Comparing Chemistry Faculty Beliefs about Grading with Grading Practices

Abstract

In this study, we seek to understand the beliefs that chemistry faculty hold when grading student solutions in problem solving situations. We are particularly interested in examining whether a conflict exists between the chemistry faculty beliefs and the score they assign to students’ solutions. The three categorical values identified in a similar physics education study were evident as themes in our study: (i) a desire to see students’ explanation of their reasoning; (ii) a reluctance to deduct points from a student’s answer that might be correct; and (iii) projection of correct thought processes onto a student solution, even when the student does not explicitly show thought processes. The scoring of each student solution depended significantly on the weight given to each theme by an instructor. In situations where a participant expressed all the three themes, the conflict was resolved by laying a burden of proof on either the student or the instructor. In this study, a sizable minority of the participating faculty acted inconsistently, in that they stated they valued students showing their reasoning when solving problems, but they graded student work in a way that would discourage students from showing their reasoning.

Beliefs about learning and enacted instructional practices: An investigation in postsecondary chemistry education

“…As indicated by Devlin (), the impact of teacher beliefs and thinking on instruction is not a direct relationship. Mutambuki and Fynewever () found that chemistry faculty members, despite describing a belief that students need to extrapolate their reasoning to demonstrate learning, imposed an expert‐like reasoning strategy rather than observing genuine student reasoning. Similarly, Mansour () found that secondary school teachers, despite holding a constructivist philosophy of learning, do not implement constructivism‐oriented practices.…”

Dimensions of Variation in Chemistry Instructors’ Approaches to the Evaluation and Grading of Student Responses

“…Records of these broad and inconsistent grading practices have existed since the early part of the twentieth century and indicate that the subjectivity of assigning grades has been problematic in multiple disciplines . These variations have been related to differences in, for example, grading criteria, the beliefs that the graders have about the purpose of the assessment, and the relative values graders place on different components of student work. − …”

“…Research on the evaluation and grading practices of chemistry , and physics , faculty and GSIs suggests that there is often a gap between the beliefs graders hold about what is desirable in students’ answers and their practices when scoring actual student responses. Instructors often expect students to show their reasoning to evaluate their understanding.…”

“…Instructors often expect students to show their reasoning to evaluate their understanding. Nevertheless, they tend to project correct thought processes onto students’ answers even when the expected reasoning is not explicitly included in the response. − For example, some instructors assume that students who provide correct responses to numerical problems know how to approach the problem even when they fail to show all of their work . College instructors have also been shown to deduct points from answers that are explicitly incorrect but are reluctant to take away points from more ambiguous answers that may be correct …”

“…Even if a rubric is used, instructors must make multiple decisions during the grading process about how and what to evaluate in the student work . Their decisions are influenced by diverse factors such as their prior knowledge and experience with the course material and their personal beliefs about learning the subject matter. − These factors are expected to introduce variability in the grading as they affect what the graders notice in student work and how they interpret it in relation to an evaluation rubric.…”