¹ Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
² Chemistry Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

Oktariani Oktariani
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nahadi Nahadi
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Heli Siti Halimatul Munawaroh
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Lilit Rusyati
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Andhika Baruri
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mellyzar Mellyzar
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Desi Ariyanti Nabuasa
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Almubarak Almubarak
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

• (a) RQ1. What are the research trends in assessment practices in general chemistry learning and laboratory education during 2020–2024?

• (b) RQ2. What assessment strategies and instruments have been developed in general chemistry learning and laboratory contexts?

• (c) RQ3. What are the emerging trends and key challenges in general chemistry assessment practices?

This study is designed as a qualitative systematic literature review using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted to explore, map, and synthesize research findings related to assessment strategies in general chemistry theory and laboratory courses published between 2020 and 2024. A narrative synthesis was chosen over a quantitative meta-analysis given the heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of research design, assessment instruments, and outcome measures, which makes statistical pooling inappropriate (Xiao & Watson, 2019). The review was guided by three main research questions: (1) What are the research trends in assessment practices in general chemistry learning and laboratory education during 2020–2024? (2) What assessment strategies and instruments have been developed in general chemistry learning and laboratory contexts? (3) What are the emerging trends and key challenges in general chemistry assessment practices? These questions were formulated at the outset of the review to provide a clear framework for article searching, screening, and data extraction.

A systematic search for relevant articles was conducted using the Scopus database, one of the most comprehensive multidisciplinary academic databases widely used in education research (Cronin et al., 2008). The search was executed on November 3, 2024. Scopus was selected as the sole database for this review due to its broad coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed journals in the field of chemistry education and its robust filtering capabilities. The search query was constructed using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to account for the diversity of terminology used across the literature. Key concepts were identified and expanded to include synonymous terms: assessment was broadened to include evaluation, grading, and feedback; general chemistry was extended to introductory chemistry and basic chemistry; and laboratory was paired with practical and experiment, while lecture was also represented by classroom and course. The final search query, executed in the TITLE-ABS-KEY fields of Scopus, was as follows:

TITLE-ABS-KEY((“assessment” OR “evaluation” OR “grading” OR “feedback”) AND (“general chemistry” OR “introductory chemistry” OR “basic chemistry”) AND (“lecture” OR “classroom” OR “course” OR “laboratory” OR “practical” OR “experiment”))

This search query yielded a total of 785 articles. These results were then subjected to a structured screening process based on the eligibility criteria described in Section 2.3.

Eligibility criteria were established prior to the search to ensure that only studies relevant to the focus of this review were included, thereby minimizing bias in the selection process (Lin et al., 2018). The criteria were categorized into inclusion and exclusion criteria as detailed in Table 1.

These criteria were applied consistently across all stages of the article screening process to ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility.

The study selection process was conducted in four sequential stages following the PRISMA 2020 framework: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion (Page et al., 2021). To ensure objectivity and minimize subjectivity in article selection, all screening and eligibility assessment stages were carried out independently by three reviewers. Inter-rater agreement was calculated as the percentage of cases in which all three reviewers reached identical decisions, as well as Fleiss’ Kappa (κ), which is the appropriate statistic for assessing agreement among three or more raters. A 100% agreement rate (κ = 1.00) was achieved at both the title/abstract screening stage and the full-text eligibility assessment stage, indicating that all three reviewers applied the eligibility criteria consistently and without interpretive discrepancy. This unanimity reflects the operational clarity and specificity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria established prior to screening (Section 2.3), which left minimal room for subjective judgment. As complete agreement was reached across all three reviewers at every stage, no further consensus procedure or arbitration was required.

Identification. A total of 785 articles were identified through the Scopus database search. No additional records were retrieved from other sources or databases.

Screening. All 785 records were initially screened based on their titles and abstracts. Articles that were clearly irrelevant to the topic of assessment in general chemistry or did not meet the basic eligibility criteria (e.g., published before 2020, written in languages other than English, or categorized as non-research publications) were excluded at this stage. All three reviewers reached identical decisions for all 785 records, yielding a percentage agreement of 100% (Fleiss’ κ = 1.00).

Eligibility assessment. The full texts of potentially eligible articles were retrieved and assessed in detail against all inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Section 2.3. Articles whose scope extended beyond general chemistry assessment, had incomplete structures, or were categorized as review articles or book chapters were excluded at this stage, with reasons documented for each excluded article. Complete agreement was again reached among all three reviewers across all full-text eligibility decisions, yielding a percentage agreement of 100% (Fleiss’ κ = 1.00).

Inclusion. Following the full-text assessment, a final set of 30 articles met all eligibility criteria and were included in the review. These articles were subsequently subjected to systematic data extraction and analysis. The complete article selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1.

Quality appraisal was not formally conducted in this review. This decision was made on the basis of several methodological considerations. First, the primary aim of this review is descriptive and exploratory to map and synthesize existing research trends, assessment strategies, and innovations in general chemistry education rather than to evaluate the effectiveness of a specific intervention or treatment. In such descriptive systematic reviews, formal risk of bias assessment is generally considered less applicable, as the focus lies on characterizing the literature rather than estimating effect sizes or causal relationships (Xiao & Watson, 2019). Second, all 30 included articles were sourced exclusively from Scopus-indexed, peer-reviewed journals, the majority of which carry Q1 or Q2 quartile rankings including the Journal of Chemical Education and Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Indexing in Scopus itself serves as a baseline indicator of scholarly quality, as it requires journals to meet rigorous editorial and peer-review standards (Kitchenham, 2004). Third, the heterogeneity of research designs across the included studies spanning instrument development, quasi-experimental, descriptive, and qualitative approaches makes the application of a single standardized appraisal tool such as CASP or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) methodologically inappropriate without significant adaptation. The absence of formal quality appraisal is acknowledged as a limitation of this review and is discussed further in limitation studies section.

