Chemistry Education

Research and Practice

View Article Online
PAPER View Journal | View Issue

On the development and assessment of a computer-

Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013,
based learning and assessment environment for the
14, 345
transition from lower to upper secondary
chemistry education
Moritz Krause,a Stephan Kienast,b Torsten Witteckc and Ingo Eilks*a
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.

Received 17th May 2013,
Accepted 6th June 2013
DOI: 10.1039/c3rp00071k
www.rsc.org/cerp
This paper describes the development and assessment of a learning environment to support the transition
of students from lower to upper secondary chemistry education in Germany. The learning environment
centers on reviewing and expanding learners’ prior chemistry knowledge in heterogeneous learning groups
upon entering upper secondary education. The different learning materials are integrated in a computer-
based learning environment, which offers a set of different learning stages which sequentially build upon
each other. Another central element of the learning environment is an integrated test platform, which
provides assessment and instant feedback to the students after completing each of the learning stages. This
paper reports on the development of the learning environment by a group of teachers following the
model of Participatory Action Research. Four schools and 81 students were involved in the implementation
of the learning environment. Data sources used to reflect the learning environment were classroom
observations, analysis of teacher feedback during monthly discussions, and a student survey. The study
describes potential uses and reflects the benefits of using computer-based assessment within this learning
environment from the viewpoint of the teachers and the students.

Introduction program. Grammar schools are for higher achieving students

In Germany, chemistry education is compulsory at the lower
secondary level up to an age of about 15 years. After finishing lower
secondary school about half of the students enter upper secondary
education, where chemistry lessons are no longer compulsory,
however, optional chemistry courses can be chosen either at a
basic or an advanced level (Risch, 2010). At this stage, students
from different learning groups, or sometimes even different lower
secondary schools, are grouped together to form the new chemistry
classes. This may even include pupils coming from different types
of lower secondary schools: middle, grammar, or comprehensive
schools. The school types differ in their structure and syllabi.
Students with lower and medium performance at the end of
primary education mainly visit the middle schools. Middle schools
lead to a lower secondary degree but do not offer upper secondary
education. However, with good marks in the final middle school
exam students can change to a grammar school upper secondary
a
University of Bremen, Biology/Chemistry, Bremen, Germany.
E-mail: ingo.eilks@uni-bremen.de; Tel: +49 42121863280
b
Ursulinengymnasium Werl, Werl, Germany
c
Westfalen-Kolleg Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
and offer both a lower and upper secondary degree, some of them
have programs for the lower secondary degree with one year less
of teaching compared to middle and comprehensive schools.
Comprehensive schools offer integrated teaching for lower,
medium and higher achieving students, sometimes with a differ-
entiation in the subjects. Comprehensive schools in most cases
lead to both the lower and upper secondary exam. At least in
urban regions, it is quite common that students change school at
the entrance to upper secondary education. That means, in the
beginning of upper secondary education pupils who previously
were instructed by numerous teachers are now combined in new
learning constellations. Learners in their new classes have often
followed vastly different educational approaches and/or curricula
previously. This represents a case where pupils with broadly
differing levels of prior knowledge must come together in order
to effectively learn in their new educational surroundings. The
students in the new learning groups are regularly quite hetero-
geneous in their a priori knowledge, a situation which can
challenge the teacher. This problem has also been reported
during the transition between other educational levels, e.g. from
upper secondary to tertiary education (Regan et al., 2011). A
second challenge comes from the changing focus of the

This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353 345

Paper
chemistry lessons. With the start of upper secondary schooling
teaching increasingly addresses theoretical and quantitative
concepts of chemistry with an eye to preparing students for
university level science studies (Risch, 2010).
This paper reports on the development of a learning
environment structured to help balance out differing levels of
prior knowledge upon entering upper secondary chemistry
education and to prepare the students for the demands of the
forthcoming chemistry lessons. The environment offers a set of
different learning stages which sequentially build upon each
other like in a bicycle race. This is why the lesson plan was
called the Tour de Chemie (‘Chemie’ is the German word for
Chemistry). The learning materials for the different stages were
integrated in a computer-based learning environment to allow
for flexible use and autonomous learning. The goal of the
learning environment is to provide the learners with a frame-
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
work allowing them to individually and cooperatively review
prior learning and expand their knowledge. Learning with
the Tour de Chemie should take place in a self-directed and
progressively structured atmosphere. Nevertheless the students
should continuously receive feedback on their learning progress.
Feedback and assessment are both important for the restructuring
of the learning environment by the teacher, as well as for supporting
the learning progress of the learner (Regan et al., 2011). Thus a test
platform has been designed, which provides computer-assisted
assessment of the student learning progress after each learning
stage, and forms an integral part of the learning environment.
This paper discusses the development of the learning
environment by a group of teachers following the model of
Participatory Action Research in chemistry education (Eilks and
Ralle, 2002). It describes the developed learning environment
and reflects its application from the viewpoint of the teachers,
external researchers, and the students. In addition to the
presentation of the teaching approach the study intends also
to contribute an answer the question: how beneficial is it to use
computer-based feedback systems to support more thoroughly
individualized, autonomous and cooperative learning of chemistry
in heterogeneous learning groups?
Theoretical background
Based on research on teachers, Barkdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000)
emphasize the importance of assessment for any successful teaching
and learning. Hattie and Jaeger (1998) suggest that giving feedback
to the students through assessment tasks is one of the most effective
ways to improve student performance. They describe feedback as the
most powerful moderator that enhances achievement.
Bell (2007) suggests that assessment should move away from
purely traditional psychometric testing towards educational
assessment to improve learning. Assessment should be inter-
woven with the process of instruction and should become
an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Shwartz
et al. (2013) also suggest that assessment is important for
learning and that a combination of formative and summative
assessment should be applied, which continuously accompa-
nies the learning process. Black and William (1998) have
346 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
documented that strengthening formative assessment can
increase learning gains.
Educational theory suggests the use of a wide variety
of assessment techniques, involving paper and pencil tests,
concept mapping, interviews, portfolios, etc. (Shwartz et al.,
2013). As long as the teaching and learning scenario does not
mainly focus on higher-order learning skills, traditional forms
of assessment like multiple choice or open-ended questions are
still an appropriate component in the portfolio of assessment
techniques (Black, 1998). However, the entire curriculum still
requires a good mix of different forms of assessment (Shwartz
et al., 2013). Despite the call to apply a wider variety of
assessment techniques, assessing subject matter knowledge
with the aid of pencil tests with multiple choice or multiple
select items will still maintain their place in the assessment
practices (Tamir, 1998; Shwartz et al., 2013).
Traditional forms of assessment like multiple choice, multi-
ple select or content-focused questions in an open answer
format can be easily applied in paper and pencil tests. However,
thanks to the progress of modern computer technology it
has become quite simple to transfer such question types to
computer-based assessment forms and online platforms without
any significant differences in effectiveness (Lee and Weerakoon,
2001). The general benefits of computer-based assessment
platforms have already been discussed by Bull and McKenna
(2004), Charman (1999) and Walker (2010). Taken together with
specific examples from chemistry education, e.g. Cole and Todd
(2003), David (1992), Lowry (2005), Bertolo and Lambert (2007),
Ryan and Dunne (2011) and Ryan (2013), computer-based
systems’ specific value can be seen in their efficiency while
automatically marking responses, in providing immediate learner
feedback on any potential weaknesses, and in being available
upon demand and, in the case of larger learning groups, simulta-
neously accessible by all pupils.
Assessment is of specific importance for heterogeneous
learning groups. It is the key which allows the teacher to
adapt the teaching and learning environment in the sense of
differentiated teaching and learning (Black, 1998). Also, individual
feedback is necessary for increased levels of autonomous and self-
directed learning. Providing each student with regular and instant
face-to-face feedback after different learning stages is highly
demanding, intensely time consuming and barely manageable
in large learning groups (Lowry, 2005). By 1976 Dunkleberger and
Smith had already suggested taking advantage of developments
in computer technology to effectively deal with individualized
feedback in heterogeneous chemistry classes. A computer-based
assessment tool might help to partially – or possibly even
completely – ease the burden placed upon the teacher when
preparing, carrying out and evaluating a wide variety of indivi-
dually adopted student tests (Walker, 2010).
Walker et al. (2008) describe the existing studies on students’
experiences with computer-based or online assessment as being
limited in scope. This seems to be especially true in the case of
