Student
self-assessment generally has a positive impact on academic
performance, although it is not a robust assessment method in
terms of validity and reliability.The
future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing
self-assessment as a core competency
Gavin T.
L. Browna, Lois R. Harrisb
aUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand
bCentral Queensland University, Australia
Article received 23rd October 2013 /
revised 7th November
2013 / accepted 26th February 2014 /
available online 25th April 2014
Abstract
Formative assessment policies and
self-regulation theories argue that student self-assessment of
their own work and processes are useful for raising academic
performance and self-regulatory skills. However, research into
student self-evaluation raises serious doubts about the
quality of self-assessment as an assessment process and
identifies conditions which must be met if students’ judgments
are to be useful, valid, and reliable. This paper recommends
that student self-assessment should no longer be treated as an
assessment, but instead as an essential competence for
self-regulation. As such, we describe a potential curriculum
approach that could guide teachers to appropriate use of
self-assessment tools.
Keywords: Student Self-assessment; Compulsory Schooling; Curriculum; Research Synthesis
1. Introduction
Student self-assessment is an evaluation of
a student’s own work products and processes in classroom
settings. Formative assessment (a.k.a., Assessment for Learning)
policies argue that student self-assessment is useful for
raising academic performance (Black & Wiliam, 2006).
Research evidence suggests that self-assessment does contribute
positively to learning outcomes, but its effects are highly
variable, with many threats to its validity (Brown & Harris,
2013). Nonetheless, student self-assessment is strongly
advocated as an important classroom practice (e.g., Leahy, Lyon,
Thompson, & Wiliam, 2005). This paper responds to recent and
seminal reviews and position papers on self-assessment (e.g.,
Andrade, 2010; Brown & Harris, 2013; Boud & Falchikov,
1989; Butler, 2011; Falchikov & Boud, 1989; Dochy, Segers,
& Sluijsmans, 1999; Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Ross,
2006), all of which have raised issues to consider in relation
to what is needed for the future of self-assessment. We are
increasingly persuaded that self-assessment is not a robust
assessment practice and that its real place in schooling is as a
teachable and learnable component of self-regulated learning.
However, current manifestations of self-assessment advocacy do
not provide well-informed guidance to researchers or
practitioners about self-assessment. Hence, our goal is to first
establish the need for a self-assessment curriculum and second
to sketch out what that curriculum could look like.
2. Self-assessment as assessment
Assessment
practices, which contribute to decision-making, need to be
demonstrably valid and reliable (Messick, 1989). The usefulness
of self-assessment for decision-making seems to depend, in part,
upon whether the student can accurately or realistically judge
the qualities of their own work. However, the realism or
veridicality (i.e., truthfulness) of self-assessment are
difficult to ascertain, since this can only be determined
through comparison to other people’s (e.g., teachers, peers, or
parents) judgements or ratings or to performance on externally
devised tests or examinations. As Butler (2011) makes clear,
there has been a stream of research around student
self-assessment that has emphasised the need for realistic,
veridical, or verifiably accurate self-assessment if it is to
effectively contribute to achievement (e.g., Brown & Harris,
2013; Boud & Falchikov, 1989; Falchikov & Boud, 1989;
Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Ross, 2006). In contrast,
there is another stream of research that has claimed that
realism or veridicality in self-assessment is moot, since the
self-assessment process helps students develop greater awareness
of the quality of their work and criteria by which their work
can be evaluated (e.g., Andrade, 2010). Butler (2011) concludes
that the research in student self-assessment indicates that
inaccurate, but positively biased, self-assessment leads to
improved outcomes; while, inaccurate, negatively biased,
self-assessment has a negative impact on achievement. Hence,
while there is empirical and theoretical evidence for
contrasting positions around the realism of student
self-assessments, we take the position that if self-assessment
is to contribute to highly-consequential decision-making (e.g.,
teacher decisions about grouping, curriculum planning, or
retention/promotion and student decisions about pursuing or
dropping further study in a topic area), then it is necessary
for self-assessments to be demonstrably realistic or truthful.
