International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

This study describes current practices of assessing physics competence in the Dynamics chapter of Grade 10 Physics in order to inform the design of an assessment toolkit. Data were collected through two questionnaires from 34 teachers and 233 upper secondary students, mostly in Lao Cai province, and were analysed with descriptive statistics. Cronbach’s α of the scales ranged from 0.913 to 0.983. Teachers used paper-based assessment tools (M = 3.89) more often than process-oriented tools (M = 3.20), and rubrics and peer assessment were used least. Teachers rated their understanding of the structure of physics competence as fairly good (M = 3.63), while 47.1% correctly identified all three competence components. Students reported lower frequencies than teachers for written tests, context-based tasks and experiments, and 49.1% of students named experimental inquiry as the task group assessed least often. Of the teachers, 82.4% considered a chapter-specific assessment toolkit necessary, provided that training is conducted on the chapter content itself and that record-keeping time is reduced. The findings suggest that the toolkit should include content-specific behavioural indicators, experimental tasks with rubrics, and criterion-referenced feedback templates.

competence-based assessment, physics competence, teacher assessment literacy, rubric, Dynamics

1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
3. DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Approaches to classroom assessment inventory: A new instrument to support teacher assessment literacy. Educational Assessment, 21(4), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1236677
4. Dương, T. T. H., Phạm, Q. M., Vũ, T. A., & Bùi, T. N. (2024). Thực trạng đánh giá năng lực và phẩm chất học sinh trung học phổ thông theo Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông 2018 [Current status of assessing upper secondary students’ competencies and qualities under the 2018 General Education Curriculum]. Vietnam Journal of Education, 24(Special Issue 13), 264–270. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/view/3462
5. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nurhanis-Roslan-2/post/Im_searching_for_a_short_article_that_explains_the_value_of_feedback_feed_forward/attachment/59d64f6279197b80779a888a/AS%3A497433086234625%401495608697734/download/power-feedback.pdf 
6. Lê, T. M. L., & Võ, N. T. A. (2022). Năng lực dạy học thí nghiệm của sinh viên sư phạm: Nghiên cứu thực trạng tại Trường Đại học Sư phạm Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh [Pre-service teachers’ competence in teaching with experiments: A study at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education]. Vietnam Journal of Education, 22(20), 60–64. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/download/574/335/390
7. Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông môn Vật lí [General education curriculum for Physics] (Issued with Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT of 26 December 2018). 
8. Ministry of Education and Training. (2021). Thông tư số 22/2021/TT-BGDĐT quy định về đánh giá học sinh trung học cơ sở và học sinh trung học phổ thông [Circular No. 22/2021/TT-BGDĐT on the assessment of lower and upper secondary students]. 
9. Nguyễn, T. H. H., Trần, V. N., & Nguyễn, T. N. (2022). Xây dựng bài tập phát triển năng lực vật lí cho học sinh trong dạy học chủ đề “Khí lí tưởng” (Vật lí 12) [Designing exercises to develop students’ physics competence in teaching the topic “Ideal gas” (Physics 12)]. Vietnam Journal of Education, 22(14), 18–23. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/download/476/251/291
10. Nguyễn, T. K. C., Huỳnh, T. P. T., & Đào, X. H. (2026). Dạy học Vật lí theo định hướng phát triển năng lực trong bối cảnh chuẩn hóa thi cử: Đề xuất quy trình và kết quả thực nghiệm [Competence-oriented physics teaching in the context of standardised examinations: A proposed procedure and experimental results]. Vietnam Journal of Education, 26(Special Issue 5), 223–230. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/view/5373
11. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Pinedo, L., & Fernández-Castilla, B. (2023). Effects of rubrics on academic performance, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), Article 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4
12. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
13. Vũ, P. L., Vũ, D. N., & Lê, T. H. (2024). Thực trạng nhận thức và thực hành đánh giá học sinh của giáo viên tiểu học theo tiếp cận năng lực [Primary teachers’ awareness and practice of competence-based student assessment]. Vietnam Journal of Education, 24(2), 44–50. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/download/1369/699/966
14. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1507217/
15. Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010