Student-Curated Exhibitions: Alternative Assessment in Chemistry

Downloaded via UNIV OF SYDNEY on July 16, 2018 at 10:32:06 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Chapter 4

Student-Curated Exhibitions: Alternative Assessment in Chemistry Education in Israel Ron Blonder* Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel *E-mail: [email protected].

The chapter describes a reform in the Israeli education system that has significantly influenced chemistry teaching and learning. In this reform 30% of the final high-school chemistry grade was replaced by alternative assessment methods. These new standards of the nation-wide evaluation left the teachers with a great challenge, since they have neither knowledge about alternative assessment nor the experience to use it. In order to meet the chemistry teachers’ needs, a professional development (PD) course was developed, emphasizing the use of student-curated exhibitions as an example of the alternative assessment method. This chapter describes the professional development course and includes a description of its different components. A research study that was conducted captured the teachers’ perspectives regarding the use of student-curated exhibitions for alternative assessment. Teachers’ challenges are described as well as the way they realize the advantages of using this approach and its adaptation to their school culture after they had an opportunity to self-curate an exhibition in the course. We found that the need to replace the evaluation methods encourages the chemistry teachers to deepen their knowledge of evaluation and assessment, and to understand the limitations and advantages of traditional evaluation and alternative assessment. Teachers also realized the strong reciprocal connection between the three components: teaching, learning, and evaluation.

© 2018 American Chemical Society Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Introduction The origin of the term “test” is from the Latin word: testū, testum, which was an instrument used for measuring the purity of metals, and the word assessment is derived from Latin assēssus, meaning “seated beside” (1). If we think about the meaning of test and testing, the original meaning of the word is still associated with the word nowadays. A test is an instrument for measuring the level of knowledge or skill that has been acquired by the tested person. It is objective and reliable. Assessment, on the other hand, is based on a process that takes place between the teacher and the students, aiming at constructing an accurate profile of the student as a learner. In this chapter I describe an alternative assessment approach and the way it was implemented in a national education reform in Israel. A detailed description of one method of alternative assessment that was applied in chemistry education (a student-curated exhibition) is presented from the perspective of the chemistry teachers.

What Is Alternative Assessment? Common characteristics of alternative assessments are described in Herman, et al. (2): “(a) Ask students to perform, create, produce, or do something; (b) tap higher level thinking and problem-solving skills; (c) use tasks that represent meaningful instructional activities; (d) invoke real-world applications; (e) people, not machines, do the scoring, using human judgment; and (f) require new instructional and assessment roles for teachers” (Ref. (2), p. 6). In this chapter, the term alternative assessment will be used in this spirit to describe assessment methods that differ from tests. Alternative assessing and testing differ from each other but both are used to evaluate students’ achievements. The reason for evaluating students’ achievements is to obtain valid information for decision making. The decision makers include the teacher, the student, the school principal, or even decision makers at the national level. Each case requires different decisions, such as decisions regarding teaching, learning, learning programs, schools, and other educational organizations. There are several differences between alternative assessment and testing, as summarized in Table 1. From reading Table 1, it is evident that alternative assessment can lead to achieving the desired educational goals. Students are more involved in regulating their learning, and they are evaluated on a variety of skills beyond those that can be evaluated by a written test. The evaluation is part of the learning process and is not an isolated disconnected event. Bearing in mind the challenges of using alternative assessment (e.g., its reliability and validity) (3), these positive outcomes were recognized in other educational systems (e.g., the US), which recommended that alternative assessment tools be integrated into the regular curriculum and evaluation system.

40 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Table 1. Main differences between testing and alternative assessment, based on Birenbaum (1) Criterion

Test

Alternative assessment

The tools

Tests

Portfolio, building a game, designing an exhibit, preparing a summary, writing a report (and more)

The assessed capabilities

Cognitive capabilities with emphasis on logic and linguistic abilities

Cognitive capabilities as well as social and personal abilities with emphasis on a variety of abilities (e.g., musical, special) based on the multiple intelligence theory

The nature of assignments

Artificial

Authentic, relevant to student life, are taken from real life that is outside school activities

What is being evaluated?

