A Critical Review of Research On Student Self-Assessment: Heidi L. Andrade

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
published: 27 August 2019

doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
A Critical Review of Research on

Student Self-Assessment
Heidi L. Andrade*
Educational Psychology and Methodology, University at Albany, Albany, NY, United States
This article is a review of research on student self-assessment conducted largely

between 2013 and 2018. The purpose of the review is to provide an updated
overview of theory and research. The treatment of theory involves articulating a refined
definition and operationalization of self-assessment. The review of 76 empirical studies
offers a critical perspective on what has been investigated, including the relationship
between self-assessment and achievement, consistency of self-assessment and others’
assessments, student perceptions of self-assessment, and the association between
self-assessment and self-regulated learning. An argument is made for less research on
consistency and summative self-assessment, and more on the cognitive and affective
mechanisms of formative self-assessment.
Edited by:
Keywords: self-assessment, self-evaluation, self-grading, formative assessment, classroom assessment, self-
Chad M. Gotch,
regulated learning (SRL)
Washington State University,
United States
Reviewed by: This review of research on student self-assessment expands on a review published as a chapter in
Ana Remesal, the Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback (Andrade, 2018, reprinted with permission).
University of Barcelona, Spain
The timespan for the original review was January 2013 to October 2016. A lot of research has been
Beverly FitzPatrick,
Memorial University of
done on the subject since then, including at least two meta-analyses; hence this expanded review,
Newfoundland, Canada in which I provide an updated overview of theory and research. The treatment of theory presented
here involves articulating a refined definition and operationalization of self-assessment through a
*Correspondence:
Heidi L. Andrade
lens of feedback. My review of the growing body of empirical research offers a critical perspective,
handrade@albany.edu in the interest of provoking new investigations into neglected areas.
Specialty section: DEFINING AND OPERATIONALIZING STUDENT

This article was submitted to
Assessment, Testing and Applied
SELF-ASSESSMENT
Measurement,
Without exception, reviews of self-assessment (Sargeant, 2008; Brown and Harris, 2013; Panadero
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Education et al., 2016a) call for clearer definitions: What is self-assessment, and what is not? This question
is surprisingly difficult to answer, as the term self-assessment has been used to describe a diverse
Received: 27 April 2019
range of activities, such as assigning a happy or sad face to a story just told, estimating the number
Accepted: 02 August 2019
Published: 27 August 2019 of correct answers on a math test, graphing scores for dart throwing, indicating understanding
(or the lack thereof) of a science concept, using a rubric to identify strengths and weaknesses in
Citation:
Andrade HL (2019) A Critical Review
one’s persuasive essay, writing reflective journal entries, and so on. Each of those activities involves
of Research on Student some kind of assessment of one’s own functioning, but they are so different that distinctions among
Self-Assessment. Front. Educ. 4:87. types of self-assessment are needed. I will draw those distinctions in terms of the purposes of
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00087 self-assessment which, in turn, determine its features: a classic form-fits-function analysis.
Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Andrade Self-Assessment Review
WHAT IS SELF-ASSESSMENT? that, although students’ and professor’s assessments tend to be

highly similar when self-assessment did not count toward final
Brown and Harris (2013) defined self-assessment in the K-16 grades, overestimations increased dramatically when students’
context as a “descriptive and evaluative act carried out by the self-assessments did count. Interviews of students who self-
student concerning his or her own work and academic abilities” assigned highly discrepant grades revealed (as you might guess)
(p. 368). Panadero et al. (2016a) defined it as a “wide variety that they were motivated by the desire to obtain the highest
of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe possible grades.
(i.e., assess) and possibly assign merit or worth to (i.e., evaluate) Studies like Tejeiro et al’s. (2012) are interesting in terms
the qualities of their own learning processes and products” of the information they provide about the relationship between
(p. 804). Referring to physicians, Epstein et al. (2008) defined consistency and honesty, but the purpose of the self-assessment,
“concurrent self-assessment” as “ongoing moment-to-moment beyond addressing interesting research questions, is unclear.
self-monitoring” (p. 5). Self-monitoring “refers to the ability to There is no feedback purpose. This is also true for another
notice our own actions, curiosity to examine the effects of those example of a study of summative self-assessment of competence,
actions, and willingness to use those observations to improve during which elementary-school children took the Test of
behavior and thinking in the future” (p. 5). Taken together, these Narrative Language and then were asked to self-evaluate “how
definitions include self-assessment of one’s abilities, processes, you did in making up stories today” by pointing to one of five
and products—everything but the kitchen sink. This very broad pictures, from a “very happy face” (rating of five) to a “very sad
conception might seem unwieldy, but it works because each face” (rating of one) (Kaderavek et al., 2004. p. 37). The usual
object of assessment—competence, process, and product—is results were reported: Older children and good narrators were
subject to the influence of feedback from oneself. more accurate than younger children and poor narrators, and
What is missing from each of these definitions, however, is males tended to more frequently overestimate their ability.
the purpose of the act of self-assessment. Their authors might Typical of clinical studies of accuracy in self-evaluation,
rightly point out that the purpose is implied, but a formal this study rests on a definition and operationalization of self-
definition requires us to make it plain: Why do we ask students assessment with no value in terms of instructional feedback. If
to self-assess? I have long held that self-assessment is feedback those children were asked to rate their stories and then revise
(Andrade, 2010), and that the purpose of feedback is to inform or, better yet, if they assessed their stories according to clear,
adjustments to processes and products that deepen learning and developmentally appropriate criteria before revising, the valence
enhance performance; hence the purpose of self-assessment is to of their self-assessments in terms of instructional feedback
generate feedback that promotes learning and improvements in would skyrocket. I speculate that their accuracy would too. In
performance. This learning-oriented purpose of self-assessment contrast, studies of formative self-assessment suggest that when
implies that it should be formative: if there is no opportunity for the act of self-assessing is given a learning-oriented purpose,
adjustment and correction, self-assessment is almost pointless. students’ self-assessments are relatively consistent with those of
external evaluators, including professors (Lopez and Kossack,
WHY SELF-ASSESS? 2007; Barney et al., 2012; Leach, 2012), teachers (Bol et al., 2012;
Chang et al., 2012, 2013), researchers (Panadero and Romero,
Clarity about the purpose of self-assessment allows us to interpret 2014; Fitzpatrick and Schulz, 2016), and expert medical assessors
what otherwise appear to be discordant findings from research, (Hawkins et al., 2012).
which has produced mixed results in terms of both the accuracy My commitment to keeping self-assessment formative is
of students’ self-assessments and their influence on learning firm. However, Gavin Brown (personal communication, April
and/or performance. I believe the source of the discord can 2011) reminded me that summative self-assessment exists and
be traced to the different ways in which self-assessment is we cannot ignore it; any definition of self-assessment must
carried out, such as whether it is summative and formative. acknowledge and distinguish between formative and summative
This issue will be taken up again in the review of current forms of it. Thus, the taxonomy in Table 1, which depicts self-
research that follows this overview. For now, consider a study assessment as serving formative and/or summative purposes, and
of the accuracy and validity of summative self-assessment in focuses on competence, processes, and/or products.
teacher education conducted by Tejeiro et al. (2012), which Fortunately, a formative view of self-assessment seems to
showed that students’ self-assigned marks tended to be higher be taking hold in various educational contexts. For instance,
than marks given by professors. All 122 students in the study Sargeant (2008) noted that all seven authors in a special issue
assigned themselves a grade at the end of their course, but half of the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
of the students were told that their self-assigned grade would “conceptualize self-assessment within a formative, educational
count toward 5% of their final grade. In both groups, students’ perspective, and see it as an activity that draws upon both
self-assessments were higher than grades given by professors, external and internal data, standards, and resources to inform
especially for students with “poorer results” (p. 791) and those and make decisions about one’s performance” (p. 1). Sargeant
for whom self-assessment counted toward the final grade. In also stresses the point that self-assessment should be guided by
the group that was told their self-assessments would count evaluative criteria: “Multiple external sources can and should
toward their final grade, no relationship was found between the inform self-assessment, perhaps most important among them
professor’s and the students’ assessments. Tejeiro et al. concluded performance standards” (p. 1). Now we are talking about the how

