SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 3

Authentic assessment for NoST in secondary science: A systematic literature network analysis

Euis Nursaadah(Bengkulu University)0000-0001-9518-7004
Annida Nurul Shabrina(Bengkulu University)0009-0006-3302-6129
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-02
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings can serve as a foundation for evidence-based policy recommendations and guidelines, informing future research priorities in science education assessment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Traditional assessment methods are often considered inadequate for evaluating Nature of Science and Technology (NoST) understanding, as they tend to reduce complex epistemological concepts to factual recall.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Conversely, authentic assessment (AA) shows significant potential but lacks thorough evaluation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings can serve as a foundation for evidence-based policy recommendations and guidelines, informing future research priorities in science education assessment.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2015-2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Authentic assessment (AA) · Nature of science and technology (NoST) · Systematic literature network analysis (SLNA)

Abstract

Traditional assessment methods are often considered inadequate for evaluating Nature of Science and Technology (NoST) understanding, as they tend to reduce complex epistemological concepts to factual recall. Conversely, authentic assessment (AA) shows significant potential but lacks thorough evaluation. This study employs a systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) approach, integrating systematic review with bibliometric analysis to examine AA's effectiveness in enhancing NoST understanding in secondary science education. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines searched Scopus (2015-2025) using the PICO framework to compare AA with conventional methods. Bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer examined 1700 keywords from 384 articles to identify thematic clusters and research development patterns. Results from 16 high-quality studies with 2500 participants demonstrated a substantial beneficial effect size for AA (g = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.53-0.83), equivalent to approximately 25% improvement in NoST comprehension. Bibliometric analysis identified nine thematic clusters, with performance assessment emerging as the dominant AA design. The 95% consistency between systematic review findings and bibliometric patterns reinforces the reliability of results. Temporal analysis reveals a research transition from fundamental to innovation phases, emphasizing technology-enhanced assessment. Teacher training programs exceeding 20 hours were identified as significant predictors of success in measuring and enhancing NoST comprehension. SLNA provides substantial evidence that AA is more effective in enhancing NoST understanding and offers an innovative methodology for synthesizing educational research. These findings can serve as a foundation for evidence-based policy recommendations and guidelines, informing future research priorities in science education assessment.

Özet

Traditional assessment methods are often considered inadequate for evaluating Nature of Science and Technology (NoST) understanding, as they tend to reduce complex epistemological concepts to factual recall. Conversely, authentic assessment (AA) shows significant potential but lacks thorough evaluation. This study employs a systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) approach, integrating systematic review with bibliometric analysis to examine AA's effectiveness in enhancing NoST understanding in secondary science education. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines searched Scopus (2015-2025) using the PICO framework to compare AA with conventional methods. Bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer examined 1700 keywords from 384 articles to identify thematic clusters and research development patterns. Results from 16 high-quality studies with 2500 participants demonstrated a substantial beneficial effect size for AA (g = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.53-0.83), equivalent to approximately 25% improvement in NoST comprehension. Bibliometric analysis identified nine thematic clusters, with performance assessment emerging as the dominant AA design. The 95% consistency between systematic review findings and bibliometric patterns reinforces the reliability of results. Temporal analysis reveals a research transition from fundamental to innovation phases, emphasizing technology-enhanced assessment. Teacher training programs exceeding 20 hours were identified as significant predictors of success in measuring and enhancing NoST comprehension. SLNA provides substantial evidence that AA is more effective in enhancing NoST understanding and offers an innovative methodology for synthesizing educational research. These findings can serve as a foundation for evidence-based policy recommendations and guidelines, informing future research priorities in science education assessment.

