literature review self assessment teacher

top dissertation results writers sites for masters

Abilities ambassadors hale from all corners of the disability community. They are leaders, writers, artists, entrepreneurs, veterans, athletes, celebrities, advocates and parents to special needs kids, and they resume people have just the answers you resume people looking for. If you have a doing a thesis to tell to the disability community, then we want to hear it! It could be an informative article on the range of subjects featured to the left. It could be meaningful advice base on your wealth of experience. It could be serious or entertaining and conveyed through words, video or images.

Literature review self assessment teacher best dissertation introduction proofreading services for college

Literature review self assessment teacher

Without exception, reviews of self-assessment Sargeant, ; Brown and Harris, ; Panadero et al. This question is surprisingly difficult to answer, as the term self-assessment has been used to describe a diverse range of activities, such as assigning a happy or sad face to a story just told, estimating the number of correct answers on a math test, graphing scores for dart throwing, indicating understanding or the lack thereof of a science concept, using a rubric to identify strengths and weaknesses in one's persuasive essay, writing reflective journal entries, and so on.

Each of those activities involves some kind of assessment of one's own functioning, but they are so different that distinctions among types of self-assessment are needed. I will draw those distinctions in terms of the purposes of self-assessment which, in turn, determine its features: a classic form-fits-function analysis.

Panadero et al. Referring to physicians, Epstein et al. Taken together, these definitions include self-assessment of one's abilities, processes , and products —everything but the kitchen sink. This very broad conception might seem unwieldy, but it works because each object of assessment—competence, process, and product—is subject to the influence of feedback from oneself.

What is missing from each of these definitions, however, is the purpose of the act of self-assessment. Their authors might rightly point out that the purpose is implied, but a formal definition requires us to make it plain: Why do we ask students to self-assess? I have long held that self-assessment is feedback Andrade, , and that the purpose of feedback is to inform adjustments to processes and products that deepen learning and enhance performance; hence the purpose of self-assessment is to generate feedback that promotes learning and improvements in performance.

This learning-oriented purpose of self-assessment implies that it should be formative: if there is no opportunity for adjustment and correction, self-assessment is almost pointless. I believe the source of the discord can be traced to the different ways in which self-assessment is carried out, such as whether it is summative and formative. This issue will be taken up again in the review of current research that follows this overview. For now, consider a study of the accuracy and validity of summative self-assessment in teacher education conducted by Tejeiro et al.

In the group that was told their self-assessments would count toward their final grade, no relationship was found between the professor's and the students' assessments. Tejeiro et al. Interviews of students who self-assigned highly discrepant grades revealed as you might guess that they were motivated by the desire to obtain the highest possible grades.

Studies like Tejeiro et al's. There is no feedback purpose. The usual results were reported: Older children and good narrators were more accurate than younger children and poor narrators, and males tended to more frequently overestimate their ability. Typical of clinical studies of accuracy in self-evaluation, this study rests on a definition and operationalization of self-assessment with no value in terms of instructional feedback.

If those children were asked to rate their stories and then revise or, better yet, if they assessed their stories according to clear, developmentally appropriate criteria before revising, the valence of their self-assessments in terms of instructional feedback would skyrocket. I speculate that their accuracy would too. In contrast, studies of formative self-assessment suggest that when the act of self-assessing is given a learning-oriented purpose, students' self-assessments are relatively consistent with those of external evaluators, including professors Lopez and Kossack, ; Barney et al.

My commitment to keeping self-assessment formative is firm. However, Gavin Brown personal communication, April reminded me that summative self-assessment exists and we cannot ignore it; any definition of self-assessment must acknowledge and distinguish between formative and summative forms of it.

Fortunately, a formative view of self-assessment seems to be taking hold in various educational contexts. Now we are talking about the how of self-assessment, which demands an operationalization of self-assessment practice. Monitoring and self-assessing processes are practically synonymous with self-regulated learning SRL , or at least central components of it such as goal-setting and monitoring, or metacognition.

Research on SRL has clearly shown that self-generated feedback on one's approach to learning is associated with academic gains Zimmerman and Schunk, Including the self-assessment of competence in this definition is a little trickier. Research on global self-assessment, or self-perception, is popular in the medical education literature, but even there, scholars have begun to question its usefulness in terms of influencing learning and professional growth e. Eva and Regehr seem to agree in the following passage, which states the case in a way that makes it worthy of a long quotation:.

Self-assessment is often implicitly or otherwise conceptualized as a personal, unguided reflection on performance for the purposes of generating an individually derived summary of one's own level of knowledge, skill, and understanding in a particular area.

For example, this conceptualization would appear to be the only reasonable basis for studies that fit into what Colliver et al. This unguided, internally generated construction of self-assessment stands in stark contrast to the model put forward by Boud , who argued that the phrase self-assessment should not imply an isolated or individualistic activity; it should commonly involve peers, teachers, and other sources of information. The conceptualization of self-assessment as enunciated in Boud's description would appear to involve a process by which one takes personal responsibility for looking outward, explicitly seeking feedback, and information from external sources, then using these externally generated sources of assessment data to direct performance improvements.

In this construction, self-assessment is more of a pedagogical strategy than an ability to judge for oneself; it is a habit that one needs to acquire and enact rather than an ability that one needs to master p. As in the K context, self-assessment is coming to be seen as having value as much or more so in terms of pedagogy as in assessment Silver et al.

In the end, however, I decided that self-assessing one's competence to successfully learn a particular concept or complete a particular task which sounds a lot like self-efficacy—more on that later might be useful feedback because it can inform decisions about how to proceed, such as the amount of time to invest in learning how to play the flute, or whether or not to seek help learning the steps of the jitterbug. An important caveat, however, is that self-assessments of competence are only useful if students have opportunities to do something about their perceived low competence—that is, it serves the purpose of formative feedback for the learner.

In response, I propose the taxonomy depicted in Table 1 , which focuses on the what competence, process, or product , the why formative or summative , and the how methods, including whether or not they include standards, e. The collections of examples of methods in the table is inexhaustive. I put the methods in Table 1 where I think they belong, but many of them could be placed in more than one cell.

Take self-efficacy , for instance, which is essentially a self-assessment of one's competence to successfully undertake a particular task Bandura, Summative judgments of self-efficacy are certainly possible but they seem like a silly thing to do—what is the point, from a learning perspective? Formative self-efficacy judgments, on the other hand, can inform next steps in learning and skill building.

There is reason to believe that monitoring and making adjustments to one's self-efficacy e. It is important to emphasize that self-efficacy is task-specific, more or less Bandura, The exclusion of global evaluations of oneself resonates with research that clearly shows that feedback that focuses on aspects of a task e. Hence, global self-evaluations of ability or competence do not appear in Table 1. Another approach to student self-assessment that could be placed in more than one cell is traffic lights.

The term traffic lights refers to asking students to use green, yellow, or red objects or thumbs up, sideways, or down—anything will do to indicate whether they think they have good, partial, or little understanding Black et al. It would be appropriate for traffic lights to appear in multiple places in Table 1 , depending on how they are used. Traffic lights seem to be most effective at supporting students' reflections on how well they understand a concept or have mastered a skill, which is line with their creators' original intent, so they are categorized as formative self-assessments of one's learning—which sounds like metacognition.

In fact, several of the methods included in Table 1 come from research on metacognition, including self-monitoring , such as checking one's reading comprehension, and self-testing , e. These last two methods have been excluded from some taxonomies of self-assessment e. However, new conceptions of self-assessment are grounded in theories of the self- and co-regulation of learning Andrade and Brookhart, , which includes self-monitoring of learning processes with and without explicit standards.

However, my research favors self-assessment with regard to standards Andrade and Boulay, ; Andrade and Du, ; Andrade et al. I have involved students in self-assessment of stories, essays, or mathematical word problems according to rubrics or checklists with criteria. For example, two studies investigated the relationship between elementary or middle school students' scores on a written assignment and a process that involved them in reading a model paper, co-creating criteria, self-assessing first drafts with a rubric, and revising Andrade et al.

The self-assessment was highly scaffolded: students were asked to underline key phrases in the rubric with colored pencils e. If students found they had not met the standard, they were asked to write themselves a reminder to make improvements when they wrote their final drafts. This process was followed for each criterion on the rubric. There were main effects on scores for every self-assessed criterion on the rubric, suggesting that guided self-assessment according to the co-created criteria helped students produce more effective writing.

Panadero and his colleagues have also done quasi-experimental and experimental research on standards-referenced self-assessment, using rubrics or lists of assessment criteria that are presented in the form of questions Panadero et al. Panadero calls the list of assessment criteria a script because his work is grounded in research on scaffolding e. Either way, the list provides standards for the task. Here is a script for a written summary that Panadero et al.

Is it at the beginning of my summary? What is my goal? Most interesting, perhaps, is one study Panadero and Romero, that demonstrated an association between rubric-referenced self-assessment activities and all three phases of SRL; forethought, performance, and reflection. There are surely many other methods of self-assessment to include in Table 1 , as well as interesting conversations to be had about which method goes where and why.

In the meantime, I offer the taxonomy in Table 1 as a way to define and operationalize self-assessment in instructional contexts and as a framework for the following overview of current research on the subject. Several recent reviews of self-assessment are available Brown and Harris, ; Brown et al. Instead, I chose to take a birds-eye view of the field, with goal of reporting on what has been sufficiently researched and what remains to be done.

I used the references lists from reviews, as well as other relevant sources, as a starting point. Because the focus was on K educational contexts, sources were excluded if they were about early childhood education or professional development.

The first search yielded hits; the second 1, Research that was unrelated to instructional feedback was excluded, such as studies limited to self-estimates of performance before or after taking a test, guesses about whether a test item was answered correctly, and estimates of how many tasks could be completed in a certain amount of time.

Although some of the excluded studies might be thought of as useful investigations of self-monitoring, as a group they seemed too unrelated to theories of self-generated feedback to be appropriate for this review. Seventy-six studies were selected for inclusion in Table S1 Supplementary Material , which also contains a few studies published before that were not included in key reviews, as well as studies solicited directly from authors.

The Table S1 in the Supplementary Material contains a complete list of studies included in this review, organized by the focus or topic of the study, as well as brief descriptions of each. This distinction was often difficult to make due to a lack of information. A sentence or two of explanation about the process of self-assessment in the procedures sections of published studies would be most useful.

Figure 1 graphically represents the number of studies in the four most common topic categories found in the table—achievement, consistency, student perceptions, and SRL. The figure reveals that research on self-assessment is on the rise, with consistency the most popular topic.

Of the 76 studies in the table in the appendix, 44 were inquiries into the consistency of students' self-assessments with other judgments e. Twenty-five studies investigated the relationship between self-assessment and achievement.

Fifteen explored students' perceptions of self-assessment. Twelve studies focused on the association between self-assessment and self-regulated learning. One examined self-efficacy, and two qualitative studies documented the mental processes involved in self-assessment. In the remainder of this review I examine each topic in turn. Table S1 Supplementary Material reveals that much of the recent research on self-assessment has investigated the accuracy or, more accurately, consistency, of students' self-assessments.

The term consistency is more appropriate in the classroom context because the quality of students' self-assessments is often determined by comparing them with their teachers' assessments and then generating correlations. Given the evidence of the unreliability of teachers' grades Falchikov, , the assumption that teachers' assessments are accurate might not be well-founded Leach, ; Brown et al. Ratings of student work done by researchers are also suspect, unless evidence of the validity and reliability of the inferences made about student work by researchers is available.

Consequently, much of the research on classroom-based self-assessment should use the term consistency , which refers to the degree of alignment between students' and expert raters' evaluations, avoiding the purer, more rigorous term accuracy unless it is fitting. Qualitatively different forms of self-assessment, especially summative and formative types, cannot be lumped together without obfuscating important aspects of self-assessment as feedback.

Given my concern about combining studies of summative and formative assessment, you might anticipate a call for research on consistency that distinguishes between the two. I will make no such call for three reasons. One is that we have enough research on the subject, including the 22 studies in Table S1 Supplementary Material that were published after Brown and Harris's review Drawing only on studies included in Table S1 Supplementary Material , we can say with confidence that summative self-assessment tends to be inconsistent with external judgements Baxter and Norman, ; De Grez et al.

There are exceptions Alaoutinen, ; Lopez-Pastor et al. We can also say that older, more academically competent learners tend to be more consistent Hacker et al. There is evidence that consistency can be improved through experience Lopez and Kossack, ; Yilmaz, ; Nagel and Lindsey, , the use of guidelines Bol et al. Modeling and feedback also help Labuhn et al. An outcome typical of research on the consistency of summative self-assessment can be found in row 59, which summarizes the study by Tejeiro et al.

Students are not stupid: if they know that they can influence their final grade, and that their judgment is summative rather than intended to inform revision and improvement, they will be motivated to inflate their self-evaluation. I do not believe we need more research to demonstrate that phenomenon.

The second reason I am not calling for additional research on consistency is a lot of it seems somewhat irrelevant. This might be because the interest in accuracy is rooted in clinical research on calibration, which has very different aims. Calibration research often asks study participants to predict or postdict the correctness of their responses to test items.

I caution about generalizing from clinical experiments to authentic classroom contexts because the dismal picture of our human potential to self-judge was painted by calibration researchers before study participants were effectively taught how to predict with accuracy, or provided with the tools they needed to be accurate, or motivated to do so.

Calibration researchers know that, of course, and have conducted intervention studies that attempt to improve accuracy, with some success e. Studies of formative self-assessment also suggest that consistency increases when it is taught and supported in many of the ways any other skill must be taught and supported Lopez and Kossack, ; Labuhn et al. Even clinical psychological studies that go beyond calibration to examine the associations between monitoring accuracy and subsequent study behaviors do not transfer well to classroom assessment research.

The first is that the tasks in which study participants engage are quite inauthentic. Although memory for word pairs might be important in some classroom contexts, it is not safe to assume that results from studies like that one can predict students' behaviors after criterion-referenced self-assessment of their comprehension of complex texts, lengthy compositions, or solutions to multi-step mathematical problems.

The second limitation of studies like the typical one described above is more serious: Participants in research like that are not permitted to regulate their own studying, which is experimentally manipulated by a computer program. This came as a surprise, since many of the claims were about students' poor study choices but they were rarely allowed to make actual choices.

The authors note that this study design is an improvement on designs that did not require all participants to use the same regulation algorithm, but it does not reflect the kinds of decisions that learners make in class or while doing homework. In fact, a large body of research shows that students can make wise choices when they self-pace the study of to-be-learned materials and then allocate study time to each item Bjork et al. In a typical experiment, the students first study all the items at an experimenter-paced rate e.

Several dependent measures have been widely used, such as how long each item is studied, whether an item is selected for restudy, and in what order items are selected for restudy. The literature on these aspects of self-regulated study is massive for a comprehensive overview, see both Dunlosky and Ariel, and Son and Metcalfe, , but the evidence is largely consistent with a few basic conclusions. First, if students have a chance to practice retrieval prior to restudying items, they almost exclusively choose to restudy unrecalled items and drop the previously recalled items from restudy Metcalfe and Kornell, Second, when pacing their study of individual items that have been selected for restudy, students typically spend more time studying items that are more, rather than less, difficult to learn.

Such a strategy is consistent with a discrepancy-reduction model of self-paced study which states that people continue to study an item until they reach mastery , although some key revisions to this model are needed to account for all the data. For instance, students may not continue to study until they reach some static criterion of mastery, but instead, they may continue to study until they perceive that they are no longer making progress.

I propose that this research, which suggests that students' unscaffolded, unmeasured, informal self-assessments tend to lead to appropriate task selection, is better aligned with research on classroom-based self-assessment. Nonetheless, even this comparison is inadequate because the study participants were not taught to compare their performance to the criteria for mastery, as is often done in classroom-based self-assessment.

The third and final reason I do not believe we need additional research on consistency is that I think it is a distraction from the true purposes of self-assessment. Many if not most of the articles about the accuracy of self-assessment are grounded in the assumption that accuracy is necessary for self-assessment to be useful, particularly in terms of subsequent studying and revision behaviors. Although it seems obvious that accurate evaluations of their performance positively influence students' study strategy selection, which should produce improvements in achievement, I have not seen relevant research that tests those conjectures.

Some claim that inaccurate estimates of learning lead to the selection of inappropriate learning tasks Kostons et al. For example, Kostons et al. Other studies produce findings that support my skepticism. Take, for instance, two relevant studies of calibration. One suggested that performance and judgments of performance had little influence on subsequent test preparation behavior Hacker et al. Eva and Regehr believe that:.

I almost agree. Here, I admit, is a call for research related to consistency: I would love to see a high-quality investigation of the relationship between accuracy in formative self-assessment, and students' subsequent study and revision behaviors, and their learning.

For example, a study that closely examines the revisions to writing made by accurate and inaccurate self-assessors, and the resulting outcomes in terms of the quality of their writing, would be most welcome. Table S1 Supplementary Material indicates that by researchers began publishing studies that more directly address the hypothesized link between self-assessment and subsequent learning behaviors, as well as important questions about the processes learners engage in while self-assessing Yan and Brown, One, a study by Nugteren et al.

The results suggested that most of the 15 students in their sample over-estimated their performance and made inaccurate learning-task selections. Nugteren et al. For instance, while working on the genetics tasks, students reported selecting tasks because they were fun or interesting, not because they addressed self-identified weaknesses in their understanding of genetics. I second that proposal: Rather than directing our efforts on accuracy in the service of improving subsequent task selection, let us simply teach students to use the information at hand to select next best steps, among other things.

Butler , row 76 in Table S1 Supplementary Material has conducted at least two studies of learners' processes of responding to self-assessment items and how they arrived at their judgments. The contribution of the study is the detailed information it provides about how students generated their judgments. Perhaps as a result, the correlation between after-task self-assessment and task performance was generally higher than for generic self-assessment.

Butler notes that her study enriches our empirical understanding of the processes by which children respond to self-assessment. This is a very promising direction for the field. Similar studies of processing during formative self-assessment of a variety of task types in a classroom context would likely produce significant advances in our understanding of how and why self-assessment influences learning and performance.

Fifteen of the studies listed in Table S1 Supplementary Material focused on students' perceptions of self-assessment. The studies of children suggest that they tend to have unsophisticated understandings of its purposes Harris and Brown, ; Bourke, that might lead to shallow implementation of related processes. In contrast, results from the studies conducted in higher education settings suggested that college and university students understood the function of self-assessment Ratminingsih et al.

Not surprisingly, positive perceptions of self-assessment were typically developed by students who actively engaged the formative type by, for example, developing their own criteria for an effective self-assessment response Bourke, , or using a rubric or checklist to guide their assessments and then revising their work Huang and Gui, ; Wang, Earlier research suggested that children's attitudes toward self-assessment can become negative if it is summative Ross et al. However, even summative self-assessment was reported by adult learners to be useful in helping them become more critical of their own and others' writing throughout the course and in subsequent courses van Helvoort, Twenty-five of the studies in Table S1 Supplementary Material investigated the relation between self-assessment and achievement, including two meta-analyses.

Twenty of the 25 clearly employed the formative type. Without exception, those 20 studies, plus the two meta-analyses Graham et al. The meta-analysis conducted by Graham and his colleagues, which included 10 studies, yielded an average weighted effect size of 0. The Sanchez et al. All but two of the non-meta-analytic studies of achievement in Table S1 Supplementary Material were quasi-experimental or experimental, providing relatively rigorous evidence that their treatment groups outperformed their comparison or control groups in terms of everything from writing to dart-throwing, map-making, speaking English, and exams in a wide variety of disciplines.

One experiment on summative self-assessment Miller and Geraci, , in contrast, resulted in no improvements in exam scores, while the other one did Raaijmakers et al. It would be easy to overgeneralize and claim that the question about the effect of self-assessment on learning has been answered, but there are unanswered questions about the key components of effective self-assessment, especially social-emotional components related to power and trust Andrade and Brown, The trends are pretty clear, however: it appears that formative forms of self-assessment can promote knowledge and skill development.

This is not surprising, given that it involves many of the processes known to support learning, including practice, feedback, revision, and especially the intellectually demanding work of making complex, criteria-referenced judgments Panadero et al. Boud a , b predicted this trend when he noted that many self-assessment processes undermine learning by rushing to judgment, thereby failing to engage students with the standards or criteria for their work.

The association between self-assessment and learning has also been explained in terms of self-regulation Andrade, ; Panadero and Alonso-Tapia, ; Andrade and Brookhart, , ; Panadero et al. Self-regulated learning SRL occurs when learners set goals and then monitor and manage their thoughts, feelings, and actions to reach those goals.

SRL is moderately to highly correlated with achievement Zimmerman and Schunk, Conceptual and practical overlaps between the two fields are abundant. In fact, Brown and Harris recommend that student self-assessment no longer be treated as an assessment, but as an essential competence for self-regulation. Butler and Winne introduced the role of self-generated feedback in self-regulation years ago:. As learners monitor their engagement with tasks, internal feedback is generated by the monitoring process.

That feedback describes the nature of outcomes and the qualities of the cognitive processes that led to those states p. The outcomes and processes referred to by Butler and Winne are many of the same products and processes I referred to earlier in the definition of self-assessment and in Table 1. In general, research and practice related to self-assessment has tended to focus on judging the products of student learning, while scholarship on self-regulated learning encompasses both processes and products.

The very practical focus of much of the research on self-assessment means it might be playing catch-up, in terms of theory development, with the SRL literature, which is grounded in experimental paradigms from cognitive psychology de Bruin and van Gog, , while self-assessment research is ahead in terms of implementation E.

Panadero, personal communication, October 21, One major exception is the work done on Self-regulated Strategy Development Glaser and Brunstein, ; Harris et al. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick have been explicit about the potential for self-assessment practices to support self-regulated learning:. To develop systematically the learner's capacity for self-regulation, teachers need to create more structured opportunities for self-monitoring and the judging of progression to goals. Self-assessment tasks are an effective way of achieving this, as are activities that encourage reflection on learning progress p.

The studies of SRL in Table S1 Supplementary Material provide encouraging findings regarding the potential role of self-assessment in promoting achievement, self-regulated learning in general, and metacognition and study strategies related to task selection in particular.

An important aspect of research on self-assessment that is not explicitly represented in Table S1 Supplementary Material is practice, or pedagogy: Under what conditions does self-assessment work best, and how are those conditions influenced by context? Fortunately, the studies listed in the table, as well as others see especially Andrade and Valtcheva, ; Nielsen, ; Panadero et al.

But we still have questions about how best to scaffold effective formative self-assessment. One area of inquiry is about the characteristics of the task being assessed, and the standards or criteria used by learners during self-assessment. Type of task or competency assessed seems to matter e. There is some evidence that it is important that the criteria used to self-assess are concrete, task-specific Butler, , and graduated.

For example, Fastre et al. In their study, 70 college students were taught how to throw darts at a target. The purpose of the study was to examine the role of graphing of self-recorded outcomes and self-evaluative standards in learning a motor skill. Kitsantas and Zimmerman hypothesized that setting high absolute standards would limit a learner's sensitivity to small improvements in functioning.

This hypothesis was supported by the finding that students who set absolute standards reported significantly less awareness of learning progress and hit the bull's-eye less often than students who set graduated standards. Classroom-based research on specific, graduated self-assessment criteria would be informative. There are many additional questions about pedagogy, such as the hoped-for investigation mentioned above of the relationship between accuracy in formative self-assessment, students' subsequent study behaviors, and their learning.

There is also a need for research on how to help teachers give students a central role in their learning by creating space for self-assessment e. However, there is an even more pressing need for investigations into the internal mechanisms experienced by students engaged in assessing their own learning. Angela Lui and I call this the next black box Lui, Black and Wiliam used the term black box to emphasize the fact that what happened in most classrooms was largely unknown: all we knew was that some inputs e.

But what, they asked, is happening inside, and what new inputs will produce better outputs? Black and Wiliam's review spawned a great deal of research on formative assessment, some but not all of which suggests a positive relationship with academic achievement Bennett, ; Kingston and Nash, To better understand why and how the use of formative assessment in general and self-assessment in particular is associated with improvements in academic achievement in some instances but not others, we need research that looks into the next black box: the cognitive and affective mechanisms of students who are engaged in assessment processes Lui, The role of internal mechanisms has been discussed in theory but not yet fully tested.

Crooks argued that the impact of assessment is influenced by students' interpretation of the tasks and results, and Butler and Winne theorized that both cognitive and affective processes play a role in determining how feedback is internalized and used to self-regulate learning. Other theoretical frameworks about the internal processes of receiving and responding to feedback have been developed e.

This area is ripe for research. Self-assessment is the act of monitoring one's processes and products in order to make adjustments that deepen learning and enhance performance. Although it can be summative, the evidence presented in this review strongly suggests that self-assessment is most beneficial, in terms of both achievement and self-regulated learning, when it is used formatively and supported by training.

What is not yet clear is why and how self-assessment works. Those of you who like to investigate phenomena that are maddeningly difficult to measure will rejoice to hear that the cognitive and affective mechanisms of self-assessment are the next black box. Studies of the ways in which learners think and feel, the interactions between their thoughts and feelings and their context, and the implications for pedagogy will make major contributions to our field.

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication. The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Admiraal, W. Assessment in massive open online courses. Google Scholar. Alaoutinen, S. Evaluating the effect of learning style and student background on self-assessment accuracy.

Al-Rawahi, N. The effect of reflective science journal writing on students' self-regulated learning strategies. Andrade, H. Andrade and G. Lipnevich and J. Smith Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , — PubMed Abstract. The role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Principles Policy Pract. Laveault and L. Allal Heidelberg: Springer , — Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment.

Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students' writing. Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students' writing. Promoting learning and achievement through self- assessment. Theory Pract. Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing.

Brown and L. PubMed Abstract Google Scholar. Baars, M. Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Balderas, I. Self and peer correction to improve college students' writing skills. Bandura, A. In contrast to England, these reviews did not lead to the award of resource allocation grades to particular institutions or courses. Recent 'aspect reviews' of teacher education provision in Scotland, led by HMIE , have focused on particular themes and have considered provision across the whole sector: the preparation of student teachers to teach literacy HMIE , ; student teacher placements HMIE , ; ; and mentoring arrangements HMIE , These were designed to provide helpful support and guidance for future development to all providers.

These include the involvement of the profession in the generation of evaluation standards; the specification of standards tailored to the needs of teachers at different career stages; the promotion of collaborative peer review and the use of multiple data sources within cyclical review processes. Some concerns have been raised regarding the lack of precision in systems designed to evaluate teaching quality. A review of local teacher evaluation policies in 7 Midwestern States in the USA found that less than one in ten school districts required evaluators to be trained in order to improve inter-rater reliability Brandt et al, Systems of evaluation will have more credibility and power if they are not only 'publicly known' but 'publically derived' Danielson and McGreal, The involvement of teachers in the design and implementation of evaluation systems is recommended Kyriakides et al, See, for example, the involvement of the profession in the generation of Standards and assessment of their achievement in the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards scheme in the USA and the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher levels proposed in Australia.

Evaluation systems have traditionally been characterised by top-down, one way communication, where the teacher's role is passive. Contemporary understandings of adult professional learning have emphasised the importance of active involvement see for example Shulman's Teacher Assessment Project at Stanford, USA and a sense of agency e. Teacher evaluation systems in some countries do not differentiate the roles, responsibilities and performance standards expected of teachers at different career stages Isore, Public accountability demands that early career stage teachers are subject to the same evaluation procedures as their more experienced colleagues.

Evaluation systems are often designed to assure minimal competency rather than assess and promote accomplishment Peterson, Self-assessment and self-directed inquiry in professional development might reasonably be expected of the experienced reflective practitioner, whereas guided self-assessment within supportive communities of practice may be more appropriate in meeting the development needs of novice teachers Danielson and McGreal, The advantages of an integrated framework of professional standards lies in the specification of standards at different career stages and the requirement of reflection and development planning to support career progression TDA , Teacher evaluation systems based on observable teaching behaviours reflect models of student achievement based on skills acquisition.

Systems for teacher evaluation need to be congruent with current conceptions of what constitutes 'good teaching' and research-based understandings of how pupils' learn. New approaches to teaching and professional learning require different approaches to the evaluation of teaching and teacher education.

School principals are the most common school-level evaluators Mathers et al, Based on research in Australia, Kleinhenz and Ingvarson suggest that evaluation by principal judgment is not reliable. Empirical studies in the USA also indicate that principal ratings of teacher performance are frequently inaccurate Peterson, Content knowledge and content-related pedagogy of observers are viewed as important by teachers subject to external evaluation.

Assessment of evaluators' expertise influences teachers' expectations of likely learning from review processes. Peer evaluators matched according to background, knowledge and experience are more effective than models based on seniority alone. Many evaluation systems are reliant on quantitative measures: ratings systems; pupil performance data.

Over-quantification is often associated with attempts to assure 'objectivity'. Professional judgment is needed to make sense of evaluation data - establishing warrant from evidence. Multiple sources of evidence from multiple perspectives enhance evaluation systems. Whilst some impact measures are described as 'anecdotcal', the TDA notes that PDS impact reports contain some evidence of attempts to systematically evaluate the impact of ITT by 'measuring student performance and behaviour and analysing student perceptions The review of Teacher Education Curricula in the EU Finnish Institute for Educational Research, notes that "in-service teacher education was hardly mentioned at all in the documents and only in a few documents were there skills and competences highlighted which should be taken into consideration when planning contents, methods, etc.

An Ofsted evaluation of CPD in schools also reported weaknesses in evaluation, noting that, "Few of the schools evaluated successfully the impact of CPD on the quality of teaching and on pupils' achievement because they did not identify the intended outcomes clearly at the planning stage" Ofsted, Systematic classroom observation - principal ratings using observation protocols.

External evaluation: ranging from full inspections of schools and individual teachers, to inspections of specific subjects. Instruments: observation of lessons; interviews with school leaders; teachers, parents and pupils; questionnaires. School self evaluation: Questionnaires. Value added measures. Peer observation.

Portfolios e. Schools of Ambition School enquiry groups. Pupils as researchers. Faubert, ; Standaert, ; Kellett, ; Ruddock and Flutter, Pre-visit briefing. Table 8. Overview of strengths and limitations of evaluation through research, inspection and school-level inquiry.

Home Publications. Literature Review on Teacher Education in the 21st Century. Supporting documents. Contents Close. Reviews of teacher education research in different national contexts consistently indicate that the field of teacher education research is fragmented and non-cumulative. Research-based evaluations of teacher education systems are limited; however, there are other avenues that could be explored such as inspection and school-level self-evaluation.

Inspection facilitates comparison between providers against pre-specified criteria and also provides a basis for national overviews of the quality of teacher education. Some studies indicate that the use of evidence to inform policy and practice in teacher education at school level requires further development.

Introduction 6. Research 6. Inspection and self evaluation 6. The Report suggests there is a growing emphasis on outcome measures within an 'input-context-processes and output model' : output covering attainment, achievement, results, outcomes ; teaching-learning processes curriculum, pupil guidance, quality of teaching, assessment, ethos, school climate ; management school management, leadership, organisation, quality assurance, communication, staff management ; context input infrastructure, financial context, characteristics of incoming pupils, legal demands, support structures outside the school ibid.

NQTs rate their training in relation to the following factors TDA , 16 : Curriculum, teaching skills, assessment and progression: helping them understand the National Curriculum; providing them with the relevant knowledge, skills and understanding to teach their specialist subject; providing them with the knowledge, skills and understanding to use information and communications technology ICT in their subject teaching; preparing them to teach reading including phonics and comprehension primary NQTs only ; helping them plan their teaching to achieve progression for learners; helping them to establish and maintain a good standard of behaviour in the classroom; helping them use a range of teaching methods that promote children's and young people's learning; helping them to understand how to monitor, assess, record and report learners' progress.

Continuing professional learning: preparing them to begin their statutory induction period; preparing them to use the career entry and development profile CEDP ; preparing them to share responsibility for their continuing professional development CPD. Teacher preparation for diversity: helping them to teach pupils with special educational needs in their classes, with appropriate support; preparing them to work with learners with English as an additional language; preparing them to teach learners of different abilities; preparing them to teach learners from minority ethnic backgrounds.

Working with others: preparing them to work with teaching colleagues as part of a team; preparing them to work with other professionals e.

PROFESSIONAL LETTER GHOSTWRITER WEBSITE FOR PHD

The usual results were reported: Older children and good narrators were more accurate than younger children and poor narrators, and males tended to more frequently overestimate their ability. Typical of clinical studies of accuracy in self-evaluation, this study rests on a definition and operationalization of self-assessment with no value in terms of instructional feedback.

If those children were asked to rate their stories and then revise or, better yet, if they assessed their stories according to clear, developmentally appropriate criteria before revising, the valence of their self-assessments in terms of instructional feedback would skyrocket. I speculate that their accuracy would too. In contrast, studies of formative self-assessment suggest that when the act of self-assessing is given a learning-oriented purpose, students' self-assessments are relatively consistent with those of external evaluators, including professors Lopez and Kossack, ; Barney et al.

My commitment to keeping self-assessment formative is firm. However, Gavin Brown personal communication, April reminded me that summative self-assessment exists and we cannot ignore it; any definition of self-assessment must acknowledge and distinguish between formative and summative forms of it. Fortunately, a formative view of self-assessment seems to be taking hold in various educational contexts.

Now we are talking about the how of self-assessment, which demands an operationalization of self-assessment practice. Monitoring and self-assessing processes are practically synonymous with self-regulated learning SRL , or at least central components of it such as goal-setting and monitoring, or metacognition.

Research on SRL has clearly shown that self-generated feedback on one's approach to learning is associated with academic gains Zimmerman and Schunk, Including the self-assessment of competence in this definition is a little trickier. Research on global self-assessment, or self-perception, is popular in the medical education literature, but even there, scholars have begun to question its usefulness in terms of influencing learning and professional growth e. Eva and Regehr seem to agree in the following passage, which states the case in a way that makes it worthy of a long quotation:.

Self-assessment is often implicitly or otherwise conceptualized as a personal, unguided reflection on performance for the purposes of generating an individually derived summary of one's own level of knowledge, skill, and understanding in a particular area. For example, this conceptualization would appear to be the only reasonable basis for studies that fit into what Colliver et al.

This unguided, internally generated construction of self-assessment stands in stark contrast to the model put forward by Boud , who argued that the phrase self-assessment should not imply an isolated or individualistic activity; it should commonly involve peers, teachers, and other sources of information. The conceptualization of self-assessment as enunciated in Boud's description would appear to involve a process by which one takes personal responsibility for looking outward, explicitly seeking feedback, and information from external sources, then using these externally generated sources of assessment data to direct performance improvements.

In this construction, self-assessment is more of a pedagogical strategy than an ability to judge for oneself; it is a habit that one needs to acquire and enact rather than an ability that one needs to master p. As in the K context, self-assessment is coming to be seen as having value as much or more so in terms of pedagogy as in assessment Silver et al.

In the end, however, I decided that self-assessing one's competence to successfully learn a particular concept or complete a particular task which sounds a lot like self-efficacy—more on that later might be useful feedback because it can inform decisions about how to proceed, such as the amount of time to invest in learning how to play the flute, or whether or not to seek help learning the steps of the jitterbug.

An important caveat, however, is that self-assessments of competence are only useful if students have opportunities to do something about their perceived low competence—that is, it serves the purpose of formative feedback for the learner. In response, I propose the taxonomy depicted in Table 1 , which focuses on the what competence, process, or product , the why formative or summative , and the how methods, including whether or not they include standards, e.

The collections of examples of methods in the table is inexhaustive. I put the methods in Table 1 where I think they belong, but many of them could be placed in more than one cell. Take self-efficacy , for instance, which is essentially a self-assessment of one's competence to successfully undertake a particular task Bandura, Summative judgments of self-efficacy are certainly possible but they seem like a silly thing to do—what is the point, from a learning perspective?

Formative self-efficacy judgments, on the other hand, can inform next steps in learning and skill building. There is reason to believe that monitoring and making adjustments to one's self-efficacy e. It is important to emphasize that self-efficacy is task-specific, more or less Bandura, The exclusion of global evaluations of oneself resonates with research that clearly shows that feedback that focuses on aspects of a task e.

Hence, global self-evaluations of ability or competence do not appear in Table 1. Another approach to student self-assessment that could be placed in more than one cell is traffic lights. The term traffic lights refers to asking students to use green, yellow, or red objects or thumbs up, sideways, or down—anything will do to indicate whether they think they have good, partial, or little understanding Black et al.

It would be appropriate for traffic lights to appear in multiple places in Table 1 , depending on how they are used. Traffic lights seem to be most effective at supporting students' reflections on how well they understand a concept or have mastered a skill, which is line with their creators' original intent, so they are categorized as formative self-assessments of one's learning—which sounds like metacognition.

In fact, several of the methods included in Table 1 come from research on metacognition, including self-monitoring , such as checking one's reading comprehension, and self-testing , e. These last two methods have been excluded from some taxonomies of self-assessment e. However, new conceptions of self-assessment are grounded in theories of the self- and co-regulation of learning Andrade and Brookhart, , which includes self-monitoring of learning processes with and without explicit standards.

However, my research favors self-assessment with regard to standards Andrade and Boulay, ; Andrade and Du, ; Andrade et al. I have involved students in self-assessment of stories, essays, or mathematical word problems according to rubrics or checklists with criteria. For example, two studies investigated the relationship between elementary or middle school students' scores on a written assignment and a process that involved them in reading a model paper, co-creating criteria, self-assessing first drafts with a rubric, and revising Andrade et al.

The self-assessment was highly scaffolded: students were asked to underline key phrases in the rubric with colored pencils e. If students found they had not met the standard, they were asked to write themselves a reminder to make improvements when they wrote their final drafts. This process was followed for each criterion on the rubric. There were main effects on scores for every self-assessed criterion on the rubric, suggesting that guided self-assessment according to the co-created criteria helped students produce more effective writing.

Panadero and his colleagues have also done quasi-experimental and experimental research on standards-referenced self-assessment, using rubrics or lists of assessment criteria that are presented in the form of questions Panadero et al. Panadero calls the list of assessment criteria a script because his work is grounded in research on scaffolding e. Either way, the list provides standards for the task.

Here is a script for a written summary that Panadero et al. Is it at the beginning of my summary? What is my goal? Most interesting, perhaps, is one study Panadero and Romero, that demonstrated an association between rubric-referenced self-assessment activities and all three phases of SRL; forethought, performance, and reflection.

There are surely many other methods of self-assessment to include in Table 1 , as well as interesting conversations to be had about which method goes where and why. In the meantime, I offer the taxonomy in Table 1 as a way to define and operationalize self-assessment in instructional contexts and as a framework for the following overview of current research on the subject.

Several recent reviews of self-assessment are available Brown and Harris, ; Brown et al. Instead, I chose to take a birds-eye view of the field, with goal of reporting on what has been sufficiently researched and what remains to be done. I used the references lists from reviews, as well as other relevant sources, as a starting point. Because the focus was on K educational contexts, sources were excluded if they were about early childhood education or professional development.

The first search yielded hits; the second 1, Research that was unrelated to instructional feedback was excluded, such as studies limited to self-estimates of performance before or after taking a test, guesses about whether a test item was answered correctly, and estimates of how many tasks could be completed in a certain amount of time. Although some of the excluded studies might be thought of as useful investigations of self-monitoring, as a group they seemed too unrelated to theories of self-generated feedback to be appropriate for this review.

Seventy-six studies were selected for inclusion in Table S1 Supplementary Material , which also contains a few studies published before that were not included in key reviews, as well as studies solicited directly from authors. The Table S1 in the Supplementary Material contains a complete list of studies included in this review, organized by the focus or topic of the study, as well as brief descriptions of each.

This distinction was often difficult to make due to a lack of information. A sentence or two of explanation about the process of self-assessment in the procedures sections of published studies would be most useful. Figure 1 graphically represents the number of studies in the four most common topic categories found in the table—achievement, consistency, student perceptions, and SRL. The figure reveals that research on self-assessment is on the rise, with consistency the most popular topic.

Of the 76 studies in the table in the appendix, 44 were inquiries into the consistency of students' self-assessments with other judgments e. Twenty-five studies investigated the relationship between self-assessment and achievement. Fifteen explored students' perceptions of self-assessment. Twelve studies focused on the association between self-assessment and self-regulated learning.

One examined self-efficacy, and two qualitative studies documented the mental processes involved in self-assessment. In the remainder of this review I examine each topic in turn. Table S1 Supplementary Material reveals that much of the recent research on self-assessment has investigated the accuracy or, more accurately, consistency, of students' self-assessments. The term consistency is more appropriate in the classroom context because the quality of students' self-assessments is often determined by comparing them with their teachers' assessments and then generating correlations.

Given the evidence of the unreliability of teachers' grades Falchikov, , the assumption that teachers' assessments are accurate might not be well-founded Leach, ; Brown et al. Ratings of student work done by researchers are also suspect, unless evidence of the validity and reliability of the inferences made about student work by researchers is available.

Consequently, much of the research on classroom-based self-assessment should use the term consistency , which refers to the degree of alignment between students' and expert raters' evaluations, avoiding the purer, more rigorous term accuracy unless it is fitting.

Qualitatively different forms of self-assessment, especially summative and formative types, cannot be lumped together without obfuscating important aspects of self-assessment as feedback. Given my concern about combining studies of summative and formative assessment, you might anticipate a call for research on consistency that distinguishes between the two. I will make no such call for three reasons. One is that we have enough research on the subject, including the 22 studies in Table S1 Supplementary Material that were published after Brown and Harris's review Drawing only on studies included in Table S1 Supplementary Material , we can say with confidence that summative self-assessment tends to be inconsistent with external judgements Baxter and Norman, ; De Grez et al.

There are exceptions Alaoutinen, ; Lopez-Pastor et al. We can also say that older, more academically competent learners tend to be more consistent Hacker et al. There is evidence that consistency can be improved through experience Lopez and Kossack, ; Yilmaz, ; Nagel and Lindsey, , the use of guidelines Bol et al.

Modeling and feedback also help Labuhn et al. An outcome typical of research on the consistency of summative self-assessment can be found in row 59, which summarizes the study by Tejeiro et al. Students are not stupid: if they know that they can influence their final grade, and that their judgment is summative rather than intended to inform revision and improvement, they will be motivated to inflate their self-evaluation. I do not believe we need more research to demonstrate that phenomenon.

The second reason I am not calling for additional research on consistency is a lot of it seems somewhat irrelevant. This might be because the interest in accuracy is rooted in clinical research on calibration, which has very different aims. Calibration research often asks study participants to predict or postdict the correctness of their responses to test items.

I caution about generalizing from clinical experiments to authentic classroom contexts because the dismal picture of our human potential to self-judge was painted by calibration researchers before study participants were effectively taught how to predict with accuracy, or provided with the tools they needed to be accurate, or motivated to do so. Calibration researchers know that, of course, and have conducted intervention studies that attempt to improve accuracy, with some success e.

Studies of formative self-assessment also suggest that consistency increases when it is taught and supported in many of the ways any other skill must be taught and supported Lopez and Kossack, ; Labuhn et al.

Even clinical psychological studies that go beyond calibration to examine the associations between monitoring accuracy and subsequent study behaviors do not transfer well to classroom assessment research. The first is that the tasks in which study participants engage are quite inauthentic.

Although memory for word pairs might be important in some classroom contexts, it is not safe to assume that results from studies like that one can predict students' behaviors after criterion-referenced self-assessment of their comprehension of complex texts, lengthy compositions, or solutions to multi-step mathematical problems. The second limitation of studies like the typical one described above is more serious: Participants in research like that are not permitted to regulate their own studying, which is experimentally manipulated by a computer program.

This came as a surprise, since many of the claims were about students' poor study choices but they were rarely allowed to make actual choices. The authors note that this study design is an improvement on designs that did not require all participants to use the same regulation algorithm, but it does not reflect the kinds of decisions that learners make in class or while doing homework.

In fact, a large body of research shows that students can make wise choices when they self-pace the study of to-be-learned materials and then allocate study time to each item Bjork et al. In a typical experiment, the students first study all the items at an experimenter-paced rate e.

Several dependent measures have been widely used, such as how long each item is studied, whether an item is selected for restudy, and in what order items are selected for restudy. The literature on these aspects of self-regulated study is massive for a comprehensive overview, see both Dunlosky and Ariel, and Son and Metcalfe, , but the evidence is largely consistent with a few basic conclusions. First, if students have a chance to practice retrieval prior to restudying items, they almost exclusively choose to restudy unrecalled items and drop the previously recalled items from restudy Metcalfe and Kornell, Second, when pacing their study of individual items that have been selected for restudy, students typically spend more time studying items that are more, rather than less, difficult to learn.

Such a strategy is consistent with a discrepancy-reduction model of self-paced study which states that people continue to study an item until they reach mastery , although some key revisions to this model are needed to account for all the data. For instance, students may not continue to study until they reach some static criterion of mastery, but instead, they may continue to study until they perceive that they are no longer making progress.

I propose that this research, which suggests that students' unscaffolded, unmeasured, informal self-assessments tend to lead to appropriate task selection, is better aligned with research on classroom-based self-assessment.

Nonetheless, even this comparison is inadequate because the study participants were not taught to compare their performance to the criteria for mastery, as is often done in classroom-based self-assessment. The third and final reason I do not believe we need additional research on consistency is that I think it is a distraction from the true purposes of self-assessment. Many if not most of the articles about the accuracy of self-assessment are grounded in the assumption that accuracy is necessary for self-assessment to be useful, particularly in terms of subsequent studying and revision behaviors.

Although it seems obvious that accurate evaluations of their performance positively influence students' study strategy selection, which should produce improvements in achievement, I have not seen relevant research that tests those conjectures. Some claim that inaccurate estimates of learning lead to the selection of inappropriate learning tasks Kostons et al. For example, Kostons et al. Other studies produce findings that support my skepticism. Take, for instance, two relevant studies of calibration.

One suggested that performance and judgments of performance had little influence on subsequent test preparation behavior Hacker et al. Eva and Regehr believe that:. I almost agree. Here, I admit, is a call for research related to consistency: I would love to see a high-quality investigation of the relationship between accuracy in formative self-assessment, and students' subsequent study and revision behaviors, and their learning.

For example, a study that closely examines the revisions to writing made by accurate and inaccurate self-assessors, and the resulting outcomes in terms of the quality of their writing, would be most welcome. Table S1 Supplementary Material indicates that by researchers began publishing studies that more directly address the hypothesized link between self-assessment and subsequent learning behaviors, as well as important questions about the processes learners engage in while self-assessing Yan and Brown, One, a study by Nugteren et al.

The results suggested that most of the 15 students in their sample over-estimated their performance and made inaccurate learning-task selections. Nugteren et al. For instance, while working on the genetics tasks, students reported selecting tasks because they were fun or interesting, not because they addressed self-identified weaknesses in their understanding of genetics. I second that proposal: Rather than directing our efforts on accuracy in the service of improving subsequent task selection, let us simply teach students to use the information at hand to select next best steps, among other things.

Butler , row 76 in Table S1 Supplementary Material has conducted at least two studies of learners' processes of responding to self-assessment items and how they arrived at their judgments. The contribution of the study is the detailed information it provides about how students generated their judgments. Perhaps as a result, the correlation between after-task self-assessment and task performance was generally higher than for generic self-assessment. Butler notes that her study enriches our empirical understanding of the processes by which children respond to self-assessment.

This is a very promising direction for the field. Similar studies of processing during formative self-assessment of a variety of task types in a classroom context would likely produce significant advances in our understanding of how and why self-assessment influences learning and performance.

Fifteen of the studies listed in Table S1 Supplementary Material focused on students' perceptions of self-assessment. The studies of children suggest that they tend to have unsophisticated understandings of its purposes Harris and Brown, ; Bourke, that might lead to shallow implementation of related processes. In contrast, results from the studies conducted in higher education settings suggested that college and university students understood the function of self-assessment Ratminingsih et al.

Not surprisingly, positive perceptions of self-assessment were typically developed by students who actively engaged the formative type by, for example, developing their own criteria for an effective self-assessment response Bourke, , or using a rubric or checklist to guide their assessments and then revising their work Huang and Gui, ; Wang, Earlier research suggested that children's attitudes toward self-assessment can become negative if it is summative Ross et al.

However, even summative self-assessment was reported by adult learners to be useful in helping them become more critical of their own and others' writing throughout the course and in subsequent courses van Helvoort, Twenty-five of the studies in Table S1 Supplementary Material investigated the relation between self-assessment and achievement, including two meta-analyses. Twenty of the 25 clearly employed the formative type.

Without exception, those 20 studies, plus the two meta-analyses Graham et al. The meta-analysis conducted by Graham and his colleagues, which included 10 studies, yielded an average weighted effect size of 0. The Sanchez et al. All but two of the non-meta-analytic studies of achievement in Table S1 Supplementary Material were quasi-experimental or experimental, providing relatively rigorous evidence that their treatment groups outperformed their comparison or control groups in terms of everything from writing to dart-throwing, map-making, speaking English, and exams in a wide variety of disciplines.

One experiment on summative self-assessment Miller and Geraci, , in contrast, resulted in no improvements in exam scores, while the other one did Raaijmakers et al. It would be easy to overgeneralize and claim that the question about the effect of self-assessment on learning has been answered, but there are unanswered questions about the key components of effective self-assessment, especially social-emotional components related to power and trust Andrade and Brown, The trends are pretty clear, however: it appears that formative forms of self-assessment can promote knowledge and skill development.

This is not surprising, given that it involves many of the processes known to support learning, including practice, feedback, revision, and especially the intellectually demanding work of making complex, criteria-referenced judgments Panadero et al. Boud a , b predicted this trend when he noted that many self-assessment processes undermine learning by rushing to judgment, thereby failing to engage students with the standards or criteria for their work.

The association between self-assessment and learning has also been explained in terms of self-regulation Andrade, ; Panadero and Alonso-Tapia, ; Andrade and Brookhart, , ; Panadero et al. Self-regulated learning SRL occurs when learners set goals and then monitor and manage their thoughts, feelings, and actions to reach those goals.

SRL is moderately to highly correlated with achievement Zimmerman and Schunk, Conceptual and practical overlaps between the two fields are abundant. In fact, Brown and Harris recommend that student self-assessment no longer be treated as an assessment, but as an essential competence for self-regulation. Butler and Winne introduced the role of self-generated feedback in self-regulation years ago:. As learners monitor their engagement with tasks, internal feedback is generated by the monitoring process.

That feedback describes the nature of outcomes and the qualities of the cognitive processes that led to those states p. The outcomes and processes referred to by Butler and Winne are many of the same products and processes I referred to earlier in the definition of self-assessment and in Table 1. In general, research and practice related to self-assessment has tended to focus on judging the products of student learning, while scholarship on self-regulated learning encompasses both processes and products.

The very practical focus of much of the research on self-assessment means it might be playing catch-up, in terms of theory development, with the SRL literature, which is grounded in experimental paradigms from cognitive psychology de Bruin and van Gog, , while self-assessment research is ahead in terms of implementation E. Panadero, personal communication, October 21, One major exception is the work done on Self-regulated Strategy Development Glaser and Brunstein, ; Harris et al.

Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick have been explicit about the potential for self-assessment practices to support self-regulated learning:. To develop systematically the learner's capacity for self-regulation, teachers need to create more structured opportunities for self-monitoring and the judging of progression to goals. Self-assessment tasks are an effective way of achieving this, as are activities that encourage reflection on learning progress p.

The studies of SRL in Table S1 Supplementary Material provide encouraging findings regarding the potential role of self-assessment in promoting achievement, self-regulated learning in general, and metacognition and study strategies related to task selection in particular.

An important aspect of research on self-assessment that is not explicitly represented in Table S1 Supplementary Material is practice, or pedagogy: Under what conditions does self-assessment work best, and how are those conditions influenced by context? Fortunately, the studies listed in the table, as well as others see especially Andrade and Valtcheva, ; Nielsen, ; Panadero et al.

But we still have questions about how best to scaffold effective formative self-assessment. One area of inquiry is about the characteristics of the task being assessed, and the standards or criteria used by learners during self-assessment. Type of task or competency assessed seems to matter e. There is some evidence that it is important that the criteria used to self-assess are concrete, task-specific Butler, , and graduated. For example, Fastre et al.

In their study, 70 college students were taught how to throw darts at a target. The purpose of the study was to examine the role of graphing of self-recorded outcomes and self-evaluative standards in learning a motor skill. Kitsantas and Zimmerman hypothesized that setting high absolute standards would limit a learner's sensitivity to small improvements in functioning.

This hypothesis was supported by the finding that students who set absolute standards reported significantly less awareness of learning progress and hit the bull's-eye less often than students who set graduated standards. Classroom-based research on specific, graduated self-assessment criteria would be informative.

There are many additional questions about pedagogy, such as the hoped-for investigation mentioned above of the relationship between accuracy in formative self-assessment, students' subsequent study behaviors, and their learning. There is also a need for research on how to help teachers give students a central role in their learning by creating space for self-assessment e. However, there is an even more pressing need for investigations into the internal mechanisms experienced by students engaged in assessing their own learning.

Angela Lui and I call this the next black box Lui, Black and Wiliam used the term black box to emphasize the fact that what happened in most classrooms was largely unknown: all we knew was that some inputs e. But what, they asked, is happening inside, and what new inputs will produce better outputs? Black and Wiliam's review spawned a great deal of research on formative assessment, some but not all of which suggests a positive relationship with academic achievement Bennett, ; Kingston and Nash, To better understand why and how the use of formative assessment in general and self-assessment in particular is associated with improvements in academic achievement in some instances but not others, we need research that looks into the next black box: the cognitive and affective mechanisms of students who are engaged in assessment processes Lui, The role of internal mechanisms has been discussed in theory but not yet fully tested.

Crooks argued that the impact of assessment is influenced by students' interpretation of the tasks and results, and Butler and Winne theorized that both cognitive and affective processes play a role in determining how feedback is internalized and used to self-regulate learning.

Other theoretical frameworks about the internal processes of receiving and responding to feedback have been developed e. This area is ripe for research. Self-assessment is the act of monitoring one's processes and products in order to make adjustments that deepen learning and enhance performance. Although it can be summative, the evidence presented in this review strongly suggests that self-assessment is most beneficial, in terms of both achievement and self-regulated learning, when it is used formatively and supported by training.

What is not yet clear is why and how self-assessment works. Those of you who like to investigate phenomena that are maddeningly difficult to measure will rejoice to hear that the cognitive and affective mechanisms of self-assessment are the next black box. Studies of the ways in which learners think and feel, the interactions between their thoughts and feelings and their context, and the implications for pedagogy will make major contributions to our field. The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Admiraal, W. Assessment in massive open online courses. Google Scholar. Alaoutinen, S. Evaluating the effect of learning style and student background on self-assessment accuracy. Al-Rawahi, N. The effect of reflective science journal writing on students' self-regulated learning strategies. Andrade, H.

Andrade and G. Lipnevich and J. Smith Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , — PubMed Abstract. The role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Principles Policy Pract. Laveault and L. Allal Heidelberg: Springer , — Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students' writing.

Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students' writing. Promoting learning and achievement through self- assessment. Theory Pract. Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. Brown and L. PubMed Abstract Google Scholar. Baars, M.

Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Balderas, I. Self and peer correction to improve college students' writing skills. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman. Barney, S. Improving students with rubric-based self-assessment and oral feedback. IEEE Transac. Baxter, P. Self-assessment or self deception?

A lack of association between nursing students' self-assessment and performance. Bennett, R. Formative assessment: a critical review. Birjandi, P. The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners' writing performance. Bjork, R. Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Black, P. Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80, —; — Blanch-Hartigan, D. Contemporary understandings of adult professional learning have emphasised the importance of active involvement see for example Shulman's Teacher Assessment Project at Stanford, USA and a sense of agency e.

Teacher evaluation systems in some countries do not differentiate the roles, responsibilities and performance standards expected of teachers at different career stages Isore, Public accountability demands that early career stage teachers are subject to the same evaluation procedures as their more experienced colleagues.

Evaluation systems are often designed to assure minimal competency rather than assess and promote accomplishment Peterson, Self-assessment and self-directed inquiry in professional development might reasonably be expected of the experienced reflective practitioner, whereas guided self-assessment within supportive communities of practice may be more appropriate in meeting the development needs of novice teachers Danielson and McGreal, The advantages of an integrated framework of professional standards lies in the specification of standards at different career stages and the requirement of reflection and development planning to support career progression TDA , Teacher evaluation systems based on observable teaching behaviours reflect models of student achievement based on skills acquisition.

Systems for teacher evaluation need to be congruent with current conceptions of what constitutes 'good teaching' and research-based understandings of how pupils' learn. New approaches to teaching and professional learning require different approaches to the evaluation of teaching and teacher education. School principals are the most common school-level evaluators Mathers et al, Based on research in Australia, Kleinhenz and Ingvarson suggest that evaluation by principal judgment is not reliable.

Empirical studies in the USA also indicate that principal ratings of teacher performance are frequently inaccurate Peterson, Content knowledge and content-related pedagogy of observers are viewed as important by teachers subject to external evaluation. Assessment of evaluators' expertise influences teachers' expectations of likely learning from review processes.

Peer evaluators matched according to background, knowledge and experience are more effective than models based on seniority alone. Many evaluation systems are reliant on quantitative measures: ratings systems; pupil performance data. Over-quantification is often associated with attempts to assure 'objectivity'. Professional judgment is needed to make sense of evaluation data - establishing warrant from evidence. Multiple sources of evidence from multiple perspectives enhance evaluation systems.

Whilst some impact measures are described as 'anecdotcal', the TDA notes that PDS impact reports contain some evidence of attempts to systematically evaluate the impact of ITT by 'measuring student performance and behaviour and analysing student perceptions The review of Teacher Education Curricula in the EU Finnish Institute for Educational Research, notes that "in-service teacher education was hardly mentioned at all in the documents and only in a few documents were there skills and competences highlighted which should be taken into consideration when planning contents, methods, etc.

An Ofsted evaluation of CPD in schools also reported weaknesses in evaluation, noting that, "Few of the schools evaluated successfully the impact of CPD on the quality of teaching and on pupils' achievement because they did not identify the intended outcomes clearly at the planning stage" Ofsted, Systematic classroom observation - principal ratings using observation protocols. External evaluation: ranging from full inspections of schools and individual teachers, to inspections of specific subjects.

Instruments: observation of lessons; interviews with school leaders; teachers, parents and pupils; questionnaires. School self evaluation: Questionnaires. Value added measures. Peer observation. Portfolios e. Schools of Ambition School enquiry groups. Pupils as researchers. Faubert, ; Standaert, ; Kellett, ; Ruddock and Flutter, Pre-visit briefing. Table 8. Overview of strengths and limitations of evaluation through research, inspection and school-level inquiry.

Home Publications. Literature Review on Teacher Education in the 21st Century. Supporting documents. Contents Close. Reviews of teacher education research in different national contexts consistently indicate that the field of teacher education research is fragmented and non-cumulative.

Research-based evaluations of teacher education systems are limited; however, there are other avenues that could be explored such as inspection and school-level self-evaluation. Inspection facilitates comparison between providers against pre-specified criteria and also provides a basis for national overviews of the quality of teacher education.

Some studies indicate that the use of evidence to inform policy and practice in teacher education at school level requires further development. Introduction 6. Research 6. Inspection and self evaluation 6. The Report suggests there is a growing emphasis on outcome measures within an 'input-context-processes and output model' : output covering attainment, achievement, results, outcomes ; teaching-learning processes curriculum, pupil guidance, quality of teaching, assessment, ethos, school climate ; management school management, leadership, organisation, quality assurance, communication, staff management ; context input infrastructure, financial context, characteristics of incoming pupils, legal demands, support structures outside the school ibid.

NQTs rate their training in relation to the following factors TDA , 16 : Curriculum, teaching skills, assessment and progression: helping them understand the National Curriculum; providing them with the relevant knowledge, skills and understanding to teach their specialist subject; providing them with the knowledge, skills and understanding to use information and communications technology ICT in their subject teaching; preparing them to teach reading including phonics and comprehension primary NQTs only ; helping them plan their teaching to achieve progression for learners; helping them to establish and maintain a good standard of behaviour in the classroom; helping them use a range of teaching methods that promote children's and young people's learning; helping them to understand how to monitor, assess, record and report learners' progress.

Continuing professional learning: preparing them to begin their statutory induction period; preparing them to use the career entry and development profile CEDP ; preparing them to share responsibility for their continuing professional development CPD. Teacher preparation for diversity: helping them to teach pupils with special educational needs in their classes, with appropriate support; preparing them to work with learners with English as an additional language; preparing them to teach learners of different abilities; preparing them to teach learners from minority ethnic backgrounds.

Working with others: preparing them to work with teaching colleagues as part of a team; preparing them to work with other professionals e. Table 6. Evaluation: merging quality assurance and professional learning Limitations of evaluation systems Advances in evaluation practice Some concerns have been raised regarding the lack of precision in systems designed to evaluate teaching quality. School-level evaluation of teacher education 6.

Table 7. Evaluation instruments Teacher evaluation School evaluation Teacher education Systematic classroom observation - principal ratings using observation protocols. Teacher self-report: interviews, surveys, instructional logs. Analysis of classroom artefacts. Collaborative peer evaluation: 'instructional rounds'. Analysis of pupil attainment, achievement data and value added.

Stakeholder surveys from pupils, parents, community.

Opinion you professional cv editing services usa charming message

The following four articles show some of the scope of different testing approaches to reading which plot this change in approaches and highlights where reading assessment can have beneficial effects. Smagorinsky, P. The author of this article uses a Vygotskyian perspective through which to view the act of reading seeing it as mediated by cultural tools, signs and practices and potentially itself mediating concept development, personality and identity.

It is with this in mind that he critiques an article by Connor et al. He suggests that making a personal connection to the text might be more valuable as it places the text in dialogue with other texts, in the mind of the reader. He comments that the authors acknowledge that separating reading instruction from other instruction is complex, but argues that this should not be the point of investigation in the first place.

The traditional question and answer instruction method should not be simply imposed. Instead, teachers need to make the effort to understand the cultural practices from which their students come and endeavor to build reading comprehension and assessment around those. The last assumption pertains to the hierarchical, standardized structure of assessment proposed by the authors of the scrutinized study. Smagorinsky sees it as heartening that teachers still have agency and power to decide what is taught in classroom and how to assess it.

He sees reflective, researched and personalized teaching such as that presented by Ballenger as the ideal for teaching in diverse classroom settings and super-imposed, outsider-generated standards as detrimental to the learning process. Although this paper is four years old and is a critique of a paper rather than a paper itself, it portrays an eloquent understanding of the Vygotskian perspective on teaching and assessment.

As such, it represents one extreme of the present thinking around assessment. Stoeckel, T. There has however, been little study into whether the effects of evaluation on ER, are detrimental. Although some ER experts imply that that evaluation has a negative influence on ER, teachers need to administer checks in order to ensure the reading has been done and in many schools assessment is a requirement.

Students are also unlikely to read voluntarily without teacher applied external motivation. The research focused on whether the reading attitudes of adult Japanese students who were quizzed on their ER, differed from those students who were not quizzed. A sample of students in different levels, were split into a treatment and a control group.

All were given a survey to ascertain their attitudes towards reading in English and this was administered in Japanese. All students were asked to read ten readers, one per week and all were made to give short written responses to these readers. Students in the sample group were given extra five question multiple choice questions. At the end of the course, all students completed the attitude survey again. This is not an effective way to measure this difference if evaluation does have an effect on attitude and takes only one of two present measures.

The use of indirect testing technique by which to measure understanding could be valid, but is not particularly in this case. Chau, J. Chen, J. Lughmani, S and Wu, W. The study was done in , on senior secondary Hong Kong Chinese school students, ranging in ability from intermediate to low, and identified some of the strengths and weaknesses in their reading performance. One of the main study objectives was to create a formative assessment tool to be used to inform further instruction as these students would be the first to undergo high-stakes testing to be rolled out in Most of these students had more than ten years-worth of ESL study behind them.

The weaknesses identified were concluded to result from problems in their linguistic, discourse and pragmatic understanding of the reading. The researchers initially identified main reading ability constructs which they sought to investigate in order to be able to measure these later. These constructs were in the areas of Linguistic, Discourse and Sociolinguistic competence.

In consultation with the teachers, two reading passages were decided upon. The test was 45 minute long and consisted of multiple choice and one word or short answer responses, understood to test one of the three identified competencies, some overlap was recognized scored out of The test was marked in consultation with the teachers on their reading instructional methods and several interesting points came to light through the analysis.

The test items which most students marked incorrectly, were associated with discourse knowledge ability to recognize main ideas, evaluate opinions and text organization and seemed to confirm that less skilled readers are text bound. Boyd, D. How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1 2 , — Teacher preparation and student achievement.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31 4 , — Cattaneo, M. The more, the better? The impact of instructional time on student performance. Retrieved from ftp. Chetty, R. Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 9 , — Chingos, M. Economics of Education Review, 30 3 , — Clotfelter, C.

Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41 4 , — Collinson, V. Redefining teacher excellence. Theory Into Practice , 38 1 , 4— Common Core Standards Initiative. Constantine, J. An evaluation of teachers trained through different routes to certification. Darling-Hammond, L. Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 8, 1.

Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, Desimone, L. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 2 , 81— Teacher and administrator responses to standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 8 , 1— Google Scholar. Garet, M. Focusing on mathematical knowledge: The impact of content-intensive teacher professional development. Gerritsen, S. Teacher quality and student achievement: Evidence from a Dutch sample of twins.

CPB discussion paper Goe, L. The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Gustafsson, J. The impact of school climate and teacher quality on mathematics achievement: A difference-in-differences approach. Hanushek, E. Efficiency and equity in schools around the world.

Economics of Education Review, 22 5 , — The value of smarter teachers: International evidence on teacher cognitive skills and student performance. Journal of Human Resources in press. Harris, D. Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95 7—8 , — Hill, H. American Educational Research Journal, 42 2 , — Jerrim, J. What happens when econometrics and psychometrics collide?

An example using the PISA data. Economics of Education Review, 61, 51— Ladd, H. Returns to teacher experience: Student achievement and motivation in middle school. Education Finance and Policy, 12 2 , — Lavy, V. Evidence from developed and developing countries. The Economic Journal, 11 , — Luschei, T. Teachers, student achievement, and national income: A cross-national examination of relationships and interactions. Prospects, 41, — Metzler, J. The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation.

Journal of Development Economics, 99 2 , — Montt, G. Cross-national differences in educational achievement inequality. Sociology of Education, 84 1 , 49— Palardy, G. Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30 2 , — Papay, J.

Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public Economics, , — Phillips, K. The Elementary School Journal, 4 , — Pil, F. Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance.

Academy of Management Journal , 52 6 , — Polikoff, M. Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36 4 , — Rice, J. Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.

Rivkin, S. Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73 2 , — Instruction time, classroom quality, and academic achievement. Rockoff, J. The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94 2 , — Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Education Finance and Policy, 6 1 , 43— Schmidt, W. The role of subject-matter content in teacher preparation: An international perspective for mathematics.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49 2 , — The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: An international perspective. Education Researcher, 44 4 , — Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. Shuls, J. Teacher effectiveness: An analysis of licensure screens.

Educational Policy, 29 4 , — Staiger, D.

The custom personal statement writing website online much the