Only products

Products, processes, and reflection abilities

Who are the evaluators?

The teacher, the expert

The student himself, peers, the teachers, and parents.

The evaluation criteria

Hidden from the student

Formulated with the student

Responsibility for the evaluation

The teacher

The teacher and the student share joint responsibility

The reported result

A numeric grade

A detailed performance profile

The role of evaluation

External supervision of the educational system

Provides clear goals for teaching and learning

The connection between teaching and evaluation

Teaching and testing are two separate stages

Teaching and assessments are integrated

The hidden assumption regarding the evaluation approach

There is a universal meaning for grades; a certain grade in a test has the same meaning for each student

In a multicultural society differences between perspectives are inevitable and even desirable

A Call for New Assessment More Suitable to the New Standards in Science Education According to National Science Education Standards (4), “Assessment policies and practices should be aligned with the goals, students’ expectations, and curriculum frameworks. Within the science program, the alignment of assessment with curriculum and teaching is one of the most critical pieces of science education reform” (Ref (4), p. 211). This statement is still relevant and even more challenging when we examine the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS) framework. The NGSS structures science learning around 41 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

three dimensions: “the practices through which scientists and engineers do their work; the key crosscutting concepts that link the science disciplines; and the core ideas of the disciplines of life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology.” (NRC, 2014 (5), p. 1). This new K-12 framework stipulates that implementing the new standards will require new modes of assessment designed to measure the integrated learning it envisions. The document “Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards (5)” discusses ways in which the three-dimensional science learning described in the NGSS (namely, crosscutting concepts, science and engineering practices, and disciplinary core ideas) can be assessed. The existing traditional science assessment was not designed to capture the integration of three dimensions and this raised the need for the use of alternative assessment. However, the shift from traditional assessment in science education to the use of alternative assessment is a challenge for those teachers who do not have the requisite knowledge and the experience needed for this type of assessment.

Reform in the Final Evaluation in the Israeli Education System In 2010 a national reform was introduced to the Israeli education system. The Ministry of Education decided that 30% of the final grades in each of the subjects in the matriculation exam would be based on alternative assessment and that the remaining 70% of the grade will be based on the traditional national exams (6). The alternative assessment component was introduced by the Ministry of Education to enhance meaningful learning as opposed to surface learning, which may occur when “learning for a test”. In response to the reform, The chemistry chief inspector of the Israeli Ministry of Education in the Israeli Ministry of Education divided the curriculum into two distinct parts: 70% of the content will still be evaluated by the traditional external exam, and 30% of the curriculum will be evaluated by alternative assessment tools by each of the school teachers. Teachers had to implement the use of alternative assessment in the year that followed the statement from the Ministry of Education. This situation created the context for the development of professional development (PD) courses for teachers, which focused on alternative assessment, to support their attempts to foster the reform.

The Study The reform in the Israeli education system described above created a need for alternative assessment tools (and for knowledge regarding how to use them) among teachers in Israel. The current study focuses on high-school chemistry teachers in Israel. A professional development course for chemistry teachers was developed and implemented with three teachers’ groups during two academic years, 2015-2017. The course included theoretical parts regarding the rationale of alternative assessment, and building assessment rubric, and a practical part in which the teachers learned a module called “The Story of Lead (7)” and built an 42 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

