Implementing Mastery Grading in Large Enrollment General Chemistry: Improving Outcomes and Reducing Equity Gaps

Збережено в:
Бібліографічні деталі
Опубліковано в::Education Sciences vol. 14, no. 11 (2024), p. 1224
Автор: Hartman, Joshua D
Інші автори: Eichler, Jack F
Опубліковано:
MDPI AG
Предмети:
Онлайн доступ:Citation/Abstract
Full Text + Graphics
Full Text - PDF
Теги: Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3132952225
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 2227-7102 
022 |a 2076-3344 
024 7 |a 10.3390/educsci14111224  |2 doi 
035 |a 3132952225 
045 2 |b d20240101  |b d20241231 
084 |a 231457  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Hartman, Joshua D 
245 1 |a Implementing Mastery Grading in Large Enrollment General Chemistry: Improving Outcomes and Reducing Equity Gaps 
260 |b MDPI AG  |c 2024 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a Specifications and mastery grading schemes have been growing in popularity in higher education over the past several years, and reports of specifications grading and other alternative grading systems are emerging in the chemistry education literature. The general goal of these alternative grading approaches is to reduce the reliance on high-stakes exams and give students a more transparent pathway to achieving the course learning outcomes. More importantly, relying less on infrequent high-stakes exams may help reduce historical equity gaps in introductory gateway STEM courses. Herein, we describe the implementation of two versions of mastery grading systems in large enrollment general chemistry courses at a public R1 institution. Class-wide course outcomes, equity gaps in performance on a common final exam, and student feedback on their experience navigating these grading schemes are presented. We show that combining mastery grading with interactive courseware tools improved the average performance on a common final assessment for under-represented minority (URM) students by 7.1 percentage points relative to an active control course that used infrequent high-stakes exams. 
653 |a Education history 
653 |a Higher education 
653 |a Students 
653 |a School environment 
653 |a Educational software 
653 |a Ethnicity 
653 |a Core curriculum 
653 |a Organic chemistry 
653 |a Active learning 
653 |a Educational objectives 
653 |a Design 
653 |a Metacognition 
653 |a Academic Failure 
653 |a Educational Research 
653 |a Learning Strategies 
653 |a Lecture Method 
653 |a Learning Processes 
653 |a Enrollment 
653 |a Academic Achievement 
653 |a Grading 
653 |a Meta Analysis 
653 |a Instructional Materials 
653 |a Mastery Learning 
653 |a Educational History 
653 |a Chemistry 
653 |a Courseware 
653 |a Educational Assessment 
653 |a Outcomes of Education 
653 |a Science Curriculum 
653 |a Educational Environment 
653 |a Course Content 
653 |a Low Achievement 
700 1 |a Eichler, Jack F 
773 0 |t Education Sciences  |g vol. 14, no. 11 (2024), p. 1224 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Education Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3132952225/abstract/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text + Graphics  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3132952225/fulltextwithgraphics/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3132952225/fulltextPDF/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch