Shape is a particularly versatile word from the outset and is not very fixed. In the context of testing, it should therefore be used with the property „generic“ should be added. This labeling is useful to make it clear that it is about Forms of testing not yet specified from which a number of other variants can be generated as scenarios. Based on this understanding of form and taking the three types of examination (written, oral, practical) as a theoretical basis (cf. Reinmann, 2019), one could, for example. postulate two generic examination forms each, which can be used to create any number of test scenarios.
This is why oral exams, the nature of the oral situation rather:
- dialogic (Conversation) or
- monological (Presentation) to characterize.
With written examinations, it plays an essential role - again primarily for legal reasons - whether these:
- under supervision (Exam) or
- without supervision (Term paper) take place.
With practical examinations, a distinction could be made as to whether:
- the situated process of showing (Demonstration) or
- a materialized artifact (Production)
is the focus. Compared to examination formats that are more structural and static in nature, generic examination formats serve as a Basis for creating test scenarios on this basis. This logic has the Advantage, that teachers become creative themselves when designing exams despite the specifications and in this way achieve a Fit to achieve the desired objectives. Teaching and learning objectives, the achievement of which is to be determined via examinations, form the reference for design decisions.
[...] Three levels for the description of tests appears to be sensible, in order to take legal requirements into account as well as to meet didactic demands. A pragmatic solution is to place examination types that conform to legal requirements at the upper (abstract) level and prescriptive examination scenarios at the lower (concrete) level.
You have to Exam types as Basic categories accept and Examination scenarios as Action scripts for the design of examination arrangements. At the middle level, it could be advantageous for the present discussion to avoid the overly broadly interpretable concept of format if possible. Instead Determine generic examination forms in combination with design dimensions, with which examination scenarios can be created, tested and researched. Such a conceptual organization makes it easier to develop heuristics for the practice of exam design, so that this is more than just a clarification of working definitions.
The distinctions proposed here are ultimately also compatible with the university didactics widespread postulate of constructive alignment, according to which Teaching-learning objectives, teaching-learning activities and examinations must be coordinated. Ultimately, it is important to ensure or create a fit with the respective teaching and learning objectives at each of the three levels.
------------
Quote with emphasis (p. 16) from: Bandtel, M., Baume, M., Brinkmann, E., Bedenlier, S., Budde, J., Eugster, B., Ghoneim, A., Halbherr, T., Persike, M., Rampelt, F., Reinmann, G., Sari, Z., Schulz, A. (eds.) (2021). Digital tests in the university. Whitepaper of a Community Working Group from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Version 1.1. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung.
------------
Literature:
Reinmann, G. (2019). Examining research-based learning: University didactic thoughts on
a theory of testing. Journal of Pedagogy, 4, 608-626
