University students’ perceptions of summative assessment: The role of context

Journal of Further and Higher Education

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 785-801

  Iannone, Paola ^a   Simpson, Adrian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

academic disciplines; education; epistemic beliefs; mathematics; Summative assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84969179543     PISSN: 0309877X     EISSN: 14699486     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2016.1177172     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Attride-Stirling, J., 2001. “Thematic Networks:An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research 1 (3):385–405. 10.1177/146879410100100307
2. Becher, T., 1994. “The Significance of Disciplinary Differences.” Studies in Higher Education 19 (2):151–161. 10.1080/03075079412331382007
3. Biglan, A., 1973. “The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3):195–203. 10.1037/h0034701
4. Birenbaum, M., 1994. “Towards Adaptive Assessment - the Students’ Angle.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 20:239–255. 10.1016/0191-491X(94)90011-6
5. Birenbaum, M., 2007. “Assessment and Instruction Preferences and Their Relationship with Test Anxiety and Learning Strategies.” Higher Education 53 (6):749–768. 10.1007/s10734-005-4843-4
6. Birenbaum, M., K., Breuer, E., Cascallar, F., Dochy, Y., Dori, J., Ridgway, R., Wiesemes, and G., Nickmans. 2006. “A Learning Integrated Assessment System.” Educational Research Review 1 (1):61–67. 10.1016/j.edurev.2006.01.001
7. Black, P., C., Harrison, C., Lee, B., Marshall, and D., Wiliam. 2004. “Working inside the Black Box:Assessment for Learning in the Classroom.” Phi Delta Kappan 86 (1):8–21. 10.1177/003172170408600105
8. Brown, S., 2004. “Assessment for Learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1:81–89.
9. DfE. 2013. Education and Training Statistics for the UK:2013. London:Department for Education.
10. Furnham, A., and Batey M., and Martin N. 2011. “How Would You like to Be Evaluated? The Correlates of Students’ Preferences for Assessment Methods.” Personality and Individual Differences 50:259–263. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.040
11. Furnham, A., and T., Chamorro-Premuzic. 2005. “Individual Differences and Beliefs concerning Preferences for University Assessment Methods.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35:1986–1994.
12. Gielen, S., F., Dochy, and S., Dierick. 2003. “Evaluating the Consequential Validity of New Modes of Assessment:The Influence of Assessment on Learning, including Pre-, Post-, and True Assessment Effects.” In Optimising New Modes of Assessment:In Search of Qualities and Standards, edited by M., Segers, F., Dochy and E., Cascallar, 37–54. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/0-306-48125-1
13. Gijbels, D., and F., Dochy. 2006. “Students’ Assessment Preferences and Approaches to Learning:Can Formative Assessment Make a Difference?.” Educational Studies 32 (4):399–409. 10.1080/03055690600850354
14. Guest, G., A., Bunce, and L., Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods. 18 (1):59–82. 10.1177/1525822X05279903
15. Harlen, W., and R. D., Crick. 2003. “Testing and Motivation for Learning.” Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy and Practice 10:169–207. 10.1080/0969594032000121270
16. Iannone, P., and A., Simpson. 2013. “Students’ Perceptions of Assessment in Undergraduate Mathematics.” Research in Mathematics Education 15 (1):17–32.
17. Iannone, P., and A., Simpson. 2015. “Students’ Preferences in Undergraduate Mathematics Assessment.” Studies in Higher Education 40:1046–1067.
18. Johnson, B., and L. A., Turner. 2003. “Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Methods Research.” In The Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, edited by A., Tashakkori and C., Teddlie, 297–319. London:Sage.
19. Joughin, G., 2010. “The Hidden Curriculum Revisited:A Critical Review of Research into the Influence of Summative Assessment on Learning.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (3):335–345.
20. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G., Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
21. Marton F., and R., Saljo. 1997. “Approaches to Learning.” In The Experience of Learning. Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education, edited by F., Marton, D., Hounsell and N., Entwistle, 36–55. Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press.
22. Medland, E., 2014. “Assessment in Higher Education:Drivers, Barriers and Directions for Change in the UK.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education:1–16. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.982072.
23. Op ‘t Eynde P., De Corte E., and Verschaffel, L. 2006. “Epistemic Dimensions of Students’ Mathematics-Related Belief Systems.” International Journal of Educational Research 45:57–70. 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.004
24. Reynolds, M., and Michael, R., 2013. Group Work in Education and Training. Routledge.
25. Sambell, K., L., McDowell, and S., Brown. 1997. “`but is It Fair?’:An Exploratory Study of Students’ Perception of the Consequential Validity of Assessment.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 23:349–371. 10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3
26. Scouller, K., 1998. “The Influence of Assessment Method on Students Learning Approaches:Multiple Choice Question Examination versus Assignment Essay.” Higher Education 35:453–472. 10.1023/A:1003196224280
27. Simpson, A., 2015. “Assessment and Its Outcomes:The Influence of Disciplines and Institutions.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education:1–21. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1052369.
28. Struyven, K., F., Dochy, and S., Janssens. 2005. “Students’ Perceptions about Evaluation and Assessment in Higher Education:A Review.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30:331–347.
29. Traub, R. E., and K., MacRury. 1990. “Multiple Choice Vs. Free Response in the Testing of Scholastic Achievement.” In Tests Und Trends 8:Jahrbuch Der Paedagogischen Diagnostik, edited by K., Ingenkamp and R. S., Jager, 128–159. Weinheim and Basel:Beltz.
30. Zeidner, M., 1987. “Essay versus Multiple-Choice Type Classroom Exams:The Student’s Perspective.” The Journal of Educational Research 80 (6):352–358. 10.1080/00220671.1987.10885782