Creation of formative and pedagogical assessment guides and rubrics for organic chemistry at the undergraduate level with AI for implementation in AulaWeb
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63688/pbqd5p77Keywords:
formative assessment, rubrics, artificial intelligence, organic chemistry, higher educationAbstract
Organic chemistry assessment must evaluate not only final answers but also conceptual understanding, molecular representation, mechanistic reasoning, and the ability to correct errors. This review analyzed evidence on formative assessment, rubrics, and artificial intelligence applied to chemistry education to establish a proposal for undergraduate guides and rubrics in AulaWeb. A systematic review with qualitative synthesis was conducted and reported according to PRISMA 2020. Twenty-two full-text publications were assessed; 18 directly answered the review questions and were incorporated into the analysis matrix, while four were used only as theoretical or methodological support. The studies were grouped into four categories: formative assessment and rubrics, artificial intelligence in higher education, artificial intelligence in science and chemistry, and applications in organic chemistry. Findings indicate that rubrics are most useful when they include observable criteria, differentiated levels, action-oriented feedback, and opportunities for revision. Artificial intelligence can support the generation of activities, descriptors, and preliminary comments, but it may also produce plausible explanations containing chemical errors. An AulaWeb implementation model based on orientation, development, self-assessment, feedback, and resubmission is proposed. Artificial intelligence should therefore operate as pedagogical assistance under disciplinary validation and teacher supervision.
References
Black, P., y Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Bond, M., Khosravi, H., de Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., y Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
Brookhart, S. M., y Chen, F. (2015). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67(3), 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.929565
Carless, D., y Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Clark, T. M. (2023). Investigating the use of an artificial intelligence chatbot with general chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(5), 1905–1916. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027
Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y
Costa, G. G., Nascimento Junior, W. J. D., Mombelli, M. N., y Girotto Junior, G. (2024). Revisiting a teaching sequence on the topic of electrolysis: A comparative study with the use of artificial intelligence. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(8), 3255–3263. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00247
Crompton, H., y Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
Du, H., Jia, Q., Gehringer, E., y Wang, X. (2024). Harnessing large language models to auto-evaluate the student project reports. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 100268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100268
Erümit, A. K., y Özdemir Sarıalioğlu, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence in science and chemistry education: A systematic review. Discover Education, 4, Article 178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00622-3
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., y Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., y Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Harwood, C. J., Hewett, S., y Towns, M. H. (2020). Rubrics for assessing hands-on laboratory skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(7), 2033–2035. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00200
Nicol, D. J., y Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Okoth, R. (2025). Using Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in undergraduate organic chemistry lecture courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 102(7), 3004–3009. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01538
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, Article 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Panadero, E., y Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
Ruff, E. F., Franz, J. L., y West, J. K. (2024). Using ChatGPT for method development and green chemistry education in upper-level laboratory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(8), 3224–3232. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00193
Tassoti, S. (2024). Assessment of students use of generative artificial intelligence: Prompting strategies and prompt engineering in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(6), 2475–2482. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00212
Watts, F. M., Dood, A. J., Shultz, G. V., y Rodriguez, J. M. G. (2023). Comparing student and generative artificial intelligence chatbot responses to organic chemistry writing-to-learn assignments. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(10), 3806–3817. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00664
Yik, B. J., y Dood, A. J. (2024). ChatGPT convincingly explains organic chemistry reaction mechanisms slightly inaccurately with high levels of explanation sophistication. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(5), 1836–1846. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00235
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., y Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 José Julio Barriga Jiménez, Ledys Alejandra Barliza Daza, Alcides Antonio Torregroza Mozo, Jessica Andrea Plazas Moreno, Javier Sair Molina Daza (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
