Editorial
The landscape of education and…
Introduction
Current discussions around assessment tend to focus on technicalities (William, 2010, as cited in Baird et al., 2017; Broadfoot, 1996, as cited in Reay & Wiliam, 1999), such as ensuring alignment, making assessment criteria as transparent as possible to improve consistency in marking and perceptions of fairness (Jonsson, 2014, as cited in Bearman and Ajjawi, 2021), enhancing feedback effectiveness through wordsmithing and timing (Hattie and Timperley, 2007), and adopting strategies to encourage student engagement with feedback (To, 2021). These discussions assume that the purpose of assessment is to enhance learning, which is seemingly unproblematic and even commonsensical. Yet, as Biesta (2009) argues, ‘learning’ is an empty concept if the aims of education are not explicitly articulated and the “implicit reliance on a particular ‘commonsense’ view of what education is for” often “serves the interests of some groups (much) better than those of others” (Biesta, 2009, p.37). Crucially, Biesta (2009) contends that the language of learning or ‘learnification’ makes it more difficult to ask questions about the purpose of education.
Predominance of qualification, neglect of subjectification
In this essay, I put forth that generally, discussions around assessment in Singapore predominate towards qualification as a key purpose of education, unsurprising given that education has been closely related to manpower planning and economic development (Gopinathan, 2013) as part of the fragile nationhood narrative that legitimises manufacturing students as human capital (Koh & Chong, 2014). Despite increasing emphasis on student-centred learning approaches since the ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TLLM) initiative in 2005, critics note that substantive discussions about education’s purposes have been displaced by managerial discourses reflecting the “learnification of education” (Biesta, 2004, as cited in Teo et al., 2013). Thus, despite extolling student agency and caution against assessment’s ‘backwash effect’ (Alderson & Wall, 1993, as cited in Baird et al., 2017; Messick, 1989), the increasing attention paid to consequential validity continues to be directed towards enhancing learning for qualification. Scant notice is given to how assessment may shape students’ identities (Cizek et al., 2008, as cited in Iliescu & Greiff, 2021; Reay & William, 1999), particularly how assessment may contribute to subjectification, or processes of individuation where students appear as subjects independent from existing orders (Biesta, 2009).
In Singapore’s higher education context, the role of universities to “fill the professions” in pursuit of industrial growth (Lee, 1966a) has been largely unquestioned, only briefly challenged by humanistic ideals during decolonisation (Holden, 2019). This instrumentalist sensibility persists today even as universities are exhorted to promote lifelong learning (Chan, 2022), echoing Biesta’s (2006) observation regarding the neglect of lifelong learning’s personal and democratic functions. Following the call to “reclaim” a language of and for education (Biesta, 2005; Teo et al, 2013), and viewing subjectification as “core” (Biesta, 2020, p.102), this paper synthesises ideas around assessment to propose design principles based on Tan’s (2013) Assessment for Learning dimensions, i.e., standards, criteria, task and feedback, that would engender assessment modalities oriented towards subjectification.
Standards
First, we may consider the extent to which students partake in the construction of assessment standards. I follow Torrance’s (2012) argument that ‘transparent’ rubrics representing expert knowledge (Bearman and Ajjawi, 2021) promotes conformative or deformative practices inimical to developing criticality. Arguably, this inhibits subjectification as students are not engaged in “reconciling themselves to reality” where they are able to exercise their ‘qualified’ freedom to act through the world which puts limitations on them (Biesta, 2020, p.95-97). Instead, transparent rubrics imposed on students encourages the “existential risk of self-destruction” as students withdraw from the world (Biesta, 2020, p.97). Although in many assessment practices today, students do have opportunities to discuss and clarify the standards reflected in the rubrics, Biesta (2020) warns against conflating subjectification with ‘self-objectification’ where student ownership of learning constitutes pseudo-empowerment, asserting that true subjectification allows students to “say no…walk away…resist” the standards (p.93). Here, ‘invitational’ rubrics offer students a “productive space” (p.363) to develop quality work through multiple enactments and to “critique, de-construct and reject” standards (Bearman and Ajjawi, 2021, p.338). Through such ‘transformative’ assessment which involves students in scrutinising assessment standards and possibly rejecting these standards, subjectification is promoted as students engage in the sociocultural practice of judgment (Torrance, 2012).
There is another sense of ‘subjectification’ that can be considered, one that values overcoming more than reconciling, described by Barnett (2007) as the committed ‘authentic being’ (p.31) who transmutes and embraces assessment’s disciplinary power to find one’s true self. Put simply, students proactively seek personal meaning and significance in assessment tasks for their personal growth. Such an orientation requires more than just inviting students to critique and change the rubrics, but to engage them in connecting assessment to their personal goals and sense of self. I argue that for assessment to possess the transmutative quality Barnett (2007) envisions, it must permit sufficient space for students to change the emphases in the rubrics, to suit their personal goals.
In summary, I propose that assessment standards may be designed in three modes: conformative, transformative and transmutative. In the conformative mode, students are not involved in the construction of assessment standards and focus on making sense of what is required of them. In the transformative mode, students are actively involved in the construction of assessment standards and are allowed to critique and reject standards. In the transmutative mode, students are not only actively involved in the sociocultural practice of judgment, but they also personalise assessment standards in ways that support their personal becoming.
Criteria
Next, considering the design of assessment criteria, Biesta’s (2020) view of subjectification as a constant becoming through interruption by the world, provides us with a key design principle, i.e., the extent to which assessment criteria encourages students to confront reality as a complex whole. What may not promote subjectification would be criteria that is overly atomistic, as Sadler (2007) notes that meticulous specification of assessment criteria prevents students from encountering the world as a complex whole since “hermetically sealed” fragments (p.390) eliminate relationships and dependencies. Consequently, students’ selves are being managed (Biesta, 2020, p.100) as they collect fragments of learning, resulting in objectification. On the contrary, integrative criteria demanding students to combine knowledge and skills not only foster task-variant capabilities (Sadler, 2007), but arguably furnish the “interruptive quality” (Biesta, 2020, p.98) that allows students to appear as subjects grappling with the world. Going further with Barnett’s (2007) notion of overcoming the world, subjectification may be promoted through interrogating reality. Here, I argue that a key design principle is to allow students to interpret integrative criteria in ways that attend to their personal becoming. This would require students to articulate and justify their interpretations.
In summary, I propose that assessment criteria may be designed in three modes: atomistic, integrative, and interrogative. In the atomistic mode, students encounter reality as incoherent and fragmented, and focus on accumulating achievement points stated in the assessment criteria. In the integrative mode, students encounter reality as a complex whole, and they are engaged in interpreting the criteria as they grapple with complexities of reality. In the interrogative mode, students not only interpret the criteria based on complexities, but they also challenge interpretations of reality and interpret criteria based on their personal goals.
Task
Another consideration is the extent to which tasks link to defined outcomes. Biesta (2020) argues that education as subjectification needs to work with the principle of suspension, “of slowing down, of giving time, so that students can meet the world, meet themselves in relation to the world, and ‘work through’ all this” (p.98). This suggests that what is at stake is not amount of time per se, but a certain freedom from utilitarianism, as Lewis & Friedrich (2015) claims, leaving only “pure potentialities” (p.238). This contrasts with ‘learning’ as a chronological unfolding from potentiality into actuality, based on certain outcomes and rules, which constrict the individual. Here, the concepts of ‘tinkering’ and ‘hacking’ intimate the degree to which tasks may be freed from defined outcomes and allow for more freedom to be exercised by students. ‘Tinkering’ promotes subjectification since freedom is returned to students in the context of uncertain outcomes, encouraging them to approach tasks in a non-linear manner and to engage with rules flexibly. ‘Hacking’ may constitute a more assertive form of subjectification, as students are allowed to repurpose the task, redefining the intended outcomes and rules.
In summary, I propose that assessment tasks may be designed in three modes: learning, tinkering, and hacking. In the learning mode, students approach tasks which have clear parameters, in a linear manner based on defined outcomes and rules. In the tinkering mode, students approach tasks which have unclear parameters, in a non-linear manner based on uncertain outcomes and rules. In the hacking mode, students are given permission to repurpose tasks, reset parameters, and approach tasks by determining their personal outcomes and suitable rules.
Feedback
Pertaining to feedback is Biesta’s (2020) principle of sustenance supporting students in reconciling with reality. Instead of providing information for performance enhancement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), Biesta (2019) views sustenance work as staging personalised, educationally meaningful experiences of resistance to “arouse the desire…to stay in the difficult middle ground” (p.5). This highlights that subjectification requires feedback that is not simply meant for students to effectively reproduce standards and criteria, but feedback that enable students as “significant agents” (Boud & Dawson, 2021, p.10) through emphasising students’ feedback responsibilities, literacies and psychological safety (To, 2021). Nevertheless, although such feedback practices where educators act as examplars may help reveal students’ ‘higher selves’, subjectification is more strongly emphasised when educators function as liberators to help students become true selves not in the image of educators. This requires educator-liberators to support students’ habitual reassessment of values to “educate ourselves against our age” (Stolz, 2020, p.188).
In summary, I propose that feedback may be designed in three modes: reproducing, revealing, and reassessing. In the reproducing mode, students receive feedback from educators focused on reproduction of standards and criteria. In the revealing mode, students engage in feedback with educators as exemplars and in the process, discover themselves. In the reassessing mode, students critically reassess current paradigms through feedback with educators and discover their values.
Assessment modalities and learning orientations
From these, I posit three broad assessment modalities:
Where standards compel students to conform, accumulate achievements through atomistic criteria, approach tasks linearly based on defined outcomes and rules, and use feedback to reproduce current norms, an ‘objectifying’ modality results, positioning students in a pre-existing social order (Mann, 2001). Where students are given opportunities to critique and reject assessment standards, interpret integrative criteria, approach tasks in a non-linear manner based on uncertain outcomes and rules, and engage in feedback to discover their potential, a ‘subjectifying’ modality results; students do not “stand as outsiders” (p.11) and are less “exiled from the self” (p.13). Where students are encouraged to connect assessment to personal meaning, interrogate criteria, repurpose tasks, and reassess current paradigms during feedback processes, an ‘authentifying’ modality results where students’ creative capacities are exercised in service of personal meanings.
Realistically, an eclectic mix of modalities may be present and contribute tensions. For instance, inviting students to take ownership when criteria are atomistic may precipitate ‘self-objectification’ as “students are forced into modes of self-management” (Biesta, 2020, p.100). Assessment modalities likely influence students’ learning orientations and experiences, which may similarly comprise of varying permutations.
‘Objectifying’ modalities likely engender compliance, since atomisation views learning as collecting fragments (Sadler, 2007), ‘transparent’ criteria prompt achieving rather than learning (Bearman & Ajjawi, 2021), and linear tasks intensify self-regulation. ‘Objectifying’ modalities may motivate surface or strategic learning approaches characterised by a preoccupation with task completion, thus engendering alienating learning experiences (Mann, 2001). ‘Subjectifying’ modalities encourage criticality as students confront complex realities, scrutinise assessment standards, and exercise freedom in approaching tasks flexibly. ‘Subjectifying’ modalities may promote deep learning approaches and foster ‘engaging’ experiences (Mann, 2001) where students are regarded as agents and motivated to discover their highest performance potential. ‘Authentifying’ modalities generate a ‘creative’ learning orientation as students interrogate, reassess, and overcome assessment to pursue personal meaning and growth. ‘Authentifying’ modalities may help stir ‘critical energy’ (Barnett, 1997, as cited in Mann, 2001) prompting the questioning contributing to ‘actualising’ learning experiences and authentic becoming.
Practice Implications
What then, is required in assessment practice, to move away from objectifying modalities? To move away from conformative assessment, Torrance (2012) views it insufficient for students to simply grasp the contingent nature of standards and criteria and engage metacognitively. He contends that students need to be viewed as participants in the “cultural practice of judgment” through deliberating assessment’s “legitimating role in the social order” through encountering divergent possibilities and new ways of thinking and new criteria (p.338). In the following sections, I put forth four proposals for changes in assessment practices, to move towards subjectifying and authentifying modes of being. The first proposal concerns discursively repositioning students as ‘speakers’ starting from an “assumption of equality” instead of ‘learners’ “in terms of a lack” (Biesta, 2010, p.541). The second proposal is to involve students in ongoing social construction of rubrics and to emphasise the tentative nature of standards and criteria. The third proposal involves allowing students to personalise rubrics and customize assessment tasks, in line with developing students’ authentic becoming. Finally, developing integrative criteria that not only support students to “operate in intelligent and flexible ways” (Sadler, 2007, p.389-390), but also to connect assessment to capabilities, and personal as well as professional identities.
Proposal 1: Repositioning students as equal ‘speakers’ in a dynamic field
To reposition students as equal ‘speakers’, we may examine discursive conventions in communications with students. Consider typical phrasings in course outline documents, which projects the institution’s authoritative ‘voice’ (Bernstein, 2000), such that students are not ‘invited’ to engage with assessment and learning as a ‘productive space’ (Bearman & Ajjawi, 2021). Often, students are assumed to be lacking and require “equipping” by experts who understand “current best practices”, also presented as largely unproblematic. For example, “This course aims to equip you with the fundamental knowledge of Robot Operating System (ROS)” or “You will learn about the importance of the robotics architecture in solving practical problems”.
To invite students as participants, questions may be posed to students to provoke thinking, situate students as participants of a professional culture, and foreground the process of constructing criteria, its contingent nature, and divergent possibilities (Torrance, 2012). For example, students can be asked “what is a ‘robot’?” and “what makes the robotics architecture important?” to invite them to think critically about the subject. Students can be asked, “what makes a robot ‘good’?” where bracketing ‘good’ acknowledges the presence of divergent perspectives, or “what kinds of problems should robots solve?” which positions students as emerging participants of the field partaking in key decisions and ethical dilemmas, in line with subjectification’s emphasis on reconciling with reality.
To move students towards authenticity (Barnett, 2007), the phrasing could attempt to evoke a sense of challenge, focus on developing personal stances, and normalise emotional responses as part of education. For example, by asking “what are your roles as robotics specialists in society?”, students are challenged to consider their personal and professional identities, in addition to knowledge, skills and capabilities they will acquire. Stating “in this course, we invite you to develop your unique perspective on constructing robotics systems to solve practical problems” or “you will be challenged to develop a robotics system that is personally meaningful to you” emphasises the personalised nature of learning and assessment.
This discursive repositioning may be similarly applied in the phrasing of criteria. Although Bearman and Ajjawi (2021) advocate balancing directive and abstract phrasing so students can enact quality meaningfully yet “avoid the trap of pure transparency” (p.364), I argue that looking at the amount of clarification constructs deficit individuals requiring the intervention of educators (Biesta, 2010) who optimise conditions for enactment through mediating clarity/obscurity. Another way of framing the problem is in terms of tentativeness/firmness of communication which returns students their freedom, by situating them in a dynamic professional field. Below, I illustrate how tentative phrasing may ‘invite’ students to assessment discourse, through posing questions (about phrasing itself), bracketing ideas for deliberation, and presenting and seeking multiple possibilities. The crux is acquainting students with the messiness of socially construction, and the contingent and generalisable nature of quality (Torrance, 2012).
Proposal 2: Involve students in ongoing construction of rubrics
If we wish to position students as genuine ‘speakers’, we can involve them in the experience of the social construction of rubrics. This pushes current practices beyond even dialogic discussion of exemplars, where rubrics continue to assume the air of omniscience and clarification is key. Like Torrance (2012) I recognise this suggestion as “grandiose” (p.338) and anticipate concerns about feasibility. Hence, I suggest that rubrics should be presented as tentative drafts which provide a starting point with some broad parameters, for students to critique and suggest edits. Online collaborative tools can be harnessed to adopt these techniques of ‘draftification’ which softens the boundaries between expert and learners.
Following Traue et al.’s (2018) contention that visual information is “an aspect and element of social and cultural orders and practices sui generis” (p.327), I argue that the ubiquitous use of tables to represent rubrics constitute a “discursive regime” around quality, contributing to a “system of sayability” (p.329) that legitimates and constrains meaning potentials (Bernstein, 2000). The linearity of tables embeds a conceptual grammer that may not necessarily encourage viewing reality as complex. Therefore, I recommend using non-linear diagrams, e.g., concept maps, concentric circles, matrices, where interdependencies are spotlighted, to conduce a complexity and integrative outlook. The goal is to project an ‘interrogative’ tone (Biesta, 2010) to “demand speech” from students and nurture “the manifestation of an intelligence that wasn’t aware of itself or that had given up” (p.544).
It is important that students work together, imbuing the process with interruptive “reality checks” (Biesta, 2020, p.97) through diverse perspectives. Since criteria negotiation “should be successively addressed and readdressed, not just as a decontextualised cognitive activity” (Torrance, 2012, p.336), we could consider multiple sessions dedicated to the social construction of rubrics. I presume this may stir anxieties around the lack of curriculum time. If so, it demonstrates the persistent separation between ‘learning’ and ‘assessment’. Therefore, the involvement of students in constructing rubrics cannot be conceived in isolation. It entails reconceptualising curriculum design to integrate the fields of ‘learning’ and ‘assessment’. Pedagogically, this implies reorienting lessons towards ongoing interrogation of standards and criteria.
Using Tan’s (2013) triangulated model for emancipatory education, I suggest looking at standards not in terms of a “desired (referent) standard” (p.3) but in terms of the degree of constructedness and reconciliation with reality. We can view the number of tasks in terms of the extent of interruption, as each subsequent task “redistributes the existing order” (Biesta, 2010, p.547) required for subjectification. Concerning the feedback incline, I view it as reflective of increasing criticality needed with increasingly efforts at social construction. Depicting points on the incline as ‘lessons’ serves to unify ‘learning with ‘assessment’ and ensure that feedback and metacognitive reflection are not activities that occur outside of lessons but rather, are the thrust.
Proposal 3: Allow for personalisation of rubrics and customisation of tasks
To cultivate subjectification and authenticity, we can permit students to personalise rubrics and tasks. For example, students may decide that they would like to prioritise a particular criterion over another. Students may be given different possible assessment tasks, and they may be asked how they might personalise it. For instance, in a teaching course, some students may opt to highlight questioning skills over presentation skills, and they may determine the context of interaction with students, for which they are being assessed for. While personalised learning is not a novel idea, constructing one’s standards and criteria (out of a socially constructed process) and differentiating assessment tasks may still be met with much hesitance, perhaps because of prevailing values such as objectivity, fairness, validity. This suggestion therefore requires a paradigmatic reconsideration that affects associated academic practices like the content and format of transcripts and conceive of new ways of demonstrating ‘achievement’.
Proposal 4: Developing integrative criteria emphasising personal and professional identities
Following the observation that in the current climate of expansion of higher education, the representation of achievement solely in terms of knowledge and skills, i.e., competencies (usually in the form of grades) do not adequately inform hiring decisions and that what is required is to redesign assessment for distinctiveness (Jorre de St Jorre et al., 2019), I propose that the development of integrative criteria should not only support the portrayal of “graduates’ complex and unique accomplishments” (p.2), but also encourage students to reflect on their personal goals and identities. Building on Biesta’s (2020) framing of subjectification, socialisation and qualification as concentric circles with subjectification at the core, and adding ‘authenticity’ to his conceptual framework, I suggest a four-tier framework that connects personal and professional identities to capabilities as well as knowledge and skills, as part of an ongoing course outline document students reflect on.
At the innermost core (authenticity), permitting students to convey their unique personal identities that they have determined for themselves, aligns with Jorre de St Jorre et al’s (2019) principle of “providing opportunities for demonstration of distinct and personalised achievement” (p.6). At the level of subjectification, the focus on professional identities and profiles stemming from evaluative judgment reflect students as “active learners…instead of passive subjects” (p.7) who can engage with complex realities. This is supported by capabilities, knowledge and skills reflecting achievement “driven by quality assurance and standards identified by the profession” (p.7). The complex interconnections amongst identities, capabilities and knowledge and skills also allow “multiple portrayals of achievements for different audiences” (p.7) and “meaningful evidence of the achievement” (p.8). In most contexts, students are assigned grade statuses, for example, fail/pass/outstanding. Adopting integrative criteria with diverse interdependencies can assist in working against aggregation and homogenisation, facilitating the communication of distinctive ‘beings’.
