NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 4 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Phillip Dawson; Margaret Bearman; Mollie Dollinger; David Boud – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2024
Cheating attracts a significant amount of attention in conversations about assessment, and with good reason: if students cheat, we cannot be sure they have met the learning outcomes of their course. In this conceptual article we question the attention given to cheating as a concept and argue that the broader concept of validity is a more important…
Descriptors: Cheating, Ethics, Inclusion, Test Validity
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Evans, Carol; Kandiko Howson, Camille; Forsythe, Alex; Edwards, Corony – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2021
Over the last 20 years there has been significant growth in the volume of higher education pedagogical research across disciplines and national contexts, but inherent tensions in defining quality remain. In this paper we present a framework to support understanding of what constitutes internationally excellent research, drawing on a range of…
Descriptors: Educational Quality, Higher Education, Educational Research, Scholarship
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Nulty, Duncan D. – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2011
This paper reviews the literature about peer and self-assessment in university courses from the point of view of their use, and the suitability of their use, in the first year of university study. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part argues that although first-year students are involved in many of the studies that report on the…
Descriptors: College Freshmen, Program Effectiveness, Literature Reviews, Self Evaluation (Individuals)
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Bloxham, Sue – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2009
This article challenges a number of assumptions underlying marking of student work in British universities. It argues that, in developing rigorous moderation procedures, we have created a huge burden for markers which adds little to accuracy and reliability but creates additional work for staff, constrains assessment choices and slows down…
Descriptors: Feedback (Response), Higher Education, Misconceptions, Grading