Data extraction from the 30 included articles was conducted systematically using a structured extraction framework. For each article, the following information was extracted: (1) article code, author(s), and year of publication; (2) article title; (3) country of origin; (4) journal source and quartile ranking; (5) research focus (learning assessment, laboratory assessment, or integration of both); (6) purpose of assessment (formative, summative, or both); (7) assessment components measured (e.g., conceptual understanding, scientific argumentation, metacognition); (8) assessment instruments used (e.g., multiple-choice questions, rubrics, concept maps, inventories, questionnaires); (9) assessment methods employed (e.g., written tests, electronic-based assignments, peer assessment, practical tests); and (10) key research findings. The extracted data were organized into a structured summary table ( Table 2 in the Results section) to facilitate cross-study comparison and thematic synthesis. To ensure the credibility and accuracy of extracted data, all articles underwent an in-depth reading and critical appraisal process. Any ambiguities regarding categorization were resolved through discussion among the research team, and data were verified by cross-referencing with the original articles.

Data analysis in this study was conducted using narrative synthesis, which is appropriate given the heterogeneous nature of the included studies in terms of design, context, and outcome measures (Xiao & Watson, 2019). The narrative synthesis involved thematic grouping and interpretive analysis of the extracted data to identify patterns, trends, and gaps across the reviewed literature. The analysis was organized around the three research questions of this review. For RQ1, articles were analyzed and grouped based on: (a) country of origin, (b) journal source and quartile ranking, (c) year of publication, (d) focus of assessment (learning, laboratory, or integrated), and (e) purpose of assessment (formative, summative, or combined). Descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and distributions were used to summarize these characteristics and are presented through figures and tables. For RQ2, the extracted information on assessment components, instruments, and methods was thematically coded and organized into a classification matrix ( Table 3). This process allowed for the identification of commonly used and emerging assessment strategies across the reviewed studies. For RQ3, the analysis focused on identifying overarching trends in assessment innovation particularly the role of digital technology, as well as persistent challenges and future directions in general chemistry assessment. Cross-study patterns were identified through iterative reading and thematic grouping of the findings across all 30 articles. Throughout the analysis process, the credibility of the synthesis was maintained through meticulous documentation, consistent application of the analytical framework, and cross-verification of key interpretive claims with the source articles (Kitchenham, 2004).

Research on assessment in general chemistry theory and laboratory courses has become one of the main focuses in improving the quality of chemistry learning. Various assessment strategies and instruments continue to be developed to address learning needs, including in improving students’ understanding of concepts, laboratory skills, and their active involvement in the learning process. These new approaches often utilize technology, diverse assessment formats and metacognitive components to ensure better learning outcomes.

A summary of recent research results on assessment in general chemistry theory and laboratory courses published in the Scopus database over the past five years is provided in Table 2. These studies cover the development of innovative assessment tools, the application of technology in the assessment process, as well as its impact on practical skills, conceptual understanding, and student learning motivation. The results of this search provide insights into how assessment methods can support chemistry learning more effectively and be relevant to current educational needs.

Based on the results of the analysis and extraction of articles related to the assessment of general chemistry lectures and laboratories, some information was obtained, among others:

Article Distribution by Author Country

Based on Figure 2 above, it can be seen that research related to the assessment of general chemistry lectures and laboratory in the last 5 years is still dominated by developed countries such as the United States with a total of 18 publications. Then followed by other developed countries with two articles each, namely Norway and Singapore (Lau, 2020; Lau et al., 2022), Jerman, Inggris, Taiwan, Uni Emirat Arab. Germany, UK, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates. Looking at the number of publications in the last 5 years, it can be seen that although the number of publications decreased from 2020 (n = 9) to 2021 (n = 7), 2022 (n = 4), 2023 (n = 3), the number of publications increased again in 2024 (n = 7). This shows a growing interest in developing general chemistry assessments in various parts of the world. It can be seen that in 2024 there was an increase in the number of publications and contributions from various countries in publishing articles related to general chemical assessments.

Based result of analysis, it can be seen that research related to the assessment of general chemistry lectures and laboratory in the last 5 years is still dominated by developed countries such as the United States with a total of 18 publications. Then followed by other developed countries Norway and Singapore, Jerman, Inggris, Taiwan, Uni Emirat Arab. Germany, UK, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates. It is undeniable that these developed countries have advantages in educational infrastructure and access to adequate technology that allows for the development of innovative assessment instruments. Apart from dominating in terms of the number of articles, the United States also dominates in terms of innovative assessment development involving technology such as digital question banks and machine learning-assisted tests. Developing countries such as Ethiopia and Turkey tend to focus on adapting innovative assessment methods that are more affordable and relevant to the local context.

Based on the number of publications in the last 5 years, it can be seen that although the number of publications decreased from 2020 to 2024. This shows a growing interest in developing general chemistry assessments in various parts of the world. It can be seen that in 2024 there was an increase in the number of publications and contributions from various countries in publishing articles related to general chemical assessments. However, there is still a gap between developed and developing countries regarding access and use of technology in chemistry learning assessment. Therefore, international collaboration is needed to expand access and research capacity in other regions and ensure inclusivity in the development of assessment methods.

Article Distribution by Journal source in the last 5 years

Based on the Figure 3, it can be seen that articles related to this theme are still concentrated in highly reputable journals such as Journal of Chemical Education, Q2 (n = 15) and Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Q1 (n = 12) then followed by International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Q1 (n = 1), Journal of Science Education and Technology, Q1 (n = 1) and Canadian Journal of Chemistry, Q3 (n = 1). This indicates that this article is a quality article because of the journal’s reputation that relies on editorial rigor and other scientific contributions so that it can be said that this literature review has high credibility and relevance to global needs in the field of education and gets attention from the academic community (lecturers, researchers, educational practitioners).

Based on article distribution by journal source in the last 5 years, it can be seen that articles related to this theme are still concentrated in highly reputable journals such as Journal of Chemical Education, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Journal of Science Education and Technology and Canadian Journal of Chemistry. This indicates that this article is a quality article because of the journal’s reputation that relies on editorial rigor and other scientific contributions so that it can be said that this literature review has high credibility and relevance to global needs in the field of education and gets attention from the academic community (lecturers, researchers, educational practitioners). These highly reputable journals are one of the platforms used to disseminate innovations in assessment methods, ranging from conventional assessment with various approaches to assessment digitization. In addition, the fact that most of the articles come from journals with high reputation and quality shows the importance of validity and impact of research on chemistry learning.

Article distribution based on aspects of assessment conducted (learning or laboratory only or learning and laboratory)

The distribution of articles related to learning assessment and general chemistry laboratory shown in Figure 4 reflects the focus of research in the last 5 years. Based on the focus of the assessment carried out, the authors are grouped into: learning assessment, laboratory assessment, and a combination of learning and laboratory assessment. In the last five years, articles focusing on learning assessment (n = 17) still dominate compared to practical assessment (n = 13).

In the last 5 years, the distribution of articles related to learning assessment and general chemistry laboratory based on the focus of the assessment carried out articles focusing on learning assessment still dominate compared to practical assessment. Chemistry, which is one of the branches of science, is characterized by an inquiry process that can be carried out through laboratory. Laboratory is an inseparable part of chemistry learning, laboratory is an important and essential part of chemistry learning that helps students improve mastery of concepts (McKnelly et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2022) and train various skills (Keiner & Graulich, 2021) (Greenstein, 2012; Lieber et al., 2022), and gain hands-on experience (Petritis et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). Through laboratory students are given the opportunity to make direct observations, explore concepts, develop skills and understand the object of study (Young, 2021; M. (John) Zhang et al., 2020). Therefore, the assessment carried out not only focuses on theoretical learning but also practical assessment as part of the inquiry process and integrates learning and laboratory. However, research integrating learning assessment and general chemistry laboratory in the last 5 years is still very limited, especially in highly reputable international journals. This condition opens opportunities for other researchers to make the integration of learning and laboratory assessment in general chemistry lectures as the main focus, considering that both are two complementary components in supporting holistic and effective general chemistry learning (Nahadi et al., 2023; Penn & Mavuru, 2020).

Article distribution based on the purpose of the assessment (formative or summative)

Scriven (1966) was the one who introduced the terms formative and summative assessment to distinguish assessment based on purpose. Formative assessment is used to improve the learning process (assessment for learning) while summative assessment aims to provide decisions and summaries of student achievement (assessment of learning) (Alexander et al., 2020). Figure 5 shows the distribution of articles based on the purpose of assessments conducted in the last 5 years. Formative assessment still dominates in the last 5 years, indicating that formative assessment is considered as one of the main approaches that support general chemistry learning and laboratory.

Based on the purpose of assessments conducted in the last 5 years, formative assessment still dominates in the last 5 years, indicating that formative assessment is considered as one of the main approaches that support general chemistry learning and laboratory. Formative assessment is an assessment process carried out during the learning process with the main purpose of providing feedback to students and teachers in order to improve the learning process and increase student understanding of the material being studied (Abell & Sevian, 2021; Nahadi, N. et al., 2015). Formative assessment is considered effective because it can provide immediate feedback and help students improve their understanding (Alotaibi, 2019; Shepard et al., 2018; Zemel et al., 2021).

On the other hand, summative assessment is a form of assessment that aims to determine the extent to which students can achieve learning objectives so as to obtain final decisions regarding learning outcomes such as graduation, grade promotion and progress reports (Cobbold & Wright, 2021; Mahyan et al., 2020). This assessment is often used for administrative purposes and is more formal in nature and is generally implemented in the form of tests, final projects, or portfolios, with a focus on documenting the final results rather than the learning process (Burrows et al., 2021; Veale et al., 2020). Based on the results of the analysis, the number of articles that discuss summative assessment and the combination of formative and summative is still limited. Whereas summative assessment also plays an important role in measuring student learning outcomes. so does the combination of formative and summative assessments. Therefore, more attention is needed from researchers to develop more holistic and balanced assessments, by integrating formative and summative aspects effectively, especially in the context of general chemistry learning and laboratory. This approach is important to ensure that assessments not only assist the learning process but also provide a comprehensive evaluation of student learning outcomes.

By utilizing various instruments and methods, the assessment approach in chemistry learning focuses not only on the end result, but also on the student learning process. This research makes an important contribution to the chemistry education literature by identifying various assessment instruments and methods that can support student learning and skill development. Chemistry learning requires an assessment approach that can measure various aspects of students’ cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning outcomes. Assessment in chemistry learning both theoretical and practical learning plays an important role in evaluating conceptual and procedural understanding, causal reasoning, metacognition, misconceptions, and learning difficulties, scientific argumentation, scientific practice and experimental data analysis, designing and conducting experiments, affective experiences in the laboratory, as well as self-regulation and motivation skills (Alkan, 2013; Sutiani et al., 2021). Each of these components is measured through a combination of instruments and assessment methods designed to ensure the assessment provides valid and reliable data and is able to identify student learning needs and outcomes. This assessment is supported by instruments such as multiple choice questions, descriptions, diagnostics, concept maps, questionnaires, checklists, inventories, assessment rubrics to assess diaries, concept maps, laboratory reports, worksheets.

In detail, information related to assessment components, instruments and assessment methods that can be used in general chemistry learning and laboratory in the last 5 years is in Table 3.

Based on the results of the article analysis, assessment is mostly dominated by the use of instruments such as multiple choice questions and description questions and assessment methods in the form of tests or written or electronic-based tasks. Multiple choice questions and descriptions can be used to evaluate students’ ability to explain and apply concepts in depth. Although many opinions state that multiple choice questions can only be used to measure low-level thinking skills, in several studies it has been proven that multiple choice questions can be used to measure higher- level thinking skills by combining them with limited description and open description questions so that they become multilevel choice questions and are proven to be able to measure students’ concept understanding at the C1-C6 level (Bachtiar et al., 2020; Chandrasegaran A. L et al., 2007; Keller & Hermanns, 2024). Multiple choice questions and descriptions are proven to not only be able to reveal concept understanding but also causal reasoning, metacognition, misconceptions, and learning difficulties, scientific argumentation, analyzing experimental data and designing experiments (Koevoets-Beach et al., 2023; Muteti et al., 2022; Sweeder & Herrington, 2020). Concept maps are also a form of instrument that is not only used to measure students’ concept understanding, concept maps can also provide an overview of how students organize their knowledge and connect various concepts that have been learned and express their scientific arguments in graphical form (Kaya & Kaya, 2024; Bruce et al., 2023; Vachliotis et al., 2021). Another form of instrument that is still rarely used in measuring concept understanding is electronic-based inventories. This inventory can also be used to assess students’ ability to plan and conduct experiments (Atkinson & Bretz, 2021; Lau, 2020). An inventory is a series of questions or statements designed to collect information from students both quantitatively and qualitatively such as concept understanding, misconceptions, metacognition, certain skills (Jack, 2013; Marks et al., 2022). As a form of assessment instrument, inventory has advantages such as its efficient and flexible use because it can be used to collect data in a short time and provide valid and reliable data (Bretz S. & Murata Mayo A., 2018; McAlpin et al., 2023; Rana & Mahmood, 2010).

In laboratory assessment, rubrics are widely used to assess daily notes, laboratory reports, worksheets and concept maps. This rubric is used as a reference in assessing so that the assessment is more objective, measurable and makes it easier to give scores or final results (Aydin-Gunbatar & Akin, 2022; Bylander & Gustafsson, 2021; Hadas et al., 2023; Yik et al., 2022). In several research articles the assessment rubric is used as a reference for assessing scientific argumentation, laboratory final reports, daily notes (Edwards, 2021) and student worksheets (Coyte & Lowry, 2024) both in writing and electronically based. The results of the assessment using this rubric can not only assess students’ conceptual and procedural understanding but can also be used to assess students’ ability to reflect on their learning process and integrate theoretical knowledge with experimental procedures (Flesch et al., 2024; Nainggolan et al., 2020), identify student learning difficulties (Asmussen et al., 2023; Stroumpouli & Tsaparlis, 2022) and plan strategies for improving students’ understanding and abilities. This is in line with previous relevant research related to the use of rubrics as an assessment instrument for chemistry learning (Schmid et al., 2020; Tseng et al., 2022).

In the analyzed articles, affective aspects and self-regulation in chemistry learning and laboratory were evaluated through questionnaires, interviews, and assessment checklists. These instruments provide information about students’ motivation, confidence, and ability to self-regulate the learning process. Affective experiences in the laboratory, for example, are measured through questionnaires that assess how students respond to experimental challenges, both emotionally and motivationally. This is important to create a learning environment that supports holistic student engagement in learning and laboratory. Research shows that affective aspects play a role in increasing student engagement and impact on improving student learning outcomes (Nguyen et al., 2024; Shepard et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2023).

Recent studies indicate that the latest trend in general chemistry assessment is the increasing integration of technology-based assessment and the digitization of assessment practices in both lecture and laboratory contexts. Significant developments began during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which accelerated the adoption of digital assessment technologies, including digital question banks, machine learning-assisted assessment systems, LMS-based assessments, and game-based quizzes. By 2024, more advanced technologies, such as virtual laboratory simulations, had become increasingly common, reflecting a major shift toward digital assessment practices in chemistry education.

Technology integration in assessment has been implemented in various forms, particularly in tests and assignments. Digital assessment tools include machine learning-assisted diagnostic tests, LMS-based assessments, quiz-based games, and instruments such as the Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Inventory (MLLI). In assignment-based assessment, cloud-supported technologies such as smart worksheets, concept maps, online laboratory reports, and collaborative reflective notes using platforms such as Google Docs have become increasingly utilized in general chemistry laboratory assessment.

