What are we thinking when we grade programs?

Fitzgerald, S; McCauley, R; Hanks, B; Lister, R; Murphy, L

What are we thinking when we grade programs?

Fitzgerald, S McCauley, R Hanks, B Lister, R

Murphy, L

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: SIGCSE 2013 - Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2013, pp. 471 - 476
Issue Date:: 2013-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2012001120OK.pdf		2.37 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Fitzgerald, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	McCauley, R	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hanks, B	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lister, R https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5780-0445	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Murphy, L	en_US
dc.date.issued	2013-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	SIGCSE 2013 - Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2013, pp. 471 - 476	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781450320306	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/26313
dc.description.abstract	This paper reports on a mixed methods study which examines how four experienced instructors approached the grading of a programming problem. Two instructors used a detailed, analytic approach and two instructors employed a holistic approach. One instructor exhibited elements of a primary trait approach. Even though the four instructors used different grading scales and philosophies, their raw scores were highly correlated (Spearman's rho of .81) supporting the conclusion that experienced instructors usually agree on whether a program is very good' or very bad'. Clearly there is no single right way to grade programs. Further discourse should be encouraged for the benefit of both educators and students. Copyright © 2013 ACM.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	SIGCSE 2013 - Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education	en_US
dc.title	What are we thinking when we grade programs?	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.for	130212 Science, Technology and Engineering Curriculum and Pedagogy	en_US
utslib.for	089999 Information and Computing Sciences not elsewhere classified	en_US
dc.location.activity	Denver, Colorado, USA	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HCTD - Human Centred Technology Design
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

This paper reports on a mixed methods study which examines how four experienced instructors approached the grading of a programming problem. Two instructors used a detailed, analytic approach and two instructors employed a holistic approach. One instructor exhibited elements of a primary trait approach. Even though the four instructors used different grading scales and philosophies, their raw scores were highly correlated (Spearman's rho of .81) supporting the conclusion that experienced instructors usually agree on whether a program is very good' or very bad'. Clearly there is no single right way to grade programs. Further discourse should be encouraged for the benefit of both educators and students. Copyright © 2013 ACM.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/26313