In everyday language, a Type something like a basic form. Exam types place rather abstract and wide categories. It seems sensible to use the term "examination types" to refer to the perspective of examination law and as usual:
- written,
- oral and
- practical examinations
as three audit types (cf. Morgenroth, 2021, p. 128 ff.). Since at least examinations with legal consequences (examinations that lead to certification) are strongly influenced by legal framework conditions, it can be considered justified from a didactic point of view to take this side of testing into account when determining examination types. While written and oral examination types are relatively clearly characterized by the mode of writing or speaking, the constitutive characteristic of the practical examination type is comparatively vague: what is required is an action beyond writing and speaking in order to demonstrate a performance, which can be quite variable depending on the subject (e.g. performing a medical action, carrying out programming or implementing a scientific experiment). Nevertheless, this Classification in university examination practice in Germany established.
Exam types could be a Upper (abstract) level for ordering tests form.
If you wanted to from a didactic point of view types of examination, one would probably start with the question, what is to be checked and why and in this case Taxonomies of learning objectives for type formation. This could be, but does not necessarily have to be, the widely used classics, i.e. Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1972) or the revised version by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001).
There are also other suggestions for the organization of teaching or learning objectives: for example classifications based on action theory (Hahn & Euler, 2007) or those that are specifically Academic goals such as critical ability, epistemic understanding, research skills, argumentation skills and contextualization skills (Murtonen & Salmento, 2019).
On Exam types based on teaching and learning objectives in the sense of generic terms, to which different variants can be subordinated would be highly interesting, are currently but not common.
------------
Quote with emphasis (pp. 14-15) 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 examinations in higher education. Whitepaper of a Community Working Group from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Version 1.1. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung.
------------
Literature:
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessment. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational outcomes. NY: Longman. Bloom, B.S. (1972). Taxonomy of learning objectives in the cognitive domain (4th ed.): Weinheim: Beltz.
Murtonen, M. & Salmento, H. (2019). Broadening the theory of scientific thinking for higher education. In M. Murtonen & K. Balloo (Eds.), Redefining scientific thinking for higher education. Higher-order thinking, evidence-based reasoning and research skills, (pp. 3-29). Berlin: Springer
Morgenroth, C. (2021). Interim assessment of Corona university law from the perspective of university practice, Part II - Methodological and legal basic questions on online examinations. Order of Science, 2, 117-131. https://ordnungderwissenschaft.de/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/03_02_2021_Morgenroth.pdf