exhibition about the module. The course is further described in Table 2 and in the course description section. Student-Curated Exhibitions The idea to include exhibits that students built as an alternative assessment tool came from a European project called Irresistible (8). In the Irresistible project, several European countries collaborated to address the need to link high-school science education to the EU’s call for educating the next generation of researchers to be aware of their responsibility for the environment and the society in which they operate. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) represents a contemporary view of the connection between science and society (9). RRI entails a socially and ethically sensitive and inclusive process of science and technology, and in particular, influences academia and the industrial research and development sector to cultivate their practices and engage more deeply with the rest of society. The aim is to ensure that societal actors work together, mutually and responsibly, from the beginning to the end of the research and innovation process, and that both the processes and outcomes of research and innovation be aligned with the values, needs, and expectations of European societies. In the Irresistible project, which aimed to introduce RRI to science education at the school level, each country developed an inquiry-based teaching module. The modules were aimed at increasing content knowledge about research by introducing cutting-edge research topics and fostering a discussion among the students regarding RRI issues that are introduced. More details about the Irresistible project and its resulting 10 modules can be found at the project site (8) and in various publications about the project (10, 11). One of the unique features of the project is the final stage of the teaching modules, in which students create a student-curated exhibition (12). The learning outcome of each module culminates in an exhibition created by the class, consisting of several exhibits that the students prepare. Asking students to curate an exhibition on a scientific topic or on a socio-scientific issue is one way to move assessment from a product to a process (13). Kampschulte and Parchmann (12) developed a unique method to support students and teachers in curating exhibitions. They described the use of IKEA® shelves and a physical system that allows students to build their own professional-like exhibitions at school. They also discussed the skills that are needed to successfully build an exhibition. Importantly, they identified 25 applied skills that were specified in the Framework for 21st Century Learning (14, 15). These skills include working creatively with others, using system thinking, communicating clearly, being a self-directed learner, creating media products, managing projects, and guiding and leading others. Therefore, using the student-curated exhibition as an tool for alternative assessment can provide chemistry students with an opportunity to experience these skills, and the chemistry teachers with an opportunity to assess these meaningful skills in addition to the assessment of students’ knowledge. Linhares and Reis (13) described the stages in the process of curating an exhibition. In the first phase, the students are involved in in-depth learning and in researching the topic in order to decide on the subject of the exhibition. In this phase the students use a variety of 43 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

resources; they summarize what they have learned and analyze the information in order to answer a leading question that is the focus of the planned exhibition (16). When students explore a topic and decide on the name of their exhibition, they are ready for the second phase of designing the exhibition. The students go through 5 stages in which they transfer the knowledge they have gained into a physical exhibit (16). First, they have to select what kinds of objects will be used to relate the story of the exhibition and what methods will be used to display it. Then, they think of ways of making the exhibition relevant to visitors and how they can engage them in experiencing the exhibition. Next, they need to transform their ideas into real exhibits, namely, to choose the materials from which the exhibits will be built and organize the exhibit in the space in which it will be presented. Before the actual building of the exhibits, there is an opportunity for a formative assessment process, as suggested by Reis et al. (16): “After students have designed their exhibits, they can conduct formative evaluation to improve their designs using their plans. They can ask students from other exhibit teams, other students in the school, parents, or other adults to respond to their exhibit ideas…evaluation questions that might be useful during the formative evaluation process; (1) do they like it? 2) do they think it is fun?, (3) do they understand it?, (4) do they find it meaningful?, (5) does their understanding coincide with (or at least not contradict) the stated communication objectives for the element?, (6) does it give the user a sense of discovery, wonder or “wow”?” (Ref. (16), p. 14). The formative evaluation is an integral part of the learning; it is judged by evaluating the design of the exhibits. We therefore found much potential in harnessing the power of a student-curated exhibition for alternative assessment.

Methods Research Participants Forty-five chemistry teachers participated in three cohorts of a professional development course. Two cohorts took place during the second semester of the 2016-2017 academic year, and the third cohort was in a summer course. Different teachers participated in each course. The 28-hour courses dealt with alternative assessment in accordance with the reform in Israel (described in the introduction) and focused on building exhibitions for alternative assessment purposes. Research Goals In order to implement the use of an assessment tool that shifts the role of the teacher and changes the role of students’ evaluation, there is a need to work with teachers at different levels; this includes their knowledge as well their attitudes regarding the innovation. The research goal was to better understand teachers’ perspectives regarding the use of students’ exhibitions as an alternative assessment tool as well as to follow the learning of the teachers while they themselves experience the pedagogy of a student-curated exhibition as learners. We therefore examined teachers’ perspectives regarding student-curated exhibits 44 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

as an alternative assessment tool while providing them with an opportunity to experience it as learners. Research Tools •

