Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria‐referenced self‐assessment. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 32(2), 159-181.

Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria‐referenced self‐assessment. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 32(2), 159-181.

Explanation of the tension exhibited between teachers’ expectations and a student’s own standard of quality. (Andrade and Du provide an explanation for Finding 7).

Utilizing Zimmerman’s framework for the development of self-regulated skill (Zimmerman, 2002), Andrade and Du contend that students who have attained greater self-regulation of skill experience more conflict between their own values and those of the teaching staff.

“…we propose that students’ levels of self-regulatory skill will affect how they respond to discrepancies or incongruence with a teacher’s expectations. We speculate that students who are in one of the first three levels – observation, emulation or self-control – are less likely to experience incongruence because they are actively attending to and internalizing their teacher’s definition of quality. In contrast, students with enough skill at a task to generate their own standards will be more likely to experience a tension when faced with a perceived mismatch between their own and their teacher’s standards.” (Andrade and Du, 2007, p. 171).

Thus if students are in stages 1 (observation), 2 (emulation) or 2 (self-control) they are more likely to adopt the values of the staff as presented within the documents. However, if they are in the 4th stage (self-regulation) they are more likely to experience discord with the staff values. Thus, it may be that an award should be designed so that as a student moves from novice to master across the award they are given more opportunity to negotiate the values that they are assessed against (although this may be very difficult for staff to manage).

Interestingly Andrade and Du consider that conflict between a student’s perception and that of their teacher should be an opportunity to learn through discussion of the mis-match and that a co-definition of quality should be generated for a given assessment item (p.172).

“Students in our study frequently complained about a lack of clarity regarding standards of quality, and reported that self-assessment was less difficult when they knew the expectations for an assignment. The obvious implication is to ensure that students know and understand the criteria and standards for each assignment by discussing them, sharing models and providing a detailed rubric or other scoring device. This implication reflects the views of other assessment theorists, including Black and Wiliam (1998), Shepard (2000), Brookhart (2003) and Wiggins (1998), who espouse student-centred approaches to assessment.” (Andrade and Du, 2007, p.172).

 

References from this article that I should read:

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). The Trial and Triumph of Adolescence 1. In Academic motivation of adolescents, 2, 1.

 Tan*, K. H. (2004). Does student self‐assessment empower or discipline students?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 651-662.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s