The chapters in this theme consider the role of digital assessment in learn- ing chemistry. The authors explore features that are unique to digital assess- ment, such as varying the method and timing of providing feedback to students.10–13 Other authors explore whether teachers feel prepared to create and implement digital assessment and how to support teachers in develop- ing these essential skills.14 The chapters in this theme ground their work in frameworks such as Community of inquiry and on teachers’ knowledge types based on the work of Shulman.15 These chapters provide examples of applications of digital assessment that can serve as a model for educators and teachers wishing to implement the various techniques and methods.
examinations are one of the most prevalent forms of assessment, but their structure and implementation can vary. Two-stage exams, where stu- dents complete an individual component and then work in small groups on the group component, have been proposed as a structure that (1) decreases student anxiety, (2) exposes students to other approaches for solving prob- lems, and (3) helps students reflect on their own processes while solving problems. in Chapter 23, Stewart shares best practices for effectively utiliz- ing two-stage exams in chemistry courses to increase student collaboration and support learning.10 She draws on the Community of inquiry (Coi) frame- work, which describes three “presences”: teaching, cognitive, and social.
These presences are important to attend to so that learning occurs when
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746479/bk9781839165238-00281.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
283 Theme Introduction: Digital Assessment
engaging in collaborative inquiry. Stewart examines the implementation of two-stage exams through the lens of each presence. Her recommendations are grounded in her own experiences teaching a virtual, high-enrolment, lecture-style organic chemistry course and research on implementing the two-stage exams in this course. This chapter demystifies the use of this type of exam structure and its guidance lowers the activation barrier for other instructors.
in Chapter 24, Wilkinson et al. recognize the potential of using digital tools to provide formative feedback to students.11 However, they note that as the number of digital tools increases, it becomes ever more necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these tools for providing feedback. The authors define important characteristics of formative feedback and review a number of digital tools that can be utilized to provide this type of feedback. The tools they review include electronic Laboratory Notebooks, methods for delivering transmissive feedback, and adaptive learning systems.
Wilkinson et al. provide an extensive review of a learning analytic software called the Student engagement relationship System (SreS).11 SreS can be used to collect data about student learning, enabling instructors to custom- ize their feedback based on the data. The authors argue that the power of SreS comes from its ability to support giving personalized feedback to stu- dents and automating some of the processes associated with feedback for instructors. The authors then provide a series of case studies that demon- strate how SreS was used for grading laboratories using rubrics and exem- plify the power of the SreS platform.
With the COViD-19 pandemic forcing teachers to develop and implement digital assessment as classes are moved online, they had little to rely on in terms of resources and training. in Chapter 25, Herscovitz et al. investigate what it takes to prepare future teachers to teach effectively using digital means.14 They draw from the well-established Shulman’s framework of con- tent knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (pK), and pedagogical content knowledge (pCK) and the latter construct—technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TpACK) of Mishra and Koheler that integrates technol- ogy into the former framework.16 Herscovitz et al. proposed that these types of knowledge be augmented with assessment knowledge (AK). They suggest that a lack of training around developing TpACK is a major barrier to using technology for in-person and virtual education in general and for assessment in particular. Thus, they investigated a training workshop during which par- ticipants evaluated existing online chemistry assignments and then devel- oped their own. participants were asked to complete reflections and answer a survey about their TpACK, and the researchers analyzed the online chemistry assignments the participants developed using a TpACK rubric. The research- ers found that participants ranked their technology knowledge lowest and identified several challenges related to using technology in the classroom.
However, participants also pointed out advantages related to student engage- ment and learning that resulted from using technology in education. Finally, when examining the online chemistry assignments that the participants had
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746479/bk9781839165238-00281.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
Chapter 22 284
developed, the researchers found that participants demonstrated higher lev- els of pCK and TK when compared to AK. This suggests that more support and training may be needed to increase teachers’ ability to develop online assignments that assess students’ chemistry knowledge and skills.
Low-stakes formative assessments can support student reflection on their learning. Their impact is increased when the feedback is immediate. Muteti and Mutambuki share research on the use of the Muddiest point activity,12 a type of low-stakes, formative, classroom assessment technique (CAT) designed by Angelo and Cross.17 While CATs have been widely used to pro- vide formative assessment opportunities for students, Muteti and Mutam- buki explored the virtual implementation of the Muddiest point CAT. They compared two general chemistry courses that had the same curriculum, learning outcomes, and assessments, where in the intervention course, the instructor implemented the Muddiest point CAT at the end of every chap- ter. Through the Muddiest point CAT, students anonymously identified the concepts that were most confusing to them and were able to see each oth- er’s responses and upvote them. The instructor and learning assistants then used these responses to inform the problems they assigned and went over with students, as well as the content of future classes. Muteti and Mutam- buki found statistically significant differences between the three midterm exams given in the courses for all student groups. Furthermore, when asked about the impact of the Muddiest point CATs on their learning experience, students reported a variety of ways in which the activities improved their learning and increased their confidence and sense of belonging. These find- ings suggest that adding activities like the Muddiest point CAT using tech- nology that enables anonymous feedback can be beneficial for all students learning chemistry.
in Chapter 27, Lawrie looks beyond a single assessment opportunity and conducts a deep investigation into providing feedback using digital means.13 She highlights the benefits of feedback for student learning, including increased engagement with the content and better self-regulation of learn- ing. Lawrie points out, however, that to be effective, feedback must satisfy a whole host of requirements,18 including that it must be adaptive, discur- sive, interactive, and reflective. Teachers often give feedback in-the-moment and use visual cues, such as students’ postures and expressions, to assist in gauging their level of understanding. As this type of dynamic interaction is less feasible with an online platform, integrating digital feedback must be more intentional. To investigate the most effective means for providing feed- back to students using a digital platform, Lawrie presents a study of a large, first-year blended (i.e., combining virtual and in-person learning) chemistry course that increases the opportunities and types of feedback provided over several years. Different types of feedback were provided digitally for at least three different modules of the course, with the goals of helping students connect their prior knowledge to new content and increasing peer–peer and peer–instructor interactions. Lawrie found that students reported preferring feedback that verified whether their thinking was correct or incorrect and
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746479/bk9781839165238-00281.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
285 Theme Introduction: Digital Assessment
valued feedback from the instructor and learning assistants more than feed- back from their peers. However, students also reported gaining important insights and increasing their understanding through the activities where they were asked to give feedback to their peers. The chapter contains detailed examples of methods that are useful for novice and experienced chemistry instructors and teachers alike for increasing both the amount of feedback provided in a hybrid course and students’ understanding of what construc- tive feedback looks like.