Managing the sublime aesthetic when communicating an assessment regime: The Burkean Pendulum

Management Learning

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 204-221

  Kofinas, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; assessment regime; communication strategy; student engagement; sublime

Indexed keywords

EID: 85042359138     PISSN: 13505076     EISSN: 14617307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1350507617738864     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Al-Haddad S, Kotnour T, Magala S, (2015) Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 28(2): 234–262.
2. Argyris C, (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(3): 363–375.
3. Argyris C, (1994) Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review 72(4): 77–85.
4. Argyris C, Schön DA, (1999) Organizational Learning. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.
5. Asma S, (2014) Monsters on the brain: An evolutionary epistemology of horror. Social Research 81(4): 941–968.
6. Avildsen JG, (1976) Rocky. Los Angeles: United Artists.
7. Barnett C, (1963) The Swordbearers: Studies in Supreme Command in the First World War. London: Faber & Faber.
8. Beabout BR, (2012) Turbulence, perturbance, and educational change. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 9(2): 15–29.
9. Biggs J, (2003) Aligning Teaching for Constructing Learning. Heslington, York: Higher Education Academy.
10. Biglan A, (1973) The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 195–203.
11. Blasco M, (2015) Conceptualising curricular space in busyness education: An aesthetic approximation. Management Learning 47(2): 117–136.
12. Bourdieu P, Wacquant L, (1999) On the cunning of imperialist reason. Theory, Culture & Society 16(1): 41–58.
13. Boyle D, (2002) 8 Days Later. Los Angeles: Fox Searchlight Pictures.
14. Burke E, (1970/1759) A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. London: Scolar Press.
15. Cameron J, (2009) Avatar. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox.
16. Carson J, (2006) The sublime and education. Journal of Aesthetic Education 40(1): 79–93.
17. Cavanaugh S, (2014) Science sublime: The philosophy of the sublime, Dewey’s aesthetics, and science education. Education and Culture 30(1): 57–77.
18. Clasen M, (2012) Monsters evolve: A biocultural approach to horror stories. Review of General Psychology 16(2): 222–229.
19. Cochrane T, (2012) The emotional experience of the sublime. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42(2): 125–148.
20. Coppola S, (2003) Lost in Translation. Universal City: Focus Features.
21. Dennis D, Al-Obaidi J, (2010) Vanguard, laggard or relic? The possible futures of higher education after the epistemic revolution. First Monday 15(3). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2629/2480
22. Evans DJ, Zeun P, Stanier RA, (2014) Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. Journal of Anatomy 224(3): 296–303.
23. Fawver K, (2013) The Terror of Possibility: A Re-Evaluation and Reconception of the Sublime Aesthetic. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
24. Fernandes S, Flores MA, Lima RM, (2012) Students’ views of assessment in project-led engineering education: Findings from a case study in Portugal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37(2): 163–178.
25. Fincher D, (1995) Se7en. Los Angeles: New Line Cinema.
26. Forgeard MJ, Mecklenburg AC, (2013) The two dimensions of motivation and a reciprocal model of the creative process. Review of General Psychology 17(3): 255–266.
27. Fox S, (2005) An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education 30(1): 95–110.
28. Frank J, (2014) ‘Delightful Horror’: Edmund Burke and the Aesthetics of Democratic Revolution. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.725.7531&rep=rep1&type=pdf
29. Freud S, (1930/2002) Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Penguin Books.
30. Gioka O, (2009) Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education 39(4): 411–428.
31. Greenberg J, Arndt J, (2011) Terror management theory. In: Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Tory Higgins E, (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 398–415.
32. Gulikers JT, Biemans HJ, Wesselink R. (2013) Aligning formative and summative assessments: A collaborative action research challenging teacher conceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation 39(2): 116–124.
33. Hallman RJ, (1965) Aesthetic motivation in the creative arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 23(4): 453–459.
34. Hawkins B, Edwards G, (2013) Managing the monsters of doubt: Liminality, threshold concepts and leadership learning. Management Learning 46(1): 24–43.
35. Heiland D, (2011) Approaching the ineffable: Flow, sublimity, and student learning. In: Heiland D, Rosenthal LJ, (eds) Literary Study, Measurement, and the Sublime: Disciplinary Assessment. New York: Teagle Foundation, 115–132.
36. Hernández R, (2012) Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education 64(4): 489–502.
37. Hu S, McCormick AC, (2012) An engagement-based student typology and its relationship to college outcomes. Research in Higher Education 53(7): 738–754.
38. Hurst DK, (2013) The mongrel discipline of management. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/05/the-mongrel-discipline-of-mana
39. Iannone P, Simpson A, (2016) University students’ perceptions of summative assessment: The role of context. Journal of Further and Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 17 May. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2016.1177172.
40. Ishizu T, Zeki S, (2014) A neurobiological enquiry into the origins of our experience of the sublime and beautiful. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 8: 891–900.
41. Kahu ER, (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38(5): 758–773.
