Email this article 
Assessing the Science Knowledge of University Students: Perils, Pitfalls and Possibilities
Abstract
Science content knowledge is internationally regarded as a fundamentally important learning outcome for graduates of bachelor level science degrees: the Science Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) recently adopted in Australia as a nationally agreed framework include “Science Knowledge” as TLO 2. Science knowledge is commonly assessed using traditional examinations, tests and/or quizzes, but such forms of assessment can be problematic. A key contributing issue is the emphasis on “content” in many science curricula. Frequently, a focus on transmission of knowledge is mirrored in an over-reliance on traditional ways of teaching and an over-dependence upon summative assessment: students respond by relying on rote learning at the expense of developing a deep understanding of science concepts. The challenge is, therefore, to design teaching approaches that foster active learning, and, critically, to match these with rigorously designed and meaningful assessment tasks that support higher level learning of science knowledge
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Anderson, W. A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C. L., Elgin, S. C. R., Epstein, I. R., Handelsman, J., … & Warner, I. M. (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science, 331, 152-153. doi: 10.1126/science.1198280
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.
Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101-111. doi: 10.1080/03075079012331377621
Boud, D. & Associates (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-student-assessment-learning-and-after-courses-uts-2010
Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 41-58. Retrieved from http://logincms.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/169168/Coates_HEMP_2010_2.2.2.pdf
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 9, 524-535. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005
Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth. M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 368-381. doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
Dehaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 252-269. doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-4425-3
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Fellenz, M. (2004). Using assessment to support higher level learning: the multiple choice item development assignment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 703-719. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000227245
Goldey, E. S., Abercrombie, C. L., Ivy, T. M., Kusher, D. I., Moeller, J. F., Rayner, D. A., .... & Spivey, N. W. (2012). Biological Inquiry: A new course and assessment plan in response to the call to transform undergraduate biology. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 11, 353-363. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-02-0017
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334. doi: 10.1207/S15324818AME1503
Hanauer, D. L., & Bauerle, C. (2012). Facilitating innovation in science education through assessment reform. Liberal Education, 98(3), 434-41. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-su12/hanauer_bauerle.cfm
Hodgson, Y., Varsavsky, C., & Matthews, K. E. (2013). Assessment and teaching of science skills: whole of programme perceptions of graduating students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 515-530. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.842539
Hoskins, S. (2008). Using a paradigm shift to teach neurobiology and the nature of science - a C.R.E.A.T.E.-based approach. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, Spring 2008 6(2), A40-A52. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493428
Hoskins, S. G., & Stevens, L. M. (2009). Learning our L.I.M.I.T.S.: less is more in teaching science. Advances in Physiological Education, 33, 17-20. doi: 10.1152/advan.90184.2008
Hughes, C., & Magin, D. (1996). Demonstrating knowledge and understanding. In P. Nightingale et al., (Eds.), Assessing learning in universities (pp. 127-161). Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
James, R. (2003). Academic standards and the assessment of student learning: some current issues in Australian higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 187-198. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2000.9967016
Jones, S. M., Yates, B. F., & Kelder, J.-A. (2011). Science learning and teaching academic standards statement. Strawberry Hills, Australia.: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-learning-and-teaching-academic-standards-science-2011
Jones, S. M. (2013). Good practice guide (Science), Threshold Learning Outcome 2: Scientific knowledge. Sydney, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-learning-and-teaching-academic-standards-science-2011
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krause, K.-L., Barrie, S., & Scott, G. (2012). Mapping learning and teaching standards in Australian higher education: An issues and options paper. Retrieved from http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/aaglo/pdf/TL%20Stds_Issues%20Paper.pdf
Lord, T., & Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: Exploiting Bloom’s taxonomy in creating science questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 5, 40-44. Retrieved from http://www.eos.ubc.ca/research/cwsei/resources/Lord%26Baviskar-Blooms.pdf
Matthews, K. E., & Hodgson, Y. (2011). Evidencing learning standards in science: Graduate perceptions of gaining knowledge and skills at two research-intensive universities. ACSME Proceedings 2010: Teaching for diversity-challenges and strategies (pp.114-120). Retrieved from http://www.qsinscience.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Matthews-Hodgson_-2011.pdf
Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Montplaisir, L., Anderson, E., & Grosz, N. (2013). Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12, 239-249. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-08-0130
Nicol, D. (2007). E-assessment by design: Using multiple-choice tests to good effect. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31, 53-64. doi: 10.1080/03098770601167922
Palmer, E. J., & Devitt, P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research Paper. BMC Medical Education, 7(49). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-7-49
QAA (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). (2007). Subject Benchmark Statement for Biosciences. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statement-Biosciences.aspx
QAA (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). (2007). Subject Benchmark Statement for Chemistry. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statement-Chemistry-2007.aspx
Race, P. (1999). Why assess innovatively? In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education (pp. 57-70). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education.
Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 Tips on assessment (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Schultz, M. (2011). Sustainable assessment for large science classes: Non-multiple choice, randomised assignments through a learning management system. Journal of Learning Design, 4(3), 50-62. doi:10.5204/jld.v4i3.80
Schultz, M., Mitchell Crow, J., & O’Brien, G. (2013). Outcomes of the Chemistry Discipline Network mapping exercises: Are the threshold learning outcomes met? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 81-91.
Stokstad, E. (2001). Reintroducing the Intro Course. Science, 293, 1608-1610. doi: 10.1126/science.293.5535.1608
Timmerman, B. E., Strickland, D. E., Johnson, R. L., & Payne, J. R. (2011). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 509-547. doi: 10.1080/0260293090354099
Tuning Project (2009). Reference points for the design and delivery of degree programmes in Earth Science. Retrieved from http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/publications/252-reference-points-for-the-design-and-delivery-of-degree-programmes-in-earth-sciences.html
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v7i2.210
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.