TABLE 1 | A taxonomy of self-assessment.
Competence Processes Products
Standards Standards
Yes No Yes No
Formative Task-specific self-efficacy Judgments of progress • Traffic lights • Rubric- or Open-ended critique of
ratings toward specific targets • Comprehension checks checklist-referenced one’s own work or
• Self-monitoring; self-assessment understanding
metacognition • Self-testing
• Reflective journal writing
Summative Post-task judgments of Post-task judgments of • Self-grading • Self-grading
ability based on effectiveness of procedures
performance
of self-assessment, which demands an operationalization of self- by Boud (1999), who argued that the phrase self-assessment
assessment practice. Let us examine each object of self-assessment should not imply an isolated or individualistic activity; it
(competence, processes, and/or products) with an eye for what is should commonly involve peers, teachers, and other sources
assessed and why. of information. The conceptualization of self-assessment as
enunciated in Boud’s description would appear to involve a
process by which one takes personal responsibility for looking
WHAT IS SELF-ASSESSED? outward, explicitly seeking feedback, and information from
external sources, then using these externally generated sources
Monitoring and self-assessing processes are practically of assessment data to direct performance improvements. In this
synonymous with self-regulated learning (SRL), or at least construction, self-assessment is more of a pedagogical strategy
central components of it such as goal-setting and monitoring, than an ability to judge for oneself; it is a habit that one needs
or metacognition. Research on SRL has clearly shown that self- to acquire and enact rather than an ability that one needs to
master (p. 15).
generated feedback on one’s approach to learning is associated
with academic gains (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2011). Self-
assessment of the products, such as papers and presentations, As in the K-16 context, self-assessment is coming to be seen as
are the easiest to defend as feedback, especially when those having value as much or more so in terms of pedagogy as in
self-assessments are grounded in explicit, relevant, evaluative assessment (Silver et al., 2008; Brown and Harris, 2014). In the
criteria and followed by opportunities to relearn and/or revise end, however, I decided that self-assessing one’s competence to
(Andrade, 2010). successfully learn a particular concept or complete a particular
Including the self-assessment of competence in this definition task (which sounds a lot like self-efficacy—more on that later)
is a little trickier. I hesitated to include it because of the risk of might be useful feedback because it can inform decisions about
sneaking in global assessments of one’s overall ability, self-esteem, how to proceed, such as the amount of time to invest in learning
and self-concept (“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and how to play the flute, or whether or not to seek help learning
doggone it, people like me,” Franken, 1992), which do not seem the steps of the jitterbug. An important caveat, however, is
relevant to a discussion of feedback in the context of learning. that self-assessments of competence are only useful if students
Research on global self-assessment, or self-perception, is popular have opportunities to do something about their perceived low
in the medical education literature, but even there, scholars have competence—that is, it serves the purpose of formative feedback
begun to question its usefulness in terms of influencing learning for the learner.
and professional growth (e.g., see Sargeant et al., 2008). Eva and
Regehr (2008) seem to agree in the following passage, which
states the case in a way that makes it worthy of a long quotation: HOW TO SELF-ASSESS?
Self-assessment is often (implicitly or otherwise) conceptualized Panadero et al. (2016a) summarized five very different
as a personal, unguided reflection on performance for the taxonomies of self-assessment and called for the development of
purposes of generating an individually derived summary of one’s a comprehensive typology that considers, among other things,
own level of knowledge, skill, and understanding in a particular
its purpose, the presence or absence of criteria, and the method.
area. For example, this conceptualization would appear to be the
In response, I propose the taxonomy depicted in Table 1, which
only reasonable basis for studies that fit into what Colliver et al.
(2005) has described as the “guess your grade” model of self- focuses on the what (competence, process, or product), the why
assessment research, the results of which form the core foundation (formative or summative), and the how (methods, including
for the recurring conclusion that self-assessment is generally poor. whether or not they include standards, e.g., criteria) of self-
This unguided, internally generated construction of self- assessment. The collections of examples of methods in the table
assessment stands in stark contrast to the model put forward is inexhaustive.

I put the methods in Table 1 where I think they belong, but by Panadero and his colleagues (see below). I have involved
many of them could be placed in more than one cell. Take self- students in self-assessment of stories, essays, or mathematical
efficacy, for instance, which is essentially a self-assessment of one’s word problems according to rubrics or checklists with criteria.
competence to successfully undertake a particular task (Bandura, For example, two studies investigated the relationship between
1997). Summative judgments of self-efficacy are certainly possible elementary or middle school students’ scores on a written
but they seem like a silly thing to do—what is the point, assignment and a process that involved them in reading
from a learning perspective? Formative self-efficacy judgments, a model paper, co-creating criteria, self-assessing first drafts
on the other hand, can inform next steps in learning and with a rubric, and revising (Andrade et al., 2008, 2010). The
skill building. There is reason to believe that monitoring and self-assessment was highly scaffolded: students were asked to
making adjustments to one’s self-efficacy (e.g., by setting goals underline key phrases in the rubric with colored pencils (e.g.,
or attributing success to effort) can be productive (Zimmerman, underline “clearly states an opinion” in blue), then underline or
2000), so I placed self-efficacy in the formative row. circle in their drafts the evidence of having met the standard
It is important to emphasize that self-efficacy is task-specific, articulated by the phrase (e.g., his or her opinion) with the
more or less (Bandura, 1997). This taxonomy does not include same blue pencil. If students found they had not met the
general, holistic evaluations of one’s abilities, for example, “I standard, they were asked to write themselves a reminder
am good at math.” Global assessment of competence does not to make improvements when they wrote their final drafts.
provide the leverage, in terms of feedback, that is provided by This process was followed for each criterion on the rubric.
task-specific assessments of competence, that is, self-efficacy. Eva There were main effects on scores for every self-assessed
and Regehr (2008) provided an illustrative example: “We suspect criterion on the rubric, suggesting that guided self-assessment
most people are prompted to open a dictionary as a result of according to the co-created criteria helped students produce
encountering a word for which they are uncertain of the meaning more effective writing.
rather than out of a broader assessment that their vocabulary Panadero and his colleagues have also done quasi-
could be improved” (p. 16). The exclusion of global evaluations of experimental and experimental research on standards-referenced
oneself resonates with research that clearly shows that feedback self-assessment, using rubrics or lists of assessment criteria that
that focuses on aspects of a task (e.g., “I did not solve most are presented in the form of questions (Panadero et al., 2012,
of the algebra problems”) is more effective than feedback that 2013, 2014; Panadero and Romero, 2014). Panadero calls the
focuses on the self (e.g., “I am bad at math”) (Kluger and list of assessment criteria a script because his work is grounded
DeNisi, 1996; Dweck, 2006; Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Hence, in research on scaffolding (e.g., Kollar et al., 2006): I call it a
global self-evaluations of ability or competence do not appear checklist because that is the term used in classroom assessment
in Table 1. contexts. Either way, the list provides standards for the task.
Another approach to student self-assessment that could be Here is a script for a written summary that Panadero et al. (2014)
placed in more than one cell is traffic lights. The term traffic used with college students in a psychology class:
lights refers to asking students to use green, yellow, or red
• Does my summary transmit the main idea from the text? Is it
objects (or thumbs up, sideways, or down—anything will do)
at the beginning of my summary?
to indicate whether they think they have good, partial, or little
• Are the important ideas also in my summary?
understanding (Black et al., 2003). It would be appropriate
• Have I selected the main ideas from the text to make them
for traffic lights to appear in multiple places in Table 1,
explicit in my summary?
depending on how they are used. Traffic lights seem to be
• Have I thought about my purpose for the summary? What is
most effective at supporting students’ reflections on how well
my goal?
they understand a concept or have mastered a skill, which is
line with their creators’ original intent, so they are categorized Taken together, the results of the studies cited above suggest
as formative self-assessments of one’s learning—which sounds that students who engaged in self-assessment using scripts or
like metacognition. rubrics were more self-regulated, as measured by self-report
In fact, several of the methods included in Table 1 come questionnaires and/or think aloud protocols, than were students
from research on metacognition, including self-monitoring, such in the comparison or control groups. Effect sizes were very small
as checking one’s reading comprehension, and self-testing, e.g., to moderate (η2 = 0.06–0.42), and statistically significant. Most
checking one’s performance on test items. These last two methods interesting, perhaps, is one study (Panadero and Romero, 2014)
have been excluded from some taxonomies of self-assessment that demonstrated an association between rubric-referenced self-
(e.g., Boud and Brew, 1995) because they do not engage students assessment activities and all three phases of SRL; forethought,
in explicitly considering relevant standards or criteria. However, performance, and reflection.
new conceptions of self-assessment are grounded in theories of There are surely many other methods of self-assessment
the self- and co-regulation of learning (Andrade and Brookhart, to include in Table 1, as well as interesting conversations to
2016), which includes self-monitoring of learning processes with be had about which method goes where and why. In the
and without explicit standards. meantime, I offer the taxonomy in Table 1 as a way to define
However, my research favors self-assessment with regard to and operationalize self-assessment in instructional contexts and
standards (Andrade and Boulay, 2003; Andrade and Du, 2007; as a framework for the following overview of current research on
Andrade et al., 2008, 2009, 2010), as does related research the subject.

AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH

ON SELF-ASSESSMENT
Several recent reviews of self-assessment are available (Brown
and Harris, 2013; Brown et al., 2015; Panadero et al., 2017), so
I will not summarize the entire body of research here. Instead,
I chose to take a birds-eye view of the field, with goal of
reporting on what has been sufficiently researched and what
remains to be done. I used the references lists from reviews,
as well as other relevant sources, as a starting point. In order
to update the list of sources, I directed two new searches1 , the
first of the ERIC database, and the second of both ERIC and
PsychINFO. Both searches included two search terms, “self-
assessment” OR “self-evaluation.” Advanced search options had
FIGURE 1 | Topics of self-assessment studies, 2013–2018.
four delimiters: (1) peer-reviewed, (2) January, 2013–October,
2016 and then October 2016–March 2019, (3) English, and (4)
full-text. Because the focus was on K-20 educational contexts,
sources were excluded if they were about early childhood test score or teacher’s grade). Twenty-five studies investigated
education or professional development. the relationship between self-assessment and achievement.
The first search yielded 347 hits; the second 1,163. Research Fifteen explored students’ perceptions of self-assessment. Twelve
that was unrelated to instructional feedback was excluded, such studies focused on the association between self-assessment and
as studies limited to self-estimates of performance before or after self-regulated learning. One examined self-efficacy, and two
taking a test, guesses about whether a test item was answered qualitative studies documented the mental processes involved in
correctly, and estimates of how many tasks could be completed in self-assessment. The sum (n = 99) of the list of research topics
a certain amount of time. Although some of the excluded studies is more than 76 because several studies had multiple foci. In the
might be thought of as useful investigations of self-monitoring, as remainder of this review I examine each topic in turn.
a group they seemed too unrelated to theories of self-generated
feedback to be appropriate for this review. Seventy-six studies
were selected for inclusion in Table S1 (Supplementary Material), Consistency
which also contains a few studies published before 2013 that were Table S1 (Supplementary Material) reveals that much of the
not included in key reviews, as well as studies solicited directly recent research on self-assessment has investigated the accuracy
from authors. or, more accurately, consistency, of students’ self-assessments.
The Table S1 in the Supplementary Material contains a The term consistency is more appropriate in the classroom
complete list of studies included in this review, organized by context because the quality of students’ self-assessments is often
the focus or topic of the study, as well as brief descriptions determined by comparing them with their teachers’ assessments
of each. The “type” column Table S1 (Supplementary Material) and then generating correlations. Given the evidence of the
indicates whether the study focused on formative or summative unreliability of teachers’ grades (Falchikov, 2005), the assumption
self-assessment. This distinction was often difficult to make due that teachers’ assessments are accurate might not be well-founded
to a lack of information. For example, Memis and Seven (2015) (Leach, 2012; Brown et al., 2015). Ratings of student work done
frame their study in terms of formative assessment, and note by researchers are also suspect, unless evidence of the validity
that the purpose of the self-evaluation done by the sixth grade and reliability of the inferences made about student work by
students is to “help students improve their [science] reports” (p. researchers is available. Consequently, much of the research on
39), but they do not indicate how the self-assessments were done, classroom-based self-assessment should use the term consistency,
nor whether students were given time to revise their reports based which refers to the degree of alignment between students’ and
on their judgments or supported in making revisions. A sentence expert raters’ evaluations, avoiding the purer, more rigorous term
or two of explanation about the process of self-assessment in the accuracy unless it is fitting.
procedures sections of published studies would be most useful. In their review, Brown and Harris (2013) reported that
Figure 1 graphically represents the number of studies in correlations between student self-ratings and other measures
the four most common topic categories found in the table— tended to be weakly to strongly positive, ranging from
achievement, consistency, student perceptions, and SRL. The r ≈ 0.20 to 0.80, with few studies reporting correlations
figure reveals that research on self-assessment is on the rise, >0.60. But their review included results from studies of
with consistency the most popular topic. Of the 76 studies in any self-appraisal of school work, including summative self-
the table in the appendix, 44 were inquiries into the consistency rating/grading, predictions about the correctness of answers
of students’ self-assessments with other judgments (e.g., a on test items, and formative, criteria-based self-assessments,
a combination of methods that makes the correlations they
1Iam grateful to my graduate assistants, Joanna Weaver and Taja Young, for reported difficult to interpret. Qualitatively different forms
conducting the searches. of self-assessment, especially summative and formative types,

cannot be lumped together without obfuscating important Calibration researchers know that, of course, and have conducted
aspects of self-assessment as feedback. intervention studies that attempt to improve accuracy, with some
Given my concern about combining studies of summative and success (e.g., Bol et al., 2012). Studies of formative self-assessment
formative assessment, you might anticipate a call for research also suggest that consistency increases when it is taught and
on consistency that distinguishes between the two. I will make supported in many of the ways any other skill must be taught and
no such call for three reasons. One is that we have enough supported (Lopez and Kossack, 2007; Labuhn et al., 2010; Chang
research on the subject, including the 22 studies in Table S1 et al., 2012, 2013; Hawkins et al., 2012; Panadero and Romero,
(Supplementary Material) that were published after Brown and 2014; Lin-Siegler et al., 2015; Fitzpatrick and Schulz, 2016).
Harris’s review (2013). Drawing only on studies included in Even clinical psychological studies that go beyond calibration
Table S1 (Supplementary Material), we can say with confidence to examine the associations between monitoring accuracy and
that summative self-assessment tends to be inconsistent with subsequent study behaviors do not transfer well to classroom
external judgements (Baxter and Norman, 2011; De Grez et al., assessment research. After repeatedly encountering claims
2012; Admiraal et al., 2015), with males tending to overrate that, for example, low self-assessment accuracy leads to poor
and females to underrate (Nowell and Alston, 2007; Marks task-selection accuracy and “suboptimal learning outcomes”
et al., 2018). There are exceptions (Alaoutinen, 2012; Lopez- (Raaijmakers et al., 2019, p. 1), I dug into the cited studies
Pastor et al., 2012) as well as mixed results, with students being and discovered two limitations. The first is that the tasks in
consistent regarding some aspects of their learning but not others which study participants engage are quite inauthentic. A typical
(Blanch-Hartigan, 2011; Harding and Hbaci, 2015; Nguyen and task involves studying “word pairs (e.g., railroad—mother),
Foster, 2018). We can also say that older, more academically followed by a delayed judgment of learning (JOL) in which the
competent learners tend to be more consistent (Hacker et al., students predicted the chances of remembering the pair. . . After
2000; Lew et al., 2010; Alaoutinen, 2012; Guillory and Blankson, making a JOL, the entire pair was presented for restudy for 4 s
2017; Butler, 2018; Nagel and Lindsey, 2018). There is evidence [sic], and after all pairs had been restudied, a criterion test of
that consistency can be improved through experience (Lopez and paired-associate recall occurred” (Dunlosky and Rawson, 2012,
Kossack, 2007; Yilmaz, 2017; Nagel and Lindsey, 2018), the use p. 272). Although memory for word pairs might be important
of guidelines (Bol et al., 2012), feedback (Thawabieh, 2017), and in some classroom contexts, it is not safe to assume that results
standards (Baars et al., 2014), perhaps in the form of rubrics from studies like that one can predict students’ behaviors after
(Panadero and Romero, 2014). Modeling and feedback also help criterion-referenced self-assessment of their comprehension of
(Labuhn et al., 2010; Miller and Geraci, 2011; Hawkins et al., complex texts, lengthy compositions, or solutions to multi-step
2012; Kostons et al., 2012). mathematical problems.
An outcome typical of research on the consistency of The second limitation of studies like the typical one described
summative self-assessment can be found in row 59, which above is more serious: Participants in research like that are not
summarizes the study by Tejeiro et al. (2012) discussed earlier: permitted to regulate their own studying, which is experimentally
Students’ self-assessments were higher than marks given by manipulated by a computer program. This came as a surprise,
professors, especially for students with poorer results, and since many of the claims were about students’ poor study choices
no relationship was found between the professors’ and the but they were rarely allowed to make actual choices. For example,
students’ assessments in the group in which self-assessment Dunlosky and Rawson (2012) permitted participants to “use
counted toward the final mark. Students are not stupid: if monitoring to effectively control learning” by programming the
they know that they can influence their final grade, and that computer so that “a participant would need to have judged his
their judgment is summative rather than intended to inform or her recall of a definition entirely correct on three different
revision and improvement, they will be motivated to inflate trials, and once they judged it entirely correct on the third trial,
their self-evaluation. I do not believe we need more research to that particular key term definition was dropped [by the computer
demonstrate that phenomenon. program] from further practice” (p. 272). The authors note that
The second reason I am not calling for additional research on this study design is an improvement on designs that did not
consistency is a lot of it seems somewhat irrelevant. This might require all participants to use the same regulation algorithm, but
be because the interest in accuracy is rooted in clinical research it does not reflect the kinds of decisions that learners make in
on calibration, which has very different aims. Calibration class or while doing homework. In fact, a large body of research
accuracy is the “magnitude of consent between learners’ true and shows that students can make wise choices when they self-pace
self-evaluated task performance. Accurately calibrated learners’ the study of to-be-learned materials and then allocate study time
task performance equals their self-evaluated task performance” to each item (Bjork et al., 2013, p. 425):
(Wollenschläger et al., 2016). Calibration research often asks
study participants to predict or postdict the correctness of
In a typical experiment, the students first study all the items at
their responses to test items. I caution about generalizing from
an experimenter-paced rate (e.g., study 60 paired associates for 3 s
clinical experiments to authentic classroom contexts because each), which familiarizes the students with the items; after this
the dismal picture of our human potential to self-judge was familiarity phase, the students then either choose which items
painted by calibration researchers before study participants were they want to restudy (e.g., all items are presented in an array,
effectively taught how to predict with accuracy, or provided with and the students select which ones to restudy) and/or pace their
the tools they needed to be accurate, or motivated to do so. restudy of each item. Several dependent measures have been

