Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Large programming task vs questions-and-answers examination in Java introductory courses
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Technology and Society (TS).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6019-1182
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Technology and Society (TS).
2016 (English)In: Proceedings: 2016 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, LaTiCE 2016, IEEE, 2016, p. 154-161Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This study investigates two different forms of examination in introductory Java programming courses: computer-based examination where the students are given one relatively large programming task only, and paper-/computer-based examination where the students are given a number of smaller questions to answer. The study focuses on identifying how well the two different examination forms reveal the students’ practical skills and theoretical knowledge in relation to the intended learning outcomes specified in the course syllabus. Course syllabuses from 8 Swedish universities are examined and from these, 4 specified learning outcomes, each shared by at least 5 of the selected universities, are identified. These learning outcomes are then used to analyze the exams from two of the universities, one practicing the large programming task examination form, and the other is using the questions and answer examination form. For both examination forms, two course phases are analyzed with respect to the specified learning outcomes: 1) exam (e.g. what do the questions capture and how are they formulated), and 2) execution (e.g. what do the students answer and how well are the intended purposes of the questions fulfilled). The results illustrate the strengths and weaknesses with the two examination forms. The results can be used as decision support when selecting examination form and, furthermore, to improve both forms to attain more comprehensive examinations, with respect to the specified learning outcomes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
IEEE, 2016. p. 154-161
Series
International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, ISSN 2377-0309
Keywords [en]
examination, introductory programming, higher education, computer science, intended learning outcomes
National Category
Information Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-12692DOI: 10.1109/LaTiCE.2016.25ISI: 000390124800030Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85002580187Local ID: 20943OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-12692DiVA, id: diva2:1409739
Conference
Fourth International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE 2016), Mumbai, India (31 mars - 3 april 2016)
Available from: 2020-02-29 Created: 2020-02-29 Last updated: 2025-02-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopushttp://www.et.iitb.ac.in/latice2016/index.html

Authority records

Jevinger, Åsevon Hausswolff, Kristina

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jevinger, Åsevon Hausswolff, Kristina
By organisation
Faculty of Technology and Society (TS)
Information Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 51 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf