CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 106Student Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and PedagogyEvaluation of Teaching Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

'I know a 2:1 when I see it': Understanding criteria for degree classifications in franchised university programmes

Ecclestone, Kathryn·2001·Journal of Further and Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/03098770126527
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Assessment in higher education is criticised for subjective and norm-referenced criteria. It is widely assumed that clear learning outcomes and criteria make assessment more accessible to students and enable teachers to make more reliable grading decisions. Meanwhile, university programmes are increasingly fragmented amongst other departments or franchised to external providers. Universities must therefore communicate expectations of 'standards' to staff who are not part of a day-to-day university culture. The paper argues that, on their own, assessment criteria cannot generate common interpretations of the required level and standard of work. Instead, internalising and using criteria require a more strategic approach to inducting and socialising staff into an academic community. Unless this socialisation takes account of professional, social and affective dimensions, criteria and guidelines will have limited effects on communicating reliable standards and on raising standards of achievement.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03098770126527

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. BROWN S., 1996, 500 Tips for Assessment
  2. ECCLESTONE K, 1999, Report for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  3. 1995, Access to fair assessment
  4. GlBBS G., 1986, 53 Ways to assess your students
  5. HALLIDAY, J. Critical thinking and the academic/vocational divide. European Vocational Education and Training Research Proceedings of the VETNET programme at the European Educational Research Conference. September17-20, Enchede. Edited by: MULDER, M. Univesity of Twente.
  6. 1994, Assessing the prior learning of adults with overseas qualifications
  7. OTTER S., 1995, Assessing Competence in Higher Education
  8. PRYOR, J. and TORRANCE, H. Investigating and Developing Formative Teacher Assessment. Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Conference. September, University of Sussex. 1999
  9. SWANN J., 1999, Higher Education Review, 31, 50
  10. 1992, Learning Outcomes in Higher Education
  11. WINTER R., 1995, Assessing Competence in Higher Education

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–106 of 106

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ecclestone, K.
Corresponding author
Ecclestone, Kathryn
Venue
Journal of Further and Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2001-10
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
301-313
ISSN
  • 0309-877X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9486
DOI
10.1080/03098770126527
OpenAlex
W2011389885
Cited by
106
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
18.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Further and Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
degree classification, evaluation criteria, external providers, academic standards, academic community, norm-referenced assessment, rating reliability, higher education assessment

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