Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria
Open accessAbstract
In recent years there has been an increasing emphasis in higher education on the explicit articulation of assessment standards and requirements, whether this emanates from calls for public accountability or is based on ideas of good educational practice (CitationEcclestone, 2001). We argue in this article that a single‐minded focus on explicit articulation, whilst currently the dominant logic of higher education, will inevitably fall short of providing students and staff with meaningful knowledge of standards and criteria. Inherent difficulties in the explicit verbal description of standards and criteria make a compelling argument for the consideration of the role of structured processes that support the effective transfer of both explicit and tacit assessment knowledge. With reference to both empirical evidence and the literature, we propose a conceptual framework for the transfer of knowledge of assessment criteria and standards that encompasses a spectrum of tacit and explicit processes, which has proven to be effective in practice in improving student performance.
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
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.
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?
Standards reside in the practices of academic and professional communities underpinned by tacit and explicit knowledge and are subject to varied interpretation/enactments.
“Standards reside in the practices of academic and professional communities underpinned by tacit and explicit knowledge and are, therefore, subject to varied interpretation/enactments (O ' Donovan et al. 2004).”
From Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work (2018) · cites this paper as O'Donovan et al. 2004
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000001337 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Ecclestone, K. (2001) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03098770126527 · Cited by 106 · cited 5× · see citing works
“There was, and is, pressure for institutions to maintain high and consistent academic standards within the context of a massive expansion of higher education (Lucas & Webster, 1998), amplified by increasing student hunger for and expectations of high grades (Ecclestone, 2001).”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- BAUMARD, P. (1999) Tacit Knowledge in Organizations (London, Sage Publications).
- CUNLIFFE, L.A. (2002) Reflexive Dialogical Practice in Management Learning, Management Learning 33, pp. 35-61
- ELWOOD, J. & KLENOWSKI, V. (2002) Creating Communities of Shared Practice: the challenges of assessment use in learning and teaching, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, pp.243-256.
- HUGHES, I.E. (1995) Peer Assessment, Capability, 1 pp. 39-43.
- HUSSEY, T. & SMITH P. (2002) 'The trouble with learning outcomes' Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, pp.220-234
- LAMING, D. (1990) The reliability of a certain university examination compared with the precision of absolute judgements, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A - Human Experimental Psychology, 42, pp. 239-254.
- LUCAS, L. & WEBSTER, F. (1998) Maintaining standards in higher education? A case study, in: D. JARY & M. PARKER (Eds) The New Higher Education; issues and directions for the post-Dearing university (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire University Press).
- MACLELLAN, E. (2001) Assessment for learning: the different perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26. pp. 307-318.
- NEWSTEAD, S. E. & DENNIS, I. (1994) Examiners examined: the reliability of exam marking in psychology, The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 7, pp. 216-219.
- NONAKA, I. (1991) The Knowledge-Creating Company, The Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 96-104.
- O'DONOVAN B, PRICE M & RUST C (2001) The Student Experience of Criterion- Referenced Assessment through the Use of a Common Criteria Assessment Grid, Innovations in Learning and Teaching International, 38, pp. 74-85.
- ORSMOND, P, MERRY, S & REILING, K (1996) 'The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, pp. 239- 249.
- POLANYI, M. (1998) The tacit dimension, Reprinted in L. PRUSAK (Ed.) Knowledge in Organizations (Boston, Butterworth Heineman).
- PRICE, M., O'DONOVAN, B. & RUST, C. (2001) Strategies to develop students' understanding of assessment criteria and processes, in: C. RUST (Ed) Improving Student Learning: 8 Improving Student Learning Strategically, (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development).
- PRICE, M. AND RUST, C. (1999), The experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department, Quality in Higher Education, 5, pp. 133-144.
- RADNOR, H. & SHAW, K. (1995), Developing a collaborative approach to moderation, in: H Torrence (Ed) Evaluating Authentic Assessment Problems and Possibilities in New Approaches to Assessment (Buckingham Open University Press)
- RAMSDEN, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge)
- RUST, C, PRICE, M. & O'DONOVAN B (2003) 'Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes' Assessment and Evaluation. 28, pp. 147-164
- SADLER, D. R. (1987) Specifying and Promulgating Achievement Standards, Oxford Review of Education, 13, pp. 191-209.
- SAUNDERS, M.N.K. & DAVIS, S.M. (1998) The use of assessment criteria to ensure consistency of marking: some implications for good practice, Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 6, pp.162-171.
- SHARP, S. (1996) Undergraduate degree awards in teacher education: constant standards in a changing context, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, pp.325-334.
- SPENDER, J.C. (1996) Organisational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, pp. 63-78
- STEFANI, L.A.J. (1992) Comparison of collaborative, self, peer and tutor assessment in a biochemistry practical, Biochemical Education, 20, pp.148-151.
- STENMARK, D. (2000), Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge, Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, pp..9-25.
- TSOUKAS, H. (2001) What is Organizational Knowledge?, Journal of Management Studies, 38, pp. 973-994.
- VYGOTSKY, L. S (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, (MA: Harvard University Press)
- WEBSTER, F., PEPPER, D. & JENKINS, A (2000) Assessing the undergraduate dissertation, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, pp. 72-80.
- WINTER, R. (1994) The problem of educational levels part 2: a new framework for credit accumulation in higher education, Journal for Further and Higher Education, 18, pp.92-107.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education
Evans, C. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 · Cited by 1,143 · see citing works
Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3 · Cited by 810 · see citing works
“Standards reside in the practices of academic and professional communities underpinned by tacit and explicit knowledge and are, therefore, subject to varied interpretation/enactments (O’Donovan et al. 2004).”
BackgroundAuthentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design
Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13337 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning?
Beaumont, C., O’Doherty, M., & Shannon, L. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003731135 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
A critical review of the arguments against the use of rubrics
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100329 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Hendry, G. D., & Anderson, J. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.703998 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- O'donovan *, B., Price, M., & Rust, C.
- Affiliations
- Oxford Brookes University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Price, Margaret
- ORCID
- Price, Margaret
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 325-335
- ISSN
- 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1294
- OpenAlex
- W2095451330
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 25.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- radar.brookes.ac.uk
- Locations
- Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Radar (Oxford Brookes University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Oxford Brookes University
- University of Oxford
- Liverpool John Moores University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- assessment standards, evaluation criteria, student understanding, tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, knowledge transfer, conceptual framework, higher education assessment, student performance, public accountability
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
