Cited by 70Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Self‐assessment and the disadvantaged student: potential for encouraging self‐regulated learning?

Kirby, Nicola F., Downs, Colleen T.·2007·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

The Science Foundation Programme (SFP) at the University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg attempts to address past educational inequalities by providing disadvantaged matriculants with the skills, resources and self‐confidence needed to embark on their tertiary studies. Students entering the Programme typically adopt a surface approach to learning with emphasis being placed on high score achievement which results in a mark‐driven attitude towards assessment. Students also lack the metacognitive skills associated with a deep approach to learning. Within this mark‐driven culture, it is important to attempt to move students away from such a superficial approach to learning and assessment. Worldwide, self‐assessment practice has been gaining recognition, and it has been linked to the adoption of a deep approach to learning; self‐regulated learning and the development of metacognitive skills. In the biology module of the Programme, students are given two essay assignments, tasks that are routinely performed very poorly. In attempt to improve SFP students’ essay writing abilities, a self‐assessment scheme to accompany the essay tasks was instituted, hoping that this would get the students to engage with the assessment criteria. It was intended that students would not only fulfil the requirements of the task better, but also achieve the valuable skill of self‐assessment. The results provide overwhelming evidence that SFP students cannot accurately self‐assess. Their naivety and in…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602930600896464

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kirby, N. F., & Downs, C. T.
Affiliations
University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
Corresponding author
Kirby, Nicola F.
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2007-08
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
475-494
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2086219048
Cited by
70
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
17.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
Inyuvesi Yakwazulu-Natali
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
self-assessment, student self-regulation, disadvantaged students, educational inequality, deep approach to learning, metacognitive skills, essay writing, evaluation criteria, student self-confidence, biology education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review