secondary school chemistry education. It seems that computer-
based and online assessment and feedback is more thoroughly
applied at the tertiary level, where some evidence is available.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
A quite good summary and report of this situation was provided
by Hepplestone et al. (2009). More specifically, Walker (2010),
for example, described findings that undergraduate students
consider online assessment as a suitable tool in science educa-
tion. Both Walker (2010) and Rickerts and Wilks (2002) found
that students perceive online assessment as less stressful than
conventional tests. They do not feel worry or concern when
working with tests operated by computers or online testing
platforms. Kennepohl et al. (2010) have documented high levels
of predictive power for online self-diagnostic assessment with
regard to later success in examinations. Ryan (2013) even
suggested the development of self-assessment multiple choice
questions for the promotion of chemistry learning. Finally, Cole
and Todd (2003) and Lowry (2005) both documented that
computer assisted instruction and formative assessment in
undergraduate chemistry education can help to promote students’
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
performance in summative assessment.
Method
The research and development project described here was
carried out following the model of Participatory Action
Research (PAR) in science education as presented by Eilks
and Ralle (2002). In PAR, teachers and researchers jointly
develop and investigate teaching practices. PAR directly con-
trasts and combines the evidence from educational research
with the practical experience of teachers. The approach effec-
tively unites these two complementary sources about teaching
and learning as two opposing ends of a spectrum of knowledge
which is valuable for improving teaching (McIntyre, 2005). The
accompanying communicative process among teachers work-
ing closely together with educators from the university ensures
that the resulting designs are compatible with teachers’ every-
day needs and practices. Lesson plans are cooperatively designed,
tested, researched and refined in a cyclical process. The research
and development process aims at an overall improvement of
teaching practices through the close cooperation of university
science education researchers and in-service teachers. It seeks
to develop new curricular and methodological approaches and
analyze them in authentic teaching situations, thus leading
to an evidence-based understanding of the effects of newly-
developed teaching approaches. PAR also aims at producing
sustainable changes in the fields affected by these innovations
and seeks to contribute to the continuous professional develop-
ment of the participating teachers. PAR proved to be very
effective in curriculum change, implementation and teacher
professional development (Mamlok-Naaman and Eilks, 2012;
Marks and Eilks, 2010). However, limitations lie in the limited
range of teachers who can be involved and the principally
qualitative nature of findings and interpretations.
In this particular project, one PAR group took the initiative.
This group has been working on different projects of chemistry
curriculum development for 15 years (Eilks and Markic, 2011;
Mamlok-Naaman and Eilks, 2012). The development of the
learning environment presented in this paper took place over
a time of roughly one year, with meetings of the PAR group
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Paper
Table 1 Evaluation data perspectives and sources
Teacher PAR group discussion minutes
Open feedback questionnaire
Student Open and Likert-type feedback questionnaire
External researcher Classroom observation protocols
occurring once a month. The group was composed of ten
secondary school teachers from different schools, accompanied
by a chemistry educator from the University of Bremen, Ger-
many. The members of the group had widely varying profes-
sional experience ranging from about fifteen years to over thirty
years of teaching experience.
Testing of the learning environment has so far been applied
in five learning groups from four different grammar schools.
The application included aspects addressing the equalization
of heterogeneity present upon entering upper secondary chem-
istry education and creating a review and training module in
advance of the final examinations taking place at the end of
upper secondary education. Eighty-one students participated in
the testing rounds. Data were collected through classroom
observations made by an external researcher, joint analysis of
teacher feedback within discussions of the PAR group during
the monthly meetings based on minutes taken during these
meetings and a written teacher feedback questionnaire, and
carrying out a student questionnaire combining open and
Likert-type questions (Table 1). All data were qualitatively
analyzed. Because of the small sample and the potentially
different points of view of teachers, students and external
researchers coherence was checked by triangulating the findings
from the different sorts of data and the different perspectives of
the persons involved. This triangulation took place in a coopera-
tive process with the teachers and accompanying researchers
and the results were finally discussed and reflected by the
whole PAR group. During the first rounds of testing also the
student responses to the tasks were monitored to check
whether all items could be solved by at least some of the
students and that there was a good mixture of easy, medium
and more difficult tasks.
Structure of the learning environment and
its potential use
The learning environment Tour de Chemie encompasses subject
matter knowledge from the lower secondary chemistry curriculum
as selected by the teachers from the PAR group. This selection
was guided by teachers’ consideration of the importance of
topics for continuing chemistry learning at the upper secondary
level. A period of time at the beginning of the first year in
upper secondary education is used to implement this learning
environment before the teachers move on to teach new topics.
The students are told to spend a certain amount of time and to
manage in class as many stages as possible. They are however
free to complete the whole program if the time in class is not
sufficient for them with respect to their prior knowledge. The
learning environment is constructed of six stages. The stages
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353 347
 View Article Online

