Cited by 221Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesHigher Education Practises and Engagement

Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time?

Open access
Boud, David, Lawson, Romy, Thompson, Darrall G.·2013·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

One of the implicit aims of higher education is to enable students to become better judges of their own work. This paper examines whether students who voluntarily engage in self-assessment improve in their capacity to make those judgements. The study utilises data from a web-based marking system that provides students with the opportunity to assess themselves on each criterion for each assessment task throughout a programme of study. Student marks were compared with those from tutors to plot changes over time. The findings suggest that overall students’ judgements do converge with those of tutors, but that there is considerable variation across achievement levels, with weaker students showing little improvement. Whilst the study is limited by the exigencies of voluntary participation and thus consequential gaps in the data set, it shows how judgement over time can be demonstrated and points to the potential for more systematic interventions to improve students’ judgements. It also illustrates the use of the web-based marking and feedback software (ReView) that has considerable utility in aiding self-assessment research.

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 · 10.1080/02602938.2013.769198

Cites

33 of 33 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?

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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • James Cook University (AU)
Corresponding author
Boud, David
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2013-02-20
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
941-956
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2076448853
Cited by
221
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
62.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
Keywords
student self-assessment, student feedback, achievement level differences, student self-regulation, 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