About Evaluation in Chemistry Education

Öz

Evaluation needs to be continuous process and students should perceive it as such, as a way of teaching and a way of keeping students development. Therefore, any kind of assessment should not make students afraid or anxious. This paper presents results of a research conducted among 580 primary school students (7^th and 8^th grade) and nine chemistry teachers in order to get insight in their perception of evaluation in chemistry education. We have compared students’ and teachers’ opinions in two cantons in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina using comparable questionnaires for students and teachers designed for the purpose of this study. Results show that every teacher has its own way of assessing her/his students, that performing an experiment, if performed at all, mostly does not affect students’ mark. However, knowledge is not the only factor that has influence on the mark in chemistry, but the overall students attitude towards chemistry and her/his entire personality. Differences in students’ and teachers’ responses between cantons were not significant. Further research should be conducted in order to evaluate outcomes of teaching process and therefore to make some changes in evaluating both students and teachers. The purpose of evaluation should be a contribution to students’ progress and a tool for increasing students’ motivation for learning and for gaining better results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• evaluation; primary school students; chemistry education; chemistry teachers

Kaynakça

1. . Mandić and M. Vilotijević, “Vrednovanje rada u školi”, 1980, Sarajevo: IGKRO Svjetlost.
2. T. Grgin, “Evaluacija edukacijskih dostignuća” in Edukacijska psihologija, 1997, Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap
3. S. Wallace (Ed.), “A Dictionary of Education”, 2008, Oxford: Oxford University Press
4. V. Andrilović and M. Čudina-Obradović, “Procjenjivanje, ocjenjivanje, vrednovanje” in Psihologija učenja i nastave, 1996, Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
5. K. Simić, “Bitne komponente pri izvođenju zaključnih ocjena kao dio rješenja problematike tradicionalnog i modernog ocjenjivanja”, 2007, Didaktički putokazi, 13 (45), pp. 61-67.
6. National Research Council, “Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook”, 1997, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
7. M. Slatina, “Nastavni metod”, 1998, Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Sarajevu.
8. R.L. Ebel and D.A.Frizbie, “Essentials of Educational Measurement”, 4th ed.,1986, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

9. M. Kandel, “Grading to motivate desired student performance in a descriptive laboratory course”, 1989, J. Col. Sci. Teaching 18(4), pp. 249-251.
10. J.A. Rondini and J. A. Feighan, „An ongoing grading technique for laboratory courses“, 1978, J. Chem. Educ. 55(3), pp. 182-183.
11. D. W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson and K.A. Smith, “Active learning: Cooperation in the College Chemistry Classroom”, 1991, Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Co.