42. Kant I, (1997/1781) Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Kapur M, (2008) Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction 26(3): 379–424.
44. Kapur M, (2016) Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist 51(2): 289–299.
45. Kivunja C, (2015) Why students don’t like assessment and how to change their perceptions in 21st century pedagogies. Creative Education 6(20): 2117–2126.
46. Kolb AY, Kolb DA, (2005) Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(2): 193–212.
47. Kuhn TS, (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
48. López-Pastor VM, Pintor P, Muros B. (2013) Formative assessment strategies and their effect on student performance and on student and tutor workload: The results of research projects undertaken in preparation for greater convergence of universities in Spain within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of Further and Higher Education 37(2): 163–180.
49. Lovecraft H, (2013/1927) Supernatural Horror in Literature. London: Wermod and Wermod.
50. Lu J, Yu C-S, Liu C, (2003) Learning style, learning patterns, and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course. Information & Management 40(6): 497–507.
51. Mack K, (2013) Taking an aesthetic risk in management education: Reflections on an artistic-aesthetic approach. Management Learning 44(3): 286–304.
52. Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G, (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education 56(2): 429–440.
53. Masui C, Broeckmans J, Doumen S. (2014) Do diligent students perform better? Complex relations between student and course characteristics, study time, and academic performance in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 39(4): 621–643.
54. Meyer J, Land R, (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
55. Morel P, (2008) Taken. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox.
56. Newton PE, (2007) Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 14(2): 149–170.
57. Park C-W, (2003) Oldboy. Seoul: Show East.
58. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D. (2008) Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3): 105–119.
59. Pereira D, Flores MA, Niklasson L, (2015) Assessment revisited: A review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 22 June. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233.
60. Price M, O’Donovan B, Lloyd A, (2015) Domains Influencing Student Perceptions of Feedback. Cardiff: Cardiff University; Oxford Brookes University.
61. Pryor J, Crossouard B, (2008) A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education 34(1): 1–20.
62. Radford M, (2001) Aesthetic and religious awareness among pupils: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Music Education 18(2): 151–159.
63. Raupach T, Brown J, Anders S. (2013) Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Medicine 11: 61–71.
64. Rizq R, (2013) States of abjection. Organization Studies 34(9): 1277–1297.
65. Scager K, Akkerman SF, Pilot A. (2014) Challenging high-ability students. Studies in Higher Education 39(4): 659–679.
66. Scott R, (1979) Alien. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox.
67. Shapshay S, (2013) Contemporary environmental aesthetics and the neglect of the sublime. British Journal of Aesthetics 53(2): 181–198.
68. Sievers B, (1986) Beyond the surrogate of motivation. Organization Studies 7(4): 335–351.
69. Soilemetzidis I, Bennett P, Buckley A. (2014) The HEPI–HEA Student Academic Experience Survey 2014. York: HEPI: Higher Education Academy.
70. Stewart M, Darwent S, (2014) Psychological orientations to learning in the second year. In: Milsom C, Stewart M, Yorke M. (eds) Stepping up to the Second Year at University: Academic, Psychological and Social Dimensions. Abingdon: Routledge, 39–53.
71. Sturdy A, Brocklehurst M, Winstanley D. (2006) Management as a (self) confidence trick: Management ideas, education and identity work. Organization 13(6): 841–860.
72. Taras M, Davies MS, (2013) Perceptions and realities in the functions and processes of assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(1): 51–61.
73. Thomas H, Wilson AD, (2011) ‘Physics envy’, cognitive legitimacy or practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK. British Journal of Management 22(3): 443–456.
74. Thompson P, O’Connell Davidson J, (1995) The continuity of discontinuity: Managerial rhetoric in turbulent times. Personnel Review 24(4): 7–33.
75. Tomás-Miquel J-V, Expósito-Langa M, Nicolau-Juliá D, (2016) The influence of relationship networks on academic performance in higher education: A comparative study between students of a creative and a non-creative discipline. Higher Education 71(3): 307–322.
76. Trotter E, (2006) Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31(5): 505–521.
77. Trowler V, (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review. York: Higher Education Academy.
78. Uhrmacher PB, (2009) Toward a theory of aesthetic learning experiences. Curriculum Inquiry 39(5): 613–636.
79. Ward J, Shortt H, (2013) Evaluation in management education: A visual approach to drawing out emotion in student learning. Management Learning 44(5): 435–452.
80. Williams DL, Crittenden VL, Keo T. (2012) The use of social media: An exploratory study of usage among digital natives. Journal of Public Affairs 12(2): 127–136.
81. Yorke M, (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education 45(4): 477–501.
82. Yorke M, (2006) Student engagement: Deep, surface or strategic. In: Keynote address to the 9th Pacific Rim conference on the first year in higher education, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 12–14 July.
83. Zaitseva E, Milsom C, Stewart M, (2014) Shifting perspectives. In: Milsom C, Stewart M, Yorke M. (eds) Stepping up to the Second Year at University: Academic, Psychological and Social Dimensions. Abingdon: Routledge, 24–38.