Several studies also demonstrated that technology-enhanced assessment practices improve assessment efficiency, provide real-time feedback, and support students’ self-reflection and independent learning (Beerepoot, 2023; Muteti et al., 2022; Shepherd & Garrett-Roe, 2024). In addition, electronic question banks and flexible online assessment systems were found to support active learning by enabling students to access practice materials both inside and outside the classroom, thereby improving conceptual understanding, learning engagement, and learner autonomy (Hagos & Andargie, 2024; Ling et al., 2024). The review also revealed that several assessment practices have begun integrating conceptual understanding with 21st-century skills, including scientific argumentation, metacognition, causal reasoning, experimental data analysis, and experimental design skills. Alternative assessment approaches, such as multidimensional rubrics, inquiry-based assessment, and reflective notes, were reported to improve not only students’ conceptual understanding but also their scientific argumentation and reflective thinking skills. In laboratory contexts, inquiry-based assessments remain widely used approaches because they provide opportunities for students to engage in authentic scientific investigations, ranging from experimental design to data analysis and scientific argument construction.

These findings indicate that future research will likely continue expanding the use of technology-enhanced assessment to support real-time feedback and multidimensional skill assessment. In developed countries, future assessment research may increasingly focus on advanced technologies such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), artificial intelligence, and immersive laboratory assessment systems. Meanwhile, in developing countries, research is more likely to prioritize affordable, accessible, and contextually relevant technologies, including mobile-based applications, cloud-supported formative assessment systems, and low-cost digital platforms.

Nevertheless, several challenges remain. Limited internet access, inadequate educational infrastructure, budget constraints, data security concerns, and the need to align educational regulations with rapidly evolving assessment technologies continue to hinder the broader implementation of digital assessment practices. Furthermore, the growing diversity of assessment tools and technologies requires additional professional development and training for educators to ensure the effective implementation of technology-enhanced assessment strategies in general chemistry education.

The PRISMA 2020 checklist, PRISMA flow diagram, and the dataset underlying this systematic literature review (including the study extraction table) are openly available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0 1.0 Universal) public domain dedication. The repository record is accessible at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HSMEA (Oktariani et al., 2026). The repository contains the following materials:

Formal citation:

Oktariani, Nahadi, Munawaroh, H. S. H., Rusyati, L., Baruri, A., Mellyzar, Almubarak, Nabuasa, D. A. (2026). Systematic Review of Assessment in General Chemistry: Trends, Digital Innovations, and Integration of Theory-Laboratory Course. Open Science Framework (OSF). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HSMEA

Licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal.

