The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray
Abstract
The article begins with a view of learning and of what its assessment entails, arguing that it is helpful to distinguish between assessment systems primarily intended to provide feedout and those intended to provide feedback. Attention is then concentrated on summative, feedout, or high stakes assessment, which is supposed to be highly reliable. A number of difficulties with current practices are then identified, leading to the claim that high stakes assessment in first degrees is in such disarray that it is difficult to know what grades or classifications mean and risky to treat them as reliable. Two main lines of response are explored. The first treats this as a failure of technique, while the second adds that assessment purposes themselves have fallen into disarray, which requires a reappraisal of curriculum in addition to any technical changes that appear to be expedient.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Teaching For Quality Learning At University
BIGGS, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (1999) · Cited by 7,559
(1999) · Cited by 6,308
The Social Life of Information
Seely, B., Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000) · Work Study · doi:10.1108/ws.2000.07949dae.002 · Cited by 2,707
Non‐formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work
Eraut, M. (2000) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1348/000709900158001 · Cited by 2,013
Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language.
Peacocke, C., & Kripke, S. A. (1984) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184586 · Cited by 1,427
Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language.
Loar, B., & Kripke, S. (1985) · Noûs · doi:10.2307/2214934 · Cited by 1,274
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.37-5612 · Cited by 972
The social life of information
(2002) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/s0099-1333(02)00334-8 · Cited by 927
The Social Life of Information
Silvester, J. M. (2000) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(01)00033-1 · Cited by 664
Successful intelligence: (537722004-001)
(1998) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e537722004-001 · Cited by 633
Cited by
Aligning assessment with long‐term learning
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930600679050 · Cited by 1,248
The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes
Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.719154 · Cited by 414
Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500063819 · Cited by 382
Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform
Carless, D. (2009) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930801895786 · Cited by 212
A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education
French, S., Dickerson, A., & Mulder, R. A. (2024) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Knight, P. T.
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 275-286
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2126281896
- Cited by
- 386
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 46.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03075070220000662
- The paper
- Knight, P. T. (2002). Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
