对程序课程的一个可靠的考试系统评估

以下是大纲或介绍,如需要完整的资料请购买下载. 本资料已审核过,内容保密,格式标准,质量保证.  
1.无需注册登录,购买下载后即可获取该完整的资料.
2.购买后本站提供下载链接或联系客服发送资料.
资料介绍


摘要:
本文是我们对程序课程的一个可靠的考试系统的经验描述。我们简要描述这个系统的结构和把这个系统的真实测试状态的评估的结果呈现出来。一些细节因素从网上的学生和测试者中学习,在响应时间和他们亲身体验的影响下,他们所采用的方法和考试形式是否自然性。

介绍:
像有经验的程序课程教师,我们发现了使用程序课程传统考试形式的缺点。学生学程序是通过实验课的练习,但最后评估他们能力和考试成绩的却是采用纸和笔代替电脑。判断学生在个人生涯中不会不使用这种模式制作程序,我们考虑到这不是个正确的方法。
在****大学的计算机科学系,每年大约有1000名学生在不同的教育性程序下教12门基础程序课程。这篇文章论述了程序课程在教育上的新的看法,能提供给任何程序语言、不同类型的学生和教育程序。这个想法是基于广大学生围绕不同考试形式的个人成绩,最有用和有效的反馈选择考试方式使用的考试形式的可靠性的基础准则。我们相信能通过把方法的选择和经过估价附加的效率相结合来改善我们学习程序的质量。特别的,我们相信它能把考试过程****
一些年来,我们在一些试验性课程对学生们进行了广泛的计算机辅助考试的测试实验——对这种类型的考试的一个可靠的考试形式。然而,这种考试形式因为计算机必要环境的支持不充分并没有预想的那样更加广泛的流传。去年,所有的学生和测试教师都连接到了一个新开发的可靠的考试系统(AES)。这个过程,经过通信和分级被环境支持。这篇文章我们描述了这个考试系统和对这个考试系统和其他一些有关的考试**相比较的最初评价。这个课程的问题覆盖了Ada程序和被第一年和第二年的学生**。
在去年我们对AES进行了评估。这个仪器用来评估存在的一系列问题在通过对231个学生3个月和4次考试解决。
在第1部分我们描述为什么我们提议考试的种类为编程的路线是最适当的并且与一些相关系统比较。 第2部分包括考试系统的一个简要的技术描述,包括它的结构设计。 在第3部分我们描述怎么计算机系统,那在网上处理考试过程,必须由在每条特殊路线设定的规则增添。 第4部分在第5部分包括我们的评估方法和由评估结果跟随。 第6部分结束本文。

Abstract
This paper describes our experience with an authentic examination system for programming courses. We briefly describe the architecture of the system, and present results of evaluating the system in real examination situations. Some of the factors studied in detail are the on-line interactions between the students and examiners, the response times and their effects on the pressure experienced by student, the acceptance of the method among the students, and whether the examination form is gender-neutral.
Introduction
As experienced teachers in programming courses we have noticed the drawbacks in the traditional examination form used in programming courses. The students learn to program via laboratory exercises, but the final evaluation of their abilities and the grading of the examination are in a form that uses paper and pen instead of computers. Considering that the student will never use this mode for producing a program through the professional life, we consider this to be not a suitable method.
At the Department of Computer Science at Link?ping University 12 fundamental programming courses for approximately 1000 students in different educational programs are taught annually. This paper deals with a new pedagogical view in these programming courses, which can be applied to any programming language, type of student and educational program. The idea is based on extensive studies around different examination forms, where individual grading, efficient and useful feedback and the authenticity of the examination form are used as basic criteria for the choice of examination method. We believe that the choice of method together with the added efficiency in the assessment process improves the quality of our study programmes. In particular, we believe that it will change the examination process from a summative to a normative assessment occasion [1].
For a number of years we have experimented with testing the students via computer-aided examinations in some pilot courses - an authentic examination form for this type of course. However, this examination form has not become more widespread due to insufficient support for the
 
computer environment necessary for this kind of examination. During the past year a new authentic examination system (AES) has been developed, where all the students and the examining teachers are connected to the same system. The process, including communication and grading, is supported by this environment. In this paper we describe the examination system and our initial evaluations of this system in a number of relatively large examination sessions. The courses in question covered programming in Ada and were taken by first and second year students.
During the past year we have evaluated the AES. The instruments used for the evaluation consisted of questionnaires filled by 231 students over a period of 3 months and 4 examinations.
The paper is organised as follows. In section 1 we describe why the type of examination we propose is the most appropriate for programming courses and compare to some related systems. Section 2 includes a brief technical description of the examination systems, including its architectural design. In section 3 we describe how the computer system, that manages the examination process on-line, has to be augmented by rules set up in each particular course. Section 4 covers our evaluation methods and is followed by evaluation results in section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.