- 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

Assessment designs of instructional labs: A literature review and a design model

Laura Ketonen1, Antti Lehtinen2, and Pekka Koskinen3

  • 1Department of Teacher Education/Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FI-40014, Finland
  • 2Department of Physics/Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FI-40014, Finland
  • 3Department of Physics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FI-40014, Finland

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020601 – Published 17 July, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020601

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] In recent years, physics instructional labs have been under considerable research and development. However, there seems to be no shared understanding of how the assessment of instructional labs should be arranged to best serve students’ learning and development of expertise. This literature review intends to fill this gap by reviewing the research on classroom assessment of instructional labs from the perspectives of different objectives, purposes, and agents of assessment. The review reveals that classroom assessment in instructional labs has mostly focused on summative assessment, leaving the possibilities of formative assessment understudied. Further, assessment has been conducted mostly by teachers and teaching assistants, and the possibilities for students’ participation in assessment remain unutilized. Two major gaps in the research on instructional labs were identified. The first gap concerns students’ active participation in assessment. Given the active role that students have in the laboratory, their agency in assessment appears to be narrow. The second gap concerns the inclusion of metaskills and perspectives on lifelong learning and work life in assessment. We summarize our findings into a research-based model that assists in the consideration and balancing of different objectives, purposes, and agents in the design of classroom assessment of instructional labs.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Article Text

References (93)