The research evidence is robust that the agreement between
student self-assessment and other measures (e.g., test scores,
teacher judgements, or peer ratings) is moderate at best (Brown
& Harris, 2013; Falchikov & Boud, 1989). Correlations between (a) self-ratings and teacher
ratings, (b) self-estimates of performance and actual test
scores, and (c) student and teacher rubric-based judgments tend
to range from r≈.20
to .80, with few studies reporting correlations greater than r > .60 (Brown
& Harris, 2013). Greater
realism and sophistication of self-assessment is more evident
among more experienced and more able students.
Furthermore,
consideration of how teachers use student self-assessment in
classroom contexts suggests that there are other important
factors which threaten reliability and validity. There is robust
evidence that when self-assessments are disclosed (e.g., traffic
light self-assessments displayed to the teacher in front of the
class), there are strong psychological pressures on students
that lead to dissembling and dishonesty (Harris & Brown,
2013; Cowie, 2009). Students may intentionally disguise the
truth in order to protect their reputations. Other students will
rely on construct-irrelevant and subjective criteria (e.g., “I
made an effort” or “I’m good at this”), rather than intended
criteria in judging the quality of their performance and this is
associated with lower accuracy in self-evaluations (Brown &
Harris, 2013). There are many factors in the human condition
that contribute to unrealistic self-assessments, including
tendencies to (a) be unrealistically optimistic about one’s own
abilities, (b) believe that one is above average, (c) neglect
crucial information, and (d) have deficits in required
information (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). While
substantial advocacy of self-assessment has been promulgated,
these studies suggest that assessment for learning policies as
implemented may have overlooked important facets of how humans
make judgements. Further, there may be some psychological and
social danger to students in current self-assessment practices.
Hence, awarding grades or basing educational
interventions or changes based on unrealistic or
construct-irrelevant self-assessments is untenable. If
self-assessment processes lead students to conclude wrongly that
they are good or weak in some domain and they base personal
decisions on such false interpretations, harm could be done,
even in classroom settings (e.g., task avoidance, not enrolling
in future subjects) (Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008). The quality
of interpretations and decisions depends on realistic input
(Messick, 1989) and because students are generally unrealistic
in self-assessments, the use of such data in any formal way for
assessment is probably unwarranted. Hence, in many ways student
self-assessment fails the validity and reliability requirements
of an assessment robust enough on which to (a) base changes to
classroom practice, (b) calculate grades or scores, and (c)
include in any reporting.
3. Self-assessment as self-regulation
The
use of self-assessment within assessment for learning policies
draws on self-regulation of learning theories which identify
student capabilities to set targets and evaluate progress
against criteria as a basis for meta-cognitively informed
improvement of learning outcomes (Zimmerman, 2008).
Self-regulation refers to self-directive and self-generated
metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural processes through
which individuals transform personal abilities into control of
outcomes in a variety of contexts (Zimmerman, 2001). In taking
action, an individual requires the ability to understand and
choose a rationale for taking action (i.e., motivation), the
capacity to set future-oriented objectives, plans, or projects
(i.e., goals), the capability to select means or methods for
obtaining his or her goals, even in the face of adversity or
boredom (i.e., strategies), and the proficiency to monitor
progress (i.e., self-assess), and adjust strategy implementation
as appropriate (i.e., regulation) (Brown, et al., 2005). There
is evidence that students can improve their self-regulation
skills through self-assessment (i.e., set targets, evaluate
progress relative to target criteria, and improve the quality of
their learning outcomes) (Andrade, Du, & Wang, 2008;
Andrade, Du, & Mycek, 2010; Brookhart, Andolina, Zuza, &
Furman, 2004). Furthermore, self-assessment is associated with
improved motivation, engagement, and efficacy (Griffiths &
Davies, 1993; Klenowski, 1995; Munns & Woodward, 2006;
Schunk, 1996), reducing dependence on the teacher (Sadler,
1989). It is also seen as a potential way for teachers to reduce
their own assessment workload, making students more responsible
for tracking their progress and feedback provision (Sadler &
Good, 2006; Towler & Broadfoot, 1992). Thus, consistent with
self-regulation theory, self-assessment contributes to greater
meta-cognitive skills associated with greater achievement.
In reviewing literature around student
self-assessment practices, Brown and Harris (2013) found diverse
enacted practices which they grouped into three major categories
(i.e., self-estimation of performance, self-rating, and rubric
based judgements). These three categories contain a wide variety
of procedures; for example, (a) using a model answer as a
reference (Hewitt, 2001), (b) integrating teacher-evaluation
with self-evaluation (Olina & Sullivan, 2002), (c)
self-correction (Harward, Allred, & Sudweeks, 1994), (d)
using a computerized prompt system (Daiute & Kruidenier,
1985), (e) self-selected reinforcements or rewards, especially
for achieving challenging goals (Barling, 1980; Miller, Duffy, & Zane, 1993; Wall,
1982), (f) contributing to the design of a scoring rubric
(Sadler & Good, 2006), or (g) judging the accuracy of
answers to standardized test items (Koivula, Hassmén, & Hunt, 2001). In contrast, inspection
of recent pedagogical texts (e.g., Absolum, 2006; Clarke, 2005;
Harlen, 2007; Taylor & Nolen, 2005; Weeden, Winter, &
Broadfoot, 2002; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) indicates that a
relatively narrow range of self-assessment techniques are
suggested (e.g., rubrics, rating scales, including traffic
lights, reflections on portfolios or series of tasks).
Further,
we find no evidence of coherent packaging or sequencing of these
activities or a theoretical model underpinning authors’
recommendations of these practices. There seems to be an almost
ad hoc, grab bag approach to the use of self-assessment. The
templates given as examples in the texts we consulted included
mainly checklists, rating scales (sometimes using smiley-face
categories), and lists of possible prompting questions which
focused on diverse outcomes including completion, compliance,
effort, and attitude (e.g., McMillan, 2001; Stiggins, 2005),
rather than necessarily upon the full-range of self-regulating
behaviours. Also, textbooks seemed to treat the topic
generically, without specifying ages or stages of development
which would be appropriate for the practices, templates, or
examples that they provided; it appears to be left to the reader
to judge if a particular activity or prompt is appropriate for
his or her students. Inspection of classroom practices of
self-assessment reinforces this perception that teachers are
applying self-assessment techniques with little thought as to
potential threats to the validity of publicly displayed
self-assessment (Harris & Brown, 2013; Ross, Rolheiser,
& Hogaboam-Gray, 1998) and, certainly, have few concerns
about the need to provide students structured support to enable
them to use self-assessment realistically. This stands in stark
contrast to the research literature that shows significant
educational impact of self-assessment upon student learning, if
students are systematically taught how to self-assess (Daiute
& Kruidenier, 1985; Glaser, Kessler, Palm, & Brunstein,
2010; Harward, Allred, & Sudweeks, 1994; McDonald &
Boud, 2003; Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008; Ross, 2006; Ross,
Hogaboam-Gray, & Rolheiser, 2002).
Hence, there is a clear need to give
self-assessment techniques a semblance of order—identifying the
ease or difficulty of implementation and use would provide a
robust basis for developing a curriculum of self-assessment.
Self-assessment is an essential component of self-regulation and
would appear to be a learnable competence. The advantage of
situating self-assessment as a competence is that competencies
usually have levels of development (e.g., ranging from novice to
expert) (Rychen & Salganik, 2003) and, consequently, can be
used as the basis for a teaching curriculum.
4.
Self-assessment as
a curricular competence
While
the assessment for learning policy reforms have tried to move
increasingly away from formal testing towards a more pedagogical
understanding of ‘assessment’, and despite advocacy for the use
of self-assessment as a component of self-regulation, little
attention has been put into formalising a self-assessment
curriculum, in light of well-established research findings.
Insufficient attention has been given to curricular concerns,
such as:
)
a) What
self-assessment skills should be taught?
b) What
is the developmental sequence for teaching self-assessment
skills?
c) How should
self-assessment skills be taught?
d) What are appropriate goals
for teaching student self-assessment competence according to
student age and ability?
e) What are useful criteria for evaluating student competence in self-assessment?
f)
What are appropriate mechanisms by which student self-assessment
reports could be evaluated, if required?
This
paper offers a first attempt into developing a curriculum for
self-assessment as a component of self-regulation. We appreciate
that school curricula are overloaded and do not advocate for the
creation of a new curricular topic. Instead, we suggest that
within more general frameworks of teaching subject content and
developing students as independent, life-long learners, the
possession and implementation of a self-assessment curriculum is
likely to be of great utility to teachers and students. As
self-assessment is present in some forms already in most
curricula, we are advocating for systematically organising and
formalising what is, in most instances, already there. This
would improve its impact and better match practices to student
self-assessment abilities, allowing students opportunities to
master more complex self-assessment and self-regulatory skills
as they progress through school.
Lower performing and younger
students need input (i.e., instruction and feedback) to master
this key self-regulatory process. So what might that input look
like? Research
has shown (Brown & Harris, 2013; Ross, 2006) that realistic
self-assessments are more likely when: (1) students are involved
in the process of establishing criteria for evaluating work
outcomes; (2) students are taught how to apply those criteria;
(3) students receive feedback from others (i.e., teachers and
peers) to help move students toward more accurate evaluations;
(4) students are taught how to use other assessment data (e.g.,
test scores or graded work) to improve their work; (5) there is
psychological safety when self-evaluation is used; (6) when
rewards for accuracy are used; and (7) when students are
required to explicitly justify to their peers their
self-evaluations. These insights give us a basis for developing
a curriculum that could guide the implementation of student
self-assessment as a necessary competence for self-regulation.
Our
first recommendation for a student self-assessment curriculum is
to start with simple, concrete techniques before introducing
complex, abstract techniques, including holistic, intuitive
judgements about effort, satisfaction, or work quality. For very
young students, even the act of estimating how many times they
would be able to throw a bean bag into basket was difficult
(Powel & Gray, 1995). Nonetheless, Powel and Gray’s (1995)
technique is extremely simple and the realism of a student
self-assessment can be objectively verified by the student using
a tangible metric. Hence, estimating how many items one might
get right on a spelling list, math quiz, or vocabulary quiz are
straightforward strategies which allow easy determination of the
realism of the student self-assessment (Jones, Trap, &
Cooper, 1977; Wan-a-rom, 2010). Linking such estimates very
close in time to the instructional moment also makes the task
more concrete (Barnett & Hixon,
1997). Even asking students to estimate how well they
think they will do compared to their last known performance
provides a concrete and personal reference point.
At
an intermediate stage, self-assessments supported by
externally-sourced, yet explicit scaffolding of intended
learning outcomes (e.g., models, computer-assisted prompts,
teacher evaluations) as an adjunct or guide should be
introduced. More realistic comparisons of the student’s work
quality to that of other students in the class may be feasible
here, but such normative comparisons may not be a desirable
curricular goal. It seems more useful to have students focus on
comparing their work to that of established standards or against
their previous performance rather than on how others are doing.
Nonetheless, techniques that allow greater autonomy in
self-assessment (e.g., self-correction or self-rating of one’s
own work) should be introduced once students have demonstrated
that they can assess their work realistically.
At
an advanced stage, rubrics or criteria, preferably developed in
conjunction with the students to ensure that they have a deep
understanding of the rubric progression, should be introduced.
By this point, students should be able to be reasonably
realistic making use of more holistic, and possibly intuitive,
judgements of their work quality using rating scales or key
point checklists. The research shows that the greatest learning
gains come when students engage in a deeper analysis of their
own work; however, getting students to that level of analysis is
unlikely to be instantaneous. Gradual introduction of more
sophisticated self-assessment techniques seems highly desirable.
Throughout
the development of self-assessment competence, the priority
needs to be kept on realism in self-evaluation, regardless of
the level of performance. We must help students avoid
inappropriate negative bias in their self-assessments, which
will mean helping highly able students accept that their work is
actually exemplary or of a high standard. In
contrast, while having an overly positive self-assessment does
not have as many ill-effects (Butler, 2011), realism has its own
internal benefits. Accurate self-monitoring contributes to the
possibility of entering a growth-pathway in which students
identify and respond to their weaknesses, instead of pursuing an
ego-protection pathway in which students seek to maximise
unmerited positive feelings about their work (Boekaerts &
Corno, 2005). Hence, teachers need to implement strategies that
encourage and foster honest self-reflection. That will mean, at
least for a time, permitting some self-assessments to remain
private from the teacher, not forcing students to display
realistic but negative self-assessments in front of classmates,
and encouraging students to share their self-evaluations with
trusted people (e.g., a best friend or a family member). This
recommendation is not new; Andrade (2010) has long advocated
focusing on the self-regulatory effects of self-assessment
rather than its veridicality. And certainly, it means not using
self-assessments for grading, reporting, or accountability
purposes.
Nonetheless,
students generally want to understand if they have judged their
own work appropriately and expect teachers to provide feedback
and instruction (Harris & Brown, 2013; Gao, 2009; Peterson
& Irving, 2008). Thus, insulating student self-assessment
perpetually from the teacher would be counter-productive. Hence,
within a context of psychological safety, if teachers gain
access to student self-assessments (e.g., those recorded
alongside homework activities handed in to the teacher), it
seems desirable for teachers to comment on the realism of
student self-evaluations as an important learning objective in
its own right. The goal is to foster realistic self-monitoring
that is used to guide appropriate learning strategies (i.e.,
more sophisticated responses than ‘work harder’ are needed).
Students need environments in which realism is prioritised and
protected, even if it means, at first, teachers cannot easily
ascertain what students think about their own learning. A
self-assessment curriculum should also encourage students to
explain the criteria they used to evaluate their own work. The
intellectual sophistication required to justify an assessment is
a significant factor in improving learning outcomes and
metacognitive capability. In an environment of trust (e.g., a
classroom with a warm supportive interpersonal climate),
explaining one’s reasoning for a self-assessment to a trusted
peer is associated with improved learning outcomes (Dunning,
Heath, & Suls, 2004).
It
should come as no surprise that both teachers and students will
need training before they can engage with self-assessment as a
taught and learned competence. New professional development
materials and courses are needed that go beyond the exhortation
to use student self-assessment (e.g., Leahy, Lyon, Thompson,
& Wiliam, 2005). These resources need to ensure teachers are
aware of the theory and research base for self-assessment and
provide techniques that are appropriately sequenced for the
skill level students have in this competence. Until teachers
abandon a simple approach (e.g., using smiley-face self-rating
scales for effort and satisfaction), it is unlikely
self-assessment will fulfil its promise. Once teachers have an
appropriate understanding, they will need to train students in
developing realistic self-evaluations for the explicit purpose
of guiding their own learning. Fortunately, the research
evidence makes it abundantly clear that the quality of student
self-assessment improves with training and that enhanced
outcomes arise.
While
this paper provides a rough outline for the scope and sequence
of a self-assessment curriculum, more research is needed to
identify if there are ages or stages, below which, particular
types of self-assessment are unrealistic for students to
complete accurately. Additionally, a proper curriculum would
incorporate all parts of the self-regulation cycle (Zimmerman,
2008) around the self-assessment practices proposed at
particular levels. It is also important to invent new
self-assessment practices which may better align with a complex
model of self-regulation than current suggested self-reflection
and self-assessment practices, most of which are focused at the
end, rather than throughout, the learning cycle.
We trust that this treatment of self-assessment as
a self-regulating competence, rather than as an assessment
practice, will contribute to improved classroom practice and
professional development systems. We consider that a curriculum
for self-assessment competence would be of great benefit to
educational practice and trust that this first sketch will
trigger significant developments.
Keypoints
Student
self-assessment generally has a positive impact on academic
performance, although it is not a robust assessment method in
terms of validity and reliability.
Student
self-assessment is an important aspect of and contributor to
greater self-regulation of learning.
Student
self-assessment needs a curricular framework to ensure it is an
effective treated as a self-regulating competence.
Acknowledgments
This paper was inspired by a presentation at the
2013 biennial meeting of the European Association for Research
in Learning & Instruction, Munich, Germany.
References
Absolum, M. (2006). Clarity in the
classroom: Using formative assessment to build
learning-focused relationships. Auckland, NZ: Hachette
Livre New Zealand.
Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the
definitive source of formative assessment: Academic
self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. L.
Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of
formative assessment (pp.
90-105). New York: Routledge.
Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Mycek, K.
(2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school
students' writing. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2),
199-214. doi: 10.1080/09695941003696172
Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Wang, X.
(2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model,
criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on
elementary school students' writing. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3-13. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00118.x
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R.
(2013). Student self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.). The SAGE
handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp.
367-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, G. T. L., Reddish, P., Leeson, H.V.,
Milfont, T.L., Brychkova, L. & Hattie, J. A. C. (2005,
June). Assessment
of Key Competencies: A Proposal for Inclusion in e-asTTle. asTTle
Advisory. Rep. 19, University of Auckland, Project asTTle.
Barling, J. (1980). A multistage
multidependent variable assessment of children's self-regulation
of academic performance. Child
Behavior Therapy, 2(2), 43-54. doi: 10.1300/J473V02N02_03
Barnett, J. E., & Hixon, J. E. (1997).
Effects of Grade Level and Subject on Student Test Score
Predictions. Journal
of Educational Research, 90(3), 170-174. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1997.10543773
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006).
Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner
(Ed.), Assessment
and learning (pp.
81-100). London: Sage.
Boekaerts, M, & Corno, L. (2005).
Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment
and intervention. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199-231.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989).
Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher
education: a critical analysis of findings. Higher
Education, 18, 529-549. doi: 10.1007/BF00138746
Brookhart, S. M., Andolina, M., Zuza, M.,
& Furman, R. (2004). Minute Math: An Action Research Study
of Student Self-Assessment. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 213-227.
doi: 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000049293.55249.d4
Butler, R. (2011). Are positive illusions
about academic competence always adaptive, under all
circumstances: New results and future directions. International
Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 251-256. doi:
10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.006
Clarke, S. (2005). Formative
assessment in the secondary classroom. Abingdon, UK:
Hodder Murray.
Cowie, B. (2009). My teacher and my friends
helped me learn: student perceptions and experiences of
classroom assessment. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown &
G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student
perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about
assessment for learning (pp.
85-105). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J. (1985). A
self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising
processes. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 6(3), 307-318. doi:
10.1017/S0142716400006226
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans,
Dominique. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in
higher education: A review. Studies
in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379935
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M.
(2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health,
education, and the workplace. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989).
Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430. doi: 10.3102/00346543059004395
Gao, M. (2009). Students' voices in
school-based assessment of Hong Kong: A case study. In D. M.
McInerney, G. T. L. Brown & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student
perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about
assessment for learning (pp.
107-130). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Glaser, C., Kessler, C., Palm, D., &
Brunstein, J. C. (2010). Förderung der Schreibkompetenz bei
Viertklässlern: Spezifische und gemeinsame Effekte prozess- und
egebnisbezogener Prozeduren der Selbstgregulation auf
Indikatoren der Schreibleistung, Strategiebeherrschung und
Selbstbewertung [Improving fourth graders' self-regulated
writing skills: Specialized and shared effects of
process-oriented and outcome- related self-regulation procedures
on students' task performance, strategy use, and
self-evaluation]. Zeitschrift
fur Padagogische Psychologie/ German Journal of Educational
Psychology, 24(3-4), 177-190.
doi: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000015
Griffiths, M., & Davies, C. (1993).
Learning to learn: Action research from an equal opportunities
perspective in a junior school. British
Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 43-58.
doi: 10.1080/0141192930190104
Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of
learning. Los Angeles: Sage.
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L.
(2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer-
and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies
into teachers' implementation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 36, 101-111.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008
Harward, S. V., Allred, R. A., &
Sudweeks, R. R. (1994). The effectiveness of our self-corrected
spelling test methods. Reading
Psychology, 15(4), 245-271. doi: 10.1080/0270271940150403
Hewitt, M. P. (2001). The effects of
modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on junior high
instrumentalists' music performance and practice attitude. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 49(4), 307-322.
doi: 10.2307/3345614
Jones, J, C., Trap, J., & Cooper, J. O.
(1977). Technical report: Students' self-recording of manuscript
letter strokes. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(3), 509-514. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1977.10-509
Klenowski, V. (1995). Student
self-evaluation processes in student-centred teaching and
learning contexts of Australia and England. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2(2),
145-163. doi: 10.1080/0969594950020203
Koivula, N., Hassmén, P., & Hunt, D. P.
(2001). Performance on the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test:
Effects of self-assessment and gender. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 44(11), 629-645. doi: 10.1023/A:1012203412708
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., &
Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment minute by minute, day by
day. Educational
Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.
McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The
impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects of
self-assessment training on performance in external
examinations. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2),
209-220. doi: 10.1080/0969594032000121289
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Classroom
assessment: Principles and practice for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn
(Ed.), Educational
Measurement (3rd
ed., pp. 13-103). Old Tappan, NJ: MacMillan.
Miller, T. L., Duffy, S. E., & Zane, T.
(1993). Improving the accuracy of self-corrected mathematics
homework. Journal
of Educational Research, 86(3), 184-189. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1993.9941157
Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006).
Student Engagement and Student Self-Assessment: The REAL
Framework. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 13(2),
193-213. doi: 10.1080/09695940600703969
Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. J. (2002).
Effects of classroom evaluation strategies on student
achievement and attitudes. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 61-75.
doi: 10.1007/BF02505025
Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E.
(2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and
feedback. Learning
and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250. doi:
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001
Powel, W. D., & Gray, R. (1995).
Improving performance predictions by collaboration with peers
and rewarding accuracy. Child
Study Journal, 25(2), 141-154.
Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008).
Effects of self-correction strategy training on middle school
students' self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics
division learning. Journal
of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 18-41. doi: 10.4219/jaa-2008-869
Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability,
validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical
Assessment Research & Evaluation, 11(10), Available
online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=10.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., &
Rolheiser, C. (2002). Student self-evaluation in Grade 5-6
mathematics: Effects on problem-solving achievement. Educational
Assessment, 8(1), 43-59. doi: 10.1207/S15326977EA0801_03
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., &
Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Skills training versus action research
in-service: impact on student attitudes to self-evaluation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 14(5), 463-477.
doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00054-1
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H.
(2003). A holistic model of competence. In D. S. Rychen & L.
H. Salganik (Eds.). Key
Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning
Society (pp.
41-62). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The
impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational
Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
doi: 10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and
the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18, 119-144. doi: 10.1007/BF00117714
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and
self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill
learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382. doi:
10.2307/1163289
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved
assessment FOR learning (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Taylor, C. S., & Nolen, S. B. (2005). Classroom
assessment: Supporting teaching and learning in real
classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Towler, L., & Broadfoot, P. (1992).
Self-assessment in the primary school. Educational
Review, 44(2), 137-151. doi: 10.1080/0013191920440203
Wall, S. M. (1982). Effects of systematic
self-monitoring and self-reinforcement in children's management
of test performances. Journal
of Psychology, 111(1), 129-136. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1982.9923524
Wan-a-rom, U. (2010). Self-assessment of
word knowledge with graded readers: A preliminary study. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 22(2), 323-338.
Weeden, P., Winter, J., & Broadfoot, P.
(2002). Assessment:
What's in it for schools? London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by
design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of
self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview
and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Self-Regulated
Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2nd edn.).Mahwah,
NJ: LEA.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909