Student Self-Assessment: An Essential Guide for Teaching, Learning and Reflection at School and University 9780367691653, 9780367691677, 9781003140634

Citation preview

“Maddalena Taras provides is a highly personal reflection on the nature of self-assessment, but one which does not shy away from the necessity of students making judgments about their work and learning against disciplinary, vocational, or professional standards and norms. The book brings together her work with that of the co-author Hwei Ming Wong, and Singapore colleagues who describe self-assessment use from primary schooling to higher education contexts. The emphasis is on practical ‘how to’ applications of self-assessment. The introductory chapters give Taras’ perspectives, from her long experience, on student self-assessment. Readers can dip into various chapters to find suggestions for implementing student self-assessment in their own context.” Gavin T L Brown, Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand “A thorough introduction to student self-assessment—a form of assessment rarely discussed and even more rarely used in the worlds’ education systems. My thinking about assessing my students has been substantially changed by this book, and it certainly made me wonder why I was never exposed to such good ideas before! I strongly recommend this book to educators around the world. Here, Taras and Wong convincingly argue that student self-assessment has worthwhile benefits that are different from and certainly as important as those associated with more traditional forms of assessment. The authors make clear that student self-assessment has distinct benefits for both students and teachers that are not found in contemporary assessment practices. Self-assessment offers a much greater likelihood that closer and more respectful relationships between students and their teachers will be developed. Moreover, students learn skills that should help them in the world of work, after graduation. The authors provide school administrators and teachers with novel and creative ideas to rethink classroom assessment. Their ideas can redefine contemporary assessment practices, and improve teacher-student relationships at the same time!” David C. Berliner, Regents’ Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University and Past President of the American Educational Research Association

Student Self-Assessment

This book provides the basics of student self-assessment and implementation challenges, and it offers practical solutions and examples for navigating the use of student self-assessment in various subject disciplines in primary schools, secondary schools and higher education. It provides an informed approach for educators to understand the complexities and subtleties involved in implementing self-assessment, and how this might include and impact on teachers and students. Involving students in assessment is not a new idea nor is student self-­ assessment a new assessment tool in schools. Despite the advantages and the necessity for including it in our pedagogic processes explicitly, the use of student self-assessment has been far from commonplace and consistent in classrooms, schools and universities. This book makes clear the choices of what, how and why student self-assessment is important and usable in the classroom. This book is designed for educators at different levels, and educational researchers. It will provide food for thought for pre- and in-service teachers and school leaders who are interested in nurturing independent and self-­ directed learners by involving students in the assessment process and maximising student learning through the use of student self-assessment. Maddalena Taras is Associate Professor at the University of Sunderland, UK. She was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in 2013, and in REF 2014, a 4* world class research impact. www.ref.ac.uk Hwei Ming Wong is a Senior Education Research Scientist and is the Programme Director of the Schools, Leadership and System Studies Research Programme at the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Singapore. She was previously a primary school teacher and an educational psychologist with the Ministry of Education.

Assessment in Schools: Principles in Practice

Assessment in Schools: Principles in Practice offers a collection of titles that provide accessible exploration of individual assessment concepts, while collectively providing a comprehensive overview and discussion of assessment practices in schools. This research-informed and practice-oriented book series aims to make assessment theory accessible by explaining its implications and applications in practice, providing guidance on designing and implementing quality assessment practices, giving authentic examples from current practices, and offering on-going support to readers through media-rich resources on accompanying websites. Some key assessment competencies to be covered in the series are: • Designing quality authentic assessments; • Understanding and using rubrics; • Developing self-assessment for reflective and self-directed learning; • Formative assessments practice as part of an effective teaching and learning process. Tay Hui Yong (National Institute of Education, Singapore) Kelvin Heng Kiat Tan (National Institute of Education, Singapore) Valentina Klenowski (Queensland University of Technology, Australia) Designing Quality Authentic Assessments Tay Hui Yong with contributions from Pam Hook, Ben Jenkinson, Eric Chong King Man and others Assessment Rubrics Decoded An Educator’s Guide Kelvin Heng Kiat Tan Student Self-Assessment An Essential Guide for Teaching, Learning and Reflection at School and University Maddalena Taras and Hwei Ming Wong For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Assessment-in-Schools-Principles-in-Practice/book-series/ASPP

Student Self-Assessment An Essential Guide for Teaching, Learning and Reflection at School and University Maddalena Taras and Hwei Ming Wong

Designed cover image: © Getty Images First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Maddalena Taras and Hwei Ming Wong The right of Maddalena Taras and Hwei Ming Wong to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-367-69165-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-69167-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-14063-4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634 Typeset in Galliard by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

Contents

Foreword Preface Dedications and Acknowledgements SECTION 1

ix xi xiii

Exploring (Fundamentals of) Student Self-Assessment

1

1 Student Self-Assessment: What It is, Why It is Important, and Why Educators Should Use It Explicitly

3

MADDALENA TARAS

2 Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices: Models, Strategies/Techniques

19

MADDALENA TARAS

3 Implementing Student Self-Assessment: Conditions and Climate

38

HWEI MING WONG

4 Student Self-Assessment and Feedback

54

MADDALENA TARAS

SECTION 2

Student Self-Assessment in Practice

69

5 Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology

71

TAY HUI YONG AND ZHU GAOXIA

6 Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools HWEI MING WONG AND CONTRIBUTING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

82

viii Contents 7 Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools

105

HWEI MING WONG AND CONTRIBUTING SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

8 Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education

132

MADDALENA TARAS AND CONTRIBUTING TUTORS

SECTION 3

Challenges and Future of Student Self-Assessment

151

9 Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect

153

KELVIN TAN AND HWEI MING WONG

10 Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment: Looking to the Future

166

MADDALENA TARAS

Index182

Foreword

Like all powerful ideas in education, the notion of enabling students to assess their own learning has tremendous capacity for good, and also treacherous potential for harm. But we don’t actually have a choice whether students should self-assess their learning, since students are self-assessing all the time, albeit informally and subconsciously. The question is whether we should help our learners process their thoughts and feelings about being assessed, and the opinions they have about the quality of their learning. Hence, our decisions have to do with the quality and nature of self-assessment we aspire to for our students, and the means to ensure they develop sustainable good judgement as key outcome of their education. But what exactly is involved in having our learners self-assess their learning, and what are tensions that hinder or help ensure that student self-assessment is fit for learning, and for its leaners? Student self-assessment is discoursed as an extension of the rights of a child. Children’s voice, promulgated by Article 12 of the UNCRC, contains the arguments (of adults) that our learners have a right for their views to be heard, and their views should be given appropriate weight. This is especially vital in the assessment of students’ learning, and the voice of our learners would require more than hearing how they feel about being assessed. It would require giving students adequate opportunity to formulate judgements of their work, and to have their judgements considered as part of the overall assessment of their work. This is an ambitious endeavour, and this book is to be commended for its meticulous depictions of the pain-staking practices required to develop students’ capacity to form judgements of their learning. The ideology of student self-assessment is matched by the finesse of its implementation, and the various chapters detailing student self-assessment at different levels, in different subjects, leaves no doubt that student self-assessment has broad universal efficacy across contexts and disciplines. The book also reminds us that student self-assessment is also a discipline in itself, alas one that has as much potential in disciplining students as in empowering them. The notion(s) of power in assessment is notoriously difficult to discourse – how is power actually generated or recirculated when students are (meant to be) empowered with self-assessment? Is there a risk of

x Foreword student self-assessment over-stepping its role to the extent that students’ judgements of their learning possess excessive clout, and self-assessment becomes the trojan horse for student consumerism of education? Models of power are explicitly discussed in the book, and assessment feedback is also examined as a site of power when students internalize responses to their self-generated feedback. But power is not always a hindrance to learning, and given the pervasiveness of student judgement and the obstacles to having their voices of their own assessment heard, it is essential that student self-assessment becomes more powerful in the interests of the learner. Much of this has to do with the context(s) of student self-assessment, and the multiple discourses it occupies. The interests of learners vary in different countries, academic levels, and academic disciplines. Yet, we must not give in to the temptation that the relevance of student self-assessment is totally contextual, and countenance the disempowering thought that some contexts justify the total absence of student self-assessment. What then is the irreducible minimum of student self-assessment beyond contexts? This book provides a comprehensive answer by examining student self-assessment in two different countries (England and Singapore), three different levels (primary, secondary, and post compulsory education), and various subjects (English, Science, Art, Physical Education). The contextual diversity evidences the relevance of student self-assessment to the entirety of education, and each context provides explicit detail on the extent and nature of its student self-assessment practice. What is perhaps more insightful is the beginnings of an argument for self-assessment to be understood and used beyond discrete contexts, to being an educative progression from elementary to adult contexts. It has been said that “ultimately it is only the decisions which learners make about what they will or will not do which actually influence the outcomes of their learning” (Boud, 1995, p. 15). It is in the interest of our learners, through developing their capacity for judgements of their learning, that they are equipped to make their own learning decisions. Student self-assessment opportunities at the start of their compulsory education, sustained to adulthood and adult learning contexts, provides a long progressive runway for learners to make good learning decisions in all of their education. Good education and all its complications and decisions, hence, starts and is sustained with good student self-assessment. This book provides an excellent start to understanding the various issues to be navigated in order provide our learners with sustainable self-assessment. Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing learning through self-assessment. (1st edition). Kogan Page Associate Professor Kelvin Tan Heng Kiat National Institute of Education, Singapore

Preface

A book on student self-assessment was always on the cards, finding the right moment was the stumbling block. Having a co-author has had big advantages of sharing the more tedious tasks while supporting each other with the more interesting parts. Writing a book proposal is always useful for focusing the mind, but it was the comments from the three reviewers, particularly negative comments, which focused my own beliefs. Finally, the COVID virus, although this was a horror story on so many levels, particularly by increasing relatively small distances, so that seeing family and friends was difficult, it had one tiny advantage in that the relative imprisonment meant I had the space to think, a rare and invaluable commodity for a researcher. Space to think had always been afforded me in the past by travel, and particularly conferences, so this was not a better or more agreeable solution. Finally, writing my five chapters has been a mixture of pleasure and pain, although fortunately, mainly pleasure. I wish the book to be half as useful to others reading it, as it has been for me in writing my chapters and reading the others. Maddalena Taras Student self-assessment is a topic close to my heart. I hated assessment as a student because my birthday falls during the end-of-year examination period and I could not control the examinations. As a teacher, I realised I was doing to my students what I hated all those years ago. When I was practising as an educational psychologist, students still did not have a say in the kinds of assessment being conducted on them. I decided to embark on student self-assessment for my PhD, believing that there is a lot more to student agency and voice in the assessment process. However, I was very surprised when I was first approached to write a book on student self-assessment. I have never thought about writing a book as I  often feel I still have much to learn about assessment, and student self-­ assessment. Nevertheless, no time is a good time. Next came the question if I wanted to write the book alone or to have a co-author. I am extremely

xii Preface fortunate to have found a co-author who has similar beliefs and experiences about student self-assessment, whom I can learn from, and whom I could share the ups and downs of writing a book. I hope by reading this book, you can learn about student self-assessment, and reflect about what student self-assessment is to you. You will also meet teachers and tutors who are using student self-assessments and see examples of them in action. If you are interested in involving our students in assessment, if you are interested in making thoughtful and informed changes to your assessment practices, now is the right time. Hwei Ming Wong June 2022

Dedications and Acknowledgements

My work is dedicated to future generations of students of all ages, including my grandson Joseph: may they have increasingly inclusive, ethical, and fair assessments. I thank: my family; my parents who showed me the meaning of justice and integrity; my sister, Maria, my fearless childhood companion and protector who proudly witnessed my first forays into assessment: my daughters, Laura, who has listened to my ever-changing ideas, and imparted welcomed gems of wisdom when they were most needed; Catherine, who, over the years has proof-read and helped me clarify my ideas and articles through her perceptive and challenging observations. Their courage and encouragement helped me to face my insecurities and the vagaries of the assessment world. Last, but not least, my students and colleagues who were part of my self-assessment processes and experiments, and more recently, Hui Yong Tay and Kelvin Tan who helped me clean up the chapters, although the errors are my own. Hwei Ming Wong, my co-author, has been an honest and brave participant in our many discussions, and I wish her a successful and ever brighter future. The Routledge publishing team deserve a few medals for patience and support. My wish is, that any work I have done that may be useful, be improved upon a thousand-fold. Maddalena Taras Writing a book is harder than I thought but the experience has been both challenging and rewarding. This book would not have been possible, if not for the support from the following people whom I want to say thank you: To Kelvin Tan, Hui Yong Tay, and Val Klenowski, thank you for believing in me and first approaching me to write a book on student self-assessment. Thank you, Kelvin for co-authoring a chapter with me and as always, mentoring me in the process. Thank you, Hui Yong for contributing a chapter with Gaoxia, despite your own crazy schedule and always giving me encouragement along the way when writing this book. Thank you, Val for being supportive and encouraging, I treasure the conversations we had in Singapore and in Australia, they have meant a lot to a junior researcher like me.

xiv  Dedications and Acknowledgements To Maddalena Taras, my co-author, thank you for so readily agreeing to be my partner-in-self-assessment for this book endeavour. I thank you for our enriching discussions, not just about student self-assessment but also about life itself. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I wish you many more books to come. To the primary school and secondary school teachers and tertiary education tutors from Singapore and England, thank you for taking the time and effort to contribute about your experiences with student self-assessment in your classrooms. Thank you to the Singapore teachers for working patiently with me to refine your contributions. To Dennis Kwek, thank you for listening and helping to sharpen some of  my thoughts and ideas when I was working on my chapters. To my colleagues and students, thank you for being part of my learning journey in assessment, and in particularly in student self-assessment. To the Routledge publishing team, thank you for your editorial help, support and patience in getting this book published. To my family, I want to thank my parents, especially my mother for believing that education is the greatest wealth and for encouraging me to study as much as I want. I want to thank my daughters, Marieann Wen Chian and Juliane Wen Jiah who have inspired me to do better. You girls are my anchor. I also want to thank my young grey tabby cat, Potter, for keeping me company, often on the table and next to my notebook, as I was writing my chapters. I love you all. Hwei Ming Wong June 2022

Section 1

Exploring (Fundamentals of) Student Self-Assessment

1 Student Self-Assessment What It is, Why It is Important, and Why Educators Should Use It Explicitly Maddalena Taras

iustitia suum cuique distribuit – justice renders to everyone his due. Cicero in De Natura Deorum (45 BC)

Introduction This chapter evaluates what are essentially my beliefs and understandings of student self-assessment (SSA) contextualised within understandings of assessment and related terms like summative assessment (SA) and formative assessment (FA). These are based on my beliefs, clarified, enhanced, and rationalised from my experiences of teaching, research on learning and assessment theories, declarations of human rights, and, of course, from countless discussions, especially with students and from colleagues from all over the world at conferences. Since assessment and SSA are ubiquitous and continuous, our own understandings, when shared, will enrich all concerned. Continual assessment conversations will demystify it and remove the terrors we all develop through negative and inequitable experiences. I strongly believe that injustices generally originate in unethical assessment.

What is Assessment? A personal anecdote may be illuminating. A personal family story has informed and reflects my thinking. When I was pregnant with my first child, I loved Bob Dylan, I still do. I did not tire of listening to his beautiful poetry and less-than-beautiful voice. My baby had other opinions. I cannot say with certainty when I first realised, but the baby was active and kicking. Having the baby in a breech position meant that her back was against my back and her feet just above my bladder, and when baby was awake and I played Bob Dylan, I would get unmistakable stamping on my bladder as a sign of disapproval and dislike. After baby was born, there were more vocal signs of disapproval which continued throughout school. At age 17, my Bob Dylan unappreciative progeny, on returning from school, told me; alright, he may be a poet, but his voice is dreadful. Neither of us DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-2

4  Maddalena Taras needed to explain further and to this day, her opinion of his voice has not changed. This illustrates two important points which will be made during this first chapter: firstly, that assessment and self-assessment are a part of our make-up as humans and secondly, that there is no limited time or place when either takes place. Humans have volition from the moment they can decide to move. Choices are therefore literally being made. They may be random choices, but they are still choices. The Bob Dylan anecdote demonstrates that babies have likes, dislikes, and preferences. A choice or preference implies criteria, and although the unborn baby did not specify the criteria explicitly, it was clear to me that there was a negative criterion which was translated into the kicking action because the baby wanted it to stop. Bob Dylan’s voice has been widely criticised and it is often considered an acquired taste, but do we really think of unborn babies as having aesthetic tastes? Aren’t aesthetic tastes a very sophisticated and socially acquired form of refinement? The nature–nurture debate has spilled over into most areas of life, and assessment is clearly one of them.

Challenging Ourselves as We Read It has taken me a very long time to realise that my experience with my daughter and Bob Dylan has had a huge influence on my thinking. Understanding ourselves and what we believe is an important aspect of understanding assessment in general and SSA in particular. To help this journey, it would be useful for readers to carry out SSA as they read these chapters. Whenever I read new research, this is what I do so as to enable me to integrate the new research into my own academic understandings and belief system. Do I agree with what I am reading, why or why not, how does my reaction reflect my beliefs, how do these beliefs relate to students and beliefs on pedagogic relationships and responsibilities? This anecdote reflects how my personal understandings (initially unconscious and implicit) must have been key in how I engaged with the literature and ultimately challenged it. Academic definitions are necessary and crucial to our understandings of theories and practices as they essentially describe the process and how the elements relate. These chapters focus on creating individual and personal understandings of assessment and SSA which are informed by the literature. This book is predicated on the idea that readers subscribe to the ethos of student-centred learning and will proceed on this assumption.

What is Assessment in the Literature? Assessment Process …assessment is assessment ….

(Scriven, 1967, 40)

Student Self-Assessment  5 To explain assessment at conferences, I often use the example of a chair. I want to buy a chair. I decide why I want a chair, what type, where I will put it, and so on. I want a smallish, light wooden chair that will be used in the kitchen. These criteria will help me select a chair. If I give these criteria to a friend, I am taking a risk because there are many chairs that would fit the description. If the friend shares my tastes, understands the context, I am more likely to accept the chair. The more criteria I provide, the fewer choices my friend has. If I give my friend free rein, I cannot complain if I do not like the chair. What is acceptable and what is not needs to be clearly communicated, as all parameters, that is criteria, descriptions, rubrics, can be interpreted differently. Similarly in the classroom when writing an essay: the more specific the parameters, the fewer choices given to the students. We can give students carte blanche and ask them to introduce the parameters they have chosen. This creates two choices: we assess their essay according to their parameters and check the quality of their work, or we sneak in a few criteria of our own to ensure an acceptable quality. It is impossible to state every criterion being used. There are expectations linked to each educational level, for example, at university, we expect grammar and spelling to be well developed and accurate, at primary level, less so. Therefore, there are always many “latent” criteria which do not appear in assessments explicitly and which are used implicitly (Sadler, 1989). Assessment, Summative, Formative Assessment, and Their Relationship in K12 and HE Is there a difference between assessment and SA? No, they do exactly the same thing. The term SA was “created” to differentiate it from FA. So, what is the difference between SA and FA? Summative Assessment By examining current discourses, the differentiation seems to be that SA is final at the end of a period of learning, does not provide feedback and therefore does not impact on learning. Logic shows that this is too simplistic and does not reflect reality. Any assessment will have an impact on the person being assessed. At the start: fear, trepidation, hope. These emotions surface before the assessment even begins. Pass or fail decisions do not help the assessed as these do not give any indication of quality. How near to the pass or fail? We all know assessors have grades in their heads and pass/fail just feels like withholding important information. A 70% pass and a 50% pass show a big difference in quality and standard. Why would this information be withheld? Any information, pass/ fail, grade, words, all impact on the assessed. Even if the results of the assessment remain uncommunicated, and students know teachers are assessing them, the psychological and emotional impact is there. Often, our imaginings are worse than realities.

6  Maddalena Taras When an article for review is rejected by a journal, my reactions are varied. If the comments seem vaguely justified, then I can see areas for improvement; if the comments are just telling me to think differently and use references of articles I regard as rubbish, then I get angry because I see it as bullying; if the comments show the reader has not understood what is being said, then I feel very sad and despondent. Worse of all these is to be told to think differently. It has taken me a very long time to restrain myself from telling students to do what I would like to do, and to take the time and effort to go in depth into what students would actually like to do. This has become slightly easier at PhD level because of the individual time spent with students. A more efficient and effective way of supporting students in understanding what they care about is through peer and SSA, not as separate entities, but as one integral process, as shall be seen in Chapter 2. Formative Assessment FA is generally perceived to be more student-friendly because it does not have the same high stakes as SA, and often no grade is given, nor are the rigours of grades work applied to FA work. As noted above, the grade gives an indication of the standard, so by not receiving a grade, students are left guessing as to the worth of their work. It should not be surprising if students have no enthusiasm for being left in the dark and their work demoted in importance. Importantly, the literature claims that FA supports learning by showing students how to close the “gap” in their work. This is “telling” the same as any other information given to students. To repeat the truism, only learners can learn. If FA is truly learner and learning-centred, then only learners can create FA by using information, whether from themselves or others. Giving them more information, or even more focused information does not automatically or necessarily improve learning (see Chapter 4). K12, Higher Education, and SA-FA Dichotomy (NOTE the term “tutor” is used generically to represent any teacher supporting learning at any educational level.) The SA and FA dichotomy has been polemical and problematic for educationalists. Traditionally, any single assessment served every purpose under the sun. Assessment helped tutors understand approximately where their students were in their learning, students were given feedback information on their work and the cycle continued until external exams. With increased focus on FA to support learning, tutors are required to differentiate between SA and FA. In addition, FA or Assessment for Learning (AfL) as it is sometimes called, is supposed to be able to eliminate stresses and pressures induced by SA. The reality for tutors is that FA becomes another assessment for them to deal with and one which students do not take seriously as they are not graded. Everyone is expected to put in as much

Student Self-Assessment  7 work for FA as for SA, when there appears to be little return, thus doubling the workload (Black et al., 2003; Taras, 2005, 2009a). The reality from theories is happily much simpler (see above), but these clarifications have been lost in a Gordian knot of conflicting and contradictory discourses. These chapters aim to make assessment a happy coming together of minds and processes for tutors and students and enable managers and policymakers at all levels to make informed, logical decisions in their own contexts. In HE, it is unrealistic due to the modular system to offer work which is not accredited to students both in terms of student and staff time and effort, although the pressure is still there. In K12 perhaps the real question is what is meant by “classroom assessment”, i.e. any assessment that is used outside of external accredited work, and in addition, how assessment may be rationalised and carried out in a dynamic pedagogic and inclusive context. The contextual differences between K12 and HE have contributed to creating different understandings. In the school sector, tutors and schools do not accredit students’ work, as this is accredited externally. Black et al. (2003) talk of the lack of trust of teachers’ assessment judgements which leads to teaching to the test, limiting curriculum and narrowing learning focus. The arguments for separating SA and FA functions (which is impossible anyway, see Chapter 4 for a full discussion of functions) centre around removing pressure from students when producing non-accredited FA work. Removing the high-stakes impact will supposedly also remove pressure. However, it will also remove the incentive, motivation, and focus and willingness to engage with work which has little “value”. On occasion, I would ask my HE students if they wanted a “practice” assignment. When they did this and got good grades, they would happily have converted this FA work into SA accredited work, except that this would not have been ethical as the agreed parameters at the start meant that some students had not worked towards a final grade. Generally, students liked these practice assignments because it allowed them to experiment and served as a good means of introducing them to work in a new course. However, the offer was limited to one and served as a good introduction to the course. In K12 contexts, the freedom to experiment is there for those brave enough to take it, as it is in HE. Assessment Expertise and Responsibilities in Tutors and Students Tutors are 1) gatekeepers of standards and 2) developers of proficiency for students to meet these standards. These two roles may more helpfully be considered complementary to each other rather than in tension as has been claimed for SA and FA. By developing understandings of standards in students and making them proficient in assessment, tutors will be contributing to demonstrating the ethical and transparent nature of assessment, and thus have students as collaborators, rather than being gatekeepers excluding students. As shall be demonstrated through theories and practices in these chapters, this is not only plausible and possible, but required to help students learn.

8  Maddalena Taras Tutors need 1) pedagogic expertise, 2) assessment expertise and 3) subject expertise: each should inform the others. Tutors of all levels have always been required to have many specialisations and skills, even if HE is newer to the requirements of pedagogic practices. New tutors, whatever their level, develop assessment expertise of criteria and standards through practice on the job. If their training or staff development does not include theory, it will be difficult for them to resolve issues and questions satisfactorily. Work by Taras (2008a) and Davies and Taras (2016) has shown that coherent assessment literacies in the area of theories of assessment are sorely lacking in HE in the contexts they researched. Students on the other hand, unless they are involved in peer or SSA are not encouraged to develop explicit assessment expertise, and when they are involved, the time spent and the number of assessments is very small compared to the numbers tutors are required to engage in. Therefore, even novice tutors teaching third-year students will soon outstrip them in experience: in addition, they are involved with moderation and discussions with more experienced tutors. Therefore, if we wish to build assessment expertise in students, it needs to be regular and consistent, and, as the Convention on the Rights of the Child specifies (see below), it needs to start early. Furthermore, each course and each level, may require different understandings of quality, standards, and often new interpretations of criteria. Both teachers’ and students’ understandings and expertise of assessment theories and of peer and SSA and assessment practices in general, require constant and explicit development, and renegotiation within each learning group, and especially important within each age group (see Chapter 10, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) research indicates primary children are impacted negatively by group work). For the majority of students, assessment expertise, especially of graded assessments, does not come easily or naturally. Research shows that the stronger students know what is required of them and can self-regulate and self-assess more accurately (Boud, 1995; Brown & Harris, 2013; Carless, 2015; Panadero, 2017; Panadero, Brown, & Strijbos, 2016). With assessment, as with everything else, practice makes perfect. It is our duty as teachers to provide students with the practice to improve their explicit assessments and understandings. Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects that society is having difficulty accepting is that assessment should not be the prerogative of those in power, whether teachers, managers, leaders, but that it is essential for everyone to become experts in assessment so as to understand themselves and their world (see Chapter 9). To conclude, SSA is more than the process and the concept. It is also about justice and for justice to occur, there needs to be transparency and inclusion. There are two types of responsibilities: shared responsibility and individual responsibility; both require clarification and negotiation.

Student Self-Assessment  9

Working Definition of SSA An initial working definition of SSA in an educational context, which will be re-examined throughout the book is as follows: Student self-assessment is an assessment of one’s own work according to explicit or implicit standards and criteria. For this assessment to be shared ethically, both criteria and standards need to be made explicit and preferably discussed. Thus SSA, like all assessment, is a comparison of work, situations, processes, using criteria and against standards or quality levels. Is Student Self-Assessment the Same or Similar to Assessment and Peer Assessment? The importance of context is widely accepted, and in assessment, tutors, peers, and self, have sufficiently different personal, social and institutional contexts for aspects of assessment to vary, although the fundamental process will be the same no matter the context. Educational assessment is also the relationship between the real or perceived personal responsibility of the assessor to the assessed and the assessment. It can be argued that SSA is different from assessment because assessing others’ work is different (and it could be argued, easier), than assessing one’s own work, if only because it is easier to be dispassionate about someone else’s work. Whether we have the courage to be honest about this assessment is another issue. Research demonstrates that with training we can improve SSA and all assessments (Chapters 2 and 4). We all carry out assessment as an important part of our lives, and in education, there is sufficient scrutiny of tutors, internally and externally, for them to be required to do it well, accurately, and ethically. Tutors, like everyone else, monitor what they do and carry out self-assessment, albeit often implicitly. It is useful to note that according to Wittgenstein any assessment requires an external point of comparison (Watson, 1997). This means that any assessment compares either to another assessment (as in norm referencing) or to criteria and standards. SSA is different from assessment because SSA builds on the complex picture we have of ourselves as individuals; of what we can do, what we want to do and what we hope to achieve, whether consciously or unconsciously. Perhaps the most important of these is our own volition, that is, what we want to do. Society in general, family, teachers, and peers in particular, put pressure on us, sometimes unconsciously, and as individuals, we have to reconcile all this with our own self and sense of self, which are all intermingled with the concept of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL). SRL models show the importance of volition and the continuous use of SSA in all SRL processes (Chapter 4). Volition changes each individual’s personal priorities in any

10  Maddalena Taras context and therefore will be a hugely important force in decisions, and assessments, whether educational, personal, social, or political. For example, Boekaerts and Corno’s (2005) SRL model has three main processes: 1. top–down SRL, focus on learning = growth option tutor This means that tutors are instigating and encouraging learners to self-regulate by focusing on their learning. 2. bottom–up SRL = well-being track denial This is when students effectively go into denial either by pretending everything is fine when it is not, or by ignoring it. 3. bottom–up SRL = volitional strategies, i.e. resilience and affect This is when students are in control and have effective strategies which draw on their strengths, emotional, and affective, to regulate their own behaviours and outcomes. In the classroom, 1 is pressure from tutors, but 2 and 3 are the internal student processes which influence their decisions. SSA can help us to understand our internal selves and what we wish to learn and why. SSA in all SRL models is presented as a single monolithic process, and this process is essential for a number of steps in each SRL cycle. Boekaerts and Corno (2005) require SSA FOUR times in their SRL cycle. An interesting unexplored question is whether there are potentially different optimal SSA processes/ models which may be used in these four SRL learning cycles. Chapter 2 will show that very different models and processes of SSA are available and they have very different consequences and roles for tutors and learners: SSA is not a single monolithic process. New research is required to evaluate how different SSA models interrelate with and impact firstly on students, and secondly on different SRL models (Panadero, 2017; Panadero et al., 2016) (see Chapter 10 for a more detailed consideration of SRL). Educationally, SSA focuses on understanding our work, but in addition, it is about understanding protocols and our own volition and desires. “Work” helps to define who we are, and what we do educationally, even as children: it is used socially (by families, teachers, friends) to frame our future roles and positions in society. Rowntree reminds us that we are constantly assessing others in an ad hoc way most of the time (1987, 118, also Scriven 1967, 40). This is also true of ourselves and our actions.

Research Supporting Mandatory SSA How Learning Theories Lead to Mandatory SSA Learning theories, like most other theories and beliefs, change according to social and political mores, norms, and contexts. Theories and beliefs will

Student Self-Assessment  11 influence empirical research and practices (Chapter 2). Metaphors in use reflect the status quo. Plutarch shows that these ideas of student-centred learning are not new. …the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lit (Plutarch’s Essay On Listening c46 – 127AD) Where learning theories were once pitted against each other, now it is acknowledged that learning is such a complex and little-known process (with many intermediate products) and that each theory contributes something towards our understanding (Dann, 2014; James, 2006; Illeris, 2018). For example, the behaviourist theory, where external stimuli are said to make internal changes, requires constant repetition of these stimuli to fix the learning. The related metaphors of filling the brain with knowledge as we would a bucket, or (spoon) feeding learners with information have contributed to understanding the limitations of behaviourist theory, because it does not take into account or acknowledge the personal investment or volition of learners, deep understanding, analysis, and critical thought. It is generally accepted that if teachers teach, there can be no learning without learners. It is obvious that there are many examples where repetition and/ or rote learning is required: language vocabulary or verb forms, maths tables and formulae, history dates, geographical place names; all these, in context, require memorisation, habit formation, and conditioning (Dann, 2014; Illeris, 2018; James, 2006). Constructivist and social constructivist theories both posit that knowledge is constructed by learners, and each theory focuses on different aspects which might be more influential in learning. Constructivist theory emphasises the individual context and construction of knowledge, while the social constructivist emphasises the influence of social contexts: thus, these focus on the individual and communal building of meaning for learning. Obvious examples of constructivism relate to personal individual experiences, thinking, reading, and interpreting the world around us; while social constructivists would have examples such as the classroom as a central forum for discussions in formal education, any peer and family group, and TV debates as other possibilities. Constructivist theories are based on the construction or building metaphor (Illeris, 2018; James, 2006). Metaphors and discourses we use resonate or not with our thinking and with accepted social mores. In educational contexts, we are now used to discourses of learner and learning centredness, giving students a voice and supporting agency and independence in learners (Haggis, 2003, 2004, 2009). Tutors are less teachers who “feed” learners and more facilitators who support active, thinking, and independent students. Importantly, all learning theories require learner changes, and these are (best) done with the volition of learners. Once we include learners and internal learner mechanisms, we are in the realm of self-regulated learning again (SRL), and this inevitably requires SSA at all stages of decision-­ making: decisions, choices, and all conscious and unconscious actions,

12  Maddalena Taras which are not physically part of the autonomous nervous system that is automatic and involuntary, require volition and a choice, and thus involve assessment and SSA. “Theories of learning do not only deal with epistemology, but include ontology; i.e. what it means for somebody to be.” (Dysthe, 2008, 21) Assessment Theories Lead to Mandatory SSA Assessment theories, like learning theories, and importantly, how they interrelate, reflect our understandings and beliefs at any given time. Unpicking these and clarifying them explicitly to ourselves is not an easy task, and one aim of this book is to challenge the status quo so as to clarify these for each as individuals and as peer groups. Our experiences and contexts all contribute to enabling us to coordinate our practices with theories, beliefs and research: joined up thinking is even more difficult with the contradictory literature currently available (Schön, 1987, 1995; Taras, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2012, 2018) A milestone in educational assessment is Scriven 1967 who first differentiated between SA and FA. Creating new words creates new distinctions, concepts, and ideas. SA and FA have become problematic because they have become a dichotomy in opposition with each other – it is one or the other. Worse still, they have become separated into SA = bad and FA = good (Lau, 2016; Taras, 2009a), this despite Scriven (1967) stating that assessment is assessment is assessment, that is, all assessment is the same process. A process is what we do. Therefore, if all assessment is the same process, it could be expected that this single process, which is used constantly by everyone, would be clear, shared, and uncontentious to all: far from it as it has become one of the great continual polemics of education of the past 20 years plus. Being aware that words, concepts, and ideas can become pathologised and turned into something they are not, or, were never intended to be, is an important aspect of language and understanding how we communicate with each other (Hacking, 2006; Stobart, 2008). Sifting through the many “truths” and how they affect us and our thinking is a constant challenge. Theories Linking SA, FA, and SSA Taras (2005) uses the SA process from Scriven (1967) and the FA process from Sadler (1989) to develop a coherent, explicit, and transparent process for both SA and FA with justification as to how and why they are linked. Taras reiterates that SA and FA are processes. SA is a judgement according to criteria and standards and this can be implicit or explicit. If implicit, the judgement is in the assessors’ head and the assessors may themselves not be

Student Self-Assessment  13 aware explicitly of their own criteria and standards. For an assessment to be ethical, transparent, and justified, the evidence from the criteria of the required standard, needs to be presented in justification of the final assessment. If the weighting of the criteria is not specified, it can be assumed that they will have equal weighting. The final assessment, in addition to the justification, can additionally be represented by a numeric or letter grade to represent its worth against an explicit or implicit standard. These are all interpretations and judgements in the assessor’s head. The assessment justification will provide information or feedback which, if shared with others, will clarify the relationship of the work to the criteria and standards. It can thus be argued that the judgement (SA) provides feedback in the traditional sense of the term. (Assessment) Summative, Formative, Peer, and Self-Assessment Processes Are there differences between SA, FA, peer, and SSA processes? – no. The process of assessment is always the same. The process may be implicit and take place in our heads, and it is usual for most decisions in daily life to take place implicitly and automatically. We don’t usually explain why we have decided to have tea instead of coffee. There may be an argument to be made for implicit assessment in the classroom, because it is happening so often, and repeating criteria, standards and learning outcomes might appear excessive and unnecessary, especially for younger students. Except that keeping assessment implicit makes it covert and surrounded by mystery and dread. Constant questions of which criteria are involved and why when students give opinions or discuss ideas, will enable them to question themselves as well as question others efficiently and effectively. Limiting assessment-speak to tutors will not enable learners to understand how they think and why. An early beacon at the institutional level, continuously using explicit and shared assessment criteria and processes among students and staff, particularly of criteria and SSA, is Alverno College, Milwaukee. The well-documented example of the many advantages of demystifying, sharing and explicit assessment at every level in the College since the 1970s begs the question as to why it is still unique. Freeing assessment means freeing learning and information to explicitly permeate all aspects of education, society, politics, and life. Freeing assessment challenges our controlled and controlling consumerist world where everything comes at a cost and at a price. In education, not freeing assessment is at the cost of learning and creativity. More importantly, it is at the cost of our collective mental health, particularly the students who, instead of growing up with a universal and ubiquitous process to help us understand the world and make our choices, are locked in a secret society of pressure and sanctions beyond our control. As noted below, the (assessment) knowledge with which to make our choices, should be considered a basic human right.

14  Maddalena Taras Why Self-Assessment? SSA is not just about the right to have an opinion and make choices, but to have informed opinions and base choices on them. This is true at every age and the Convention on the Rights of the Child articulates this precisely. Article 12 “1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” (www.ohchr.org) Children thus have a right to have their views respected and considered. Article 12 “2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.” (www.ohchr.org) This statement requires children to have a voice and “be heard”, that is for their views to be considered and addressed at all levels. In addition, Article 13 “1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.” (www.ohchr.org) The two aspects of “information and idea” are particularly important for education. We cannot make an informed choice and have an informed opinion without a clear and explicit understanding of the facts, the context, and importantly, how these facts may be interpreted. This is often called the artistic side of assessment. Being involved in the interpreting of criteria and standards is part of understanding the facts of assessment and it is about inclusivity and justice (see Chapter 9). From the above, it is clear that including anyone in assessments which are related to them and their work would be an ethical choice to make: whether it is judging educational work, judgements of educational potential, medical judgements of treatments available, judicial and legal issues, all require

Student Self-Assessment  15 informed input to the protagonist on which the assessment impacts, be it students or patients. It is about inclusion and justice at the most basic level. Within the legal system, the accused is provided with a legal representative because the legal system is such a specialised context, both in jargon and in protocols. These arguments all work in favour of SSA being mandatory in all types of assessment, FA and SA included. It is interesting that in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no specific, explicit reference to these rights about informed decision-making. If these rights in the Convention on the Rights of the Child are respected and implemented, then they will set the basis for every individual development and expectations. These rights for children are necessary to be continual and continued throughout life. Perhaps any contravening of these basic rights, especially for adults, is what tantamount to slavery because the individual will and volition is impeded.

Conclusion This overview of a personal assessment position has been hard earned and hard fought. It is doubtful that any reader will agree with everything in this chapter. What is important is not whether you agree or not, but whether you can explore your own beliefs to be able to find cogent and coherent explanations to the queries raised here. Assessment and self-assessment are at the core of what we do as educators, and therefore, clarifying our personal understandings, supported by research, must surely be a priority.

Questions for Consideration and Reflection Why is it important to understand your own beliefs on assessment and SSA? How do your current beliefs help your students? Have you read anything that has made you change your opinions on assessment and SSA? What do you (dis)agree with and why?

References Berry, R. & Adamson, B. (Eds.). (2011). Assessment reform in education: Policy and practice. Springer. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Williams, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.

16  Maddalena Taras Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self assessment. Kogan Page. Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153–169. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. McMillan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). SAGE. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment. Routledge. Convention on Human Rights (n.d.) https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universaldeclaration-of-human-rights Convention on the Rights of the Child (n.d.) www.ohchr.org Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press. Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128 Davies, M. S. & Taras, M. (2016). A comparison of assessment beliefs of science and education lecturers in a University. REMIE: Multidisciplinary Journal of Education Research, 6(1), 77–99. Dragemark Oscarson, D. (2009). Self-assessment of writing in learning english as a foreign language: A study at the upper secondary school level. Published PhD Thesis. Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 277. http://hdl.handle.net2077/19783 (accessed 10 June 2009). Dysthe, O. (2008). The challenges of assessment in a new learning culture. In A. Havnes, & L. McDowell (Eds.) (2008). Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (pp. 213–224). Routledge. Hacking, I. (2006). Kinds of people: Moving targets. The Tenth British Academy Lecture. http://www.britac.ac.uk (accessed November 2008). Hager, P. & Hodkinson, P. (2009). Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning. British Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 619–638. Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘Approaches to Learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104. Haggis, T. (2004). Construction of learning in higher education: Metaphor, epistemology and complexity. In J. Satterthwaite, E. Atkinson, & W. Martin (Eds.), The disciplining of education: New languages of power and resistance (pp. 2–181). Trentham Books. Haggis, T. (2009). What have we been thinking of? A critical overview of 40 years of student learning research in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 377–390. Havnes, A. & McDowell, L. (Eds.) (2008). Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education. Routledge. Illeris, K. (2018). An overview of the history of learning theory. European Journal of Education, 53(1), 86–101. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ ejed.12265 James, Mary. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). Sage.

Student Self-Assessment  17 Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’ – A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509–525. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422/full Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018a). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13–31. Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. Panadero, E. & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1747938X13000109 Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Alqassab, M. (2018b). Peer feedback used for formative purposes: Review of findings. In A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 409–431). Cambridge University Press. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 145–165. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–35. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph Series – Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally & Co. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Routledge. 218 pages. ISBN 978-0-415-40475-4. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. Taras, M. (2007a). Machinations of assessment: Metaphors, myths and realities. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15(1), 55–69. Taras, M. (2007b). Terminal terminology: The language of assessment. In M. Reiss, R. Hayes, & A. Atkinson (Eds.), Marginality and difference in education and beyond (pp. 52–67). Trentham Books. 1 85856 412 3. Taras, M. (2007c). Assessment for learning: Understanding theory to improve practice. Journal of FE and HE, 31(4), 363–371. Taras, M. (2008a). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active Learning in HE, 9(2), 172–192. Taras, M. (2008b). Assessment for learning: Sectarian divisions of terminology and concepts. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(4), 389–397. Taras, M. (2009a). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57–69. Taras, M. (2009b). Book reviews. British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 490–492. Taras, M. (2010). Assessment for learning: Assessing the theory and evidence. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(2), 3015–3022. www.sciencedirect. com WCES. Direct access http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1877042810004970

18  Maddalena Taras Taras, M. (2012). Assessing assessment theories. Online Educational Research Journal. http://www.oerj.org accessed (16 April 2013). Taras, M. (2018). Transgressing power structures in assessment: Not a step too far, just far enough. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Developing transformative spaces in higher education: Learning to transgress (pp. 162–181). Routledge. Watson, R. P. (1997). Wittgenstein on language: Toward a theory (and the study) of language in organisations. Journal of Management History, 3(4), 360–374.

2 Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices Models, Strategies/Techniques Maddalena Taras

To thine own self be true.

Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Introduction Chapter 1 demonstrated that student self-assessment (SSA) is not an added extra or a luxury, but an essential right for all to help them to be involved in their own decisions, clarify, and manage potential consequences of assessment choices. The first section will provide an overview of developments in both K-12 and higher education (HE), followed by a generic overview of the processes of SSA, before looking at specific SSA models and processes which have been identified and translating these into practice. Then, the chapter explores SSA in practice and presents the choices: what models are available, how these involve students and tutors in different measures and ways, and at the micro level, what strategies and techniques could enhance specific classroom contexts. The principles and processes of different models will allow readers to translate these for use in their individual contexts. By focusing on principles and processes, it opens up SSA at all education levels and contexts. This chapter also debunks the myth that SSA is a single, monolithic, invariable process. Despite progress over the past two decades, this is often how SSA is represented (Taras, 2010, 199 and Taras, 2015b). Specific educational levels and contexts will be examined in detail in Chapters 5–8, and these will further enhance understandings of how principles and practices have become exciting realities in the classroom. The second part of the chapter presents Taras’ various SSA models in greater detail as they demonstrate different ways that students may be central to understanding their own work and their peers’ and what they might do to improve it. (The term “tutor” is used to represent any teacher supporting learning at any educational level.)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-3

20  Maddalena Taras

Self-Assessment Developments Understanding historical developments contribute to clarifying current contexts and potential progress. Standard SSA began for adults in the 1930s in the USA. This continues to be the default model in HE contexts, and the process involves students using criteria and standards to assess and possibly grade their work by highlighting the strong and weak points (Boud, 1995). Standard SSA and student work is given to tutors who assess both. The 1970s and 1980s were a renewal of Standard SSA in HE in the Anglophone world and discourses focused on learning for learning, life-long learning and for students to be self-directed, and importantly, autonomous and independent from tutors; if necessary, students could call on peers for support (Boud, 1995; Cowan, 2006; Taras, 2015b). Reynolds and Trehan (2000) provide a summary of continued developments in the 1980s and 1990s, again by an enthusiastic minority (Hinett & Thomas, 1999). Boud’s extensive work, epitomised in his 1995 book, presented case studies of Standard SSA use in different subject contexts. Cowan (2006) disseminated his ideas in the UK and across Asia. This generally restricted use for England and Australia was also true for Wales and Scotland (Glasner, 1999; Hounsell et al., 1996). Taras (2015a) reported an increase in an English HEI over the period 2000– 2014 (Taras, 2015b). Thus, until Assessment for Learning (AfL) towards the end of the 20th century, Standard SSA had mainly been developed and used in HE, despite Rowntree (1987) clarifying that assessment and SSA are ubiquitous and used by all ages. AfL kick-started the discourses requiring the use of SSA with K-12 to improve learning. With the work of the Assessment Reform Group and especially of Black and Wiliam (1998), two aspects of assessment began a meteoric rise into the spotlight: first, in addition to the FA and SA dichotomy, that of Assessment for versus of Learning, and second, focus on AfL. One advantage of the “new” AfL was the spotlight on SSA. “Self-assessment by students is not an interesting option or luxury, it has to be seen as essential” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 54–55) Black and Wiliam disseminated SSA use in English schools prompting the impetus to replicate it across continents and cultures because of its focus on student learning. The anthology by Berry and Adamson (2011) reports work in a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific Region on the use and dissemination of AfL. Conflation of AfL with FA helped to reveal AfL’s atheoretical nature and the numerous problems resulting from this. In addition, the discourses exacerbated the separation of assessment into a good/bad dichotomy. The atheoretical AfL conflated itself with FA and adopted the HE discourses (Taras, 2005, 2012). In HE, FA has a long pedigree and AfL as described in Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, and Williams (2003) is four interventions (Taras, 2007c, 2009a) leading Stobart (2008) to note that AfL was seen as a series of activities. The theoretical deficit in AfL has led to beliefs that AfL or FA can only take place as an extra to SA, requiring tutors and students to repeat work for different “purposes”.

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  21 The erroneous belief that each “purpose” requires a different assessment, that is, assessing for “accreditation” requires a different assessment to when assessing for “learning” (Taras, 2005, 2009) demonstrates that these are not different purposes but different assignments with different criteria (see Chapter 1 for the theoretical links disproving this). Later discourses tend to replace AfL/FA with “classroom assessment”, without clarifying the theory behind this “new” concept (Jiang & Hill, 2018). “Initially, four ideas were taken from “Inside the Black Box” (Black & Wiliam, 1998) – that is to say, questioning, feedback, sharing criteria and self-assessment (Black et al., 2003, 30). As the project developed, criteria were found to be indispensable for all assessments and subsumed under the feedback and self-assessment areas, and formative use of summative tests was added, principally because teachers found it unrealistic to separate SA and FA. The four final areas which were developed during the project were questioning, feedback through marking, peer and self-assessment, and the formative use of summative tests. (Black et al., 2003, 30–57)” (Taras, 2009, 63) (See Taras, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008c, 2009, 2012b for critique and anomalies of AfL and assessment issues within and across sectors.)

Self-Assessment in K-12 and Higher Education The above has briefly described developments of SSA in K-12 and HE; however, the distinction between sectors has become less meaningful for three reasons. First, there has been internationalisation of research sharing and discourses, we all want to help our students to learn, and an increased understanding that assessment principles and epistemologies are common to all, and second, that good practices to support students know no age barriers, and that SSA and peer assessment are CUT and is necessary at all education levels. Third, education departments and faculties in HE are at the interface of all sectors, and therefore, teachers and teaching are less compartmentalised than they might appear. Chapter 1 highlights the discourses in theory, practice, and empirical research which has made SSA mandatory, educationally and ethically, at all ages and educational levels. It is to be expected that each educational sector adapts and adopts educational ideas and principles which suit the individual context and age group of students. Broadly speaking, perhaps the differences between the default model in K-12, self-marking (extrapolated from Brown & Harris, 2013), and the default model in HE, the Standard, are more closely linked to contexts. In K-12, assessment in general and SSA in particular is linked to classroom work with the tutor since external exams are controlled by outside agencies (Taras, 2008c). The terminologies of “self-marking” and using “marking guides, model answers and rubrics”, seems more suited to discourses of summative assessment (SA), whereas the processes are more about enabling students to understand the quality of their work, and how assessment works. Thus self-marking focuses on sharing and developing understandings of quality and assessment despite its name, otherwise the assessment would be inefficient and ineffectual.

22  Maddalena Taras Standard SSA use with adult learners has been inextricably linked to the potential for students to replace tutors (see Chapter 10) and much research has focused on accuracy in the past (Boud, 1995; Brown & Harris, 2013, 370). To reflect this, complex, multi-criterion use has been the norm. The restrictive quality control mechanisms are prohibitive in making SSA replace tutor assessment and grading a realistic consideration, This book supports understanding and using SSA appropriate to student levels as crucial to learning through assessment and being part of inclusive pedagogic processes. As with other skills and knowledge, practice develops expertise and understanding. Accuracy can be developed over time in different contexts and is perhaps best considered as not an end in itself (see Chapter 9). Currently, distinctions between K-12 and HE are more artificial with discourses and research transcending sectors, and it might be more accurate, productive, and logical to clarify where on the assessment process timeline the different SSA models occur. Perhaps the real difference is between the models which occur before student work and SSA is given to tutors (Standard SSA, self-marking, Sound Standard) and the Taras integrated models which occur after student work and SSA is given to tutors (see below).

Evaluation of SSA Models Since the 1930s when the standard SSA model appeared in the USA, few changes have appeared to this process. Taras 2009 identifies five SSA models in the HE literature, Taras, 2010 analyses and classifies them, and Taras, 2015a and 2018 reclassifies them, explores the power differentials, the relationships between tutors and students, and how inclusive and empowering they are of students. Unless otherwise indicated, 2015a is used in the following discussion as it is more detailed. Cowan (2006) developed a variant of self-marking, Sound Standard which uses medium-quality work for comparison as opposed to excellent work. The first indication of a new SSA model in the literature is Taras’ integrated feedback model of 1999, which differs considerably from the Standard model as to timing, process, and integration of feedback (Taras, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2010a). How these differ is explored below. Taras, 2003 identified how this original integrated feedback SSA model differs from the Standard model and fails to note the differences between this 2003 variation and the first 1999 model. The models are: Group 1. Standard model (footnote: Taras (2010) adds Learning Contract Design (LCD) but this is identical to the Standard model (Taras, 2018), so it will not be considered here) Group 2a. Self-marking 2b. Sound Standard (Cowan, 1984, 2006) one of many possible variations of self-marking will be subsumed within the self-marking discussions) Group 3. Models with integrated feedback

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  23 Before evaluating in detail each model group, the initial preparatory steps common to all models are examined.

For All SSA Models Pre-work Discussions A fundamental for all actions is student understanding and discussions of context and choices of task, criteria, standards, goals, and learning outcomes to their specific work, in order to clarify (implicitly or explicitly) what they have to do, why, how, and what tools are required. With all things assessment, where more than one person is implicated, there is the added dimension of sharing these understandings at a conceptual as well as practical level. This is where experience (and successes) of and in different contexts, made explicitly clear and communicable are essential. Practice makes perfect. Tutors generally get plenty of explicit practice in assessment whereas students do not. This practice is the basis of all assessment expertise, especially SSA and an absolute requirement from the earliest possible age to make students assessment literate. No matter how young (see Chapter 1), it is a skill of fundamental importance for children to understand their likes, dislikes, and why, and have choices available to them (see Chapter 1). In order to increase student empowerment and voice (Dann, 2014, 159), students may be an integral part of preparing and negotiating criteria and all additional support tools such as rubrics, mark sheets, exemplars, or model answers that may be used in any of the models. Creating them and using them focus thinking and provide iterative improvement cycles (see Chapter 9). During Production of Work Assessment can be a prompt for learning with the use of criteria and standards, rubrics, checklists, models, exemplars, or marking schemes, that is, the tools we might generally use for assessment, provide completed products as a point of comparison for what is required for production. Anecdotally, after I sent my first article to a journal for consideration for publication, the editor kindly sent me a couple of articles from the journal and told me to use them as a model for my own work. We don’t know what we don’t know, and having an example of the finished product is also an excellent starting point. Beginning with an example from the masters is, of course, also the Confucian way of learning.

All SSA Processes Students mark/grade their work on completion using models of excellence (except for Sound Standard below) and get direct assessment experience and expertise from following the same processes as tutors. SSA (like assessment) can be of process, i.e. in a lab report, or of product, i.e. and essay, or both. One advantage of Standard SSA and self-marking and Sound Standard is that

24  Maddalena Taras they can take place immediately or soon after production while the work is fresh in their minds. The more students are involved in deciding criteria and marking schemes or model answers, the more empowering and developmental it is for them. Likewise, discussing grading against the criteria and specific student work also provides a dialogic forum for students and tutors. The immediacy of SSA after producing the work can also be a disadvantage because it makes it more difficult for students to distance themselves from their work. They are more emotionally tied to it, thus making the Taras models more useful for distancing themselves from their work. All assessment and SSA models require comparison of individual work implicitly or explicitly with other work (Wittgenstein in Watson, 1997). The above sections Pre-work Discussions, and During Production of Work can be compared to the first stages of the main Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) model processes identified by Panadero 2017 (see Chapter 10). Standard SSA Process As previously noted, in Standard SSA, students use agreed assessment parameters to report strengths, weaknesses, and possibly grade their work. The work and SSA is submitted to tutors. Peer assessment is generally frowned upon if work is to be graded by tutors. More importantly, the Standard model separates tutor and students, and isolates students, and therefore, including peer assessment would create discourse and communication, which it is not intended to do because student independence is central (Boud, 1995; Cowan, 2006). Tutors provide comments and grades for work and SSA and return both to students. There is the possibility of class, group, or individual discussion on tutor assessment of work and SSA. Obvious advantages of focusing and reflecting on criteria and standards will provide a good checklist for student work and also an indirect and vicarious experience of grading. Perhaps it will convince learners of the advantage of being honest with ourselves although this may lead to one of the main reproaches in the literature, that of becoming a confessional (Reynolds & Trehan, 2000). There is also the real danger that by the time students submit their work, they have convinced themselves (rightly or not) that their work is good. Discussions will inevitably place tutors in a position of power and control because they have the final say on both student work and their SSA. It is difficult for students to have any negotiating power of discussion because of the total power position of tutors. Another disadvantage is that it might lull students into a false sense of security because they are supported through the pedagogic decision-making by peers and tutor and may “believe” that standard SSA is empowering. Students, with support from peers and tutors, may decide and plan assessments; however, after SSA and possibly grading their work, it is the tutor who has the final decision-making veto on students’ work and SSA. Perhaps the most negative aspect of Standard SSA is that often, work which is not graded or used for accreditation is used, and this effectively devalues SSA for students and teachers alike. In addition, tutors have a double workload of marking and grading both student work and their SSA, and students

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  25 are judged twice. The time lapse between Standard SSA and receiving tutor comments and grades further exacerbates the problems of the model. Self-Marking The process requires students to correct and grade work using a mark sheet, exemplar, or calque, which students may or may not participate in producing. Two possible permutations are available: i. ii.

Work is not submitted to tutors (but only the grades) as when used for small assignments not contributing to accredited work. Work and grades are submitted to tutors for moderation.

Perhaps self-marking is closest to performing the functions of formative assessment (FA) as discussed in the literature. Self-marking allows students, with input from peers and tutors, to systematically compare their work to an agreed standard. The above has ascertained that Brown and Harris’s models (Brown & Harris, 2013) in K-12 are equivalent to the self-marking model of HE. Sound Standard Process Sound Standard uses the same process as self-marking. Instead of using models of excellence for comparison, it uses one just above and one just below 55%, i.e. mid range, rather than models of excellent work. The rationale is that so few students achieve excellence, that these exemplars will be closer to their own level and thus not discourage them or be demotivating for weaker students. 55% is a much more achievable goal and can be considered as a Sound Standard in the UK context. The counter-argument is that students are presented exemplars of mediocrity rather than excellence to aspire to and thus be less inspiring for (stronger) students. Model with Integrated Feedback Processes The model with integrated feedback has three versions: Version 1: SSA with integrated tutor feedback, peer discussion and grading, prior to tutor grades and discussions (Taras, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2007d, 2010a, 2015a, b, c, 2018) Version 2: SSA with integrated SSA and self-correction, then peer discussion and grading, prior to tutor feedback and grades and discussions (Taras, 2003, 2010, 2018) Version 3: SSA with integrated SSA and self-correction, then peer discussions and grading, tutor feedback and grades, then student SSA grading (Taras, 2015c) Students correct and grade a) their original work and b) peers’ work

26  Maddalena Taras The first indication of a new SSA process model in the literature is Taras’ integrated feedback model which differs considerably from the Standard model as to timing, process, and integration of feedback (Taras, 1999; Taras, 2001; Taras, 2002). Taras, 2003 identified how this original integrated feedback SSA model differs from the Standard model and fails to note the differences between this 2003 variation and the first 1999 model. Taras, 2010 analyses and classifies them, and Taras, 2015a and 2018 reclassify them. Although developed and researched in HE, they can be adopted and adapted to K-12 secondary students. Since the SRL literature seems to indicate that peer/group work can be detrimental to primary pupils, this peer element of the SSA process should not be used in this context (see Chapter 10). Original features of all versions: 1. Use SA-accredited work as this is the work students have invested the most time and effort 2. Rethinking and updating their work without the emotional interference of a grade from tutors 3. SSA and updating own work just prior to peer and tutor comments and grades The main difference between the Standard model and the three Taras versions is the timing of when students engage with tutor feedback. Taras’ three versions centre around feedback and all three require engagement with feedback from tutors, peers, and own feedback, and grades are only exchanged with tutors when the engagement and peer discussions are complete. The differences depend on whose feedback is given priority. In version 1 (V1), tutor feedback is given priority and is central to students rethinking their work: they make changes and grade, followed by peer-assessment, grading, and discussions. Finally, students provide tutors with their SSA and peer assessments, and tutors provide them with their own comments and grades. Version 2 (V2) and Version 3 (V3) begin with learners’ rereading their original work and updating/correcting it, and grading, followed by peer assessment and discussions before tutor feedback is considered. V2 submits SSA and peer assessment to tutors before checking tutor feedback to see if anything has been missed. Therefore, tutor feedback is for extra support and learning. V3, like V1, integrates tutor feedback before finally submitting their SSA and peer assessments and grades to tutors, whereas 1 and 2 return changes to their work to tutors without considering tutor feedback and grades. Writing about these SSA models makes them appear more complicated than they are in reality. Although all models require reflection and critical thinking about their work against criteria and standards, the Standard model separates tutors’ and students’ assessments, especially with regards to grading: it can become more empowering if students are part of creating/discussing criteria and standards. Self-marking and the integrated model versions require

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  27 students to follow the same assessment processes as tutors in parallel and also provide opportunities for negotiating understandings with peers to be more inclusive and learner-centred. The integrated model versions perhaps require more soul-searching because the processes require integration, negotiation, and discussion, particularly in versions 2 and 3 where students begin with re-exploring their own work. Importantly, making all stages of assessment explicit will ensure that sharing assessment processes and products between students, and students and tutors help to ensure that there is more clarity of each assessment stage. Taras V1 enables internalising and usage of tutor comments and may better support weaker students, whereas V2 and 3 provide more independence of thought and action to more advanced and confident students. Tutor comments, particularly with weaker students, helps to enable students to get beyond their own perceptions of the merit of their work. The main premise for self-marking and the integrated model versions is that students are the active instigators in the assessment processes of products. It further allows transparency of tutor marks and marking, as students are effectively acting as their own double-markers and moderators. This is important because grading is very emotive for tutors and learners, and anecdotal evidence and my experience, points to problems and complaints being generally linked to grades. Thus, sharing assessment diffuses and/or eliminates grading problems. “If anything, the guild knowledge of teachers should consist less in knowing how to evaluate student work and more in knowing ways to down-load evaluative knowledge to students.” (Sadler, 1989, 141) Table comparing different student self-assessment models adapted from Taras, 2015a (bold makes model more student inclusive)

Standard

When SSA takes Who produces place the criteria

Who provides the feedback

Before tutor assessment

Learner (peer) Learner

Learner with tutor/peer input

SelfConcomitantly Tutor marking with or learner with before tutor peers, plus assessment tutor input Taras After tutor Tutor/learner models assessment Learner with V1 Before return peers, plus of tutor tutor input assessed word V2 After tutor Tutor/learner assessment Learner with Before return peers, plus of tutor tutor input assessed word

Who provides the Grade

Who provides the final grade None/learner/ tutor

Learner/ Learner/peers Learner/peers/ peers/tutor tutor Tutor/peers learner with peers

Learner/ Learner/ peers/ peers/tutor tutor learner/peers/ tutora

Learner with Learner/ Learner/peers/ peers peers/tutor tutor Learner/peers/ tutora

(Continued)

28  Maddalena Taras (Continued) When SSA takes Who produces place the criteria V3

Who provides the feedback

Who provides the Grade

Who provides the final grade

After tutor Tutor/learner Learner with Learner/ Learner/peers/ assessment Learner with peers/tupeers/tutor tutor Before return peers, plus tor/learner Learner/peers/ of tutor tutor input tutora assessed word

Notes: aLearner is first in order of involvement. bTutor is first in order of involvement. When peers are added, it can create an empowering dialogic discussion forum. (bold makes model more student inclusive)

Table comparing three Taras SSA model versions Version 1 (Taras, 1999, Taras, 2001, Taras, 2002, 2010a)

Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2010a, 2018)

Version 3 (Taras, 2015c)

*1. Tutors return cor-

1. Tutors return work, NO grade and NO comments or minimal underlined work 2. SSA and correction of own work (possible initial grade)

1. Tutor returns work, NO grade and NO comments or minimal underlined work 2. SSA and correction of own work (possible initial grade)

rected and annotated SA work, NO grade

2. SSA and correction of own work using tutor comments (possible initial grade) 3. Peer assessment (2 or 3), i.e. comments and initial grades 4. Discussion with these peers 5. Grade peers and own work

3. Peer assessment (2 or 3), i.e. comments and initial grades 4. Discussion with these peers 5. Grade peers and own work

3. Peer assessment (2 or 3), i.e. comments and initial grades 4. Discussion with these peers 5. Grade peers and own work 5b. T  utors give each student their comments, but no grade 5c. Reconsider own and peer grades 6. Give work, correction 6. Give work, correction 6. Give work, correction and grades to tutors and grades to tutors and grades to tutors 7. T  utors give comments 7. Tutors give com7. T  utors give comments and grades e.g. mark ments and grades e.g. and grades e.g. mark sheets to students mark sheets to students sheets to students 8. Discussion as a class 8. Discussion as a class 8. Discussion as a class with with tutors of tutor with tutors of tutor tutors of tutor comcomments, grades, and comments, grades, and ments, grades, and outstanding issues outstanding issues outstanding issues The numbering shows the stages in processes of the different versions.

*

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  29

Each Step of the Variations of the Taras Models Will be Evaluated in Turn Step 1 of Taras Model Versions Version 1 (1999, 2001, 2002)

Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2018)

Version 3 (Taras, 2015c)

1. Tutors return corrected and annotated SA work, NO grade

1. Tutors return work, NO grade and NO comments or minimal underlined work

1. Tutor returns work, NO grade and NO comments or minimal underlined work

Step 1 of Taras Models The first step prior to tutor return of work is perhaps the most different between the model variations. Version 1 provides tutor corrections and annotations on student work and versions 2 and 3 return work with no or minimal annotations. All original variations of the new models are different to other previously published SSA works in excluding tutor grade from the returned assessment. Nowadays, it is often associated with FA where generally the work is not used for accreditation; therefore, the context in these model variations is very different. Psychologically and emotionally, there is a big difference between versions 1 and 2 and 3; in the extreme, version 1 can be seen as censoring student work, and even if good aspects are signalled, they are seen as requiring tutor approval and endorsement. Versions 2 and 3 represent new work requiring engagement, with the advantage of the learning which came from producing the work and the time of accumulation of new (un)conscious thinking: therefore, learners are already new, more advanced selves carrying out the (self)assessment. When version 2 was trialled in Sweden, this was the aspect which the 17–20-year-old students appreciated, i.e. for the first time in their lives receiving work which was not covered in red (or green or blue) and being able to improve their own work (Dragemark Oscarson, 2009). Importantly, with 2 and 3, this first step is like no other SSA model as it gives students the opportunity to (re)solve their own problems. Therefore, this might be more suited to more confident or more advanced students.

30  Maddalena Taras Step 2 of Taras Versions Version 1 (1999, 2001, 2002)

Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2018)

Version 3 (Taras, 2015c)

2. S  SA and correction of own 2. SSA and correction of 2. SSA and correction of work using tutor comown work (possible own work (possible ments (possible initial grade) initial grade) initial grade)

Step 2 of Taras Versions Again, this step illustrates two very different psychological and emotional student positions. Version 1 requires a comparison, at the moment of assessment, between (past) student work and tutor comments and grades reflecting tutors’ position on criteria and standards. Thus, tutors provide the levels of comparison. Versions 2 and 3 require students to compare their own work to their internal and often implicit beliefs and understandings of criteria, standards, and accuracy of the content. These processes require very different skills and levels of students, and therefore might suit students of different levels of expertise. The first provides guidance for novices and might avoid students’ feeling they are drowning at the deep end, while the second process provides more of a challenge to more advanced students. Steps 3, 4, and 5 of Taras Versions Version 1 (1999, 2001, 2002)

Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2018)

Version 3 (Taras, 2015c)

3. Peer assessment (2 or 3. Peer assessment 3. Peer assessment (2 or 3) 3) i.e. comments and (2 or 3) i.e. comments i.e. comments and initial initial grades and initial grades grades 4. Discussion with these 4. Discussion with these 4. Discussion with these peers peers peers 5. Grade peers and own 5. Grade peers and own 5. Grade peers and own work work work

Steps 3, 4, and 5 of Taras Versions Steps 3, 4, and 5 are identical and require working with peers to better understand their own work and ideas by defending and justifying their ideas, and also extending their understandings of other possible choices and contexts of quality. Also, peers speak a similar language and may be able to communicate new concepts more efficiently than tutors. The essential difference, as with step 2, is that in one case, the tutor provides the benchmark and, in the others, it is the students. In practice, Taras clarifies that all integrated processes were accompanied by model

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  31 answers when it came to steps 3, 4, and 5. This means that it dilutes the differences between tutor and student benchmarks, as does the reading and judgements of peer work. Steps 5b, c, 6, and 7 of Taras Versions Version 1 (1999, 2001, 2002)

6. Give work, correction, and grades to tutors 7. Tutors give comments and grades, e.g. mark sheets to students

Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2018)

6. Give work, correction, and grades to tutors 7. Tutors give comments and grades, e.g. mark sheets to students

Version 3 (Taras, 2015c) 5b. Tutors give each student their comments, but no grade 5c. Reconsider own and peer grades 6. Give work, correction, and grades to tutors 7. Tutors give comments and grades, e.g. mark sheets to students

Steps 5b, c, 6, and 7 of Taras Versions Version 3 introduces step 1 (from version 1) after SSA and peer assessment. The rationale is that any outstanding issues or queries may be resolved by receiving tutor comments and grades prior to students finally giving tutors their own SSA and grades. Step 8 of Taras Versions Version 1 (1999, 2001, 2002)

Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2018)

Version 3 (Taras, 2015c)

8. Discussion as a class with tutors of tutor comments, grades, and outstanding issues

8. Discussion as a class 8. Discussion as a class with tutors of tutor with tutors of tutor comments, grades, comments, grades, and outstanding issues and outstanding issues

Step 8 of Taras Versions Step 8 will depend on the level and needs of students. If steps 1 to 7 have been carried out efficiently, step 8 may be unnecessary, but may be useful for highlighting issues and sharing interesting discoveries made by students. In an assessment-focused world where grades and outcomes are linked to future jobs, earnings, and social status, there will always be a need for endorsement by “experts”. However, as noted above, this does not mean that these assessments have to dominate and possibly eclipse thinking, learning, and

32  Maddalena Taras empowerment. All the three processes are attempts to enable students to have a voice and place in an assessment-driven world (see Chapter 9). Assessment is necessary to understand our place in society, but we can also be involved in creating this place and understanding the choices. Also, the processes emphasise that making a step explicit may influence student thinking and focus, and this includes all models, including the standard model. As idiosyncratic individuals, teachers of all levels need to decide how they wish to influence student thinking and focus, in their own context. New permutations and variations may be developed to suit our individual needs and those of our students. Relative Timeline of When Students are Involved in Preparing and then SelfAssessing Work in Different SSA Models Pre-work Discussions Student (and tutor) discussions of contexts, tasks, criteria, and standards of work. Students Prepare Work Students prepare work using the knowledge from the pre-work discussions, especially criteria. Students Complete Work Students may have an assessment sheet with criteria or rubrics, or checklist to use while producing work. Standard Self-Assessment and Work to Tutors (Alverno; Default Model in HE) Generally present good and weak points of their work and possibly what to improve. Students Give Completed Work and Self-Assessment to Tutors Self-Marking (and Grading) or Sound Standard (Default Model in K-12 (Brown and Harris (2013)) Possible collaborative preparation of mark sheets between students and tutors using criteria and standards. Or tutors provide mark sheets and discuss with students. Or students provide their own mark sheets – discuss and update with peers – agreed with the tutor. Student self-marked work given to tutors Tutors may check or not the self-marked work. Tutors Grade and Comment on Student Work and SSA Tutor comments and grades are returned at different times of the Taras models. Self-Assessment with Integrated Feedback Version 2 (Taras, 2003, 2018) Students correct and grade a) their original work and b) peers’ work. Tutors Return Comments to Students at Start of Taras SSA Version 1 and 3 Self-Assessment with Integrated Feedback Version 1 (Taras, 1999, 2001, 2002) Tutors Return Comments to Students after SSA and Peer Assessment and Grading Self-Assessment with Integrated Feedback Version 3 (Taras, 2015c) Tutors Return Comments and Grading to Students After return of tutor comments and grades, any discrepancies or queries may be discussed.

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  33

Empirical Evidence for Different SSA Models Group 1. Standard Model The Standard model may be considered the default model for HE, and much of the research over the years has been concerned with the potential for students to replace tutor grading to free tutor time for pedagogic support (Boud, 1995; Falchikov & Boud, 1989). There are two issues to be considered about accuracy: first, tutors often disagree about grading among themselves, and second, “accuracy” for all concerned will come with practice. Although student grading accuracy, if it coincides with tutor grading, will demonstrate that students and tutors are on the same wavelength regarding assessment criteria and standards, it is not accuracy per se which is important for SSA, rather engaging students in clarifying and understanding their work in their context. Therefore, accuracy may be considered an added bonus which generally comes with time (see Chapter 9). Group 2a. Self-Marking Brown & Harris, 2013 find that self-marking is the default model for K-12. Their subject review search initially identified 348 potentially relevant sources and the “paper provides a synthesis of 84 empirical studies on student self-evaluation in compulsory education.” (Brown & Harris, 2013, 371) 2b. Sound Standard This model, developed by Cowan and his students, has been limited to the examples which have been published by them, as far as is known (Boyd et al., 1985; Boyd & Cowan, 1985; Cowan, 2006) Group 3. Models with Integrated Feedback Empirical Evidence Supporting Taras SSA Version 1 (Taras, 1999, 2001, 2002) A two-year University Teaching Fellowship disseminated the use of Taras SSA version 1 across subject areas (in the arts and sciences) and levels with 14 lecturers and over 800 students (Taras, 1999, 66, 78). Class size does not seem to matter as it was also used successfully with 150 Pharmacy students in a lecture theatre. Empirical Evidence Supporting Taras SSA Version 2 (Taras, 2003) Data were collected over an academic year in a UK university with final-year undergraduate French translation students. Also, makes a comparison between the Standard SSA model and Taras SSA version 2. Students and

34  Maddalena Taras tutors found both models useful for engagement with criteria, although more found the integrated feedback model more useful for engaging with and clarifying their work. Empirical Evidence Supporting Taras SSA Version 2, Dragemark Oscarson (2009) in Sweden Dragemark Oscarson (2009) in Sweden is the most formalised study of Taras SSA outside the UK. It is an Intervention study with 17- to 20-year-olds over an academic year and positive results highlighted that • exploring their work with minimal or no feedback allowed students to revisit and think more constructively about their work (Dragemark Oscarson, 2009, 214, 228) • withholding the grade meant students had a more neutral attitude to feedback and showed areas tutors prioritised (Dragemark Oscarson, 2009, 228; Taras, 2001) • the process and discussions gave students an understanding of assessment criteria, and quality, in their context (Dragemark Oscarson, 2009, 211). It would appear that it is not the form of self-assessment that matters per se but rather the level of mental engagement students must use to determine how well they have done….Learning and self-regulation gains seem to depend on higher levels of mental involvement in the process of determining the quality of work….Additionally, it appears possible to train students to engage in these deep reflective. (Brown & Harris, 2013, 386) Thus, challenging our students and ourselves is an important aspect of skill developments. “Higher levels of self-assessment cognitive engagement can be seen when students rate themselves relative to challenging goals, evaluate test performance on objective criteria, or use rubrics to which they contributed.” (Brown & Harris, 2013, 386) Following ticky-box exercises blindly will not help our students to think. They need to think for themselves, and that is our challenge as tutors: the chapters on practices demonstrate that simple processes are not necessarily easy.

Conclusion The detailed scrutiny of available SSA models has demonstrated both the variety and flexibility of the processes, so that different contexts may be accommodated and supported for the benefit of students. These choices may

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  35 serve to help students at different stages in their development to initiate them effectively into the complex vagaries of assessment and maximise their learning potentials. There is much detail that has been beyond the remit of this book; for example, these chapters have not discussed criteria or rubrics in any detail because these specifically created contextual criteria-based SSA models have been dealt with thoroughly and in excellent detail elsewhere (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013; Sadler, 1989; Tan, 2020).

Questions for Consideration and Reflection Many of the ideas presented here will be familiar and/or already part of your teaching: how can you refine, coordinate them and make them explicit to your students? Once explicit it will be easier to add or adapt any new ideas which you may have read here: make a list of ideas you found interesting and plan how and where they can be integrated into different classes. Small steps lead to big changes. Keep a diary of the any ideas and changes you make. Talk with your students and colleagues about the changes and their views. Keep a record of this. This research can be exciting for you and your students’ development.

References Berry, R., & Adamson, B. (Eds.) (2011). Assessment reform in education: Policy and practice. Springer. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Williams, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self assessment. Kogan Page. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). SAGE. Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and  learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09695 94X.2014.898128 Glasner, A. (1999). Innovations in student assessment: A system-wide perspective. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Matters of assessment in higher education—Choosing and using diverse approaches. SRHE/Open University Press.

36  Maddalena Taras Hinett, K., & Thomas, J. (Eds.) (1999). Staff guide to self and peer assessment. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). Sage. Jiang, H., & Hill, M. F. (2018) Teacher learning with classroom assessment: Perspectives from Asia Pacific, Ed. Singapore (201 pp.), Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, ISBN 978-981-10-9052-3. Lau, A. M. S. (2016). Formative good, summative bad?—A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509–525. Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Alqassab, M. (2018). Peer feedback used for formative purposes: Review of findings. In A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 409–431). Cambridge University Press. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? Harper and Row. Taras, M. (1999). Student self-assessment as a means of promoting student autonomy and independence. In M. Taras (Ed.), Innovations in learning and teaching: Teaching fellowships at the University of Sunderland (pp. 61–83). University of Sunderland Press. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 26(6), 606–614. Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 27(6), 501–510. Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 28(5), 549–565. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment—Summative and formative—some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. Taras, M. (2007a). Machinations of assessment: Metaphors, myths and realities. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15(1), 55–69. Taras, M. (2007b). Terminal terminology: The language of assessment. In M. Reiss, R. Hayes, & A. Atkinson (Eds.), Marginality and difference in education and beyond (pp. 52–67). Trentham Books. Taras, M. (2007c). Assessment for learning: Understanding theory to improve practice. Journal of FE and HE, 31(4), 363–371. Taras, M. (2008a). Issues of power and equity in two models of self assessment. Teaching in HE, 13(1), 81–92. Taras, M. (2008b). Assessment for learning: Sectarian divisions of terminology and concepts. Journal of FE and HE, 32(4), 389–397. Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of FE and HE, 33(1), 57–69. Taras, M. (2010). Student self-assessment: Process and consequences. Teaching in HE, 15(2), 199–213. Taras, M. (2012). Where is the theory in assessment for learning? Online Educational Research Journal. http://www.oerj.org.

Student Self-Assessment in Practice, What are the Choices  37 Taras, M. (2015a). Situating power potentials and dynamics of learners and tutors within self-assessment models. Journal of FE and HE, 1–18. http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0309877X.2014.1000283#abstract. Taras, M. (2015b). Student self-assessment: What have we learned and what are the challenges? Relieve, 21(1). ISSN 1134-4032 (1) ENGLISH http://www.uv.es/ RELIEVE/v21n1/RELIEVEv21n1_ME8eng.htm (2) SPANISH https://ojs. uv.es/index.php/RELIEVE/issue/view/396 Taras, M. (2015c). Innovative pedagogies project for HEA—Innovative pedagogical practices: Innovations in student-centred assessment. https://www.advance-he. ac.uk/knowledge-hub/tags/national-teaching-fellowship-scheme-0 Taras, M. (2018). Transgressing power structures in assessment: Not a step too far, just far enough. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Developing transformative spaces in higher education: Learning to transgress (pp. 162–181). Routledge.

3 Implementing Student Self-Assessment Conditions and Climate Hwei Ming Wong

Correctly implemented student self-assessment can promote intrinsic motivation, internally controlled effort, a mastery goal orientation, and more meaningful learning. McMillan & Hearn, 2008, p. 40 Student self-assessment … promises to increase students’ responsibility for their own learning and to make the relationship between teachers and students more collaborative. Lorrie Shepard, 2000, p. 12

Introduction We looked at the importance of student self-assessment and the need for the explicit use of student self-assessment (Chapter 1). We also explored the practical student self-assessment processes and strategies which can provide information for educators to make decisions on how to use them in their own teaching and classrooms (Chapter 2). This chapter will first present to educators the conditions necessary for the effective implementation, including the guidelines and considerations as they are now familiar with the different student self-assessment processes and strategies which they can adopt or adapt for their classrooms. Other than the necessary conditions, the environment and climate of the classroom is also important in supporting effective implementation of student self-assessment. As such, in this chapter, we will next look at the environment and climate which are important in bringing it all together for the educators on the effective implementation of student self-assessment. Strategies to create a conducive classroom environment and climate will be also provided. Let me start with an example of how self-assessment was implemented in a primary school setting to illustrate how the various conditions are necessary to pull it together. DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-4

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  39

Implementation of Self-Assessment: Two Case Studies in Primary Schools Two intervention studies by Wong (2017) and by Wong, Safii, and Kwek (2019) investigated the effects of self-assessment on 75 Primary 4 students (age 10) in two Singaporean primary schools and on 160 Primary 3 (age 9) students in one Singaporean primary school. Data were collected from student questionnaire, student focus group discussions, and teacher interviews. In Wong (2017), the results from the student self-report indicated that the students felt that they should assess themselves (98.7%) and that they have assessed themselves fairly (94.7%). At the same time, the majority of the students (88%) also indicated that they needed more practice to be confident to assess their own work. The teachers, when interviewed, commented that their students were capable of assessing themselves, but they needed guidance and training in the use of self-assessment. Despite the conflicting results indicated by the students, the students understood that, most importantly, they still needed practice in self-assessment to feel confident and be experienced in order to accurately assess their own work. The results implied that the accuracy of the students’ self-assessment would be affected by their lack of confidence, by the lack of practice and training in the use of self-assessment. In another study by Wong et al. (2019), the students reported that they were better able to self-assess themselves using the rubrics and that self-­ assessment training was helpful. This highlighted the importance of training students when implementing self-assessment in classrooms. Teachers shared positive views on self-assessment, with it being a tool for students to attain feedback and help students reflect on their learning while taking ownership of their own learning. Teachers deemed self-assessment as a tool to boost students’ confidence while helping them to gain better understanding of the areas students need improvement in. Teachers revealed that they used the self-assessment rubrics as a remediation tool in class with positive experiences. It created awareness of students’ emotions upon completion of their work and helped teachers with their students’ conceptual understanding. Interventions Conducted in the Studies For both studies, the intervention was based on the following principles adapted from Fuchs (2011) and incorporated the conditions advocated by Andrade (2010), and Andrade and Valtcheva (2009): explicit instructions and training in self-assessment skills and criteria, and opportunities for practice. The design of the intervention – training students to self-assess their work – was modified from the intervention conducted in Ross, HogaboamGray, and Rolheiser (2002). The process for the intervention is: (1) creating self-assessment criteria, (2) teaching the students how to apply the criteria, and (3) giving students feedback about self-assessment. The assessment

40  Hwei Ming Wong criteria were first created in collaboration with the intervention teachers, who provided input about its appropriateness for Primary 4 and Primary 3 students because students were not familiar with the setting of criteria. The validity of the self-assessment rubrics was therefore also ascertained by the teachers as they informed that the criteria accurately measured what ought to be assessed of students in Primary 3 and Primary 4. Once the criteria were finalised with the teachers, the students were taught how to apply the criteria. The students then made judgements on exemplars and gave evidence for their judgements. Feedback was given to students on how well they had assessed the exemplars. Throughout the intervention, it was stressed to the students that the self-assessment is used purely for formative purposes, that is, for improving their learning and not for allocating grades. The students were introduced goal setting, and the purpose of self-assessment (a condition suggested by Andrade (2010), and Andrade and Valtcheva (2009) to raise students’ awareness of self-assessment. The students were also taught how to use self-assessment to assess their work. The self-assessment criteria were explicitly explained to the students and student work examples corresponding to different levels of the criteria were shown to students to illustrate how to self-assess. As part of the training, the students were asked to rate the work examples and to justify their choices. This further helped students to demonstrate their understanding of how to self-assess and the difference between the levels of each criterion. The students were given opportunities to use the self-assessment at least twice to thrice for each unit of lessons (approximately two weeks’ duration). The students were given 5–10 minutes to do their self-assessment and the students were supervised each time they used the self-assessment so that guidance and clarifications could be provided if students have questions when using the self-assessment. Discussion of Factors Contributing to Self-Assessment Implementation The students and teachers from the two studies reported positive experiences with self-assessment and these positive experiences are dependent on a number of factors, such as time, provision of training, commitment from teachers and students, school support which will be elaborated further. Time was spent before the start of the interventions to explain to the students what self-assessment was: the rationale and the procedures in order to give the students a better understanding of the assessment tool that they would be using. Before the students started using self-assessment, they were shown the five criteria that were explained with examples of work shown to them and the students were trained on how to use the criteria. The students then used the self-assessment three times in a fortnight. The researcher was present during the sessions When the intervention students used the self-assessment, they were monitored so that further explanation or training could be provided to the students if needed. The students were given at least ten minutes each time when they used the self-assessment strategy three times a

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  41 fortnight that served as practice for the students. When the students had a clear understanding of the self-assessment, it was easier for them to accept and use it with their work. The students were able to focus on the proper usage of the self-assessment and thus, discovered the benefits or values of self-assessment through the consistent use of self-assessment. Besides providing training to the students in the use of the self-assessment and its criteria, it was important to have the involvement and engagement of  the students and teachers. Both teachers and students had to be openminded to try out an alternative assessment in the classroom. The students and teachers also had to feel they were involved in the process. Thus, explanation on how to use the self-assessment strategies and the criteria were important to both teachers and students. When the teachers had a clear understanding, they were better equipped to guide and monitor the students in the use of self-assessment. They were also more alert to the changes in the students as well as being more flexible to making changes in their teaching practices to accommodate to the students’ changes brought about by the use of self-assessment. The interviews with students and teachers revealed that both groups were on the same page as they had similar understanding and expectations of self-assessment, thus, making it easier, and more effective to implement self-assessment in the classrooms. Another important aspect of teachers’ involvement and engagement was the provision of opportunities for self-assessment to their students in the classrooms. The opportunities for using self-assessment could not and should not be left to chance. Instead, the intervention teachers had to explicitly present those opportunities for self-assessment to their students such as the teachers intentionally allocating the last five to ten minutes of their lessons for the students to work on their self-assessment. In terms of support, the teachers also kept that five to ten minutes free for the students to ask them questions if necessary when their students were using the self-assessment. Andrade (2010), Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, and Wiliam (2003), and Cassidy (2007) advocated that it was important for self-assessment criteria to be clear and understood by students, and guided opportunities for students to self-assess must be explicitly presented to students. Other than the students and teachers being involved and engaged in the use of self-assessment to guarantee the success of self-assessment implementation, the support from school leadership was equally important in contributing to the success of the use of self-assessment. The teachers in this study took on the challenge and implemented self-assessment in their classes with the support of their school principals. Before the studies were conducted in the schools, the researcher met up with the principals to explain the purpose of the study. It is only with the permission of the principals that the study could be conducted in the schools. The principals gave their support for the study by allowing their teachers and students to participate in the study. With their principals’ knowledge and support of the classroom intervention in the use of self-assessment, it was easier for the teachers to plan in the time into their lessons for the students to use self-assessment without worrying

42  Hwei Ming Wong too much about trying to finish teaching the curriculum or that the self-assessment would eat into the curriculum time. It is thus strongly encouraged that the factors mentioned above such as training and practice in the use of self-assessment, the involvement and engagement of students and teachers, and the support from school leaders are important to ensure the successful implementation of self-assessment. Although the self-assessment studies were conducted in primary schools, the factors mentioned for the successful implementation did not differ too much for the secondary school and higher education levels. Research into self-assessment at the secondary school level and in higher education found similar factors for implementation of self-assessment such as training of students, engagement of students, and leadership support (see Baars, Vink, van Gog, de Bruin, & Paas, 2014; Harris & Brown, 2013; Harris & Brown, 2018; Kostons, van Gog, & Paas, 2012; Machera, 2017; Panadero, Brown, & Strijbos, 2016b; Panadero, Jonsson, & Strijbos, 2016a; Yan, Brown, Kin Lee, & Qiu, 2020).

Implementation of Self-Assessment: Conditions It is clear from the illustrations of the studies described earlier that the effective implementation of student self-assessment does not happen naturally or automatically on its own. A number of conditions need to be present and satisfied as suggested by Andrade (2010), and Andrade and Valtcheva (2009) to make sure that self-assessment could be implemented effectively. The conditions that are sufficient and necessary for the effective and successful set up of self-assessment are: (1) introducing students to and raising their awareness of the utility of self-assessment – explain the benefits of self-assessment, (2) providing students with the assessment criteria, (3) giving direct instruction and explanations to students on the criteria and how to use it for self-assessment – teaching students the skills of self-assessment, understand the assessment language. For students to understand the assessment criteria, they need to experience using it. If students are not taught how to self-assess, they will be left guessing as to what progress would look like. It is not enough just to hand out the self-assessment strategies to the students. Self-assessment must first be explained to the students, followed by training the students in the use of it. (4) providing students with models/exemplars of self-assessment – show the differences between levels, (5) creating tasks for self-assessment – so that students can use the feedback given to build on their learning, and (6) providing the opportunities for self-assessment – so that students can work on their accuracy and confidence in self-assessment.

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  43 For teachers, the implementation of self-assessment could be further broken down into the phases of lesson planning and preparation, lesson enactment and assessment, and feedback for easier and better planning and execution. At certain junctures during each phase, students could also take appropriate actions to increase their ownership of the self-assessment process. Lesson Planning and Preparation • Recognise that self-assessment is part of the learning culture in the classroom Self-assessment would empower the students to have a voice and influence over what goes into the process of assessment and learning. It would encourage students to reflect on what they have learnt and what else is needed. It is important for teachers to recognise that self-­ assessment is and should be an important part of the learning culture in the classrooms so that students can look to self-assessment as a source of insight and help to move their learning along (see Shepard, 2000). With that acknowledgement, teachers can create a learning culture in the classrooms where expectations are established to shape the academic and social achievements in the classrooms, where time and space are provided for the students to use self-assessment, where students are encouraged to interact positively with each other, and where the classrooms are a safe place to fail forward with the possibilities to learn further. • Plan to include communication to students the purpose of self-assessment and raising their awareness Teachers need to plan before any implementation of self-assessment to introduce and communicate to the students the purpose of self-­ assessment so that they understand what self-assessment is and why they are using it. There is a need for students to understand that self-assessment is for formative purpose of improving their learning. This would raise the students’ awareness and create buy-in from the students. • Identify assignment and criteria – which one(s) to be assessed Included in the plan, it is also the identification of the assignment task and the criteria to be assessed for the task. These need to be identified and prepared upfront by the teachers on which or what task to be used and what criterion or criteria would be assessed based on the task and learning objectives. Teachers would also need to plan ahead on the instructions and explanations for students about the criteria and how to use the criteria for self-assessment, including preparing work exemplars and models of self-assessment to show as examples to students to better understand what is required in self-assessment. For students who are new to self-assessment, teachers would highly likely need to select and craft the criteria for the students as they would not be familiar with the criteria for the task. For students who are

44  Hwei Ming Wong familiar with self-assessment, there are opportunities for teachers to co-construct the criteria with students with some or little scaffolding needed. • Tasks should be designed to be connected and cumulative so that students can build on and use prior feedback When deciding on the tasks to be used for students’ self-assessment, teachers would need to design tasks or minimally identify tasks which are identical so that the tasks are connected to one another and could be cumulative in building on and building up students’ knowledge. This is important because students could build on and use prior feedback from earlier task to work on subsequent task in order to show their learning, if any. It would also be feedback to teachers on how to support their students further and to adjust their teaching if necessary. Opportunities for students to revise and improve their performance • or work Related to the point above, it is thus important for teachers to set aside time and opportunities in their lessons for students to revise and improve their work or performances through using the feedback from their self-assessment and teachers. Self-assessment caters to on-going learning and it could be planned to be a regular feature in the learning, for example, twice to thrice in a two weeks’ duration for a topic. Enactment of Lesson • Communicate the purpose of self-assessment After teachers have planned to implement self-assessment, it should be communicated to students during lessons on the purpose of self-assessment. It is important to emphasise to students that self-assessment is for formative learning purpose. Additionally, when teachers communicate to students, it would provide students with a common language about learning objectives and success criteria which could help students’ reflection of their learning and allow teachers to know how best to support their students. For students, this is an opportunity for them to ask questions about self-assessment and get clarifications. Teachers should encourage students to ask questions. • Give students the assessment criteria Once the teachers have decided on the criteria, the students should be given a copy of the criteria for assessment. This would place the responsibility and accountability of learning into the students’ hands, rather than relying on the teachers. For students, this is the opportunity for them to ask questions about the criteria, what they mean, and to iron any differences in understanding of the same criterion, for example, between peers and between teachers and students.

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  45 • Articulate expectations and clear criteria – students need to know what is expected of them Teachers would need to spend time to explain the expectations for the task(s), which include feedback expectations, and the criteria used for self-assessment. Teachers could ask students to explain the expectations or demands of the task as a check-in that students have understood correctly what needs to be done for the task. At the same time, teachers could also explain how feedback will be given to students and what is the expectation for students in applying the feedback to their work. In helping students to understand the criteria, teachers may need to unpack the criteria together with them to ensure that all students have the same understanding. For students, this is another opportunity to ask questions about the task expectations and criteria, clarify their doubts, and to strengthen their understanding of the criteria. • Teach students how to use the criteria for self-assessment Teachers could give direct instructions and demonstrate to students what is meant by a certain level or certain criterion by providing examples and explanations. Providing exemplars or past students’ works is another way of teaching students on how to use the criteria (see below point). For students, this is an opportunity for them to ask questions about the criteria and how the criteria can be used. • Provide students with exemplars/samples of student work Teachers could provide exemplars or samples of past student works to demonstrate what the different criteria or the different levels of quality for each criterion could look like. As the exemplars are tangible rather than abstract, this would help students to see visually, make connections, and understand better what is expected of each level and each criterion. It could help reduce misinterpretations when students try to imagine what a level of quality might look like. For students, they could also provide other examples to show their understanding of the levels and the criteria, or if they understood, they could also help to explain to their peers who might still be struggling to understand. • Tasks (connected and cumulative) for self-assessment Tasks need to be connected and cumulative for self-assessment in order for students to build on and use prior feedback from earlier tasks to work on subsequent tasks to show their learning and progress. It would also allow students to monitor their progress and enable to plan their next steps. At the same time, it would allow teachers to plan their instructions and learning activities for students. For students, they need to understand the importance of being honest in their self-assessment in order to get accurate feedback about their own work so that they could reflect on what steps to take, e.g. need to relook at their understanding of certain concepts, seeking help from peers and

46  Hwei Ming Wong teachers. An honest self-assessment by the students would allow their teachers to know how to further support them in their learning. Opportunities for student self-assessment • When there are multiple opportunities provided for self-assessment, it enables students to take ownership of the assessment criteria as they continue to familiarise themselves with the criteria with each use of self-assessment and further strengthen their understanding. Providing opportunities for self-assessment also helps students to engage in the assessment process and develop their assessment literacy and assessment skills which go beyond school life and subjects. Assessment and Feedback • Tasks (connected and cumulative) for self-assessment Tasks need to be connected and cumulative for self-assessment in order for students to build on and use prior feedback from earlier tasks to work on subsequent tasks to show their learning and progress. It would also allow students to monitor their progress and enable to plan their next steps. At the same time, the self-assessment would provide feedback to teachers on how the students are doing and thus, allow teachers to plan their next instructions and learning activities for students. • Teach students how to use feedback Providing feedback to students is part and parcel of teaching. However, providing feedback alone does not improve learning, rather it is how students use the feedback to make changes to their work that would improve learning. As teachers, we must not assume that students would naturally know how to use the feedback to improve their work because students’ ability to manage and use feedback would vary from student to student. While providing feedback to students, teachers could also discuss and explain to students the relationship between the use of feedback and the work done. Teachers could provide time for students to respond to feedback and model how students could apply the feedback to their work. For students, they could discuss with their peers or with their teachers to try out the best way of using feedback for themselves. This could also give them more ownership in the learning process. • Opportunities for student self-assessment For students to take ownership of the assessment criteria and to use feedback, teachers need to create opportunities for students to interact with feedback through the tasks and self-assessment. It would allow students to identify areas of work which has improved and areas of work which needs more attention. It would help to indicate to students if they are on the right track or they should change tactics such as trying out a different strategy or seeking help from peers and/or teachers. Although it seems to be the teachers’ responsibility to undertake the conditions, there are opportunities for the students to take action and take

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  47 ownership in the implementation process as well, such as asking questions and seeking clarifications from the teachers about expectations, tasks, criteria, and feedback.

The Classroom Another essential factor that could contribute to a successful implementation of self-assessment is that of a conducive learning environment and climate in the classroom. For self-assessment to be carried out effectively in the classroom, there are three important elements which need to interact with one another – the teacher, the students and the classroom environment and climate. Without doubt, the teacher plays a crucial role in guiding and facilitating students in the use of self-assessment. Teacher should be familiar with self-assessment – from understanding the theories behind self-assessment, to recognising the benefits of self-assessment and to knowing the different processes and strategies for self-assessment in order to guide and facilitate students in the process of self-assessment. Having a conducive and safe learning classroom environment and climate would also help students to use self-assessment. Self-assessment is a non-threatening, non-judgemental assessment tool which focuses on the learning process and allows students to pace their efforts according to their level of attainment and build up from there. It accommodates a diverse range of student readiness, experiences, and backgrounds. As the first two chapters have introduced the important need-to-know about self-assessment, we will examine how a conducive and safe learning classroom environment and climate could be created to facilitate self-assessment implementation which would in turn sustain self-assessment implementation. Classroom Environment and Climate Classroom environment is one of the most important factors affecting student learning because students learn better when they perceive the classroom or learning environment to be conducive, supportive, and positive (see Dorman, Aldridge, & Fraser, 2006) while classroom climate refers to the mood, attitudes, standards, and tone that teachers and their students feel when they are in the classroom (Kamb, 2012). Classroom environment provides relevant content, clear learning goals and feedback, opportunities to build skills, and strategies to help students succeed (Weimer, 2009). Hattie (2012) found that a positive classroom climate was among the more critical factors to promote learning and “most students’ experiences in schools are situated in specific classrooms and are shaped by classroom-based interactions with classmates and teachers” (Schweig, Hamilton, & Baker, 2019, p. 4). Conducive classroom environment and climate does not just happen; it has to be created. There are many elements that go into making a conducive and supportive classroom environment and climate which could be organised under three main categories: good relationships, clear communication, and trust.

48  Hwei Ming Wong Good Relationships • Establish and promote good and positive relationships with students, among students, and with parents



a. Start early – Build and nurture positive relationships with students, among students, and parents starting as early as the first day of school. b. Nurture positive relationships with all students – Take the time to build relationships with students. Take time to know students’ interests, likes, and dislikes which could be incorporated when planning and organising activities and lessons. c. Promote positive peer relationships – Create an environment where students can support and are kind to one another. d. Ask for help. Teachers are not perfect. Your fellow educators are your greatest resource if you need support and help.

Clear Communication • Build and foster a safe learning environment where students can bloom and learn





a. Engage students on their level – Speak students’ language can help to connect with, establish and build rapport with students. It would also keep students interested in the lessons. Use of humour could be one way of engaging with students. b. Active listening – Practise good listening can serve as a model for  students. Active listening can correct misunderstandings, foster  understanding, build on students’ ideas, and extend students’ learning. c. Technical skills – Use technology to increase the effectiveness of communication with students, keep students engaged, and reinforce their understanding and learning. d. Start from the beginning – Develop, establish, and reinforce classroom rules. Give time for students to be familiar with your teaching style and expectations. Take time to explain and do not assume students will know how to do seemingly simple tasks.

Trust • Build and develop trust so that students can be their best in the classroom

a. Allow your students to make decisions –Allow students to have a voice and choices in deciding matters that pertain to them, such as classroom code of conduct, classroom rules, class representatives, and classroom layout among others. For example, some classroom rules could be co-constructed with students. This would increase

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  49



b.



c.



d.



e.



f.

their sense of ownership and responsibility in helping to create a safe learning environment where they would feel safe and respected while practising self-regulation and making good choices. This would also build their identity as a community of learners in the class. Take time to build trust – Invest time and create a structure and space in the classroom to build trust among students such as recognising and supporting one another. Accept student differences – Acknowledge that each student is unique and has different strengths and weaknesses, but they all bring something to the classroom and can complement each other. Consistent message of non-verbal cues and verbal language – Both our voice and body language are powerful and carry strong messages to students. Make sure our verbal and non-verbal cues exhibit the same message. For example, when teaching students, we can radiate enthusiasm and excitement for the topic through our actions and through our voice. Keep our promises to students – One way to build trust is to keep our promises to students. Never make empty promises because students have good memories and saying one thing and doing another is a breach of their trust. Trust yourself! – Teachers are not perfect. Allow yourselves time to get it right.

Teachers need to create an environment which involves students as active participants in their learning; which accommodates different ways of thinking and representing learning; which encourages student responsibility and risk-taking; and which acknowledges different rates of learning. A classroom environment can be further divided into three different aspects: Social cultural environment – interaction between teacher and students • • Instructional environment – framing of your instructions • Physical environment – classroom space and the materials available to your students (see Creighton, Tobey, Karnowski, & Fagan, 2015) All three aspects have an impact on students’ understanding and use of the learning intention and success criteria, on their ability to generate evidence of their learning and to evaluate their learning based on criteria and their ability to provide and respond to formative feedback. Social Cultural Environment This aspect helps to promote students’ intellectual safety and encourage students’ curiosity (see Table 3.1).

50  Hwei Ming Wong Table 3.1  Social cultural environment suggestions and considerations Social Cultural Environment

Suggestions

Considerations

The classroom is a safe place for thinking and learning. Participation for everyone in class.

Be clear and specific about what it means to share one’s thinking and its importance. Be clear and specific about what it means to share one’s thinking and its importance. Set clear expectation about students’ participation and contribution and provide opportunities. Set clear expectation about students’ participation and contribution and provide opportunities. Ask about students’ thinking (correct and incorrect). Be clear and specific about the purpose of working and learning together.

What are the rules for students on how to treat each other in class? What can you and your students do together so that everyone can share ideas safely in class? In what ways can you encourage your students to broaden their thinking and take intellectual risks?

Time for students to think and process information. Curiosity about each other’s thinking helps the class to become a community of learners.

Ask students good questions to draw out their thinking and teach students to ask good questions. Allow time for students to think about responses. Allow students time to keep up with instructions and to think about questions asked. Share with students they are expected to articulate a response to the question(s).

(Adapted from Creighton et al., 2015)

Instructional Environment This aspect helps to encourage and make visible students’ thinking (see Table 3.2). Table 3.2  Instructional environment suggestions and considerations Instructional Environment

Suggestions

Considerations

Task

Ask about students’ thinking (correct and incorrect). Keep the intellectual work in the hands of your students.

What kinds of tasks can provide opportunities for your students to achieve the success criteria and to make their thinking visible? Are students encouraged to share their thinking in the class? How much of the intellectual work are your students doing in class, in terms of thinking, explaining, evaluating, etc.?

Students’ responsibility to do the learning (not teacher’s!)

(Adapted from Creighton et al., 2015)

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  51 Physical Environment This aspect helps to create a physical space and keep resources readily available for students (see Table 3.3). Table 3.3  Physical environment suggestions and considerations Physical Environment

Suggestions

Considerations

Arrangement of Space

Arrange classroom to allow students easy access to resources and learning materials when needed. Have dedicated space in the class to put up: learning objectives and success criteria; relevant students’ work that can be used as references to move students’ learning forward.

How can you arrange your classroom to support the use of student self-assessment practices? How can you make accessible the different tools, resources, and learning materials to allow your students to become active learners?

Organisation of Materials

(Adapted from Creighton et al., 2015)

The above are suggestions for teachers on what they could do with regards to the various aspects of classroom environment – social and cultural, instructional, and physical. Regardless of the education levels, all these aspects are important for the teachers’ consideration and necessary action. Depending on the students’ age and the profile of the students, teachers could adjust accordingly which aspects to focus on in more details or to focus less on. For example, under the physical aspect of the classroom environment, at the higher education level, lecturers might not need to consider about the organisation of materials in the classroom as compared to the teachers of primary and secondary school students who might need to rearrange the space in the classroom for easy access to learning resources and materials which would help younger students in their learning.

Summary Student self-assessment helps students to make a connection to their learning, work, and performance in relation to the learning intentions, success criteria, and expectations through reflection. This reflection will help students to make sense of both the process as well as the content. As students engage in self-assessment, teachers would be able to facilitate students’ learning where it is needed most. However, it would take time and patience on the teachers’ part to bring students to a level where their own self-assessment is as useful and meaningful as the teacher’s assessment, as in getting students to have confidence in their own self-assessment and know that they can also

52  Hwei Ming Wong gain information and feedback through their self-assessment as much as they can from their teacher’s assessment.

For Your Reflection: How do you view self-assessment? • • What is your role in student self-assessment? • What is your purpose of using student self-assessment in your classroom/level? • What support do you need to try a new self-assessment strategy? • What will inspire you to keep up the hard work of embedding student self-assessment in the learning journey? (See also Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8)

References Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12–19. Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. L. Andrade and G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). Routledge. Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning & Instruction, 33, 92–107. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.004. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Cassidy, S. (2007). Assessing ‘inexperienced’ students’ ability to self-assess: Exploring links with learning style and academic personal control. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 313–330. Creighton, S. J., Tobey, C. R., Karnowski, E., & Fagan, E. R. (2015). Bringing math students into the formative assessment equation. Corwin. Dorman, J. P., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Using students’ assessment of classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms. International Education Journal, 7(7), 906–915. Fuchs, L. S. (2011). Mathematics intervention at the secondary prevention level of a  multitier prevention system: Six key principles. Retrieved from: http://www. rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinsstruction/tier2/mathintervention. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(1), 101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008 Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2018). Using self-assessment to improve student learning. Routledge. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Implementing Student Self-Assessment  53 Kamb, R. (2012). Key factors in creating a positive classroom climate. Retrieved from: https://www.cfchildren.org/blog/2012/08/key-factors-in-creating-a-positiveclassroom-climate/ Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.004 Machera, R. P. (2017). Teaching intervention strategies that enhance learning in higher education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 733–743. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050505 McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42923742. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016b). The future of student self-­ assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016a). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation. (pp. 311–326). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-31939211-0_18 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. Schweig, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Baker, G. (2019). School and classroom climate measures: Considerations for use by state and local education leaders. RAND Corporation, RR-4259-FCIM. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. Weimer, M. (2009). Effective teaching strategies: Six keys to classroom excellence. Faculty Focus-Higher Education Teaching Strategies from Magna Publications. Wong, H. M. (2017). Implementing self-assessment in Singapore primary schools: effects on students’ perceptions of self-assessment. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(4), 391–409. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2017.1362348 Wong, H. M., Safii, L., & Kwek, D. (2019). Seeing self-assessment and teacher feedback through students’ lenses: Implementation of self-assessment and investigation of feedback in lower primary classrooms (NIE Research Brief Series No. 19-014). National Institute of Education. Yan, Z., Brown, G. T. L., Kin Lee, J. C-K., & Qiu, X-L. (2020). Student self-assessment: Why do they do it? Educational Psychology, 40(4), 509–532. doi: 10.1080/ 01443410.2019.1672038

4 Student Self-Assessment and Feedback Maddalena Taras

There is no royal road to geometry (learning). It is not work that kills, but worry. (Euclid 301.17, Euclid of Alexandria, a Greek mathematician 323–283 BC)

Introduction This chapter focuses on feedback and how it relates to student self-assessment (SSA). Chapter 1 demonstrated that SSA is not an added extra or a luxury, but an essential process to enable each one of us to be more focused and accurate when making our own decisions and clarifying potential consequences. Chapter 2 provides choices in SSA models in the literature and evaluated the potential degree of involvement of students and teachers, and the potential empowerment of students. Chapter 2 concluded that involving students from the very beginning of all SSA models will increase student participation and empowerment, and that ultimately, self-marking and SSA with integrated feedback versions allow for greater student involvement and empowerment. Chapter 3 discusses the conditions and climate for optimal SSA implementation. This chapter focuses on feedback, which is, as I am increasingly realising, as contentious as the dichotomy between summative (SA) and formative assessment (FA). Initially, this chapter situates SSA within assessment theories, including functions versus processes, the relationship of feedback with SSA, SA, and FA, and assessment of the ongoing process of production versus that of the final product. Secondly, it asks where feedback comes from and how do conceptualisations differ in different SSA model groups evaluated in Chapter 2; how feedback is conceptualised in the learning processes of these groups; and how emotional factors might influence perceptions of feedback.

Purposes and Functions Versus Processes of Assessment Much of my research over the past 15 years has been to clarify assessment theory and processes and the relationships between SA, FA, and SSA. DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-5

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  55 The single most disruptive problem has been confusing purposes and functions with processes. The same issues that have derailed our understanding and engagement with assessment have done so with feedback. The main issue, as discussed in Chapter 1, is that of confusing purposes and functions of assessment with processes, which Scriven (1967) warned against. Purposes and functions, relating to any concept or process, as clarified in Chapter 1, are not facts, processes, or what has happened: they are hopes and wishes, not realities or realisations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to control what others will do with any information or “feedback”. The arguments for FA being essentially the domain of the learner are also true for feedback. Thus, feedback, like FA, even in SSA, requires the active engagement and active participation of the person reading or hearing it (Sadler, 1989). Having decided that x and y need doing to improve the work does not mean that x and y will be done. Time, energy, and motivational factors may result in nothing, or part of the work being done. This chapter is not focusing on purposes or functions because they are pie in the sky and not realities. Purposes and functions are many, multiple, and always optional. The key aspects are volition and motivation to do the work required from any information (feedback) suggestions from others or ourselves (see self-regulated learning discussions Chapter 10).

Is Student Self-Assessment Summative or Formative Assessment? Is SSA, SA or FA? In order to answer this question, it might be expedient to separate the assessment of the ongoing process of production and the assessment of the final product. Assessment of the Ongoing Process of Production When Scriven, 1967 first differentiated between SA and FA, he used the term FA as the ongoing, perpetual tweaking of what we do when we are producing something. The constant changes are made as we clarify our own thoughts and try to coordinate our work into a coherent argument, that is, at the micro-level of thought. This is in fact SSA, as the person updating is also producing the changes. For it to be FA, it would need two people working closely together, and then it would be a mixture of SA, FA, and SSA. Thus, Scriven in FA is conflating SA, SSA, and FA. An important caveat in Scriven is that he does not mention SSA and how it relates to SA and FA. Sadler on the other hand does not mention SA, or only perfunctorily, and discusses FA and SSA in detail. Sadler conceives of SSA, in the manner that Scrivens conceives of FA, and this is what he is saying when he states that SSA is mandatory “during actual production” (Sadler, 1989, 119). This micro-level development of our thinking, whether it be writing curriculum documents as with Scriven, writing an essay or adapting a sculpture, make Scriven’s FA and Sadler’s SSA, a very personal, cognitive, and immediate process.

56  Maddalena Taras Taras’ conceptualisation of FA is that the information from SA, which comes from an external source, when used, becomes FA. When this information is by the same person, then it is SSA and not SA, and again, only becomes FA when it is used. Therefore, any FA requires mandatory use of information (or “feedback”). Thus, FA does not produce information or feedback, it merely uses it. It might be argued that this micro-thinking process is so personal that interference might totally throw the producer off track: this is the thinking behind not correcting language learners during production, as we would not interrupt Michelangelo when painting the Sistine Chapel. I feel unable to fairly assess my PhD students’ work unless they have produced sufficient work for me to be sure as to where they are going with their thinking. Then it is much easier, and perhaps more ethical, to discuss with students the implication of this work on other aspects of their work, so that students may make their own choices. Whether production or micro-thinking is changed depending on whether specific criteria and standards are kept in mind is a question to ponder: I don’t think it would make much difference in the moment, but perhaps it does over a section of time (thinking aloud protocols research might be one means of exploring this further). Perhaps this position requires a re-think of what we call “classroom assessment”. When this is teacher-led, does it become an order; if so, perhaps it is more acceptable when it takes place between peers who are of a more equal power dynamic. Assessment of the Final Product The micro-process of clarifying our own thinking is a developmental and ongoing understanding of our own thinking and calling this SA followed by SSA and followed by FA is a useful and explicit focus on our SRL processes. From the SRL literature (Chapter 10), it is also difficult to calculate how often SSA is necessary within the processes described. Assessment of the “final” product is another matter. For the producer of the work, it might be compared to Standard SSA, where the whole is (semi-)formally judged against (specific) criteria and standards. Here, it is not the coherence at micro-level that is questioned, but the coherence at a macro-level, that is, the whole work and how the elements interrelate. Discrepancies at a micro-level while important are very much in the background to coherence and logical development of the whole, that is to say, the criteria may be different, technically making it a different assessment. Micro-thinking is different from what FA has sometimes become, that is, an order for learners to do something and learn. The above discussions beg the question if feedback can only be the missing link between assessing and learning if the assessor and the learner is the same person? Or, less extreme, if an external assessor is prepared to negotiate the feedback with the learner?

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  57

Where Does Feedback Come From? It is perhaps necessary to ask explicitly, the (rhetorical) question, where does feedback come from? Feedback can only come from assessment. This may seem obvious but in assessment, it is often better to clarify what may be considered obvious. If feedback can only come from assessment (synonymous with SA), then there can be no feedback without assessment. It therefore follows that if we wish to understand feedback, we need first to understand and be clear on assessment (see Chapter 1). Feedback is an automatic product of assessment (SA) and how we arrive at producing explicit feedback in an educational context is critical. Feedback may be considered synonymous with information, opinion, belief, understanding, explanation, and many other expressions of our thinking. Like assessment (SA), feedback can be ethical, accurate, and based on factual and conceptual information. Also, like assessment, it can be biased, prejudiced, unethical, and plainly wrong. As such, feedback, like assessment, should not be taken lightly, or produced or given lightly. The definition of formative assessment is perhaps the most contentious and varied of all the definitions of assessment proffered as is its relationship to summative and self-assessment. Formative assessment as a concept, and its close companion feedback, is not new: it focuses on means, techniques and procedures to support learning through feedback. Therefore feedback is a crucial aspect of formative assessment. But, whereas summative assessment produces feedback, formative assessment must use feedback. (Taras, 2010, 127) Thus, FA does not produce feedback, but may be considered an adjunct or next step to SA which has produced feedback. As in a relay race, the baton from SA has been passed on to the next person to use, whether the person is the self or another (Chapter 1). Of course, in practice, many concepts are conflated for efficiency and expediency. In the classroom, it is rare that SA and FA are separated into discrete processes, and SSA is often included as part of the classroom interaction. This does not minimise the need to be explicitly clear that this is what is taking place and that students are an integral part of this discussion.

Processes of Assessment All assessments, including SSA, peer, teacher assessments, have identical processes, can be implicit or explicit, and all produce information (feedback), either structured according to explicit criteria or implicit ones. Personally, from the very start, SSA was indissociably linked to feedback: producing it, understanding it, using it, and also, comparing it to others’ feedback. How is my feedback to myself different to that of my teachers’ and my peers’?

58  Maddalena Taras This chapter is perhaps one of the most important in the book and negotiating and understanding feedback is one of the most important aspects of all assessments including SSA, particularly, but not only, in the educational context. Before scrutinising more specifically how feedback is conceptualised in the three SSA groups identified in Chapter 2, it is pertinent to examine an important issue about how SSA might be erroneously conceptualised in general, and how this might influence feedback beliefs within SSA. In the HE context, it has been argued that Standard SSA, far from empowering students, has become a confessional where they reveal their innermost thoughts and fears and may thus jeopardise their chances of success. This means that students’ final work is no longer the primary focus of the assessment, but also their thought processes. Standard SSA, if carried out honestly, will reveal the failings students perceive in their work as well as the strengths. These weaknesses may have not been obvious or evident to tutors and this SSA will undermine the tutor’s belief in the quality of the work (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). I too found this when using Standard SSA with my students and had to warn them to be skimpy on revealing their weaknesses. Therefore, the confessional disempowering students is a real danger for students in this model (Taras, 2003). Also, importantly, the SSA commentary or feedback to the self is finalised when the work and SSA are given to tutors. Even if student thinking has moved on since submission, their thoughts become fossilised in the moment. Thus, feedback within SSA in this context will be seen as not conducive to learning. (The term “tutor” is used to represent any teacher supporting learning at any educational level.) In the context of AfL, in K-12, SSA is similarly reduced to a small part of FA, and this is the only part of assessment students are permitted to be involved in. The study by Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliams, 2003, which has been used as a bible in teacher training courses in the UK, places FA as the responsibility of teachers, either for classroom management or providing feedback, and SSA is crudely a checklist to ensure students have carried out what tutors required of them. Students were only mandated access to criteria when teachers found that students could not carry out SSA without them (Taras, 2009). As with Standard SSA in HE, this SSA is not about students producing their own feedback, which they can use to improve their learning. In both cases, it is students using criteria as a checklist to ensure that their work conforms to the requirements. This is a useful form of reflection on their work; however, it may lead to their own ideas becoming entrenched. With older students, combining Standard SSA with peer assessment is a much more valuable process, which also teaches students to use data to justify their positions and beliefs. To conclude, Standard SSA maintains traditional hierarchies and students within the status quo of powerless, disenfranchised, and dependent, excluding them from the tutors’ domain of assessment expertise. It makes assessment as something done to students, not something that they should be part of.

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  59 There is a physical separation between tutors and students in learning on the one hand and assessment on the other. Any and every assessment produces feedback, whether it is locked in assessors’ heads or expressed in some form. SSA is assessment and subject to the same processes and conditions. It can stop at SA, and be implicit, or it can explicitly express feedback and become part of the potential FA cycle. The differences between SSA and other assessments are clarified in Chapter 1. As noted, one failing of educational contexts in student-centred discourses is excluding students from assessment, and limiting this to the domain of teachers. The above leads to the conclusion that feedback may also be perceived as being confined to “expert” teachers’ domains. This raises a further question as to where peer feedback fits in assessment theory within these views.

How the Three SSA Groups Conceptualise Feedback This section evaluates how the three groups of SSA models visualise, generate, and use feedback. The three model groups (evaluated in detail in Chapter 2) are: 1. Standard SSA 2. Self-marking and Sound Standard 3. SSA with integrated feedback (3 versions) All SSA models may become more interactive and empowering for both students and teachers if there is a common forum for generating, discussing, and agreeing criteria and standards. These discussions would clarify the nuances between implicit and explicit understandings (Sadler, 1989). Assessment is a comparison against a benchmark or an ideal, and students, like all novices, require training and practice to understand how to assess the quality of their work as a basis for efficient learning. A further reminder is that these SSA models are not mutually exclusive. The models can all usefully be used within the same course. I, personally, have always used Standard SSA with my students, followed by one of Taras’ versions. 1. Standard SSA As noted above, Standard SSA centres on learners focusing, reflecting on their work and using shared criteria and standards to assess it. This assessment will produce ideas or “feedback” on how to change and improve the work. Updating and improving will continue until students run out of time, energy or inclination; or students believe their work is as good as it can be. The SSA of the work finally handed in will have circulated around the students’ head and they will generally be satisfied with this given the time and energy context (Taras, 2003).

