Meaning in constant flow – university teachers’ understanding of examination tasks

References

• Ackerman, D., and B. Gross. 2010. “Instructor Feedback: How Much Do Student Really Want?” Journal of Marketing Education 32 (2): 172–181.10.1177/0273475309360159
   Google Scholar
• Baume, D., M. Yorke, and M. Coffey. 2004. “What is Happening When We Assess, and How Can We Use Our Understanding of This to Improve Assessment?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (4): 451–475.
   Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C. 2002. Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., and R. McCormick. 2010. “Reflections and New Directions.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 493–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloxham, S., and P. Boyd. 2012. “Accountability in Grading Student Work: Securing Academic Standards in a Twenty-first Century Quality Assurance Context.” British Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 615–634.10.1080/01411926.2011.569007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloxham, S., B. Den-Outer, J. Hudson, and M Price. 2015. “Let’s Stop the Pretence of Consistent Making: Exploring the Multiple Limitations of Assessment Criteria.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Accessed August 17 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024607
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. 2006. “Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (2): 219–233.10.1080/03075070600572132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers Dictionary. 1988. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. Edinburgh: Chambers.
   Google Scholar
• Chanock, K. 2000. “Comments on Essays: Do Students Understand What Tutors Write?” Teaching in Higher Education 5 (1): 95–105.10.1080/135625100114984
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, B. 2007. “Is It worth the Effort? How Feedback Influences Students’ Subsequent Submission of Assessable Work.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32 (5): 571–581.
   Google Scholar
• Glover, C., and E. Brown. 2006. “Written Feedback for Students: Too Much, Too Detailed or Too Incomprehensible to Be Effective?” Bioscience Education 7 (1). http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Handley, K., and L. Williams. 2011. “From Copying to Learning: Using Exemplars to Engage Students with Assessment Criteria and Feedback.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36 (1): 95–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. 2009. Visible Learning. A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. 2012. Visible Learning for Teachers. Maximizing Impact on Learning. New York: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112.10.3102/003465430298487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, R., P. Hartley, and A. Skelton. 2002. “The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the Role of Assessment Feedback in Student Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (1): 53–64.10.1080/03075070120099368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyatt, D. 2005. “‘Yes, a Very Good Point!’: A Critical Genre Analysis of a Corpus of Feedback Commentaries on Master of Education Assignments.” Teaching in Higher Education 10 (3): 339–353.10.1080/13562510500122222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanič, R., C. Romy, and R. Rimmeshaw. 2000. “What Am I Supposed to Make of This? The Messages Conveyed to Students by Tutors’ Written Comments.” In Student Writing in Higher Education, edited by M. Lea and B. Stierer, 47–66. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 1987. Woman, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T., and S. Dumais. 1997. “A Solution to Plato’s Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge.” Psychological Review 104 (2): 211–240.10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lea, M., and B. Street. 1998. “Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach.” Studies in Higher Education 23 (2): 157–172.10.1080/03075079812331380364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linell, P. 2006. “Bara Prat”. Om Socialkonstruktivism Som Vanställande Och Vanställd [“Just talk”. About Social Constructivism as Disfiguring and Deformed]. In Det Vanställda Ordet, edited by Martin Kylhammar, and Jean-François Battail, 152–193. Stockholm: Carlssons.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M., and M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. 2010. “From Monologue to Dialogue: Improving Written Feedback Processes in Mass Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 501–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orrell, J. 2006. “Feedback on Learning Achievement: Rhetoric and Reality.” Teaching in Higher Education 11 (4): 441–456.10.1080/13562510600874235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, M., K. Handley, J. Millar, and B O’Donovan. 2010. “Feedback: All Effort, but What is the Effect?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (3): 277–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsden, P. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, R. 2010. “Beyond Feedback: Developing Student Capability in Complex Appraisal.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 535–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellbjer, S. 2011. Vetenskaplighet i hela lärarutbildningen [Scientific Approach all Through Teacher Education]. Skriftserie från Institutionen för pedagogik, psykologi och idrottsvetenskap 3. Växjö: Linnéuniversitetet.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, E., and K. Coombe. 2006. “Quality and Qualms in the Marking of University Assignments by Sessional Staff: An Exploratory Study.” Higher Education 51 (1): 46–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. 2011. Rationality & the Reflective Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wachterhauser, B. 1986. “History and Language in Understanding.” In Hermeneutics and Modern Philosophy, edited by Brice R. Wachterhauser, 5–64. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, M. 2009. “An Investigation into Written Comments on Assignments: Do Students Find Them Usable?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (1): 67–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, M. 2006. “Do Students Value Feedback? Student Perceptions of Tutors’ Written Responses.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (3): 379–394.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, F., D. Pepper, and A. Jenkins. 2000. “Assessing the Undergraduate Dissertation.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (1): 71–80.
   Google Scholar