4.0 Article

Investigating Chemistry Teachers' Assessment Knowledge via a Rubric for Self-Developed Tasks in a Food and Sustainability Context

期刊

EDUCATION SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/educsci13030308

关键词

assessment knowledge; sustainability; rubric; context-based learning; relevance; system aspects; chemistry education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the competence of chemistry teachers and teacher mentors in designing online tasks focused on sustainability and systems thinking. Using a rubric, we evaluated their assessment knowledge as reflected in the tasks they developed. By conducting case studies and using qualitative methods, we gained new insights into the importance of context and relevance in teachers' ability to assess learning.
We investigated the competence of in- and pre-service chemistry teachers and teacher mentors in designing sustainability- and systems-oriented online tasks for their students. Using a dedicated rubric, we evaluated their assessment knowledge (AK) as reflected in the tasks they had developed. The rubric is based on four attributes: integration of sustainability and chemistry, diversity of thinking skills, the variety of system aspects, and diversity of visual representations. Implementing a qualitative case study approach, we tracked the professional development of three purposefully sampled teachers in addition to using the rubric to score their tasks. Combining the rubric scorings and the qualitative investigation via feedback questionnaire revealed new insights. Besides the teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge, the case studies' context and relevance to the teachers were found central to their ability to assess learning. This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of AK of teachers with different backgrounds and professional experiences. The methodological contribution stems from the analysis of self-developed tasks based on a designated rubric, which should be further validated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据