60  Maddalena Taras The finished work and SSA are both assessed by teachers who have double the workload of providing feedback on both work and SSA. Students too are doubly assessed and often the isolation of students within their own thinking produces a conviction about the quality of their own work which may not be realistic (Taras, 2002, 2003). The literature relates this process to a confessional and all the ensuing drawbacks (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Importantly, this process separates and isolates students and tutors as assessors, and discussions which may ensue do not have a dialogic base because it is each “defending” their own decisions and positions, with tutors having the last word (Taras, 2015a, 2007a). However, the advantages of all SSA models apply, among them, reflection, checking against criteria and standards, and updating work. 2. Self-Marking and Sound Standard Self-marking has a strong potential for creating dialogic and shared understandings and views. The most dialogic and shared process would communally co-create criteria, discuss standards and a marking or answer sheet, possibly beginning individually, then with groups and then class discussions. Applying this together to a couple of samples of work would further consolidate the shared understanding for further group or individual self-marking. This process would have a very high potential for demystifying assessment and providing a shared understanding, thus removing potential conflicts, especially with grading. Sound Standard may have additional advantages and disadvantages by using exemplars and mark sheets of the median 55% (Cowan, 2006). This standard might not stretch the stronger students, but it may hinder demotivation with the weaker students. Again, the advantages of all SSA models apply, among them, reflection, checking against criteria and standards, and updating work. 3. SSA with Integrated Feedback Processes Researched and used in upper secondary schools and HE, one distinguishing feature of Taras’ SSA versions is that the focus is on SA work that is graded and accredited because this is the work that has received the greatest attention and amount of work. After the weeks tutors require to mark and grade students’ work, students assess, update and grade their work with fresh eyes, with no grade and potentially no information from tutors. Peer assessment, feedback and grading provide a basis for discussing their own and peers’ work, assessing and grading, making each step of the assessment processes dialogic. To reiterate, differences between Taras’ three versions centres around feedback: all three require engagement with feedback from tutors, peers and own feedback, and grades are only exchanged with tutors when the correction of students’ own work and peer discussions are complete. The differences depend on whose feedback is given priority when, in the process, students access and engage with tutor feedback and when they are allowed the freedom to correct their own work prior to engaging with peer and tutor

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  61 comments. In V1, tutor feedback is prioritised and the rethink of student’s work is comparing it to tutor feedback. As noted, the differences to the traditional processes for all versions are the use of SA-accredited assignments, with-holding of grades and use just prior to tutor feedback. This is followed by peer assessment, grading and discussions, finally grades are exchanged with tutors. V2 requires students to self-correct and grade their own original work before peer assessments, grading and discussions, and importantly, before tutor comments and grades. V3 begins like V2, except that before returning their graded work to tutors, students consider tutor feedback after their peers’ feedback before deciding their own final grade. The three versions can support students in different ways. Newcomers to SSA or insecure learners may benefit by beginning with tutor feedback (V1) and building on this. V3 supports students through grading, and V2 provides students with the most scope to work alone and with peers. Tutors were not expected to engage with, grade or comment on the SSAs and peer assessments as these are considered an integral part of the learning processes and not the learning product (Taras, 2001, 2003). To conclude, all SSA models can contribute to supporting students’ understandings and experiences of assessment in different ways. Standard SSA is the least learner and learning-centred by comparison to the other models. Chapter 10 notes that institutional-wide use of Standard SSA as represented at Alverno College, Milwaukee, overcomes many of the disadvantages when it is limited to individual classroom situations. At an institutional level, it becomes part of the shared space and thinking and a sounding board for all things assessment, which is an ideal context.

Conceptualisations of Feedback in the Learning Process in the Three Model Groups What is also interesting is clarifying the conceptualisations of feedback in the learning process in the three model groups. All three groups can be easily adapted to all age groups as appropriate to their cognitive development. The first group, Standard SSA, reflects the discourses of the 60s and 70s of learner independence and autonomy where learners are encouraged not to be reliant on teachers. The Standard model separates student and teacher assessments and maintains the status quo without changing or challenging the hierarchical relationships and the roles of either. Students reflect on their work, self-assess, and submit both to teachers, who are the final arbiters and gatekeepers of knowledge and excellence. Students are persuaded into providing a confessional of their thinking and decisions and provide even more work for teachers to judge. This model fits the image of assessment as an add-on to learning and teaching. The second group, self-marking, is flexible as to empowerment, and involvement of learners. Sound Standard, one possible variation, focuses on the median 50 to 55% level of quality (Taras, 2015a). At one extreme,

62  Maddalena Taras providing students with calques, mark schemes, or exemplars with which to compare their work introduces them to the assessment process, understanding quality through grading, and intricacies of making judgements. At the other extreme, making students central to creating and developing criteria, calques, mark schemes, or exemplars becomes a true initiation into sharing of inclusive assessment processes. The process of self-marking can also become collaborative when the results are shared and discussed among peers and with the class. The issues, problems, minutiae, and uncertainty of judgements are highlighted and sharing and understanding of subtleties in marking and grading enable sharing of assessment literacies. Using work which counts for accreditation adds further meaning and clarification of the pressures and issues that teachers face daily. Self-marking can thus become a moveable feast of collaborative assessment. All SSA models can help student understanding of assessment to some degree. Students of all levels and ages can be initiated into the intricacies of assessment and everyone can develop assessment expertise in a safe, supportive environment. Assessment is an essential part of learning, whether implicit or explicit; learning how to understand criteria, standards, the quality of our own work, the quality of others’, how work can be different yet excellent, what makes us different and original, finding our voice and style in expressing ourselves, and importantly, clarifying that shared, transparent assessment is about justice, personal justice and social justice (see Chapter 9). These factors and the importance of assessment results socially, educationally, and politically, make assessment a very emotive area. Demystifying the processes and assessment of products might help to reduce emotional stresses. Helping each other through assessment in a competitive world is not reducing our ability to reach the top or achieve our goals. There is room for all of us to achieve excellence, and we need each other’s help. We all construct our own individual world, and we also construct a socially constructed world, and these two learning theories complement, sustain each other, and allow individual and collective creativity. We learn through failure more than through success, and as Bob Dylan says, “there’s no success like failure, and (that) failure’s no success at all”. Getting something wrong is not failure but a step towards learning and success. Therefore, getting things wrong is not bad, and getting things right is not good, they are both steps in learning and development. What is important is that we keep going and have the courage to keep going. Resilience is key. The third group, SSA with integrated feedback processes, was developed to address students’ and tutors’ reported shortcomings of the Standard model, in a high-stakes exam context of final year university degree level. The model was also developed and adapted to accredited work, so that students were involved in the assessment of the work which had received their greatest attention and efforts, emotionally, mentally, and intellectually, as this is the work they really care about. Thus, this might be considered a step up from self-marking. SSA with integrated feedback models do not change any of the traditional assessment duties of tutors, nor add extra work as with

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  63 Standard model: they do require students, as with self-marking, to assess in the same way that teachers do, both their own work and also importantly, peer work. Peer assessment is an integral part of these three versions because a shared understanding of assessment is vital in any context. The learning impetus is that learners learn by doing as expounded by learning theories. As noted in Chapter 2, even new tutors get a great deal of practice very quickly to develop expertise in assessment. Students too require opportunity and time to think about assessment and feedback as a priority to support their learning. Importantly, V2 and V3 give students a voice in their own work, assessment and learning before they can listen to the other choices available to them (see Chapter 9). The ideals of Standard SSA cited in the literature since the 60s, and Dearing’s vision for the future (Dearing, 1997) have been taken literally to develop and trial the three integrated feedback versions. Students’ initial re-engagement with their work provides them with distance and independence for assessing their own work; peer assessments, discussions, and grading develop the social and contextual choices and grading develops their understandings of standards, thus initiating them into the assessment community.

Feedback as a Gift: Emotional Issues with Feedback In an educational context, although true of most situations where an “expert” is providing their opinion, feedback has been traditionally, and often continues, to be conceptualised as a gift, a present, a favour, the product of our expertise and thinking for which students and colleagues should be eternally grateful. Feedback has after all required much time and effort and skill, and those receiving our feedback should be grateful (see metaphors of communication e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). As teachers, assessment and feedback are a central aspect of our work, and therefore we do it conscientiously and thoroughly. One of the biggest insults any professional can receive is to be told that all their effort and time and expertise tantamount to nothing. It challenges the very core of our professionalism and is therefore deeply insulting, painful, and causes us to lose face. Personally, I had three triggers which made me seriously think about SSA and student inclusion in assessment. The first was when I was teaching English to European Erasmus students who arrived a week after the course was supposed to begin. I could not do the usual curriculum preparation in advance, and decided that the most efficient and expedient thing was to co-develop it with the students. This included the assessment focus, tasks, processes, everything. During this process, the students decided they also wanted, simultaneously alongside their course credits, to sit for the Cambridge Certificate. I had a rusty experience of this, and given my limited work hours, students decided to divide the reviewing of texts, tapes, and materials between themselves to suggest to the class, and which I would then use in class. This involved many ad hoc decisions by the students and for me to think on my toes, but produced a very dynamic and successful partnership.

64  Maddalena Taras It was a logical step to try out SSA with them. I was concomitantly studying for an MA in Applied Linguistics, and I wrote one dissertation on SSA and joint curriculum development with students. The second trigger was on moving to a permanent teaching post; I felt the responsibility of grading and influencing students’ future successes as a huge burden, and that the only way that I could overcome my own human failings and potential for errors, was by ensuring that students understood how I had assessed their work by using SSA. My previous experience had already convinced me that SSA was an essential component of learning and teaching. The third trigger which confirmed my use of SSA was the huge increase in HE student numbers in the 1990s. Over a few years, many of my colleagues found themselves in litigious situations because students disagreed with the grades they had been awarded. My team, who all used SSA, avoided this. Part of Taras’ SSA ensured students were clear on how and why the grade was arrived at. One of the main advantages was also the reduction of stress and anxiety surrounding assessment, firstly, because it had been demystified for students and secondly because they were initiated into all the protocols and therefore there were no horrible surprises for them and, last but not least, these collaborations and sharing of assessment did not set them up against “us”. My chapters might be a challenge and potentially a source of disagreement. An important aim is to challenge individual and collective thinking. I apologise in advance because I am about to insult extremely hard-working and conscientious teachers all over the world by challenging their conceptualisation of feedback. The only consolation readers may take from this, is that I have challenged and insulted myself at least to the same degree, and for much longer. I should count myself lucky that most societies think twice before imprisoning people for their ideas. The conceptualisation of feedback as “telling”, can perhaps be best summarised by the metaphor of stuffing a goose to produce foie gras. The intention is excellent, to produce top-quality food for exclusive dinner tables and although the goose may suffer some discomfort it is getting a lot of loving care and attention because it is a very valuable and valued creature. Student suicides from exam pressures, evidenced in many places worldwide, might not view this analogy as either too extreme or too cruel. Whenever I walk along the river near my home, I pass two such examples of memorials of students who died from suicide. Yet, like nuclear power, assessment and its progeny feedback, cannot be blamed for the destruction they may cause. They are not per se responsible for the destructive fallout. What society does with the weapons of destruction or instruction is the real issue. What we do with assessment and feedback, whether we use them for instruction or destruction needs to be thought through very carefully. Perhaps we are now at a stage where we should think more seriously about the ethical fallout and consequences of our conceptualisations of assessment and feedback. George Bernard Shaw said, “Tell the truth in comedy or they will kill you”. It sometimes feels that looking at my career, a large number of

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  65 people have tried to kill me academically because I have been very sparse on comedy when my work is linked to assessment. The only excuse I can think of is that I care too much and because of this, my work has generally been fuelled by anger. Anger is not conducive to producing humour. My anger is not aimed at anyone or anything in particular, but at all the injustices in the world, and sadly, many of them are linked to assessment and feedback. My truth is harsh and it is produced in the hope of realising all the wonderful intentions created in our discourses. We talk of learner- and learning-centred education, we talk of giving learners a voice, empowering them to create and govern their own futures, so why do I feel that what we do belies and goes against all these intentions (see Chapter 9). We add discussions and evidence from research from assessment and learning theories to support our wonderful discourses and, to be fair, we really have revolutionised our pedagogies over the last 30 or 40 years. We claim we are catching up in the area of assessment and feedback, but perhaps our measures are too tentative and too cowardly for such important subjects which can have such dire consequences. The meaning of feedback, its interpretation, context, and use in SSA is key to SRL and empowering learners to learn.

How Does External Feedback, Teachers’ and Peers’, Differ From One’s Own? External feedback provides a different truth, perspective and possibilities. As Scriven (1967) clarifies in FA, we all want to improve, and how we experience others’ feedback must surely influence how we perceive ourselves and how we react to our work. Dwyer’s research (Dwyer, 1998) found that students who focused on the quality of their work rather than making judgements on the quality of themselves as people were more successful. Syed (2011) describes this beautifully and confirms that expertise comes essentially from practice not this magical quality of “talent”. Ultimately, self-improvement, through SSA and SRL, is linked to volition and what we want. Another truism is that success breeds success, and the question is, how can the principles of understanding “feedback” be explained so that they are useful for all areas of development, including education.

Self-Esteem and Personal Opinion of Oneself A personal anecdote might best illustrate some issues in self-esteem. At school, I was one of the annoying people who consistently asked questions because, if I did not understand what the teacher said, I ended up lost. I never thought about it until one day in a maths class, when I was about 13, the teacher said, why do the rest of you not ask questions like Maddalena, and then I would know if you did not understand, so I can help you. It was something that I had not thought about. I was very embarrassed and uncomfortable, as any teenager would have been, and I had never seen myself as a role model. It did trigger a trickle of classmates to give me questions to  ask  teachers when they were stuck, either in maths or another subject.

66  Maddalena Taras When  I asked why they didn’t ask directly, the students clarified that the teacher would think they were stupid if they didn’t know something, whereas with me, they just accepted that I talked a lot. For me, not understanding meant being in a black cloud, and by asking a question, I could exit this black fog, so it was necessary for me to ask. These student views reflect research on metaphors of communication in English where not understanding the speaker is interpreted as a problem with the listener, and not the clarity of the speaker (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Taras, 2007a). Perhaps it is because English is my third language that I seem not to have been constrained by the same rules and feelings as my fellow students. Also, perhaps because English was not my first language, my exam results were very average, except for maths, but that was never a problem for me. I knew what I knew, and could do what I could do, and I enjoyed learning new things. As strange as it might seem, I have always tried to follow rules, on condition they made logical sense and protected people.

Conclusion Feedback from SSA, and all external sources, informs SRL and all the choices individuals make at educational, social, political, cognitive, and emotional levels. Thus, feedback helps to inform who we are, how others see us and how we see ourselves. As such, it is not something that can be given or accepted lightly. Feedback in education has often felt like intending to maximise quality within a production line which allows only one model or mould. Maximising quality for all is not being criticised; however, as human beings, we are so different, that acknowledging that creating clones is impossible will help us to accept each other’s foibles and idiosyncrasies. We claim to want creative adults, yet we constrain students from thinking.

Questions for Consideration and Reflection My big problem with providing “feedback” is that I want students to do what I believe is best, which is “telling” them. Also, for many years I felt this was my job as a teacher. Do you find you have moments when you are inclined to do the same? Does this “feedback” help students to think? My second big problem, which I am slowly resolving, is distinguishing between “advice” and basic information of rules and regulations which are basic, and necessary. I told my children that “advice” is something which you have a choice over, and not to be imposed. They constantly remind me of this. Do you have a similar problem? When students “don’t listen” or use the advice you give, can you explore why?

Student Self-Assessment and Feedback  67

References Andrade, H. (2018). Feedback in the context of self-assessment. In A. Lipnevich and J. Smith (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 376–408). Cambridge University Press. Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00087 https://www. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087/full Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliams, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Dearing, R. Sir (1997). Higher education in the learning society. HMSO. Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Theory and practice. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 131–140. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Merry, S., Price, M., Carless, D., & Taras, M. (Eds.) (n.d.) Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students. Routledge. Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13–31. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 145–165. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, and M.  Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). R and McNally and Co. Syed, M. (2011). Bounce. In The myth of talent and the power of practice. Fourth Estate. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 26(6), 606–614. Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 27(6), 501–510. Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 28(5), 549–565. Taras, M. (2007a). Machinations of assessment: Metaphors, myths and realities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 15(1), 55–69. Taras, M. (2007b). Terminal terminology: The language of assessment. In M. Reiss, R. Hayes, & A. Atkinson (Eds.), Marginality and difference in education and beyond. Trentham Books 1 85856 412 3. pp. 52–67. Taras, M. (2007c). Assessment for learning: Understanding theory to improve practice. Journal of FE and HE, 31(4), 363–371. Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of FE and HE, 33(1), 57–69.

68  Maddalena Taras Taras, M. (2010). Back to basics: Definitions and processes of assessments. Revista Práxis Educativa, Brazil. Portuguese & English. http://www.revistas2.uepg.br/ index.php/praxiseducativa/article/view/1829/1386 Taras, M. (2013). Feedback on feedback: Uncrossing wires across sectors. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education (pp. 30–41). Routledge. Taras, M. (2015a). Situating power potentials and dynamics of learners and tutors within self-assessment models. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(1) 1–18. Taras, M. (2015b). Commissioned “Student self-assessment: What have we learned and what are the challenges?” Relieve, 21(1). ISSN 1134-4032 (1) ENGLISH http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v21n1/RELIEVEv21n1_ME8eng.htm (2) SPANISH https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/RELIEVE/issue/view/396 Taras, M. (2015c). Innovative pedagogical practices: Innovations in student-centred assessment. Innovative Pedagogies Project HEA. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/ knowledge-hub/tags/national-teaching-fellowship-scheme-0 Taras, M. (2018). (Chapter) Transgressing power structures in assessment: Not a step too far, just far enough. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Developing transformative spaces in higher education: Learning to transgress (pp. 162–181). Routledge.

Section 2

Student Self-Assessment in Practice

5 Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology Tay Hui Yong and Zhu Gaoxia

Artificial intelligence, robots, and blockchain are poised to transform how we teach, learn, and run schools. School closures forced us to dip our toe in the digital waters, and now we must work hard to make that further leap from remote classrooms to smart ones. Andreas Schleicher https://digital-education-outlook.oecd.org/

Recapping the Fundamentals of and Conditions for SSA In Chapter 2, SSA has been characterised as giving students an experience of what it feels like to be an assessor. Like their teachers, students look at a range of artefacts typifying different performance standards. This may involve a discussion in small groups or whole class of how these artefacts sit against given criteria and standards. Students are also given opportunities to judge their own work, either the process or product. As such, this self-judgement can take place while work is in progress or after completion. In Taras models (see Chapter 2), peer assessments are also involved as opportunities for students to apply and/or clarify their judgement of each other’s work. Chapter 3 reminds us that beyond these key features of providing students with assessment criteria and exemplars, • • extended discussions to induct them into the SSA process and • routines to engage in SSA processes repeatedly for students to gain confidence and accuracy Teachers also need to design connected and cumulative tasks as opportunities for students to use the self-generated feedback for the next assignment. The classroom environment and climate must be safe and conducive to involve students as active participants in their learning. Chapter 3 explored the classroom environment in various aspects: social and cultural, instructional, and physical. This chapter will explore how the technology environment can be leveraged to deliver on SSA outcomes.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-7

72  Tay Hui Yong and Zhu Gaoxia

The Use of Educational Technology in SSA Educational technologies can be developed and applied to help students implement self-assessment more easily for three main reasons. First, technologies make it much easier to provide timely feedback to students, which is critical for them to make timely adjustments and corrections (Andrade, 2019). Technology-supported assessment tools can keep track of students’ learning trajectory (e.g. reading, writing, interacting, quiz information, behaviour, and results) which can be used to analyse their learning behaviours, cognitive understanding, and predict their academic performance. The analysis results can be visualised and provided to students as feedback to  facilitate their reflection, critical thinking, and inform future learning (Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Ruchniewicz & Barzel, 2019). Doing so addresses the issue that in larger classes, when feedback is provided by teachers several days or even longer after learning a certain topic, students may have lost interest, or their focus may have been moved onto new tasks (Willey & Gardner, 2010). For example, Ruchniewicz and Barzel (2019) supported the self-assessment of grades 8, 10 and university students in the field of functions using a tool called SAFE. The SAFE tool consists of five parts: Test, Check, Info, Practice, and Expand. Although the tool was not designed to provide immediate feedback to help students take the responsibility to assess their own learning, during the Check phase, a sample solution, statements of important aspects of the submitted functional relations, and common mistakes would be provided as feedback to help students self-assess their solutions. Second, technology-enhanced SSA makes it possible to provide personal feedback, which is critical to provide truly personalised learning to individuals. Educational data mining and learning analytics hold promise in understanding students’ learning process and performance in their learning context by collecting and analysing extensive and ongoing big data produced by learners (Shute & Rahimi, 2017). The extensive and specific analysis can generate personalised feedback for each learner. Therefore, students are more likely to choose their own learning path and pace – they do not have to move on if they are not ready, and they will not be held back if others are not ready (Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013; Shute & Rahimi, 2017). For example, in Zhu et al.’s (2021) study, high-school students were required to design an energy-saving house in a three-dimensional (3D) simulation design environment (see example 3 later in this chapter). In the task, each student could choose when to self-assess their designed house using analytical tools (e.g. computing energy, computing cost) embedded in the simulation tool by comparing the analysis results with the design requirements. The SSA helped students understand what design criteria had or had not been met, as well as decide how to refine their designs accordingly. Each student could choose their own path to move towards their design goals. By analysing students’ log data, Zhu and colleagues found that students’ self-assessment positively predicted their reformulation of designs.

Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology  73 Third, technology-enhanced SSA may increase students’ sense of autonomy and ownership of learning and foster self-regulated learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009). When given opportunities to self-assess their learning, students may gradually develop the ability to evaluate their understanding status, identify their understanding gaps and make plans to remedy gaps and improve their understanding (Greene & Azevedo, 2007), which are important components and procedures of self-regulated learning (Panadero, 2017). In SSA, it is students who hold the responsibility to identify issues and decide the next steps during the learning process (Ruchniewicz & Barzel, 2019). A transfer of learning control from teachers or experts to students may promote students’ autonomy and ownership of learning (Lafuente et al., 2014). For instance, in two technology-enhanced assessment cases, Lafuente and colleagues identified patterns of “steep transfer of control to the student”, “transfer of control to the student and eventual retaking by the instructors”, and “continuous monitoring and support by the instructor” (p. 455), which conveyed various levels of students’ control over learning.

Examples of Tech-Enhanced SSA This section will start with two primary school level (ages 7–12) English language classes, in which one involves available online platforms while the other uses Scribo, a paid Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform. The third example describes how grade-9 students used a 3D engineering simulation environment (i.e. Energy3D) in which analytics tools were embedded to design, self-assess, and refine their energy-saving houses.

Example 1 [Acknowledgement: Mr Lee Ke Hin, Northview Primary School]

Background The following example is how a teacher uses SSA in a primary 6 (age 12) English Language class in Singapore. SSA was used here to induct students into a shared understanding of success criteria so that they can self- and peer assess. In this example, much of the tech-mediated interaction is conducted on the Student Learning Space (SLS), an online portal that all Singapore schools can access (See https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/studentlearning-space). This portal also allows for common apps like Padlet or Mentimeter. Learning outcomes: Students will be able to use the “Show, Not Tell” technique to describe a character’s feelings (Table 5.1).

74  Tay Hui Yong and Zhu Gaoxia Table 5.1  How technology was used in lesson Lesson sequence (as planned by teacher)

Writers’ comments of SSA/use of technology

Students are asked to read two short descriptions (labelled A and B) of how a writer described the feeling of sadness. The two descriptions are of the same length but of different quality. They vote for their preferred description.

These two excerpts serve as a stimulus to begin discussions that will lead to a co-construction of success criteria for character description.

Students are asked to give a reason for their preference on an online interaction board, and to give comments on their friends’ posts.

Students note the words/phrases used in the examples that show feelings and contribute them to a word cloud (using Mentimeter) The teacher repeats these activities to compare students’ responses to the two descriptions. Students must also give a reason for their choice. The word cloud activity is also repeated where students contribute words/ phrases used to describe feelings.

Students work in pairs to analyse the two word clouds to form 3 ways that can be used to portray feelings. They post their suggested categories on Padlet. The teacher uses the class insights on Padlet to consolidate through class discussion to jointly construct the success criteria for character description with students: use of body language, facial expression, and choose appropriate verbs for dialogues.

The use of an online poll enables students to anonymously vote, so they do not need to be worried about being judged for their choice. This is an opportunity for them to defend their choice. The online peer interaction allows for simultaneous interaction among many. This activity is moderated by the teacher who helps to prompt students to think more critically about their choice, rather than be swayed just because it is a choice of the majority. The word cloud helps to quickly consolidate and visually display students’ contributions. This is an example of the connected task which helps build upon the students’ understanding from the previous activity to apply to a more complex task. In the actual lesson, the teacher reported that the students were now able to give more in-depth analysis of the descriptions. The students’ better understanding sets the stage for the success criteria to be co-constructed. The use of Padlet allows students to see each other’s posts live. Seeing their peers’ ideas may help those who are less confident or in need of greater support in language. By now, the students have had two rounds to practise judgement and extended conversations to induct them into judging their own work.

(Continued)

Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology  75 Table 5.1  (Continued) Lesson sequence (as planned by teacher)

Writers’ comments of SSA/use of technology

Students now apply the success criteria to rewrite a given paragraph.

Their writing is posted on an online platform to give easy access to peers and the teacher. The peer feedback is also given online so that the teacher can easily access the feedback and add comments (and calibrate). The online platform also helps teacher and students to document students’ growth. This step gives students an opportunity to consolidate and apply their learning from the SSA process.

Students are asked to comment on their partner’s posts on whether their partners have used the three categories discussed earlier. Students review feedback by their partner and edit their work before submission.

The example above shows the use of commonly available online platforms like a shared Google doc, Mentimeter or Padlet. As such, teachers should be able to adapt such SSA processes to their own classes. We believe that currently, teachers are likely to be familiar with these technology tools and would not find the inclusion of these tools an onerous addition. In fact, as explicated in the notes in the right column of the table, this example speaks to the advantages of using educational technologies in SSA (e.g. providing timely feedback to students, increasing students’ ownership of learning, fostering their self-regulated learning) mentioned in the previous section.

Example 2 [Acknowledgement: Mrs Tay-Tan Lee Lian, St Andrew’s Primary School] In a pilot study on the use of Scribo, teachers reported that students who used to be reluctant in checking their work were now consciously seeking feedback by putting it through the writing check (Tay, 2021). The text-to-speech functionality that reads out the text back to the writer also probably helped the reluctant readers or dyslexic learners who generally find checking a chore. This example described above and the study (Tay, 2021) demonstrate that technology-enhanced SSA can provide students with timely feedback, support their personalised learning, and motivate them to check their work and to learn.

Background In this example, the teacher uses an AI platform in an English Language class in a primary 4 class (age 10) in Singapore. This AI platform can help automark students’ writing with instantaneous feedback on language mechanics

76  Tay Hui Yong and Zhu Gaoxia (https://about.literatu.com/scribo/). The teacher uses the platform to supplement her feedback as well as encourage student reflection on their own writing before submission to her. Learning outcomes: Students will be able to write a personal recount using a given stimulus of three pictures and guiding questions (Table 5.2). Table 5.2  How technology was used in lesson Lesson sequence (as planned by teacher)

Writers’ comments of SSA/use of technology

As part of pre-writing, each Though the students do not get automated feedback, student writes a short the teachers can access the class reports generated personal recount in Scribo by the AI platform. This report consolidated from (AI platform). At this individual students’ writing helps teachers to get a stage, Scribo is set such quick diagnosis of students’ performance. Driven that the students do by the evidence, the teacher can decide areas to not get automated focus on during class discussions at the pre-writing feedback yet. stage and plan how to group students for the differentiated learning experience or task. Teacher selects various The AI platform gives teachers quick and easy access examples of student work to each of the students’ work. Students’ work can (positive and negative be anonymised to remove students’ names from the quality of writing) work and help the class focus on the work rather submitted to generate than students. The work can serve as authentic discussion on success artefacts to generate class discussions. Such criteria. discussions on what makes for successful performance induct students into self-assessment against standards and criteria. Students are given a writing The live feedback by the AI platform guides students task like the one at to improve. However, rather than accepting all pre-writing stage but this automatic feedback, students are encouraged to time, the setting is critically appraise the feedback to decide whether changed so that they get the feedback is reasonable and so decide to accept AI-generated feedback or reject the suggested improvements. instantaneously when they Because such AI platforms tend to locate mechanical activate the writing check. errors, teachers can now focus on giving students feedback on more complex areas like creative content. Such teacher feedback can be given while the students can act on it. Such just-in-time interaction offers an advantage over the conventional paper-and-pen submissions which can take at least a day before students receive teacher feedback. Furthermore, students benefit from a record of their different drafts captured in the system. By having students’ work assessed by themselves, teacher, and AI, the students have opportunities to compare and interpret the differences in the three sources of judgements. As a result, they are more likely to develop a greater understanding of the required criteria and standards and the quality of their work.

(Continued)

Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology  77 Table 5.2  (Continued) Lesson sequence (as planned by teacher)

Writers’ comments of SSA/use of technology

After students’ submission, This activity gives students time to make sense of the teacher extracts their performance, both individually and as a class, examples of authentic with a focus on improving performance. work for further class The use of another online platform (e.g. Padlet) for discussions. She can even groups to display their improved version also offers gamify the learning a convenient way to compare each other’s work. episode by challenging groups of students to improve on given extracts. Students are then asked to This is a crucial step in the SSA process that is reflect on their learning often neglected, resulting in SSA being perceived from the writing task and as a discrete lesson activity. With their evolving subsequent feedback. drafts, feedback and reflections documented on They highlight specific the same online platform, students can begin to see areas they plan to transfer the entire process of SSA, and how it helps to to the next piece of work. improve not just this individual piece of work but also what to transfer to their future learning.

Example 3  his example is a project that the second author was involved in T (Zhu, Zeng, Xing, Du & Xie, 2021). It describes how grade-9 students (14–15 years old) and their teachers in the USA used Energy 3D, a simulation-based engineering design and modelling tool, to design energy-saving houses. Energy 3D (see its successor Aladdin at https:// intofuture.org/aladdin.html) affords users, including students, to design green buildings and power stations for the purpose of a sustainable environment. It has three main components: (1) 3D modelling elements and visualisation of design artefacts. 3D modelling tools such as walls, windows, roofs, solar panels, and trees enable students to design buildings efficiently. (2) Toolbars that enable users to select design elements, zoom in and zoom out their design, select analytical tools to analyse the designs, use simulations to understand the solar environment, and watch tutorials. Various simulations such as showing shadow, showing heliodon (i.e. a device to calculate solar geometry and its effect on the irradiation of objects and their shading effects), and animating sun help students understand the solar environment in which they build their houses. (3) An area that shows analysis results to help users self-assess whether their design meets the design requirements. Energy3D

78  Tay Hui Yong and Zhu Gaoxia

Figure 5.1 The interface of Energy3D successor's Aladdin.

Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology  79 includes plenty of analysis tools (e.g. computing energy, computing solar energy, and annual energy analysis) that help users evaluate the energy performance of their buildings and make relevant revisions to meet the design requirements (e.g. the annual energy produced by a house should be greater than the energy it consumes). Among many cases in which Energy3D was employed to support students’ engineering design, one case is 111 ninth-grade students engaged in designing energy-saving houses – houses that produce more energy than they consume annually (Figure 5.1). Also, other criteria such as budget, area, height, and aesthetics need to be considered. The students were first shown a demo of how to use Energy3D by a researcher. They were also given a two-page printed file which specified the design requirements, listed design instructions and important notes, and contained an engineering design cycle to guide their design. Then the students practised using Energy3D on their own, were encouraged to discuss their ideas with their classmates, and constructed houses in Energy3D based on their conceptual designs. When constructing houses, the students could analyse the energy performance of their designed houses using built-in analysis. The analysis results helped the students to compare the properties of their design with the design requirements and informed them regarding how to revise the building to improve the energy efficiency. Apart from the printed instructions, the students received minimal explicit guidance from their teachers or instructors. This case denotes how Energy3D facilitated SSA when working on engineering design tasks and especially showcases the advantages of enhancing students’ ownership of learning, providing timely feedback.

Conclusion The three examples described above show the possibilities of using different technology tools (ranging from commonly available Google doc or free apps like Padlet to more specific AI-empowered tools like Scribo and Energy3C) to facilitate the SSA of primary and secondary school students in language and engineering learning. This chapter does not aim to provide a comprehensive review of all available technology-enhanced SSA cases but to describe how SSA practice supported by different technologies with different ages of students in literacy and science subjects in Singapore and the USA may look like. These examples illustrate the advantages of technology offering timely and personalised feedback to students, while fostering their autonomy and ownership of learning. The online platforms and technology tools do not just substitute or augment what is conventionally done in class. Instead, teachers can use technology in more transformative ways (Puentedura, 2015). This is illustrated in how the lessons were redesigned to leverage

80  Tay Hui Yong and Zhu Gaoxia technology to help students engage more actively and productively in judging their own work – which is usually not possible in traditionally learning where teachers take the main responsibility to assess students. At the same time, these new developments behove us to watch for any unintended consequences not encountered before. For example, both teachers and students may be tempted to abdicate judgement to AI platform, believing that the machine will provide objective and accurate information. Also, in our increasing use of technological platforms, could we be exacerbating inequalities? For example, do we assume all students have equal access to resources (such as computers and stable Wi-Fi that facilitate online activities)? Or that technology tools do pose additional barriers to some students? For example, even typing on a keyboard may pose additional challenges to students with dyslexia (Tay & Siti Asjamiah, 2021). Furthermore, AI models may not always be fair for students of different races, socioeconomic and disability statuses (e.g. Riazy & Simbeck, 2019; Sha et al., 2021). Sha et al. (2021) found their models built using natural language processing techniques were likely to misunderstand students whose mother tongue was not English. In short, in the excitement of using new educational software or hardware, we must not forget the heart ware: our concern for the learner’s needs must be the topmost consideration.

References Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (Formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5–31. 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. Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776 Lafuente, M., Remesal, A., & Álvarez Valdivia, I. M. (2014). Assisting learning in e-assessment: A closer look at educational supports. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 443–460. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.00422 Puentedura, R. R. (2015). SAMR: A brief introduction. Retrieved on Feb, 24, 2022 from http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ABriefIntro.pdf Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Riazy, S., & Simbeck, K. (2019). Predictive algorithms in learning analytics and their  fairness. In N. Pinkwart, & J. Konert (Eds.), Proceedings of DELFI 2019 (pp. 223–228). https://doi.org/10.18420/delfi2019_305

Enhancing Student Self-Assessment Using Technology  81 Ruchniewicz, H., & Barzel, B. (2019). Technology supporting student self-assessment in the field of functions—A design-based research study. In Technology in mathematics teaching (pp. 49–74). Springer. Sha, L., Rakovic, M., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Carroll, D., Yew, V. M., Gasevic, D., & Chen, G. (2021). Assessing algorithmic fairness in automatic classifiers of educational forum posts. In I. Roll, D. McNamara, S. Sosnovsky, R. Luckin, & V.  Dimitrova (Eds.), AIED 2021: Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 381–394).Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78292-4_31 Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer‐based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12172 Tay, H. Y. (2021). Nurturing self-regulated learners through AI-supported feedback. In R. Goh (Ed.), Designing quality assessment feedback practices in schools (pp. 167–174). Pearson. Tay, H. Y., & Siti Asjamiah, A. (2021). Dyslexic children’s experience of home-based learning during school closures: 4 case studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 8(2), 190–217. (Rec cre: 10/6/21) Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 429–443. Zhu, G., Zeng, Y., Xing, W., Du, H., & Xie, C. (2021). Reciprocal relations between students’ evaluation, reformulation behaviors, and engineering design performance over time. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(5), 595–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09906-3

6 Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers

Learning takes place through the active behavior of the student: it is what he does that he learns, not what the teacher does. Ralph W. Tyler (1949, as cited in Elliot & Spielmann, 2018)

Introduction The first four chapters brought you through the fundamentals of self-­ assessment in terms of its importance to teachers (Chapter 1), the various models and strategies (Chapter 2), the conditions and climate for implementation (Chapter 3) as well as the role of feedback in self-assessment (Chapter 4). This chapter looks at how various primary school teachers have implemented self-assessment in their own subject and class. Of note, these primary school teachers from Singapore and England, United Kingdom have contributed to this chapter, drawing on their experiences with implementing self-assessment at the primary school levels. Specific examples of self-­ assessment in various subject disciplines such as English, Science, Art, and others contributed by these teachers will be shared as possible samples for interested teachers who are new to using self-assessment in their classrooms and schools.

Teachers’ Self-Assessment Implementation in Primary Schools Each primary school teacher shared their unique experience of their self-­ assessment implementation in their own classes and/or department in this chapter. It is also evident from their sharing that conditions for successful implementation suggested by Andrade (2010) and Andrade and Valtcheva (2009) were followed such as introducing students to self-assessment, providing students with the assessment criteria, giving direct instruction and explanations to students on the criteria and how to use it for self-assessment, providing students with exemplars, creating tasks for students to use the feedback from self-assessment to build on their learning, and providing the opportunities for self-assessment (see also Chapter 3). DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-8

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  83 Contributions From Primary School Teachers on Their Self-Assessment Experiences In this section, we have contributions from teachers in Singapore and England, United Kingdom who shared their experiences of implementing student self-assessment in their classes. These teachers have had a different number of years of experience when it came to implementing self-assessment in their classes. Regardless, each teacher shared their own unique experience of their self-assessment implementation as well as samples of self-assessment they have used with their students. They also shared the initial challenges they faced and how they overcame them as well as their reflections of their self-assessment journey with their students. Science in Primary School Contributed by Mr. Gene Lim, Singapore I introduced self-assessment to two Primary 4 (age 10) classes. Both classes are of similar learning ability and both groups of students learn Science with me. Despite having completed 3 years in the primary school system, self-assessment is a relatively new idea to my students. As such, they were introduced to the idea of self-assessment in stages. The intent is to allow the students to familiarise themselves and develop the habit of using rubric for learning. Instead of calling it a rubric, it is introduced as a checklist. Another important change is the presentation of the checklist. Initially, the checklist was introduced as a table (see Table 6.1). The students found the presentation too wordy, not appealing and were confused by the scoring. In its place, I re-introduced the “burger” checklist (see Table 6.2). The idea is simple. To have a delicious burger, the ingredients must be of quality. Students learned that the “burger” checklist is used to ensure quality answers. The next challenge lies in assimilating the use of the checklist as part of their daily learning experience. Despite going through mistakes in their assignments in class, students still found it hard to phrase the correct answers coherently. Hence, the opportunity to introduce the checklist. In my classes, the students used the checklist for their corrections. Students used it to organise their points and to paraphrase their answers. At this point, the students are learning to assess their own work. Once the students were familiar with the checklist, they would move on and do away with it when they attempted their corrections. I would use the same checklist like a rubric, when I marked their corrections, indicating what parts were missing. The students referred to my feedback when they attempted to improve their answers. Although I would mark the second set of answers, we did not refer to them as corrections. We called it “improved answer” (see Figure 6.1). The understanding is that students did not have to

84  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers Table 6.1  Initial checklist

Clarity

Score 1

Score 2

• Short sentence.

• Short sentence. • One main point per sentence.

E.g. Light travels in a straight line. ✓ Light travels in a straight line and bounces off surfaces of objects. ✘ Accuracy

• Correct concept E.g. Light travels in a straight line. ✓ Light reflects in a straight line. ✘

Relevant

• Correct topic. E.g. Light. ✓ Material. ✘

E.g. Light travels in a straight line. ✓ Light bounces off surfaces of objects. ✓ Light travels in a straight line and bounces off surfaces of objects. ✘ • Correct concept. • Identified given examples. E.g. Light travels in a straight line through the hole in the card. ✓ Light travels in a straight line and did not bounce back. ✘ • Correct topic. • Key words used. E.g. Light travels in a straight line. ✓ Light travels. ✘

Table 6.2  Revised checklist • Short sentence. • One main point per sentence. E.g. Light travels in a straight line. ✓ Light bounces off surfaces of objects. ✓ Light travels in a straight line and bounces off surfaces of objects. ✘ • Correct concept. • Identified given examples. E.g. Light travels in a straight line through the hole in the card. ✓ Light travels in a straight line and did not bounce back. ✘ • Correct topic. • Key words used. E.g. Light travels in a straight line. ✓ Light travels. ✘

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  85

Figure 6.1 Room for students to give their improved answer.

86  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers do corrections if their improved answers fulfilled the criteria in the checklist. If the second answer was still lacking, then they had to attempt a third time, which is corrections. The process of incorporating student self-assessment could be tedious. In my case, I had to mark an assignment two or three times, depending on the students’ answers. At the start, the process was daunting as students were very reluctant to try. The common protest is the need to re-do the answers (second attempt). Hence, it was necessary to provide an incentive for them to do so. The buy-in for them would be corrections could be exempted if they showed improvements in their improved answers. This encouraged the students to rethink their answers, which was an act of self-assessment. This has proven to be more meaningful and effective in engaging students in learning. Another practice which gets their buy-in was the quality of the feedback itself. As I marked their improved answers, I would elaborate, in writing, the strength in each answer. I would compliment their efforts and explain how the improvements helped me to understand their points better. Over time, students accepted this as part of the learning routine. For students whose improved answers did not meet the requirements, I  would guide them individually outside curriculum time. After we have cleared the corrections for these students, I would provide the class with a suggested answer key, modified (if necessary) from the students’ best answers. This has become a highlight in class. Students enjoyed having their answers selected for the answer key. While the implementation period is relatively short, students who have been conscientiously going through the self-assessment process have exhibited changes in their learning focus. Instead of “why”, students are asking “how” their answers should be improved. They were no longer focused only on getting the right answers. They wanted to know how they should move on after making their mistakes. This is evidence of students taking ownership of their own learning. Students who struggled with self-assessment demonstrated changes in their learning dispositions. As a result of the numerous feedback provided at different stages of their work, these students understood why their responses were wrong. They became resilient and showed grit as they practised to improve their linguistic skills to provide a more coherent answer. Students who used to be quiet were more vocal now as they knew what questions to ask to clear their doubts. Last but not least, I feel student self-assessment should be introduced when they are younger. Ideally, when they first enter the school system. It could start off as a simple reflection exercise, only to increase gradually in depth. This could build their confidence and eradicate the insecurity my students felt when I introduced student self-assessment to them at Primary 4.

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  87 Physical Education in Primary School Contributed by Mr. Muhammad Jabbar Bin Jaafar, Singapore I introduced Student Self-Assessment (SSA) into my subject specialty, Physical Education (PE), when I took over as a Subject Head for PE and Co-curricular Activity (CCA) back in 2005. I was blessed with a strong team of PE Teachers who are enthusiastic and are willing to try out new things to improve the students’ experience and learning in a PE Classroom. My Team and I grow from strength to strength as we are looking at experimenting with many different Self-Assessment Worksheets and how to weave it seamlessly in a PE Lesson. In this journey, my team and I as well as our students become skilful as expectations and routines are set in our PE Classrooms. A sample lesson structure is shown below: • Lesson Introduction (15–20 minutes)

• Recapitulation of the previous lesson • Self-Assessment Task – Usually will end with a learning gap (wish) for them to work on in the lesson development.

• Lesson Development (15–20 minutes)

• Introduction to main tasks • An opportunity for students to act on the 1 Wish they stated in the Self-Assessment Task.

• Peer Assessment (10–15 minutes)

• Focus on the WILF (What I am Looking For) – Success Criteria

• Lesson closure (10–15 minutes)

• Essential Questioning to gather students’ experience and learning • Popsicle questioning

Students in my school are familiar with self- and peer assessment tasks and they have been trained to use words that are positive and at the same time encouraging. This helps us to save time and thus ensuring students to have a high percentage of Academic Learning Time in PE (ALT-PE). This does not come easy. PE teachers felt that we are bound to fail as students take a long time to get used to being reflective, assessing their own learning and helping others to learn. With time, students understand the benefit of Student SelfAssessment Tasks and have become automated whenever a similar tasking is introduced in a PE lesson. Student self-assessment does help my students to be more reflective in their learning. SSA also allow them to be more responsible to close the gap of the learning by themselves, using the various teaching cues and discussion points

88  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers

Figure 6.2 Primary 3 student self-assessment for physical education.

throughout the lesson as they are more aware of what they know and of what they do not know. As SSA can be time-consuming at the start, there is a need to make SSA as part of students’ learning structure in class. This will help the teacher to save a lot of time later and inevitably increasing students’ learning. An example of a student self-assessment task that I have brought my Primary 3 (age 9) students through is shown below (see Figure 6.2). Art in Primary School Contributed by Ms Nurjannah Ayub, Singapore I conducted a Primary 1 (age 7) Art lesson that uses self-assessment strategies to guide students on their drawing of their self-portraits. The objective of the lesson was to draw all the basic facial features such as eyes, ears, nose, mouth, eyebrows, hair, and special features.

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  89 Students were first told to draw their self-portrait without any guidance as an introduction. This was to help them check whether the self-assessment strategy has helped them to improve on their drawing later on. During the focused instruction, I guided students and taught them how to draw a face step by step. I did a demonstration on the board. I then introduced the checklist and guided students how to use it while drawing their portrait. The checklist was also designed to ensure that students follow the steps in order. I also explained to the class that a checklist is used as a guide to check their own work. Since there are many things to draw, a checklist would ensure that they include all the features of a face. Since the students are still in P1 and may not have done self-assessment before, I also had to demonstrate how and when to tick the boxes, as well as what to do if a box is unchecked. Their second task required them to look at their own selfies that they have taken earlier on an iPad, and to draw what they see. The checklist was also printed at the side so that they can refer to it easily. We did this task as a class as I continued to guide them step by step, according to the order of the checklist as well. After they have drawn their portraits, I made them swap their works with a partner. To ensure that students practice using the checklist, they were told to check their partners’ works and whether they have completed the checklist accurately. Examples of two students’ first task of self-portrait without guidance and second task of guided self-portrait using a checklist are shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4.

Figure 6.3  Student A’s first self-portrait and second guided self-portrait using checklist.

90  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers

Figure 6.4  Student B’s first self-portrait and second guided self-portrait using checklist.

For their independent task, students had to draw their self-portraits again on their own. While they were drawing, I walked around to check that they have understood my instructions as well as know how to use the checklist. The drawing task itself was a simple activity and more time was spent on the checklist and reflection. After the class have completed their third drawing, I asked them to look back at their first task, compare the drawings and to check on their progress. They were to circle the sentence that best describe their progress – whether they have improved a lot, a little, or if they felt that they did not improve at all. Less than 10% of the class felt that they did not improve on their drawing as they preferred their first drawing. As art is rather subjective and drawing of self-portraits also reflects on how they perceive themselves, students were not penalised as long as they were able to explain why they preferred their first drawing (without guidance and without the help of a checklist). The same two students’ third task of final self-portrait using checklist and reflection are shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6. The use of the self-assessment strategy for this lesson was definitely a success as 90% of the class felt that they have improved on their drawing. This was also evident in their work. The use of checklist has definitely helped students to include all the facial features, which they may have left out in

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  91

Figure 6.5 Student A’s final self-portrait and reflection.

Figure 6.6 Student B’s final self-portrait and reflection.

92  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers their first task. Upon completing their drawing, students were also able to check if they had missed out any features and go back to their drawing to work on it. English in Primary School Contributed by Ms Stefanie Jardine Watson, England, United Kingdom Self-assessment can be very difficult for younger children. At my previous setting, I was working in a year 1 classroom and as Key stage one lead. I believe that it is vital for children to become aware of what they should do to develop their own learning, meet expectations, produce the best possible outcomes, and assess their own work. We began by orally discussing sentences that had minor and deliberate errors in them. These things included full stops missing, minor spelling errors, missing capital letters, and finger spaces. Our school-making policy used green and yellow highlighters, and therefore, when the children were assessing and editing any sentences, they also used yellow and green pens. Whilst this process began as a whole group, identifying issues together, we soon moved onto independent highlighting of issues or good practice. This was then reflected in assessing the work they produce on an independent level. Children were asked every two weeks to complete a piece of writing, linked to their topic, completely independently. Whilst this was used to monitor and assess progress and gaps, the children were also led by a differentiated success criterion. This success criterion was shared with the children before the task began and then reflected on when the children finished their task, and subsequently assessed by themselves. In order for the children to access this style of self-assessment, we developed a pictorial form of success criteria which used pictures of a finger for finger spaces, a picture of the correct pincer pencil grip, etc. The children used this guidance to self-reflect on their own work, looking for good inclusion of what was requested, which they highlighted in green, and ticked the corresponding box, and then the children highlighted errors or missing elements in yellow. This allowed the children to take ownership of their own learning and critically evaluate their completed work themselves. We then discussed how well the children believed that they had done in their completed piece of work, linking the feedback of themselves to the achieved elements of the success criteria. The children took to this method very well indeed. They could discuss what were positive elements of their work, as well as what they need to work on for the next piece. Alongside this self-reflection of the success criteria, the children also had a choice of three faces to colour at the end of their self-assessment. They would decide if they had done an excellent job by colouring a very happy face, an average job, by colouring a straight face, or if they were not happy with their own work, they coloured a sad face. The children were usually very positive towards their own achievement but interestingly knew exactly what they

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  93 needed to do for their next piece to further improve their own work. This process allowed the children to understand what they were doing each session and what the product should be. This form of self-assessment proved very effective in our setting and was continued in a differentiated fashion throughout the entire setting. English in Primary School Contributed by Mdm Ng Hui Lan, Singapore The student self-assessment was implemented in a Primary 1 (age 7) English class on their penmanship skills. The class consists of 29 students with 17 boys and 12 girls of mixed ability. Implementation process: Before: The class has completed 1 round of penmanship assessment in Term 1 (January – mid-March) using the Teacher Checklist (Figure 6.7 – Original). The Teacher Checklist was returned to students after the assessment for their parent’s signature. Thus, the Teacher Checklist is more of summative feedback for both parents and students rather than formative feedback for the students. During: After attending a student self-assessment workshop, I was convinced that the learning and pedagogical strategies can be beneficial to the students, as they can learn to take ownership and gradually develop as self-directed and independent learners. Initially, I was sceptical if Primary 1 students would be able to assess their own work. I was motivated by the

Figure 6.7 Original teacher checklist.

94  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers lecturer’s encouragement to start something small scale. Thus, I decided to  choose the penmanship task because the students would find it easier to handle at a tender age. I relooked at the Teacher Checklist and modified two areas 1) Bolded the criteria: I highlighted the criteria in each sentence without simplifying or changing the language as I did not want it to differ too much from the original Teacher Checklist. 2) Created 3 self-assessment columns: I inserted (What I think?) beside the teacher’s assessment column (What my teacher thinks?) so that it would be easier for students to compare their self-assessment versa the teacher’s. After which, I submitted for suggestions and the lecturer highlighted two key issues, 1) Students might have difficulty understanding the phrasing (Exceeding expectations, Satisfactory and Needs Improvement – refer to Figure 6.7) 2) It would be good to change the indicator (+, √, −), to something that students could relate better. With the issues raised and suggestions given, I refined these areas in the Checklist (see Figure 6.8 Modified student self-assessment and teacher checklist. 1) Simplified the phrasing so that it would be easier for the students to understand. 2) Used Emoji instead for the indicators.

Figure 6.8 Modified student self-assessment and teacher checklist.

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  95 Implementation: Using the modified student self-assessment and teacher checklist, I did the following, ) Explained the purpose of the self-assessment 1 2) Went through the criteria, the indicators, and the columns of the checklist. 3) Calibrated by sampling a few pieces (about four to five) of the student’s work. After the explanation, the students worked on their practice exercise. The modified student self-assessment and teacher checklist was then stapled in the practice exercise (see Figure 6.9) for students to assess their work before submitting for my assessment. The students completed their self-assessment on two practice exercises prior to the graded penmanship assessment. For the first round, it was obvious that most students’ self-assessments were different from my assessment. I took two samples, which differed greatly between the student self-assessment and the teacher’s assessment, to show and explain to students how I assessed them. The students became more receptive of the self-assessment process after going through those 2 samples. After the second round, the majority of the students were able to match their assessment on at least three to four criteria in the checklist with my assessment. Perceived benefits of self-assessment for the students: After implementing the self-assessment checklist, I realised that: ) students did better in their graded penmanship assessment. 1 2) students were involved in their own learning as they assessed their own penmanship, which could develop them to be reflective learners.

Figure 6.9 Sample of a completed assignment.

96  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers Students commented that: 1) they liked to assess their own penmanship (as they are the teacher themselves). 2) they could compare the differences between their own and the teacher’s assessment. Looking at the comparison, they could work towards improvement. Encouragingly, majority of the students seemed excited to assess their own work using self-assessment which suggested they were developing ownership of their own learning. When I posted the question, “Do you like to use this self-assessment rubric?” (see Figure 6.10), ) 81% (24 of the students) chose “Yes”. 1 2) 15% (4 of the students) chose “Not Sure”, 3) 4% (1 of the student) chose “No”. During the discussion with fellow teachers, when self-assessment was mentioned, some teachers were put off. The amount of time spends on crafting the appropriate student self-assessment, the implementation process that can be tedious, the worries of students underestimating or overestimating their achievement and the effectiveness of self-assessment can be major stumbling blocks for some teachers to even try it out. Nevertheless, if student self-assessment is formative to aid students’ learning, students can be empowered and enjoy learning and improving their work through the self-assessment process, and gradually develop in them the ownership for self-directed learning, perhaps we as teachers can bite the bullets and start something small and refine from there. For the benefits of students in learning, why not?

Figure 6.10 Student’s feedback/responses on using the modified student self-assessment and teacher checklist.

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  97 Mother Tongue (Chinese Language) in Primary School Contributed by Mdm Chen Shuangshuang, Singapore The Mother Tongue Languages (MTL) department in my primary school, Park View Primary School embarked on the use of student self-assessment rubrics to improve Primary 4 (age 10) students’ competency and confidence in Oral conversations from 2020 onwards. The students are provided with rubrics to do self-assessment, to build up their conversation skills, as well as to develop their confidence in their oral communication skills. Implementation process: We started the implementation process by sharing a common Oral package among the three MTL (Chinese, Malay, and Tamil languages) with the following objectives: • To develop students’ ability to be effective communicators in their respective Mother Tongue languages; • To develop students to be able to work in a respectful manner; • To reinforce school values using the oral package – in line with the framework for 21st century competencies (21CC) and student outcomes where values form the core of the framework (MOE, 2021); • To build students’ communication skills to be in line with 21CC Skills. We used the Standards (which are aspirational statements that express what the students should know and be able to do in each of the three domains of 21CC) and Benchmarks (which further clarify and specify the Standards, indicating behavioural descriptors that are developmentally appropriate for each stage – Primary 3 (age 9) to Primary 6 (age 12) document as a reference document for us to develop a deeper understanding of the various emerging 21CC and how they may be manifested in the total curriculum (see Tables 6.3 and 6.4). Table 6.3  Domains and components of emerging the 21st century competencies (MOE, 2014) Domains

Components

Civic Literacy, Global Awareness and Cross-Cultural Skills (CGC)

. Active Community Life 1 2. National and Cultural Identity 3. Global Awareness, 4. Socio-Cultural Sensitivity and Awareness 1. Sound Reasoning and Decision-Making, 2. Reflective Thinking, 3. Curiosity and Creativity, 4. Managing Complexities and Ambiguities 1. Openness, 2. Management of Information 3. Responsible Use of Information 4. Communicating Effectively

Critical and Inventive Thinking (CIT) Communication, Collaboration, and Information Skills (CCI)

98  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers Table 6.4  Example of standard and benchmarks for CCI (communication, collaboration, and information skills) (MOE, 2014) Benchmarks Standard

By end of Primary 3

By end of Primary 6

CCI 1: Communicates and collaborates effectively

1.1a The student is able to convey information and ideas clearly. 1.2a The student is able to 1.2b The student is able to interact with others to interact with others to share information and explore and assess informaideas. tion and ideas. 1.3a The student is able to 1.3b The student is able to work in a respectful work in a respectful manner manner with others in a with others in a group group setting. setting to meet the group’s goals.

For Chinese MTL, we unpacked the behavioural descriptors in each CCI benchmark and incorporated them in the design of the rubrics for students’ self-assessment of 21CC skills and values. For example, the student’s ability to convey information under CCI 1: Benchmark 1.1a is examined through four areas/categories, namely Clarity, Sentence Completeness, Confidence, and Personal Responses (see Table 6.5). In addition, a student self-assessment checklist on effective collaboration (Table 6.6) was designed based on CCI 1: Benchmarks 1.2a and 1.3a (see Table 6.4) for students to rate their performance. This checklist is also aligned to the school value, “Care for the Community”. We designed Differentiated Instruction strategies to deliver the specific content and we varied our teaching pedagogies according to our students’ learning needs. Students were briefed on how to use the rubrics and were able to use them for self-assessment during oral practice activities. Our focus is not on having students generate their own grades, but rather on providing opportunities for them to identify what forms a good (or poor!) piece of work as that will help students to improve their judgement skills and thus enhance their self-assessment abilities. For self-assessment to work effectively, there needs to be some transfer of “ownership” of the assessment process. Therefore, as teachers, we provided opportunities for students to reflect on their own work and supported them through the self-assessment process so that strengths in their work are recognised and weaknesses are not over-emphasised which could damage students’ self-esteem. We demonstrated to our students why and how self-assessments may be used through the discussion of the assessment criteria and ensuring students understood the criteria which they would use to evaluate their own work. Students were also reassured that they could be honest about their performance.

Table 6.5  Student self-assessment rubric on effective communication from Chinese language department, Park View Primary School (2020) Emerging

Developing

Proficient

Exceeding

Clarity 发音清楚

I did not speak clearly 我说得不清楚。 ( ) I did not speak in complete sentences 我的句子不完整。 ( ) I am not confident 我没有信心。 ( ) I did not give my opinions 我没有说出个人 看法。 ( )

I spoke clearly sometimes 我有时说得清楚。 ( ) I spoke in complete sentences sometimes 我的句子有时完整。 ( ) I am confident sometimes 我有时有信心。 ( ) I gave my opinions sometimes 我说出了一点个人 看法。 ( )

I spoke clearly most of the time 我多数时候说得 清楚。 ( ) I spoke in complete sentences most of the time 我的句子多数时候 完整。 ( ) I am confident most of the time 我多数时候有信心。 ( ) I gave my opinions most of the time 我说出了比较完整的个人看法。 ( )

I spoke clearly at all times 我总是说得清楚。 ( ) I spoke in complete sentences at all times 我的句子总是很 完整。 ( ) I am confident at all times 我总是有信心。 ( ) I gave my opinions at all times 我说出了完整的个人看法 并加以说明。 ( )

Sentence Completeness 句子完整 Confidence 自信心 Personal Responses 个人看法

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  99

Category

100  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers Table 6.6   Student self-assessment checklist on effective collaboration from the Chinese Language Department, Park View Primary School (2020) Student Self-Assessment 学生自评 Descriptors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Yes

No

I am able to share information and ideas to my peers 我能对同学说清楚事情、看法和建议。 I am able to maintain eye contact with my peers 我说话时会看着我的同学。 I am able to speak loudly 我可以大声地说话。 I listen to the ideas shared by my peers 我认真听同学说话。 I gave my comments politely 我有礼貌地向同学提出建议。

Even though there are no quantitative data to support, my colleagues and I have observed that more students were able to identify and articulate the values during oral practices and Semestral Assessment 2 (SA2, a graded examination at the end of the year) oral examination. It was also noticed that  students were generally more confident in speaking during the oral examination. In summary, we know our students have learnt when they were able to: Give a realistic evaluation of their own performance using the rubrics • • Know how they can move on to the next level in the rubrics • Identify and articulate the values correctly in the SA2 oral examination The package prepared for students helped to prepare them for assessment – students were able to keep to the structure while sharing about the picture and topic during their oral examination. Starting from 2020, we would like to include values and Character & Citizenship Education (CCE) into the category of the self-assessment rubrics. We will start with incorporating values and CCE criteria into the Oral and Composition packages for upper primary. We will also relook into the time frame suitable for conducting the lessons and using the rubrics. The training and usage of rubrics should start from the beginning of the school year so students will be familiar with the requirements of the rubrics. Self-assessment is a very powerful teaching tool and crucial in the Assessment for Learning (AfL) process. Self-assessment requires students to reflect on their own work and judge how well they have performed in relation to the assessment criteria. Once our students can assess their own work and their current knowledge, they will be able to identify gaps in their own learning, take actions to close the learning gaps, monitor their progress, and

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  101 contribute to the self-management of their own learning. Thus, using self-­ assessment as a teaching and learning tool, as well as an assessment method, provides our students with the opportunity to develop a core lifelong learning skill. Self-Assessment in General Contributed by Mr. Tom Stephenson, England, United Kingdom In my experience, self-assessment has always seemed a rather thorny issue and one that schools come to grips with. By this, I mean that the schools I worked in have espoused the value of self-assessment, yet never settled on a suitable way of embedding it in daily practice. Methods of self-assessment have ranged from the very rudimentary, “Hands up if you felt confident about today’s learning”, to more sophisticated written reflections. Colouring in corresponding sad, indifferent, or happy faces has also been used as well as  a traffic light system where green suggested confidence with the work through to red which was a metaphorical cry for help. In each school, the thinking has always seemed to be that it was a worthwhile thing for children to do – it would help them become more reflective, independent learners and provide opportunities to identify areas where they felt additional support was needed. Teachers could then use this information to adapt their teaching accordingly. Yet this is where the problem lies – children didn’t always have that self-awareness to report accurately. One method we experimented with was children writing self-assessment comments after a piece of work. The children were given some guidance as to what we expected and how to actually self-assess (look at the learning objective, do you think you have achieved it? Refer to your success criteria, is that evident? etc.). What became clear was though that even with the input, children would write what they thought we wanted to see. Children would often falsely self-report feeling more confident about work and meeting objectives when the evidence from the work told a very different story. In essence, the self-assessment provided nothing new to the teacher and potentially led to misconceptions or problems being missed. The quality of the written response also fluctuated. Often, time pressures meant that lip service was paid to self-assessment without necessary consideration for the quality of the assessment – as long as something was in the books that was better than nothing. Unsurprisingly, this approach quickly fell by the wayside as it seemed to offer little of real value to either the children or the teachers. It was felt that colouring faces may be more beneficial as it was easier for the children than having to articulate at any length their feelings on a piece of work and would be much quicker for them to complete thus negating any time constraints. It was also a system that could be applied across schools. Again, children were provided with input as to how to use this new system and the sort of things they should consider when making judgements about

102  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers their learning. Children seemed much more receptive to this method of self-assessment and were much more willing to complete it at the end of each lesson. Nevertheless, the problem remained that children would often mis-categorise their understanding initially. They would either be too positive or too negative, demonstrating the disconnect between perception and reality. For some children, the safest option was selecting the middle, indifferent face. This was unsatisfactory though as it didn’t provide any insight as to what the actual issue maybe – was it a question of the children partly understanding the learning, or did they just not find it particularly engaging or interesting? It was then evident that additional follow-up from the teacher was required at this point to help ascertain the child’s thoughts on the work. In short, there is inherent value in self-assessment if it is accurate and if the children are self-aware enough to recognise their own successes or shortcomings. This is not an easy task for children and requires systems to be firmly embedded and implemented consistently – something that may not always be possible with the additional demands of the job. Many teachers felt that it was far better that they stick to the assessments, with the work of the children speaking for itself.

Summary The primary school teachers who shared about their experiences in implementing self-assessment, taught at various levels in primary schools, from as young as Primary 1 (age 7). In terms of experience in implementing self-assessment, some teachers are seasoned advocates of it in their classes or departments while some teachers are new to it. There are several common features among primary school teachers who shared their self-assessment experiences in this chapter. A common feature among the teachers who contributed to this chapter was their belief and mindset about student self-assessment. They believed that self-assessment should be part of learning and teaching in the classroom, there is value in using self-assessment and that their students should be exposed to it. These teachers were willing to introduce self-assessment to their students because they also believed that their students could and should have agency over their own learning through the use of self-assessment. Another similarity among the teachers was that they invested time and effort to include self-assessment in their lessons. They took the time to go through the self-assessment checklist and rubrics with their students, explained the criteria used and taught them how to use them. The teachers also revised the self-assessment to be more student-friendly when they realised that their students were having issues using the self-assessment. Of interest, one of the contributing teachers took two additional steps in her implementation of self-assessment with her students. She started the students on the first task without the use of the self-assessment. She then introduced the self-assessment checklist to the students and explained and guided students on how to use it. Using the self-assessment as a guide, the students

Student Self-Assessment in Primary Schools  103 looked at their work and revised it for the second task. In a bid to get her students to practice the self-assessment checklist and to be familiar with it, she asked her students to peer-check each other’s work and that they have used the checklist correctly. The students went on to a third task. Her students could see the differences between their first task and their third task with the use of the self-assessment checklist. In this way, her students were also bought in to the benefits of self-assessment as they could see and have seen the improvement in their own work. Another encouraging contribution from one of the teachers is one where there is co-construction with the teacher and me as the knowledgeable other to improve the existing self-assessment checklist for the students to use. In addition, when the teacher realised there were differences between her students’ self-assessment via the checklist and her assessment, she proceeded to use two students’ work samples with the biggest discrepancies to show and explain to students how she assessed them. The teacher thus involved and engaged the students explicitly in the assessment process. This procedure resulted in the students becoming more receptive of the self-assessment process and they were eventually more aligned in their self-assessment with the teacher’s assessment. The two contributions highlighted were conducted by teachers with their Primary 1 students (7-year-olds). It served to stress that self-assessment can be used with students as young as Primary 1 if appropriate training and explanation have been carried out with the students. Some of the contributing teachers’ experiences might be similar to your own or they might be widely different. It is hoped that we can all learn something and bring some of the wisdom gleaned through these contributions and sharing into our own implementation of self-assessment in our classrooms. While each context may be different, we can nevertheless adopt and adapt aspects of the self-assessment implementation that would be most appropriate and useful for our students.

For Your Reflection: • In what ways are these teachers’ practices same or different from mine? What is surprising? • What can I learn from these teachers’ practices to make self-assessment an enriching experience for my students? (See also Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8) • Who am I teaching? • What do I want to achieve with student self-assessment? • What are my expectations? • How can I make this work for everyone? • What are my students’ roles? • Am I prepared? (See also Chapters 9 and 10)

104  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Primary School Teachers

For Your Practice: • Look back on a lesson you have taught recently. Try to decide where in that lesson you might have been able to create opportunities for student self-assessment. What form would that self-assessment take? • Look ahead to a lesson you will teach in the near future. Decide where in that lesson you can create opportunities for student self-assessment. What form will that self-assessment take? • Choose a student self-assessment strategy to implement over a period of time. Keep a record of student responses and any improvement in student independence and willingness to accept responsibility for learning. This will provide feedback in how you can make changes to your practice.

Acknowledgement We would like to give acknowledgement to the following teachers for their time and valuable contributions: Mr. Gene Lim, Singapore; Mr. Muhammad Jabbar Bin Jaafar, Cedar Primary School, Singapore; Ms Nurjannah Ayub, Cedar Primary School, Singapore; Ms Stefanie Jardine Watson, England, United Kingdom; Mdm Ng Hui Lan, Singapore; Mdm Chen Shuangshuang, Park View Primary School, Singapore; Mr. Tom Stephenson, England, United Kingdom.

References Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12–19. Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. L. Andrade and G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). Routledge. Elliott, C. & Spielmann, C. (2018). Small group teaching in economics. The Economics Network. https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/smallgroup Ministry of Education (2014). Standards and benchmarks for the emerging 21st century competencies. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education (2021). 21st century competencies. https://www.moe.gov.sg/ education-in-sg/21st-century-competencies Park View Primary School. (2020). Student self-assessment rubric and checklist from Chinese language department. Park View Primary School.

7 Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

The principle is competing against yourself. It’s about self-improvement, about being better than you were the day before. Steve Young (n.d., as cited in Jim Afremow, 2013, p. 93)

Introduction With the earlier chapters, we have walked you through the basics of self-­ assessment and why it is important to teachers and students (Chapter 1) and the different self-assessment models and strategies which teachers can employ (Chapter 2). We have also examined the conditions and climate necessary for implementation (Chapter 3) in addition to the function of feedback in self-assessment (Chapter 4). Like the previous chapter (Chapter 6), this chapter looks at how self-­ assessment has been implemented by various secondary school teachers in their classes. Secondary school teachers from Singapore and England, United Kingdom have contributed generously about their experience in implementing self-assessment in various subject matters. Specific examples of self-assessment are shared for potential adaptation and adoption by interested educators who are new to using self-assessment in their classrooms and schools.

Teachers’ Self-Assessment Implementation in Secondary Schools The secondary school teachers who shared about their implementation experiences of self-assessment, taught at various levels in secondary schools (ages 13–16). At the same time, the contributing teachers also have different years of experience in implementing self-assessment in their classes and subject. The teachers detailed how they familiarised and taught their students about self-assessment. They also described the opportunities and practice given to students to use self-assessment (see also Chapter 3 for other conditions). Students were provided with exemplars to better understand how to use self-assessment. Some teachers also specifically mentioned feedback as an important part of self-assessment (see also Chapter 4). DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-9

106  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers Contributions From Secondary School Teachers on Their Self-Assessment Experiences Contributions from teachers in Singapore and England, United Kingdom about their self-assessment experiences are shared in this section. The self-assessment experiences might be alike to your own experiences or they might be quite different. Depending on the unique context of your classroom, subject, and student profiles, certain aspects of the various self-assessment implementation can be adopted and adapted. Science in Secondary School Contributed by Ms Yap Ching Ying, Singapore It was during the home-based learning period during the Covid-19 pandemic that I realised the importance of self-assessment. It hit me hard when I realised that I could not be there to help every single one of my learners. They would need to help themselves. They would need to carry out self-assessment in order to move forward themselves. In 2021, much deliberate effort has been put in to get my learners familiar with self-assessment. I teach physics at the upper secondary level. The classes that I decided to experiment on are my Secondary 3 (age 15) normal (academic) and express science (physics) classes. USING SELF-ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE LEARNERS’ PRESENTATION OF PROBLEM SOLVING

In the application of physics concepts, often the learners are required to solve a problem through some calculations, and make a conclusion or recommendation based on their workings. Learners generally like shortcuts, using their calculators and only recording the final answer. Formulae and workings were frequently omitted. As a result, errors due to the wrong manipulation of the formula and the wrong choice of units were common. To eliminate the problem, I chose to use rubrics to encourage learners to evaluate their own presentation of work. At the start, I worked with only one requirement (see Figure 7.1). To my surprise, the learners were able to improve their work quality on their own, without my nagging, since they were aware of the “success criteria”. The rubrics slowly expanded when the learners adapted to the self-assessment method (see Figure 7.2) where the questions and rubrics were uploaded onto Classkick, an online platform. USING SELF-ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE LEARNERS’ GRAPHICAL SKILLS DURING PRACTICAL

I have to share that I am most satisfied with the use of self-assessment in physics practical work. The use of a simple checklist has made the majority of my learners more aware of how to improve on their graph drawing and graphical analysis. However, I would still go through the learners’ work to

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  107

Figure 7.1 Simple rubric as a start for learners to familiarise with self-assessment.

Figure 7.2 A sample of learners’ use of the expanded rubrics on their PLDs (personal learning devices).

ensure that the self-assessment component is done properly and accurately. Follow-up actions are necessary for the learners to carry self-assessment correctly the next round. Please see Figure 7.3 for a sample of a learner’s work and her self-assessment As a start, step-by-step use of the checklist was carried out with the classes. For subsequent practicals, the learners were required to draw their own graph without the help of the checklist. The checklist was provided after the

108  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

Figure 7.3 A sample of a learner’s work and her own self-assessment.

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  109

Figure 7.4 Use of rubrics for the learners to assess their graphical analysis.

session for the learners to evaluate their graphs. As the learners grow more confident and familiar with the skills, the checklist started to contain fewer details. The learners were forced to recall and even create new success criteria for the new graphs. Rubrics that were mentioned above were also included for the learners to assess the graphical analysis component (see Figure 7.4). Through these practices of self-assessment, I learnt that “no matter the potential power, any ‘effective’ approach remains unrealised if done only occasionally, indifferently or briefly” (Frey, Hattie, & Fisher, 2018, pg. 143). English in Secondary School Contributed by Mdm Shagun, Singapore Students with a learning goal approach focus their effort on improving their work and getting better. Their goal is to find out what they don’t know and master it. Students with this orientation believe that success means improving their level of competence and developing new skills. They are motivated by desire to become competent by evidence of increasing mastery. They tend to seek help frequently in developing competence and explain help-avoidance in terms of attempting independent mastery. Dweck, 2017; Vandewalle, Nerstad, & Dysvik, 2019. (based on teacher’s personal notes taken during a workshop) Every student on some level desires to improve and be successful. As their English language teacher, I view it as my responsibility to nurture this desire of students to improve and to equip them with the necessary tools to be independently successful. I believe success and achievement to be the result of effort: intelligence can be developed. But the effort has to be expended in a methodical fashion, otherwise students as well as teachers can fall into the trip of wasting effort in exchange for diminished returns. Thus, the focus of the

110  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers effort needs to be in improving work and getting better with the ultimate goal of “to find out what you don’t know and master it”. (bolded by teacher) Teaching my Secondary 3 and 4 students (ages 15 and 16, respectively) to find out what they do not know and help them master it is a challenging task. This is because it requires teaching the students to be comfortable with making mistakes which they have not been necessarily conditioned to do as more often than not students would be punished when they would make a mistake. In addition to being comfortable with making mistakes, students also have to develop a willingness and persistence to keep on trying. These challenges indicate that learning experiences of students should allow for the students to make mistakes, learn from their mistakes, and encourage improvement with positive feedback and reinforcement. My approach of designing learning experiences for students, which is largely referenced from Chappuis (2015), Ames (1992), Halvorson (2012), and Sadler (1989), is at the heart of “assessment for learning” designed to meet teachers’ and students’ information needs to maximise both motivation and achievement, by involving students from the start in their own learning. Chappuis (2015) offered seven strategies phrased as questions from the student’s point of view: 1) 2) 3)

Where am I going? • •

Strategy 1: Clear and understandable learning target Strategy 2: Share/show examples of strong and weak work

Where am I now? • Strategy 3: Regular descriptive feedback during the learning process • Strategy 4: Teach students to self-assess and set goals for next step How can I close the gap? •

Strategy 5: Use evidence of student learning needs to determine next steps in teaching • Strategy 6: Design focused instruction, followed by practice and feedback • Strategy 7: Opportunities for students to track, reflect on and share their learning progress (Chappuis, 2015, pp. 11–14)

The seven strategies by Chappuis (2015) are not a recipe to be followed step by step. Strategies 4 and 7 are “destinations”, Strategies 1 through 3 are “enablers” and Strategies 5 and 6 are “floaters”. Firstly, in order to be clear about the learning goals and success criteria as a teacher, it is crucial to share these with students in student-friendly language. See Table 7.1 and Figure 7.5 for examples of success criteria and checklist for situational writing and reflective writing respectively.

Table 7.1  Situational writing success criteria and checklist Situational Writing – Success Criteria and Checklist A situation writing gives a reader a specific picture or an impression of an idea/event/suggestion by taking into consideration PACC (Purpose, Audience, Context, Culture). One should also critically view the visual stimulus and relate to Question. What are the features of an effective situational writing?

Self-Reflection

Knowledge: What you write Including text form, elements, etc.

Two things I did well:

My writing is organised and with a clear dominant objective with supporting details and conclusion. My writing conveys my thoughts in a clear manner. I know how to use the apt tone: persuasive or objective tone. I know how to use a wide variety of vocabulary to suit the context.

• • Something to think

Thinking: What you say Including ideas, logic in writing, etc. • I plan my essay well and write using many well-defined and developed ideas and images to create a convincing, original, overall picture. • I analyse the question for Purpose, Audience and Context accurately. • I can tackle the ambiguities (if any) in the questions confidently. Communication: The way you say it Including sentence structure, tone, format, etc. • • • • • • • • • •

about for my next writing piece (to make it better): Teacher Feedback Using the success criteria, provide student with feedback about two things done well, and one suggestion for improvement. •

I am able to look for clues to decide if it is a formal or informal writing. I am able to decide the dominant type of writing (report/letter/speech). I am able to use appropriate language features to address the topic. I am able to elaborate on all required points sufficiently. I am able to tackle the ambiguities by filling out other relevant details/information beyond that of the question but relevant • to question. I can make sense of the visual and connect to the purpose by closely reading the given image. My content is detailed: I take into consideration all the required bullets to address the topic. My writing is checked for accuracy and grammatical errors. I can organise and write a persuasive writing using apt vocab. I write in proper paragraphs using clear topic sentences.

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  111

• • • •

112  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

Figure 7.5 Reflective writing success criteria.

These clear checklists and success criteria have enabled the students to be standards-based trackers of their own achievement when evidence is reported by the learning target. Grades without learning targets only tell them how well they have learned something, but not how they have learned. With a direct and clear connection to the learning target, students are better able to reflect metacognitively about their progress over time. They are able to speak more meaningfully about their achievement and about themselves as learners. Secondly, it is essential and important to help students sort through what is and isn’t quality work by using strong and weak models from anonymous student work. For example, in learning how to write an effective and interesting essay, many different essay genres are deconstructed in the class. (See Figure 7.6). Students are asked to analyse these samples for quality and then justify their judge ments. When the students are engaged in analysing, they

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  113 develop a vision of what the knowledge, understanding, skill, product, or performance looks like when it is executed well. In addition, regular and effective feedback is necessary during the process of learning. It can be defined as information provided to students that results in an improvement in learning. Grades and marks deliver a coded summary evaluation without specific information about what students did well or what their next steps in learning might be. Effective feedback identifies student strengths and weaknesses with respect to the specific learning target/s they are trying to achieve in a given assignment. “Assessment requires that pupils have a central part in it….Unless they come to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and how they might

Figure 7.6 Deconstruction of sample.

