TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 1 of 12
Presentation to the Conference 'Effective Assessment at University', University of
Queensland, 4-5 November 1998.
© David Boud
Assessment and learning – unlearning bad
habits of assessment
by
David Boud
University of Technology, Sydney
There is probably more bad practice and ignorance of
significant issues in the area of assessment than in any other
aspect of higher education. This would not be so bad if it were
not for the fact that the effects of bad practice are far more
potent than they are for any aspect of teaching. Students can,
with difficulty, escape from the effects of poor teaching, they
cannot (by definition if they want to graduate) escape the
effects of poor assessment. Assessment acts as a mechanism to
control students that is far more pervasive and insidious than
most staff would be prepared to acknowledge. It appears to
conceal the deficiencies of teaching as much as it does to
promote learning. If, as teachers, we want to exert maximum
leverage over change in higher education we must confront the
ways in which assessment tends to undermine learning. (Boud
1995a)
I wrote those words in 1995. Are they still true today? There has been a lot
of effort put into improving university assessment practices in the years
since, but I fear we still have a long way to go.
If it is true that there is a lot of poor practice in assessment, then why is that
so? None of us consciously want to perpetuate poor practice. We would all
want to do what is best. I think perhaps we have only to look to how we
learned, and how by-and-large we still learn about assessment. Most of us
discovered assessment through many years of being assessed, often
inappropriately, and learned through the principle of inheritance. We found
ourselves implementing someone else's approach as a tutor or as a new staff
member. We were so overwhelmed with all the other demands on us at the
time, that we tended to accept what we found and only modified it within
very limited boundaries-changed bits of subject content, not the assessment
activity itself. And how did the academic whose assessment practices we
modelled learn about assessment. You guessed it-from someone else in a
similar situation. Even when we were faced with designing an assessment
scheme for a new subject we looked around for what was acceptable
practice within our context. We found lots of rules, some explicit, but many
implicit. These made it clear that there were distinct limits to what we could
do. We were cautious about challenging them, as we had no knowledge of
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 2 of 12
what constituted good assessment. It was very unusual for us to read about
assessment, and when we did we tended to limit ourselves to practical
guides about methods and techniques. Many of us have not been exposed to
ideas which challenge our assessment thinking.
Times have changed. There are now courses for new staff, there are
workshops on assessment, and there is a growing literature on assessment
specifically in the university context. Many Australian universities like my
own and the University of Queensland, have new policies and guidelines for
assessment. The wonderful array of innovations being presented at this
conference is testimony to the changes taking place. There are clear signs
that assessment is being thought through afresh. I join in celebrating these
achievements, but I am not sure how wide the impact has been.
I have engaged in many forms of innovation in assessment myself. In
particular I have taken a great interest in the role of students taking
responsibility for their own assessment and in the use of self-assessment
and peer feedback. However, I don't want to focus on that today. There are
many examples of new practice on display here. What I want to do is rather
more risky. I want to revisit what we might call conventional assessment
practice from the point of view of someone who has spent some time away
from it, in other territory. I want to look at some of the habits of assessment
which are commonplace and raise questions about them.
My view is that a large part of what occurs in assessment in higher
education is based on bad habits copied from the past and a lack of critical
thinking about what we do. We are locked in to patterns of assessment
which cannot be justified on any educational grounds whatsoever.
Assessment is a vital part of teaching and learning. We should not
undermine its positive influence through unthinking adherence to existing
conventions.
My aim is to get back to basics in assessment; to ask, what is assessment
really about, and how can we ensure that we devote our energies to
achieving this. I am not under the illusion that there ever was a golden age
of assessment. There definitely was not! So, I am not arguing that we return
to the past. What we need to focus on now are the questions: why are we
assessing? And how can we do it effectively? Good assessment means that
we must focus unerringly on our educational goals and not be distracted by
apparent short-term convenience. Good assessment means thinking and
rethinking very hard and clearly, it doesn't mean spending lots of time on
repetitive activities as we often do now. Unless we can find assessment
activities and procedures satisfying for our students and ourselves we will
not be able to sustain them. Unfortunately, finding a new position on
assessment involves a certain amount of disruption-in many ways existing
conventions are comfortable and we have adapted our lives to them-are we
prepared to undertake the journey of questioning our assumptions and
working through the implications?
