Traspararent evaluation in lab exams -- good or bad idea? In a traditional evaluation, instructors only let their students know their total marks when the semester results are released. The marks given for each student for each question is kept confidential.

In our institution, lab examinations usually occur before the corresponding theoretical exams. Hence, I tend to follow a more transparent evaluation where the students get to know their marks and know where they have gone wrong just after their evaluation. I do this so that they could rectify their mistakes in their upcoming theory exam. After all, the whole rationale behind education is that you get to learn wherever possible.

What are the pros and cons of this approach?
My experience (in the UK) is that provisional marks for all assessments, whether coursework or exams, need to be returned to students within a set timeframe. 15 working days is a common one, but this varies from university to university.

Early feedback is a good thing, as you said, as it lets students know where to concentrate their efforts. This may include subject areas, but also, sometimes a student receiving a lower mark than they hoped for, might be spurred to working harder towards the next element of assessment.

I say provisional marks as, although the marking standard will have been internally checked at this point, it unlikely to have gone to an external examiner to ensure that the standard is comparable with other universities. So, the mark could potentially still change after that process.

The question asked if there are any cons with this approach. I can't think of any, but I'm really not used to the idea of marks being held back unnecessarily.