Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023:8:1279921.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1279921. Epub 2023 Nov 27.

Models of Classroom Assessment for Course-Based Research Experiences

David I Hanauer  1 Tong Zhang  2 Mark J Graham  3 Sandra D Adams  4 Yesmi Patricia Ahumada-Santos  5 Richard M Alvey  6 Mauricio S Antunes  7 Mary A Ayuk  8 María Elena Báez-Flores  5 Christa T Bancroft  9 Tonya C Bates  10 Meghan J Bechman  11 Elizabeth Behr  12 Andrea R Beyer  13 Rebecca L Bortz  11 Dane M Bowder  14 Laura A Briggs  15 Victoria Brown-Kennerly  16 Michael A Buckholt  17 Sharon K Bullock  18 Kristen A Butela  11 Christine A Byrum  19 Steven M Caruso  20 Catherine P Chia  21 Rebecca A Chong  22 Hui-Min Chung  23 Kari L Clase  24 Sean T Coleman  25 D Parks Collins  26 Stephanie B Conant  27 Brett M Condon  28 Pamela L Connerly  29 Bernadette J Connors  30 Jennifer E Cook-Easterwood  31 Katie E Crump  32 Tom D'Elia  33 Megan K Dennis  34 Linda C DeVeaux  35 Lautaro Diacovich  36 Iain Duffy  37 Nicholas P Edgington  38 Dustin C Edwards  39 Tenny O G Egwuatu  40 Elvira R Eivazova  41 Patricia C Fallest-Strobl  42 Christy L Fillman  43 Ann M Findley  44 Emily Fisher  45 Matthew R Fisher  46 Marie P Fogarty  47 Amanda C Freise  48 Victoria J Frost  49 Maria D Gainey  50 Amaya M Garcia Costas  51 Atenea A Garza  52 Hannah E Gavin  53 Raffaella Ghittoni  9 Bryan Gibb  54 Urszula P Golebiewska  55 Anna S Grinath  56 Susan M R Gurney  57 Rebekah F Hare  58 Steven G Heninger  59 John M Hinz  60 Lee E Hughes  7 Pradeepa Jayachandran  61 Kristen C Johnson  62 Allison A Johnson  63 Michelle Kanther  64 Margaret Kenna  65 Bridgette L Kirkpatrick  66 Karen K Klyczek  67 Kathryn P Kohl  49 Michael Kuchka  65 Amber J LaPeruta  11 Julia Y Lee-Soety  68 Lynn O Lewis  69 Heather M Lindberg  70 Jaclyn A Madden  71 Sergei A Markov  72 Matthew D Mastropaolo  42 Vinayak Mathur  73 Sean P McClory  74 Evan C Merkhofer  75 Julie A Merkle  76 Scott F Michael  77 Jon C Mitchell  78 Sally D Molloy  79 Denise L Monti  80 María Alejandra Mussi  81 Holly Nance  82 Fernando E Nieto-Fernandez  83 Jillian C Nissen  83 Imade Y Nsa  40 Mary G O'Donnell  84 Shallee T Page  85 Andrea Panagakis  86 Jesús Ricardo Parra-Unda  5 Tara A Pelletier  87 Tiara G Perez Morales  88 Nick T Peters  89 Vipaporn Phuntumart  90 Richard S Pollenz  91 Mary L Preuss  92 David P Puthoff  93 Muideen K Raifu  94 Nathan S Reyna  95 Claire A Rinehart  96 Jessica M Rocheleau  97 Ombeline Rossier  98 Adam D Rudner  99 Elizabeth E Rueschhoff  29 Amy Ryan  100 Sanghamitra Saha  101 Christopher D Shaffer  102 Mary Ann V Smith  103 Amy B Sprenkle  104 Christy L Strong  105 C Nicole Sunnen  68 Brian P Tarbox  106 Louise Temple  107 Kara R Thoemke  108 Michael A Thomas  56 Deborah M Tobiason  109 Sara S Tolsma  110 Julie Torruellas Garcia  32 Megan S Valentine  100 Edwin Vazquez  111 Robert E Ward  112 Catherine M Ward  113 Vassie C Ware  65 Marcie H Warner  11 Jacqueline M Washington  114 Daniel E Westholm  115 Keith A Wheaton  116 Beth M Wilkes  117 Elizabeth C Williams  118 William H Biederman  119 Steven G Cresawn  120 Danielle M Heller  119 Deborah Jacobs-Sera  11 Graham F Hatfull  11 David J Asai  119 Viknesh Sivanathan  119
Affiliations

Models of Classroom Assessment for Course-Based Research Experiences

David I Hanauer et al. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2023.

Abstract

Course-based research pedagogy involves positioning students as contributors to authentic research projects as part of an engaging educational experience that promotes their learning and persistence in science. To develop a model for assessing and grading students engaged in this type of learning experience, the assessment aims and practices of a community of experienced course-based research instructors were collected and analyzed. This approach defines four aims of course-based research assessment - 1) Assessing Laboratory Work and Scientific Thinking; 2) Evaluating Mastery of Concepts, Quantitative Thinking and Skills; 3) Appraising Forms of Scientific Communication; and 4) Metacognition of Learning - along with a set of practices for each aim. These aims and practices of assessment were then integrated with previously developed models of course-based research instruction to reveal an assessment program in which instructors provide extensive feedback to support productive student engagement in research while grading those aspects of research that are necessary for the student to succeed. Assessment conducted in this way delicately balances the need to facilitate students' ongoing research with the requirement of a final grade without undercutting the important aims of a CRE education.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Core Components of a CRE Assessment Model:
Based on the qualitative analysis of faculty descriptions of their assessment and grading practices in a CRE, four central aims of assessment were defined: 1. Assess Laboratory Work and Scientific Thinking; 2. Evaluate Mastery of Concepts, Quantitative Thinking, and Skills; 3. Appraise Forms of Scientific Communication; & 4. Metacognition of Learning. Together these four aims and associated assessment and grading practices define the assessment program of a CRE.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Assessing Being a Scientist and Generating Data:
This model has three distinct stages. The first stage relates to the assessment of implicit instruction and protocol training. The second stage relates to aspects of doing science in the laboratory and the final stage relates to scientific outputs. The model presents the aims and practices of assessment applied at each of these stages.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Assessing Procedural Knowledge:
This model has three distinct stages. The first stage relates to content information. The second stage relates to protocol training and training a student to think like a scientist. The third stage relates to scientific outputs. The model presents the aims and practices of assessment applied at each of these stages.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Assessing the Facilitation of Project Ownership:
This model has three distinct stages. The first stage relates to development of understanding concerning protocol usage. The second stage relates to the fostering of the student’s sense of personal responsibility. The third stage involves situating the student within the broader scientific context. The model presents the aims and practices of assessment applied at each of these stages.

References

    1. Allen JD (2005). Grades as valid measures of academic achievement of classroom learning. The Clearing House, 78(5), 218–223.
    1. Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, & Norman MK (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (1st ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    1. Auchincloss LC, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, Hanauer DI, … & Dolan EL (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 29–40. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bandura A (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.
    1. Bandura A (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In Smith KG and Hitt MA (Eds.), Great minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LinkOut - more resources