Why should we bother? The reason for me is in the observation I made right
at the start. Students can't escape the effects of bad assessment. We owe it
to ourselves and our students to devote at least as much energy to ensuring
that our assessment practices are worthwhile as we do to ensuring that we
teach well.
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 3 of 12
I'd like to start by drawing attention to some common assumptions made
about assessment. You might think these assumptions state the obvious, but
that is part of the problem: the obvious is not necessarily true. I'd like to
suggest that they might not be valid. Following this, I'd like to outline
points indicating directions for thinking about assessment. They do not
provide a blueprint for what to do, but they suggest some fruitful directions
for exploration.
Some common (erroneous) assumptions
Assessment merely measures what a student knows; it doesn't
influence or change it, except perhaps to provide motivation to
study.
Understanding of assessment has gone through a number of
phases, and this assumption represents the earliest and the most
naive. Research on assessment shows that assessment has a
direct backwash effect on learning. If assessment tasks reward
recall, then they will prompt students to rote learning and
memorisation of facts. Similarly, if assessment tasks emphasise
understanding of principles, then deeper approaches to learning
can be prompted. We realise now that changes to assessment
practice often have a greater influence on students' study
patterns than teaching and the curriculum. If we want to
influence what and how students learn, then assessment is the
starting point.
Assessment is about creating league tables of the brightest and
the best.
I am certainly not opposed to celebrating the brightest and the
best, but there is a price to be paid for this. That price is the
undermining of university standards and the distracting of our
attention and the attention of students away from what
constitutes excellent work. Through a focus on comparing
students with each other, rather than with explicit standards we
lose sight of what is most important in a university education. It
is easy to discriminate between students, much harder to be
honest about the standards to be achieved by them. We are
seeing currently a widespread move in Australian higher
education away from norm-referenced assessment (ie. based
upon discriminating between students) towards criterionreferenced assessment (ie. based on judging whether students
have met established standards). Norm-referenced assessment
is now prohibited by university policy at the University of
Queensland and at an increasing number of other Australian
universities. The reasons for these moves are many, but one
which comes to mind is that as universities become larger and
larger we cannot justify a system in which more and more
graduates are seen by themselves and others to have failed. We
need graduates able to tackle the pressing problems of society.
We need many graduates with higher level skills, the ability to
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 4 of 12
judge ones own work and who are able to operate
autonomously as professionals, not just a few. Aspirations
should be in terms of doing the best and most appropriate work
in a pluralistic society. Criterion or standards-referenced
assessment means that we can address the diverse needs of a
university population and not worry about whether one person
deserves 1 or 2 percentage points more than another does. This
is an absurd thing to do anyway, as assessment has not and will
never be that accurate.
All students must be treated identically
What I am referring to is the notion that all students must be
exposed to exactly the same assessment tasks which are
identical in all respects, for it is only through this that they can
be judged equitably. After the phase of assessment thinking in
which it was assumed assessment merely measured learning,
technical interests dominated assessment theory and practice.
There was an emphasis on finding statistical solutions to
assessment problems. Reliability became celebrated above all,
and the simplest way to achieve high levels of reliability was to
use standardised approaches which treated everyone the same.
This certainly met some limited criteria of equity, but it did not
acknowledge legitimate diversity of outcome. While we may
wish students in our courses to have a good grounding in basic
ideas and concepts, it is not necessary for them all to possess
exactly the same specific knowledge. This has been
acknowledged from the earliest days in which there was a
choice of question in formal examinations, but we have been
through a phase in which even that was not acceptable. Today,
we expect our students to learn how to learn as and when they
need to, not be beholden to a standardised curriculum. This
means that validity of assessment must come to take on greater
importance. That is, assessment needs to reflect what is most
important in educational outcomes and this may be at the
expense of simple reliability. When we have multiple sources
of assessment, the risk of unreliability in any one of them can
be countenanced more readily than can the risk of invalidity.