Paper Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Table 2 Stages of the Tour de Chemie


Particles, atoms and atomic mass Matter is composed of particles.

Dimension of particle structures by working on examples from scanning tunneling microscopy.

Sizes of the atoms and the atomic mass unit u.

Molecules and molecular mass Division of pure substances, compounds, elements and mixtures.

Atomic structure, covalent bonding and ionic bonding.

Molecules and molecular masses.

The Law of the Conservation of Mass

The mol Relationship of the macroscopic mass unit ‘‘g’’ and the submicroscopic mass unit u

Avogadro number

The mol and its use

Molar mass Molar masses

Examples for calculating their values

Molar gas volume Behavior of ideal gases

The molar gas volume at standard conditions

Concentration Concentration

Percent concentration and molar concentration
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.

start with a review of the particle theory and atomic structure.
Subsequent stages cover bonding and molecules, the chemical
‘‘mol’’, molar mass, molar gas volume and chemical concentra-
tions. Table 2 presents an overview of the different stages.
Each stage is based on two pages of teaching material and
respective computer-based assessments. The material pages
review the content and are designed to be learned by the
students individually or in small groups. Simple repetition
and easy transfer tasks are given in accordance with the overall
aim of the idea of the Tour de Chemie. Additionally, either the
textbook or searches for information on the Internet (based on
a list of pre-selected Internet pages with reliable information)
can be used by the students. The students are free to decide
how the cooperative groups of learners will be formed, strategies
for dealing with the teaching materials, and the overall amount
of time they want to spend on individual materials and tasks.
Nevertheless, a joint strategy for the learning group is also
recommended. The students are asked to start with the first
learning stage and become familiar with the materials during
the course of their learning journey. Three steps are recom-
mended to the students at the beginning:

Each pupil works alone at reading the texts, then marks or
writes down the most important passages or content which he
or she does not understand.

Then the learners reproduce the content of the text in
conversations with each other and discuss the hard-to-under-
stand sections. In case more information sources are necessary,
they can be selected and used at the students’ discretion.

The most important aspects are then noted in the pupil’s
individual workbooks and mastered.
As soon as students feel that they have mastered the content
in the respective stage, they inform the teacher and sign up for the
exam for that stage. These exams are used as a check of the material
learned. The assessment of the learning is done by a computer-
based tool developed using the software Question Writer leading
to an HTML-based testing platform compatible with commonly-
available Internet browsers (see www.tour-de-chemie.de.vu for
German examples). The first assessment at each stage consists
of 12 questions. The testing platform randomly selects these
questions from a pool of possible questions at each learning stage.
For the first assessment, single choice questions are applied.
Single choice questions are questions in a multiple choice format
with only one right answer to be selected. In this case each
question had three to four wrong optional answers as distractors.
Distracting choices were constructed by considering typical
learning difficulties and misconceptions as described e.g. in Taber
(2002), Kind (2004) and many research articles, and as suggested
by Cole and Todd (2003) for respective assessment platforms.
Distractors were based on any existing information available
reported in research results as well as from the teachers’ experi-
ences. Pupils must achieve a minimum score of 80%, which
means a maximum of two mistakes are allowed. If successful,
learners enter the next stage and the process begins again at the
next higher level. If the students are unsuccessful, they receive
their score and the computer-based platform provides step-by-
step feedback for each task they completed.
The average testing time is less than five minutes, so that the
overall time spent on the assessment platform is not extensive.
If access to computers is limited, the learning materials can
also be printed out, with only the assessment done on the
computer. In the latter case, for a class with roughly 20 pupils
about six computers are enough, since the students work with
different strategies, at various speeds, and thus access the
computers at different times. For fostering cooperative learning
among the groups, a restricted number of computers is even an
advantage. It is expected that the students working with paper
printouts will more thoroughly concentrate on joint learning
and the task of discussing any potential knowledge gaps. The
cooperative learning atmosphere can also be fostered through
the spatial separation of working places for contemplation of
the texts stemming from the computer assessment stations.
This aids in avoiding distraction of the students by the
presence of digital media during the preparation phases and
in sidestepping distraction in the testing phases arising from
background noise during the group discussions and clarifica-
tion exercises.
Two or more mistakes in the first assessment tool means
that the stage has not yet been completed. The students are not
allowed to move to the next stage (although there is no
technical restriction). The students are asked to return to their

