound back on classroom teaching creating an
artificial situation just for exam purposes. Since students are allowed
technology in the classroom, they should be allowed it then in the
examinations since assessment should be the natural by-product of
classroom teaching.