Education reflection

University of Connecticut DigitalCommons@UConn

NERA Conference Proceedings 2010 Northeastern Educational Research Association

(NERA) Annual Conference

Fall 10-20-2010

Students as the Definitive Source of Formative Assessment: Academic Self-Assessment and the Self-Regulation of Learning Heidi L. Andrade University at Albany, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Andrade, Heidi L., "Students as the Definitive Source of Formative Assessment: Academic Self-Assessment and the Self-Regulation of Learning" (2010). NERA Conference Proceedings 2010. 25. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010/25

1

STUDENTS AS THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:

ACADEMIC SELF-ASSESSMENT AND THE SELF-REGULATION OF LEARNING

Heidi L. Andrade

University at Albany, State University of New York

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association

Rocky Hill, CT

October 20, 2010

2

If formative assessment is exclusively in the hands of teachers, then it is difficult

to see how students can become empowered and develop the self-regulation skills

needed to prepare them for learning outside university and throughout life. (Nicol

& Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p. 200)

Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next? An ideal learning

environment or experience occurs when both teachers and students seek answers to

each of these questions. Too often, teachers limit students’ opportunities to receive

information about their performances in relation to any of these questions by

assuming that responsibility for the students…. Students, too often, view feedback as

the responsibility of someone else, usually teachers, whose job it is to provide

feedback information by deciding for the students how well they are going, what the

goals are, and what to do next. (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, pp. 88, 101)

This paper is an adaptation of a chapter I wrote for the Handbook of formative assessment

(Andrade & Cizek, 2010). In that book, nearly every author identified the primary goal of

formative assessment as providing feedback to students and teachers about the targets for

learning, where students are in relation to those targets, and what can be done to fill in the gaps.

In this paper, I will argue that students themselves can be thought of as the definitive source of

such feedback, given their constant and instant access to their own thoughts, actions, and works.

To researchers in the area of self-regulated learning, such a position is not new: It has long been

known that effective learners tend to monitor and regulate their own learning and, as a result,

learn more and have greater academic success in school (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk,

2001). However, the assertion that students themselves are the definitive source of feedback is a

relatively new way of thinking about the role of the student in assessment.

In this paper I make the case for students as key producers and consumers of formative

assessment information, drawing on the research on self-assessment and self-regulated learning.

My primary goals are to offer an expanded conception of the role that students can play in their

own learning, as well as to propose practical approaches to scaffolding self-regulation and

assessment. A secondary goal is to urge scholars of classroom assessment to scour the literature

on self-regulated learning, which has produced a very nuanced view of the roles of standards,

goal-setting, monitoring, feedback, and other topics central to assessment. My reading suggests

that both scholarship and classroom practices related to assessment could benefit from a close

examination of the literature on academic self-regulation. This paper represents just the tip of a

very promising iceberg.

Some Basic Definitions and Background

Self-regulated learning is the process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then

attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior in order to

reach their goals (Pintrich, 2000). Self-assessment is a process of formative assessment during

which students reflect on the quality of their work, judge the degree to which it reflects explicitly

stated goals or criteria, and revise their work accordingly (Andrade & Boulay, 2003). To

oversimplify a bit, studies of self-regulated learning have concentrated on how students manage

learning processes, including, for example, understanding a text, sticking to a study schedule, or

maintaining the motivation to achieve, while studies of self-assessment have focused on

3

students’ judgments of the products of their learning, such as written papers, oral presentations,

or solutions to mathematical problems. A central purpose of both self-assessment and self-

regulation is to provide learners with feedback that they can use to deepen their understandings

and improve their performances.

Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) review of the research on feedback suggests that it can have

very powerful effects on achievement, with a whopping average effect size of 0.79. They put this

effect size into perspective by comparing it to other influences on achievement, including direct

instruction (0.93), reciprocal teaching (0.86), and students’ prior cognitive ability (0.71). They

also note that, compared to over 100 factors known to affect achievement, feedback is in the top

five to 10 in terms of effect size. They conclude that “feedback is among the most critical

influences on student learning” (p. 102).

Although research has indicated that feedback tends to promote learning and achievement

(Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Brinko, 1993; Butler & Winne, 1995; Crooks,

1988; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) if delivered correctly (Shute, 2008),

most students get little informative feedback on their work (Black & Wiliam, 1998). This

scarcity is due, in part, to the fact that few teachers have sufficient time in the typical school day

to regularly and promptly respond to each student’s work. Fortunately, research also shows that

students themselves can be useful sources of task feedback via self-assessment (Andrade, Du &

Wang, 2008; Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-Gray, 1999), and effective producers of process and

regulation feedback via self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Nicol &

Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Because self-assessment and self-

regulation involve students in thinking about the quality of their own products and processes

rather than relying on their teacher as the sole source of evaluative judgments (or getting no

feedback at all), they are key elements of formative assessment.

To date, however, only self-assessment has been included in theory and practice related to

formative assessment. With few exceptions (e.g., Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), self-

regulation has received little consideration in the literature on formative assessment. A central

argument of this paper is that self-regulation and self-assessment are complementary processes

that can lead to marked improvements in academic achievement and autonomy. The following

sections provide very brief overviews of scholarship on self-assessment and self-regulation in

order to prepare a foundation for synthesis.

Self-Assessment

As indicated previously, self-assessment is a process of formative assessment during which

students reflect on the quality of their work, judge the degree to which it reflects explicitly stated

goals or criteria, and revise accordingly. The emphasis here is on the word formative: Self-

assessment is done on drafts of works in progress in order to inform revision and improvement.

The primary purpose of engaging students in careful self-assessment is to boost learning and

achievement. It does so by serving as a readily available source of feedback about the students’

own understandings and performances.

According to the above definition, self-assessment is task-specific. This distinguishes it from

other forms of self-assessment such as judging strong or weak abilities (e.g., reading,

interpersonal skills, leadership, language). Such a process, which can be called self-reflection, is

intended to promote self-discovery and awareness (Harrington, 1995) rather than to improve

performance on a specific task.

4

Self-assessment is also not a matter of determining one’s own grade. That is self-evaluation,

which involves students in grading their work, perhaps as part of their final grade for an

assignment or a class (e.g., Sadler & Good, 2006). Given what we know about human nature, as

well as findings from research regarding students’ tendency to inflate self-evaluations when they

will count toward formal grades (Boud & Falchikov, 1989), I subscribe to a purely formative

type of student self-assessment.

Features of Self-Assessment

There are number of ways to engage students in effective self-assessment. In general, the

process involves three steps. The first step is articulating expectations. The expectations for the

task or performance are clearly articulated, either by the teacher, by the students, or both

together, perhaps by reviewing model assignments and/or co-creating a rubric.

The second step involves critique of work in terms of expectations. Students create rough or

first drafts of their assignment, be it an essay, word problem, lab report, volleyball serve, or

speech. They monitor their progress on the assignment by comparing their performances-in-

progress to the expectations. An example from writing (Andrade, Du, & Wang, 2008) involves

students in seeking evidence of success in their drafts. Using colored pencils, students underline

key phrases in a rubric with one color (e.g., they underline “clearly states an opinion” in blue on

their persuasive essay rubric), then underline or circle in their drafts the evidence of having met

the standard articulated by the phrase (e.g., they underline their opinions in blue in their

persuasive essay drafts). If they find they have not met the standard, they write themselves a

reminder to make improvements when they write their final drafts. This process is followed for

each criterion on the rubric, with pencils of various colors.

The third, and final, step is revising. In this step, students use the feedback from their self-

assessments to guide revision. This last step—revision—is crucial. Students are savvy, and will

not self-assess thoughtfully unless they know that their efforts can lead to opportunities to

actually make improvements.

Conditions for Self-Assessment

Although even young students typically are able to think about the quality of their own work,

they do not always do so. Often this is because one or more necessary conditions are not present.

According to Goodrich (1996), in order for effective self-assessment to occur, students need:

1. awareness of the value of self-assessment 2. access to clear criteria on which to base the assessment 3. a specific task or performance to assess 4. models of self-assessment 5. direct instruction in and assistance with self-assessment, including feedback 6. practice 7. cues regarding when it is appropriate to self-assess, and 8. opportunities to revise and improve the task or performance

This list of conditions might seem prohibitive but student self-assessment is feasible and is

occurring in many schools around the world (Deakin-Crick, Sebba, Harlen, Guoxing, & Lawson,

2005). Several of the key conditions listed above, including modeling, cueing, direct instruction,

and practice, are commonly employed classroom practices. The second condition—access to

5

clear criteria on which to base self-assessment—can be met by reviewing models and/or

introducing a rubric (Andrade, 2000).

Research on Self-Assessment

Actively involving students in self-assessing their work has been associated with noticeable

improvements in performance. Research on the effects of student self-assessment covers a wide

range of content areas including social studies (Lewbel & Hibbard, 2001), science (Duffrin,

Dawes, Hanson, Miyazaki, & Wolfskill, 1998; White & Frederiksen, 1998), and external

examinations (MacDonald & Boud, 2003). In each case, students were either engaged in written

forms of self-assessment using journals, checklists and questionnaires, or oral forms of self-

assessment, such as interviews and student-teacher conferences.