•

The PMI (17) (plus, minus, and interesting) questionnaire was administered twice: The first was filled out after the teachers learned all the theoretical background. The second time was after the teachers built and presented their own exhibition (components g. and j. in Table 2). In the PMI questionnaire the teachers were asked to write the positive (Plus), negative (Minus), and the Interesting aspects of using a student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment method. The final meeting in which the teachers presented the exhibition was recorded and transcribed (component j. in Table 2). In this discussion they explained their PMI.

Course Structure Table 2 presents the different components of the PD course. The first part of the PD course dealt with the principles of alternative assessment and the reform in the Israeli external evaluation in education. The Israeli chemistry curriculum was examined and the parts in the curriculum that should be evaluated by alternative assessment were highlighted. We continued with a comparison between alternative and traditional assessment, based on the criteria presented in Table 1. The comparison was followed by a discussion to deepen teachers’ knowledge about the essence of alternative assessment. Teachers need to realize the goals of assessment (5), and more specifically, the learning outcomes of their teaching, since there should be a clear connection between learning outcomes, teaching methods, and assessment. The general introduction about assessment goals created an opportunity to discuss the practice of assessment that is performed by every teacher. The next topic dealt with building the assessment rubric. Again, the categories of the rubric are tightly connected to the learning outcomes. We discussed issues related to the reliability of the rubric to ensure its quality (18). In order to provide the teachers with an authentic opportunity to learn how alternative assessment influenced the learners, we chose a topic that was unfamiliar to the teachers, but is still relevant to chemistry education. The second part of the course was dedicated to learning a new topic. We chose the topic “The Story of Lead (7)” to be presented in the exhibition curated by the teachers. Therefore, part of the PD was devoted to exposing the teachers to this lesson. This is a 4.5-hour lesson that consists of classroom activities that include a lesson about the chemical characteristics and properties of lead. This is followed by a short history of lead use by people (since the days of the Romans). The teachers were asked to watch an episode from Cosmos (Cosmos (19), episode 7, n.d.) that describes the story of Clair Peterson, who was a scientist that fought against leaded gasoline. The teachers identified ethical issues and concerns in this story and discussed the new content. Please note that in this chapter we use 45 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

the term ethical issues and not RRI dimensions, since we cannot provide here a comprehensive explanation of RRI within the scope of the chapter. However, it is important to mention that ethical issues are included in the RRI construct and do not represent its whole meaning. A more thorough description of RRI and the way it was implemented in “The Story of Lead” is provided in Blonder et al., 2016 (7).

Table 2. Components of the teachers’ PD course “A student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment method” Part

Component

1. Introduction to alternative assessment

a) Alternative assessment reform and its integration into the Israeli chemistry curriculum b) Differences between traditional assessment and alternative assessment c) Principles of building and using a rubric for assessment

2. Learning “The Story of Lead” (7)

d) The history of lead and its influence on society from the Roman period to the modern era and ethical as well as RRI issues that are related to the story

3. An example of a student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment tool

e) Science exhibition – principles (references are informal) f) Gaining experience by listening to a teacher who already used the student-curated exhibition in her chemistry class g) Filling in the pre-PMI (plus, minus, and interesting) questionnaire regarding the use of a student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment tool h) Building exhibits for an exhibition called “The Story of Lead” i) Building the exhibition and preparing for the opening day j) Filling in the pre-PMI (plus, minus, and interesting) questionnaire regarding the use of a student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment tool, followed by a group discussion.

