Assessment relationships in higher education: the tension of process and practice

It is argued that the auditing demands of quality assurance have encouraged a greater proceduralisation of university coursework assessment. Interviews with academics from a cross-section of Psychology departments illustrated how assessment had acquired the tightly scripted character of an organisational process. Yet undergraduate focus group conversations suggested that this proceduralisation obstructed the experience students sought from assessment as a form of educational practice. It is argued that educational contexts can create a distinctive form of process/practice tension. In particular, formalising assessment into a process may conceal students' unease, inhibit the expression of that unease, and create a distracting focus on study products rather than study practices. A striking interpersonal dissociation of author and reader (student and tutor) was apparent in the organisational processes documented here. This was identified as the source of significant student discontent, and the likely starting point for its repair.

[1]  K. Ecclestone,et al.  ‘Learning Careers’ or ‘Assessment Careers’? The Impact of Assessment Systems on Learning , 2003 .

[2]  M. Hammer,et al.  Reengineering the Corporation , 1993 .

[3]  Kate Chanock,et al.  Comments on Essays: Do students understand what tutors write? , 2000 .

[4]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[5]  T. Keith,et al.  Trait Ratings for Automated Essay Grading , 2002 .

[6]  Empowering Lecturers: A Problem-Based Approach To Improve Assessment Practice. , 1999 .

[7]  Joanna Bull,et al.  Assessing student learning in higher education , 1997 .

[8]  M. Strathern ‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system , 1997, European Review.

[9]  A. Chickering,et al.  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education , 1987, CORE.

[10]  Marilyn Strathern,et al.  Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy , 2000 .

[11]  Peter Knight,et al.  Assessment for learning in higher education , 1998 .

[12]  D. Wellman,et al.  Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. , 1997 .

[13]  Andrea A. Lunsford,et al.  Teachers' Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers. , 1993 .

[14]  Brian Street,et al.  Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: an academic literacies approach , 2000 .

[15]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Book Reviews : The Social Life of Information By John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000. 320 pages , 2000 .

[16]  Sally Brown,et al.  Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches. , 1999 .

[17]  Harry Torrance,et al.  Formative Assessment in the Classroom: Where Psychological Theory Meets Social Practice , 1997 .

[18]  M. Power The audit society : rituals of verification , 1999 .

[19]  Mary Lea,et al.  Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach , 1998 .

[20]  Wim de Boer,et al.  Feedback for web-based assignments , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[21]  Brenda G. Hebert,et al.  Seeing through the screen: is evaluative feedback communicated more effectively in face-to-face or computer-mediated exchanges? , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  The intelligent essay assessor: Applications to educational technology , 1999 .

[23]  Peter Knight,et al.  Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray , 2002 .

[24]  J. Parker,et al.  Reconceptualising the curriculum: from commodification to transformation , 2003 .

[25]  R. Higgins,et al.  The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning , 2002 .

[26]  Patricia Sachs,et al.  Transforming work: collaboration, learning, and design , 1995, CACM.

[27]  P. Knight,et al.  Assessing learners in higher education , 1998 .