348 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353 This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
learning materials again and master them. Students who fail at
the same stage are asked to form groups and search for
common misunderstandings in order to overcome them. Working
in new groups with other partners or with additional material of
their choice allows the students to find a different approach
towards the content matter. One aid for working on their mistakes
and to look for additional materials is the feedback they receive
from the assessment system itself. The computer tool not only
offers an overall score, but also reports step-by-step which answers
were (in)correct. For incorrect responses, the correct answer is
provided. Finally, the learners are asked for a second assessment.
The students are retested through a broader range of question
types than those used in the first round. Multiple select, questions
in a multiple choice format in which more than one right answer
is given and have to be selected, and open-answer questions (with
only one word or short phrase answers) are now employed by the
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
computer to provide the student with a different form of assess-
ment. The students have to answer six questions, five of which
need to be answered correctly in order to pass on to the next stage.
In the case that a student fails both assessments in a given
stage, final assessment is performed via a short oral exam with
the teacher. This exam allows the teacher to analyze where any
learning difficulties concerning the respective stage lie. The
face-to-face situation also allows the teacher to seize upon the
conversation as an indicator of exactly where any weaknesses
can be found. This means that penetrating questions can be
employed and that helpful hints and tips can be provided
to ease both learning and understanding in the individual.
Individual counseling becomes possible, because the majority
of other activities taking place in the classroom are centered
around learning and feedback embedded in cooperative,
individualized and automated forms. The teacher therefore
Fig. 1 Overview of the Tour de Chemie.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Paper
has the time and opportunity to help individual pupils who
still have problems with single items or areas after two computer-
based assessment sessions. The oral testing and consulting
conversation should not take more than 5–10 minutes. Fig. 1
shows a schematic representation of the sequence of events in
the Tour de Chemie.
The application of the Tour de Chemie described above is
only one of its potential uses. By integrating all of the learning
materials with the assessment tool in an online format it also
became possible to use various elements of the learning
environment in different ways. Single stages can be used at
any point in the curriculum for single students whenever
deficits appear in their knowledge base. Individual stages can
be selected and used to bolster the learning efforts of specific
pupils in a specific area. The materials can also be offered as a
general review mechanism before an upcoming exam, since the
testing platform offers each learner immediate and direct
feedback for both their level of learning and the success of
their learning efforts to date. Recently, the first stages of the
Tour de Chemie were already applied in lower secondary school
also after the respective topics had been taught for the first
time in the chemistry curriculum.
Findings and interpretations
The original idea of the Tour de Chemie was developed in 2005
in one of the participating schools in the PAR project described
here. In the beginning, assessment and feedback was performed
using paper and pencil tests. With the transfer of the tests
and learning materials into one learning environment in 2009
the whole idea became much more flexible and easy to use.
However, the fact that computers are well-suited for carrying
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353 349