Much of the research on self-assessment has focused on writing and mathematics. Studies of

writing have found a positive relationship between self-assessment and quality of writing

(Andrade & Boulay, 2003; Andrade, Du, & Wang, 2008; Ross, Rolheiser & Hogaboam-Gray,

1999). The improvements in students’ writing include more effective handling of sophisticated

qualities such as ideas and content, organization, and voice—not just mechanics. In mathematics,

self-assessment has been associated with increased autonomy and mathematical vocabulary

(Stallings &Tascione, 1996), and dramatically higher performances on word problem solutions

(Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Rolheiser, 2002). Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and Wiliam’s

(2004) study of formative assessment practices in math and science classes for 11-15 year olds

also revealed a strong relationship between formative assessment, including self-assessment, and

achievement. These authors concluded that “the development of self-assessment by the student

might have to be an important feature of any programme of formative assessment” (p. 14).

Another possible benefit of self-assessment is that it could be helpful to students who do not

seek help or engage in learning because of perceived threats to self-esteem or social

embarrassment (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). By self-assessing, students engage in the important

processes of reorienting to the goals of an assignment and determining how to make

improvements, without the threat of negative feedback or perceived insults from a peer. The ego-

protective feature of self-assessment may be especially important for some students. This might

explain, in part, why students typically report that they value it (Andrade & Du, 2007) as long as

it does not become self-evaluation by counting toward a grade (Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-

Gray, 1998).

Although the research on self-assessment has illuminated a powerful way in which students

can serve as both the producers and consumers of feedback, it has been limited by a focus on

concrete products, assignments, and tasks. Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) review of feedback

placed a strong emphasis on the need for feedback on processes and regulation as well as on

tasks. The field of self-regulated learning represents a rich source of information about how

students generate and respond to feedback about how they work.

Self-Regulated Learning

Being a self-regulated learner means exercising executive control over one’s own learning or,

to use the lingo of young learners, “being the boss of yourself.” More formally, self-regulated

learning is a dynamic process of striving to meet learning goals by generating, monitoring, and

modifying one’s own thoughts, feelings, actions and, to some degree, context. Self-regulated

6

learners use a wide variety of strategies and tactics to promote learning, such as task

interpretation, goal setting, planning, selecting and adapting learning strategies, seeking help and

feedback, managing affect and motivation, administering rewards, arranging study spaces and

schedules, and monitoring and evaluating progress toward their goals. Self-regulation is situated

within a complex context, including but not limited to the classroom. As a result, it influences

and is influenced by a multitude of factors, including personal characteristics (e.g., temperament,

self-efficacy, motivation), social circumstances (e.g., family and cultural values, peer pressure,

teacher expectations), and physical conditions (e.g., noisy or quiet, online or face to face), each

of which reciprocally influences the others (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Butler &

Cartier, 2004; Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 2001; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004).

Features of Self-Regulated Learning

There are many elements of self-regulation, and several competing models (e.g., Butler &

Cartier, 2004; Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000), each of which make important

contributions to our emerging understanding of this complex phenomenon. One of the most

commonly accepted models was proposed by Zimmerman (2000). The model includes three

main phases that function cyclically: Forethought, which precedes efforts to learn and involves

consideration of the goals, expectancies, and standards for the task at hand, as well as strategic

planning and self-efficacy judgments; Performance or Volitional Control, which occurs during

learning and involves self-monitoring and the use of learning management strategies; and Self-

reflection, a phase that follows learning efforts and involves the self-evaluation of mastery,

causal attributions, and reactions to the task and performance; self-reflection leads back to the

forethought phase that precedes the next learning efforts. Each of the three phases of

Zimmerman’s model has multiple components. For example, the forethought phase involves

analyzing a task, setting goals for performance, selecting strategies, making plans, managing

one’s motivational beliefs and expectations, and so on.

I am focused on the aspects of self-regulation most closely associated with self-assessment.

Zimmerman’s model includes two sub-phases that involve explicit self-assessment: self-

observation and self-judgment. Self-observation means tracking specific aspects of one’s own

performance, the conditions that surround it, and the effects that it produces as one engages in a

task. In other words, self-observation means paying attention to what you are doing, why you are

doing it, and how it helps you (Schoenfeld, 1987). Self-judgment involves judging one’s

performance against criteria or standards. It also entails making causal attributions by

determining, for example, whether poor performance is due to ineffective learning strategies,

insufficient effort, a lousy teacher, or something else.

