The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time?
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This points to an improvement in students ' evaluative expertise over time (Sadler 2010) as they related their evaluations to the evaluations of others; they reflected whether their judgements were appropriate or not, looking for ways to improve future feedback content and wondering what they had missed in making their judgements that others had noticed (Boud et al. 2013).”
From Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills (2018) · cites this paper as Boud et al. 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 1×
“We assume that the key feature of the development of judgement, like any other kind of expertise, is that it requires consistent engagement over time (e.g. Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer 1993).”
BackgroundAssessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 1×
“A person who has the capacity to make good judgements about their work will be able to know why and how their work can be improved (Black and Wiliam 1998).”
BackgroundNicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · cited 1×
“Such a strategy, if undertaken after the initial set of tutor comments, would open up possibilities for the kinds of dialogic feedback proposed in recent publications (e.g. Carless, Salter, Yang, and Lam 2011; Boud and Molloy 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society
Boud, D. (2000) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/713695728 · Cited by 1,545
Self-citationThe use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935 · Cited by 1,206
Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory
Sadler, D. R. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050104 · Cited by 1,107
From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education.
Nicol, D. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602931003786559 · Cited by 1,060
Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term
(2007) · doi:10.4324/9780203964309 · Cited by 1,049
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428
“In order to become more accurate in judging the standards of their own performance, students need extended opportunities for self-evaluation so that they can improve their judgment over time (Boud, Lawson, and Thompson 2013, 2015).”
Self-citationDeveloping evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3 · Cited by 810
“Existing work suggests that students can be trained to use analytic rubrics to evaluate their own work and the work of others (e.g. Boud et al. 2013); however, the ability to apply a rubric does not necessarily imply that students have developed evaluative judgement without a rubric.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe future of student self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions.
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 · Cited by 388
A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment
Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091 · Cited by 275
Adachi, C., Tai, J. H.-M., & Dawson, P. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- FWCI
- 62.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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