Paper
out simply-structured content assessments like multiple choice
items is not a new finding (Walker, 2010). What really changed
the learning environment into a broadly applicable idea was the
integration of the learning materials together with the feedback
system into a well-structured learning environment that can be
individually used by the different learners. This process benefited
because it was performed in a communicative and iterative
process of a group of teachers and chemistry educators. The
joint reflection of teachers from different schools with the accom-
panying experts on science education research led to many
improvements in the overall teaching approach. The cooperative
and iterative revision of the explanatory texts, which originally
were not in digital form, was accompanied by a transformation of
the content and the test items, and to better connect it with
research evidence and a broad spectrum of teaching experiences
provided by the group members, continuous improvement and
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
extension of the material is still carried out in the cooperative
group of the PAR teachers. The process is guided by observations
made during the lessons and through analysis of data gathered in
student questionnaires although after the testing rounds further
revision became quite rare since the potential for improvement
reached some kind of saturation.
The motivational effects of the Tour of Chemie were viewed in
a positive light by both the participating teachers and the external
researcher. The teachers stressed the highly-differentiating nature
of the unit. They had the impression that their pupils were very
motivated by the lesson plan and that the students were
involved in extremely intense, subject-matter based discus-
sions. Within the PAR group discussions, the teachers reported
and uniformly agreed that, despite the potentially dry, boring
nature of a review of pure theoretical content matter, the
students reacted in a very emotional, personally engaged fashion
to the lessons. The learners reacted very positively to successes or
openly showed disappointment when they failed one of the
various tests at the end of the various stages.
In the written teacher feedback questionnaire to be completed
after the lesson plan three questions were asked. The questions
concerned the benefits of the Tour de Chemie, chances for further
improvements, and the teachers’ consideration of advantages
from transferring the Tour de Chemie materials and assessments
into a multimedia-based learning environment. The main benefit,
as described in all the teachers’ questionnaires, was the high
degree of students’ autonomous and self-directed learning,
especially by their chance to select their own learning pace
as: ‘‘The benefit lies in the chance for the students for self-directed
learning. With respect to their own prior knowledge and learning
progress they can decide when to approach the next stage. Slower
student can stay longer on a given stage; faster students can move
forward earlier. The students are able to define their own learning
speed autonomously. A further advantage is that the assessment is
not done by the teacher. This allows the students’ learning with less
fear and in a more comfortable atmosphere.’’
Concerning the pedagogy, there were a few critical com-
ments that were also later discussed in the PAR group. These
comments mainly concerned how to deal with students so far
being inexperienced in self-directed and cooperative learning.
350 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Those students sometimes started trying to solve the Tour de
Chemie as a computer game in a trial and error approach: ‘‘I see
problems if students try to answer the tasks on the computer
without having worked on the materials before. The students then
get feedback that their prior knowledge is weaker than they have
expected. Some of them then try to fill the gaps in their knowledge
by looking at specific aspects in the material, but still do not start
really comprehensively working on the materials.’’ The teachers
agreed that for such cases the computer environment so far has
not provided enough guidance. However, it was also discussed
whether this needs to be added in the computer environment
or whether taking care of this phenomenon might be better a
task to be assigned to the teacher.
The benefit of having moved the learning materials into the
computer environment was seen in the higher flexibility of the
system, the chance to work on the materials and tasks outside
the classroom via the Internet, and the direct feedback with the
inclusion of the mistakes made without the teacher first
correcting the written test. Due to the automatic correction of
the test the teacher has more freedom to support individual
students. Also the fact that the teacher does not see the tests
was considered as a positive element since feedback in this case
was thought as formative feedback and not summative grading.
From the classroom observations it quickly became clear
