Formative assessment as mediation

Perspectives in Education

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 39-47

  De Vos, Mark ^a   Belluigi, Dina Zoë ^a  

^a RHODES UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Arbitration; Bloom's Taxonomy; CRA; Criterion Referenced Assessment; Formative assessment; Mediation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865214024     PISSN: 02582236     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Biggs J 1999. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18:57-75.
2. Biggs J 2003. Teaching for quality learning at University of Buckingham. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
3. Black P & Wiliam D 1988. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: N F E R Nelson Publishing Company.
4. Bloom B 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, Cognitive domain. London: Longman.
5. Boughey C 2004. Higher education in South Africa: Context, mission and legislation. In: S Gravett & H Geyser (eds). Teaching and learning in higher education. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Boulle L 2005. Mediation: Principles, process, practice. Sydney: Butterworths. Douglas K & Field R 2006. Looking for answers to mediation's neutrality dilemma in therapeutic jurisprudence. Elaw Journal, 13:177-201.
6. Elander J, Harrington J, Norton L, Robinson H & Reddy P 2006. Complex skills and academic writing: A review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core assessment Ccriteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31:71-90. (Pubitemid 43315422)
7. Field R 2002. Neutrality and power: Myths and reality. Retrieved from http://www.mediate.com/articles/fieldR.cfm on 14 July 2010.
8. Francis H & Hallam S 2000. Genre effects on higher education students' text reading for understanding. Higher Education, 39:279-296.
9. Glaser R 1963. Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18:519-521.
10. Gordon J 2004. The 'wow' factors: The assessment of practical media and creative arts subjects. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 3:61-72.
11. Grice P 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P Cole and J Morgan (eds). Syntax and semantics, speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
12. Hammer S 2007. Demonstrating quality outcomes in learning and teaching: Examining 'best practice' in the use of criterion-referenced assessment. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 3:50-58.
13. Hussey T & Smith P 2002. The trouble with learning outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3:220-233.
14. Jacobs S 2002. Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics, 34:1403-1426.
15. Killen R 2003. Validity in outcomes-based assessment. Perspectives in Education, 21:1-14.
16. Knight P 2001. Complexity and curriculum: A process approach to curriculum-making. Teaching in Higher Education, 6:369-381.
17. Knight P & Yorke M 2008. Assessment close up: The limits of exquisite descriptions of achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 47:175-183.
18. Krathwohl D 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41:212-218.
19. Maiese M 2005. Neutrality. In: G Burgess & H Burgess (eds). Beyond intractability. Boulder, Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium.
20. Millman J 1994. Criterion-referenced testing 30 years later: Promise broken, promise kept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Winter:19-39.
21. Morrow W 2007. Learning to teach in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
22. Niven P 2009. Quit school and become a taxi driver: Reframing first-year students' expectations of assessment in a university environment. Perspectives in Education, 27:278-288.
23. O'Donovan B, Price M & Rust C 2000. The student experience of criterion-referenced assessment (through the introduction of a common criteria assessment grid). Innovations in Education Teaching International, 38:74-85.
24. O'Donovan B, Price M & Rust C 2004. Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9:325-335.
25. Parker J 2003. Reconceptualizing the curriculum: From commoditization to transformation. Teaching in Higher Education, 8:529-543.
26. Perry W 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
27. Popham W 1993. Educational testing in America: What's right, what's wrong: A criterion-referenced perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Spring:11-14.
28. Price M 2005. Assessment standards: The role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30:215-230. (Pubitemid 40350572)
29. Reed Y, Granville S, Janks H, Makoe P, Stein P, Van Zyl S & Samuel M 2002. Unreliable assessment: A case study. Perspectives in Education, 21:15-27.
30. Sadler R 2005. Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20:175-194.
31. Shay S 2004. The assessment of complex performance: A socially-situated interpretive act. Harvard Educational Review, 74:307-329.Shay S 2005. The assessment of complex tasks: A double reading. Studies in Higher Education, 30:663-679.
32. Shay S 2008. Beyond social constructivist perspectives on assessment: The centering of knowledge. Teaching in Higher Education, 13:595-605.
33. Shay S & Jawitz J 2005. Assessment and the quality of educational programmes: What constitutes evidence? Perspectives in Education, 23:103-112. (Pubitemid 40815986)
34. Silbey S & Merry S 1986. Mediator settlement strategies. Law and Policy, 8:7-32.
35. Singh M 2001. Reinserting the 'public good' into higher education transformation. Kagisano Higher Education Discussion Series, 1:8-18.
36. Sizmur S & Sainsbury M 1997. Criterion referencing and the meaning of national curriculum assessment. British Journal of Educational Studies, 45:123-140.
37. Smith J 2003. Reconsidering reliability in classroom assessment and grading. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Spring:26-33.
38. Spady W 1994. Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
39. Strathern M 2000. The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26:309-321.
40. Wiggens G 1990. The case for authentic assessment. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 2. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v= 2&n=2 on 5 November 2010.