  1. N. G. Holmes and H. J. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  2. E. Smith and N. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nat. Phys. 17, 662 (2021).
  3. C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  4. N. G. Holmes, J. Olsen, J. L. Thomas, and C. E. Wieman, Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010129 (2017).
  5. 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).
  6. N. G. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  7. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  8. J. B. Biggs and C. S. Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Maidenhead, England, New York, NY, 2011).
  9. B. Wisniewski, K. Zierer, and J. Hattie, The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research, Front. Psychol. 10, 3087 (2020).
  10. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, S. Murthy, and M. Ruibal-Villasenor, Using action research to improve learning and formative assessment to conduct research, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010109 (2009).
  11. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 54 (2010).
  12. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  13. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, 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).
  14. C. Gipps, Socio-cultural aspects of assessment, Rev. Res. Educ. 24, 355 (1999).
  15. J. H. Nieminen, H. Asikainen, and J. Rämö, Promoting deep approach to learning and self-efficacy by changing the purpose of self-assessment: A comparison of summative and formative models, Stud. Higher Educ. 46, 1296 (2021).
  16. E. Panadero and A. Jonsson, The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review, Educ. Res. Rev. 9, 129 (2013).
  17. K. Silseth and Ø. Gilje, Multimodal composition and assessment: A sociocultural perspective, Assess. Educ. 26, 26 (2019).
  18. J. H. Nieminen and L. Tuohilampi, ‘Finally studying for myself’—Examining student agency in summative and formative self-assessment models, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 45, 1031 (2020).
  19. D. Boud and M. Bearman, The assessment challenge of social and collaborative learning in higher education, Educ. Philos. Theory 0, 1 (2022).
  20. P. Black and D. Wiliam, Classroom assessment and pedagogy, Assess. Educ. 25, 551 (2018).
  21. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  22. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Development and validation of the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 442 (2013).
  23. J. Kozminski et al., AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum, Am. Assoc. Phys. Teach. 29, 2 (2014).
  24. C. Wieman and N. G. Holmes, Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 83, 972 (2015).
  25. H. Muukkonen and M. Lakkala, Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education, Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 4, 187 (2009).
  26. K. L. Van De Bogart, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, H. J. Lewandowski, and M. R. Stetzer, Investigating the role of socially mediated metacognition during collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020116 (2017).
  27. P. Prasittichok and K. K. Klaykaew, Meta-skills development needs assessment among undergraduate students, Heliyon 8, e08787 (2022).
  28. M. Scott, T. Stelzer, and G. Gladding, Evaluating multiple-choice exams in large introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020102 (2006).
  29. A. A. Lipnevich and J. K. Smith, Response to assessment feedback: The effects of grades, praise, and source of information, ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2008, 1 (2008).
  30. D. Boud, Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society, Stud. Contin. Educ. 22, 151 (2000).
  31. D. Boud and R. Soler, Sustainable assessment revisited, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 41, 400 (2016).
  32. J. Tai, R. Ajjawi, D. Boud, P. Dawson, and E. Panadero, Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work, High. Educ. 76, 467 (2018).
  33. P. Dawson, D. Carless, and P. P. W. Lee, Authentic feedback: Supporting learners to engage in disciplinary feedback practices, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 46, 286 (2021).
  34. D. Boud, Shifting views of assessment: From secret teachers’ business to sustaining learning, Advances and Innovations in University Assessment and Feedback (Edinburgh, 2014; online edn, Edinburgh Scholarship Online, 2014), p. 13.
  35. J. Hattie and H. Timperley, The power of feedback, Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81 (2007).
  36. D. Boud and E. Molloy, Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 38, 698 (2013).
  37. D. Carless and D. Boud, The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 1315 (2018).
  38. A. Jonsson, Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education, Act. Learn. High. Educ. 14, 63 (2013).
  39. N. E. Winstone, R. A. Nash, J. Rowntree, and M. Parker, ‘It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it’: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience, Stud. Higher Educ. 42, 2026 (2017).
  40. P. Sutton, Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting, Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 49, 31 (2012).
  41. D. Carless and N. Winstone, Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy, Teach. High. Educ. 28, 150 (2023).
  42. G. Rodríguez-Gómez and M. S. Ibarra-Sáiz, Assessment as learning and empowerment: Towards sustainable learning in higher education, in Sustainable Learning in Higher Education: Developing Competencies for the Global Marketplace, edited by M. Peris-Ortiz and J. M. Merigó Lindahl (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015), pp. 1–20.
  43. Assessment as Learning: Maximising Opportunities for Student Learning and Achievement, edited by Z. Yan and L. Yang (Routledge, London, 2021).
  44. E. Panadero, Is It Safe? Social, Interpersonal, and Human Effects of Peer Assessment: A Review and Future Directions, in Handbook of Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (Routledge, New York, 2016), pp. 247–266.
  45. U. Mertens, B. Finn, and M. A. Lindner, Effects of computer-based feedback on lower- and higher-order learning outcomes: A network meta-analysis, J. Educ. Psychol. 114, 1743 (2022).
  46. K. Perry, K. Meissel, and M. F. Hill, Rebooting assessment. Exploring the challenges and benefits of shifting from pen-and-paper to computer in summative assessment, Educ. Res. Rev. 36, 100451 (2022).
  47. N. Reid and I. Shah, The role of laboratory work in university chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8, 172 (2007).
  48. S. Hensiek, B. K. DeKorver, C. J. Harwood, J. Fish, K. O’Shea, and M. Towns, Improving and assessing student hands-on laboratory skills through digital badging, J. Chem. Educ. 93, 1847 (2016).
  49. S. Hensiek, B. K. DeKorver, C. J. Harwood, J. Fish, K. O’Shea, and M. Towns, Digital badges in science: A novel approach to the assessment of student learning, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 46, 28 (2017).
  50. M. Towns, C. J. Harwood, M. B. Robertshaw, J. Fish, and K. O’Shea, The digital pipetting badge: A method to improve student hands-on laboratory skills, J. Chem. Educ. 92, 2038 (2015).
  51. C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, and M. J. de Vries, Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010111 (2022).
  52. F. Pols, A physics lab course in times of COVID-19, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 172 (2020).
