Educator perspectives on the use of alternative assessment methods within taught Masters programmes: an exploratory study using activity theory and Q methodology

References

• Balogun, J., and V. Hope Hailey 2004. Exploring Strategic Change. (2nd Edition). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, J., and J. Proops. 1999. “Seeking Sustainability Discourses with Q Methodology.” Ecological Economics 28 (3): 337–345.10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevitt, S. 2012. Innovative Assessment Practice – Evaluating and Managing the Impact on Student Experience. HEA Thematic Workshop and Seminar Series 2011–2012.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., and N. Falchikov, eds. 2007. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. 1971. “The Forced-free Distinction in Q-Technique.” Journal of Educational Measurement 8 (4): 283–287.10.1111/jedm.1971.8.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. 1980. Political Subjectivity – Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. 2007. “Learning‐Oriented Assessment: Conceptual Bases and Practical Implications.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44 (1): 57–66.10.1080/14703290601081332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. 2009. “Trust, Distrust and Their Impact on Assessment Reform.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (1): 79–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, H., A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, and S. R. Ludvigsen, eds. 2010. Activity Theory in Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, B. B., K. Blackstock, and F. Rauschmayer. 2005. “‘Recruitment’, ‘Composition’, and ‘Mandate’ Issues in Deliberative Processes: Should We Focus on Arguments rather than Individuals?” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23: 599–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deignan, T. 2013. “Using Diverse System Perspectives to Develop Policy and Practice in an Answerable Way: The Case of Dyslexia Support in Higher Education.” In Reframing Educational Research: Resisting the “What Works” Agenda, edited by V. Farnsworth and Y. Solomon, 119–138. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elwood, J., and V. Klenowski. 2002. “Creating Communities of Shared Practice: The Challenges of Assessment Use in Learning and Teaching.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27 (3): 243–255.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 1999. “Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation.” In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Y. Engeström, et al., 19–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812774
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 2000. Comment on Blackler et al. – Activity Theory and the Social Construction of Knowledge: A Story of Four Umpires. Organization 7 (2): 301–310.10.1177/135050840072006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity-theoretical Reconceptualisation. London: Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 2008. “Weaving the Texture of School Change.” Journal of Educational Change 9: 379–383.10.1007/s10833-008-9086-6
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., and A. Sannino. 2010. “Studies of Expansive Learning: Foundations, Findings and Future Challenges.” Educational Research Review 5: 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., and A. Sannino. 2011. “Discursive Manifestations of Contradictions in Organizational Change Efforts.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 24 (3): 368–387.10.1108/09534811111132758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/019924264X.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Foot, K. A. 2002. “Pursuing an Evolving Object: A Case Study in Object Formation and Identification.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 9 (2): 132–149.10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_04
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G. 2006. “Why Assessment is Changing.” In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, edited by C. Bryan and K. Clegg, 11–22. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gillett, A., and A. Hammond. 2009. “Mapping the Maze of Assessment.” Active Learning in Higher Education. 10 (2): 120–137.10.1177/1469787409104786
   Google Scholar
• Iannone, P., and A. Simpson. 2013. “Students' Perceptions of Assessment in Undergraduate Mathematics.” Research in Mathematics Education 15 (1): 17–33.10.1080/14794802.2012.756634
   Google Scholar
• Jenlink, P. M. 2001. “Activity Theory and the Design of Educational Systems: Examining the Meditational Importance of Conversation.” Systems Research and Behavioural Science 18: 345–359.10.1002/sres.429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, K., R. Capdevila, and S. Johnson. 2005. “Baby or Beauty: A Q Study into Post Pregnancy Body Image.” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 23 (1): 19–31.10.1080/02646830512331330965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangasoja, J. 2002. Complex Design Problems: An Impetus for Learning and Knotworking, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. Accessed November 05, 2012. http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/publications/files/47/ICLS2002_Kangasoja.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Knight, P. 2002. “Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in Disarray.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (3): 275–286.10.1080/03075070220000662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, I., and S. Ramlo. 2010. “Using Q Methodology and Q Factor Analysis in Mixed Methods Research.” In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 505–530. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Pegg, A., J. Waldock, S. Hendy-Isaac, and R. Lawton. 2012. Pedagogy for Employability. York: HEA.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, G., and C. Williams. 2010. “Two Birds, One Stone: Combining Student Assessment and Socio-legal Research.” The Law Teacher 41 (1): 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• QAA. 2010. Master’s Degree Characteristics. Gloucester: QAA.
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, P. 2005. “Q Methodology.” In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, edited by K. Kempf-Leonard, 209–215. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., and F. Breuer. 2003, May. “Reflexivity and Subjectivity: A Possible Road Map for Reading the Special Issues.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 4 (2). Accessed January 2013. http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-03/2-03intro-2-e.htm
   Google Scholar
• Sambell, K., S. Brown, and L. McDowell. 1997. “‘But is It Fair?’: An Exploratory Study of Student Perceptions of the Consequential Validity of Assessment.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 23 (4): 349–371.10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3
   Google Scholar
• Schmolck, P. 2002. PQMethod Software. Accessed June 13, 2010. http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~schmolck/qmethod/
   Google Scholar
• Schmolck, P. 2014. PQMethod Manual. [On-line] Accessed October 2014. http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/pqmanual.htm
   Google Scholar
• Stainton Rogers, R. 1995. “Q Methodology. Chapter 12.” In Rethinking Methods in Psychology, edited by J. A. Smith, R. Harre and L. Van Langenhove, 178–192. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446221792
   Google Scholar
• Stainton Rogers, W. 2011. Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stainton Rogers, W., and R. Stainton Rogers. 1989. “Taking the Child Abuse Debate Apart.” In Child Abuse and Neglect, edited by W. Stainton Rogers, D. Hevey and E. Ash, 50–63. London: B.T. Batsford.
   Google Scholar
• Stenner, P., S. Watts, and M. Worrell. 2008. “Q Methodology.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by C. Willig and W. Stainton-Rogers, 215–239. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. 1986. “Protoconcursus: The Concourse Theory of Communication (Part 1).” Operant Subjectivity 9 (2): 37–58.
   Google Scholar
• 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 (4): 325–341.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B., and L. Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. London: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Tuömi-Gröhn, T., and Y. Engeström, eds. 2003. Between School and Work – New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• van Eeten, M. J. G. 2001. “Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20: 391–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, T. T., and G. Dall’Alba. 2014. Authentic Assessment for Student Learning: An Ontological Conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory 46: 778–791. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2013.795110.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., S. Danielson, and S. Tuler. 2009. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, P. N. 2012. “Is Q for You? Using Q Methodology within Geographical and Pedagogical Research.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 37 (2): 152–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, L., and A. Jones. n.d. Good Practice and Innovation in the Assessment of Students in Built Environment Subjects in Higher Education. Liverpool John Moores University. [ Online publication] Accessed January 14, 2013. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/cebe/Documents/projects/SIGs/good_practice_and_innovation_in_the_assessment_of_students_in_built_environment_subjects_in_higher_education.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zacharris, N. Z. 2010. “Innovative Assessment for Learning Enhancement: Issues and Practices.” Contemporary Issues in Education Research 3 (1): 61–70.
   Google Scholar