Yes ! They teach one how to look up information, which is pretty much what we do in real life because we can't memorize everything, which is what most tests require.
An open-book test is a good idea when the course involves a lot of facts, equations, etc, that the student isn't expected to remember. Being able to use the book for equations, or, similarly, being allowed to take in a sheet of notes, removes the unnecessary stress of pure memorization. <br />
For example, I don't believe it is beneficial to make people remember the Periodic Table. So, students should be allowed to have a Periodic Table in front of them.
I've never taken either, so I can't speak from personal experience. I guess it depends on what the test has been designed to measure, but my instinctive reaction is that a take-home test lends itself to cheating unless it's simply going to be regarded as homework (ie the student can look things up and search for help) - in which case it isn't really a test.
It's not that test can only be one thing so I don't see why not. If it's an essay test on subject that requires more comprehension than rote memory it makes more sense.
Makes the people who suck at tests feel better about themselves for doing a HW assignment. More power to
Open book -- if they're created correctly you shouldn't have enough time to look up more than one or two things.<br />
Take home -- if done right then it's not about what you can look up but how you can put it into your own words and thoughts.
Agreed. A take-home test should be about application, but rewriting facts or ideas on a different sheet of paper.
They're testing your ability to use the information at your disposal. So, yes.
I don't think so.
I think so - the same way a paper can be considered a test. Had one in an Economic Philosophy class that took me almost 12 hours in the college library to complete. However, I learned a lot during that 12 hours. Far more productive that class time.