that developed experience with cooperative learning methods
helped the students to follow the lesson plan. Students with
rich experience in cooperative learning from lower secondary
science education repeatedly changed working partners or
formed new groups during the unit. This was largely deter-
mined by the overall progress made by individual students and
the phase in which they found themselves at any given
moment. Without teacher intervention, different learners also
asked for assistance from pupils who had already successfully
completed the stage in which they were having difficulties,
e.g. by addressing the right and wrong answers given in the
feedback from the assessment platform. The same held true for
the preparation period before an oral examination by the
teacher. This allowed lower-achieving learners to receive help
from better-performing classmates.
As well as among the teachers, the student reflections on the
lessons most frequently mentioned the perception of autonomy
during the learning and working periods, which were often
positively viewed with respect to the activities taking place in
small learning groups. Many of the pupils valued the fact that
they had to initially work alone on the texts before entering
into partner or group work in the ensuing discussion phase.
One student wrote upon an open question about the overall
consideration of the lesson plan: ‘‘The Tour de Chemie is
structured for the individual and helps us to work alone, while
simultaneously supporting one another. We could clarify questions
among ourselves and strengthen our knowledge through the process
of exchange.’’ Many pupils also stressed the ability to choose
one’s own learning pace, as it proved to be valuable to support
learning in heterogeneous groups (Gable and Herron, 1977).
Two students stated: ‘‘I really liked the parts where we could make
our own time schedules for working on the entire topic’’
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
Fig. 2 Students’ responses on the Likert-items (N = 81).
respectively ‘‘We were allowed to learn following our own pace
and thus were able to learn better’’. The aspects of individual
and self-assessment during the learning progress and the
possibility of exchanging ideas with other students were both
frequently mentioned as positive parts of the process: ‘‘We were
asked to learn everything on our own only supported by learning
materials and we were able to directly assess on the computer
whether we understood everything right’’. The assessment was
also considered to be motivating: ‘‘We were more ambitious to
solve the tasks correctly. The 80%-threshold was like a gold medal
in the Olympic Games. At all costs, every one of us wanted to pass
the 80%. It was fun answering the questions with the computer’’.
When the learners were asked for the biggest difference
between traditional classes in chemistry and this unit, one
student replied in the open questionnaire: ‘‘The biggest differ-
ence was that there was almost no frontal teaching involved.
The material was entirely completed in a self-sufficient working
mode. At the end of every phase we had the chance to test our
own knowledge. Learning took place less individually and
more in group-based situations, so that many questions could be
immediately clarified in the group.’’ The students also came
to the point of self-direction in organizing their work and
selecting their learning speed: ‘‘I liked the lesson plan since we
students were able to make our own time schedule for working
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Paper
through a whole module. By the fact that every one of us was able
to determine her or his own speed in learning we all got the chance
to define own points of special emphasis’’ or ‘‘we are able to spend
as much as time at a single stage as we needed.’’
The feedback found in the Likert-questionnaires also supported
the positive opinions expressed in teacher feedback, classroom
observations and the open student questionnaires. Fig. 2 presents
the Likert-items and the student responses. Learner autonomy
and self-directedness in learning were especially appreciated by
the students. They also acknowledged intensity and engagement
of working due to the chosen pedagogy and the systematically
embedded assessment.
Criticism was rare in both the open questions and teacher
feedback. Only one learning group described the application of
the Tour de Chemie in less than enthusiastic terms. All schools
but one are located in environments where exchange between
both schools and learning groups at the beginning of the
upper secondary level is quite large. In one school from a rural
area, however, this was not the case. In this particular school,
nearly all students in the new course had attended the same
lower secondary school, learned with the same curriculum and
had the same teacher. The heterogeneity in this school was low
and the average achievement level was high. These students
mastered all stages more-or-less in parallel and in a much
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353 351