The last part of the course focused on one of the alternative assessment tools: a student-curated exhibition. The teachers visited a science museum located in the Weizmann Institute of Science and were told to pay attention to characteristics of good exhibits in the museum. After the visit, we discussed different aspects of the exhibits that make them effective and interactive (based on the guidelines that were developed in the Irresistible project (16)). We met a teacher who used the student-curated exhibition in her class; she described how she experienced the


process with her students. The teachers decided on the general structure of the exhibition and divided the exhibition into several smaller exhibits. Then in small groups (2-3 teachers in a group) they planned the exhibits, according to the steps described above. Before they started to actually build the exhibits, the teachers received a suggested rubric for assessing the exhibits and discussed its categories (the rubric is presented in the Appendix). They continued to build the exhibits at home, and in the last meeting of the professional development course they completed the preparation and visitors were invited to the exhibition’s opening. The opening event of one of the exhibitions that was presented in front of other chemistry teachers is presented in Figure 1. At the end of this event, a reflective discussion regarding the use of student-curated exhibitions using the PMI template was conducted.

Results and Discussion The chemistry teachers who participated in the course were asked to describe the pros and cons of using the student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment tool twice during the course. They filled out the PMI (plus, minus, and interesting) tool twice: once at stage g, and at stage j, Table 2, after they had presented their exhibition. Namely, once before they experienced the self-curating of the exhibit, and once afterwards. The teachers pointed out different advantages of using the unique alternative assessment of a student-curated exhibition, as presented in Table 3. We identified the positive and the negative aspects that were raised by the teachers before they experienced by themselves the whole process of curating an exhibition. They are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The teachers were concerned about different aspects related to the exhibition. Their first concern dealt with the quality of their students’ learning. They initially believed that using the exhibition as an alternative assessment tool will lead to superficial learning that will suit only the weak students in class. They were also concerned that the social aspects would not be suitable for students with low social skills and might create competition among the students in class (Table 4). However, these concerns were not mentioned after the teachers had built the exhibition during the course. They felt that curating the exhibits was a demanding assignment from which they had learned a lot and therefore, it had several advantages (Table 3) relating to promoting the learning of the gifted students as well as the weak students, and the requirement of students having a high degree of investment as well as students’ personal involvement. Two main concerns that remained after their experience are related to the time needed for the building process and the reliability of the assessment. A previous study that was conducted in Israel examined teachers’ use of alternative assessment (20). This study examined teachers’ and students’ attitudes regarding the use of alternative assessment tools and found that the teachers were concerned about the time-consuming aspect of alternative assessment compared with pen-and-pencil assessment. The teachers mentioned the following factors: team meetings, a lot of work with students and their assignments, and the heavy 47 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

responsibility associated with assessing students’ portfolios. The time issue was also mentioned in (12), which describes the limited time available at school as a great barrier for the initiation and development of student-curated exhibitions. They suggested several responses that promote the feasibility of the approach. Defining the goals of the exhibition and the intended audience at the beginning of the process helps the students to focus more on the target. In addition, good and clear time management prevents high pressure in completing the process, especially when it is accompanied by very organized management. They also developed a structural framework for presenting the exhibition based on IKEA® shelves. All these suggestions create a more organized process and support the feasibility of a student-curated exhibition within a school culture.

Table 3. Advantages of using a student-curated exhibition as an assessment tool, mentioned by the teachers* Advantages mentioned in the first PMI

Advantages that were added after teachers built an exhibition

Students can choose what to curate and this can raise their motivation to learn.

Transfers the responsibility for learning and for its evaluation to the students.

Students with different learning styles can be evaluated in their favorite style and can achieve a higher grade.

The teacher as well as the students learns.

Develops students’ creativity.

The teachers learn new characteristics about their students.

Strengthens students’ social skills among themselves and with the teacher.

Technology is very useful in the curation process. It supports efficient communication by the teams that build the exhibits.

Simulates real life in which you need to convey a message.

Increase the visibility of chemistry in school.

Stimulates interdisciplinary learning.

Requires a high level of student investment.

Promotes presentation skills and self-confidence.

Requires students’ personal involvement.

Encourages the weak students to learn.

Encourages the gifted students to learn.

Supports the development of thinking skills.

