Search

Evaluation of student written work during summative assessments is an important task for instructors at all educational levels. Nevertheless, few research studies exist that provide insights into how different instructors approach this task. In this study, we characterised variation in chemistry instructors' approaches to the evaluation and grading of different student responses to conceptual questions in general chemistry summative assessments, and analysed the correlation of such variations with assigned grades. Our results revealed differences in the approaches followed by instructors along various dimensions, such as their focus of attention (e.g., knowledge vs. reasoning), the construction and use of a rubric to evaluate student work, and the extent to which instructors engaged in building inferences about student understanding. Most instructors, however, were consistent in the approaches they individually followed when analyzing different student responses. Differences in approaches along some dimensions correlated to assigned grades, but relevant dimensions differed for novice and experienced instructors (e.g., adopting an inferential "versus" a literal stance had a significant correlation with the grades assigned by experienced instructors but not by novice ones). The results of our study provide insights into strategies for the professional development of college instructors such as asking instructors to critically reflect on how the decisions they make along multiple dimensions during the grading process can affect the outcome.

Chemistry faculty instructors (FIs) and graduate student instructors (GSIs) regularly engage in the evaluation and grading of student responses in formal formative and summative assessments. In this study, we identified dimensions of variation in these instructors' approaches to the evaluation and grading of students' answers. Using qualitative methods of research, we conducted individual interviews in which participating chemistry FIs and GSIs were asked to evaluate and grade the same set of students' responses to a typical exam prompt and justify their decisions. Our results indicate that an observed variability in assigned grades emerged from the complex interaction of explicit and implicit decisions made and preferences manifested along various dimensions. Our findings suggest avenues for the professional development of chemistry instructors that can help reduce grading variability.

When evaluating the applicability of published SoTL and/or educational research results, faculty often focus on the differences in demographic characteristics between the students in their academic context and those of the students where the data were collected. This could be problematic since readers might choose to dismiss a particular innovation if they perceive the discrepancies to be significant even though this reliance on demographics to identify informative pedagogical research may not always be justified. We report the results of a survey of 1326 students from three introductory-level, first-year chemistry courses (a total of 10 sections with 10 different instructors) at two universities with significantly different student populations. The survey asked students to choose the hardest and easiest from five groups of topics typically taught in first-year chemistry courses. Remarkably, when separated by lecture section, overlaid frequency plots of students’ choices of hardest topic revealed a singular pattern. The trend transcended universities, courses, textbooks, instructors, and demographics. The only common parameter between the samples was the chemistry topics they learned. The correspondence in content, as such, constituted an “experience congruence.” Based on these data, we propose that readers might consider experience congruence—in lieu of sample or population characteristics—as a criterion for judging the generalizability of educational data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]