•  Abaniel A: Development and validation of 21st century skill instrument in Physics. Int. Educ. Res. J. 2017; 3(9): 18–19.
•  Abell TN, Sevian H: Investigating How Teachers’ Formative Assessment Practices Change across a Year. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(9): 2799–2808. Publisher Full Text
•  Aguirre-Mendez C, Chen YC, Terada T, et al.: Predicting Components of Argumentative Writing and Achievement Gains in a General Chemistry Course for Nonmajor College Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97(8): 2045–2056. Publisher Full Text
•  Alexander B, Owen S, Thames CB: Exploring differences and relationships between online formative and summative assessments in Mississippi career and technical education. Asian Assoc. Open Univ. J. 2020; 15(3): 335–349. Publisher Full Text
•  Alkan F: The effect of alternative assessment techniques on chemistry competency perceptions and chemistry success of prospective science teachers. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2013; 12(6): 774–783. Publisher Full Text
•  Alotaibi K: Teachers’ Perceptions on Factors Influence Adoption of Formative Assessment. J. Educ. Learn. 2019; 8(1): 74–86. Publisher Full Text
•  Arsad NM, Osman K, Soh TMT: Instrument development for 21st century skills in Biology. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011; 15(June 2015): 1470–1474. Publisher Full Text
•  Asmussen G, Rodemer M, Bernholt S: Blooming student difficulties in dealing with organic reaction mechanisms - an attempt at systemization. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023; 24(3): 1035–1054. Publisher Full Text
•  Atkinson MB, Bretz SL: Measuring Changes in Undergraduate Chemistry Students’ Reasoning with Reaction Coordinate Diagrams: A Longitudinal, Multi-institution Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(4): 1064–1076. Publisher Full Text
•  Atkinson MB, Popova M, Croisant M, et al.: Development of the Reaction Coordinate Diagram Inventory: Measuring Student Thinking and Confidence. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97(7): 1841–1851. Publisher Full Text
•  Aydin-Gunbatar S, Akin FN: Pre-service chemistry teachers’ use of pedagogical transformation competence to develop topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for planning to teach acid-base equilibrium. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 23(1): 137–158. Publisher Full Text
•  Bachtiar RA, Nahadi N, Firman H: The development of an instruments diagnostic two-tier multiple choice assisted smartphone on salt hydrolysis. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020; 1469(1): 012085. Publisher Full Text
•  Balabanoff M, Al Fulaiti H, DeKorver B, et al.: Development of the Water Instrument: a comprehensive measure of students’ knowledge of fundamental concepts in general chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021; 23(2): 348–360. Publisher Full Text
•  Beerepoot MTP: Formative and Summative Automated Assessment with Multiple-Choice Question Banks. J. Chem. Educ. 2023; 100(8): 2947–2955. Publisher Full Text
•  Bretz S, Murata Mayo A: Development of the flame test concept inventory: Measuring student thinking about atomic emission. J. Chem. Educ. 2018; 95(1): 17–27. Publisher Full Text
•  Bruce K, Reyes KMD, Shetranjiwalla S: Connecting the periodic table to the planet with systems, life cycle and circularity thinking. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023; 32(September 2022): 101018. Publisher Full Text
•  Burrows NL, Ouellet J, Joji J, et al.: Alternative Assessment to Lab Reports: A Phenomenology Study of Undergraduate Biochemistry Students’ Perceptions of Interview Assessment. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(5): 1518–1528. Publisher Full Text
•  Bylander J, Gustafsson M: Improved content mastery and written communication through a lab-report assignment with peer review: An example from a quantum engineering course. Eur. J. Phys. 2021; 42(2): 025701. Publisher Full Text
•  Chandrasegaran AL, Treagust D, Mocerino M: Diagnostic, The development of a two-tier multiple-choice instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability Multiple, to describe and explain chemical reactions using levels of representation. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007; 8(3): 293–307. Publisher Full Text
•  Christenson N, Walan S: Developing Pre-service Teachers’ Competence in Assessing Socioscientific Argumentation. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2023; 34(1): 1–23. Publisher Full Text
•  Cobbold C, Wright L: Use of Formative Feedback to Enhance Summative Performance. Anatol. J. Educ. 2021; 6(1): 109–116. Publisher Full Text
•  Coyte E, Lowry RB: Paired Online Laboratory Assessments: Formative Engagement and Summative Attainment. J. Chem. Educ. 2024; 101(8): 3514–3521. Publisher Full Text
•  Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M: Undertaking a Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Approach. Br. J. Nurs. 2008; 17(1): 38–43. PubMed Abstract Reference Source
•  Dalby D, Swan M: Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in mathematics classrooms. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019; 50(2): 832–845. Publisher Full Text
•  Den Otter MJ, Juurlink LBF, Janssen FJJM: How to Assess Students’ Structure-Property Reasoning? J. Chem. Educ. 2022; 99(10): 3396–3405. Publisher Full Text
•  Edwards NY: Out-of-class assessment activities for feedback in a general, organic, and biochemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(5): 1539–1547. Publisher Full Text
•  Eitemüller C, Trauten F, Striewe M, et al.: Digitalization of Multistep Chemistry Exercises with Automated Formative Feedback. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2023; 32(3): 453–467. Publisher Full Text
•  Flesch MM, Humphrey NJ, Mang SA: Virtual Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Prelabs Improve Student Understanding of Analytical Chemistry Concepts and Instrumentation. J. Chem. Educ. 2024; 101(3): 941–948. Publisher Full Text
•  Fringer VS, Farley ER, Mandery K, et al.: Steps in the Right Direction: A Quasi-experimental Comparison of an Inquiry-Based and a Traditional First-Year Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2022; 99(12): 3923–3931. Publisher Full Text
•  Ganajová M, Sotáková I, Lukáč S, et al.: Formative assessment as a tool to enhance the development of inquiry skills in science education. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2021; 20(2): 204–222. Publisher Full Text
•  Gao R, Lloyd J, Emenike BU, et al.: Using Guiding Questions to Promote Scientific Practices in Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(12): 3731–3738. Publisher Full Text
•  Greenstein L: Assesing 21st Century Skills: A Guide to Evaluating Mastery and Authentic Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: 2012.
•  Hadas B, Herscovitz O, Dori YJ: Analysis of online assignments designed by chemistry teachers based on their knowledge and self-regulation. Chem. Teach. Int. 2023; 5(2): 189–201. Publisher Full Text
•  Hagos T, Andargie D: Effects of formative assessment with technology on students’ meaningful learning in chemistry equilibrium concepts. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2024; 25(1): 276–299. Publisher Full Text