widely used, such as how long each item is studied, whether an questions and the answers are “Poorly,” “You can’t,” and “Don’t
item is selected for restudy, and in what order items are selected bother” (p. 18).
for restudy. The literature on these aspects of self-regulated study
is massive (for a comprehensive overview, see both Dunlosky I almost agree. A study that could change my mind about
and Ariel, 2011 and Son and Metcalfe, 2000), but the evidence is the importance of accuracy of self-assessment would be an
largely consistent with a few basic conclusions. First, if students
investigation that goes beyond attempting to improve accuracy
have a chance to practice retrieval prior to restudying items, they
almost exclusively choose to restudy unrecalled items and drop
just for the sake of accuracy by instead examining the
the previously recalled items from restudy (Metcalfe and Kornell, relearning/revision behaviors of accurate and inaccurate self-
2005). Second, when pacing their study of individual items that assessors: Do students whose self-assessments match the valid
have been selected for restudy, students typically spend more time and reliable judgments of expert raters (hence my use of the
studying items that are more, rather than less, difficult to learn. term accuracy) make better decisions about what they need to
Such a strategy is consistent with a discrepancy-reduction model do to deepen their learning and improve their work? Here, I
of self-paced study (which states that people continue to study an admit, is a call for research related to consistency: I would love
item until they reach mastery), although some key revisions to to see a high-quality investigation of the relationship between
this model are needed to account for all the data. For instance, accuracy in formative self-assessment, and students’ subsequent
students may not continue to study until they reach some static
study and revision behaviors, and their learning. For example,
criterion of mastery, but instead, they may continue to study until
a study that closely examines the revisions to writing made
they perceive that they are no longer making progress.
by accurate and inaccurate self-assessors, and the resulting
outcomes in terms of the quality of their writing, would be
I propose that this research, which suggests that students’ most welcome.
unscaffolded, unmeasured, informal self-assessments tend to lead Table S1 (Supplementary Material) indicates that by 2018
to appropriate task selection, is better aligned with research researchers began publishing studies that more directly address
on classroom-based self-assessment. Nonetheless, even this the hypothesized link between self-assessment and subsequent
comparison is inadequate because the study participants were not learning behaviors, as well as important questions about the
taught to compare their performance to the criteria for mastery, processes learners engage in while self-assessing (Yan and Brown,
as is often done in classroom-based self-assessment. 2017). One, a study by Nugteren et al. (2018 row 19 in
The third and final reason I do not believe we need additional Table S1 (Supplementary Material)), asked “How do inaccurate
research on consistency is that I think it is a distraction from [summative] self-assessments influence task selections?” (p. 368)
the true purposes of self-assessment. Many if not most of the and employed a clever exploratory research design. The results
articles about the accuracy of self-assessment are grounded in suggested that most of the 15 students in their sample over-
the assumption that accuracy is necessary for self-assessment estimated their performance and made inaccurate learning-task
to be useful, particularly in terms of subsequent studying and selections. Nugteren et al. recommended helping students make
revision behaviors. Although it seems obvious that accurate more accurate self-assessments, but I think the more interesting
evaluations of their performance positively influence students’ finding is related to why students made task selections that
study strategy selection, which should produce improvements in were too difficult or too easy, given their prior performance:
achievement, I have not seen relevant research that tests those They based most task selections on interest in the content of
conjectures. Some claim that inaccurate estimates of learning particular items (not the overarching content to be learned),
lead to the selection of inappropriate learning tasks (Kostons and infrequently considered task difficulty and support level. For
et al., 2012) but they cite research that does not support their instance, while working on the genetics tasks, students reported
claim. For example, Kostons et al. cite studies that focus on the selecting tasks because they were fun or interesting, not because
effectiveness of SRL interventions but do not address the accuracy they addressed self-identified weaknesses in their understanding
of participants’ estimates of learning, nor the relationship of those of genetics. Nugteren et al. proposed that students would benefit
estimates to the selection of next steps. Other studies produce from instruction on task selection. I second that proposal: Rather
findings that support my skepticism. Take, for instance, two than directing our efforts on accuracy in the service of improving
relevant studies of calibration. One suggested that performance subsequent task selection, let us simply teach students to use the
and judgments of performance had little influence on subsequent information at hand to select next best steps, among other things.
test preparation behavior (Hacker et al., 2000), and the other Butler (2018, row 76 in Table S1 (Supplementary Material))
showed that study participants followed their predictions of has conducted at least two studies of learners’ processes of
performance to the same degree, regardless of monitoring responding to self-assessment items and how they arrived at their
accuracy (van Loon et al., 2014). judgments. Comparing generic, decontextualized items to task-
specific, contextualized items (which she calls after-task items),
she drew two unsurprising conclusions: the task-specific items
Eva and Regehr (2008) believe that:
Research questions that take the form of “How well do “generally showed higher correlations with task performance,”
various practitioners self-assess?” “How can we improve self- and older students “appeared to be more conservative in their
assessment?” or “How can we measure self-assessment skill?” judgment compared with their younger counterparts” (p. 249).
should be considered defunct and removed from the research The contribution of the study is the detailed information it
agenda [because] there have been hundreds of studies into these provides about how students generated their judgments. For

