Investigating student perspectives on alternate final assessment approaches in upper-level physics courses

Abstract During the pandemic, traditional final assessments in the form of in-person, timed, invigilated final examinations were not an option. As a result, in the academic years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, students in the second year Electricity and Magnetism courses at the University of Guelph were asked to complete personalized study guides/portfolios as a means of communicating to the instructor what they had learned in the course. Although research has shown that portfolio-style assessment procedures support student achievement at least at the same level as traditional assessment procedures and appear to have additional benefits, they have not been widely adopted in the physical sciences. The goal of this work was to assess some of the affective consequences of using portfolio assessment procedures in an upper-level core physics course. Feedback from students, both in the form of an online anonymous survey as well as a more in-depth, in-person, focus group discussion, was positive. The general consensus was that students found the portfolios to be similar in workload to preparing for a final examination but offered additional benefits such as finding them to be significantly less stressful as well as feeling a greater sense of accomplishment after submission. Learning outcomes of the course were achieved through this approach at similar levels as seen previously, as demonstrated through student performance on the pre- and post-conceptual assessment, and further evidenced by the high-level example problems included here from student submissions. Grades earned on the portfolios were similar to those seen previously with invigilated traditional final examinations. Based on these findings, portfolio assessments will remain a core component of the pedagogical toolbox employed by faculty in physics at the University of Guelph. This project was reviewed by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. Approval was granted on 11 January 2023, REB # 22–11-004.