Conclusion
In this paper, I address how practices affect “the ways human beings are represented, and ultimately, the ways they come to understand themselves and others” (Moss et al., 2005, p.70 as cited in Baird et al., 2017). By integrating several theoretical threads to posit ‘objectifying’, ‘subjectifying’ and ‘authentifying’ modalities, and linking these modalities with learning orientations and experiences, I theorise how the design of assessment practices may encourage emancipatory possibilities, in other words, subjectification and authenticity. In general, accepted norms and conventions need to be reexamined and I propose repositioning students as equal participants in the ongoing social construction of standards and criteria, as well as permitting them opportunities to personalise rubrics and assessment tasks, connecting these to the development of not only knowledge, skills and capabilities, but also to professional and personal identities.
References
Baird, J. A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017, July 3). Assessment and learning: fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &Amp; Practice, 24(3), 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2017.1319337
Barnett, R. (2007). Assessment in higher education: An impossible mission? In D. Boud, & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking Assessment for Higher Education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 29-40). London: Routledge.
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2021). Can a rubric do more than be transparent? Invitation as a new metaphor for assessment criteria. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 359-368.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
Biesta, G.J. (2004). Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. In Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. Taylor & Francis.
Biesta, G. (2006). What’s the Point of Lifelong Learning if Lifelong Learning Has No Point? On the Democratic Deficit of Policies for Lifelong Learning. European Educational Research Journal, 5(3–4), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.169
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Biesta, G. (2019). What is the Educational Task? Arousing the Desire for Wanting to Exist in the World in a Grown-up Way. Pedagogía y Saberes, 50, 51–61.
Biesta, G. (2020). Risking Ourselves in Education: Qualification, Socialization, and Subjectification Revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411
Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: an empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment &Amp; Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
Chan (2022), Speech by Minister Chan Chun Sing, at the Launch of Prof Arnoud De Meyer’s Book, Building Excellence in Higher Education: Singapore’s Experience, at the Singapore Management University, on 21 February 2022. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/20220221-speech-by-minister-chan-chun-sing-at-the-launch-of-prof-arnoud-de-meyers-book-building-excellence-in-higher-education-singapores-experience-at-the-singapore-management-university
Gopinathan, S. (2013). Education and the Nation State: The selected works of S. Gopinathan (World Library of Educationalists) (1st ed.). Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Holden, P. (2018). Spaces of Autonomy, Spaces of Hope: The place of the university in post-colonial Singapore. Modern Asian Studies, 53(2), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x17000178
Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2021, May). On Consequential Validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(3), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000664
Jorre de St Jorre, T., Boud, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2019). Assessment for distinctiveness: recognising diversity of accomplishments. Studies in Higher Education, 46(7), 1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1689385
Lee (1966a). Speech by the Prime Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, when he opened the seminar on ‘The Role of Universities in Economic and Social Development’ at the University of Singapore on 7th February, 1966. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19660207.pdf
Lewis, T. E., & Friedrich, D. (2015). Educational States of Suspension. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1004153
Mann, S. J. (2001). Alternative Perspectives on the Student Experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030689
Reay, D., & William, D. (1999, June). ‘I’ll be a nothing’: structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250305
Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 387 – 392.
Stolz, S. A. (2016). Nietzsche on Aesthetics, Educators and Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36(6), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9529-0
Stolz, S. A. (2020). Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence and Education: The Role of the Great Cultivating Thought in the Art of Self‐Cultivation (Bildung). Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(1), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12488
Tan, K. (2013). A Framework for Assessment for Learning: Implications for Feedback Practices within and beyond the Gap. ISRN Education, 2013, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/640609
Teo, J. E., Deng, Z., Lee, C. K. E., & Lim-Ratnam, C. (2013). Teach Less, Learn More: Lost in Translation. Education Innovation Series, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_7
To, J. (2021). Using learner-centred feedback design to promote students’ engagement with feedback. Higher Education Research &Amp; Development, 41(4), 1309–1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1882403
Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.689693
Traue, B., Blanc, M., & Cambre, C. (2018). Visibilities and Visual Discourses: Rethinking the Social With the Image. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418792946