Equity of treatment means that all students must have equal
opportunity to demonstrate the desired learning outcomes for
the course. This may mean that they engage in dissimilar
assessment tasks.
Students are congenital cheats and will do everything in their
power to do better than their peers.
In this view, collaboration must be avoided at all costs. This is
a hangover from the days of norm-referenced testing that
blindly rewarded competition between students. That it is still
an issue today betrays the extent to which we have failed to
move towards a criterion-referenced view. Students will, of
course, seek to maximise their advantage in doing well in their
courses. But we need to recognise that in order to maximise
opportunities for learning, students need to learn from their
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 5 of 12
peers. Assessment systems are intrinsically individualistic,
even when they are criterion or competency based; it is the
individual student's work that is normally judged. We therefore
need to be careful that we are not inhibiting opportunities for
peer learning when we assume that students will always cheat.
We need to be judicious in not encouraging students to pass off
the work of others as their own, but at the same time encourage
collaboration in learning.
Linked to this concern is another assumption.
The unseen examination is the yardstick against which all
assessment practice must be judged.
This assumption has acted as the dead hand on assessment for
many years. Thankfully, there are clear signs that it is in rapid
decline. Many universities have policies that require multiple
forms and multiple occasions of assessment in any given
subject. This has been on the grounds that
a variety of forms are needed to assess the variety of
learning outcomes,
it is unwise to place all ones eggs in a single assessment
basket and
students need to be given early warning of problems they
might have in meeting the requirements of the subject.
Nevertheless, examinations are too often seen as the only way
of avoiding plagiarism and impersonation. This assumption has
locked in an emphasis on memorisation that ill befits the
information age in which we operate. The move to open book
tests is a healthy one as it creates a discipline for us to ensure
that we are assessing understanding rather than privileging
memory work.
Of course, students will cheat. But they tend to do so (a) when
there is an incentive to do so, (b) when they are not likely to be
discovered, (c) when assessment tasks are not tailored to
student interests and (d) and when tasks are such that answers
can be recycled or copied. Anonymity breeds cheating.
Laziness in the construction of assessment tasks breeds
cheating. When staff members know students, and students
know staff members, especially when they know who is likely
to be marking their work, cheating is discouraged. When
assessment activities appear fresh, then cheating becomes too
hard.
Ironically, the moves of student organisations towards
anonymity of assessment on the grounds of possible bias have
created more problems than it has solved. Cheating breeds in a
context of anonymity, and good quality feedback is
compromised when it cannot be tailored to the recipient.
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 6 of 12
Purposes of assessment
Before proceeding further we should reflect on what it is that we are
referring to as assessment. There are two key purposes: to certify and to
prompt learning (often labelled summative and formative assessment). It
used to be argued that we must always keep these two purposes separate as
the characteristics of good assessment for formative and summative
purposes differ fundamentally. It is true that they have fundamentally
different features. Formative assessment requires the feedback of good
quality rich information sufficiently detailed and focused to enable the
learner to benefit from it. Summative assessment is judged in terms of the
extent to which it accurately portrays what a student knows or can do or is
equipped for (for example, further advanced study in the same area).
However, our time and energy is limited and students often do not make
fine discriminations between assessment for different purposes. For them,
assessment is assessment! A given set of assessment tasks has to perform
double duty. This is one of the greatest challenges we face. How do we
design assessment to both provide sufficient feedback to enable a student to
learn from it while at the same time accurately portraying achievement for
(normally) an external audience?
If we look at the time we spend on assessment as staff members, I fear it is
skewed dramatically in favour of the summative. An emphasis on formative
aspects is undermined by the fact that students receive information about
their work at the times at which they are least likely to be able to benefit
from helpful comments: once the semester has ended or once there teaching
has ceased on the topic.
An agenda for assessment
Having examined some common assumptions about assessment that are no
longer tenable, where does that leave us? While it is not possible here to
produce an authoritative list of assessment principles, the following are
steps in the direction of an agenda for assessment based upon my
interpretation of current research and thinking in the area.
I believe that the greatest barrier to improved assessment and therefore
improved learning is our own experience of being assessed and our distress
about this. No matter how academically successful we have become almost
all of us have had unpleasant experiences of being assessed. We have
known fear, humiliation and embarrassment. And because of this
assessment has become charged with a degree of emotion that does not act
in our own interests or those of our students. For some academics this leads
to a degree of machismo in the setting of tasks: If it hurts, it must be doing
good. If it was good enough for me, then it must be good enough for my
students. For other staff the emotionality of assessment leads to the
opposite. Needless to say, neither of these is appropriate. If students are to
show what they are capable of, we must be specially mindful of the
emotions of assessment and do all we can to remove from assessment acts
as many unnecessary vestiges of tension as is possible. Their importance to
the careers of students makes them charged enough without us doing
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 7 of 12
anything to inflame the situation. This means that we must be mindful of
briefing students clearly and in writing about assessment tasks
being explicit about criteria and how work will be judged
being very clear that we are judging particular work from students not
students themselves and
being careful that we do not inadvertently re-create situations which
students have previously found traumatic.
The latter provides a particular challenge to our imagination.
We must become aware of our own experiences of assessment so that these
do not intrude inappropriately.
Ensuring assessment enhances learning.
Too much of what we do in assessment acts directly to inhibit our best
teaching intentions. Unless the overall pattern of assessment in a subject
and a course as a whole acts directly to pursue the kind of learning
outcomes desired, then there is a risk that these will be undermined.
Assessment acts as a signal to point students to what is most important to
learn. If the signal points to outcomes that do not represent what we hope
students will achieve in our course, then we are misleading them. This is
much more common than you might assume. No single assessment method
can deliver across of broad range of educational goals. Unless there is a real
diversity of strategies and unless these strategies involve interesting and
challenging tasks of the kind that we expect students will perform, then we
are necessarily distorting learning.
Show a friend a complete set of your assessment tasks and ask him or her
what they would infer about what you would regard as important for your
students. It is a sobering activity. One can apply this test for oneself in
anticipation of a colleague doing it for us. If we find that the most important
learning outcomes do not shine through a reading of the assessment tasks,
then the assessment practices in that subject are likely to be inadequate.
That is the easy part. We need to do the same for the course as a whole if
we are to ensure assessment contributes to learning. When we do this we
are likely to find many additional problems with assessment. If we are all
biased in favour of memorisation (and much research suggests this to be the
case) then the cumulative effect on students is great indeed. Very often
general goals such as the ones I mentioned earlier about learning how to
learn and becoming an autonomous learner, fall through the gaps between
subjects and never get pursued actively.
Assessment should always be judged in terms of its consequences for
learning.
Not in terms of some naïve theory about testing teaching, or about 'knowing
the basic facts'! Good assessment prompts good learning. If students are not
engaging in the course in the way we are hoping for, we should look first to
assessment and deal with that. I remember well when I was first appointed
to the University of New South Wales many years ago. Colleagues in the
Centre where I was working were undertaking a study of why students were
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 8 of 12
leaving first year lectures in a particular discipline. I will not name it for
reasons that will shortly be obvious. Not only did the number of students in
lectures decline rapidly throughout the semester, but students were also
leaving en masse during lectures. The lecturers were hurt and dismayed.
Could their lecturing be so bad? Thankfully for them, it was not. They had
however managed to contrive an assessment scheme that directly resulted in
the observed behaviour. How did we find out what the problem was? The
sophisticated research design involved standing outside the lecture room
and asking students why they were leaving early, to which they gave a
direct answer!
This was one very obvious consequence of assessment-most students were
not exposed to most of the teaching in the course. However, this could not
be detected simply through reading the list of assessment tasks. The
interaction between the assessment tasks and the teaching activities needed
to be examined also.
A less obvious, but potentially more important issue of consequences is that
unless we enable students to take responsibility for making judgements
about their learning we are failing to equip them for learning in the future.
At the end of the day, all that matters educationally is self-assessment. If
our students become effective assessors of their own learning we have
assisted them to become lifelong learners. In terms of a specific agenda for
assessment and learning, nothing has a higher place than ensuring the
development of students' abilities to self assess. I don't want to get into
more detail on this matter here, but I'd be pleased to take this up in
discussion.
Assessment should not be distracted by the technicalities of grading
The more we use numbers and make fine-grain numerical distinctions, the
more we lose sight of our educational purposes and obscure what learning is
about. We have known since classic studies in the 1930s that the error in the
marking of essay-type tests is such that it is meaningless to report
percentage marks, or in a manner which has such fine distinctions. Four
passing grade bands are as accurate as one can get with most of the
assessments procedures available. Even that may be too fine-grain for some
purposes. Let us not pretend we can be more precise. We should devote the
energy we expend on making finer distinctions to making the specific
discriminations more transparent. This would involve grounding them in the
details of the standards underpinning the academic work we expect of
students. My view is that unless we can substitute for a mark a descriptive
and meaningful statement about the qualities that students have exhibited in
their work we are not engaged in a meaningful communication with them.
There are lots of ways to do this other than time consuming extended
written comments (assignment attachment forms, item banks, etc.) and, of
course, students have a lot to offer each other.
Unless assessment tasks are worthwhile learning exercises in their own
right we have wasted valuable teaching time. We should avoid spending
time on tasks that do not contribute to student learning. The marking of
terminal assessments, unlike the setting of such assignments, rarely
contributes to students' future learning. We should find ways of minimising
how much time we spend on it.
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 9 of 12
Avoid communicating to students in code.
Every act of assessment gives a message to students about what
they should be learning and how they should go about it. The
message is coded, is not easily understood and often it is read
differently and with different emphases by staff and by
students. The message is always interpreted in context and the
cues which the context provides offer as much or more clues to
students than the intentions of staff, which are rarely explicit.
(Boud 1995a)
Criterion-referenced assessment implies that what is important is the
criterion, not a symbol detached from it. The further feedback to students
gets from the specifics of the assessment tasks and the criteria used to judge
them, the more obscure and unhelpful it becomes. What would you find
most useful to your learning a 'C' or a statement explaining why your
conclusion was not justified by your argument?
The language we use in making assessment judgements betrays our attitude
and positions us in a discourse of power. Statements by us that say a piece
of work is 'poor' or even that it is 'very good' betray our unthinking use of
authority and use of code words as a substitute for clarity of
communication. (This also applies to the ticking of five point scales.)
Richard Rorty has used the term 'final vocabulary' to describe words such as
these which terminate discussion and Karen Moni this morning referred to
these as 'weasel words'. Words like these say nothing, they block
understanding and are an artefact of our power. They are a sign of
disrespect. Disrespect begets disrespect, not just to us, but to what is being
learned. There is much to be said about power and authority and how it is
exercised in assessment and I hope that this will be considered further
during the conference.
Time on task is important.
We learn far more from teaching a course than students ever do from taking
it. How can we shift the balance of learning from us to them? Time on
important tasks is essential. Students learn from their own activity, not ours.
Learning involves active processing. The more opportunities you provide
for it, the greater the benefit for students. Our aim must always be to
encourage students to engage in activities that allow them to learn and
practice those skills and abilities that are most important to their learning in
the knowledge domain of the course. The more we fill up their time with
other kinds of activities, the more they will be directed away from what is
essential. Assessment provides a signal that points to what we believe to be
important. We need to be sure our signals are not misleading.
Assessment must be viewed through the eyes of students
Students prepare themselves in terms of their prior experience of
assessment activities of the kind they are expecting us to provide. No matter
how good our assessment tasks, if students believe they will do well by
memorisation, they will prepare themselves to memorise no matter what the
intrinsic merits of your particular assessment.
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Page 10 of 12
We must not forget that students are not homogeneous, we need many
lenses through which to view their experiences. There is no substitute for
direct engagement with students to discover their perceptions. Most of the
questionnaires we use, while they provide much of value, are no substitutes
for an understanding of how students interpret what we do. Unless we can
imagine how students will respond to our assessment (and of course, our
teaching) then we will never be effective in promoting good outcomes. We
should remember the story of the exodus of students from the first year
lectures. Finding a way of asking the right questions can save us a lot of
time and energy.
We shouldn't use large classes as an excuse to treat students as objects to be
processed rather than individuals to be treated with respect. We may need to
enrol the insights of tutors and demonstrators to tune in to the range of
students' experience. It is good practice to model our concern for students'
perspectives with all colleagues with whom we work. Inducting new staff
into this way of looking at teaching, learning and assessment may be the
most effective mentoring we can do.
Key strategies
There are a number of key strategies we need to consider. These include
Maximising the use of
assessment tasks that involve students in meaningful learning and
adopting deep approaches to their study.
learning from each other.
rich, detailed, descriptive feedback.
However, the design of assessment tasks is the greatest challenge.
Much can be done by fine-tuning existing assessment activities, but we
must be clear about the principles we should consider. Not all of the
following can be achieved in any given assessment task, but the totally of
assessment tasks across subjects must adequately portray what is most
important for learning in the course.
Let me end on a practical note. If we are talking about criteria, what criteria
should we use in designing our own assessment tasks?
Criteria for the design of assessment tasks
Well-designed assessment tasks:
1. are authentic and set in a realistic context (ie. oriented towards the
world external to the course itself)
2. are worthwhile learning activities in their own right. (ie. each separate
act of assessment can be credibly regarded as a worthwhile
contribution to learning)
3. permit a holistic rather than a fragmented approach, (eg. engage
students in the whole of a process rather than a particular puzzle)
4. are not repetitive for either student or assessor. Assessment-related
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 11 of 12
work is a productive use of time for all those involved. (There are
some limited situations in which practice, which might appear to be
repetitive, can be justified.)
prompt student self-assessment. (ie. the range of assessment tasks
leaves students better equipped to engage in their own selfassessment now and in the future. They shift the emphasis from
looking to teaching staff for judgements to students looking to
themselves and the nature of the task.)
are sufficiently flexible for students to tailor them to their own needs
and interests
are not likely to be interpreted by students in a way fundamentally
different to those of the designer
do not make assumptions about the subject matter or the learner
which are irrelevant to the task and which are differentially perceived
by different groups of students (eg. use of unnecessarily genderspecific examples, assumptions about characteristics, etc.)
Conclusion
Students judge us by what we do, not what we say. If we assess badly, then
students will learn badly, no matter what good we are doing in your
teaching. Learning from mediocre teaching can be transformed by the
choice of imaginative and engaging assessment tasks. Learning from
inspirational teaching can fail to be consolidated by mediocre assessment.
I said at the start that I wanted to revisit conventional assessment practice
from the point of view of someone who has been away from it for a while.
I've done that and while I am encouraged by some of the changes I have
seen and see here today, there is still a very long way to go before we can
have assessment practices which are educationally defensible and seriously
contribute to the kinds of learning we most desire. I am encouraged to see
that the University is taking these issues seriously.
Further reading on assessment and learning
Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment. London:
Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (1995a). Assessment and learning: contradictory or
complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.) Assessment for Learning in Higher
Education. London: Kogan Page, 35-48.
Eisner, E. W. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: some criteria in
search of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25, 3, 219-233.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (1996). The Experience of
Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education.
Second Edition. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Nightingale, P., Te Wiata, I., Toohey, S., Ryan, G., Hughes, C. and Magin,
D. (1996). Assessing Learning in Universities. Sydney: University of New
South Wales Press.
Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them?
Second Edition. London: Kogan Page.
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011
TEDI conferences: Assessment and learning – unlearning bad habits of assessment
Conference Entry
Page
About the
Conference
Page 12 of 12
Abstracts Conference
Program
TEDI Home About Assessment UQ Home
This site built on a Macintosh using Dreamweaver.. Last modified 20/1/99; 10:14:13 AM.
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/A_conf/papers/Boud.html
9/04/2011