Higher Education

, Volume 74, Issue 4, pp 617–633 | Cite as

How student beliefs about knowledge and knowing influence their satisfaction with assessment and feedback

  • Berry O’DonovanEmail author


Students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing frame how they interpret their educational experience and their approaches to, and perspectives on, learning, teaching and assessment. This paper draws on previous research identifying the ways of knowing of undergraduates on entry to a UK post-92 university, findings from which confirm the prevalence of absolute beliefs in which knowledge is viewed as certain, uncontested and students are largely authority-dependent. Student perspectives on assessment and feedback are explored based on thematic analysis of student responses within two main categories of beliefs, absolute/dualist versus contextual/pluralist. The paper teases out the implications of these perspectives for students’ satisfaction with their assessment and feedback experience in the context of today’s increasingly market-orientated higher education environment. Findings demonstrate that student perspectives on, and satisfaction with, assessment and feedback are strongly intertwined with their beliefs on knowledge and teaching. Students holding absolute/dualist beliefs considered ‘good’ assessment and feedback practice to entail clear and unambiguous assessment tasks, criteria and standards along with the receipt of unequivocal and corrective feedback. The paper concludes that faced with assessment tasks that move beyond established facts and demonstrable theories it may only be students who view knowledge as relative and mutable that will likely be satisfied with their assessment and feedback experience.


Student satisfaction Ways of knowing Assessment and feedback Personal epistemology 



The author would like to thank the many colleagues who have read and suggested revisions to this paper including, Professor Margaret Price, Professor Chris Rust, Dr. Karen Handley, Dr. Jan Harwell and Birgit den Outer.


  1. Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Ahmad, Z., Ahmad, Z., Shaukat, M. Z., Usman, A., et al. (2000). Does service quality affect students’ performance? Evidence from institutes of higher learning. African Journal of Business Management, 4(12), 2527–2533.Google Scholar
  2. Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). The effects of service quality on student loyalty: The mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 446–462. doi: 10.1108/JM2-04-2014-0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2013). The interactional effects of the internal and external university environment, and the influence of personal values, on satisfaction among international postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 972–988. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.615916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashwin, P. (2005). Variation in students’ experiences of the Oxford tutorial. Higher Education, 50(4), 631–644. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6369-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31–42. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedggood, R. E., & Donovan, J. (2012). University performance evaluations: What are we really measuring? Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 825–842. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.549221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104–126. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2003.0048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. doi: 10.1080/01425699995380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyle, B., & Bragg, J. (2006). A curriculum without foundation. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 569–582. doi: 10.1080/01411920600775225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brimi, H. (2012). Teaching writing in the shadow of standardized writing assessment: An exploratory study. American Secondary Education, 41(1), 52–78.Google Scholar
  14. Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B., & Pearce, S. (2009). The first year university experience: Using personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 58(5), 599–618. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9212-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, approaches to learning, and academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 44–57. doi: 10.1348/000709904X22683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68. doi: 10.2307/1252296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dabholkar, P. A., Shepherd, C. D., & Thrope, D. I. (2000). A comprehensive framework for service quality: An investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 131–139. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00029-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dean, A., & Gibbs, P. (2015). Student satisfaction or happiness? A preliminary rethink of what is important in the student experience. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 5–19. doi: 10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donald, J. G. (2009). The commons: Disciplinary and interdisciplinary encounters. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines (pp. 181–195). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Elby, A. (2009). Defining personal epistemology: A response to Hofer and Pintrich (1997) and Sandoval (2005). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 138–149. doi: 10.1080/10508400802581684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, 197–209. doi: 10.1080/1360080022000013518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerstman, B. (1995). Student evaluations of teacher effectiveness: The interpretation of observational data and the principle of faute de mieux. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 6(3), 115–124.Google Scholar
  24. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: TES.Google Scholar
  25. Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  26. Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). The development of epistemic fluency: Learning to think for a living. In A. Brew & J. Sachs (Eds.), Transforming a university: The scholarship of teaching and learning in practice (pp. 57–68). Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher Education, 19(3), 307–322. doi: 10.1007/BF00133895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 87–97. doi: 10.1080/10696679.1999.11501843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harvey, L. (1995). Keeping the customer satisfied: The student satisfaction approach. Birmingham: University of Central England: QHE.Google Scholar
  30. Hill, F. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21. doi: 10.1108/09684889510093497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in different classroom contexts: Student interpretations in the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 129–163. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A., & Grayson, K. (1995). Distinguishing service quality and customer satisfaction: The voice of the customer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(4), 277–303. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 205–221. doi: 10.1080/03075070120052116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Kolitch, E., & Dean, A. V. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in the USA: Hidden assumptions and missing conceptions about ‘good teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 24(1), 27–42. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331380128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change Management, 35, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kvale, S. (1996). An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Lattuca, L. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lucas, U., & Tan, P. L. (2013). Developing a capacity to engage in critical reflection: Students ‘ways of knowing’ within an undergraduate business and accountancy programme. Studies in Higher Education, 38(1), 104–123. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.569706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mark, E. (2013). Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(1), 2–10. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.727703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKay, J., & Kember, D. (1997). Spoonfeeding leads to regurgitation: A better diet can result in more digestible learning outcomes. Higher Education, Research and Development, 16(1), 55–67. doi: 10.1080/0729436970160105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobalca, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23, 124–140. doi: 10.1108/09513551011022483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Union of Students. (2008). Mark my words, not my name. The campaign for anonymous marking.
  47. Nelson, H. (2013). Testing more, teaching less: What America’s obsession with student testing costs in money and lost instructional time. New York: American Federation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  48. Nyman, M. A., & Berry, J. (2002). Developing transferable skills in undergraduate mathematics students through mathematical modelling. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 21(1), 29–45. doi: 10.1093/teamat/21.1.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Donovan, B. (2010). Filling a pail or lighting a fire? The intellectual development of management undergraduates. International Journal of Management Education, 9(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  50. O’Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325–336. doi: 10.1080/1356251042000216642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  52. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback all that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. QAA. (2006). Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. Section 6: Assessment of students (2nd ed.). Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency.Google Scholar
  54. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164. doi: 10.1080/02602930301671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ryan, S., & Neumann, R. (2013). Interdisciplinarity in an era of new public management: A case study of graduate business schools. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 192–206. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.571669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saljo, R. (1982). Learning and understanding: A study of difference in constructing meaning from a text. Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences (Vol. 40). Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  58. Saljo, R. (1988). Learning in educational settings: Methods of inquiry. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 32–48). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  59. Sandoval, W. A. (2009). In defense of clarity in the study of personal epistemology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 150–161. doi: 10.1080/10508400802581700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319. doi: 10.1007/BF02213418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scott, S. (1999). The academic as service provider: Is the customer ‘always right’? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21, 193–202. doi: 10.1080/1360080990210206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shanahan, M., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2006). The troublesome nature of a threshold concept in economics. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), pp (pp. 100–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Snowden, G. (2012). Graduates: Is a 2:1 the best qualification for landing a job?. London: The Guardian.Google Scholar
  64. Sturman, L. (2003). Teaching to the test: Science or intuition? Educational Research, 45, 261–273. doi: 10.1080/0013188032000137256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 18(3), 227–244. doi: 10.1108/09684881011058669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Rossum, E. J., & Hamer, R. (2010). The meaning of learning and knowing. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of BusinessOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations