Abstract
The role of assessment in higher education is gaining importance as accountability requirements intensify and as assessments are increasingly recognized as having potential to improve teaching and learning. During the last two decades, educators have begun implementing a wider variety of assessment types including alternative and student-centered assessment practices. However, few research studies have examined the extent that college science faculty use such practices. This large-scale descriptive study utilized a nationally representative sample of higher education faculty from the US Department of Education to examine the assessment and grading practices of college science faculty from 2 and 4-year higher education institutions. When data was disaggregated by science discipline, statistically significant differences were found among physics, chemistry and biology faculty’s assessment and grading practices. Biology faculty used a larger repertoire of assessment types overall, and used assessments that have potential to enhance the learning process more than chemistry and physics faculty. Physics and chemistry faculty graded on a curve more often and used competency-grading practices less often than biology faculty. Assessment practices that could be considered formative with potential to promote student learning appear to be underutilized by all science faculty.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkin JM, Black P (2003) Inside science education reform: a history of curricular and policy change. Teachers College Press, New York
Bass KM, Glaser R (2004) Developing assessments to inform teaching and learning. CSE Report 628. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation. Also available at www.cse.ucla.edu/reports/R628.pdf
Black P (2003) The importance of everyday assessment. In: Atkin JM, Coffey J (eds) Everyday assessment in the science classroom. NSTA Press, Washington, DC
Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract 5:7–74
Butz WP, Bloom GA, Gross ME, Kelly TK, Kofner A, Rippen HE (2003) Is there a shortage of scientists and engineers: how would we know? Issue Paper on Science and Technology. RAND, USA
Chappuis S, Stiggins RJ (2002) Classroom assessment for learning. Educ Leadersh 60:40–43
Crane L, Winterbottom M (2008) Plants and photosynthesis: peer assessment to help students learn. J Biol Educ 42:150–156
Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Stud High Educ 24:331–350
Duschl RA (2003) Assessment of inquiry. In: Atkin JM, Coffey J (eds) Everyday assessment in the science classroom. NSTA Press, Washington, DC
Fellows NJ (1994) A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. J Res Sci Teach 31:985–1001
Gronlund NE (2005) Assessment of student achievement. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Heady JE (2000) Assessment—a way of thinking about learning—now and in the future: the dynamic and ongoing nature of measuring and improving student learning. J Coll Sci Teach 29:415–421
Hestenes D, Wells M (1992) A mechanics baseline test. Phys Teach 30:159–166
Hogan TP, Murphy G (2007) Recommendations for preparing and scoring constructed-response items: what the experts say. Appl Meas Educ 20:427–441
Jacobs LC (1992) Developing and using tests effectively: a guide for faculty. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Erduran S (2008) Argumentation in science education: an overview. In: Erduran S, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP (eds) Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, New York, pp 3–27
Linn RL, Baker EL, Betebenner DW (2002) Accountability systems: implication of requirements of the no child left behind act of 2001. Educ Res 31:3–16
Maclellan E (2004) How convincing is alternative assessment for use in higher education? Assess Eval High Educ 29:311–321
Martinez MW (1999) Cognition and the question of test item format. Educ Psychol 34:207–218
Mazur E (1997) Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NY
McDermott LC, Redish EF (1999) Resource letter: PER-1: physics education research. Am J Phys 67:755–767
National Research Council (NRC) (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Palomba CA (1999) Assessment essentials: planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Popham J (2003) The seductive allure of data. Educ Leadersh 60:48–51
Richmond G, Parker J, Urban-Luraine M, Merritt B, Merrill J, Patterson R (2008) Assessment-informed instructional design to support principled reasoning in college-level biology. Paper presented at the NARST Annual International Conference, Baltimore, MD
Robyt JF, White BJ (1990) Laboratory practical exams in the biochemistry lab course. J Chem Educ 67:600–601
Ruiz-Primo MA, Furtak EM (2007) Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 44:57–84
Ruiz-Primo MA, Li M, Ayala C, Park R, Shavelson RJ (2004) Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. Int J Sci Educ 26:1477–1506
Sadler DR (2005) Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ 30:175–194
Sato M, Wei RC, Darling-Hammond L (2008) Improving teachers’ assessment practices through professional development: the case of National Board Certification. Am Educ Res J 45:669–700
Shepard LA (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res 29:4–14
Slater TF (1997) The effectiveness of portfolio assessments in science: integrating an alternative, holistic approach to learning into the classroom. J Coll Sci Teach 26:315–318
Stiggins RJ (1991) Facing the challenges of a new era of educational assessment. Appl Meas Educ 4:263–273
Takao AY, Kelly GJ (2003) Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Sci Educ 12:341–363
Tomanek D, Talanquer V, Novodvorsky I (2008) What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks? J Res Sci Teach 45:1113–1130
US Department of Education (2001) No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Report 107–334. House of representatives, 107th Congress, 1st Session
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002) National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) Methodology report. NCES 2002-154 by S. Y. Abraham, D. M. Steiger, M. Montgomery, B. D. Kuhr, R. Tourangeau, B. Montgomery, and M. Chattopadhyay. Project Officer: L. J. Zimbler. Washington, DC:NCES
Wiggins G (1998) Educative assessment: designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Yager RE (1991) The constructivist learning model: towards real reform in science education. Sci Teach 58:52–57
Yorke M (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. High Educ 45:477–501
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goubeaud, K. How is Science Learning Assessed at the Postsecondary Level? Assessment and Grading Practices in College Biology, Chemistry and Physics. J Sci Educ Technol 19, 237–245 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9196-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9196-9