Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from SageJournals.
Keywords:
self-assessment, higher education
Abstract:
Research on the closeness of correspondence between self- and teacher marks was conducted through the use of a formula. The factors that played a role were the quality of design of study (agreed criteria, checklist, global judgements, justification, student criteria, tutor criteria, tutor’s solutions) , course level (student experience level) , and area of study (science vs. social sciences and art). The conclusion is that the training of assessment is crucial in reliable assessment both from the teacher and student’s part.
Relevance:
Art is hard to self assess.
A strong criteria or guideline is necessary in increasing the gap of agreement.
Quotes:
“Life-long learning requires that individuals be able not only to work independently, but also to assess their own performance and progress.” (395)
“…the average self-marker graded higher than approximately 68% of faculty markers.” (420)
“We are defining success as simply relating to the degree of agreement between teacher and student ratings, and take no account of the undoubted learning benefits of many self-assessment schemes.” (425)
“self-assessment may be regarded as a skill and, as such, needs to be developed. It has been suggested that good assessment practice, whether ratings be made by students or by teachers, should include training of assessors.” (426)
“given that experienced teachers are not reliable markers in all situations, then it is, perhaps, unreasonable to expect inexperienced students always to demonstrate reliability.” (427)
Problems:
This study is performed in Higher Education students, which means greater experience from students. This may mean that at a secondary level, self-assessments may be even more unreliable.