Students' preferences in undergraduate mathematics assessment

References

• Amin T.T., F. Kaliyadan, and N.S. Al-Muhaidib. 2011. Medical students’ assessment preferences at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia. Advances in Medical Education and Practice 2: 95–103. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S12950
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1, no. 3: 385–405. doi: 10.1177/146879410100100307
   Google Scholar
• Becher, T. 1989. Academic tribes and territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becher, T. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education. 19, no. 2: 151–61. doi: 10.1080/03075079412331382007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, J., and K. Houston. 1995. Students using posters as a means of communication and assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics 29: 21–27. doi: 10.1007/BF01273898
   Google Scholar
• Biglan, A. 1973. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, no. 3: 195–203. doi: 10.1037/h0034701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birenbaum, M. 1994. Towards adaptive assessment – the students’ angle. Studies in Educational Evaluation 20: 239–55. doi: 10.1016/0191-491X(94)90011-6
   Google Scholar
• Birenbaum, M. 2007. Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education 53, no. 6: 749–68. doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-4843-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boud, D., and N. Falchikov. 2007. Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burton L., and C. Haines. 1997. Innovation in teaching and assessing mathematics at university level. Teaching in Higher Education 2: 273–94. doi: 10.1080/1356215970020308
   Google Scholar
• Dillman, D.A. and D.K. Bowker. 2002. The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. In Online social sciences, eds. B. Batanic, U. Reips and M. Bosnjak, 53–71. Ashland: Hogrefe & Huber.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G. 2006. Why assessment is changing. In Innovative assessment in higher education, eds. C. Bryan and K. Clegg, 11–22. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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, eds. M. Segers, F. Dochy, and E. Cascallar, 37–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gijbels, D., and F. Dochy. 2006. Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies 32, no. 4: 399–409. doi: 10.1080/03055690600850354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines, C., and R. Crouch. 2005. Applying mathematics: making multiple-choice questions work. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications 24, no. 2–3: 107–13. doi: 10.1093/teamat/hri004
   Google Scholar
• Harlen, W., and R.D. Crick. 2003. Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 10: 169–207. doi: 10.1080/0969594032000121270
   Google Scholar
• Houston, K. 2001. Assessing undergraduate mathematics students. In: The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study, ed. D. Holton, 407–22. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Iannone, P., and A. Simpson. 2011. The summative assessment diet: how we assess in mathematics degrees. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications 30, no. 4: 186–96. doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrr017
   Google Scholar
• Iannone, P., and A. Simpson. 2012. Oral assessment in mathematics: implementation and outcomes. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications 31, no. 4: 179–90. doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrs012
   Google Scholar
• Iannone, P., and A. Simpson. 2013. Students’ perceptions of assessment in undergraduate mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education Journal 15, no. 1: 17–32. doi: 10.1080/14794802.2012.756634
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., and L.A. Turner. 2003. Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, ed. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 297–319. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Joughin, G. 2010. The hidden curriculum revisited: a critical review of research into the influence of summative assessment on learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 3: 335–45. doi: 10.1080/02602930903221493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kniveton, B.H. 1996. Student perceptions of assessment methods. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 21, no. 3: 229–38. doi: 10.1080/0260293960210303
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, D.A. 1981. Learning styles and disciplinary differences, In The Modern American College, ed. A. Chickering, 232–55. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Levesley, J. 2011. Taking control of the assessment agenda. In Report of the HE Mathematics Curriculum Summit, ed. P. Rowlett, 21–23. P. York: Higher Education Academy.
   Google Scholar
• London Mathematical Society 2011. Comments on Review of the UK Professional Framework for Higher Education. http://www.lms.ac.uk/sites/lms.ac.uk/files/Mathematics/Policy_repors/2011%20LMS_Response_to_PSF_Consultation.pdf (accessed May 8, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Povey, H., and C. Angier. 2006. The assessment of undergraduate mathematicians: Recrafting assessment of learning to provide opportunities for assessment as learning. MSOR Connections 6, no. 4: 43–47. doi: 10.11120/msor.2006.06040043
   Google Scholar
• Ramesh, N. 2009. Some issues on assessment methods and learning in mathematics and statistics. MSOR Connections 9, no. 4: 28–31. doi: 10.11120/msor.2009.09040028
   Google Scholar
• 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: 349–71. doi: 10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3
   Google Scholar
• Sax, L., S.K. Gilmartin, and A.N. Bryant. 2003. Assessing response rates and nonresponsive bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 44, no. 4: 409–32. doi: 10.1023/A:1024232915870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A.H. 1989. Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20: 338–55. doi: 10.2307/749440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scouller, K. 1998. ‘The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education 35: 453–72. doi: 10.1023/A:1003196224280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struyven, K., F. Dochy, and S. Janssens. 2005. Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30: 331–47. doi: 10.1080/02602930500099102
   Google Scholar
• 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 Pädagogischen Diagnostik, eds. K. Ingenkamp and R.S. Jager, 128–59. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Wareing, S. 2009. Disciplines, discourse and Orientalism: the implications for postgraduate certificates in learning and teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 19: 917–28. doi: 10.1080/03075070902929519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeidner, M. 1987. Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: the student's perspective. Journal of Educational Research 80, no. 6: 352–58. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1987.10885782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar