Main Article Content
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2011). Australian Qualifications Framework Retrieved January 12 , 2015, from http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/Handbook/AustQuals%20FrmwrkFirstEitionJul2011_FINAL.pdf
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education (2nd Ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 221-238. doi: 10.1023/A:1004181331049
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Boud, D., & Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved March 21, from http://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/Assessment-2020_propositions_final.pdf.
Brown, B. B. (1968). Delphi Process: A Methodology Used for the Elicitation of Opinions of Experts. Santa Monica, California: The RAND Corporation. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P3925.pdf.
Clarke, S. (2005). Formative assessment in the secondary classroom. London: Hodder Murrary.
Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, J. (2004). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing students' learning in the primary and intermediate classroom. Auckland: Hodder Education.
Connolly, S., Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. M. (2012). Moderation and Consistency of Teacher Judgement: Teachers' Views. British Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 593614. Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.569006
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report (Bradley Review). (978-0-642-77805-5). Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.mq.edu.au/pubstatic/public/download.jsp?id=111997.
Department of Industry Innovation Science Research and Tertiary Education. (2011). Higher education standards framework (F2013L00194). Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00169/Download
Eshun, E. F., & Osei-Poku, P. (2013). Design Students Perspectives on Assessment Rubric in Studio-Based Learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 10 (1). Retrieved, January 12, 2015, from http://ezproxy.usc.edu.au:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru&db=eric&AN=EJ1005281&site=eds-live
Gittens, W. (2007). Shifting Discourse in College Teaching. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), Article 17. Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol1/iss1/17
Glaser, R. E. (2014). Design and Assessment of an Assignment-Based Curriculum to Teach Scientific Writing and Scientific Peer Review. Journal of Learning Design, 7 (2), 85-104. Retrieved Februrary 16, 2015, from http://ezproxy.usc.edu.au:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru&db=eric&AN=EJ1040438&site=eds-live
Glasson, T. (2009). Improving student achievement: A practical guide to assessment for learning. Carlton South Vic.: Curriculum Corp.
Grainger, P., Purnell, K., & Zipf, R. (2008). Judging quality through substantive conversations between markers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (2), 133142. doi: 10.1080/02602930601125681
Grainger, P., & Weir, K. (2015). An alternative grading tool for enhancing assessment practice and quality assurance in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2015.1022200
Hounsell, D. (2005). Contrasting conceptions of essay-writing. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (3rd (Internet) ed., pp. 106-125). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/iad/Learning_teaching/Academic_teaching/Resources/Experiece_of_learning/EoLChapter7.pdf.
Jonsson, A. (2014). Rubrics as a Way of Providing Transparency in Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (7), 840-852.
Klenowski, V., & Adie, L. (2009). Moderation as judgement practice: reconciling system level accountability and local level practice. Curriculum Perspectives, 29 (1), 10-28. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/26164/
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). Review: The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
Popham, W. J. (1997). What's wrong--and what's right--with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55 (2), 72.
Race, P. (2006). The Lecturer's Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Learning, Teaching and Assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Readman, K., & Allen, B. (2013). Practical Planning and Assessment. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (4), 435-448. doi: 10.1080/02602930902862859 Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and Promulgating Achievement Standards, 191.
Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (2), 175-194. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000264262
Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the Meticulous Specification of Goals and Assessment Criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14 (3), 387-392.
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of academic achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (7), 807-826. doi: 10.1080/03075070802706553
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (6), 727-743. doi: 10.1080/02602930902977756
Sadler, D. R. (2013). Assuring academic achievement standards: from moderation to calibration. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20 (1), 5-19. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2012.714742
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis Types & Software Tools. London: Falmer Press.