Assessing the Undergraduate Dissertation

By F. Webster, D. Pepper, Alan Jenkins. 2000

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e483d644af7e48fe65a0e17ddf60828eebc85403

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. M. Price
2. Berry M. O’Donovan
3. C. Rust
4. Sue Bloxham *
5. Neil Duncan
6. S. Clegg
7. D. Carless
8. David Boud

In Political Science and International Relations

1. S. Clegg
2. M. Price

Citations in the corpus

• Improving Students' Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes (2003, background): “…need to clarify the meaning of terms and phrases; subjectivity and multiple interpretations of criteria and standards; a lack of match between published criteria and the feedback received, arguably, suggesting the presence of a ‘hidden curriculum’ (Sambell & McDowell, 1998; Webster et al., 2000).”
• The Student Experience of Criterion-Referenced Assessment (Through the Introduction of a Common Criteria Assessment Grid) (2001, background): “The wide-ranging interpretations by staff members, previously highlighted by the research undertaken by Webster et al. (2000), is compounded for students as relatively novice participants within the context of academic standards and criteria. as in comprehensive and imaginative you know, that’s all…”
• A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice (2005, background): “Whether the problem is lack of reliability in marking practices (Laming, 1990; Newstead & Dennis, 1994; Webster et al., 2000) or lack of student understanding of *Corresponding author.”
• Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final‐year social science students (2004, background): “What does exist on the undergraduate dissertation appears to focus primarily on staff marking practices (e.g. Webster et al., 2000) rather than on the student experience of this learning activity, although an aspect of this (student perceptions of the role of the supervisor) is considered by…”
• ‘Feed‐forward’: improving students' use of tutors' comments (2007, background): “Though standardized criteria may be helpful, they are liable to wide variations in interpretation and application (Webster et al., 2000).”
• Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria (2016, background): “…Education, 2016 Vol. 41, No. 3, 466–481, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024607 Greatorex 2000; Price 2005; Read, Francis, and Robson 2005; Webster, Pepper, and Jenkins 2000), including the use of implicit assessment criteria not shared explicitly with students or other assessors…”