🔖

Cite This Article

Nursaadah, E., Shabrina, A. N. (2026). Authentic assessment for NoST in secondary science: A systematic literature network analysis. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 13 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1839496

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Agostini, D., & Lazareva, A. (2024). Advancements in technology-enhanced assessment in tertiary education. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 1 7. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.10122
  2. Alabidi, S., Al Arabi, K., Alsalhi, N., & Mansoori, M. (2024). The dawn of ChatGPT: Transformation in science assessment. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 106(2023), 321 337. https://ejer.com.tr/article-view/?id=1417
  3. Alanazi, F., Khalaf, M., Alzamil, M., & Almufti, A.N. (2023). Science teachers’ perceptions of the cultural factors influencing students’ science learning: comparative analysis of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Yemen. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(3), 534 548. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.030
  4. Alavi, M. (2025). Challenges of cross-cultural validation of clinical assessment measures: A practical introduction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 82, 941-949. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16906
  5. Antonio, D., Alarcon, U., Talavera-Mendoza, F., Hugo, F., Paucar, R., Sandra, K., & Caceres, C. (2022). Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1170487. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487
  6. Badmus, O.T., & Jita, L.C. (2025). Nature of science representations in South African Grade 10 physical sciences textbook on waves, sound and light. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, Article 101848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101848
  7. Chang, S., & Chiu, M. (2005). The development of authentic assessments to investigate ninth graders’ scientific literacy: In the case of scientific cognition concerning the concepts of chemistry and physics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 117 140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-5239-0
  8. Clarke-Midura, J., Code, J., Zap, N., & Dede, C. (2012). Assessing science inquiry: A case study of the virtual performance assessment project. In L. Lennex & K. Nettleton (Eds.), Cases on inquiry through instructional technology in math and science (pp. 138-164). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0068-3.ch006
  9. Cullinane, A., & Erduran, S. (2023). Nature of science in preservice science teacher education–case studies of Irish pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(2), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2042978
  10. Dritsas, E., & Trigka, M. (2025). Methodological and technological advancements in e-learning. Information, 16, Article 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16010056
  11. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z.R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Springer.
  12. Garcia, M.B., Rosak-Szyrocka, J., Yılmaz, R., Metwally, A.H., Acut, D.P., Ofosu-Ampong, K., Erdoğdu, F., Fung, C.Y., & Bozkurt, A. (2025). Rethinking educational assessment in the age of generative AI: Actionable strategies to mitigate academic dishonesty. In M. Garcia, J. Rosak-Szyrocka, & A. Bozkurt (Eds.), Pitfalls of AI integration in education: Skill obsolescence, misuse, and bias (pp. 1-24). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-0122-8.ch001
  13. Geraldine, D.V.V., & Simmie, M. (2024). Assessing scientific inquiry: A systematic literature review of tasks, tools and techniques. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23, 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8
  14. Gerondio, L.B., Unabia, W.A.R., Mayang, Z.M., & Alimbon, J.A. (2024). Junior high school students’ views of nature of science: Evidence from a private school in Davao Region, Philippines. International Journal of Science Education, 46(8), 789 812. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2171975
  15. Guyatt, G., Oxman, A.D., Akl, E.A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & Jaeschke, R. (2011). GRADE guidelines: Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 383 394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
  16. Hairida. (2016). The effectiveness using inquiry based natural science module with authentic assessment to improve the critical thinking and inquiry skills of junior high school student. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 209-215. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/jpii/article/view/7681/5453
  17. Hamel, P., & Lee, W.K. (2024). Supporting the evaluation of authentic assessment in environmental sciences: A case study. Education, 11(1), Article 2399433. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2399433
  18. Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., & Welch, V.A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  19. Ketonen, L. (2020). Pathways through peer assessment: Implementing peer assessment in a lower secondary physics classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1) 1465-1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019- 10030-3
  20. Kim, J.S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 7–19.
  21. Klenowski, V. (2009). Australian Indigenous students: Addressing equity issues in assessment. Teaching Education, 20(1) 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210802681741
  22. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  23. Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Lipnevich, A.A., Mattern, K., Feddock, C., Mattern, K., & Feddock, C. (2025). Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: Amee guide no. 189. Medical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2569623