Ongoing formative assessment from the teacher, and additional assessment from the exhibition’s visitors.

Supports the development of a deep understanding of the subject.

Promotes learning for the exhibition’s visitors as well as the students who built it.

*

All the advantages mentioned in the first PMI were mentioned in the post PMI. Only the new ones were added to the table.


Figure 1. Teachers who participated in the PD course present the exhibition “The Story of Lead” in the Annual Conference of the Israeli Chemistry Teachers. The exhibition includes interactive exhibits that reveal the chemical properties of lead, its use in everyday life, and dilemmas connected to the use of lead in different products and industries. Photographer: Shlomi Mizrahi Photography & Production.


Table 4. Challenges of using a student-curated exhibition as an assessment tool, mentioned by the teachers after they learned the theory underlying this assessment tool and after they experienced it themselves by building an exhibition Challenges mentioned in the first PMI

Challenges that were mentioned after teachers experienced building an exhibition

Leads to superficial learning.

-

Suitable for only the weak students.

-

Might create competition among the students.

-

Is not suitable for students with low social skills.

-

Low reliability of the grade (not objective).

Low reliability of the grade (not objective enough).

The grade represents only a partial understanding and does not cover the whole topic.

-

Group work does not represent the knowledge of each of the students in the group.

Group work does not represent the knowledge of each of the students in the group.

Demands a lot of teaching time – a resource that is not available.

Demands a lot of teaching time – a resource that is not available.

Teachers can lose control of the class and the learning process.

-

Extra work for the teacher

Extra work for the teacher.

Requires expensive materials for building the exhibition.

-

Needs a suitable space to present the exhibition, which is not available in school.

-

However, some clear advantages were recognized in the current study, which were connected to the exhibition’s use as an alternative assessment tool. First, teachers realized the strong reciprocal connection between teaching-learning and assessment. A student-curated exhibition is not only an assessment tool—it is also an internal part of the learning process. The teachers realized that the big investment is not only for assessment—it is also devoted to students’ learning. In addition, an exhibition provides the means for assessing students’ knowledge as well as assessing a variety of skills (15). The extensive learning involved in the process of constructing the exhibition provides a natural environment for longitudinal assessment of the students’ knowledge. This assessment can be performed during the process by peers, by visitors at the exhibition, and by the teachers. The students have an opportunity to respond to the assessment and to 50 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

modify their exhibits during the process. The teachers reported that the exhibition strengthens students’ social skills among themselves and with the teacher and provides the teachers with an opportunity to become aware of different aspects of their students that they were not aware of previously. After they had experienced building the exhibition in the teachers’ course, the teachers learned new things about their teachers-peers and saw them in a different light. They recognized talents and qualities that they were not aware of in the chemistry class and realized that the same process could occur if this assessment approach is used with their own students. The issue of group work and the way teachers manage to control it was raised in (13) as the main concern of future teachers. In the current study the issue of group work raised concerns regarding the context of the reliability of the assessment. Teachers were concerned about their ability to assess separately each student in the group. This concern still bothered them after their experience in building the exhibition. The teachers were left with other queries they had raised that deal with the objectivity of student-curated exhibitions as an assessment tool. The self-experienced method and the use of rubrics (Appendix) did not provide them with answers to some of their questions regarding issues that are intrinsic to alternative assessment in general. Consequently, we provided the teachers with the option of keeping the discussion about alternative assessment, in general, and about student-curated exhibition, in particular, as an example of alternative assessment in our professional learning communities’ net, which is spread throughout Israel. The last part of the PMI tool relates to interesting ideas and open questions that the teachers still have after curating the exhibition. Even after participating in the course, teachers still had concerns regarding alternative assessment, as reflected from the following question that was raised: “Should I, as the teacher, trust the grade of my students, assessed from the exhibition, or should I conduct a test as well?” Even when the teachers realized the positive aspect of the student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment tool, they still doubted its reliability and had greater trust in a traditional test. The other interesting items that the teachers wrote refer to practical questions they have, such as: Is any subject in chemistry suitable to be a subject for an exhibition, or does it have to be a chemistry-related subject that is connected to social dilemmas? Should I, as a teacher, divide the students into groups or let them choose their own work-group? Is it better to have the exhibition with younger students (ages 15-16) or with senior students (ages 17-18)?