I chose to use Zimmerman’s model in this paper because of its elegant simplicity but it is

important to note the existence of other, more detailed models with potential usefulness in terms

of classroom assessment. Winne and Hadwin’s information processing model of self-regulation

(1998; Winne, 2001), for example, includes (among other things) five elements: Conditions,

Operations, Products, Evaluations, and Standards (COPES). Standards, of course, are the

qualities that the products of student learning—either ephemeral, such as thought experiments, or

concrete, such as a written essay—are supposed to have. Evaluations “characterize the fit

between standards and products” (Winne, 2001, p. 163) and can be generated internally by

learners or externally by others. Winne and Hadwin (1998) provide a comprehensive accounting

of self-regulation that has since been analyzed and endorsed by their peers (Greene & Azevedo,

7

2007); future scholarship on classroom assessment in general and self-assessment in particular

could benefit from a similar analysis.

Research on Self-Regulated Learning

Several decades of study of self-regulated learning have produced a rich and elaborate body

of knowledge. Briefly, the research suggests that self-regulation and academic achievement are

closely related: Students who set goals, make flexible plans to meet them, and monitor their

progress tend to learn more and do better in school than students who do not. Less effective

learners, in contrast, have minimal self-regulation strategies and depend much more on external

factors such as the teacher, peers, or the task for guidance and feedback (Hattie & Timperley,

2007; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004).

Research suggests that the type of goals set by students matters. For example, in a study of

students in an educational psychology course, Morgan (1985, as cited in Winne, 2001) showed

that students who set specific goals related to the conditions, products, and standards of their

studying learned more than students who either set goals related to the amount of time spent

studying or general goals such “learn the material”. Apparently, the students who set specific

goals benefitted from having “subject-matter relevant standards for monitoring” (p. 175) their

learning, a conclusion that echoes the findings of the studies of self-assessment reported above.

The literature on self-regulated learning reveals that the role of goal-setting in learning is

more complicated than that, however. For one example, research has shown that students benefit

from setting process as well as product goals, in that order (e.g., Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999).

This is part of that “nuanced view” I mentioned earlier: We have a lot to learn from studies of

self-regulated learning.

Fortunately, academic self-regulation is learnable. Studies have shown that all kinds of

students, including those with mild to moderate cognitive impairments (Brown & Palincsar,

1982), can learn to monitor and regulate their own learning more effectively.

A Synthesis

In addition to having much in common with each other, theories of self-assessment and self-

regulation have many commonalities with recent scholarship on formative assessment. The

simple model in Figure 1 represents formative self-assessment as an integral component of self-

regulation. The figure draws on the three phase model of self-regulation proposed by

Zimmerman (2000) and includes: Forethought, which is when learners set goals and make plans

for reaching them; Performance and Control, which occurs during learning and involves self-

monitoring and the use of learning management strategies; and Reflection, during which learners

evaluate and reflect on their work.

-------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here.

-------------------------------------

The model also incorporates the conception of feedback in learning proposed by Hattie and

Timperley (2007), in which they identify the main purpose of feedback as reducing discrepancies

between one’s goal and one’s current understandings and performance. According to Hattie and

Timperley, feedback that effectively closes the gap between current states and the target must

address three questions: “Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am I going [or doing]?

8

(What progress is being made toward the goals), and Where to next? (What activities need to be

undertaken to make better progress?)” (p. 82). As indicated in Figure 1, self-regulation theory

posits that effective learners ask similar questions, and engage in regular self-assessments of

their work.

Figure 1 represents a synthesis of Zimmerman’s taxonomy and the three questions posed by

Hattie and Timperley (2007): Forethought involves learners in asking “Where am I going?” and

“What are the goals?” The performance and self-reflection phases include, among other things,

self-assessment by asking, “How am I doing? What progress is being made toward the goals?” as

well as “Where to next? What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?” The

link between the performance and control phase and the reflection phase indicates how effective

learners will respond to perceived deficiencies in their work or approaches to it by revisiting and

revising it.

Oneself as a Source of Formative Assessment

“Where am I going?” “How am I doing?” “Where to next?” These questions can refer to the

quality of one’s work or one’s learning processes, depending on how they are asked and

answered. Hattie and Timperley (2007) noted that feedback that aims at improving students’

strategies and processes as well as making improvements in the task at hand are most powerful.

The key challenge for educators, of course, is in figuring out how to scaffold self-assessment and regulation while at the same time teaching important content and skills. This section describes several such efforts. It does not refer to stand-alone courses that teach self-regulation skills (e.g., Dembo & Seli, 2008).

Some scholars have capitalized on the similarities between self-regulation and self-

assessment and designed instructional techniques that promote both. Paris, for example, created a

portfolio assessment process that scaffolds self-regulation (Paris & Ayres, 1994), and has written

about the role of self-assessment in providing students with opportunities to monitor and

understand their own learning (Paris & Paris, 2001). Gregory, Cameron and Davies (2000) have

created a collection of self-assessment and goal-setting techniques for use in middle and high

school classrooms. Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, and Nordby (2002) emphasize how even young

learners in third grade can effectively self-regulate their behaviors after analyzing the results of a

non-threatening assessment. These and other approaches described below combine the goals of

student self-regulation and self-assessment in practical classroom applications, often

emphasizing one or the other. In each case, recommendations are made for enhancing the

regulatory or assessment aspects of the instructional design.

Strategic Content Learning

Butler (2002) designed an instructional model called Strategic Content Learning (SCL) in

order to promote self-regulated learning in secondary and post-secondary students with learning

disabilities. Her approach emphasizes the value of co-constructing learning strategies with

students rather than teaching predefined strategies. Butler recommends, among other things,

having students submit a list of performance criteria and personalized learning strategies as part

of an assignment, and helping students self-evaluate their work prior to submission. She also

recommends promoting strategy development by facilitating discussions about strategies that

might meet task demands, having students try them out, and articulating strategies they plan to

use in the future.

9

For instance, one English teacher in Butler’s (2002) study created a strategy form that

students revised and turned in across a sequence of writing assignments:

In a first column students described each assignment in turn (e.g., writing a first

narrative paragraph). In a second column students outlined the strategies they

planned to use to complete that row’s assignment. In a third column, students

interpreted teacher feedback on each assignment in light of specific task criteria

(generated in a class discussion before starting the project). In a final column,

students recorded ideas they had about how to improve their performance for the

upcoming assignment. (p. 90)

The process described by the English teacher includes a minor element of self-assessment—co-

creating task-specific criteria for an assignment—as well as major components of self-regulation.

In order to more comprehensively include self-assessment, a column or separate form could be

added that asks students to assess their work according to the co-created task criteria before

receiving and interpreting their teacher’s feedback. A hypothetical example of such a form is

shown in Figure 2. The form reveals that the student using the form has completed a persuasive

essay assignment and is working on an autobiography. The strategies used by the student, the

student’s self-assessment, the teacher’s feedback, and ideas for making improvements to future

writing projects are shown.

-------------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here.

-------------------------------------

Project-Based Portfolio Assessment

Alonso-Tapia (2002) studied a project-based portfolio assessment for 14 to 16-year-olds that

includes both process-oriented self-regulation and task-specific self-assessment. As part of the

portfolio process, students produce and reflect on written work. They write responses to

questions referring to the writing process, such as: “What strategies have I used to decide what to

say? Does my portfolio include drafts, schemes or products deriving from brainstorms? What

questions have I asked myself to organize the text? Have I considered the purpose of my essay

and the readers’ needs? Have I considered potential arguments against my point of view and

accepted them (as far as possible)? Have I revised the written text?” Students also respond to

questions referring to the content of their writing: “Have I articulated my point of view well

enough? Why do I think so? What kinds of comment have I received from my classmates about

my point of view? Do I agree with them or not? Why?”

Portfolios like those described by Alonso-Tapia (2002) are especially good vehicles for

reflection on process and product; in fact, reflection is one of the primary purposes of portfolio-

based assessment (Brookhart, 2008; Danielson, & Abrutyn, 1997; Seidel et al., 1997; Wolf,

1989). In order to enhance the self-assessment aspect of this portfolio project, students could be

engaged in generating a list of qualities of excellent pieces of work, and in a process of judging

their own work in relation to those qualities. This process would be followed by opportunities to

revise.

10

King’s Medway Oxford Formative Assessment Project (KMOFAP)

A final example of a classroom practice that combines self-regulation and self-assessment

comes from work done by Black, Wiliam, and their colleagues on formative assessment practices

in classrooms (2004), which emphasizes the importance of student self-assessment. Some of the

approaches they describe represent a blurring of the distinction between self-assessment and self-

regulation because they require students to assess their understanding of a topic or lesson—a

metacognitive act.

A tool they called “traffic lights” serves as a powerful example of the integration of self-

assessment and self-regulated learning. Students in the math and science classes they studied

used red, amber and green icons to indicate their perceptions of the extent to which they

understood the content being studied. They did so in a variety of ways, such as labeling their

work with a color, or placing a red, amber, or green cup on their desks during a lecture or

demonstration (Wiliam, 2008). The teachers could immediately respond to the students’

confidence in their understanding by, for example, pairing up the greens and ambers to clarify

areas of confusion between them, while the teacher helps the red students as a group. According

to Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and Wiliam (2004), the traffic lights allowed for “instant

differentiation but the recognition of the learning needs has been done by the students, allowing

the teacher to focus on steering the remedial action. Because the response to their needs is

immediate, students begin to realize that revealing their problems is worthwhile, as the focus of

the teaching is to improve learning” (p. 52).

Strategic Content Learning, portfolio-based assessment, and traffic lights represent a small

sample of the many ways in which students can be their own and their teachers’ best source of

formative assessment information. Students have instant, ongoing access to their own thoughts,

actions, and works, and there is ample evidence that they can accurately self-assess and self-

regulate under the right conditions (Paris & Paris, 2001). The challenge is in creating the right

conditions.

General Principles for Supporting Self-Assessment and Self-Regulation

Lacking supportive conditions, students across the K-16+ educational span often do not have

well-developed skills in self-assessment and self-regulation. Self-evaluation strategies were

found by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988) to be one of the least used self-regulation

strategies by American students and, writing about their work with 11–15 year-olds in the United

Kingdom, Black et al. (2004) state that one of their most difficult tasks was helping students to

think of their work in terms of learning goals. This section presents a list of general principles for

classroom practices that cue, scaffold, and even push students to self-regulate and self-assess.

Creating a Culture of Critique

It is easy to blame students for failing to think about their own work or thinking but the

extant assessment and evaluation ethos can inhibit self-assessment and regulation (Ames, 1992).

Hattie and Timperley (2007) note that “the climate of the classroom is critical, particularly if

disconfirmation and corrective feedback at any level is to be welcomed and used by the students

(and teachers). Errors and disconfirmation are most powerful in climates in which they are seen

as leading to future learning” (p. 100). As with many other school-related topics, self-assessment

11

and self-regulation are likely to work only when students perceive them to be valued and

valuable, and to the extent that teachers’ messages about the relationships between effort,

understanding, and grades are influential.

Where Am I Going? Setting Learning Goals

Research on the effectiveness of feedback has shown that “goals without clarity as to when

and how a student (and teacher) would know they were successful are often too vague to serve

the purpose of enhancing learning” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 88). Effective goal setting

involves articulating clear, reasonably challenging goals regarding the type or level of

performance expected of students. Students should set goals for nearly everything, more or

less—assignments, the processes they are using to complete them, and the regulatory

mechanisms they employ.

One popular way to set task-specific goals is to distribute a rubric to students or, better, to co-

create one with them. Checklists, scoring guidelines, and detailed assignment briefs can serve the

same purpose, particularly when they are discussed or generated with students (Andrade, 2000;

Butler, 2002). Genuine interaction between teacher and students enhances the process of goal

setting because “goals are more effective when students share a commitment to attaining them”

(Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 89).

Because “a great deal of student behavior that we see in the context of the classroom should

be labeled as ‘compliance’, ‘self-control’ or ‘self-management’ rather than self-regulation”

(Boekaerts, 2001, p. 598), Boekaerts highlights the need to distinguish between students’

personal goals and teachers’ imposed goals. Students’ personal goals are often related to valued

future goals. Brickman and Miller (2000) have illustrated the ways in which goals that students

believe are instrumental to future goal attainment, such as attending college or beginning a

career, provide the foundation for meaningful self-regulation. In light of this and related

research, teachers should engage students in setting goals that are meaningful to them.

How Am I Doing? Aiding Students in Generating Feedback for Themselves

I previous portions of this paper I have presented evidence that students can provide feedback

for themselves under the right conditions. The right conditions include at least the following

(Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Butler, 2002; Macguire, Evans, & Dyas, 2001; Ross, 2006;

Thompson, Pilgrim, & Oliver, 2005):

1. guidance in articulating the criteria by which they assess their learning processes and products,

2. learning how to apply the criteria by assessing their work and approaches to it, 3. getting feedback on their self-assessments of both process and product, 4. being offered help in using self-assessment data to improve, 5. providing sufficient time for revision of assignments and adjustments to

strategies,

6. making some self-assessments private, since students might say or write what they think their teachers want to read, and

7. not turning self-assessment into self-evaluation by counting it toward a grade.

12

In addition, the self-assessment done by students should be near-term. According to

Zimmerman (2000) the “temporal proximity of one’s self-observations is a critical variable. Self-

feedback that is delayed precludes a person from taking corrective action in a timely fashion” (p.

20).

Finally, a caveat: Feedback has its limitations. According to Hattie and Timperley (2007),

feedback is “not ‘the answer’; rather, it is but one powerful answer. With inefficient learners, it is

better for a teacher to provide elaborations through instruction than to provide feedback on

poorly understood concepts…. Feedback can only build on something; it is of little use when

there is no initial learning or surface information” (p. 104). This general caveat might also apply

to self-generated feedback in particular: In a review of student self-ratings, Boud and Falchikov

(1989) concluded that high achieving students tended to underrate their performance, while

lower achieving students tended to overrate it. This finding has been replicated in more recent

research (e.g., Dochy, Segers, Sluijsmans, 1999), and leads to the not surprising implication that

students who struggle with school work need extra help understanding their tasks, the criteria for

them, and the self-assessment process.

Where to Next? Providing Time and Assistance with Revision or Revisiting

Closing the gap between where students are and where they are headed is what makes

formative assessment and feedback effective (Sadler, 1989). Students are unlikely to

thoughtfully self-assess or self-regulate unless they know these acts will lead to better grades,

deeper understanding, and more well-developed skill sets. Thus, revision and revisiting are

essential components of self-regulation and assessment.

In addition to the obvious need to allow and encourage students to revise their work and

rethink their approaches to it, there is the less obvious need to explicitly revisit causal

attributions, or students’ beliefs about the internal and external causes of their success or failure

(Weiner, 1986). Given what is known about the influence of causal attributions on strategy

choices, persistence, and achievement, it is essential to teach students to make accurate

attributions.

The question “Where to next?” can also be extended to other contexts and assignments.

Citing the literature that argues for mindful approaches to transfer (e.g., Perkins & Salomon,

1989), Butler (2002) notes the need to help students construct self-regulatory skills that can

transfer to subsequent learning. She argues that this can be done by promoting self-regulation in

the context of meaningful work, supporting students in articulating strategies in their own words,

and having students discuss when and why certain strategies promote success.

Concluding Remarks

Though scholars tout the value of actively engaging students in the assessment process, our

understanding of the elements of such engagement is still under development. One promising

avenue is the exploration of what is already known about how effective learners manage their

own learning, and the creation of relevant assessment models, principles and practices that can

cue, scaffold, and even push students to self-regulate and self-assess. Since students have

exclusive access to their own thoughts and actions, they can and should be considered the

definitive source of formative assessment information.

13

References

Alonso-Tapia, J. (2002). Knowledge assessment and conceptual understanding. In M. Limón &

L. Mason (Eds): Reframing the processes of conceptual change. (pp. 389-413). Dordretch,

the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Ames. C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D.H. Schunk &

J.L. Meece (Eds.), Students’ perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). New York:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership,

57(5), 13-18.

Andrade, H., & Boulay, B. (2003). Gender and the role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in

learning to write. Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-34.

Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York:

Routledge.

Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-181.

Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-

assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12-19.

Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model,

criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’

writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 27(2), 3-13.

Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced assessment and self-

efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287-302.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional

effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2004). Assessment for learning:

Putting it into practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom

assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Boekaerts, M. (2001, August). Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and

weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach. Presidential Address presented at the 9th

European Conference of the Association of Learning and Instruction. Fribourg, Switzerland.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San

Diego: Academic.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher

education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549.

Brickman, S., & Miller, R. (2000). The impact of sociocultural context on future goals and self-

regulation. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on

motivation and learning, volume 1 (pp. 119-138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Brinko, L. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching. Journal of Higher

Education, 64(5), 574-593.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1967). Response to pressure from peers versus adults among Soviet and

American school children. International Journal of Psychology, 2(3), 199-207.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Reactions to social pressure from adults versus peers among Soviet

day school and boarding school pupils in the perspective of an American sample. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 179-189.

14

Brookhart, S. (2008). Portfolio assessment. In T. Good (Ed.), 21 st century education: A reference

handbook, volume 1 (pp. 443-450). SAGE.

Brown A. L. & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of

informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 1-17.

Butler, D. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice,

41(2), 81-92.

Butler, D. & Cartier, S. (2004). Promoting effective task interpretation as an important work

habit: A key to successful teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1729-

1758.

Butler, D. & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.

Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of

Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

Danielson, C., & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Deakin-Crick, R., Sebba, J., Harlen, W., Guoxing, Y., & Lawson, H. (2005). Systematic review

of research evidence of the impact on students of self- and peer-assessment. Protocol. In:

Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research

Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

de Luque, M., & Sommer, S. (2000). The impact of culture on feed-back-seeking behavior: An

integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 829-849.

Dembo, M., & Seli, H. (2008). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A self-

management approach (3 rd

ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in

higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350.

Duffrin, N., Dawes, W., Hanson, D., Miyazaki, J., & Wolfskill, T. (1998). Transforming large

introductory classes into active learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology

Systems, 27(2), 169-78.

Dweck, C., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned

helplessness: II. Contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. An

experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 268-276.

Goodrich, H. (1996). Student self-assessment: At the intersection of metacognition and authentic

assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies

through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234.

Greene, J.A. & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-

regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3),

334-372.

Gregory, K., Cameron, C., & Davies, A. (2000). Self-assessment and goal-setting. Merville,

British Columbia, CA: Connections Publishing.

Harrington, T. (1995). Assessment of abilities. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Counseling and Student Services.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,

77(1), 81-112.

15

Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A

historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.

Lewbel, S. R. & Hibbard, K. M. (2001). Are standards and true learning compatible? Principal

Leadership, 1(5), 16-20.

MacDonald, B. & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects

of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in

Education, 10(2), 209-220.

Maguire, S., Evans, S., & Dyas, L. (2001). Approaches to learning: A study of first year

geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25(1), 95-107.

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a

model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),

199-218.

Paris, S. & Ayres, L. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and

authentic assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Paris, S. G. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.

Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher,

18(1), 16-25.

Perry, N., VandeKamp, K., Mercer, L. & Nordby, C. (2002). Investigating teacher-student

interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.

Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.

Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-502). San Diego, CA:

Academic.

Ross, J. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment,

Research, and Evaluation, 11(10). Retrieved January 11, 2007 from

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=10

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Rolheiser, C. (2002). Student self-evaluation in grade 5-6

mathematics effects on problem-solving achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 43-59.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Skills-training versus action research

in-service: Impact on student attitudes to self-evaluation. Teaching and Teacher Education,

14(5), 463-477.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of self-evaluation training on

narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107-132.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional

Science, 18, 119–144.

Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning.

Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A.

Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seidel, S., Walters, J., Kirby, E. Olff, N., Powell, K., & Veenema, S. (1997). Portfolio practices:

Thinking through the assessment of children’s work. Washington, DC: NEA Publishing

Library.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-

189.

16

Stallings, V. & Tascione, C. (1996). Student self-assessment and self-evaluation. Mathematics

Teacher, 89(7), 548-55.

Thompson, G., Pilgrim, A., & Oliver, K. (2005). Self-assessment and reflective learning for first-

year university geography students: A simple guide or simply misguided? Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 29(3), 403-430.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making

science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.

Wiliam, D. (2008, March). Changing classroom practice. Presentation at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Classroom Assessment Special Interest

Group, New York.

Winne, P. (2001). Information processing models of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman &

D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and

practice (pp. 153-189). New York: Longman.

Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J.

Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wolf, D. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational Leadership, 46(7),

35-39.

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.

Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-41). New

York: Academic.

Zimmerman, B. & Martinez-Pons (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student

self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284-290.

Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:

Theoretical perspectives (2 nd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A

social cognitive perspective. In D. Dai & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and

cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 323-

349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17

Figure 1. Self-Regulated Learning and Formative Self-Assessment

Self-Regulation of

Learning via Formative

Self-Assessment

Forethought

Goal setting

“Where am I going?”

Performance and

Control

Observation and

assessment

“How am I doing?”

Reflection

Judgment and reaction

“What’s next?”

18

Figure 2. Strategy Form (Adapted from Butler, 2002)

Assignment

Strategies Self-

Assessment

Teacher’s

Feedback

Improvements

Next Time

1. Persuasive

essay

2. Auto-

biography

1a. Go over the

rubric.

1b. Brainstorm

reasons, pro and

con.

1c. Write an

outline.

1d. Write first

draft.

1e. Self-assess

according to the

rubric

1f. Revise

1g. Get feedback

from teacher.

1h. Write final

draft.

2a. Read rubric

& an

autobiography to

see how it is

written.

2b. Look at

photos of my life

to get ideas for a

theme.

Etc….

My first draft has

strong reasons for

my opinion but

doesn’t consider

other points of

view. My sentences

are correct but the

tone is boring and

spelling is a mess.

Your second draft

has clear, relevant

reasons in support of

your claim, and

touches on the

opposite point of

view. You could

elaborate on why

your opinion is

better. I recommend

finding words and

phrases that make it

sound like you care

about this topic, and

using the computer

to spell check.

Pick a topic

that I care

about.