Paper
shorter amount of time than the other groups. Nevertheless,
the lesson was valued by the class, which described it as a
review and a chance to assess the basic knowledge which had
been learned at the lower secondary level.
Conclusions
Overall, the teachers and most of the students considered the
idea of an integrated learning and assessment platform for
individual and autonomous review of knowledge to be a valu-
able addition to the pedagogies available for supporting the
transition from lower to upper secondary level. The inclusion of
computers as a tool for individualized feedback and assess-
ment allowed the Tour de Chemie to be carried out much more
easily by the teacher. It also enabled the students to more
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
thoroughly employ self-direction and promoted higher levels of
autonomy in learning. Creating tests for such kind of learning
environments today is quite easy with the help of contemporary
software tools. Research and teaching experience both offer a
wide range of evidence useful for the creation of good distrac-
tors in single choice or multiple select diagnostic assessment
tasks. The PAR group has decided to develop more of these
review and assessment units for further topics in the secondary
chemistry curriculum. These units are thought to help students
close individual gaps in their content matter knowledge wher-
ever they appear. Also in-service teacher education courses were
conducted and further schools started working with the Tour
de Chemie. Approaching the development of such learning
environments as a concerted group of teachers and science
educators, instead of as individuals, also proved to be a very
valuable method. Exchange of teaching materials and discussions
of potential tasks contrasted with research findings helped the
planners in optimizing the learning environment step-by-step.
It reduced the overall workload for each of the individual
teachers and allowed them to gain individual experience, which
could then be traded with many other teachers in order to
improve the learning materials.
We acknowledge the support of the German Fund of the
Chemical Industry (FCI) for the development of the learning
environment presented here.
References
Barkdale-Ladd M. A. and Thomas K. F., (2000), What’s at stake
in high-stake testing: teachers and parents speak out,
J. Teach. Educ., 89, 117–139.
Bell B., (2007), Classroom assessment of science learning, in Abell
S. K. and Lederman N. G. (ed.), Handbook of research on science
education, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 965–1006.
Bertolo E. and Lambert G., (2007), Implementing CAA in
chemistry: a case study. in Khandia F. (ed.), Proceedings of
the 11th CAA International Computer Assisted Conference,
Loughborough, pp. 73–84.
Black P., (1998), Assessment by teachers and the improvement
of students’ learning, in Fraser B. J. and Tobin K. G. (ed.),
352 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
International handbook of science education, Dordrecht:
Kluwer, pp. 811–822.
Black P. and William D., (1998), Assessment and classroom
learning, Assess. Educ., 5, 7–74.
Bull J. and McKenna C., (2004), Blueprint for computer-assisted
assessment, London: Routledge.
Charman D., (1999), Issues and impacts of using computer-
based assessments (CBAs) for formative assessment,
in Brown S., Race P. and Bull J. (ed.), Computer-assisted
assessment in higher education, London: Kogan Page,
pp. 85–93.
Cole R. S. and Todd J. B., (2003), Effects of web-based multi-
media homework with immediate rich feedback on student
learning in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 80, 1338–1343.
David C. W., (1992), Computer-assisted testing, J. Chem. Educ.,
69, 396–399.
Dunkleberger G. E. and Smith R. W., (1976), A computer
managed approach to individualized instruction, J. Chem.
Educ., 53, 649–650.
Eilks I. and Markic S., (2011), Effects of a Long-Term
Participatory Action Research Project on Science Teachers’
Professional Development, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol.
Educ., 7, 149–160.
Eilks I. and Ralle B., (2002), Participatory Action Research in
Chemical Education. in Ralle B. and Eilks I. (ed.), Research in
Chemical Education – What does this mean? Aachen: Shaker,
pp. 87–98.
Gable D. L. and Herron J. D., (1977), The effects of grouping and
pacing on learning rate, attitude and retention in the ISCS
classroom, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 14, 385–399.
Hattie J. and Jaeger R., (1998), Assessment and classroom
learning: a deductive approach, Assess Educ., 5, 111–122.
Hepplestone S., Parkin H., Holden G., Irwin B. and Thorpe L.,
(2009), Technology, feedback, action!: the impact of learning
technology upon students’ engagement with their feedback
enhancing learning through technology, Research Project
Report 08/09, York: Higher Education Academy.
Kennepohl D., Guay M. and Thomas V., (2010), Using an online,
self-diagnostic test for introductory general chemistry at an
open university, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 1273–1277.
Kind V., (2004), Beyound appearances: students misconceptions
about basic chemical ideas, London: RSC.
Lee G. and Weerakoon P., (2001), The role of computer-aided
assessment in health professional education: a comparison
of student performance in computer-based and paper-and-
pen tests, Med. Teach., 23, 152–157.
Lowry R., (2005), Computer aided self-assessment – an effective
tool, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 6, 198–203.
Mamlok-Naaman R. and Eilks I., (2012), Action research to
promote chemistry teachers’ professional development –
Cases and experiences from Israel and Germany, Int. J. Sci.
Math. Educ., 10, 581–610.
Marks R. and Eilks I., (2010), Research-based development of a
lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a
socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry
teaching. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 129–141.
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
McIntyre D., (2005), Bridging the gap between research and
practice, Cambridge J. Educ., 35, 357–382.
Regan Á., Childs P. and Hayes S., (2011), The use of an inter-
vention programme to improve undergraduate students’
chemical knowledge and address their misconceptions,
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 219–227.
Rickerts C. and Wilks S. J., (2002), Improving student perfor-
mance through computer-based assessment, Assess Eval.
High. Educ., 27, 475–479.
Risch B., (2010), Germany, in Risch B. (ed.), Teaching chemistry
around the world, Münster: Waxmann, pp. 267–279.
Ryan B. J., (2013), Using technology to align and enhance peer
learning and assessment in a student centred foundation
organic chemistry module, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, Advance
Article DOI: 10.1039/C3RP20178C.
Ryan B. J. and Dunne J., (2011), Integrating formative feedback
Published on 27 June 2013. Downloaded on 12/12/2017 11:36:25.
into individual and group assessment in a first year organic
chemistry module, in Proceedings of the 3rd International
This journal is c The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Paper
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies,
Barcelona, Spain, pp. 4507–4515.
Shwartz Y., Dori Y. J. and Treagust D. F., (2013), How to outline
objectives for chemistry education and how to assess them,
in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (ed.), Teaching chemistry – a
studybook, Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 37–65.
Taber K. S., (2002), Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diag-
nosis and cure, London: RSC Publishing.
Tamir P., (1998), Assessment and evaluation in science education –
opportunities to learn and outcomes, in Fraser B. J. and
Tobin K. G. (ed.), International handbook of science education,
Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 761–789.
Walker D., (2010), Online assessment: Informing practice in tertiary
science education, in Rodrigues S. (ed.), Multiple literacy and
science education, Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 207–224.
Walker D. J., Topping K. and Rodrigues S., (2008), Student
reflections on formative e-assessment: expectations and
perceptions, Learn. Media Technol., 33, 221–234.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 345--353 353