Who should be the intended audience for the exhibition? Parents, other teachers in the school, other students in the school, the school principal, or the Minister of Education? These questions indicate that teachers think about implementing this approach in their class and consider the pedagogical aspects (e.g., the age of the students, how to divide students into working groups), as well as organizational aspects that are important to successfully launch an exhibition in school (e.g., who to invite to the exhibition). Teachers think about subjects in the chemistry curriculum that can be used for the exhibition and are interesting in knowing whether only subjects dealing with socio-scientific aspects like “The Story of Lead” are suitable. These questions show that they are thinking of implementing the student-curated exhibition as an assessment tool with their students.

Conclusions Assessment in chemistry education is important in order to promote chemistry teaching and learning. Educational reforms that are not reflected in a change in the assessment will not influence the reality in schools (1, 4, 21). In the current reform of the education system in Israel, it was decided that 30% of the final grades in each of the subjects in the matriculation exams will be based on alternative assessment (6). Thus, the direction of the influence was reversed. The demand to use alternative assessment led the teachers to take a PD course about alternative assessment and to deepen their knowledge of assessment. When teachers had the opportunity to experience by themselves the alternative assessment of a student-curated exhibition, they realized the positive influence of alternative assessment in the learning process. They also dealt with common misbeliefs about alternative assessment (e.g., it is for the low-achieving students, it leads to superficial learning). The time-consuming nature of alternative assessment, such as a student-curated exhibition compared to using a traditional test is still a serious concern. However, when teachers realize that the time involved includes learning as well as assessing, this concern might be lessened. The student-curated exhibition as an alternative assessment method was not the only method that was used by chemistry teachers during the years of research. For example, teachers used “Trivia games” that were created by students to assess their knowledge in an alternative way. The students create a trivia game according to specific criteria from the teacher. The game can be carried out as a card game or using an on-line platform (like Kahoot (22)!). The students also submit their answers to the trivia questions to their teachers. In the last stage of the evaluation process the students conduct the trivia game activities in class. The criteria given by the teachers can encourage students to refer to different important aspects that are needed to be evaluated, for example, to different levels of chemistry understanding (23–25) (the macro, the micro, and the symbol) to ensure full coverage of the learned topic.


Acknowledgments The Irresistible project received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 612367. The course was given in two frameworks: 1) As part of the Rothschild-Weizmann program for Excellence in Science Teaching and was supported by the Rothschild-Caesarea Foundation. 2) In the framework of the National Chemistry Teachers’ Center and was supported by the Ministry of Education (Tender: 09.07.13).

Appendix Table A1. Rubric for evaluating student exhibits Category

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

1. Introduction of Exhibit Topic

The exhibit topic is not well defined.

The exhibit topic is well defined but not attractive.

The exhibit topic is well defined and attractive.

2. Presentation of a Balanced Dilemma

The exhibit presents only one point of view. There is no dilemma.

The exhibit presents two points of view, but not in a balanced way.

The exhibit presents two points of view in a balanced way.

3. Presentation of Thesis (optional)

The thesis is not well defined.

The thesis is well defined but not well supported.

The thesis is well defined and well supported.

4. Scientific Background

No basic science concepts are presented.

Only some basic science concepts are presented.

All the basic science concepts are presented.

5. RRI (SocioScientific aspects)

There is no mention of RRI.

RRI is weakly connected to the exhibit.

RRI is strongly connected to the exhibit.

6. Organization

The exhibit is not organized at all.

The exhibit is partially organized but is not easy to follow.

The exhibit is well organized and easy to follow.

7. Creativity of the exhibit

Non-creative (e.g., a regular poster).

