000			02124nam a22002897a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20241119095928.0
008			241108b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a1469-7874
040			_aMSU _bEnglish _cMSU _erda
050	0	0	_aLB2300 ACT
100	1		_aJessop, Tansy _eauthor
245	1	0	_aMind the gap: _ban analysis of how quality assurance processes influence programme assessment patterns _ccreated by Tansy Jessop, Nicole McNab, and Laura Gubby
264			_aLondon: _bSage Publications, _c2012.
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_aActive learning in higher education; _vVolume 13, Number 2
520	3		_aThis article explores the relationship between the lack of visible attention to formative assessment in degree specifications and its marginalization in practice. Degree specification documents form part of the quality apparatus emphasizing the accountability and certification duties of assessment. Ironically, a framework designed to assure quality may work to the exclusion of a pedagogic duty to students. This study draws on interview and documentary evidence from 14 programmes at a single UK university, supported by data from a national research project. The authors found that institutional quality frameworks focused programme leaders’ attention on summative assessment, usually atomized to the modular unit. The invisibility of formative assessment in documentation reinforced the tendency of modular programmes to have high summative demands, with optional, fragmented and infrequent formative assessment. Heavy workloads, modularity and pedagogic uncertainties compounded the problem. The article concludes with reflections about facilitating a more pervasive culture of formative assessment to improve student learning.
650			_aAcademic structures
650			_aFormative assessment
650			_aModularization
700	1		_aMcNab, Nicole _eco-author
700	1		_aGubby, Laura _eco-author
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441285
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c168160 _d168160