114  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers deal with them, they will not make progress.” (Harlen & James, 1997, p. 372). Self-assessment equips the students to develop insight into their own work to improve it (Wiliam, 2018). But a question that bothered me most at this point was: “Will the students feel safe to assess their work honestly?” Thus, I encouraged a sense of emotional safety first by explaining why they are doing self-assessment and who will see the information; second, by structuring feedback so that it does not label mistakes as failures, but rather as a way to figure out what is next to learn; and third, by helping students attribute their current status to a mixture of what they have already learned and what they have yet to learn (Chappuis, 2015). For this phase to be a success, it is necessary to provide positive language reinforcement. It is essential that students feel proud of their own products. Please see Table 7.2 and Figure 7.7 for an example of how self-assessment can be crafted positively and a student’s responses respectively. Thus, after every task, I ensure that students are given the opportunity and time to reflect on their learning. They have to state specific skills that they have picked or further honed. This is also the time for me to take stock of the pedagogies and strategies used by me. It helps me to plan and redesign my lessons to support the students. Finally, the outcome is seen in the growth and progress noticeably visible in the students’ assessment of their own performance. The students developed a strong sense of self-reflection, critique, and judgement and ultimately, learnt how to be responsible for their own learning. Table 7.2  Report writing self-assessment Analysing Report Writing Name:………………………… Assignment:……………. Date:………. WE ARE GOOD AT THESE! Learning targets that I got right: WE ARE PRETTY GOOD AT THESE, BUT NEED TO DO A LITTLE REVIEW Learning targets I got wrong because of a mistake I see: What I can do to keep this from happening again: WE NEED TO KEEP LEARNING THESE Learning targets I got wrong and I am not sure what to do to correct them: What I can do to get better at them: (Adapted from Chappuis, 2015)

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  115

Figure 7.7 A student’s responses on the report writing self-assessment. (Adapted from Chappuis, 2015)

Belief in oneself on the basis of evidence ensures that others’ will invest with you. As a facilitator, I try to provide my students with new opportunities and experiences to, “Win, go back to work, win again.” (bolded by teacher for emphasis). Mathematics in Secondary School Contributed by Mr. Martin Scott, England, United Kingdom SELF-ASSESSMENT – GENERAL CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION MATHEMATICS

Self-Assessment, or learners taking control of their learning, was a big agenda in a local Further Education (FE) college1 that I previously worked. Whilst I understand the principle and of course we must strive towards autonomous learning, the concept is sometimes difficult to achieve in a subject such as GCSE Mathematics, where learners are mandated to study. The intention was for learners to reflect and identify/agree upon the areas that needed developing, so that they could set targets to improve. In a GCSE Mathematics re-sit year, there is a huge variety of topics to cover, in a limited timeframe, so it is

116  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers not an unreasonable goal to focus upon the most prevalent areas of learning, that require the most attention. The idea was that learners would reflect upon their development and set targets following each formal, formative assessment point. The re-sit/revision GCSE Mathematics year comprised of five key assessment points, an initial, one in each of three terms and a final mock. Students would reflect upon their assessment score and set targets as a result. Further targets would also be agreed in one-to-one meetings each half term, informed by learner tracking forms, where each learner would comment on the content covered in each lesson and rate their confidence in that area as a result. The whole approach was to inform or direct further revision. The approach to self-reflection was replicated across the whole organisation and from a management perspective, ensuring a uniform approach to tracking progress. Evidence of a learning journey would be available in learner files, identifying starting points and evidence of progress towards the destination. Opportunities for self-assessment were evident after each lesson, each assessment, each half-term and as a result, each learner would be able to identify targets to improve regardless of their chosen curriculum area, teacher, or location of study. In theory, learners would be able to take control of their learning both inside and outside of the classroom, with a clear awareness of how they are performing and what they need to do to improve. There were some issues that became prevalent as a result of this approach, however. Many, if not all the learners were mandated to study GCSE Mathematics as part of study programme requirements, and as a result, the investment required to succeed was not always evident. Given concerns regarding commitment, regardless of how much self-assessment opportunities were available, it was unlikely that those learners would take control of their learning. Similarly, there was a lack of commitment to this approach from teachers, many feeling that this obligation performed as an audit trail to evidence how teachers were meeting learner needs, effectively evidencing them doing their job. The truth is, that this likely formed part of the thinking behind this approach, however further complications were evident in the roll out. Many learners did not know how to self-assess, reflect, or set targets, nor did they see value in doing so. The most committed of teachers would spend lessons setting up-files, showing students how to mark/self-assess against criteria, providing example reflections and giving stems to effective targets. As a result, some learners became really good at self-assessment and setting targets, but not always progressing in the areas they needed to, their mathematics qualification. This approach was very time-consuming and at times, only served to distract from content delivery and actually delivering the mathematics curriculum! Time is limited in a GCSE Mathematics year. Such time is needed to reframe the curriculum and attitudes towards mathematics, a subject that the majority of learners have previously been unsuccessful in. Time is needed to reverse the fortunes each learner’s success in mathematics. Unfortunately, this approach to self-assessment, despite its intention, the quality of delivery or who was invested in it, only served distract from the actual teaching of mathematics.

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  117 Art in Secondary School Contributed by Mdm Ira Wati Bte Sukaimi, Singapore The following examples seek to demonstrate how student self-assessment (SSA) can be enacted in a Secondary 1 (age 13) Art curriculum. Learning intentions for these examples range from achieving astute observation skills to in technical competency in various media. The design of learning experiences has been largely referenced from Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning (SRL) model which comprises the forethought, performance, and reflection phases (Zimmerman & Campillo, 2003). To nurture cognitive SRL, scaffolding through worksheets, visual exemplars, and dedicated time to facilitate student-centric content and assessment were curated and facilitated. The subsequent sections will demonstrate some of these strategies where the SRL phases were enacted to support SSA. FORETHOUGHT PHASE

My fellow Art teachers and I facilitate deeper understanding about learning intentions and success criteria as a way to unpack and analyse the performance task that students will undertake in each module. In the first week of a drawing module, for instance, success criteria were co-constructed with students as a form of feeding up. Students gave a closer look at teacher-prepared visual exemplars through engaging in a “matching” exercise (see Table 7.3 and Figure 7.8). In their groups, students analysed descriptors and matched them to the visual exemplars placed in front of the Table 7.3  Matching descriptors to images Discuss in your table groups to match the following phrases to their respective images. I can draw overlapping shapes on each part of the origami accurately. I can improve by drawing the edges of my drawing with a variety of line weight.

I can draw the overlapping shapes on each part of the origami accurately. I can draw the edges of my drawing in a variety of line weight.

I can draw the overlapping shapes on each part of the origami accurately. I can draw the edges of my drawing in a variety of line weight. I can shade in different grey tones to show form (3Dness).

I can draw the overlapping shapes on each part of the origami accurately. I can draw the edges of my drawing in a variety of line weight. I can shade in different grey tones to show form (3Dness). I can show the texture of the paper.

118  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

Figure 7.8 Matching descriptors to images.

classroom. A facilitated class discussion thereafter invited students to rank the matching combinations into ascending performance levels. Since the product from this activity was visual, students observed how they had collectively co-constructed standards and criteria for the coming performance task and gave meaning to the rubrics. PERFORMANCE PHASE

For students to deliberate and plan their course of action before executing their artwork, Compass Point, a thinking routine (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011) that invites learners to evaluate and consider their ideas and propositions, was introduced. Previously, students would jump into tasks and make irreversible mistakes due to surface thinking and poor planning. With Compass Point, students were forced to ponder on their plans and decisions, pre-empt problems and think about solutions even before it occurs. This document becomes a valuable source when students engage in SSA as they can reflect on their processes and metacognition to assess their individual development in the project (see Figure 7.9). SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) has also been used to propagate SSA in Art. It involves learners to make the process behind their own

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  119

Figure 7.9  Compass point worksheet before the execution of a sculptural hat project.

120  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

Figure 7.10 Rubrics based on SOLO Taxonomy for a ceramics project.

learning explicit, as teachers are forced to break the performance task into progressive smaller units of learning. It helps students understand where they are on the learning spectrum, and what they need to do to progress. Notice how the first-person pronoun, “I can” in this example has been used to advocate ownership of learning and empower students to make a conscious assessment of their individual learning progression (see Figure 7.10). REFLECTION PHASE

For SSA to be effective, teachers provided structures for students to engage in reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action (Schön, 1983) to allow them to make a fair and accurate evaluation of their own learning. Reflection-in-Action As a mid-point check, reflection-in-action allows students to actively reflect on their thoughts and actions to make improvements before the completion of a performance task. In the example of a Reflection-in-action worksheet (Figure 7.11), students self-assessed their level of competency and reflected on the reasons for their attainment. The next step requires students to identify strategies and resolve problems to proceed to the next level of achievement. Students were reminded that the success criteria must be referenced in their responses. Besides SSA, students were also given access to teacher’s assessment via feedback slips (see Figure 7.12). Teachers’ feedback allows students to

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  121

Figure 7.11 Reflection-in-action worksheet for a drawing module.

122  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

Figure 7.12 Teachers’ feedback slip.

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  123 analyse misconceptions and misinterpretations of standards and encourage error detection when there are discrepancies between the student’s and teacher’s assessments. Reflection-on-Action Reflection-on-action allows students to analyse the processes that led to a completed task. To encourage SSA at this stage, the thinking routine See, Think, Wonder (Ritchhart et al., 2011) was adopted as a structure to scaffold their internal feedback (see Figure 7.13).

Figure 7.13 Reflection-on-action worksheet for a sculptural hat project and the final product.

124  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers When there is clarity in expectations (through success criteria and learning intentions), students exhibit an increase in motivation, confidence, and engagement in their performance task. Clarity about standards and what these entail have also allowed students to be more articulate in the way they self-assess and explain their levels of attainment. This was illustrated through their understanding and use of specific art vocabulary in their reflections. Through SSA, the discrepancy between students’ self-perceived grade and the teacher’s assessment will bring to light any misconceptions and errors, allowing teachers to address them in a more timely manner. *[While we observe heightened capacity to generate internal feedback, students have mentioned that they find themselves struggling to reach a certain level of competency in media rendering. After all, art is a performance-based subject where learners can become better with rounds of rigorous practice. As a result, this may perpetuate a fixed mindset affliction among low progress learners who are not able to commit time for art practice. – Teacher’s personal thoughts] Design and Technology in Secondary School Contributed by Mr. Edward Leow Mun Tat, Singapore This is a formative assessment that is administered in a Secondary 1 (age 13) Design and Technology class after a 90-minute lesson on 3D Free-hand sketch with students considering relevant factors when generating and developing their ideas. The learning outcomes are that the students will be able to produce 3D Free-hand sketch of good line quality with the use of crating techniques and design their Light Device for their chosen situation. Links to video demonstrations of 3D sketches and worksheets are provided to the students as learning materials. During the 90-minute lesson, students are briefed on the scoring rubrics. Next is a teacher’s demonstration for students to model the techniques skills required for the task, which is followed by feedback given to students during table-to-table facilitation by teachers. After the 90-minute lesson, an assessment task of sketching their design solution would be given to each student. They are to complete this assessment task in 90 minutes for the next subsequent lesson. The assessment is administered in a classroom. Current Assessment Practice The use of scoring rubrics with separate scores for each skill category provides the students with specific feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of their performance with respect to each criterion. See Figure 7.14. It also helps teachers both in terms of providing feedback during facilitation, and standardisation of marking when there is more than one marker for the level. Students are asked to produce not more than four sketches for an idea within the assessment task to exhibit what is being taught in terms

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  125

Figure 7.14  Rubric from Design & Technology syllabus for lower secondary (MOE, 2017).

of  content and to demonstrate attainment of their proficiency. See Figure 7.15 for the worksheet. As the assessment criteria rely solemnly on the descriptors which often could be subjective and different from one’s interpretation to another. Teachers often must clarify with one another and conduct standardisation to ensure their facilitation and assessment are aligned. Rubric should also be able to provide students with information of where their work is in relation to the expectation and target set. It should also provide students with a deeper understanding of what quality work looks like and how they should work towards improvement. In this way, students can self-assess, communicate their status, and progress forward. As the class size is 40, it can be difficult for teachers to provide sufficient attention to each student during facilitation. The teacher may also find themselves limited by time should they wish to demonstrate or explain the criteria to students individually. Furthermore, even though the teacher would have briefed the students about the rubrics, with the absent of examples for students to really model what it really meant when put into practice. Student-involved assessment can hence be considered as students themselves can be a useful source of feedback via self-assessment. So, how can the teacher provide the scaffolding necessary to ensure that the student is able to work on their feedback with some degree of independence? Implementation To ensure that students are able to use the rubric and feedback and that teachers can use the rubric to scaffold the students’ learning, we can start off by the teacher providing pre-task guidance using the rubrics checklist and exemplar before students commencing on their task. By providing exemplars, students are able to see clearly and visually the expectations and quality of work at each level of the criterion. The rubric checklist and exemplar are extremely useful to orientate student expectations and requirements. See Figure 7.16. Self-assessment is a means to provide opportunities for students to evaluate their quality of work and compare their work against the requirements and criteria in the rubric checklist with exemplars. There must be a cycle of reflection and self-improvement, which both empowers the student and

126  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers

Figure 7.15 Worksheet from Design and Technology Department, Temasek Secondary School (2021).

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  127

Figure 7.16 Rubric and exemplar from design and technology department, Temasek Secondary School (2021).

128  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers provides them with an increased sense of ownership of their work. However, they need to be taught how to become more independent and more motivated in sketching by being explicitly told what they can do to be better. Therefore, we also encourage students to ask questions and make visual records on how they can improve and have improved. Teachers can also build on students’ awareness and show them the strategies on how they can improve. Besides developing students’ self-assessment skills, we also need to develop students’ feedback literacy, which is an important aspect in student’s learning as well. Effective feedback would build capacity, prime the learner, and build the culture to provide information not only on how the students fare based on the rubric, but also on how the student can improve in his/her next sketch and design. When students are receptive to feedback, it can be a way to remove their stigma of being unable to draw well or not being creative enough. When feedback given is constructive and encouraging, students may find enjoyment in sketching and designing. Carless (2016) suggested that dialogic feedback can be seen as an “inner dialogue or self-monitoring in which students are engaged when they are tackling a task” (p. 4). It inculcates student ownership in judging their own learning and benchmarking comparing with the expectation and standard. They would be able to sketch on demand, sketch independently and sketch clearly, claimed by Sadler (2007) to be the definition of learning. Last but not least, teachers will also need to monitor, moderate, and intervene when the progress is not in line with the expectations. Reflection From a teacher’s point of view, student self-assessment is very appropriate to develop students’ self-monitoring and ownership to their own learning. It can be used as scaffolding to promote the gradual release of responsibility to build students’ self-efficacy. With adequate preparation and a safe environment, the teacher could move his/her lesson enactment towards peers’ assessment. This can allow students to engage in the commentary of peers’ work so that they could heighten their own capacity for judgement and making intellectual choices. Students who receive feedback from peers can also get a wider range of ideas about their work to promote development and improvement.

Summary The secondary school teachers shared generously with us their implementation of student self-assessment with students who are new to secondary schools, at Secondary 1 (age 13) to older students who are sitting for GCSE in England, United Kingdom, typically between 16 years old and 18 years old. There is a nice spread of subjects, which the teachers implemented the student self-assessment in.

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  129 As with Chapter 6, there is a mutual belief among the secondary school teachers that student self-assessment is beneficial to students’ learning. The teachers have put in time and effort to incorporate self-assessment opportunities and activities into their lessons. Besides incorporating self-assessment into the lessons, the teachers also took the time to introduce self-assessment to the students, explained the self-assessment criteria and used work samples and exemplars to explain the criteria (see Chapter 3 for other conditions). After observations and with students’ feedback, teachers also modified the  self-assessment to make it more user-friendly and appropriate for the students. Interestingly, one of the contributing teachers, despite acknowledging and witnessing that some students became very good at self-assessment and setting goals, felt that self-assessment was time-consuming and was not appropriate for students who were preparing for their academic qualification within the high-stakes year. In other words, he felt that during the year when students were preparing for their academic qualification, time was more urgently needed to rethink the curriculum and reshape attitudes towards the subject and to teach the content rather than to be used to teach students how to use self-assessment. Perhaps from this contribution, what we learnt is that when students learnt how to use self-assessment is important. It seems the earlier we start to teach our students to use self-assessment, the more benefits will be reaped by the students rather than to wait till the high-stakes year to teach students about self-assessment. Another noteworthy feature among some of the contributing secondary school teachers was the specific mention about developing students’ feedback literacy and the importance of feedback in the students’ learning process (see Chapter 4). Based on the self-assessment, there was self-feedback as well as teacher-student feedback which were important for students to follow up on in order to improve their work. The contributions mentioned emphasised the importance of starting the implementation of self-assessment as early as possible, rather than wait till the high-stakes year to start. Students’ feedback literacy was also stressed as part of the students’ learning process which should not be overlooked.

For Your Reflection: • In what ways are these teachers’ practices same or different from mine? What is surprising? • What can I learn from these teachers’ practices to make self-assessment an enriching experience for my students? (See also Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) • Who am I teaching? • What do I want to achieve with student self-assessment?

130  Hwei Ming Wong and Contributing Secondary School Teachers • • • •

What are my expectations? How can I make this work for everyone? What are my students’ roles? Am I prepared? (See also Chapter 9 and 10)

For Your Practice: • Look back on a lesson you have taught recently. Try to decide where in that lesson you might have been able to create opportunities for student self-assessment. What form would that self-­ assessment take? • Look ahead to a lesson you will teach in the near future. Decide where in that lesson you can create opportunities for student self-assessment. What form will that self-assessment take? • Choose a student self-assessment strategy to implement over a period of time. Keep a record of student responses and any improvement in student independence and willingness to accept responsibility for learning. This will provide feedback in how you can make changes to your practice.

Acknowledgement We would like to give acknowledgement to the following teachers for their time and valuable contributions: Ms Yap Ching Ying, Marsiling Secondary School, Singapore Mdm Shagun, Mayflower Secondary School, Singapore Mr. Martin Scott, England, United Kingdom Mdm Ira Wati Bte Sukaimi, Mayflower Secondary School, Singapore Mr. Edward Leow Mun Tat, Temasek Secondary School, Singapore

Note 1 Further education colleges are attended by people of all ages, from 16 years old onwards but most students are between 16 and 18 years old. https://www. careerpilot.org.uk/parent-zone/all-questions/what-is-a-further-education-collegeand-what-courses-do-they-offer#:~:text=FE%20colleges%20use%20Labour%20 Market,16%20and%2018%20years%20old.

References Afremow, J. A. (2013). The champion’s mind: How great athletes think, train, and thrive. Rodale Books. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.

Student Self-Assessment in Secondary Schools  131 Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. E. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of observed learning outcomes). Academic Press. Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. In M.A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Springer Science and Media Business. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_389-1 Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset. Robinson. Frey, N., Hattie, J., & Fisher, D. (2018). Developing assessment-capable visible learners, grades K-12: Maximizing skill, will, and thrill. Corwin Literacy. Halvorson, H. G. (2012). Succeed: How we can reach our goals. Penguin. Harlen, W. & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice (4)3, 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0969594970040304 Ministry of Education. (2017). Design & technology syllabus for lower secondary. https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/secondary/syllabuses/science/2017-damp-t-lower-secondary-syllabus.ashx?la=en&hash=971F6BDB0C08D872218D 699ECF5AEE276F8DE118 Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible. Jossey Bass Wiley. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Sadler, D. R. (2007) Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 387–392. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Temasek Secondary School. (2021). Self-assessment rubric from design & technology department. Temasek Secondary School. Vandewalle, D., Nerstad, C. G. L., & Dysvik, A. (2019). Goal orientation: A review of the miles traveled and the miles to go. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-orgpsych-041015-062547 Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded formative assessment (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press. Zimmerman, B. J. & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262). Cambridge University Press.

8 Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step Chapter 64 of the Dao De Jing ascribed to Laozi

Introduction This chapter evaluates two student self-­assessment (SSA) practices in Higher Education (HE) in Singapore and three in Further Education (FE) in England (Wales and Scotland have different education systems). The previous chapters focused on SSA in K-­12, where practices, particularly in a small country like Singapore, have more uniform and structured staff development processes. To attempt to clarify which (self)assessment processes are being used, these will be made explicit, using the principles and practices explained in Chapters 1 and 2. Assessment is so complex that without making each step explicit, it is difficult to both understand, and importantly, to share our assessment practices, especially since many of them have become implicit (see discussion on feedback in Chapter 10). Basically, SA is an assessment, producing information which either remains in the assessors’ heads or it is expressed as “feedback” in the form of words, grades, or actions. If the information is used by the assessor, it is SSA. If the information is used by someone else who has produced the work, e.g. students, then it is FA. ‘Notes’ have been added at the end of certain contributing tutors’ sections to clarify when there is assessing and SSA, which is far more than we generally imagine. This book has used the term “SSA” to represent student self-­assessment, yet in this chapter, even as professionals, there are moments when we are also students. Differentiating between our roles as professionals, colleagues, and students has been especially difficult here.

In-Service Teachers’ Staff Development: Dr Tay Hui Yong, Singapore There is a saying variously ascribed to Confucius or Benjamin Franklin: “Tell me, I’ll forget; Show me, I may remember; Involve me, and I’ll understand.” If I may add, “Let me enact it so I understand better.” So, during my professional development workshops on SSA, I go beyond telling teachers the DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-10

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  133 theories or showing them examples of how other teachers practice SSA. Instead, teachers experience SSA themselves to help them understand what it involves. I use an adapted version of Taras’ SSA model (Taras, 2010), guided also by principles for peer feedback by Panadero, Jonsson, and Alqassab (2018). It involves ten steps organised round three stages: prep, process, and post-­SSA:

Prep: 1. In the first part of the workshop (Note 1), participants are exposed to various SSA models (Taras, 2010). Discussion centres on the benefits and challenges presented by each model. Participants also reflect on their current practices against the models. 2. Participants are shown examples of how teachers in their subject/age-­ group contexts use these models. I model (Note 2) giving peer feedback to one/two examples using the Praise-­Question-­Polish (PQP) protocol that helps to respectively generate points to commend, clarify or improve. 3. Participants are encouraged to critique these examples to see how they may be adapted to their own contexts.

Process (experiencing SSA themselves): 4. Teachers then draw up plans on how to use SSA in their own classes (Note 3). 5. They discuss these plans with fellow participants to get feedback. Again, participants are encouraged to use PQP protocol during group discussions. 6. The teachers then refine and carry out their lessons which involve SSA for their students (Note 4). 7. The teachers are asked to reflect on their lesson after they had carried it out, supported by student feedback or artefacts (if possible).

Post-SSA: 8. In the following session of the workshop, teachers share on the lesson that they had carried out and their own reflections (Note 5). 9. As workshop facilitator/instructor, I give feedback on one or two key areas to affirm or to suggest refinement. But generally, I find that fellow participants can pick up relevant areas to comment on. 10. After receiving the peer and instructor feedback, the participant must evaluate whether to incorporate any of it in a similar or next round of SSA (Note 6). Often the reflections shared by workshop participants are heartening. They often comment that students were more engaged when they were involved in SSA, rather than just being presented with the correct answer by the teacher. In fact, the class discussions were richer as the students sought to clarify and articulate their understanding. The SSA also helped them identify where some students may need more help (Note 7). Inevitably, they bemoan the longer time taken but they weigh it against the benefits of getting students to engage in generating feedback for themselves (Note 8).

134  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors (Note 1) Discussing the models is a summative assessment (SA) and peer feedback of each SSA model. Subsequently, teacher/students “reflect on their current practices against the models”, that is, they SSA their classroom practices and compare this SSA to the models (SA). Thus, a great deal of SA, SSA, and peer assessment takes place which requires much thought, clarification, and understanding. (Note 2) This is SA by the tutor and teacher/students against the SSAs of their contexts. (Note 3) Teacher/students plan how they will use SSA (and which model they will use and adapt) with their own students. They SSA this plan and then peer assess in groups, using PQP protocol. Teacher/students update their plan to implement in their classrooms (SSA). (Note 4) Teacher/students assess the lesson process continually (SA) (and SSA of their own role), while/after students carry out SSA of their own work and possibly peer assessment. During this process, teacher/students are also assessing both the process, students’ reactions, and SSA of the efficiency of their own lesson plan. Finally, they collect student feedback and/or artefacts, this would be SA and SSA (of their own expectations) of students’ SSA of their own classroom context and processes. (Note 5) At HY’s following workshop session, teacher/students exchange their experiences along with their assessments (SA and SSA). This is SA of their own and others’ SSA lessons. (Note 6) Teacher/students decide if they will use peer and/or tutor feedback (like Taras’ integrated feedback SSA) and/or change their processes (SSA) or not in the next round of SSA use with their students. Therefore, there is consolidation of SSA practice integrating it into classroom processes. (Note 7) Teacher feedback is no longer a guessing game. Students by understanding their own learning issues can also share them with their tutors so that they are working collaboratively for a common goal, which is learning, for both tutors and students. (Note 8) Time is inevitably the negative, and, is generally cited as one of the main reasons for not doing SSA. It is invariably quicker to “tell” rather than to allow students to think and discuss ideas. In our current student-­ centred discourses, this should not be an issue when quicker is invariably pedagogically worse (see Chapter 9). In this SSA report, it is particularly exciting to see the interactive cycles of learning for both teachers and students intertwined and supporting each other, all orchestrated by the university tutor. Looking at the processes of assessment within the interactions of teacher/ students in Hui Yong’s classes, it becomes clear that most of the assessments are SAs by the tutor and teacher/students, that is, assessing the SSA models, assessing the assessments of past teacher/students’, as well as Hui Yong’s assessments of SSA models and past and current teacher/students’ assessments. Thus, the cycle of understanding the different contexts to build a knowledge base for current teacher/students is of SA plus SSA of their own contexts and opinions.

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  135 (9) This example will not be commented upon. Example (9) Level selected Learning Intentions/ Success Criteria Lesson sequence

: Secondary 2 Express (14 years old) :S  tudents will be able to generate ideas related to the theme in a video and elaborate using ICPK and IKMNG technique Introduction 1. Teacher introduces the success criteria for the lesson and write them clearly on the whiteboard for students to refer to throughout the lesson. 2. Teacher starts off by gathering students’ feedback using pear deck’s emoji on the previous oral practice they did in class. 3. Teacher gets students to share by typing in their responses what were their challenges and what they feel they need to do in order to feel better about the oral practice. Main Activity 1. Teacher starts off by summarising together with the class the criteria(s) students gave in order for a quality response for oral. 2. Teacher gets students to refer to the success criteria on the board to draw conclusions and use them as guiding principles when sharing their views. 3. Teacher links students’ input and presents it in a checklist template. 4. Teacher then gets students to listen to one sample audio recording (intentionally selected from the previous lesson) and the script. 5. Teacher gets students to use the checklist they have come up with to analyse the audio recording – jotting down 1 to 2 points that they felt needed improvement and what do they suggest their peer could do to meet the success criteria? 6. Teacher gets students to share their feedback (flashing on screen). 7. Students then try another sample on their own. Second sample for practice and to build confidence. SSA 1. Teacher gets students to reiterate the key points needed for a good oral response and then tasks students to look at their own audio recording script as well as hearing them to analyse their own work. Students will use the checklist. 2. Teacher gets students to share some of their common mistakes that they have identified and suggest what they need to add or adjust in order to improve on their responses. 3. Teacher then gets students to recreate their initial audio recording by adding or adjusting things they have identified as needed improvements. 4. Students share their work in the online portfolio for peers to see and for teachers to feedback. Closure . Teacher gets students to summarise what they have learnt. 1 2. Teacher reiterates the key message. (Continued)

136  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors (Continued) Teacher Reflection

Student artefacts/ reflections (if available)

The lesson took a longer time as students had to revisit their oral practice and reflect on what they could have done in order to submit a good piece of recording (response to video). This also helps students to be more critical about the technique ICPK that they have learnt in sec 1. Students were more careful and responsible over their own learning. On another note, the lesson also gave me insights to struggling learners: they realised that they know the technique ICPK by heart but don’t know how to apply it well. This was an eye opener for me and through peer marking, they learnt from their peers on how to apply the technique. Moving forward, I thought of preparing simple phrases to help Low Progress Learners remember the technique and how to apply it. Nama: ___________ Kelas: 2 _________ Tarikh: ____________ Senarai Semak Komponen

Penerangan

Isi

Isi/Idea utama menjawab soalan Contoh yang diberikan sesuai dengan isi utama

Tanda

Pengalaman diri sendiri (Individu) • • Pengalaman dengan Keluarga, Masyarakat, Negara Perasann kamu/Pendapat/Penilaian

Bahasa

Bagaimana perasaan kamu? • • Mengapa kamu berasa seperti itu? Kait kembali kepada soalan/rumusan (summary) ATAU Kesan terhadap Individu/Keluarga/ Masyarakat, Negara Mengunakan bahasa Melayu Baku Manggunakan ayat-­ayat penuh dan betul (gramatis)

Koem-komen lain: Disemak oleh:

Masters Module MAEM 842: Dr Kelvin Tan, Singapore Participants in the postgraduate course “Critical perspectives of assessment policies and practices” are typically school or middle leaders. These students are very confident of their views and actions in schools but given the long

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  137 absence from formal study are less confident of appraising requisite achievement standards in the course. An early introduction and interaction with course rubrics would therefore be very helpful for their learning and development. There were 20 participants in the course, with varying levels of confidence and competency. I had pondered three possibilities for introducing my students to the course rubric. The first possibility was to introduce the complete rubric with them and seek clarification about areas or descriptors. This was the most expedient option, but the least effective in engaging them on what standards and criteria should articulate their collective anticipated achievement. The second possibility was to co-­construct the rubric with them. I had envisaged asking them for assessment criteria, then negotiating a final set of criteria and inviting them to draft grade descriptors. But this would have taken too much time, and I felt it would have overwhelmed and intimidated some of them. I realise from the class discussions in the first seminar that some participants had unduly high expectations that seemed to burden and hinder them. Hence, I thought of and settled on the third option which was to focus on involving the participants in self-­assessing the achievement standards of the course. Below are the instructions given to the participants after the second of 13 lessons in the course. It did not require any drafting (which some seemed to be very apprehensive of), and merely required them to assign each of the three descriptors to a grade. July 09 MEM 840 Bb Task (1) The following are 3 random grade descriptors for describing what each participant in MEM 840 may be able to demonstrate in terms of applying informed theoretical understanding to their assessment practice/context. • A simplistic, superficial, and at times inaccurate reading of the fundamental assessment ideas in this course. Mechanically applies prescribed assessment theories and recommended practices with little regard for specific assessment contexts. Does not portray the relevant literature, nor individual readings, on specific issues, accurately. • The participant is able to accurately apply each theory or idea accurately to a given problem but may tend to assume that all theories/ articles are equally applicable to the assessment issue/context. It identifies presenting issues and attempts to unpack some of the underlying causes. • It tends to accept everything that is asserted in a reading. Fails to identify pertinent assessment issues and is patchy in its selection of readings and assessment principles. May also have a tendency to prescribe assessment practices without sound reference to relevant principles.

138  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors

Your tasks: 1. In the empty rubric shell below (Table 8.1), slot (copy and paste) each descriptor into the specific grade you think it articulates. 2. Complete the rubric by drafting grade descriptors for the remaining 2 grades. 3. Post your completed rubric in the Discussion Board Forum. Their responses were posted on the forum discussion in the Blackboard Learning Management System, and this meant that their classmates could view each other’s submissions. I was initially concerned that some classmates would change their submission after reading their classmates’, but this proved to be unfounded. The submissions were collated and presented as a table (see Table 8.2) and discussed with the class in the third lesson of the course. I asked students for their views, and they could see from the table that a small minority (4 out of 20) could guess their grade levels of the descriptors accurately. The majority of students (16 out of 20) assessed the descriptor to be a high grade than I had intended. What followed was a useful opportunity for reflection. Students expressed relief that their perceived standards were not lower than mine (Note 1). It was an opportunity for me to reassure them that perhaps many of them were setting unduly high (grade) expectations, and this majority perception if left unchecked could dominate the class discourse and create unrealistic and unhelpful stress. With the psychological stress easing amongst the participants, we could then proceed to discuss the detailed requisite expectations of learning in the course and the complete rubrics. I also believe that this simple self-­assessment activity was an early and easy introduction to students engaging with their self-­assessment ability, and the consequent cognisance prevailed or the rest of the course in their discussions and judgements on assessment policies and practices in schools. (Note 1) I am rather confused as to why teacher/students should be relieved at getting this wrong. If 16 thought the descriptors were a higher grade than intended by the tutor, they were inflating the grades. Why is it better to over grade rather than under-­grade? I would have thought that any SSA error would be equally problematic. Also, the perceived standards were lower than the tutor’s because they expected more for less work. Table 8.1  General rubric to guide all assessments in MEM 840 July 2009 Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D Grade F

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  139 Table 8.2  MEM 840 grade descriptors perceptions Perceived A

B

C

D

It tends to accept everything that is asserted in a reading. Fails to identify pertinent assessment issues, and patchy in its selection of readings … tendency to prescribe … 4 16

1

Actual A B

C

D

E

1 The participants are able to accurately apply each theory or idea accurately to a given problem, but may tend to assume that all theories/ articles are equally applicable … 4 15

A simplistic, superficial and at times inaccurate reading of the fundamental assessment ideas in this course. Mechanically applies … little regard for specific assessment context. 3 16

E

140  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors (Note 2) I had difficulty working out where the SSA processes took place for the students until I separated the steps of the assessment processes involved. The steps are: . Assessing of the rubrics and where they fit in the table (SA). 1 2. Posted rubrics on the virtual discussion forum. 3. Drafting achievement standards for the two missing letter grades, placing in the table, and posting on the forum. 4. Tutor posts all teacher/students’ tables on the virtual discussion forum. 5. Teacher/students assessing their peers’ decisions and rubrics and comparing them to their own is SSA although this was not carried out formally. 6. Tutor provides the table showing students’ and own decisions/rubrics. 7. Assessing their own and peers’ decisions/rubrics and comparing them to the tutor’s is SA and SSA. It is interesting that the tutor was concerned that the students would change their work after reading their peers. In the assessment worlds we live in, being true to oneself and having the courage to make mistakes and get things wrong has become very difficult. First, there is the issue of shame or losing face, which I have found equally strong across all cultures in which I have worked. Second, there is the stigma of failure or low grades, which somehow is perceived as diminishing us as human beings, no matter at what age. Perhaps, being older, and “wiser” makes it even harder to face up to failure and simply not knowing something. The more we know, the greater the pressure for us to know more. The tutor’s concern here is very important for the students’ learning because SSA is predicated on “honesty” with oneself. It is a sign of the thoughtfulness and quality of the pedagogic processes that the students felt secure and were not tempted to adjust their work once they saw their peers’.

Examples of SSA in FE in England Three examples are evaluated from FE in England. In two examples tutors have their lessons observed by management and one focuses on the tutor’s SSA and the other one on including student SSA in her lessons. The final SSA involves teenage maths students who are obliged to re-­sit failed maths GCSE exams, which stands out as being very different from the other four examples of the chapter.

Vocational Education, FE: Emma Little, England Prior to working at the University (September 2020) I taught in a large Further Education College, working with learners aged 16 to 19. The learners were following a vocational education pathway studying Cache/BTEC

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  141 Diplomas in Child Care Learning and Development at levels 2 and 3. Both programmes included units of study which were assessed and awarded internally, with the relevant quality assurance procedures. Assessments were carried out in a variety of forms including, professional discussions, case studies, essays etc. Level 2 was a pass/fail and level 3 was graded D–A*, but both focused on an evidence-­based portfolio of assessed work. Within my role as a lecturer, I had to assess the learners at both formative and summative levels. Formative assessment was usually carried out continuously in a number of ways, including effective questioning, plenary activities, and feedback during individual teaching sessions. All of which informed my planning and practice to ensure that the learners progress. The summative assessment however was very prescribed, this is because it is pre-­determined by the awarding body with fixed grading criteria. Learners complete in the region of 200 pieces of assessed work during the course, thus, placing a lot of demands on my time as a lecturer. Therefore, one way of increasing the efficiency of assessment was to allow learners to play a role in assessing themselves and each other, by way of both self and peer assessment. During an observation on my practice, it was noted that there had been a missed opportunity in the session for learners to participate in self-­assessment. After the observation, I then noticed that self-­assessment is an assessment tool which was used often by my colleagues. Following some reflection and consideration through discussions with my colleagues, I decided to examine the use of self-­assessment within my teaching and actually used it as a focus for some action research (Note 1). By allowing the learners to participate in self-­ assessment (Note 2) I  wanted them to gain an increased understanding and acceptance of the current assessment and grading system. I found the main benefits of self-­ assessment at this level being that it can save a huge amount of marking, thus reducing workload, and learners view self-­assessment as a fair way of assessing work and feel more involved in the process compared to other assessment methods (Note 3). I often carried out several self-­assessment activities with the learners during their studies, including learners assessing their own and each other’s practical skills, subject knowledge audits and assessing evidence for their portfolios. The learners were given the grading criteria for each assessment and usually some form of pro-­forma to complete. Before the self-­assessment was carried out, the grading criterion was discussed in detail with the learners to ensure that they understood it fully (Note 4). During the assessment, learners were required to individually grade themselves according to the criteria and then justify the grade during a discussion with myself afterwards (Note 5). Overall grades along with verbal and written feedback were then allocated to the learner being assessed (Note 6). During the implementation of the self-­assessment activities, I gained an insight into the attitudes of the learners in that some learners were more willing to participate than others, some believing it was not worthwhile. Therefore, it was important to ensure that I made the process transparent to

142  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors learners and what the purpose actually was. On the whole, it indicated that the introduction of self-­ assessment within my sessions was successful in engaging learners in the assessment process and improving their understanding of the grading criteria. (Note 1) Peer assessment of observing tutor signals missed opportunity for including students. Emma’s peer assessment of colleagues noted SSA use by colleagues. Her own SSA and peer assessment made her decide to use SSA with her students. (Note 2) The tutor uses the word “allow” students to use SSA, which acknowledges power differentials (see Chapter 9). However, it minimises the effort that the tutor went to in order to set up SSA. Furthermore, by doing action research, it demonstrates a desire to go deeper than just the SSA process, and to also understand other aspects and consequences of SSA. Even without the tutors’ permission, students would still be able to carry out SSA and peer assessment. As noted in Chapter 1, both are automatic and ubiquitous processes that require no permission. It may not be formalised, but it still occurs, and if students perceive that their assessment are not fair, there will be complaints and discord. The advantages of formalising SSA and training students to understand and engage in standards is that they will become part of an assessment team with tutors and fellow students and thus all be mutually supporting. With time, their accuracy will also improve. Thus, allowing them to be part of assessment team is a very important step for students and tutors. (Note 3) The tutor wanted students to have “an increased understanding and acceptance of the current assessment and grading system”. The implied message is tension about assessment with students., which is understandable given that their futures depend on it. Importantly, as noted, SSA use is primarily to benefit tutor assessment pressures. Equally as important, there was mutual benefit and students accepted it as fair to involve them in the assessment. Despite the conviction and energy put into SSA by the tutor, not all students were as willing to engage with it. We are all so different that it is to be expected. (Note 4) SSA was used across different assessment contexts and thus provided students with a range of assessment experiences, including subject knowledge audits, assessing portfolios evidence, and SSA and peer assessment of their practical skills. Detailed discussions of the grading criteria prepared students for SSA, and specific criteria and pro-­forma aided the SSA processes for each assessment. This is SA of criteria, and SA of pro-­forma and SSA of their work by comparing it to the criteria and instructions on the pro-­forma. (Note 5) “Grading themselves” this is SA of criteria and SSA of their work against the criteria. Justifying and discussing their grade is SA and SSA of student work and their SSA. SSA including students grading their work is not frequent in the recent literature. This is an interesting example of new thinking and ideas being used, which update and adapt SSA to the needs of

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  143 the context. Taras’ model is the only one which requires grading (Chapter 2). Much of early research into SSA was about comparing student and tutor grades so that SSA could replace tutor grading. Emma knows that as tutor, she is the final arbiter of assessment, and she amalgamates her responsibility for assessment with students’ assessment and SSA development. Taras too adapted her models to the context in hand which also inevitably included tutors as final arbiters of grades. However, in both cases, students also benefit greatly by being included and required to think. This process is similar to the traditional Oxbridge model which requires students to defend their weekly essays orally to tutors. Justifying the grade and defending their work is an important way of giving students a voice (see Chapter 9). Also, preparing themselves for this constitutes an additional layer of SSA for students to consider. (Note 6) “Overall grades along with verbal and written feedback were then allocated to the learner being assessed” This means that the tutor was still doing the marking and grading by providing written feedback as well as verbal feedback during discussions. The difference is that instead of being alone and isolated with continual piles of paper in mind-­numbing repetitiveness, the work the tutor was working with students to mutual benefit. SSA may have saved time and importantly provided enriched learning and assessment experiences for tutor and students.

Lesson Observations and GCSE Maths, FE: Martin Scott, England Lesson Observations Historically lesson observations have been used as part of performance management criteria as well as grading the overall performance of an organisation or the experience of its learners. As a result, there is lot of pressure and anxious moments around such observations, none more so, than when initiated by colleagues as part of an internal quality or inspection team. Reports used to grade departments and the performance of teachers, at times, serve only to propel the fortunes of those viewed more favourably or completely quash the aspirations of those deemed to not meet the standard (Note 1). To combat or challenge some of the anxieties around lesson observations, teachers were given the opportunity to self-­assess prior to an observation taking place. An initiative that allowed teachers to highlight elements of practice that may not be evident in the lesson observed. A self-­assessment could potentially highlight examples of what action was taken for those not in attendance, what learning occurred outside of the classroom, how progress was monitored or tracked or how the VLE was utilised to further develop learning (Note 2). Taking the emphasis away from exclusively just the lesson observation allowed teachers an opportunity to highlight other elements of their practice. Although sceptical at first, many felt the element of self-­assessment or reflection allowed the opportunity to “get out of jail-­free” and alleviate some

144  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors of the pressures that coincided with lesson observations and the consequential outcome (Note 3). To be able to self-­assess effectively, the observation team were obliged to give a standard to assess against and many felt that this was a fairer approach to lesson observations, removing any subjectivity or bias (Note 4). It also led to a less pressurised approach to those lesson observations, which in turn, led to a more sustained approach to developing teaching and learning practice. Of course, this must be the ultimate intention of such lesson scrutiny! (Note 5) (Note 1) Assessment of lesson observations has been perceived to be used as a means of controlling and manipulating individual careers and for unjust advancement of those in favour: “or completely quash” are strong words which reflect the sense of injustice and latent corruption dominating perceptions of the classroom observation assessment exercise. This tutor assessment of lessons is clearly not seen as a neutral exercise. (Note 2) SSA by tutors prior to and in preparation of the lesson observations was introduced to combat perceptions of injustice and the anxiety around these. With the introduction of SSA, tutors were no longer judged just on the one lesson that was observed, but they were able to present the lesson in context of tutors’ support of student learning. Furthermore, the SSA would be available to management as a record of the quality of the tutor’s teaching context. (Note 3) The metaphor of being in jail evokes the feelings of helplessness which result from negative assessments when there is no right to reply. SSA gives them a right to reply even before the observation because they can justify their pedagogic context, not just 50 minutes of classroom contact. (Note 4) More importantly, introducing SSA triggered a change in the lesson observation process. Previously, two factors contributed to the (perceived) injustices: the observed tutor was the person solely under scrutiny and secondly, the assessors did not need to justify their assessment, therefore their assessment could not be challenged. When parameters were ad hoc or not made explicit, then communications on assessment would be uni-­directional from assessor to assessed, SSA presented a view in the other direction (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Williams, 2003 found primary students needed shared criteria for SSA Taras, 2009). The process after the introduction of SSA required SSA from the observation team as well as the tutors. The observation team were required to SSA and peer assess their own practices, reach an agreement, and share their assessment parameters with tutors, that is criteria and standards. Because these are shared, they are answerable for their assessment. The tutors could use the criteria and standards to SSA, first, their lesson which was to be observed, second, SSA their other practices, even peripheral, which support their students and so provide a better context. Importantly, teaching quality was no longer based on one single lesson, but on a portfolio of evidence, which would be available for future evidence. (Note 5) The lesson observation was no longer a last chance saloon situation, but more of a professional exchange.

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  145 Any assessment must be seen to be fair as well as being fair. This is the same principle that Kelvin used for assuring that the teacher/students were clear on the standard of grade descriptors, that is, to ensure a common ground of understanding in assessment. Similarly, HY put in place a series of SSA processes for teacher/students to monitor their own work and receive support from their peers and the tutor while developing SSA with their students. Emma led and collaborated with her students to clarify and carry out SSA and assessment with them. In all cases, the result is sharing of parameters, that is, criteria and standards so that there is a common understanding of quality. In this case, introducing SSA meant that all other assessment parameters needed to be made explicit and shared.

GCSE Maths, FE Self-­Assessment, or learners taking control of their learning, was a big agenda in a local FE college where I previously worked. Whilst I understand the principle and, of course, we must strive towards autonomous learning, the concept is sometimes difficult to achieve in a subject such as GCSE Maths, where learners are mandated to study (Note 1). The intention was for learners to reflect and identify agree upon the areas that needed developing (Note 2), so that they could set targets to improve (Note 3). In a GCSE maths re-­sit year, there are a huge variety of topics to cover, in a limited timeframe, so it is not an unreasonable goal to focus upon the most prevalent areas of learning, that require the most attention. The idea was that learners would reflect upon their development and set targets following each formal, formative assessment point. The re-­sit/revision GCSE Maths year comprised of five of key assessment points, an initial, one in each of three terms and a final mock. Students would reflect upon their assessment score and set targets as a result (Note 4). Further targets would also be agreed in one-­to-­one meetings each half term, informed by learner tracking forms, where each learner would comment on the content covered in each lesson and rate their confidence in that area as a result (Note 5). The whole approach was to inform or direct further revision (Note 6). (Note 7) The approach to self-­reflection was replicated across the whole organisation and from a management perspective, ensured a uniform approach to tracking progress. Evidence of a learning journey would be available in learner files, identifying starting points and evidence of progress towards destinations. Opportunities for self-­assessment were evident after each lesson, each assessment, each half-­term and as a result, each learner would be able to identify targets to improve regardless of their chosen curriculum area, teacher, or location of study. In theory, learners would be able to take control of their learning both inside and outside of the classroom, with a clear awareness of how they are performing and what they need to do to improve. There were some issues that became prevalent as a result of this approach, however (Note 8). Many, if not all the learners were mandated to study

146  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors GCSE Maths as part of study programme requirements, and as a result, the investment required to succeed was not always evident. Given concerns regarding commitment, regardless of how much self-­assessment opportunities were available, it was unlikely that those learners would take control of their learning. Similarly, there was a lack of commitment to this approach from teachers, many feeling that this obligation performed as an audit trail to evidence how teachers were meeting learner needs, effectively evidencing them doing their job (Note 9). The truth is, that this likely formed part of the thinking behind this approach, however further complications were evident in the rollout. The majority of learners did not know how to self-­assess, reflect, or set targets, nor did they see value in doing so. The most committed of teachers would spend lessons setting up-­files, showing students how to mark/self-­assess against criteria, providing example reflections and giving stems to effective targets. As a result, some learners became really good at self-­assessment and setting targets, but not always progressing in the areas they needed to, their maths qualification. This approach was very time-­ consuming and at times, only served to distract from content delivery and actually delivering the maths curriculum! Time is limited in a GCSE Maths year. Such time is needed to reframe the curriculum and attitudes towards maths, a subject that the majority of learners have previously been unsuccessful in. Time is needed to reverse the fortunes each learner’s success in maths. Unfortunately, this approach to self-­assessment, despite its intention, the quality of delivery or who was invested in it, only served to distract from the actual teaching of maths. (Note 10) (Note 1) At the same FE college as the above lesson observation SSA. (Note 2) SSA on their weak points. (Note 3) SSA on what to do to improve weak points. (Note 4) SSA of weak points and how to improve using scores (grades) from SA. Bad/weak score equals more work needed. (Note 5) Tutor would SA students’ SSAs each half-­term, and SSA their confidence. This is very interesting because it is not their progress (although this would presumably inform their SSA, but their confidence specifically. Confidence is taken to mean they know what they are doing, therefore, greater chances of success in the resit exam. (Note 6) This again focuses students on their weaknesses which they must work on. My problem would be that this is a constant focusing on negatives, things they cannot do to be remedied. Is this the problem with the SSA process, or continuous focus on their weak products of assessment? Doing something you don’t want to do and exploring how poor you are at doing it, is not conducive to success. (Note 7) The setting appears ideal because SSA is replicated across the institution, in every course, so that there is “a uniformed approach to tracking progress”, as all stages require to be evidenced in learner files. From a management perspective, this ensured a uniform approach to tracking progress. Evidence of a learning journey would be available in learner files,

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  147 identifying starting points and evidence of progress towards the destination. Thus, a huge amount of time was invested by students and tutors for every course. But, despite the ideal setting, the above issues with the students’ contexts, sets this course for problems with or without SSA. (Note 8) Possible explanations are that from students’ perspectives, their mandatory study of maths is something they do not want to do, and then, more time is required by carrying out SSA. From tutors’ perspective, they are dealing with unmotivated students who struggle to complete their work and in addition they must introduce SSA. Anecdotally, maths is not a popular subject in the UK, and in a year-­group of 96 GCSE maths, I was one of three students who successfully passed the exam first time round, and the only female. I was also the only female to pass GCSE physics and chemistry, which was as shocking then as it is now (see Chapter 10). (Note 9) However, the most demotivating aspect for tutors, reflecting their lack of commitment. is that they believe that SSA forms part of the audit trail. This is related to similar beliefs in the above report on tutor lesson observations, that assessment is being used as a political control mechanism in addition to a learning tool. Perhaps the negative perceptions of the tutor influenced the students and eclipsed the positives that were inherent in the SSA process, that is, for learners to develop SRL at the same time as their skills in SSA. (Note 10) Time is often considered a problem when considering SSA use, as HY and Kelvin noted above. From this it seems clear that the positive of learning to self-­assess is considered to be at the price of subject knowledge required to pass exams. This pessimistic and unproductive representation requires an answer to the question, surely if SSA is required across all courses, students would become proficient through practice, and minimal time from each course would be required, therefore allowing time for subject knowledge, and if only superficially, students would be engaging more systematically with all their subject targets (see Chapter 9).

Conclusion These interesting examples of SSA use in post-­ compulsory education, whether for tutors, teacher/students, or younger students, widen the options available to potential SSA users, and provide valuable examples of practices which we can all learn from. I am very grateful for tutors’ time and energies in providing these. Some differences and similarities in these four examples are related to institutional policies and personal choices. In examples in FE, SSA involved student grading with tutor moderation, whereas in Singapore contexts student grading is not reported. One FE institution mandated SSA use across all subjects and the tutor in the other college adopted SSA from self-­imposed peer pressure and embraced it fully. The five examples cover SSA at the micro to macro level, with students and tutors. At the micro-­level, Kelvin’s example, in Singapore, provides a

148  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors seemingly simple, basic, and straightforward classification and then drafting of achievement standards. However, it transpires that there is nothing either straightforward or simple about this as 16 of the 20 teacher/students got it wrong. Having a baseline of common understanding is essential to developing individual and importantly, sharing, assessment literacies: this is fundamental, and often overlooked, or worse, taken for granted. Building a solid foundation to communicating assessment standards and criteria is crucial, and yet, most publications on assessment dismiss this with a few lines instructing tutors to “do it”. Hui Yong reports upskilling of professional working teachers to evaluate and choose from available SSA models and processes and introduce appropriate and pertinent ones into their classrooms. A multitude of assessment processes have been identified and that is before the teacher/students even use it with their students. I questioned the meticulous and systematic support given to the teacher/ students, but with the increasing pressures on pedagogues in the classroom, it is possibly the only way of insuring success in adapting to more student-­ centred innovations and avoiding unnecessary stress and overload. Everything is obvious when we know how to do something, and it takes a particularly skilled tutor to break down complex and potentially prohibitive processes into seemingly simple and straightforward steps which support dramatic changes, both in practice and more difficult still, conceptually. In England, Emma was inspired to use SSA with her students subsequent to advice after a lesson observation. Lesson observations, as will become more evident in Martin’s example, is a highly political aspect of FE teaching, and Emma negotiated the obstacles and used them to her advantage. Emma used SSA as a means of helping her correct and grade her students’ work, and thus lighten her workload. Using SSA to aid tutor assessment, (see Chapter 10), and particularly focusing on the accuracy of SSA, has been a strong focus since SSA was recorded in the 1930s. This example is the first use of SSA as a plausible and useful tool for aiding tutor correction and grading that I have encountered in many years. As signalled in Note 6, this process was not an easy option for Emma as she still had responsibility and involvement in her students’ assessments, although collaboratively and inclusive for students. No matter how experienced, and I hope not cynical, new ways of solving perennial problems through others’ examples are exciting. I have learned a great deal from these examples, as I have from those in Chapters 6 and 7. Inspiring examples are always inspiring no matter the context. Martin’s example of SSA for tutors in classroom observations highlights the potentially highly political nature of tutor classroom observations, and, as with all things assessment, it requires sensitivity and careful management. This example demonstrates how and why SSA resolved serious tensions between tutors and management. Whether real or perceived, the “reality” for tutors was that classroom observations were a potentially corrupt and

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education  149 nepotistic forum for injustices. This is an important example of assessment requiring to be made explicit, clear, and shared for justice to be seen to be done. Perhaps, in the past, there had been little or no corrupt practices, although we all have horror stories to share about assessment. However, making ethical practices explicit, and importantly, giving a real voice that is heard, is critical for practices to be recognised as just and ethical (see Chapter 9). As the example signals, the introduction of SSA was not automatically seen as a panacea, and time and thinking space was required: this aspect is also important in the other examples, particularly Hui Yong’s: because of the complexity of the processes, having time to discuss, share, and ponder the SSA models from various angles, provided teacher/students’ with thinking and acceptance time. The other crucial aspect of Martin’s example of SSA tutor classroom observations is that “the observation team were obliged to give a standard to assess against and many felt that this was a fairer approach to lesson observations, removing any subjectivity or bias”. Thus, explicit assessment transparency works both ways, that is, the assessors can also be scrutinised as well as the assessed. If there are shared standards and criteria, there is always room for discussions and queries, be it over a single grade, or comments. Interpretations, as Kelvin’s example so clearly highlighted, cannot be left to chance. The fifth example is a GCSE maths re-­sit year, which students are mandated to study and pass. The pressure of succeeding is linked to a condition of being allowed on their study course. Although Martin acknowledges the worth of institution-­wide SSA, in this example, he provides a list of reasons why it seems not to be working. From a word count of 649, 356 words extoll the virtues of institutionally organised SSA which support students in understanding their learning. With this course, there seem to be two prominent issues: first, is the time required for students to revise a full curriculum, and second, is the lack of commitment to SSA from both students and tutors for this context. Linked to the second and to tutor lesson observation in the previous example, is tutor belief that this SSA is linked to “an audit trail to evidence how teachers were meeting learner needs”, that is, that SSA is more about checking up on tutors than on supporting students. Third, and only pedagogic reason, is that even when tutors invested in SSA wholeheartedly, student proficiency in SSA did not necessarily translate into maths exam success. Tutors are judged on students’ exam successes and thus SSA is partly blamed for requiring time to implement. In all contexts, a conclusion might be that the participants, tutors, and students, must believe in and commit to the innovation principles and practices and not relate it to a managerial control mechanism. Learning and teaching are not mechanistic, ticky-box activities, and passion, volition and the gamut of human emotions, particularly the sense of justice, are a necessary consideration.

150  Maddalena Taras and Contributing Tutors

Questions for Consideration and Reflection List the elements in each of the examples which might be useful for your and/or your colleagues’ classes. Discuss these with colleagues and students if possible. How do you resolve the dilemma of prioritising time issues and still include students in assessment? Discuss these with colleagues and students if possible, to see what other choices are available. What do you do in your classes, no matter how minor it might appear to you, which would be usefully shared? Write these down and explain why you and your students have found these useful. This exciting research might get you hooked!

Acknowledgement We would like to give acknowledgement to the following tutors for their time and valuable contributions: In-­service Teachers’ Staff Development, HE: Dr Tay Hui Yong, Singapore Masters Module MAEM 842: Dr Kelvin Tan, Singapore Vocational Education, FE: Emma Little, England Lesson Observations and GCSE Maths, FE: Martin Scott, England

References Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Williams, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Alqassab, M. (2018). Providing formative peer feedback: What do we know? In A. A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 409–431). Cambridge University Press. Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57–69. Taras, M. (2010). Student self-­assessment: Processes and consequences. Teaching in  Higher Education, 15(2), 199–209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562511003620027

Section 3

Challenges and Future of Student Self-Assessment

9 Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong

…the greatest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when students become their own teachers. When students become their own teachers, they exhibit the self-regulatory attributes that seem most desirable for learners (self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-assessment, self-teaching). … John Hattie, 2009, p. 22

Introduction In previous chapters, we had discussed the benefits and advantages of using student self-assessment. In this chapter, we talk about how we can understand and use student self-assessment to best effect, as well as the challenges of implementing student self-assessment (SSA) such as lack of training for students in using self-assessment, mindsets of educators and students in using student self-assessment, among others. It will serve as a guide for educators to circumvent the potential challenges of implementing student self-assessment and towards a smoother implementation process.

Using Self-Assessment to Best Effect We should try to get the best outcomes from self-assessment for our learners, and yet be wary of the risks that unintended negative consequences of involving students in assessing their learning may happen. There are three ways we could consider for getting the best out of student self-assessment and allaying negative consequences. One such way is examining self-assessment from the experiences of teachers in terms of their understanding and usage. Another way is to look at how self-assessment is used in terms of power and merit while the third way is to explore self-assessment in terms of student voice. In the next three sections, we will look at each of these ways in how we can use self-assessment to best effect.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-12

154  Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong Self-Assessment to Best Effect: Teachers’ Experiences How Can We Understand and Use SSA to Best Effect? Firstly, we can understand from the experiences of teachers what it means for them to understand and use SSA. Phenomenographic research on SSA is particularly useful in this regard, and it reports and distinguishes between better and poorer ways of understanding and using SSA. Tan (2007) identified three different conceptions of student self-assessment in terms of a progressively greater scope of self-assessment for learning – teacher-driven, programme-driven, and future-driven SSA. These three conceptions offer a lens for viewing how self-assessment practices limit or enhance learning for students in qualitatively different ways, and how they may discipline and empower students (Tan, 2009). The following descriptions of the three conceptions and the quotes for each conception are extracted from Tan (2009). The most limited conception of SSA is teacher-driven self-assessment. It focuses on the teacher’s control and regulation of the students’ judgements of their learning. Teacher-driven SSA is effective as a practice for regulating and ensuring the compliance in students’ judgements of their learning. In that context, the teacher is the indisputable and sole benchmark for the students’ judgements of their learning. Student self-assessment is discerned in terms of the students’ judgements complying with the teachers. Whatever I do, I give them all these assessment evaluation sheets so they will know where they are assessed and how we assess them. So they can prepare themselves in a way that they understand how they are preparing themselves towards the task and how, where, why we assess them below or above whoever. (p. 363) In contrast, programme-driven self-assessment is experienced in terms of teachers focusing on the programme of study when providing students with opportunities to judge their own learning. Students’ judgements of their standards are used by the teacher to educate them on the gap between their standards and the requisite standards of the programme or subject. Students’ judgements of their learning revolve around how students may judge their relative proficiency in order to enhance their progress in the subject. Academics are concerned with how students are enabled to understand the actual standards required in order to complete their schooling. What would be the goal of self-assessment? Well to be able to judge your own performance better. To be able to reasonably, accurately say what you’re doing well in and badly. And I think probably I really like them to get even to the end of their first year with a world view that says you know, at any stage I’m monitoring how I’m going. (p. 364)

Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect  155 Finally, future-driven self-assessment offers the most sophisticated way to understand and use SSA to best effect. Future-driven self-assessment is understood as the sustainability of student self-assessment beyond completing the programme of study. The future need for students to be able to self-assess their own work in professional working contexts or in contexts beyond school is the benchmark for students’ judgements of their learning. The emphasis is on understanding and using student self-assessment to develop students’ capacity for exercising their own judgements without depending on their teachers. Through a developmental process, students may be able to construct their own assessment criteria and make judgements based on these criteria. And it’s really important that if you are going to be able to provide consistent quality and be aware of your own deficiencies so that you will be able to improve them, you’ve got to be able to look at your own work objectively. And set yourself some criteria. And this is what I’m trying to encourage them to do, I suppose, extend it from not just an educational environment but through the professional life that they are going to be leading for the next 40 years. You know, see it as a professional skill as much as an educational tool. (p. 365) It should be noted that teachers’ conceptions of student self-assessment are not the individual beliefs of individual teachers. Rather, it is the effect of teachers experiencing student self-assessment in a particular context. Hence, instead of question, and trying to “reform” beliefs about student self-assessment, it is recommended that the context for assessment practices in schools are examined instead. What is the prevailing culture in a school with regards to students being involved in assessment? What are the conditions that help or hinder the development of students’ ability to assess themselves? And finally, why do schools want students to assess their own learning? Addressing these questions permit informed conversations about the agenda(s) for student self-assessment in a school, and whether the prevailing intention of a  school and its environment is to have student self-assess to be compliant with teacher’s judgements (teacher-driven self-assessment), or for students to self-assessment to thrive in their subjects and their studies (programme-driven self-assessment), or for students to develop self-assessment abilities to be independent learners in their long-term learning (future-driven self-assessment). Self-Assessment to Best Effect: Power and Merit What Is the Power and Merit of SSA to Best Effect? Secondly, we cannot assume that SSA will always empower rather than discipline students (Tan, 2004). As far back as 1999, Burgess et al. (1999) warn that the way self-assessment is used determines whether it is empowering for

156  Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong the students rather than a process that is imposed by academic staff. Reynold and Trehan (2000) warn of participative approaches to assessment being experienced by students as a more subtle technique for disciplining. The practice of student self-assessment may therefore curb student empowerment by preserving existing hierarchical powers. It is argued that student empowerment can only be realised if the ways power is exercised over students in self-assessment practices are first understood. Notions of sovereign and epistemological power argue that students’ autonomy and learning is what is at stake in self-assessment. The reification of stakes however limits student self-assessment into yet another struggle for students to contend with in their disadvantaged status as subjects of unilateral power. These high stakes in the national examinations wash back into stressful school-based examinations, and societal mechanisms place great pressures on students and teachers to produce results from school assessment. Consequently, the high stakes of examination results have become an institutional authority of assessment purpose in schools and have created standards of performativity of teaching and learning for middle and school leaders. (Leong & Tan, 2014; Tan, 2017). These narratives of performivity and fairness have been institutionalised and normalised through the notion of “meritocracy”. Stated neutrally, meritocracy “points to merit as the rule or principle that governs how the economy, society, and politics are organized … simply a mechanism for allocating resource/opportunity to appropriate individuals” (Tan, 2008, p. 8). Originally discoursed as a prejorative term by Michael Young in 1958 to describe the dysfunctional consequences of merit and intelligence replacing social class order (Young, 1958), it has since been presented as a positive ideal in the United Kingdom (Allen, 2011), and as the only viable premise of fairness in Singapore (Tan, 2008). Assessment serves as the primary mechanism for sorting and labelling students according to the tested merit of their learning. This renders learners passive and captive to being stratified socially, and educationally, through national and school-based assessment. The construction of merit in society begins in school when students experience the judgement of the merit of their work in student assessment. Greater participation in the determination of merit in school assessment practices is required for increasing access to the meritocracy debate in society (Tan and Deneen, 2015). What is sorely needed is to emphasise learning and educational outcomes beyond the stakes associated with examination results, to develop learners’ long-term capacity to participate in assessing and evaluating merit and in determining merit in a democratic society. Such participative capacity involves at least two things – the opportunity to participate in discussions and debates about what should constitute merit, and the ability to contribute to and influence decisions of what qualifies as merit. In schools, such participation is student self-assessment where students are  involved in the discussion and negotiation of what constitutes merit in their work, and having the judgemental ability to influence decisions on

Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect  157 how the merit of their work is assessed and reported. Beyond schools, these same students would have the experience and ability to do the same for themselves and others in broader contexts. This would be SSA to best effect  – empowering generations of students to construct merit in more democratic and inclusive ways within and beyond school. What forms and purposes of self-assessment can achieve such loft aims of producing future generations of learners that can articulate informed opinions and make astute judgements of learning and performance? Such a powerful objective may be appreciated in larger contexts beyond assessment practices in schools. In that light, it is worthwhile to examine the notion of student voice and participation, and how SSA may help develop students’ voice as an educational force in schools and an empowering voice in society. Self-Assessment to Best Effect: Student Voice SSA and Student Voice The notion of student voice is vital to positing SSA to best effect in developing and demarcating the specific ways that students’ voice and identity is heard in important educational decisions, including but not limited to assessment. Discourse on student voice has re-emerged since the millennium to reposition learners in educational research and reform, premised on the following convictions that (a) “young people have unique perspectives on learning, teaching, and schooling; (b) their insights warrant not only the attention but also the responses of adults; and (c) they should be afforded opportunities to actively shape their education” (Cook-Sather, 2006, pp. 359–360). Welty and Lundy (2013) argue for student voice to be recognised as a universal right of the child, citing Article 12 of the United Nations Conventions of the Rights of a Child (UNCRC), which states that “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” (UNCRC, 2009). However, it is important to recognise that having “voice” in itself is not enough, but rather what is sorely needed is for students to participate meaningfully in assessment and educational activities with and through voice. In this respect, Lundy’s (2007) framework of participation is useful for conceptualising Article 12 of the UNCRC to ensure that students express their views, and that these views are given due weight. The framework comprises four elements and they are set out in verbatim from Lundy (2007): space: 

Children must be given the opportunity to express a view Children must be facilitated to express their views audience:  The view must be listened to influence:  The view must be acted upon, as appropriate voice: 

158  Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong Acting on these four elements of voice and participation is a shift that requires teachers and school to confront “the power dynamics inside and outside our classrooms [that make] democratic dialogue impossible” (Ellsworth, 1992, p. 107), and to seek to use our power “in an attempt (that might not be successful) to help others exercise power” (Gore, 1992, p. 59). Student self-assessment is useful in constructing space for children to express their views. Such “space” for expression is not simply time to verbalise their thoughts and feeling about assessment and learning. The involvement of students in identifying and negotiating assessment criteria for which they would subsequently use to make judgements of their learning is a concrete and powerful space for students to express their views about their learning, and perhaps about their identity as learners. Care must therefore be taken for provisional rubrics not to appear exhaustive. The anticipation of emergent assessment criteria would help provide space for students to identify their own criteria, and the dialogue between teachers and students on assessment criteria in rubrics for example may be more invitational then focusing on transparency of teachers’ expectations (Bearman & Ajjawi, 2021). In terms of voice, it would be helpful in SSA for students to convey their judgements and responses to their work beyond grades and marks. Merely having students complete performance checklists or limiting SSA to self-grading would be inadequate. Students should be allowed, and supported, to share their judgements of their learning in evaluative and analytical terms. To go beyond giving themselves an evaluative grade, but to be able to voice their reasons for their evaluation, and even their doubts about how assessment criteria and standards are articulated. And because assessment is also an emotional experience (Crossman, 2007), students should be allowed to voice how they feel about being assessed and assessing themselves. Giving students the forum and space to voice their thoughts and feelings about assessment would only be meaningful if their voice is listened to. Here, the choice of audience matters, and careful discernment should be exercised to distinguish between instances where children’s voice on their assessment judgements should be heard by peers, and when they should be heard by adults such as teachers and parents. And finally, the appropriate audience for listening to children’s voice should demonstrate in visible and unmistakable ways how the views and their voice has been listened to and acted upon. In the context of SSA, it would mean acknowledging students’ legitimate right to express their views about a self-assessed grade or evaluation of one’s work, even when the teacher strongly disagrees. The emphasis must move away from student-teacher mark agreement in SSA, towards embracing the important role that SSA has in respecting and developing students’ judgement. Recent work on the potential for assessment feedback to develop different forms of respect (Zhou et al., 2021) are pertinent here, and assessment feedback emanating from earlier student involvement in judging criteria and judging their work would be an even more powerful and extended way to cultivate, inform, and build respect as an educational outcome for our students.

Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect  159

Implementation of Student Self-Assessment: Challenges In a previous chapter (Chapter 3), we introduced the conditions and climate necessary for the successful implementation of self-assessment. It is only fair to think about the possible challenges that teachers and students may encounter when teachers implement self-assessment in their classrooms. The studies, Wong (2017) and Wong, Safii and Kwek (2019) described in Chapter 3 illustrated the factors that contributed to the success of the intervention. They also revealed that the challenges and constraints that might prevent intervention from working would be just as important and could contribute to the intervention fidelity as well. During the interviews with teachers, it was discovered that the teachers and student faced similar constraints in relation to the successful implementation of self-assessment such as the lack of teacher and student training in the use of self-assessment and the constraint of time that worked against the use of self-assessment by teachers and students (see Maclellan, 2001). They also mentioned that the mismatch between assessment and curriculum that could impede the implementation of self-assessment. The teachers reported that the infrequent use of self-assessment prior to the intervention was due to the lack of professional development for the teachers as well as training for the students in self-assessment. As they were not trained in using self-assessment, the likelihood of using self-assessment was significantly reduced. Time factor and workload were also cited for the infrequent use of self-assessment prior to the intervention. If the self-assessment could be kept short and simple, and used once a week, the teachers would have previously considered using self-assessment more regularly. The mismatch between assessment and curriculum created a dilemma for the teachers because ultimately the schools’ key performance index was based on the high-stakes examinations and the inclusion of alternative assessment such as self-assessment was not considered. As a result, the teachers were reluctant to change their assessment practices to incorporate more alternative modes of assessment, other than those stipulated by the Ministry of Education (MOE), e.g. project work. The teachers deemed that the MOE as the main driver of education should lay out a proper system of implementing self-assessment for schools before they would go ahead to implement it without fear of repercussions on their students’ results. In the previous sections, we looked at how we could use self-assessment to best effect in terms of teachers’ experiences, power, and merit as well as student voice. In the following section, we will explore the challenges of self-assessment implementation. With these in mind, teachers could consider how to resolve the possible challenges for students and for themselves. Possible Challenges for Students Regardless of age group, be it primary, secondary, and higher education, there are a number of challenges which could surface for the students when the teachers first implement self-assessment.

160  Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong • Students may not be ready for self-assessment. While we have been encouraging students to be active learners, we should not assume that students would accept readily being active learners. Some students might not want to engage in decision-making despite given the space, and some students might not want to engage in expressing their views despite given the voice. These students are not ready for self-assessment. As such, they might not cooperate and resist the use of self-assessment. These could manifest as a range of behaviours such as students not doing the self-assessment at all, not putting in effort to do the self-assessment or telling you that it is not useful. Teachers could have a discussion with students to understand their issues about self-assessment, provide explanation about self-assessment, and get students to see the value of self-assessment. Teachers might have to start with something small such as starting self-assessment with a criterion or two so that students could build up their understanding and readiness. • Students may be discouraged by comparing their work to exemplars. While providing exemplars to illustrate what is good quality work or performance, there would be some students who might feel discouraged by their own work as compared to the exemplars. This could also stem from these students having low self-esteem and low level of confidence. Teachers could reassure students and allay their anxieties by explaining that the exemplars, especially the good quality ones are meant to illustrate how good quality looks like which students can aim to achieve. Teachers could also provide exemplars of average and poor quality to scaffold students into the assessment process. • Students underestimating and/or overestimating performance. When implementing self-assessment tasks in the classroom, there would be students who are overly lenient (overestimating) or overly harsh (underestimating) on themselves when they are self-assessing their own work. For those students who are overestimating or overly lenient, they might not have understood the criteria which means they might not have understood what has been asked of them. Teachers could have a discussion with the students to clarify what they have been asked to do and teachers could also use this as feedback to adjust their instructions and teaching to better help the students to understand. For students who are underestimating or overly harsh, they might not have understood the task and also, these students might have lower self-esteem. It is important for teachers to work with these students on their confidence and self-belief. For both types of students, teachers could also provide more opportunities for self-assessment in order to build up their self-assessment experiences and confidence. • Preparation and training are required. Regardless of age and maturity, students would require preparation and training to be able to self-assess properly. Teachers would need to help guide students to have a realistic understanding of the quality of their own work using criteria and exemplars, and guide them towards the next

Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect  161 steps for improvement. Students must be taught how to use self-assessment and how to use the criteria explicitly. Students must also be taught how to interpret feedback and how to make connections between feedback and their work and how they can improve their work. Teachers would need to provide scaffolding for students to use self-assessment as well as different levels of support for the students. Students (and teachers) need to understand and accept that first attempts would not be perfect and successful but with practice (and patience), it would become easier and more meaningful. Possible Challenges for Teachers Like students, teachers would face with several challenges when they first attempt to carry out self-assessment in their classrooms. Understanding what these challenges might be would help the teachers to better plan and navigate the journey in implementing self-assessment. • Teachers’ beliefs and mindset. Teachers’ beliefs and mindset about learning are important to whether or not they will provide the space for students to use self-assessment. Teachers would need to reimagine their roles and they have to be deliberately planned to change their approach. Half the battle is won when teachers truly believes that students can have agency over their own learning. • Committing time (and resources) to implement and sustain new assessment methods such as self-assessment. Teachers have many responsibilities. They might not have kept abreast of new assessment methods (new to the teachers personally) because besides teaching and completing the syllabus, teachers have many administrative duties, and some might have other roles in school as well. Therefore, committing time (and resources) to implement relatively “newer” assessment methods as well as to sustain these assessment methods would become a challenge for the teachers. It takes time to infuse self-assessment into the classroom practice (it does not happen overnight!), it takes time for students to be able to use self-assessment successfully (it does not happen overnight!), and time needs to be allowed for students to practice self-assessment in order for them to be familiar with it and be proficient in using it (again, it does not happen overnight!). • Matching appropriate assessment methods to learning objectives. Tasks to be connected and cumulative. Time is an important factor and it is often in short supply for teachers. As such, some teachers might use existing assessments without examining too deeply if the assessment method matches the learning objective(s) and if it might be the most appropriate assessment method to use. Teachers might also be required by the department to use worksheets and other assessment tasks that have been set for the different topics for  the year. As such, some of the tasks might not be connected and

162  Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong cumulative, resulting in the students not being able to use the feedback from the previous task to work on the subsequent task. Time is thus needed to examine existing assessment tasks and revise some of these tasks to incorporate self-assessment such as during departmental reviews. • Giving constructive feedback and opportunities for feedback to be used by students. Feedback is important as it informs students about their learning. Due to time factor, teachers might not be able to give personalised feedback to every student and might also fall back on giving more evaluative feedback, e.g. “You have made a mistake in calculating”, “You have used present tense instead of past tense”. Feedback that is descriptive and constructive about their work, along with positive comments about their efforts, is more encouraging to students and it is more likely to lead to students to take up the feedback. With feedback, teachers are helping students to improve their ability to see the strengths and weaknesses of their work so that they can improve. Teachers would also need to check in with students that they understand the feedback given and that they are clear about how they can put the feedback to use. As such, there is a need to create opportunities (and time) for feedback to be used by students in subsequent tasks. Lacking professional knowledge, skills, and guidance on how to use • assessment effectively and efficiently. There might be a lack of proper training on new assessment strategies, assessment techniques and methods and the use of technology for assessment, given how the global pandemic has thrown teaching and learning online. Teachers would require knowledge, skills, and guidance on how to implement and use self-assessment effectively and efficiently with their students. Planned and sustained professional development would be a necessity to developing a culture of self-assessment in the classrooms and in the school. There is no lack of professional development courses, as well as professional books and articles on self-assessment which teachers could sign-up to attend and to read up on respectively. Teachers could also form professional learning communities within the school and across schools to work together on self-assessment so that collaborative learning and work could take place among the teachers and it could also help to reduce the load of teachers and to reduce the stress on teachers. The challenges described above are some of the common ones that could be faced by teachers and students, especially when self-assessment is new. Such challenges are faced by teachers and students regardless of the educational level – primary, secondary, and higher education. Of course, depending on the educational level, the same challenge might need a different amount of time and effort to resolve. Self-assessment should be part and parcel of teaching and learning in the classroom and should not be seen as an “extra” by both teachers and students. The Table 9.1 gives a quick snapshot of what self-assessment could

Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect  163 Table 9.1  Using student self-assessment

Elements

Using self-assessment to minimal effect

Using self-assessment to good effect

Using self-assessment to best effect

• Teacher-driven self-assessment • No mindset shift about selfassessment, treating it as another paper exercise • Manage the students for purpose of completion of self-assessment

• Programme-driven self-assessment • Mindset shift in teachers about self-assessment and its benefits but no shifts in the students • Empower the students for purpose of learning while doing self-assessment • Training students how to use self-assessment by unpacking the criteria

• Future-driven self-assessment • Mindset shifts in both teachers and students about self-assessment and its benefits

• Telling students how to use self-assessment

• Ad hoc, as and when there is time to do self-assessment • Ad hoc opportunities for students to do self-assessment • Tasks are ad hoc

• Teachers to give feedback based on students’ work • Based on feedback from students’ self-assessment and work, teachers take minimal actions to adjust teaching

• Reallocate time to incorporate self-assessment into lessons • Create opportunities for students to express their thoughts in self-assessment • Tasks are connected and cumulative so that they can facilitate students’ application of feedback • Teacher to give feedback based on students’ selfassessment and work • Based on feedback from students’ self-assessment and work, teachers take appropriate actions to adjust teaching

• Empower the students for purpose of learning while doing self-assessment • Training students how to use self-assessment by unpacking the criteria and using exemplars/samples • Reallocate time to incorporate self-assessment into lessons • Create opportunities for students to express their thoughts in self-assessment • Tasks are connected and cumulative so that they can facilitate students’ reflection and application of feedback • Teacher to give feedback based on students’ selfassessment and work and follow up with students • Based on feedback from students’ self-assessment and work, teachers take appropriate actions to revise selfassessment and to adjust teaching

164  Kelvin Tan and Hwei Ming Wong look like when it is used in varying degrees of effects and when the challenges are considered.