Some creativity, at least one non-ordinary aspect in the exhibit

Highly creative and original

8. Presentation

Little thought is given to the selection of color, format, and representations of knowledge, which help convey the exhibit’s message.

Some thought is given to the selection of color, format, and representations of knowledge, which help convey the exhibit’s message.

Much thought is given to the selection of color, format, and representations of knowledge, which help convey the exhibit’s message. Continued on next page.


Table A1. (Continued). Rubric for evaluating student exhibits Category

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

9. Group Work

Only a few members work.

All the members work, but not cooperatively.

All the members work with full cooperation.

10. Feedback and Revisions

There is no exhibit feedback by visitors. There are no revisions of the exhibit.

There is exhibit feedback by visitors but it is not used in the revisions of the exhibit.

There is exhibit feedback by visitors and it is used in the revisions of the exhibit.

References 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Birenbaum, M. Alternatives in Assessment; Ramot Tel Aviv University: (Hebrew), Tel Aviv, 1997. Herman, J. L.; Aschbacher, P. R.; Winters, L. A Practical Guide to Alternative Assessment; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, 1992. O’Neil, H. F.; Abedi, J. Journal of Educational Research 1996, 89, 234–245. National Research Council. Standards for Proffesional Development; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996; pp 55−73. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards; Committee on Developing Assessments of Science Proficiency in K-12, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2014. Israeli Ministry of Education, 2010. http://cms.education.gov.il/Education CMS/Units/LemidaMashmautit/mashmautit/ (accessed 14.2.2018). Blonder, R.; Zemler, E.; Rosenfeld, S. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2016, 17, 1145–1155. Irresistible, 2016. http://www.irresistible-project.eu/index.php/nl/ (accessed 14.2.2018). Schomberg, V.; Von Schomberg, R. In Responsible Innovation; Owen, R., Heintz, M., Bessant, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: London, 2013; pp 51−74. Apotheker, J.; Blonder, R.; Akaygun, S.; Reis, P.; Kampschulte, L.; Laherto, A. Pure and Applied Chemistry 2017, 89, 211. Adadan, E.; Akaygun, S.; Sanyal, A. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas 2017, 54, 86–95. Kampschulte, L.; Parchmann, I. LUMAT 2015, 3, 462–482. Linhares, E. F.; Reis, P. Sisyphus Journal of Education 2017, 5, 85–106. Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2009. http://www.p21.org/storage/ documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf (accessed 14.2.2018) Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2011. http://www.p21.org/storage/ documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf (accessed 14.2.2018). Reis, P., Marques, A. R., Azinhaga, P., 2016. 54

Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

17. de Bono, E. In Thinking Skills instruction: Concepts and Techniques; Heiman, M., Slomianko, J., Eds.; National Education Association Publication: Washington, DC, 1987; pp 2017−2229. 18. Birenbaum, M.; Nasser, F.; Tatsuoka, C. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 2007, 38, 301–319. 19. Cosmos A Spacetime Odyssey - Episode 7. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dyNRQOpLdu8 (accessed 14.2.2018). 20. Hofstein, A.; Mamlok, R.; Rosenberg, O. In Assessment in Science; McMahon, M., Simmons, P., Sommers, R., DeBaets, D., Crawley, F., Eds.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2006; pp 139−148. 21. Hofstein, A.; Levi-Nahum, T.; Shore, R. Learning Environments Research 2001, 4, 193–207. 22. Kahoot! https://kahoot.com (accessed 14.2.2018). 23. De Jong, O.; Blonder, R.; Oversby, J. P. In Chemistry Education: A Practical Guide and Textbook for Teachers, Teacher Trainees and Student Teachers; Eilks, I., Hofstein, A., Eds.; Sense: Rotterdam, 2013; pp 97−126. 24. Dori, Y. J.; Hameiri, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40, 278–302. 25. Johnstone, A. H. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1991, 7, 75–83.


Student-Curated Exhibitions: Alternative Assessment in Chemistry

Recommend Documents