Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41112142›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical education2025

Unlocking Instructors' Assessment Insights: General Chemistry Instructors' Perspectives on Types of Questions and their Classroom Application.

Emily A Kable, Ying Wang, Lu Shi, Marilyne Stains

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emily A KableDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0431-0053
Ying WangDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0570-9639
Lu ShiSTEM Education Innovation and Research Institute, Indiana University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana 27412, United States.
Marilyne StainsDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7881-5718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment communicates to students the takeaways from a course. Unfortunately, studies have demonstrated that assessment in general chemistry courses typically includes lower-cognitive demand questioning, such as recalling information and calculation-based questions. To support chemistry instructors' inclusion of higher-cognitive demand questions, chemistry education researchers have developed research-based assessment tools (e.g., Three-Dimensional Learning -3DL - and concept inventory). However, previous reports have highlighted a low uptake of these tools. To explore the reasons behind this slow adoption, instructors' thinking about these types of assessment tools should be probed. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 general chemistry instructors to explore whether and how instructors would use four different types of multiple-choice questions, including a standard conceptual question, a calculation-based question, a 3DL question, and a concept inventory-type question in their courses' exam/midterm, homework, and/or in-class activity. Instructors in this study were interested in using the research-based assessment tools in at least one assessment context (i.e., home, in-class, or exam). The most common modification described by the instructors across the four types of questions was shifting the format from close to open-ended as it allows instructors to better understand student thinking and can promote better conversations among students in class settings. Finally, the analysis of interviews shows variations in instructors' expectations for the cognitive demand of questions on exams. Taken together, these findings suggest a need to further probe instructors' assessment literacy to inform the development of professional development programs and policies that would support higher-quality assessment in general chemistry courses.

Indexed as

AssessmentAssessment DesignChemistry Education ResearchGeneral ChemistryInstructor Thinking

Identifiers

PMID41112142
PMCPMC12529954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.