Research in Science Education

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 91–110 | Cite as

A Student-centred Approach: Assessing the Changes in Prospective Science Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding by Concept Mapping in a General Chemistry Laboratory

Article

Abstract

Although researchers in higher education propose alternatives to traditional approaches to assessment, traditional methods are commonly used in college or university science courses. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and validity of Prospective Science Teachers’ (PSTs) concept maps as authentic assessment tools in a student-centred approach to describe the changes in the conceptual understanding of the PSTs in general chemistry laboratory investigations. After the PSTs (n = 47) decided on important issues, such as who would assess their concept maps and what scoring strategy and criteria would be used, they practiced assessing their own and peers’ concept maps during the first five laboratory investigations. They subsequently constructed and assessed pre- and post-laboratory concept maps in a student-centred approach consisting of self, peer, and instructor assessments for the five remaining laboratory investigations. The results of the study showed using pre- and post-laboratory concept maps as authentic assessment tools in a student-centred approach was valid and reliable for describing the conceptual understanding of the PSTs in a university general chemistry laboratory course. The results of individual interviews indicated most PSTs had positive views of their assessment practices in the laboratory course. This study also provides pedagogical implications for the training of science teachers.

Keywords

Authentic assessment Science teacher education Science laboratory Concept mapping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author of this paper would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor of Research in Science Education for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Abraham, M. R., Cracolice, M. S., Graves, A. P., Aladamash, A. H., Kihega, J. G., Palma Gil, J. G., et al. (1997). The nature and state of general chemistry laboratory courses offered by colleges and universities in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 591–594.Google Scholar
  2. Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Domin, D. S. (1999a). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547.Google Scholar
  5. Domin, D. S. (1999b). A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of higher order cognitive tasks. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fraser, K., & Edwards, J. (1985). The effects of training in concept mapping on student achievement in traditional classroom tests. Research in Science Education, 15(1), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giles, A., Martin, S. C., Bryce, D., & Hendry, G. D. (2004). Students as partners in evaluation: Student and teacher perspectives. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 681–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hegarty-Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (1991a). Relationship between students’ conceptual knowledge and study strategies. Part 1: Student learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hegarty-Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (1991b). Relationship between students’ conceptual knowledge and study strategies. Part 2: Student learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heron, J. (1981a). Self and peer assessment. In T. Boydell & M. Pedler (Eds.), Management self development, concepts and practices (pp. 111–128). England: Gower.Google Scholar
  11. Heron, J. (1981b). Assessment revisited. In D. J. Boud (Ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning (pp. 55–68). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  12. Kaya, O. N., & Ebenezer, J. (2003, March). A longitudinal study of the effects of concept mapping and Vee diagramming on senior university students’ achievement, attitudes and perceptions in science laboratory. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  13. Kyle, W. C. (1997). Assessing students’ understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 851–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, L. B., Mintzes, J. J., & Clavijo, E. H. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McComas, W. F., & Colburn, A. l. (1995). Laboratory learning: Addressing a neglected dimension of science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(2), 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Novak, J. D. (2001). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Retrieved January 12, 2004, from http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/info/.
  19. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reynolds, M., & Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: A critical perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roth, W. M. (2002). Being and becoming in the classroom. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  23. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 1–12). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tamir, P. (1989). Training teachers to teach effectively in the laboratory. Science Education, 73(1), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turkish Ministry of National Education (TMNE) (2005). New curriculum of science and technology education. Retrieved December 24, 2005, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/.
  27. Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wallace, J., & Mintzes, J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Explaining conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033–1052.Google Scholar
  29. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(2). Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2.
  30. Wiggins, G. (1996). Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 18–25.Google Scholar
  31. Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1998). Student self-assessment in HOCS science examinations: Is there a problem? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(2), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D., & Kamm, S. D. (1997). Examination type preferences of college science students and their faculty in Israel and USA: A comparative study. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zoller, U., Fastow, M., Lubezky, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (1999). Students’ self assessment in chemistry examinations requiring higher- and lower-order cognitive skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 112–113.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Science EducationFirat UniversityElazigTurkey

Personalised recommendations