Formative assignments improve student confidence in lab skills for large-enrollment courses, indicating effective microcredentialing.
In recent transformations of teaching laboratory curricula, digital badging or microcredentialing has been gaining traction to refocus on the objectives of developing practical skills and building student confidence. The digital badging model allows students to demonstrate techniques with clear criteria for mastery and receive targeted feedback. However, scaling such systems for large-enrollment courses presents logistical challenges. Herein, we have developed and implemented Skill Check-Ins (SCIs) as a core component of a year-long general chemistry laboratory sequence. SCIs are a series of formative assignments, each focusing on one specific skill or technique that students are expected to master throughout the course. Students were given opportunities to learn the skill before lab, practice it during lab, and then demonstrate mastery to a lab instructor through a brief in-person task. Each check-in activity concludes with immediate and personalized feedback. To assess the impact of SCIs, the Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Instrument (MLLI) was administrated. Postcourse survey results indicate that the SCI cohort experienced significantly greater self-confidence in the lab compared to students in similar lab experiences without SCIs. Additionally, student perception of conceptual learning increased despite the SCIs' exclusive focus on practical skills, potentially attributed to a reduction in cognitive load during the experiments. SCIs offer an effective and scalable framework for incorporating microcredentialing activities as a major component of the curriculum. They support the development of core lab skills, increase student confidence in the laboratory, and can be adapted to any large-enrollment STEM course that seeks to teach fundamental skills and techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shepherd et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: