Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

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

Iannone, P.; Simpson, A.

University students’ perceptions of summative assessment: the role of context Thumbnail


Authors

P. Iannone



Abstract

We report on a mixed-method study that compared students’ perceptions of summative assessment across two distinct disciplines – education and mathematics, at two research-intensive institutions in the UK. The disciplines chosen represent opposing positions in Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines, as well as having very different assessment practices. Results suggest that these education students prefer to be assessed by methods they perceive to discriminate on the basis of academic abilities. Moreover, they perceive the traditional closed-book examination as inadequate to assess the capabilities which are key to being successful in their subject, which fits some but not all of the general findings in the literature. However, comparing these results with those of an identical study with mathematics students, we find that the perceptions of summative assessment are very different. We account for that difference by suggesting that students’ epistemic beliefs play a role in shaping these perceptions and conclude that, in designing summative assessment in higher education, generalised and centralised forces for change need to be tempered by contextual and disciplinary factors.

Citation

Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (2017). University students’ perceptions of summative assessment: the role of context. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(6), 785-801. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2016.1177172

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Oct 1, 2015
Online Publication Date May 17, 2016
Publication Date Nov 2, 2017
Deposit Date Oct 6, 2015
Publicly Available Date Nov 17, 2017
Journal Journal of Further and Higher Education
Print ISSN 0309-877X
Electronic ISSN 1469-9486
Publisher Taylor and Francis Group
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 41
Issue 6
Pages 785-801
DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2016.1177172

Files




You might also like



Downloadable Citations