ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026
Assessment, feedback, and grading practices and philosophies of introductory biology instructors.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. 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
While pedagogical research often focuses on assessment, feedback, and grading (AFG) practices, we lack a clear understanding of how instructors both conceptualize and implement these elements of teaching in their courses. To explore on-the-ground interpretations of AFG in college courses, we conducted one-on-one Zoom interviews with 27 undergraduate introductory biology instructors at 2- and 4-year institutions in the United States. Participants were asked to describe the purpose of AFG and to share examples of their AFG practices. Using a dialogic, reflexive coding process, we found that instructors' goals for AFG were multidimensional and sometimes contradictory. For instance, some viewed grading as a motivational tool, while others saw it as discouraging motivation. Additionally, the boundaries between assessment, feedback, and grading were often blurred: grading was sometimes described as feedback, and vice versa. In some cases, instructors' AFG philosophies were not clearly translated into AFG practices. These findings underscore the need to better distinguish and articulate the roles of AFG in undergraduate biology instruction (and beyond). Clarifying these concepts can enhance communication between instructors, students, and pedagogical researchers, which could help lead to supporting more effective learning strategies.
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.