•  Hensen C, Glinowiecka-Cox G, Barbera J: Assessing Differences between Three Virtual General Chemistry Experiments and Similar Hands-On Experiments. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97(3): 616–625. Publisher Full Text
•  Hosbein KN, Alvarez-Bell R, Callis-Duehl KL, et al.: Development of the Investigation Design, Explanation, and Argument Assessment for General Chemistry i Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(2): 293–306. Publisher Full Text
•  Hosbein K, Walker J: Assessment of Scientific Practice Proficiency and Content Understanding Following an Inquiry-Based Laboratory Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2022; 99(12): 3833–3841. Publisher Full Text
•  Hu S, Chen W, Huiping H, et al.: Coaching to develop leadership for healthcare managers: a mixed-method systematic review protocol. Syst. Rev. 2022; 11(1): 1–7. Publisher Full Text
•  Huynh QT, Yang YC: Impact of fill-in-the-nodes concept maps on low prior-knowledge students learning chemistry: a study on the learning achievements and attitude toward concept maps. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023; 25(1): 360–374. Publisher Full Text
•  Jack B: A psychometric analysis of the chemical concepts inventory. J. Chem. Educ. 2013; 90(5): 546–553. Publisher Full Text
•  Kapici HO, Akcay H, Koca EE: Comparison of the Quality of Written Scientific Arguments in Different Laboratory Environments. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2022; 20(1): 69–88. Publisher Full Text
•  Kaushal Kumar B, Spector JM: Formative assessment in complex problem-solving domains: The emerging role of assessment technologies. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2017; 20(4): 312–317.
•  Kaya ON, Kaya Z: The impact of co-design-based formative assessment practices on preservice science teachers’ understanding of chemical concepts in a general chemistry laboratory course. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2024; 25: 996–1017. Publisher Full Text
•  Keiner L, Graulich N: Beyond the beaker: Students’ use of a scaffold to connect observations with the particle level in the organic chemistry laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021; 22(1): 146–163. Publisher Full Text
•  Keller D, Hermanns J: Development of a self-test for undergraduate chemistry students: How do students solve tasks on basic content knowledge? Chem. Teach. Int. 2024; 6: 65–75. Publisher Full Text
•  Kelley T, Geoff Knowles J, Han J, et al.: Creating a 21st Century Skills Survey Instrument for High School Students. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2019; 7(8): 583–590. Publisher Full Text
•  Kitchenham B: Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University; 2004.
•  Koevoets-Beach C, Julian K, Balabanoff M: “I guess it was more than just my general knowledge of chemistry”: exploring students’ confidence judgments in two-tiered assessments. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023; 24(4): 1243–1261. Publisher Full Text
•  Kolil VK, Muthupalani S, Achuthan K: Virtual experimental platforms in chemistry laboratory education and its impact on experimental self-efficacy. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020; 17(1). Publisher Full Text
•  Lau PN: Enhancing formative and self-assessment with video playback to improve critique skills in a titration laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2020; 21(1): 178–188. Publisher Full Text
•  Lau PN, Teow Y, Low XTT, et al.: Integrating chemistry laboratory-tutorial timetabling with instructional design and the impact on learner perceptions and outcomes. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 24(1): 12–35. Publisher Full Text
•  Lawrie G: Establishing a delicate balance in the relationship between artificial intelligence and authentic assessment in student learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023; 24(2): 392–393. Publisher Full Text
•  Lieber LS, Ibraj K, Caspari-Gnann I, et al.: Closing the gap of organic chemistry students’ performance with an adaptive scaffold for argumentation patterns. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 23(4): 811–828. Publisher Full Text
•  Lin Y-Q, Ding Y, Jiong-Yan L: A literature review of research exploring the experiences of overseas nurses in the United Kingdom (2002–2017). Front. Nurs. 2018; 5(2): 17–30. Publisher Full Text
•  Ling SS, Saffre F, Gater DL, et al.: Computer Quiz Games in General Chemistry for Engineering Majors in an English as a Second Language Environment. J. Chem. Educ. 2024; 101(3): 868–876. Publisher Full Text
•  Mahyan NR, Jaya NH, Rosli L: Formative and Summative Evaluations in Learning Physics. Do They Complement Each Other? Human Behav. Dev. Soc. 2020; 21(3): 30–37.
•  Mardhiya J, Laila FN: Designing Small-scale Chemistry for General Chemistry Practical Work Course. J. Pendidik. IPA. 2022; 8(6): 3102–3109. Publisher Full Text
•  Marks L, Lu H, Chambers T, et al.: Writing-to-learn in introductory materials science and engineering. MRS Commun. 2022; 12(1): 1–11. Publisher Full Text
•  McAlpin JD, Kulatunga U, Lewis JE: Using social influence models to characterize student interest in a general chemistry peer-led team learning setting. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2023; 24(3): 1003–1024. Publisher Full Text
•  McKnelly KJ, Howitz WJ, Lam S, et al.: Extraction on Paper Activity: An Active Learning Technique to Facilitate Student Understanding of Liquid-Liquid Extraction. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97(7): 1960–1965. Publisher Full Text
•  Muteti CZ, Kerr T, Mwavita M, et al.: Blending muddiest point activities with the common formative assessments bolsters the performance of marginalized student populations in general chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 23(2): 452–463. Publisher Full Text
•  Nahadi N, Firman H, Farina J: Effect of feedback in formative assessment in the student learning activities on chemical course to the formation of habits of mind. J. Pendidik. IPA Indones. 2015; 4(1): 36–42.
•  Nahadi N, Siswaningsih W, Apriani DD, et al.: Development of an Electronic Portfolio-Based Assessment Strategy To Improve Student’S Habits of Mind in Buffer Solution Material. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2023; 18(3): 1401–1412.
•  Nainggolan B, Hutabarat W, Situmorang M, et al.: Developing innovative chemistry laboratory workbook integrated with project-based learning and character-based chemistry. Int. J. Instr. 2020; 13(3): 895–908. Publisher Full Text
•  Nguyen TS, Chan JYK, Ha JTK, et al.: Development and implementation of chemistry mindset modules in two general chemistry courses at a hispanic-serving institution: an exploratory study. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2024; 25: 544–559. Publisher Full Text
•  Ochsen S, Bernholt A, Grund S, et al.: Interestingness is in the eye of the beholder–the impact of formative assessment on students’ situational interest in chemistry classrooms. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2023; 45(5): 383–404. Publisher Full Text
•  Oktariani N, Munawaroh HSH, Rusyati L, et al.: Systematic Review of Assessment in General Chemistry: Trends, Digital Innovations, and Integration of Theory-Laboratory Course. Open Science Framework (OSF). 2026. Publisher Full Text
