The influence of disciplinary assessment patterns on student learning: a comparative study

Abstract

This paper explores disciplinary patterns of assessment and feedback, using data from the Transforming the Experience of Students through Assessment project. Its central research question concerns the effect of disciplinary assessment patterns on student learning. Audit data from 18 degree programmes at 8 UK universities showed variations in assessment patterns across three disciplinary fields: Humanities, Professional and Science courses. There were variations in assessment demands; in the quantity of feedback and in the proportion of examinations. Statistical analysis of Assessment Experience Questionnaire data (n = 762) explored whether these differences influenced students' perceptions of learning across the disciplines. Findings showed that there were no significant differences in students' perceptions of learning from examinations. Humanities students evaluated the appropriateness of their assessment lower than other discipline groups; professional students were less clear about goals and standards. The researchers propose explanations for these findings and suggest avenues for further research.

Toward curriculum convergence for graduate learning outcomes: academic intentions and student experiences

“…First, over-assessment becomes an issue because students tend to adopt instrumental and shallow approaches to learning when overwhelmed with multiple assessment tasks (Biggs and Tang 2011), which is often the case in science programs (Jessop and Maleckar 2014). Second, uncoordinated patterns of assessment in degree programs can inhibit students' development of graduate learning outcomes.…”

Variations in Pedagogical Design of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Across Disciplines

“…Course design and implementation in higher education may reflect discipline specific epistemological differences in various dimensions of teaching practices, including teacher vs. learner centered instructional approaches (Lindblom-Ylänne et al, 2006), assessment methods (Jessop & Maleckar, 2016), and interaction design (Barbera, Layne, & Gunawardena, 2014). To guide our analysis of course design, we used a disciplinary categorization framework (Neumann et al, 2002), derived from Biglan's (1973) disciplinary typology.…”

“…Dominant disposition and practice of assessment to measure knowledge reproduction was attributed to the characteristics of disciplinary knowledge in the field of Pharmacy. Different findings were reported, however, in a study that compared the variety of formative and summative assessment in three disciplinary groups of sciences, humanities, and professional programs (Jessop & Maleckar, 2016). In their study, formative assessment was defined as a non-graded mandatory assessment task.…”

“…http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.5 48 epistemological differences. Researchers have pointed out such disciplinary differences in various dimensions of teaching practices, including fostering deep approaches to learning (Laird, Shoup, Kuh, & Schwarz, 2008); teacher vs. learner centered instructional approaches (Lindblom-Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin, 2006); and assessment approaches (Jessop & Maleckar, 2016). In the context of the University of Toronto (U of T), findings of a yearly report (Open UToronto MOOC Initiative: Report on Second Year of Activity, 2014) indicated differences in course design across U of T MOOCs focused on different disciplines.…”

“…Drawing on program audit data, the authors noticed that the number of formative assessment approaches in sciences courses was three times the number of formative assessments in humanities and professional programs disciplinary groups. They attributed such difference to the application of formative assessment in sciences to help students master the cumulative knowledge base of their degree program (Jessop & Maleckar, 2016).According to the Community of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010) model, interaction in online courses manifests in at least three modes: student-content; student-instructor, and student-student. Studies that investigate disciplinary differences in integrating interaction have considered either a single mode or multiple modes of interaction in online courses.…”