The importance of understanding students’ engagement is prominent in higher education. Assessment is the main driver of student engagement, a phenomenon known as backwash. I propose in this paper that students’ engagement with learning is often driven by an aesthetic motivation. I establish the connections between Burke’s (and Kant’s) conceptualisation of aesthetics as a dichotomy of beauty and the sublime (which I label the Burkean Pendulum) to motivation. I explore the links between this aesthetic motivation and the assessment regime focussing on the Burkean/Kantian sublime and suggest four communication strategies that can help manage the sublime when it arises in students’ education journeys. Thus, my contributions are twofold: firstly, I introduce the Burkean Pendulum as a means for educators to reflect on the aesthetic aspects of their designed assessment regimes. Secondly, I propose a framework of communication strategy narratives (Thriller, Horror, Exploration and Action) that could be used to manage the sublime of the assessment regime.
Al-HaddadSKotnourTMagalaS (2015) Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management28(2): 234–262.
2.
ArgyrisC (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly21(3): 363–375.
3.
ArgyrisC (1994) Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review72(4): 77–85.
EvansDJZeunPStanierRA (2014) Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. Journal of Anatomy224(3): 296–303.
23.
FawverK (2013) The Terror of Possibility: A Re-Evaluation and Reconception of the Sublime Aesthetic. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
24.
FernandesSFloresMALimaRM (2012) Students’ views of assessment in project-led engineering education: Findings from a case study in Portugal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education37(2): 163–178.
25.
FincherD (1995) Se7en. Los Angeles: New Line Cinema.
26.
ForgeardMJMecklenburgAC (2013) The two dimensions of motivation and a reciprocal model of the creative process. Review of General Psychology17(3): 255–266.
27.
FoxS (2005) An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education30(1): 95–110.
FreudS (1930/2002) Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Penguin Books.
30.
GiokaO (2009) Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education39(4): 411–428.
31.
GreenbergJArndtJ (2011) Terror management theory. In: Van LangePAMKruglanskiAWTory HigginsE (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 398–415.
32.
GulikersJTBiemansHJWesselinkRet al. (2013) Aligning formative and summative assessments: A collaborative action research challenging teacher conceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation39(2): 116–124.
33.
HallmanRJ (1965) Aesthetic motivation in the creative arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism23(4): 453–459.
34.
HawkinsBEdwardsG (2013) Managing the monsters of doubt: Liminality, threshold concepts and leadership learning. Management Learning46(1): 24–43.
35.
HeilandD (2011) Approaching the ineffable: Flow, sublimity, and student learning. In: HeilandDRosenthalLJ (eds) Literary Study, Measurement, and the Sublime: Disciplinary Assessment. New York: Teagle Foundation, 115–132.
36.
HernándezR (2012) Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning?Higher Education64(4): 489–502.
37.
HuSMcCormickAC (2012) An engagement-based student typology and its relationship to college outcomes. Research in Higher Education53(7): 738–754.
IannonePSimpsonA (2016) University students’ perceptions of summative assessment: The role of context. Journal of Further and Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 17 May. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2016.1177172.
40.
IshizuTZekiS (2014) A neurobiological enquiry into the origins of our experience of the sublime and beautiful. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 8: 891–900.
41.
KahuER (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education38(5): 758–773.
42.
KantI (1997/1781) Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
KapurM (2008) Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction26(3): 379–424.
44.
KapurM (2016) Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist51(2): 289–299.
45.
KivunjaC (2015) Why students don’t like assessment and how to change their perceptions in 21st century pedagogies. Creative Education6(20): 2117–2126.
46.
KolbAYKolbDA (2005) Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education4(2): 193–212.
47.
KuhnTS (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
48.
López-PastorVMPintorPMurosBet al. (2013) Formative assessment strategies and their effect on student performance and on student and tutor workload: The results of research projects undertaken in preparation for greater convergence of universities in Spain within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of Further and Higher Education37(2): 163–180.
49.
LovecraftH (2013/1927) Supernatural Horror in Literature. London: Wermod and Wermod.
50.
LuJYuC-SLiuC (2003) Learning style, learning patterns, and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course. Information & Management40(6): 497–507.
51.
MackK (2013) Taking an aesthetic risk in management education: Reflections on an artistic-aesthetic approach. Management Learning44(3): 286–304.
52.
MargaryanALittlejohnAVojtG (2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education56(2): 429–440.
53.
MasuiCBroeckmansJDoumenSet al. (2014) Do diligent students perform better? Complex relations between student and course characteristics, study time, and academic performance in higher education. Studies in Higher Education39(4): 621–643.
54.
MeyerJLandR (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
55.
MorelP (2008) Taken. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox.
56.
NewtonPE (2007) Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice14(2): 149–170.
57.
ParkC-W (2003) Oldboy. Seoul: Show East.
58.
PashlerHMcDanielMRohrerDet al. (2008) Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest9(3): 105–119.
59.
PereiraDFloresMANiklassonL (2015) Assessment revisited: A review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 22 June. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233.
PryorJCrossouardB (2008) A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education34(1): 1–20.
62.
RadfordM (2001) Aesthetic and religious awareness among pupils: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Music Education18(2): 151–159.
63.
RaupachTBrownJAndersSet al. (2013) Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Medicine11: 61–71.
64.
RizqR (2013) States of abjection. Organization Studies34(9): 1277–1297.
StewartMDarwentS (2014) Psychological orientations to learning in the second year. In: MilsomCStewartMYorkeMet al. (eds) Stepping up to the Second Year at University: Academic, Psychological and Social Dimensions. Abingdon: Routledge, 39–53.
71.
SturdyABrocklehurstMWinstanleyDet al. (2006) Management as a (self) confidence trick: Management ideas, education and identity work. Organization13(6): 841–860.
72.
TarasMDaviesMS (2013) Perceptions and realities in the functions and processes of assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education14(1): 51–61.
73.
ThomasHWilsonAD (2011) ‘Physics envy’, cognitive legitimacy or practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK. British Journal of Management22(3): 443–456.
74.
ThompsonPO’Connell DavidsonJ (1995) The continuity of discontinuity: Managerial rhetoric in turbulent times. Personnel Review24(4): 7–33.
75.
Tomás-MiquelJ-VExpósito-LangaMNicolau-JuliáD (2016) The influence of relationship networks on academic performance in higher education: A comparative study between students of a creative and a non-creative discipline. Higher Education71(3): 307–322.
76.
TrotterE (2006) Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education31(5): 505–521.
77.
TrowlerV (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review. York: Higher Education Academy.
78.
UhrmacherPB (2009) Toward a theory of aesthetic learning experiences. Curriculum Inquiry39(5): 613–636.
79.
WardJShorttH (2013) Evaluation in management education: A visual approach to drawing out emotion in student learning. Management Learning44(5): 435–452.
80.
WilliamsDLCrittendenVLKeoTet al. (2012) The use of social media: An exploratory study of usage among digital natives. Journal of Public Affairs12(2): 127–136.
81.
YorkeM (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education45(4): 477–501.
82.
YorkeM (2006) Student engagement: Deep, surface or strategic. In: Keynote address to the 9th Pacific Rim conference on the first year in higher education, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 12–14 July.
83.
ZaitsevaEMilsomCStewartM (2014) Shifting perspectives. In: MilsomCStewartMYorkeMet al. (eds) Stepping up to the Second Year at University: Academic, Psychological and Social Dimensions. Abingdon: Routledge, 24–38.