Summary What would it take for SSA to move from having minimal effect, to having good effect, to having the best effect for our students? Obviously, a myriad of factors and challenges in different contexts eliminate any possibility of straightforward universal answers. But perhaps as a first step, rather than presuming that teachers, academics, and researchers know best what is the best that SSA can offer, it would be vital to consult students in any school for their views. After all, if student self-assessment is intended to have the best effect for our learners, including the effect of developing them to have independent and defensible judgements of their learning, then their views of why these would be important in the first place would help to ensure that SSA serves their interests as well.

For Your Reflection: Why am I doing self-assessment with my students? • • What kind of self-assessment am I using in order to do the best for my students? • What are some of the challenges that I am anticipating and how can I overcome them?

References Allen, G. (2011). Early intervention: The next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty’s government by Graham Allen MP. The Stationery Office. Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2021). Can a rubric do more than be transparent? Invitation as a new metaphor for assessment criteria. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 359–368. Burgess, H., Baldwin, M., Dalrymple, J., & Thomas, J. (1999). Developing selfassessment in social work education. Social Work Education, 18(2), 133–146. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student Voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390 Crossman, J. (2007). The role of relationships and emotions in student perceptions of learning and assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(3), 313–327. Ellsworth, E. (1992). Why doesn’t feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagoy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminism and Critical Pedagogy (pp. 90–119). New York: Routledge. Gore, J. (1992). What we can do for you! What can “we” do for “you”? Struggling over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy (pp. 54–73). New York: Routledge.

Using Student Self-Assessment to Best Effect  165 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Leong, W. S., & Tan, K. (2014). What (more) can, and should, assessment do for learning? Observations from ‘successful learning context’in Singapore. Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 593–619. Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930120063466 Reynolds, M., & Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: A critical perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 267–278. Tan, K. H. K. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 651–662. Tan, K. H. K. (2007). Conceptions of self-assessment: What is needed for long term learning? In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 114–127). New York: Routledge. Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: Ideological shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0192512107083445 Tan, K. H. K. (2017). Asking questions of (what) assessment (should do) for learning: The case of bite-sized assessment for learning in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 16(2), 189–202. Tan, K. H. K., & Deneen, C. C. (2015). Aligning and sustaining meritocracy, curriculum and assessment validity in Singapore. Assessment Matters, 7(1), 31–52. Welty, E., & Lundy, L. (2013). A children’s rights-based approach to involving children in decision making. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), C02. Wong, H. M. (2017). Implementing self-assessment in Singapore primary schools: Effects on students’ perceptions of self-assessment. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1362348 Wong, H. M., Safii, L., & Kwek, D. (2019). Seeing self-assessment and teacher feedback through students’ lenses: Implementation of self-assessment and investigation of feedback in lower primary classrooms (NIE Research Brief Series No. 19-014). National Institute of Education. Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy 1870–2033: An essay on education and society. Thames and Hudson. Zhou, J., Dawson, P., Tai, J. H-M., & Bearman, M. (2021). How conceptualising respect can inform feedback pedagogies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 68–79.

10 Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment Looking to the Future Maddalena Taras

One should only read books which bite and sting one. If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a blow to the head, what’s the point in reading? A book must be the axe which smashes the frozen sea within us. Franz Kafka

Introduction This book has explored theories and practices in various educational contexts to offer willing listeners challenges and understandings about assessment, its component parts, their relationship, and especially issues around SSA. Chapters 1 and 4 focus on conceptual and theoretical issues which have implications for personal and classroom processes, and which require continual individual and collective understandings and updating. Most things in life, as in education require updating. These chapters have been a huge and unique challenge for me personally, and the other chapters and practices in the book have been an important source of learning and inspiration. Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 have provided different contextual innovations and practices. Chapter 5 provides a window into technological possibilities to help in supporting students. Since technological literacy is imperative and an integral part of new generations’ lives, classrooms also need to tap into this expertise. Chapter 9 focuses on using SSA to best effect. Our world and societies are in constant flux and change, and progress towards a more equitable and just world requires continual questioning and challenging of our processes. Education shadows our discourses which often reflect our thinking and mores. This book has tried to provide an overview of aspects of assessment and SSA which might best support our developments to better support and include our students. Change does not happen without a willingness to challenge ourselves, as I have found again and again. Thus, there can never be a definitive book on SSA or anything else. Even science is constantly reinventing itself to all of our delight. If we can delight each other through assessment challenges, that will be a great success for learning. Thus, we can say that all dilemmas may seem resolved today, and tomorrow they will again be unresolved. The future is constantly being reinvented DOI: 10.4324/9781003140634-13

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  167 by the present, and the present has much to add to the little resolve which was found in the past. This chapter revisits assessment theories briefly, feedback, and discusses issues of power and dichotomies. The issue of grading in SSA, whether it should take place, be accurate to be valuable, or whether it is an adjunct which is accepted as potentially improving with practice, has been intermittently and regularly discussed over the decades. Assessment for Learning (AfL) provided SSA access in K-12, and it also posed important problems which have not totally been shaken off, even if the means to resolve them are available. Alongside theories of assessment and learning, SRL research has perhaps been the most important support for SSA. SRL research will be summarised briefly and highlight analogous “processes” in pedagogic practices, thus demonstrating that often what is new can be built upon what is known already. Two of Zimmerman’s four models (Zimmerman’s Cyclical Phases model 2 and his Multi-Level model 4) are analysed briefly to present an unidentified and unresolved query. Importantly, empirical evidence from SRL research which can provide findings and evidence which may provide advice for educators are also signalled. One of the most important findings for me was that student level is linked to optimal SRL interventions, and that primary children are likely to be disadvantaged by group work. The implications centre around staff development to support upskilling.

Clarifying Theory As noted in Chapter 1, learning and assessment theories are coordinated in supporting mandatory SSA and inclusion of all things assessment as part of learning. Assessment theories provided a coherent understanding of aspects of assessment and their relationships to each other (Taras, 2005, 2009, 2012c, 2018); it remains for the academic community to challenge issues and deficits so as to maximise coordination and coherence for student and tutor assessment literacies. There is much detail that has been beyond the remit of this book; for example, these chapters have not discussed criteria or rubrics in any detail because these specifically created contextual criteria-based SSA models have been dealt with thoroughly and in excellent detail elsewhere (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013; Tan, 2020). Apart from revisiting the obvious and important, this book has taught me that the most polemical, potentially destructive, and perhaps, least understood and explored aspect of assessment and SSA is feedback.

Feedback and Power Like everyone else, I did not know what I did not know. Because I had explored so many aspects of assessment explicitly for a long time, I had assumed that I understood feedback (Taras, 2013b, 2013c, 2018). I was, am

168  Maddalena Taras and will be for a while to come, surprised by what I have heard and read about feedback, not least in the past five years. Most of all, I was surprised at myself when I began to rethink feedback, that I had not gone far enough in my thinking when exploring processes and functions. Many of these issues arise from uncoordinated thinking about different aspects and components of assessment: these are in turn exacerbated when linked to SSA. Feedback cannot be separated from SA, only from FA. The meaning of feedback, its interpretation, context, and use in SSA, is key to SRL and empowering learners to learn (see Chapter 9). Separating SA and FA processes and functions has long been discussed (Taras, 2005, 2009). It is now clearer that the distinction of process and functions being central to feedback is crucial to how we think and what we do. Being inundated with external feedback can overwhelm, stop students seeing the wood for the trees and generally make students feel inadequate and incompetent, with nowhere to go. We can also forget that our work is something personal to us. External feedback provides a different truth, perspective, and possibilities. “Putting words into people’s mouths” is annihilating their thinking. What happens to students can also be experienced by academics too. I was invited to submit an article of about five thousand words for a journal which I did. Within days, I received “feedback” from three academics, each of which was almost five thousand words in length. Each helpful academic had effectively rewritten my article into what each wanted from work with that title. Issues Surrounding Feedback As noted in Chapters 1 and 4, feedback, like all information, is a result of a judgement at any given moment. Whether we call it assessment, or SA, as a summation of that point in time, is less important. Feedback is information until it is used, either by the self or another party where, according to the literature, it becomes FA (Sadler, 1989; Scriven, 1967). The expectation is that tutors provide feedback, however, this is often at odds with allowing learners the space to think and understand their own work: emphasising student thinking over tutor telling is a crucial pedagogic priority. Tutor feedback also has an important role in justifying their grades for quality assurance purposes, which clarifies their assessments to students. Education has promoted the “feedback sandwich”, that is, weak points diluted by good points before and after. The intention is to soften the blow that any negative aspect is supposed to administer. Anecdotally, students and tutors, find that just and ethical criticism, even if negative does not deal a blow. What hurts is injustice. It is always pleasant to hear positive things, as long as they are true and not forced. Feedback has been Confused by the Use of Dichotomies Over the past 50 years, in an attempt to make assessment processes explicit, new discourses have discombobulated assessment. A series of dichotomies

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  169 have been unhelpful in resolving these issues: summative versus formative assessment (in addition subdivided into functions versus processes of assessment); assessment of learning versus “Assessment for Learning” (AfL); the dichotomy and subsequent conflation of firstly, formative assessment and AfL, secondly, assessment in higher education (HE) and assessment in K-12, and recently, classroom assessment (sometimes conflated with FA and AfL) and external accredited assessment (conflated with SA) (Black & Wiliam, 2018). What a dichotomy provides is a black-and-white interpretation of a situation. That is, if it is AfL, then it will only be for learning, and if it is assessment of learning, then learning is excluded. These dichotomies are also linked to purposes or functions of assessment, and the dichotomies lead to beliefs that we may in some way control how, why, and when these may be used. Once an assessment or judgement has been made, then it is impossible for the assessor to control what others will do with this. An anecdote may serve to highlight issues which arise from this. During the Research Excellence Framework assessments for 2014, it was reported that academics who participated in these assessments, were so afraid of being held to account for their judgements, that they requested that all their feedback and arguments supporting their judgements be destroyed. This did not include the judgement itself which was represented by a grade. If the criteria and standards are available, which they are because they are public, and the final grade is available, then despite the feedback and arguments supporting the judgements being destroyed, the assessors can still be held to account. Unless a judgement is an opinion without systematic evidence, then all official and semi-­ official judgements can be held to account. We are all subject to human error, and we are all accountable. Student Self-Assessment, Grading, and Self-Regulated Learning Brookhart (2009) notes that even in the 1930s and 1940s there were numerous authors endorsing the use of student self-evaluation. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, researchers demonstrated that Standard SSA was adaptable to subjects and contexts. In HE and professional development contexts, the learning discourses, particularly during this time, of independent and self-directed learners sought to minimise tutor involvement, and so with SSA. Students might ask peers for support, although peer grading was not a priority (Taras, 2015). If grading was on the SSA agenda, then comparing student and tutor grades was an important focus and students producing comparable grades to reflect their accuracy in SSA was a final aim (Boud, 1989a; Boud & Falchikov, 1989; Brown & Harris, 2013). Independence from tutors extended to student grading with the particular aim of students becoming proficient enough to replace tutors in the arduous task of assessing and grading (see Emma, Chapter 8). The fact that tutors do not necessarily have comparable grades for the same student work seemed less of an issue (Andrade, 2019). Grading

170  Maddalena Taras in SSA is polemical with two different arguments: students should not attempt to grade because they are generally inaccurate, except for the best students, and since tutors cannot use these grades meaningfully, what is the point. Pedagogically, the argument is that practice makes perfect, as has been demonstrated, and grading practice is necessary for understanding assessment and SSA, and levels and standards, whether grades match tutors’ is by the by, as the process of grading and/or engaging with standards is what is important (see Kelvin, Chapter 8).

Assessment for Learning a New Role for SSA in K-12 Until towards the end of the 20th century, Standard SSA had mainly been developed and used in HE. Pockets of enthusiasm kept SSA on the simmer until discourses from AfL captured imaginations and put SSA on the mandatory agenda. AfL kick-started discourses requiring the use of SSA with K12 to improve learning. With the work of the Assessment Reform Group and especially of Black and Wiliam (1998), two aspects of assessment began a meteoric rise into the spotlight: first, in addition to the FA and SA dichotomy, that of Assessment for versus of Learning, and second, focus on AfL. One advantage of AfL was the spotlight on SSA. “Self-assessment by students is not an interesting option or luxury, it has to be seen as essential” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, 54–55). Black and Wiliam disseminated SSA use in English schools prompting the impetus to replicate it across continents and cultures because of its impact on student learning. The anthology by Berry and Adamson (2011) reports work in countries in the Asia-Pacific Region on the use and dissemination of AfL. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of AfL is its speedy meteoric rise and its adoption at the national and international levels, especially at the government level. As early as 2008, Stobart signalled its adoption, in various guises, at the national level in England, Scotland, and New Zealand, and adoption by researchers in the US and Canada (Stobart, 2008, 195 note 7). Gardner (2006) presents discussions with the Inuit people. Black and Wiliam’s work post 1998 and that of the Assessment Reform group were based on empirical research; however, the fundamental problem which derailed AfL was that it was based on classroom practices which became a to-do list for tutors. It was not based on principles, theories, and coordinated understandings of assessment, and ultimately, this proved difficult for tutors to integrate into their practices. Perhaps the main reason that my work in this book relates incessantly to theory, is because AfL is such a glaring and unfortunate example of coordinated and coherent theory being missing from the core of AfL. Signalling of failings within AfL also appeared from within and Stobart acknowledged the atheoretical and practice-based core, which made it difficult, not to say impossible, to provide coherence. Perhaps, the real difficulties came to the fore when AfL turned to FA discourse from HE, and

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  171 this confused matters because by using them synonymously, the difficulties with AfL in K-12, were transferred across sectors and adopted in HE. These difficulties were signalled early on in AfL’s development (Taras, 2005, 2007c, 2009; Taras, 2012b; Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009) and though rarely acknowledged, discourses began to change and the term AfL was used less, and FA more. As noted in Chapter 2, AfL was four classroom interventions (Taras 2007c, 2009). The dichotomy and divisions in SA and FA, and problems related to the understanding of feedback remain a legacy of AfL, especially basing assessments on functions, which continue in Black and Wiliam’s work (2018). The dichotomies of SA versus FA, and processes versus functions are unresolved (Lau, 2016; Taras, 2018) (see Chapter 1). (Taras, 2005, Taras, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008c, 2009, 2010, 2012b for critique and anomalies of AfL and assessment issues within and across sectors). A much welcome surge of research on SSA, criteria and rubrics has provided much-needed evidence and demonstrated the centrality and crucial importance of SSA to learning and self-regulated learning (Brown & Harris, 2013; Panadero, 2017; Panadero, Brown, & Strijbos, 2016; Panadero & Jonsson, 2013; Tan, 2020). With the development of SRL during the 1980s, this has added to educational research and both pedagogic and educational psychology research are developing to mutual benefit. Discourses claim to provide research-informed pedagogies, the solid body of work, of which this book has drawn on a small aspect, is becoming irrefutable in support of SSA. The following section provides a very brief summary of important SRL research.

Self-Regulated Learning Research Supporting SSA Self-Regulated Learning Models These SSA discussions, without presenting students and tutors as robots have, minimised social, political, and emotional influences which impact individual assessment and learning processes, particularly self-regulated learning (SRL). SRL, as the term states, encompasses the factors which influence how individuals manage and attempt to maximise their own learning journeys. Self-regulated learning (SRL) includes the cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, motivational, and emotional/affective aspects of learning. It is, therefore, an extraordinary umbrella under which a considerable number of variables that influence learning (e.g., self-efficacy, volition, cognitive strategies) are studied within a comprehensive and holistic approach. For that reason, SRL has become one of the most important areas of research within educational psychology. (Panadero, 2017, 1)

172  Maddalena Taras Pedagogues and educationalists have relied on psychology, sociology and cognate areas to provide specialist knowledge and evidence to inform pedagogic theories and practices. The concept of SRL in educational psychology is relatively new and much of the research originates from the 1980s, with it coming into focus as an important area for understanding learning after the first decade of the 21st century. Learning theories have mainly focused on external factors impacting learners, SRL focuses mainly on internal ones. Bringing these branches and threads together to coalesce and build a more complete understanding is particularly complex because each researcher or group of researchers will have their own specialism. My prolonged work on SSA has led me to explore the minutiae around the issues surrounding SSA, and these chapters bring these together. Understanding the importance of research per se and, also in relation to pedagogic practice is one thing, understanding the research itself is less straight forward and as pedagogues, we rely on the work of specialists to translate the research, findings, and implications for teaching. Panadero (2017) has carried out a comprehensive review of SRL models which is invaluable to educationalists, both as an informed window into the literature and a means of understanding SRL theories and how they potentially affect our understandings of learning. The clear conclusion from his work is that “self-assessment, (which) is a crucial process for SRL (Panadero et al., 2016).” (Panadero, 2017, 23). A simplified overview and summary of some pertinent issues linking SSA to SRL are presented here. This book focuses on SSA specifically, and the SRL literature should be consulted directly for more detailed and comprehensive information. Furthermore, new developments will not be considered here, that is, signalling “the existence of three modes of regulation in collaborative settings: self-regulation (SRL), co-regulation (CoRL), and shared regulation (SSRL).” (Panadero, 2017, 16). This will no doubt prove to be an interesting new area of research, and the obvious parallels with learning theories will add new dimensions to our thinking.

SRL Models and Analogous “processes” in Pedagogic Practices When venturing into a new field or specialism, it is always daunting to deal with new vocabularies, terminologies, and concepts, even when there is significant overlap with other cognate areas. Psychology in general and educational psychology in particular deal with people and social contexts, yet work within scientific parameters. People and social sciences are messy and complex, and not easily categorised into “hard facts” which science prefers. Work in educational psychology on SRL becomes more accessible if the findings are translated into pedagogic processes. For example, Panadero initially evaluated each set of works on SRL models individually before comparing how the principles of the different SRL models may be compared. Many of these terms are new to pedagogues and it sometimes feels as if we are entering a foreign language zone.

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  173 Panadero considers different terminologies used by SRL authors as approximately equivalent to each other during three-identifiable phases which make up all the SRL processes: these are “Preparatory phase, Performance phase and Appraisal phase” (Panadero, 2017, 19 Table 2). Now we enter into more familiar territory because these phases also correspond to the phases of pedagogic practice identifiable in classrooms, and also when students or researchers are working independently. In Chapter 8, Hui Yong tells us her lessons are based on 10 steps organised round 3 stages: prep, process, and post-SSA, which are very similar. The first, the Preparatory phase, as the name signals, encompasses the elements of clarifying task, planning, goal setting, all familiar educational processes, and Zimmerman (2000, 2002) adds self-motivation, thus including learners’ volition and motivation. This preparatory phase may require differential support from tutors depending on students’ ages and levels. Ultimately, students’ engagement and understanding will prepare them, and this preparation will involve continual implicit or explicit SSA. Terms such as “primary and secondary appraisal”, confirm this. The second phase, the Performance phase, again self-explanatory, is more explicit in the terms which represent aspects of SSA: “Cognitive processing, Monitoring, Applying tactics and strategies, self-control, self-observation”. Similarly with the third Appraisal phase. Thus each phase is interlaced with SSA, making it difficult to separate SRL from SSA. Zimmerman’s Four Models After describing Zimmerman’s four models, Panadero states that he will use model 2 as a point of comparison with the other SRL authors (Panadero, 2017, 19 Table 1). “In this review, Cyclical Phases model will be analyzed, as it describes the SRL process at the same level as the models from the other authors analyzed here.” (Panadero, 2017, 3). Yet, the conclusion that Panadero comes to after a meticulous evaluation of six SRL models is that: “If we consider what we know on how to design instructional environments to minimise the impact of cognitive load (Kirschner, 2002), then a SRL skill developmental approach should be chosen. Such an approach would consider the four stages for acquisition of SRL, formulated in Zimmerman’s Multi-Level model (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005): observation, emulation, self-control (including automaticity), and self-regulation. This approach will maximise SRL skill development and has been proposed for self-assessment, which is a crucial process for SRL (Panadero et al., 2016).” (Panadero, 2017, 23) Two things are strange, firstly, that the best approach is excluded from Table 1, and secondly, that no attempt is made to compare the best approach to the others. Thus, the very useful comparative Table 1 in Panadero, 2017, 19, which uses Zimmerman’s model 2, is less useful when the conclusion is that it is not model 2 which is of greatest value to students and tutors, but model 4, the Multi-Level model.

174  Maddalena Taras It may be interesting to attempt a comparison of Zimmerman’s MultiLevel model, which has four phases or stages, with the three Cyclical Phases in Table 1 below. Difference Between Zimmerman’s Cyclical Phases Model 2 and His Multi-Level Model 4 What is the difference between Zimmerman’s two models? A comparison seems straightforward in that the last column, the appraisal, self-reflection, or self-regulation phase, presents them as equivalent to each other. The second to last column, likewise, has equivalent phases: performance, performance, self-control (which is subsumed under performance in Zimmerman’s model 2). Zimmerman’s model 2 has one phase, forethought, and his model 4 has two phases, observation and emulation. The two phases of model 4 may be considered equivalent to the preparatory phase of the models by other authors because they are all essential activities for learners to clarify what, how and why they are to organise their work and hence learning. Thus, without too much creative licence, perhaps Panadero, 2017 could have included Zimmerman’s model 4 into his Table 1, especially as the note at the bottom of Table 1 clarifies that “The early draft provided by the authors did not provide the exact names for the phases but it could be implied the phases are similar to Winne and Hadwin’s”. Comparison of Panadero (2017, 19 Table 1) Phases (i.e. headings) with Zimmerman’s model 2 and his optimal Multi-Level model 4 from Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005 Phases (Panadero, Preparatory phase SSA 2017, 19 Table 1) Zimmerman Model 2 Zimmerman

Model 4

Performance phase + SSA

Appraisal phase+ SSA

Forethought (task Performance Self-reflection analysis, (self-control, (self-judgement, self-motivation) self-observation) self-reaction) Observation Emulation Self-control SelfSA FA (including regulation+SSA automaticity SSA

Note: Classifications of SA, FA and SSA added by Taras.

One question arises: why does Zimmerman’s Model 4, make a difference to the SRL model and maximise learning? Observation and emulation would seem to describe the Confucian way of learning, where expertise is used as a model, by observing and emulating, students have a process model to follow. This will maximise SRL skill development by “(a) being in context, (b) using tasks within the same domain as the target content, (c) and promoting a high degree of learner activity and metacognitive awareness” (Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996, 131). (Panadero

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  175 et al., 2016, 23). It also minimises students activating avoidance goals (Boekaerts, 2011) because it is less taxing and stressful to follow. Furthermore, Panadero proposes Zimmerman’s model 4 as a SSA process. “This approach will maximize SRL skill development and has been proposed for self-assessment, which is a crucial process for SRL (Panadero et al., 2016).” (Panadero, 2017, 23). A further important aspect is that this model is recommended for all student levels and tutors. Empirical Evidence from Self-Regulated Learning Research There are two main points worth remembering with SRL: first, despite the differences in the theories from six main authors that Panadero (2017) reviews, there are many overlapping features. Second, he concludes that All of the models have empirical evidence that supports the validity to some of their main aspects. However, because the SRL models share a high number of processes, there is a significant overlap in the empirical evidence… (e.g. self-efficacy is a crucial variable for some SRL models, ….thus ….it has implications for all those models that emphasize selfefficacy as a crucial SRL process. (Panadero, 2017, 22) Therefore, … trying to disentangle each individual empirical contribution tailored to a specific SRL model and applying it to the other five models would be very complex. As a consequence, the analysis will focus on more transversal findings, which stem from the meta-analyses conducted in the SRL field. (Panadero, 2017, 22) Thus, the different models might best be seen as complementing each other’s caveats, and working together, rather than a contrasting comparison, Findings from Four Meta-analyses Panadero uses four meta-analyses to clarify the findings on SRL research, which like Brown & Harris, 2013 above, recommend that training for students and tutors is situated in context, is challenging and uses similar tasks for practice (Panadero et al., 2016, 23). This is what we saw with Hui Yong and Kelvin in Chapter 8. Three key results are relevant from the four meta-analyses: “First, the constructs included in more SRL theories were the ones that had stronger effects on learning” (Panadero, 2017, 433). This links with the

176  Maddalena Taras previous citations above, which show that the aspects most common across all SRL theories are the ones which impact most on learning. Second, the empirical results overlap indicates that significant relationships exists between the different models. This, again emphasises the similarities between the theories. Without Panadero’s (2017) thorough and comprehensive review, it would be very difficult for a non-specialist in the field to disentangle the differences and highlight the commonalities. Third, “most of the self-regulatory processes exhibited positive relationships with learning, goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy having the strongest effects. Together these four constructs accounted for 17% of the variance in learning after controlling for cognitive ability and pre-training knowledge”. (Panadero, 2017, 438, bold added) Again, this signals the importance of Panadero’s (2017) work which untangles the many SRL theories, models, and different terminologies, and which evaluates, unites, and presents their relevance to educational practices as a coherent body of work for us to consider. Three main conclusions can be extracted from these four meta-analyses. “First, SRL is a powerful umbrella to anchor crucial variables that affect learning, offering, at the same time, a comprehensive framework that explains their interactions. Second, SRL interventions are successful ways to improve students’ learning, if properly designed. Third, SRL interventions have differential effects based on the students’ educational level.” (Panadero, 2017, 438). Conclusions two and three can almost be taken as a warning. Understanding how activities can be “properly” designed and the differential effects depending on students’ level are both very important. From the information gleaned below, I was particularly interested to learn that group work is not conducive to learning for primary-aged children. Student Level and Optimal Self-Regulated Learning Interventions Although SSA has been claimed to be central to enable student understanding of themselves and their world around them, and citing the Convention on the Rights of the Child to demonstrate that this understanding is crucial from a very early age, SSA, SRL, and pedagogic practices are also specific to student levels and ages, and our understandings of these will motivate decisions. The discussions in this book do not supersede these, rather they wish to inform and enhance them. Primary education is optimally linked to socio-cognitive theory. Panadero (2017, 23) summarises empirical research findings on potential SRL impacts in primary contexts and concludes that sociocognitive-based models are best, possibly because they include motivational and emotional aspects. Certain SRL aspects, including group work, were detrimental for primary

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  177 students. Therefore, research findings must be clearly understood to support students at various levels. Secondary education is optimally linked to metacognitive models. SRL interventions, including group work, had a positive impact on secondary and higher education students and metacognitive models which require higher cognitive tasks might benefit these students. Thus, more mature and older students require greater challenges and more difficult tasks. Higher education and workplace trainees are optimally linked to socio-cognitive theory. Although HE students, like secondary students, benefit from group work, elements of the socio-cognitive theory, namely, goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy, not only had motivational value but also support learning in HE and workplace trainees. Most effective focus seems to be: (a) self-efficacy, (b) goal-setting, and (c) multifaceted interventions and achievement motivation. (Panadero, 2017, 23). “Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the conclusions regarding higher education students are not build on meta-analyses that explicitly compared different SRL models (i.e., theoretical background) interventions as are the ones for primary and secondary education.” (Panadero, 2017, 23). This would seem to indicate that logical extrapolations rather than empirical evidence support these conclusions. Educational Implications Panadero (2017) discusses four educational implications distilled from the empirical studies. To note is that empirical evidence demonstrates that the vast majority of psychological correlates (e.g. self-efficacy, effort regulation, procrastination) are included in the SRL models, and that SRL interventions promote student learning. The main implications are 1. that teachers need training on SRL theory and models at all stages of their careers: beginning with more comprehensive training of pre-­service teachers, in-service teachers and finally providing all teachers with SRL expertise by them using SRL for themselves as learners. A good example of this is Hui Yong’s classes in Chapter 8. This is also true for SSA as seen throughout the chapters. Teachers as all levels are crucial to implementing ideas, which is optimised by institutional-level support. 2. that teaching different SRL models is more apt for different educational levels. Classrooms are not doing what is recommended by research and this is best resolved by extra training for teachers. In HE there is little SRL use because of focus on course content. In secondary SRL is undermined by being mainly implicit. Primary schools implement SRL most effectively. 3. that classrooms will maximise learning by being goal driven. Another condition is avoiding cognitive overload, particularly with new tasks, which may reduce students’ engagement. 4. that developing SRL skills with continued practice, feedback, and observation will aid in maximising learning.

178  Maddalena Taras These four recommendations can apply equally to SSA. SRL, which mainly began developing in the 1980, is still a nascent research area, and all aspects of this research have a part in building on expertise. This book has not done justice to the work done to date, and, hopefully, the taster provided will inspire educationalists to delve further in both the literature and research potentials. Since SSA is crucial for SRL, understanding and using SSA goes a long way to implementing SRL.

Conclusion Through the chapters, this book, like a jigsaw puzzle, has attempted putting the pieces of assessment and SSA together to create a clearer picture, but in the end, each of us must build our own picture. Support for mandatory SSA has been evidenced in learning and assessment theories, and empirical research. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has focused on the crucial importance of children understanding their own minds and opinions, and, developing SSA skills can contribute to this. This book has also contributed to presenting different models and versions of SSA to demonstrate that SSA is not a single, monolithic process. These models provide choices and flexibility for different age groups, contexts, and levels and expertise: all models upskill students to enable increased participation in their own developments as responsible citizens, and, importantly, SSA is an essential part and contributes significantly to SRL and learners. As well as dealing with theoretical and conceptual issues, this book has also provided practical and contextual support, including chapters of examples of practices in different contexts. These highlighted issues and hurdles, and how tutors have resolved these in their own classes. The ambitions in this book have covered a huge area, and much more remains to be included. Although far from comprehensive, we aimed to provide a springboard for both experimentation in practices and for further developing of conceptual and theoretical expertise. This small step for SSA progress we hope will become a huge step in supporting tutors, learners, and learning.

Questions for Consideration and Reflection How does external feedback, teachers, and peers, differ from their own? Are tutors explicit on how they carry out assessment in order to produce feedback? Is this important? Why? Are students clear on how their own SSA feedback relates to the tutor feedback assessment? Is feedback from tutors to students seen as instruction or information? What are the implications of this?

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  179

References Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 87. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00087 https://www. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087/full Berry, R. & Adamson, B. (Eds.) (2011). Assessment reform in education: Policy and practice. Springer. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Williams, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D, (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in  Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 1–25. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X. 2018.1441807 Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 408–425). New York: Routledge. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231. Boud, D. (1995). Implementing student self-assessment (2nd ed.). Australian Capital Territory: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Boud, D. J. (1989a). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549. Boud, D. J. (1989b). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 14(1), 20–30. Boud, D. J., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18. Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Grading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (367–393). SAGE. Convention on the Rights of the Child (n.d.). www.ohchr.org Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Dearing, Sir R. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. HMSO. Dragemark Oscarson, A. (2009). Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign language: A study at the upper secondary school level. Published PhD Thesis. Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 277. Available from: https://gupea. ub.gu.se/handle/2077/19783 (Accessed 10 June 2009). Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education, practical assessment. Research and Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11. http:// pareonline.net/pdf/v14n7.pdf Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430. Gardner, J. (Ed.) (2006). Assessment and learning. London: Sage. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002099 Hinett, K., & Thomas, J. (Eds.) (1999). Staff guide to self and peer assessment. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

180  Maddalena Taras Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’—A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509–525. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8:422. https://www.frontiersin.org/ articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422/full Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018a). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13–31 Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions, Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(1), 129–144. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Alqassab, M. (2018b). Peer feedback used for formative purposes: Review of findings. In A. Lipnevich and J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp 1–47). Cambridge University Press. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 145–165. Sadler, D. R. (2005) Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne & M.   Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation, AERA Monograph Series—Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally and Co. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. New York/ London: Routledge. Tan, K. H. K. (2020). Assessment rubrics decoded: An educator’s guide. Routledge. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 26(6), 606–614. Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 27(6), 501–510. Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in HE, 28(5), 549–565. Taras, M. (2005) Assessment—summative and formative—some theoretical reflections, British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. https://www.tandfonline. com/action/showMostReadArticles?journalCode=rbje20 Taras, M. (2007a). Assessment for learning: Understanding theory to improve practice, Journal of FE and HE, 31(4), 363–371. Taras, M. (2007b) Terminal terminology: The language of assessment. In M. Reiss, R. Hayes, & A. Atkinson (Eds.), Marginality and difference in education and beyond (pp. 52–67). Trentham Books 1 85856 412 3. Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of FE and HE, 33(1), 57–69. Taras, M. (2010). Student self-assessment: Process and consequences. Teaching in HE, 15(2), 199–213. Taras, M. (2012a). Where is the theory in assessment for learning? Online Educational Research Journal. https://community.dur.ac.uk/p.b.tymms/oerj/ https:// community.dur.ac.uk/p.b.tymms/oerj/publications/46.pdf

Unresolved Dilemmas in Self-Assessment  181 Taras, M. (2012b). Assessing assessment theories. Online Educational Research Journal https://community.dur.ac.uk/p.b.tymms/oerj/ https://community. dur.ac.uk/p.b.tymms/oerj/publications/50.pdf Taras, M. (2015) Commissioned “Student self-assessment: What have we learned and what are the challenges?” Relieve, 21 (1). ISSN 1134-4032 (1) ENGLISH http:// www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v21n1/RELIEVEv21n1_ME8eng.htm (2) SPANISH https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/RELIEVE/issue/view/396 Taras, M. (2018). Transgressing power structures in assessment: Not a step too far, just far enough. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Developing transformative spaces in higher education: Learning to transgress (pp. 162–181). Routledge. Taras, M. (2019). Commissioned Book Review “Teacher learning with classroom assessment: Perspectives from Asia Pacific”, edited by Heng Jiang and Mary F. Hill (201p.). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, ISBN 978-981-10-90523. London Review of Education, 13(1), 242–244(3). https://doi.org/10.18546/ LRE.17.2.12 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 13–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self-regulated learning and practice. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 509–526). Guilford Press.

Index

Page numbers in bold refer to tables. Adamson, B. 170 Andrade, H. 39–42 assessment 3–4; expertise 7–8; in literature 4–8 Assessment for Learning (AfL) 6, 20 Barzel, B. 72 Berry, R. 170 best effect, using SSA to 153; challenges 159–165; power and merit 155–157; student voice 157–158; teachers’ experiences 154–155 Black, P. 7, 20, 58 Boekaerts, M. 10 Burgess, H. 155 case studies, SSA implementation 39–42 classroom assessment 21 classroom, SSA implementation: clear communication 48; environment/ climate 47; good relationships 48; instructional environment 50; physical environment 51; social cultural environment 49, 50; trust 48–49 Convention on the Rights of the Child 8 Corno, L. 10 Cowan, J. 20 Davies, M. S. 8 dilemmas, unresolved 166–167; clarifying theory 167; feedback and power 167–170; new role for SSA in K-­12 170–171; self-­regulated learning 171–181 Dwyer, C. A. 65 Dylan, Bob 3–4 Energy 3D 77

factors, SSA implementation 40–42 feedback, SSA 66–68; conceptualising 59–63; external feedback 65; functions of 54–55; as gift 63–65; origins of 57; processes of assessment 57–59; self-­esteem 65–66; SSA as either summative or formative 55–56 final product, assessing 56 formative assessment (FA) 3, 54; SA-­FA dichotomy 6–7 Fuchs, L. S. 39 Gardner, J. 170 Harrison, C. 20, 58 Hattie, J. 47 higher education (HE) 19; FE in England 140–150; Masters Module MAEM 842 136–140; SSA in 132–150; staff development 132–136 Hogaboam-­Gray, A. 39 implementation, SSA 38, 51–53; case studies 39–42; classroom as factor 47–51; conditions 42–47 integrated feedback: feedback conceptualisation 60–63 integrated feedback model, model 25–28 interventions 39–40 Kwek, D. 39 Lafuente, M. 73 Lee, C. 20 literature, assessment in 4–8; assessment process 4–5; difference between assessment and SA 5; SA-­FA dichotomy 6–7; summative assessment 5–6 Lundy, L. 157

Index  183 mandatory SSA: assessment processes 13–15; assessment theories leading to 12; learning theories leading to 10–12; theories linking SA, FA, and SSA 12–13 Marshall, B. 20, 58 meritocracy 156 models, SSA 19; comparisons 27, 28; empirical evidence 33–37; evaluation of 22; preparatory steps for all 23; processes 23–25; self-­assessment developments 20–21; self-­assessment in K-­12 and higher education 21–22; Taras model variations 29–32 Mother Tongue Language (MTL) 97–101 peer assessment 9–10 primary schools 102–104; art in 88–92; Chinese 97–101; English in 92–96; physical education 87–88; science in 83–86; self-­assessment implementation in 82–102; self-­ assessment in general 101–102; SSA in 82–104; using technology for SSA in 73–79 primary schools, implementing SSA in 39–42 production, assessing ongoing process of 55–56 Reynold, M. 156 Rolheiser, C. 39 Ross, J.A. 39 Ruchniewicz, H. 72 Safi, L. 39 Scribo 73, 73–76, 79 Scriven, M. 12, 55, 65 secondary schools, SSA in 128–131; art in 117–124; design and technology 124–128; English in 109–115; mathematics in 115–116; science in 106–109; self-­assessment implementation 105–106 self-­marking: empirical evidence 33; feedback conceptualisation 60–63; model 25 Self-­Regulated and Learning (SRL) 9, 11

self-­regulated learning (SRL) 171–178 Singapore see technology Sound Standard: feedback conceptualisation 60–63 Sound Standard, model 25 Standard SSA: feedback conceptualisation 59–60 Stobart, G. 20 Student Learning Space (SLS) 73, 74, 75 student self-­assessment (SSA) 3, 19; feedback 54–68; implementing 38–53; secondary schools 105–131; supporting mandatory SSA 10–15; technology usage 71–81; unresolved dilemmas 166–181; working definition of 9–10; using to best effect 153–165 students, responsibilities in 7–8 summative assessment (SA) 3, 5–6, 21, 54 Syed, M. 65 Tan, K. H. K. 154 Taras models 26–28 Taras, M. 8, 12, 20, 26 technology 79–81; educational technology in SSA 72–73; examples of using 73–79; recapping fundamentals/conditions for SSA 71 Trehan, K. 156 tutors, responsibilities of 7–8 United Nations Conventions of the Rights of a Child (UNCRC) 157 Valtcheva, A. 39–40, 42 Version 1 (V1), model 26–28 Version 2 (V2), model 26–28 Version 3 (V3), model 26–28 Wiliam 20, 21, 170 Williams 20, 144 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 9 Wong 39, 159 Young, Michael 156 Zhu, G. 72 Zimmerman, B. J. 171–178