CASE STUDY ON C-PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BLOOMS COGNITIVE LEVEL

Dr. K. Lakshmi

Abstract


Current education system is changing dynamically to bring out various skills of students/ learners. To make sure the learner learn what they ought to, Outcome based education is being adopted in higher education institutions. Educationalists suggest that assessment must be in such a way to evaluate different cognitive level of the students as proposed by Bloom. But still some gap prevails on how to set questions to check different cognitive levels of the students. This paper is intended to study how the question papers are set, taking “Computer Programming Course” as example and suggest few modifications that may be brought into the question papers to assess higher order thinking level of students. Study is made on the questions collected from question papers of different educational institutions and technical examinations. Analysis were made on how the questions are distributed based on the Blooms Taxonomy and the keywords used for constructing the questions. Findings reveal that the questions are not distributed well on the Blooms Taxonomy. Most of the questions fall in the lower order thinking categories. Higher order thinking levels are very much ignored especially in descriptive type questions. Based on the findings few improvements in the question setting were suggested.

Keywords


Outcome Based Education, Blooms Taxonomy, Question setting, Programming language, C-Programming

Full Text:

PDF

References


Xiaoyan Wang, Yelin Su, Stephen Cheung, Eva Wong, Theresa Kwong, Keng T. Tan (2011), “Does Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning Make a Difference in Students’ Learning Approach?”, ICHL 2011, Volume 6837 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp 83-94

Dr. V.V.Rao (2015), Outcome based education and accreditation, VRV Consultants; 1 edition (12 May 2015), ISBN-10: 9352060121.

NBA - Orientation Workshop On Outcome Based Accreditation Training and text material – OBE Training.Pdf

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman

Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s Taxonomy Applied to Testing in Computer Science Classes. Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges: Rocky Mountain Conference. (October 2003) 267-274.

Nazlia Omara, Syahidah Sufi Harisa, Rosilah Hassana, Haslina Arshada, Masura Rahmata, Noor Faridatul Ainun Zainala & Rozli ZulkiflibProcedia (2012), Automated analysis of exam questions according to bloom’s taxonomy - Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 59 ( 2012 ) 297 – 303 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://www.teachthought.com/critical-thinking/blooms-taxonomy/blooms-digital-taxonomy-verbs-21st-century-students/


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2017 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH JOURNAL