ArticleJournal of chemical education2025
Unlocking Instructors' Assessment Insights: General Chemistry Instructors' Perspectives on Types of Questions and their Classroom Application.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.