Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2017.21.5.547

Research on the Assessment Criteria of Programming Education based on Bloom's Taxonomy in the Elementary and Secondary School  

Shin, Soobum (Gong-Ju University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education / v.21, no.5, 2017 , pp. 547-555 More about this Journal
Abstract
It needs theoretical assessment fundamental for informatics curriculum to judge appropriate grades and measure academic standard of an learner according to be included in the conventional curriculum. Thus this study tried to present an criteria on programming area of an informatics curriculum through bloom taxonomy and knowledge type. And it presented assessment criterion on each steps from "Remember" to "Create". And we presented knowledge type examples of programming such as Factual to Metacognitive based on Bloom's knowledge types. Also we analysed that most important level or type is Apply Level, Create Level and Procedural Knowledge. We investigated for each criterion of programming assessment based on bloom's theory through Delphi method. And the result of this investigation was that area of bloom's taxonomy was CVR 0.90, Validity 0.85 and area of knowledge type was CVR 0.90, Validity 0.79. So it can decide to accept for our assessment criteria of programming education based on Bloom theory.
Keywords
Assessment of Informatics Education; Programming Education Assessment; Bloom Taxonomy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Shuhaida Shuhidan et al.(2009). A Taxonomic Study of Novice Programming Summative Assessment. Eleventh Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2009), Wellington, New Zealand.
2 Terry Scott(2003). BLOOM'S TAXONOMY APPLIED TO TESTING IN COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSES. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges archive Volume 19 Issue 1, October 2003. Pages 267-274.
3 Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
4 Anderson, Lorin W., and Krathwohl, David R.(2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
5 Bloom, B. S. et. al.(1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives : Handbook l, Cognitive Domain. New York : David Mckay.
6 Cynthia(2015). Relationships: computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, and Bloom's Taxonomy. The 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=2818314.
7 Cynthia Collins Selby(2014). How Can the Teaching of Programming Be Used to Enhance Computational Thinking Skills? http://eprints.soton.ac.uk
8 Errol Thompson et al.(2008). Bloom's Taxonomy for CS Assessment. Tenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2008), Australia, p. 158.
9 Fred A. Materson (1984). Evaluating programming language for use in education. Computers and Education.
10 Judy Sheard et al.(2013). How difficult are exams? A framework for assessing the complexity of introductory programming exams. 15th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2013). pp 145-154.
11 KyungHun, et al.(2015). Prototype Development of Informatics Curriculum. KICE.
12 Mila Kwiatkowska(2016). Measuring the Difficulty of Test Items in Computing Science Education. WCCCE '16, May 06-07, 2016, Kamloops, BC, Canada.
13 MOE(2015). Informatics Curriculum. Vol 2015-74[Separate Volume 10].
14 MOE(2015). Promotion Plan to Train Competent Learner for SW Oriented Society. http://www.moe.go.kr
15 Otto (2012). Advances in Assessment of Programming Skills. Aalto University Publication Series. p. 34.