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

References

• Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. “Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research 1 (3): 385–405. 10.1177/146879410100100307
   Google Scholar
• Becher, T. 1994. “The Significance of Disciplinary Differences.” Studies in Higher Education 19 (2): 151–161. 10.1080/03075079412331382007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biglan, A. 1973. “The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3): 195–203. 10.1037/h0034701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birenbaum, M. 1994. “Towards Adaptive Assessment - the Students’ Angle.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 20: 239–255. 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 (6): 749–768. 10.1007/s10734-005-4843-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. 2004. “Assessment for Learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 81–89.
   Google Scholar
• DfE. 2013. Education and Training Statistics for the UK:2013. London: Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®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, edited by M. Segers, F. Dochy and E. Cascallar, 37–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/0-306-48125-1
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Iannone, P., and A. Simpson. 2013. “Students’ Perceptions of Assessment in Undergraduate Mathematics.” Research in Mathematics Education 15 (1): 17–32.
   Google Scholar
• Iannone, P., and A. Simpson. 2015. “Students’ Preferences in Undergraduate Mathematics Assessment.” Studies in Higher Education 40: 1046–1067.
   Web of Science ®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, edited by 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 & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (3): 335–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, M. and Michael, R. 2013. Group Work in Education and Training. Routledge.
   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: 349–371. 10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3
   Google Scholar
• Scouller, K. 1998. “The Influence of Assessment Method on Students Learning Approaches: Multiple Choice Question Examination versus Assignment Essay.” Higher Education 35: 453–472. 10.1023/A:1003196224280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   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 & Evaluation in Higher Education 30: 331–347.
   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 Paedagogischen Diagnostik, edited by K. Ingenkamp and R. S. Jager, 128–159. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar