Cited by 232Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

Assessment literacy and student learning: the case for explicitly developing students 'assessment literacy

Open access
Smith, Calvin Douglas, Worsfold, Kate, Davies, Lynda, Fisher, Ron, McPhail, Ruth·2013·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

In this paper, we report on a study to quantify the impact on student learning and on student assessment literacy of a brief assessment literacy intervention. We first define ‘assessment literacy’ then report on the development and validation of an assessment literacy measurement instrument. Using a pseudo-experimental design, we quantified the impact of an assessment literacy-building intervention on students’ assessment literacy levels and on their subsequent performance on an assessment task. The intervention involved students in the experimental condition analysing, discussing and applying an assessment rubric to actual examples of student work that exemplified extremes of standards of performance on the task (e.g. poor, excellent). Results showed that such a procedure could be expected to impact positively on assessment literacy levels and on student performance (on a similar or related task). Regression analyses indicated that the greatest predictor of enhanced student marks (on the assessment task that was the subject of the experiment), was the development of their ability to judge standards of performance on student work created in response to a similar task. The intervention took just 50 minutes indicating a good educational return on the pedagogical investment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2011.598636

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Co-creation can assist with student and staff assessment literacy.

    “In this context, co-creation can assist with student and staff assessment literacy (Smith et al., 2013).”

    From Assessment design through co-creation (2025) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2013

    The Abstract and Discussion and conclusions (pages unavailable in our copy) report that students’ discussion and application of assessment criteria improved their assessment literacy. The intervention included shared discussion of judgements, but the paper does not establish that co-creation improved staff assessment literacy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A key attribute of resource availability is a commitment to enabling the professional enhancement of all staff, particularly strengthening strategies to enhance student assessment literacy.

    “A key attribute of this is a commitment to enabling the professional enhancement of all staff, particularly while strengthening strategies to enhance student assessment literacy (Deeley and Bovill 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Price et al. 2012).”

    From A typology for a social justice approach to assessment: learning from universal design and culturally sustaining pedagogy (2019) · cites this paper as Smith et al. 2013

    The Discussion and conclusions (page not supplied) recommends incorporating assessment-literacy protocols into regular teaching practice, supporting the call to strengthen strategies for student assessment literacy. It does not address resource availability or a commitment to professional enhancement of all staff. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. . Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.
  2. Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
  3. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
  4. Francis, R. A. (2008). An investigation into the receptivity of undergraduate students to assessment empowerment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 547-557.
  5. Gibbs, G., & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2009). Characterising programme-level assessment environments that support learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 481-489.
  6. O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325-335.
  7. Rust, C., O'Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005). A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 231-240.
  8. Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving Students' Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164.
  9. Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159-179.
  10. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R., & McPhail, R.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Smith, Calvin Douglas
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2013-02
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
44-60
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2155786719
Cited by
232
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
FWCI
14.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
assessment literacy, student learning, assessment rubrics, student self-assessment, student performance, peer assessment, higher education assessment

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