  53. J. M. Duis, L. L. Schafer, S. Nussbaum, and J. J. Stewart, A process for developing introductory science laboratory learning goals to enhance student learning and instructional alignment, J. Chem. Educ. 90, 1144 (2013).
  54. M. L. Hall and D. Vardar-Ulu, An inquiry-based biochemistry laboratory structure emphasizing competency in the scientific process: A guided approach with an electronic notebook format, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 42, 58 (2014).
  55. S. Avargil, M. Bruce, S. Klemmer, and A. Bruce, A professional development activity to help teaching assistants work as a team to assess lab reports in a general chemistry course, Isr. J. Chem. 59, 536 (2019).
  56. J. L. Logan and C. E. Rumbaugh, The chemistry of perfume: A laboratory course for nonscience majors, J. Chem. Educ. 89, 613 (2012).
  57. J. R. Read and S. H. Kable, Educational analysis of the first year chemistry experiment thermodynamics think-in’: An ACELL Experiment, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8, 255 (2007).
  58. A. Silva, R. Gonzales, and D. P. Brennan, Online grading of calculations in general chemistry laboratory write-ups, J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 38, 155 (2009).
  59. M. Sobhanzadeh and P. Zizler, Selective assessment in introductory physics labatorials, Phys. Teach. 59, 114 (2021).
  60. N. Veiga, F. Luzardo, K. Irving, M. N. Rodriguez-Ayan, and J. Torres, Online pre-laboratory tools for first-year undergraduate chemistry course in uruguay: student preferences and implications on student performance, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 20, 229 (2019).
  61. B. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Transforming the advanced lab: Part I—Learning goals, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 391 (2012).
  62. Y. Yang, Y. Zhang, X. Xiong, W. Zhang, W. Chen, and S. Ge, From lab scale to mass production: A project-based learning on the preparation of (S)-epichlorohydrin for enhancing college student engineering practical abilities, J. Chem. Educ. 98, 3804 (2021).
  63. L. Brunauer, Purification and electrophoretic characterization of lactate dehydrogenase from mammalian blood: A different twist on a classic experiment, J. Chem. Educ. 93, 1108 (2016).
  64. L. El-Gabry, Development, implementation and assessment of thermodynamics lab kits for remote lab instruction in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (2021).
  65. S. Faletič and G. Planinšič, How the introduction of self-assessment rubrics helped students and teachers in a project laboratory course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020136 (2020).
  66. T. H. Gilani and N. M. Dushkina, The Undergraduate Optics Course at Millersville University, Education and Training in Optics and Photonics, OSA Technical Digest Series (2009), https://doi.org/10.1364/ETOP.2009.ETA4.
  67. M. A. M. Meester and R. Maskill, First-year chemistry practicals at universities in England and Wales: Organizational and teaching aspects, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 17, 705 (1995).
  68. J. F. Robyt and B. J. White, Laboratory practical exams in the biochemistry lab course, J. Chem. Educ. 67, 600 (1990).
  69. E. Burkholder, L. Hwang, E. Sattely, and N. Holmes, Supporting decision-making in upper-level chemical engineering laboratories, Educ. Chem. Eng. 35, 69 (2021).
  70. J. R. Hoehn, M. F. J. Fox, A. Werth, V. Borish, and H. J. Lewandowski, Remote advanced lab course: A case study analysis of open-ended projects, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020111 (2021).
  71. D. Luchembe and O. Shumba, Practical work, simulations and feedback to address undergraduate physics students’ challenges in understanding circular and rotational motion, Educ. Q. Rev. 2, 585 (2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3450027.
  72. R. Matilainen, P. Nuora, and P. Valto, Student experiences of project-based learning in an analytical chemistry laboratory course in higher education, Chem. Teach. Int. 3, 229 (2021).
  73. T. Sena-Esteves, C. Morais, A. Guedes, I. B. Pereira, M. M. Ribeiro, F. Soares, and C. P. Leão, Students’ perceptions regarding assessment changes in a fluid mechanics course, Educ. Sci. 9, 152 (2019).
  74. S. Faletič and G. Planinšič, How the introduction of self-assessment rubrics helped students and teachers in a project laboratory course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020136 (2020).
  75. E. K. Faulconer, J. C. Griffith, B. L. Wood, S. Acharyya, and D. L. Roberts, A comparison of online and traditional chemistry lecture and lab, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 19, 392 (2018).
  76. A. R. Roberts, Foundation physics at Liverpool Polytechnic, Phys. Educ. 15, 191 (1980).
  77. D. G. Herrington and M. B. Nakhleh, What defines effective chemistry laboratory instruction? Teaching assistant and student perspectives, J. Chem. Educ. 80, 1197 (2003).
  78. T. D. T. Sedumedi, Practical work activities as a method of assessing learning in chemistry teaching, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13, 1765 (2017).
  79. Y. Xu and G. T. L. Brown, Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization, Teach. Teach. Educ. 58, 149 (2016).
  80. N. Wald and T. Harland, Rethinking the teaching roles and assessment responsibilities of student teaching assistants, J. Furth. High. Educ. 44, 43 (2020).
  81. V. Villarroel, S. Bloxham, D. Bruna, C. Bruna, and C. Herrera-Seda, Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 840 (2018).
  82. A. A. Lipnevich and J. K. Smith, Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 15, 319 (2009).
  83. L. Ketonen, Exploring Interconnections between Student Peer Assessment, JYU Dissertation, Feedback Literacy and Agency, 2021.
  84. R. A. Tejeiro, J. L. Gómez-Vallecillo, A. F. Romero, M. Pelegrina, A. Wallace, and E. Emberley, Summative self-assessment in higher education: Implications of its counting towards the final mark., Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 10, 789 (2012).
  85. J. H. Nieminen, Disrupting the power relations of grading in higher education through summative self-assessment, Teach. High. Educ. 27, 892 (2022).
  86. J. McArthur, M. Blackie, N. Pitterson, and K. Rosewell, Student perspectives on assessment: connections between self and society, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 47, 698 (2022).
  87. P. Black and D. Wiliam, Developing the theory of formative assessment, Educ. Assess. Eval. Accountability 21, 5 (2009).
  88. L. Ketonen, P. Nieminen, and M. Hähkiöniemi, The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention, J. Educ. Res. 113, 407 (2020).
  89. M. Bearman, J. H. Nieminen, and R. Ajjawi, Designing assessment in a digital world: An organising framework, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 48, 291 (2022).
  90. R. Sembey, R. Hoda, and J. Grundy, Emerging technologies in higher education assessment and feedback practices: A systematic literature review. SSRN Electronic Journal (2023), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4328075.
  91. J. H. Nieminen and L. Ketonen, Epistemic agency: The missing link between assessment (to be published).
  92. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Examining and contrasting the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020103 (2016).
  93. K. Topping, Peers as a source of formative and summative assessment, SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013), p. 395.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020601– Published 17 July, 2023
  • Received 12 January 2023
  • Accepted 6 June 2023
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