example, Butler’s qualitative data analyses revealed that when effect sizes were negative, on average, “students who engaged
asked to self-assess in terms of vague or non-specific items, in self-grading performed better (g = 0.34) on subsequent tests
the children often “contextualized the descriptions based on than did students who did not” (p. 1,049).
their own experiences, goals, and expectations,” (p. 257) focused All but two of the non-meta-analytic studies of achievement
on the task at hand, and situated items in the specific task in Table S1 (Supplementary Material) were quasi-experimental
context. Perhaps as a result, the correlation between after-task or experimental, providing relatively rigorous evidence that
self-assessment and task performance was generally higher than their treatment groups outperformed their comparison or
for generic self-assessment. control groups in terms of everything from writing to dart-
Butler (2018) notes that her study enriches our empirical throwing, map-making, speaking English, and exams in a wide
understanding of the processes by which children respond to variety of disciplines. One experiment on summative self-
self-assessment. This is a very promising direction for the field. assessment (Miller and Geraci, 2011), in contrast, resulted in
Similar studies of processing during formative self-assessment no improvements in exam scores, while the other one did
of a variety of task types in a classroom context would likely (Raaijmakers et al., 2017).
produce significant advances in our understanding of how and It would be easy to overgeneralize and claim that the
why self-assessment influences learning and performance. question about the effect of self-assessment on learning has
been answered, but there are unanswered questions about the
Student Perceptions key components of effective self-assessment, especially social-
Fifteen of the studies listed in Table S1 (Supplementary Material) emotional components related to power and trust (Andrade
focused on students’ perceptions of self-assessment. The studies and Brown, 2016). The trends are pretty clear, however: it
of children suggest that they tend to have unsophisticated appears that formative forms of self-assessment can promote
understandings of its purposes (Harris and Brown, 2013; knowledge and skill development. This is not surprising, given
Bourke, 2016) that might lead to shallow implementation that it involves many of the processes known to support
of related processes. In contrast, results from the studies learning, including practice, feedback, revision, and especially
conducted in higher education settings suggested that college and the intellectually demanding work of making complex, criteria-
university students understood the function of self-assessment referenced judgments (Panadero et al., 2014). Boud (1995a,b)
(Ratminingsih et al., 2018) and generally found it to be useful predicted this trend when he noted that many self-assessment
for guiding evaluation and revision (Micán and Medina, 2017), processes undermine learning by rushing to judgment, thereby
understanding how to take responsibility for learning (Lopez failing to engage students with the standards or criteria for
and Kossack, 2007; Bourke, 2014; Ndoye, 2017), prompting them their work.
to think more critically and deeply (van Helvoort, 2012; Siow,
2015), applying newfound skills (Murakami et al., 2012), and
fostering self-regulated learning by guiding them to set goals,
plan, self-monitor and reflect (Wang, 2017).
Self-Regulated Learning
The association between self-assessment and learning has also
Not surprisingly, positive perceptions of self-assessment
been explained in terms of self-regulation (Andrade, 2010;
were typically developed by students who actively engaged the
Panadero and Alonso-Tapia, 2013; Andrade and Brookhart, 2016,
formative type by, for example, developing their own criteria for
2019; Panadero et al., 2016b). Self-regulated learning (SRL)
an effective self-assessment response (Bourke, 2014), or using a
occurs when learners set goals and then monitor and manage
rubric or checklist to guide their assessments and then revising
their thoughts, feelings, and actions to reach those goals. SRL is
their work (Huang and Gui, 2015; Wang, 2017). Earlier research
moderately to highly correlated with achievement (Zimmerman
suggested that children’s attitudes toward self-assessment can
and Schunk, 2011). Research suggests that formative assessment
become negative if it is summative (Ross et al., 1998). However,
is a potential influence on SRL (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick,
even summative self-assessment was reported by adult learners to
2006). The 12 studies in Table S1 (Supplementary Material) that
be useful in helping them become more critical of their own and
focus on SRL demonstrate the recent increase in interest in the
others’ writing throughout the course and in subsequent courses
relationship between self-assessment and SRL.
(van Helvoort, 2012).
Conceptual and practical overlaps between the two fields are
abundant. In fact, Brown and Harris (2014) recommend that
Achievement
student self-assessment no longer be treated as an assessment,
Twenty-five of the studies in Table S1 (Supplementary
but as an essential competence for self-regulation. Butler and
Material) investigated the relation between self-assessment
Winne (1995) introduced the role of self-generated feedback in
and achievement, including two meta-analyses. Twenty of the 25
self-regulation years ago:
clearly employed the formative type. Without exception, those
20 studies, plus the two meta-analyses (Graham et al., 2015;
Sanchez et al., 2017) demonstrated a positive association between [For] all self-regulated activities, feedback is an inherent catalyst.
self-assessment and learning. The meta-analysis conducted by As learners monitor their engagement with tasks, internal
Graham and his colleagues, which included 10 studies, yielded feedback is generated by the monitoring process. That feedback
an average weighted effect size of 0.62 on writing quality. The describes the nature of outcomes and the qualities of the cognitive
Sanchez et al. meta-analysis revealed that, although 12 of the 44 processes that led to those states (p. 245).

The outcomes and processes referred to by Butler and Winne Influence of Types of Tasks and Standards
are many of the same products and processes I referred to earlier or Criteria
in the definition of self-assessment and in Table 1. Type of task or competency assessed seems to matter (e.g.,
In general, research and practice related to self-assessment Dolosic, 2018, Nguyen and Foster, 2018), as do the criteria
has tended to focus on judging the products of student learning, (Yilmaz, 2017), but we do not yet have a comprehensive
while scholarship on self-regulated learning encompasses both understanding of how or why. There is some evidence that it is
processes and products. The very practical focus of much of the important that the criteria used to self-assess are concrete, task-
research on self-assessment means it might be playing catch-up, specific (Butler, 2018), and graduated. For example, Fastre et al.
in terms of theory development, with the SRL literature, which is (2010) revealed an association between self-assessment according
grounded in experimental paradigms from cognitive psychology to task-specific criteria and task performance: In a quasi-
(de Bruin and van Gog, 2012), while self-assessment research experimental study of 39 novice vocational education students
is ahead in terms of implementation (E. Panadero, personal studying stoma care, they compared concrete, task-specific
communication, October 21, 2016). One major exception is the criteria (“performance-based criteria”) such as “Introduces
work done on Self-regulated Strategy Development (Glaser and herself to the patient” and “Consults the care file for details
Brunstein, 2007; Harris et al., 2008), which has successfully concerning the stoma” to vaguer, “competence-based criteria”
integrated SRL research with classroom practices, including self- such as “Shows interest, listens actively, shows empathy to the
assessment, to teach writing to students with special needs. patient” and “Is discrete with sensitive topics.” The performance-
based criteria group outperformed the competence-based
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) have been explicit about group on tests of task performance, presumably because
the potential for self-assessment practices to support self- “performance-based criteria make it easier to distinguish levels
regulated learning: of performance, enabling a step-by-step process of performance
To develop systematically the learner’s capacity for self-regulation,
improvement” (p. 530).
teachers need to create more structured opportunities for self-
This finding echoes the results of a study of self-regulated
monitoring and the judging of progression to goals. Self-
assessment tasks are an effective way of achieving this, as are learning by Kitsantas and Zimmerman (2006), who argued
activities that encourage reflection on learning progress (p. 207). that “fine-grained standards can have two key benefits: They
can enable learners to be more sensitive to small changes
The studies of SRL in Table S1 (Supplementary Material) in skill and make more appropriate adaptations in learning
provide encouraging findings regarding the potential role of self- strategies” (p. 203). In their study, 70 college students were
assessment in promoting achievement, self-regulated learning in taught how to throw darts at a target. The purpose of
general, and metacognition and study strategies related to task the study was to examine the role of graphing of self-
selection in particular. The studies also represent a solution to the recorded outcomes and self-evaluative standards in learning a
“methodological and theoretical challenges involved in bringing motor skill. Students who were provided with graduated self-
metacognitive research to the real world, using meaningful evaluative standards surpassed “those who were provided with
learning materials” (Koriat, 2012, p. 296). absolute standards or no standards (control) in both motor
skill and in motivational beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy, attributions,
and self-satisfaction)” (p. 201). Kitsantas and Zimmerman
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH hypothesized that setting high absolute standards would limit
a learner’s sensitivity to small improvements in functioning.
I agree with (Yan and Brown, 2017) statement that “from a This hypothesis was supported by the finding that students
pedagogical perspective, the benefits of self-assessment may who set absolute standards reported significantly less awareness
come from active engagement in the learning process, rather of learning progress (and hit the bull’s-eye less often) than
than by being “veridical” or coinciding with reality, because students who set graduated standards. “The correlation between
students’ reflection and metacognitive monitoring lead to the self-evaluation and dart-throwing outcomes measures was
improved learning” (p. 1,248). Future research should focus less extraordinarily high (r = 0.94)” (p. 210). Classroom-based
on accuracy/consistency/veridicality, and more on the precise research on specific, graduated self-assessment criteria would
mechanisms of self-assessment (Butler, 2018). be informative.
An important aspect of research on self-assessment that is
not explicitly represented in Table S1 (Supplementary Material)
is practice, or pedagogy: Under what conditions does self- Cognitive and Affective Mechanisms of
assessment work best, and how are those conditions influenced Self-Assessment
by context? Fortunately, the studies listed in the table, as well There are many additional questions about pedagogy, such as
as others (see especially Andrade and Valtcheva, 2009; Nielsen, the hoped-for investigation mentioned above of the relationship
2014; Panadero et al., 2016a), point toward an answer. But we between accuracy in formative self-assessment, students’
still have questions about how best to scaffold effective formative subsequent study behaviors, and their learning. There is also a
self-assessment. One area of inquiry is about the characteristics need for research on how to help teachers give students a central
of the task being assessed, and the standards or criteria used by role in their learning by creating space for self-assessment (e.g.,
learners during self-assessment. see Hawe and Parr, 2014), and the complex power dynamics

involved in doing so (Tan, 2004, 2009; Taras, 2008; Leach, 2012). on formative feedback that “despite the plethora of research on
However, there is an even more pressing need for investigations the topic, the specific mechanisms relating feedback to learning
into the internal mechanisms experienced by students engaged are still mostly murky, with very few (if any) general conclusions”
in assessing their own learning. Angela Lui and I call this the next (p. 156). This area is ripe for research.
black box (Lui, 2017).
Black and Wiliam (1998) used the term black box to CONCLUSION
emphasize the fact that what happened in most classrooms
was largely unknown: all we knew was that some inputs (e.g., Self-assessment is the act of monitoring one’s processes and
teachers, resources, standards, and requirements) were fed into products in order to make adjustments that deepen learning
the box, and that certain outputs (e.g., more knowledgeable and enhance performance. Although it can be summative, the
and competent students, acceptable levels of achievement) evidence presented in this review strongly suggests that self-
would follow. But what, they asked, is happening inside, assessment is most beneficial, in terms of both achievement and
and what new inputs will produce better outputs? Black self-regulated learning, when it is used formatively and supported
and Wiliam’s review spawned a great deal of research on by training.
formative assessment, some but not all of which suggests What is not yet clear is why and how self-assessment works.
a positive relationship with academic achievement (Bennett, Those of you who like to investigate phenomena that are
2011; Kingston and Nash, 2011). To better understand why maddeningly difficult to measure will rejoice to hear that the
and how the use of formative assessment in general and self- cognitive and affective mechanisms of self-assessment are the
assessment in particular is associated with improvements in next black box. Studies of the ways in which learners think and
academic achievement in some instances but not others, we need feel, the interactions between their thoughts and feelings and
research that looks into the next black box: the cognitive and their context, and the implications for pedagogy will make major
affective mechanisms of students who are engaged in assessment contributions to our field.
processes (Lui, 2017).
The role of internal mechanisms has been discussed in theory AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
but not yet fully tested. Crooks (1988) argued that the impact of
assessment is influenced by students’ interpretation of the tasks The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and
and results, and Butler and Winne (1995) theorized that both has approved it for publication.
cognitive and affective processes play a role in determining how
feedback is internalized and used to self-regulate learning. Other SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
theoretical frameworks about the internal processes of receiving
and responding to feedback have been developed (e.g., Nicol and The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Draper, 2009; Andrade, 2013; Lipnevich online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.
et al., 2016). Yet, Shute (2008) noted in her review of the literature 2019.00087/full#supplementary-material
REFERENCES Andrade, H., and Brookhart, S. M. (2016). “The role of classroom assessment
in supporting self-regulated learning,” in Assessment for Learning: Meeting
Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., and Pilli, O. (2015). Assessment in massive open the Challenge of Implementation, eds D. Laveault and L. Allal (Heidelberg:
online courses. Electron. J. e-Learning, 13, 207–216. Springer), 293–309. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_17
Alaoutinen, S. (2012). Evaluating the effect of learning style and student Andrade, H., and Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-
background on self-assessment accuracy. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 175–198. referenced self-assessment. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 32, 159–181.
doi: 10.1080/08993408.2012.692924 doi: 10.1080/02602930600801928
Al-Rawahi, N. M., and Al-Balushi, S. M. (2015). The effect of reflective science Andrade, H., Du, Y., and Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric-referenced self-
journal writing on students’ self-regulated learning strategies. Int. J. Environ. assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assess. Educ. 17, 199–214.
Sci. Educ. 10, 367–379. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.250a doi: 10.1080/09695941003696172
Andrade, H. (2010). “Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Andrade, H., Du, Y., and Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test:
academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning,” in Handbook The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-
of Formative Assessment, eds H. Andrade and G. Cizek (New York, NY: assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educ. Meas. 27, 3–13.
Routledge), 90–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00118.x
Andrade, H. (2013). “Classroom assessment in the context of learning theory and Andrade, H., and Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and
research,” in Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment, ed J. H. achievement through self- assessment. Theory Pract. 48, 12–19.
McMillan (New York, NY: Sage), 17–34. doi: 10.4135/9781452218649.n2 doi: 10.1080/00405840802577544
Andrade, H. (2018). “Feedback in the context of self-assessment,” in Cambridge Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., and Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced
Handbook of Instructional Feedback, eds A. Lipnevich and J. Smith (Cambridge: self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. J. Educ. Res. 102, 287–302.
Cambridge University Press), 376–408. doi: 10.3200/JOER.102.4.287-302
Andrade, H., and Boulay, B. (2003). The role of rubric-referenced self-assessment Andrade, H. L., and Brown, G. T. L. (2016). “Student self-assessment in the
in learning to write. J. Educ. Res. 97, 21–34. doi: 10.1080/00220670309596625 classroom,” in Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment, eds
Andrade, H., and Brookhart, S. (2019). Classroom assessment as the G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York, NY: Routledge), 319–334.
co-regulation of learning. Assessm. Educ. Principles Policy Pract. Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., and Paas, F. (2014). Effects
doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992 of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective

and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learn. Instruc. 33, 92–107. Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., and Lou, S.-J. (2012). A comparative analysis of
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.004 the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-
Balderas, I., and Cuamatzi, P. M. (2018). Self and peer correction assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment
to improve college students’ writing skills. Profile. 20, 179–194. environment for high school students. Comput. Educ. 58, 303–320.
doi: 10.15446/profile.v20n2.67095 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.005
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman. Colliver, J., Verhulst, S, and Barrows, H. (2005). Self-assessment in medical
Barney, S., Khurum, M., Petersen, K., Unterkalmsteiner, M., and Jabangwe, practice: a further concern about the conventional research paradigm. Teach.
R. (2012). Improving students with rubric-based self-assessment and oral Learn. Med. 17, 200–201. doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1703_1
feedback. IEEE Transac. Educ. 55, 319–325. doi: 10.1109/TE.2011.217 Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Rev.
2981 Educ. Res. 58, 438–481. doi: 10.3102/00346543058004438
Baxter, P., and Norman, G. (2011). Self-assessment or self deception? A lack of de Bruin, A. B. H., and van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-
association between nursing students’ self-assessment and performance. J. Adv. regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom, Learn. Instruct. 22,
Nurs. 67, 2406–2413. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05658.x 245–252. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. 18, De Grez, L., Valcke, M., and Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer
5–25. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments?
Birjandi, P., and Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher Active Learn. High. Educ. 13, 129–142. doi: 10.1177/1469787412441284
assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Dolosic, H. (2018). An examination of self-assessment and interconnected facets
Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 37, 513–533. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010. of second language reading. Read. Foreign Langu. 30, 189–208.
549204 Draper, S. W. (2009). What are learners actually regulating when given feedback?
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., and Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Br. J. Educ. Technol. 40, 306–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00930.x
beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 417–444. Dunlosky, J., and Ariel, R. (2011). “Self-regulated learning and the
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 allocation of study time,” in Psychology of Learning and Motivation,
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., and Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Vol. 54 ed B. Ross (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 103–140.
Learning: Putting it into Practice. Berkshire: Open University Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00004-8
Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through Dunlosky, J., and Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80, 139–144; 146–148. underachievement: inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning
Blanch-Hartigan, D. (2011). Medical students’ self-assessment of performance: and retention. Learn. Instr. 22, 271–280. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
results from three meta-analyses. Patient Educ. Counsel. 84, 3–9. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY:
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.037 Random House.
Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., Walck, C. C., and Nunnery, J. A. (2012). The effects of Epstein, R. M., Siegel, D. J., and Silberman, J. (2008). Self-monitoring in clinical
individual or group guidelines on the calibration accuracy and achievement practice: a challenge for medical educators. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 28,
of high school biology students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 37, 280–287. 5–13. doi: 10.1002/chp.149
doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.004 Eva, K. W., and Regehr, G. (2008). “I’ll never play professional football” and
Boud, D. (1995a). Implementing Student Self-Assessment, 2nd Edn. Australian other fallacies of self-assessment. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 28, 14–19.
Capital Territory: Higher Education Research and Development Society doi: 10.1002/chp.150
of Australasia. Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement:
Boud, D. (1995b). Enhancing Learning Through Self-Assessment. London: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education.
Kogan Page. London: Routledge Falmer.
Boud, D. (1999). Avoiding the traps: Seeking good practice in the use of self- Fastre, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., Sluijsmans, D., and van Merrienboer, J. J.
assessment and reflection in professional courses. Soc. Work Educ. 18, 121–132. G. (2012). Drawing students’ attention to relevant assessment criteria: effects
doi: 10.1080/02615479911220131 on self-assessment skills and performance. J. Voc. Educ. Train. 64, 185–198.
Boud, D., and Brew, A. (1995). Developing a typology for learner self-assessment doi: 10.1080/13636820.2011.630537
practices. Res. Dev. High. Educ. 18, 130–135. Fastre, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., and van Merrienboer, J. J. G.
Bourke, R. (2014). Self-assessment in professional programmes (2010). The effects of performance-based assessment criteria on student
within tertiary institutions. Teach. High. Educ. 19, 908–918. performance and self-assessment skills. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15, 517–532.
doi: 10.1080/13562517.2014.934353 doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9215-x
Bourke, R. (2016). Liberating the learner through self-assessment. Cambridge J. Fitzpatrick, B., and Schulz, H. (2016). “Teaching young students to self-assess
Educ. 46, 97–111. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2015.1015963 critically,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Brown, G., Andrade, H., and Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self- Research Association (Washington, DC).
assessment: directions and cautions for research. Assess. Educ. 22, 444–457. Franken, A. S. (1992). I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone it, People
doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523 Like Me! Daily affirmations by Stuart Smalley. New York, NY: Dell.
Brown, G. T., and Harris, L. R. (2013). “Student self-assessment,” in Sage Handbook Glaser, C., and Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’
of Research on Classroom Assessment, ed J. H. McMillan (Los Angeles, CA: composition skills: effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation
Sage), 367–393. doi: 10.4135/9781452218649.n21 procedures. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 297–310. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297
Brown, G. T. L., and Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom Gonida, E. N., and Leondari, A. (2011). Patterns of motivation among
practice: reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learn. Res. adolescents with biased and accurate self-efficacy beliefs. Int. J. Educ. Res. 50,
3, 22–30. doi: 10.14786/flr.v2i1.24 209–220. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.002
Butler, D. L., and Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated Graham, S., Hebert, M., and Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment and
learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 65, 245–281. writing. Elem. Sch. J. 115, 523–547. doi: 10.1086/681947
doi: 10.3102/00346543065003245 Guillory, J. J., and Blankson, A. N. (2017). Using recently acquired knowledge to
Butler, Y. G. (2018). “Young learners’ processes and rationales for responding self-assess understanding in the classroom. Sch. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 3, 77–89.
to self-assessment items: cases for generic can-do and five-point Likert- doi: 10.1037/stl0000079
type formats,” in Useful Assessment and Evaluation in Language Education, Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., and Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction
eds J. Davis et al. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press), 21–39. and performance in a classroom context. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 160–170.
doi: 10.2307/j.ctvvngrq.5 doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160
Chang, C.-C., Liang, C., and Chen, Y.-H. (2013). Is learner self-assessment reliable Harding, J. L., and Hbaci, I. (2015). Evaluating pre-service teachers math
and valid in a Web-based portfolio environment for high school students? teaching experience from different perspectives. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 3, 382–389.
Comput. Educ. 60, 325–334. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.012 doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030605

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., and Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful difference ranges and tendencies. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 37, 453–464.
Writing Strategies for All Students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.545868
Harris, L. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to Lui, A. (2017). Validity of the responses to feedback survey: operationalizing
consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: and measuring students’ cognitive and affective responses to teachers’ feedback
case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 36, 101–111. (Doctoral dissertation). University at Albany—SUNY: Albany NY.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008 Marks, M. B., Haug, J. C., and Hu, H. (2018). Investigating undergraduate business
Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, internships: do supervisor and self-evaluations differ? J. Educ. Bus. 93, 33–45.
81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487 doi: 10.1080/08832323.2017.1414025
Hawe, E., and Parr, J. (2014). Assessment for learning in the Memis, E. K., and Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH approach and self-evaluation
writing classroom: an incomplete realization. Curr. J. 25, 210–237. on sixth grade students’ learning and retention of an electricity unit. Int. J. Prog.
doi: 10.1080/09585176.2013.862172 Educ. 11, 32–49.
Hawkins, S. C., Osborne, A., Schofield, S. J., Pournaras, D. J., and Chester, J. F. Metcalfe, J., and Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study
(2012). Improving the accuracy of self-assessment of practical clinical skills time allocation. J. Mem. Langu. 52, 463–477. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001
using video feedback: the importance of including benchmarks. Med. Teach. Meusen-Beekman, K. D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., and Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016).
34, 279–284. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.658897 Effects of formative assessments to develop self-regulation among sixth grade
Huang, Y., and Gui, M. (2015). Articulating teachers’ expectations afore: Impact of students: results from a randomized controlled intervention. Stud. Educ. Evalu.
rubrics on Chinese EFL learners’ self-assessment and speaking ability. J. Educ. 51, 126–136. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.008
Train. Stud. 3, 126–132. doi: 10.11114/jets.v3i3.753 Micán, D. A., and Medina, C. L. (2017). Boosting vocabulary learning through self-
Kaderavek, J. N., Gillam, R. B., Ukrainetz, T. A., Justice, L. M., and Eisenberg, S. assessment in an English language teaching context. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ.
N. (2004). School-age children’s self-assessment of oral narrative production. 42, 398–414. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1118433
Commun. Disord. Q. 26, 37–48. doi: 10.1177/15257401040260010401 Miller, T. M., and Geraci, L. (2011). Training metacognition in the classroom: the
Karnilowicz, W. (2012). A comparison of self-assessment and tutor assessment influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacogn. Learn. 6,
of undergraduate psychology students. Soc. Behav. Person. 40, 591–604. 303–314. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9083-7
doi: 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.591 Murakami, C., Valvona, C., and Broudy, D. (2012). Turning apathy into activeness
Kevereski, L. (2017). (Self) evaluation of knowledge in students’ population in in oral communication classes: regular self- and peer-assessment in a TBLT
higher education in Macedonia. Res. Pedag. 7, 69–75. doi: 10.17810/2015.49 programme. System 40, 407–420. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2012.07.003
Kingston, N. M., and Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a Nagel, M., and Lindsey, B. (2018). The use of classroom clickers to support
call for research. Educ. Meas. 30, 28–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x improved self-assessment in introductory chemistry. J. College Sci. Teach.
Kitsantas, A., and Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Enhancing self-regulation of practice: 47, 72–79.
the influence of graphing and self-evaluative standards. Metacogn. Learn. 1, Ndoye, A. (2017). Peer/self-assessment and student learning. Int. J. Teach. Learn.
201–212. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-9000-7 High. Educ. 29, 255–269.
Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions Nguyen, T., and Foster, K. A. (2018). Research note—multiple time point course
on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a evaluation and student learning outcomes in an MSW course. J. Soc. Work
preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119, 254–284. Educ. 54, 715–723. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2018.1474151
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 Nicol, D., and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., and Hesse, F. (2006). Collaboration scripts: a conceptual regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice.
analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18, 159–185. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2 Stud. High. Educ. 31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., and Dermitzaki, I. (2012). Students’ performance Nielsen, K. (2014), Self-assessment methods in writing instruction: a conceptual
calibration in a basketball dribbling task in elementary physical education. Int. framework, successful practices and essential strategies. J. Res. Read. 37, 1–16.
Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 4, 507–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01533.x
Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, Nowell, C., and Alston, R. M. (2007). I thought I got an A! Overconfidence
regulation and performance. Learn. Instru. 22, 296–298. across the economics curriculum. J. Econ. Educ. 38, 131–142.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002 doi: 10.3200/JECE.38.2.131-142
Kostons, D., van Gog, T., and Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task- Nugteren, M. L., Jarodzka, H., Kester, L., and Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2018).
selection skills: a cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Self-regulation of secondary school students: self-assessments are inaccurate
Learn. Instruc. 22, 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.004 and insufficiently used for learning-task selection. Instruc. Sci. 46, 357–381.
Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., and Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing doi: 10.1007/s11251-018-9448-2
students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: the influence Panadero, E., and Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: theoretical and
of feedback and self-evaluative standards Metacogn. Learn. 5, 173–194. practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do
doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2 to develop it in our students. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 11, 551–576.
Leach, L. (2012). Optional self-assessment: some tensions and dilemmas. Assess. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.30.12200
Evalu. High. Educ. 37, 137–147. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.515013 Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., and Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and
Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., and Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-
self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 35, efficacy in secondary education. Learn. Individ. Differ. 22, 806–813.
135–156. doi: 10.1080/02602930802687737 doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.007
Lin-Siegler, X., Shaenfield, D., and Elder, A. D. (2015). Contrasting case instruction Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., and Huertas, J. A. (2014). Rubrics
can improve self-assessment of writing. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 63, 517–537. vs. self-assessment scripts: effects on first year university students’
doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9390-9 self-regulation and performance. J. Study Educ. Dev. 3, 149–183.
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., and Smith, J. K. (2016). “Toward a model doi: 10.1080/02103702.2014.881655
of student response to feedback,” in The Handbook of Human and Social Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., and Reche, E. (2013). Rubrics vs. self-assessment
Conditions in Assessment, eds G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York, NY: scripts effect on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy in pre-service
Routledge), 169–185. teachers. Stud. Educ. Evalu. 39, 125–132. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.04.001
Lopez, R., and Kossack, S. (2007). Effects of recurring use of self- Panadero, E., Brown, G. L., and Strijbos, J.-W. (2016a). The future of student
assessment in university courses. Int. J. Learn. 14, 203–216. self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educ.
doi: 10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i04/45277 Psychol. Rev. 28, 803–830. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2
Lopez-Pastor, V. M., Fernandez-Balboa, J.-M., Santos Pastor, M. L., and Aranda, Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., and Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-
A. F. (2012). Students’ self-grading, professor’s grading and negotiated final regulated learning and self-efficacy: four meta-analyses. Educ. Res. Rev. 22,
grading at three university programmes: analysis of reliability and grade 74–98. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., and Strijbos, J. W. (2016b). “Scaffolding self- Tan, K. (2009). Meanings and practices of power in academics’
regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: guidelines for conceptions of student self-assessment. Teach. High. Educ. 14, 361–373.
classroom implementation,” in Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge doi: 10.1080/13562510903050111
of Implementation, eds D. Laveault and L. Allal (New York, NY: Springer), Taras, M. (2008). Issues of power and equity in two models of self-assessment.
311–326. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_18 Teach. High. Educ. 13, 81–92. doi: 10.1080/13562510701794076
Panadero, E., and Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of Tejeiro, R. A., Gomez-Vallecillo, J. L., Romero, A. F., Pelegrina, M., Wallace,
self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assess. Educ. A., and Emberley, E. (2012). Summative self-assessment in higher education:
21, 133–148. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2013.877872 implications of its counting towards the final mark. Electron. J. Res. Educ.
Papanthymou, A., and Darra, M. (2018). Student self-assessment in higher Psychol. 10, 789–812.
education: The international experience and the Greek example. World J. Educ. Thawabieh, A. M. (2017). A comparison between students’ self-assessment and
8, 130–146. doi: 10.5430/wje.v8n6p130 teachers’ assessment. J. Curri. Teach. 6, 14–20. doi: 10.5430/jct.v6n1p14
Punhagui, G. C., and de Souza, N. A. (2013). Self-regulation in the learning process: Tulgar, A. T. (2017). Selfie@ssessment as an alternative form of self-assessment at
actions through self-assessment activities with Brazilian students. Int. Educ. undergraduate level in higher education. J. Langu. Linguis. Stud. 13, 321–335.
Stud. 6, 47–62. doi: 10.5539/ies.v6n10p47 van Helvoort, A. A. J. (2012). How adult students in information studies use a
Raaijmakers, S. F., Baars, M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and van Gog, T. scoring rubric for the development of their information literacy skills. J. Acad.
(2019). Metacognition and Learning, 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11409-019-09189-5 Librarian. 38, 165–171. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.03.016
Raaijmakers, S. F., Baars, M., Schapp, L., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J., van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and
and van Gog, T. (2017). Training self-regulated learning with video Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-
modeling examples: do task-selection skills transfer? Instr. Sci. 46, 273–290. effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy.
doi: 10.1007/s11251-017-9434-0 Acta Psychol. 151, 143–154. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.007
Ratminingsih, N. M., Marhaeni, A. A. I. N., and Vigayanti, L. P. D. (2018). Self- van Reybroeck, M., Penneman, J., Vidick, C., and Galand, B. (2017).
assessment: the effect on students’ independence and writing competence. Int. Progressive treatment and self-assessment: Effects on students’ automatisation
J. Instruc. 11, 277–290. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.11320a of grammatical spelling and self-efficacy beliefs. Read. Writing 30, 1965–1985.
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., and Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). “Impact of self- doi: 10.1007/s11145-017-9761-1
evaluation training on mathematics achievement in a cooperative learning Wang, W. (2017). Using rubrics in student self-assessment: student perceptions in
environment,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American the English as a foreign language writing context. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 42,
Educational Research Association (San Diego, CA). 1280–1292. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1261993
Ross, J. A., and Starling, M. (2008). Self-assessment in a technology-supported Wollenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., and Harms, U.
environment: the case of grade 9 geography. Assess. Educ. 15, 183–199. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency
doi: 10.1080/09695940802164218 of learning goals is not enough. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 44–45, 1–11.
Samaie, M., Nejad, A. M., and Qaracholloo, M. (2018). An inquiry into doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.003
the efficiency of whatsapp for self- and peer-assessments of oral Yan, Z., and Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a
language proficiency. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 49, 111–126. doi: 10.1111/bjet. model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assess. Evalu. High. Educ. 42,
12519 1247–1262. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091
Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., and Cooper, Yilmaz, F. N. (2017). Reliability of scores obtained from self-, peer-, and teacher-
H. (2017). Self-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments on teaching materials prepared by teacher candidates. Educ. Sci.
assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. 17, 395–409. doi: 10.12738/estp.2017.2.0098
Psychol. 109, 1049–1066. doi: 10.1037/edu0000190 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp. Educ.
Sargeant, J. (2008). Toward a common understanding of self-assessment. J. Contin. Psychol. 25, 82–91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
Educ. Health Prof. 28, 1–4. doi: 10.1002/chp.148 Zimmerman, B. J., and Schunk, D. H. (2011). “Self-regulated learning and
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., van der Vleuten, C., and Metsemakers, J. (2008). “Directed” performance: an introduction and overview,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of
self-assessment: practice and feedback within a social context. J. Contin. Educ. Learning and Performance, eds B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (New York,
Health Prof. 28, 47–54. doi: 10.1002/chp.155 NY: Routledge), 1–14.
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 153–189.
doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795 Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares that the research was
Silver, I., Campbell, C., Marlow, B., and Sargeant, J. (2008). Self-assessment and conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
continuing professional development: the Canadian perspective. J. Contin. be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Educ. Health Prof. 28, 25–31. doi: 10.1002/chp.152
Siow, L.-F. (2015). Students’ perceptions on self- and peer-assessment in enhancing Copyright © 2019 Andrade. This is an open-access article distributed under the
learning experience. Malaysian Online J. Educ. Sci. 3, 21–35. terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution
Son, L. K., and Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study- or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and
time allocation. J. Exp. Psychol. 26, 204–221. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204 the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
Tan, K. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students? is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
Assess. Evalu. Higher Educ. 29, 651–662. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000227209 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

A Critical Review of Research On Student Self-Assessment: Heidi L. Andrade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Research On Student Self-Assessment: Heidi L. Andrade

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Research On Student Self-Assessment: Heidi L. Andrade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

published: 27 August 2019

A Critical Review of Research on

This article is a review of research on student self-assessment conducted largely

Specialty section: DEFINING AND OPERATIONALIZING STUDENT

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

WHAT IS SELF-ASSESSMENT? that, although students’ and professor’s assessments tend to be

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 2 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

TABLE 1 | A taxonomy of self-assessment.

Competence Processes Products

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 3 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 4 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 5 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 6 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 7 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 8 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 9 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 10 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 11 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 12 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org 13 August 2019 | Volume 4 | Article 87

You might also like