Teacher’s Assessment in Programming Comparing Teachers’ Individual Judgement Criteria in a Programming Course



In schools around the world the part of technology education related to programming is increasing. There is a lot to learn about teacher’s assessment and grading of students in assignments that are related to technology, particularly in programming. Simon (2012) analyzed introductory programming exams and found that a large percentage of the marks were awarded for the product and the coding skills of the student and less for other skills such as design, debugging, testing, or explaining and documenting. To be able to give formative support teachers should also be able to assess the process in the classroom; students tinkering, creating, debugging, persevering, and collaborating. The aim of this paper is therefore to examine teachers’ individual criteria, explicit, tacit and subjective criteria, when they grade and assess students in technology tasks related to programming. We interviewed 6 teachers in Sweden, representing lower secondary school, upper secondary school and university (teacher and engineering education). A Repertory Grid Technique interview combined with a Comparative Judgement grading was used to examine teachers’ individual criteria in assessment. The expected outcomes from the methods are captured criteria that are implicit and based on teachers’ experience, sometimes seen as teachers’ gut feelings. Two types of criteria were found; product criteria assessing the program and process criteria assessing the ongoing process. We compared these criteria with an instrument measuring the development of creativity designed for Art education. We claim that the use of process criteria will help the teacher and the students in developing programming skills.



2021-04-26 — Uppdaterad 2021-04-27

Referera så här

Björklund, L. E., & Nordlöf, C. (2021). Teacher’s Assessment in Programming: Comparing Teachers’ Individual Judgement Criteria in a Programming Course. Techne serien - Forskning i slöjdpedagogik och slöjdvetenskap, 28(2), 188–195. Hämtad från https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/4332