•  Østby L, Sundby E, Jakobsen AN: Authentic Hands-On Learning Approaches for Bulky Student Cohorts in General Chemistry Laboratory Using Case and Peer Assessment. J. Chem. Educ. 2024; 101: 4614–4623. Publisher Full Text
•  Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Boutron I, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: 178–189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
•  Penn M, Mavuru L: Assessing pre-service teachers’ reception and attitudes towards virtual laboratory experiments in life sciences. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2020; 19(6): 1092–1105. Publisher Full Text
•  Peretz R, Dori D, Dori YJ: Developing and assessing pre- and in-service science and engineering teachers’ systems thinking and modeling skills through an asynchronous online course. Front. Educ. 2023; 8(April): 1–22. Publisher Full Text
•  Petritis SJ, Kelley C, Talanquer V: Exploring the impact of the framing of a laboratory experiment on the nature of student argumentation. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021; 22(1): 105–121. Publisher Full Text
•  Rana R, Mahmood N: The relationship between test anxiety and academic achievement. Bull. Educ. Res. 2010; 32(2): 63–74.
•  Schafer AGL, Yezierski EJ: Investigating high school chemistry teachers’ assessment item generation processes for a solubility lab. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021; 22(1): 214–225. Publisher Full Text
•  Schmid M, Brianza E, Petko D: Developing a short assessment instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK.xs) and comparing the factor structure of an integrative and a transformative model. Comp. Educ. 2020; 157(November 2019): 103967. Publisher Full Text
•  Scriven M: The methodology of evaluation (Publication No. 110). Social Science Education Consortium. 1966.
•  Shah L, Fatima A, Syed A, et al.: Investigating the Impact of Assessment Practices on the Performance of Students Perceived to Be at Risk of Failure in Second-Semester General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2022; 99(1): 14–24. Publisher Full Text
•  Shepard LA, Penuel WR, Pellegrino JW: Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2018; 37(1): 21–34. Publisher Full Text
•  Shepherd TD, Garrett-Roe S: Low-Stakes, Growth-Oriented Testing in Large-Enrollment General Chemistry 1: Formulation, Implementation, and Statistical Analysis. J. Chem. Educ. 2024; 101(8): 3097–3106. Publisher Full Text
•  Singh R, Li Z, Foster R, et al.: A Classroom-Based Activity to Teach Students How to Apply Organic Chemistry Theory to Design Experiments. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(2): 515–520. Publisher Full Text
•  Stephenson NS, Duffy EM, Day EL, et al.: Development and Validation of Scientific Practices Assessment Tasks for the General Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97(4): 884–893. Publisher Full Text
•  Stroumpouli C, Tsaparlis G: Chemistry students’ conceptual difficulties and problem solving behavior in chemical kinetics, as a component of an introductory physical chemistry course. Chem. Teach. Int. 2022; 4(3): 279–296. Publisher Full Text
•  Sutiani A, Situmorang M, Silalahi A: Implementation of an Inquiry Learning Model with Science Literacy to Improve Student Critical Thinking Skills. Int. J. Instr. 2021; 14(2): 117–138. Publisher Full Text
•  Sweeder RD, Herrington DG: Formative assessments using text messages to develop students’ ability to provide causal reasoning in general chemistry. Can. J. Chem. 2020; 98(1): 15–23. Publisher Full Text
•  Talbert LE, Bonner J, Mortezaei K, et al.: Revisiting the use of concept maps in a large enrollment general chemistry course: Implementation and assessment. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2020; 21(1): 37–50. Publisher Full Text
•  Tseng YJ, Hong ZR, Lin HS: Advancing students’ scientific inquiry performance in chemistry through reading and evaluative reflection. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 23(3): 616–627. Publisher Full Text
•  Vachliotis T, Salta K, Tzougraki C: Developing Basic Systems Thinking Skills for Deeper Understanding of Chemistry Concepts in High School Students. Think. Skills Creat. 2021; 41(April): 100881. Publisher Full Text
•  Veale CGL, Jeena V, Sithebe S: Prioritizing the Development of Experimental Skills and Scientific Reasoning: A Model for Authentic Evaluation of Laboratory Performance in Large Organic Chemistry Classes. J. Chem. Educ. 2020; 97(3): 675–680. Publisher Full Text
•  Watts FM, Park GY, Petterson MN, et al.: Considering alternative reaction mechanisms: students’ use of multiple representations to reason about mechanisms for a writing-to-learn assignment. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 23(2): 486–507. Publisher Full Text
•  Xiao Y, Watson M: Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019; 39(1): 93–112. Publisher Full Text
•  Yakob M, Sari RP, Hasibuan MP, et al.: the Feasibility of Authentic Assessment Instrument Through Virtual Laboratory Learning and Its Effect on Increasing Students’ Scientific Performance. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2023; 22(4): 631–640. Publisher Full Text
•  Ye L, Eichler JF, Gilewski A, et al.: The impact of coupling assessments on conceptual understanding and connection-making in chemical equilibrium and acid-base chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2020; 21(3): 1000–1012. Publisher Full Text
•  Yik BJ, Dood AJ, Cruz-Ramírez De Arellano D, et al.: Development of a machine learning-based tool to evaluate correct Lewis acid-base model use in written responses to open-ended formative assessment items. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021; 22(4): 866–885. Publisher Full Text
•  Yik BJ, Dood AJ, Frost SJH, et al.: Generalized rubric for level of explanation sophistication for nucleophiles in organic chemistry reaction mechanisms†. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2022; 24(1): 263–282. Publisher Full Text
•  Young SC: Incorporating Interlab Collaborations into the Organic Chemistry Teaching Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(9): 2848–2860. Publisher Full Text
•  Zemel Y, Shwartz G, Avargil S: Preservice teachers’ enactment of formative assessment using rubrics in the inquiry-based chemistry laboratory. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021; 22(4): 1074–1092. Publisher Full Text
•  Zhang H, Wink DJ: Examining an Acid-Base Laboratory Practical Assessment from the Perspective of Evidence-Centered Design. J. Chem. Educ. 2021; 98(6): 1898–1909. Publisher Full Text
•  Zhang M(J), Newton C, Grove J, et al.: Design and assessment of a hybrid chemical engineering laboratory course with the incorporation of student-centred experiential learning. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2020; 30: 1–8. Publisher Full Text
•  Zheng X, Luo L, Liu C: Facilitating Undergraduates’ Online Self-Regulated Learning: The Role of Teacher Feedback. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2023; 32(6): 805–816. Publisher Full Text

Current Reviewer Status:

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

?