  25. Mammadova, I., & Aliyeva, E. (2025). The role of artificial intelligence in shaping assessment practices in higher education. Educational Process: International Journal, 18, Article e2025439. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.18.439
  26. Manassero-Mas, M., & Vazquez-Alonso, A. (2021). Science teacher education on nature of science through explicit and reflective curriculum development. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 20(2), 1-29.
  27. Marín-Rodríguez, N.J., Morán, B.V.G., & Gerardou, F.S. (2025). Scientometric analysis of active learning and authentic assessment between 2002 and 2024: Recent trends and further research. In E. Vilalta-Perdomo, A. Scroccaro, D.E. Salinas-Navarro, & R. Michel-Villarreal (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of active learning for authentic assessment (pp. 89-112). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83797-857-120251002
  28. Mnguni, L. (2025). AI as a teaching augmentor: A review of the integration of AI in science education. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8, Article e2025390. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025390
  29. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
  30. Page, M.J., Mckenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, 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. The British Medical Journal, 372, Article 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  31. Patki, M., Sanadi, S., & Jadhav, S. (2023). Ethical implications of utilizing artificial intelligence in education for assessment. In J. Shih, A. Kashihara, W. Chen, & H. Ogata (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st international conference on computers in education. (pp. 600-608). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.58459/icce.2023.1439
  32. Peters-Burton, E.E., & Burton, S.R. (2020). The use of metacognitive prompts to foster nature of science learning. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), Science: Philosophy, history and education (pp. 167-189). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_9
  33. Ruiz-primo, M.A., & Schneider, J. (2008). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: A study that examines students’ scientific explanations (CRESST Report 733). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  34. Rustaman, N.Y., Liliawati, W., Efendi, R., & Rusdiana, D. (2019). Science teacher educator and authentic assessment: Attitude toward NoS and its assessment in science instruction. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(2), Article 022058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742 6596/1157/2/022057
  35. Rustaman, N.Y., Rusdiana, D., Efendi, R., & Liliawati, W. (2017). The workshop program on authentic assessment for science teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 812(2017), Article 012062. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/812/1/012062
  36. Sanusi, N., Zulkifli, H., & Hamzah, M.I. (2025). Challenges, opportunities, and effects of alternative assessment approaches in teaching practices: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(2), 1105 1113. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v14i2.32283
  37. Sembey, R., Hoda, R., & Grundy, J. (2024). Emerging technologies in higher education assessment and feedback practices: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Systems & Software, 211(2024), Article 111988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.111988
  38. Stone, E.M., Science, B., & Initiative, M. (2014). Guiding students to develop an understanding of scientific inquiry: A science skills approach to instruction and assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-12-11-0198
  39. Sukmawati, & Zuhairoh, F. (2019). Authentic assessment based showcase portfolio on learning of mathematical problem solving in senior high school. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1848(1), Article 040003. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4983941
  40. Tawil, M., Amin, M., & Suryansari, K. (2023). Authentic assessment development science to assess student competency. International Journal of Education and Practice, 11(2), 194 206. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v11i2.3294
  41. Taylor, C.S., & Evans, C.M. (2025). Culturally responsive assessment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392217-26
  42. Toma, R.B., & Lederman, N.G. (2022). A comprehensive review of instruments measuring attitudes toward science. Research in Science Education, 52(4), 1273-1295.
  43. Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396
  44. Yucel, R., Blackie, M.A.L., & Yucel, R. (2025). Constructing assessment practices for knowledge building in science science. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(3), 683 699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2411678
  45. Alavi, M. (2025). Challenges of cross-cultural validation of clinical assessment measures: A practical introduction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 82, 941-949. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16906
  46. Antonio, D., Alarcon, U., Talavera-Mendoza, F., Hugo, F., Paucar, R., Sandra, K., & Caceres, C. (2022). Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1170487. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487
  47. Geraldine, D.V.V., & Simmie, M. (2024). Assessing scientific inquiry: A systematic literature review of tasks, tools and techniques. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23, 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8
  48. Guyatt, G., Oxman, A.D., Akl, E.A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & Jaeschke, R. (2011). GRADE guidelines: Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 383 394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026