43

Self-Assessment in the Classroom

Mats Oscarson
University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Introduction

A human cognitive ability, such as the ability to use a foreign language, can be
viewed and assessed from two fundamentally different perspectives:

• the internal (or intrinsic) perspective, which underlies the individual’s own
assessment, and
• the external (or extrinsic) perspective, which underlies an assessment made by
somebody else, that is, an outside agent.

In other words, an internal assessment is made from “within” and reflects a direct
experience of one’s own ability. External assessment reflects an outside view of
someone’s ability and will thus always be indirect. In focus here is the former kind
of assessment, more commonly referred to as self-assessment, and the question of
its relevance and applicability in the foreign language classroom.
The practice of learner self-assessment of language ability has attracted
increased attention over the last few decades. Although it may be argued that it
has always been an important component of good teaching and effective learning,
it was only during the 1980s that students’ own estimation of their achievement
in the study of languages began to be more widely practiced and researched.
Many of the activities that have been reported grew out of the seminal language
education work initiated by the Council of Europe, particularly through the
modern languages project. This strongly emphasized the learner’s own role in
various phases of the educational process, including that as active participant
in evaluation and assessment procedures (Council of Europe, 1981, 1988; Girard
& Trim, 1988). A renewed interest in portfolio methodology, with its defining
characteristics of learners’ selection and evaluation of their own work, has been

The Companion to Language Assessment, First Edition. Edited by Antony John Kunnan.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla046
2 Assessment and Learning

another influential factor behind the heightened attention to self-assessment as a

pedagogic tool.
The purpose of this chapter is to give a background to and illustrate the nature
and possible functions of self-assessment in foreign and second language learning.
The primary focus is on research evidence and on the issue of how such assess-
ment may be practically realized in the language classroom, in particular for the
purpose of ongoing formative (improvement-oriented) assessment, or assessment for
learning. The chief objective of this is feedback on learning activities for the benefit
of future performance. Reference will also be made to self-assessment used for
summative (outcome-oriented) purposes, or assessment of learning (Wiliam, 2011,
pp. 9ff.). Such assessment is undertaken in order to determine achievement as an
end result, for example on completion of a learning unit or a more comprehensive
sequence of study. (For a discussion of the conceptual differences between forma-
tive and summative assessments, see, e.g., Scriven, 1967, 1996.)

Toward More Learner-Oriented Language Assessment

In recent decades, many language teaching environments have undergone pro-

found changes in classroom activities and evaluation procedures. Particularly with
regard to the goals of learning and the role of the student, there has been a distinct
reorientation. Many educational principles and practices that formerly character-
ized school-based language study have given way to new trends. Communicative
objectives and standards-based education have, for instance, eased the pressure of
studying formal grammar and syntactic rules. Instead, emphasis has increasingly
been placed on the training of practical communication skills more closely aligned
with commonly felt language needs. Thereby the goals of instruction (as defined
in course descriptions, teaching materials, test specifications, etc.) have become
generally more transparent and comprehensible to learners and it has, in principle,
become easier for them to conceptualize and relate to the targets aimed at.
A likely effect of these developments is that students today are better aware
of what they are set to work on, and why. This is advantageous, not least in
view of the opportunity it offers for learner participation in assessment. A raised
level of awareness is also a necessity in this respect, because, as has been pointed
out, “pupils can assess themselves only when they have a sufficiently clear picture
of the targets that their learning is meant to attain” (Black & Wiliam, 1998b, p. 5).
The quest for authenticity in language study has also helped to make learning
aims more tangible and to put the learner’s interests in focus. Particularly when
the target language is English, learners often have a rich source of out-of-school
experiences that they can bring to bear on classroom activities. Many encounter
the language in their daily lives in both spoken and written forms: in films, televi-
sion programs, commercials, videos, song lyrics; in newspapers, brochures, maga-
zines; and so forth. This can make them sensitive to a lack of correspondence
between the two types of language contact (i.e., in and out of school). If learners
find that there is a mismatch between the two, they are likely to attempt to sway
classroom activities in a direction which better meets their interests and perceived
needs.
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 3

It is thus probably safe to say that learners today, in comparison with an earlier
generation of learners, are more conscious of how common classroom activities
are functionally related to the stated goals of their language studies. The positive
effects of learners’ consciousness of educational goals have been noted in many
contexts. Leow (2000) concluded that learners who show an awareness of learning
targets obtain better achievement test results than students who demonstrate a
lack of such awareness. There is also evidence that language learners will produce
more accurate self-assessments if the criterion relates to achievement of concrete
functional skills and explicitly stated behaviors rather than if it is a criterion that
exemplifies proficiency in a more abstract sense (Ross, 1998). A comprehensive
meta-analysis of studies investigating the formative functions of test instruments
showed that students were, as noted above, able to make dependable assessments
of their achievements only to the extent to which they had a clear perception of
the goals of the instruction they received (Black & Wiliam, 1998b).
Clarity of goals and accuracy of learner self-assessments can thus be regarded
as inter-related phenomena. The more explicitly stated the goal, the greater the
likelihood that the learner can estimate his or her learning in a meaningful
way. Now that learning goals are often laid out in more transparent and compre-
hensible terms, as noted above, it may be assumed that student self-assessment is
capable of playing an increasingly important role in future language education.

Cooperative Needs Analysis and Feedback Functions

Another change in the field that tied in with the emergent communicative approach
to language education has been the growing recognition that learners need to be
consulted on a more regular basis, in many contexts as a matter of principle, at
the stage when course content is being planned and defined. The concept of par-
ticipatory learning has been extensively explored and learners’ views on goals and
ways of achieving them have become an increasingly important consideration. A
case in point is what is known as the negotiated curriculum. In this approach to
course design it is laid down that the learner should have a say both in defining
content and in choosing methods of evaluation (Nunan, 1988). The negotiated
curriculum has proved to be a viable concept which contributes to the develop-
ment of more accessible and learner-centered forms of study. This in turn facili-
tates learner involvement in the monitoring and assessment of activities in many
areas of language study.
Clearly specified goals, access to authentic language, and participation in needs
analysis are thus some of the factors that support learners in their critical and
constructive evaluation of what takes place in the classroom. Less relevant and
less effective activities, as experienced by learners, are likely to be queried while
activities that are felt to accord well with clearly conceived and preferred objec-
tives will tend to be endorsed. This mechanism constitutes another important
rationale for the pursuit of learner-involved modes of assessment.
Summing up, we may say that late 20th-century advances in applied language
studies and linguistic needs analysis resulted in more realistic and user-oriented
views of the language-learning task. From this followed elaboration of more
4 Assessment and Learning

direct and explicit specifications of the goals that are set up for learning. This in
turn tended to make it easier for the lay person to understand the nature and
purposes of language instruction strategies. For learners in particular, this was an
important development. It gave them a better opportunity for taking an active
part in the structuring, conduct, and assessment of their own studies. Teacher–
student “dialogical” learning, coupled with enhanced student self-reliance and a
heightened sense of shared responsibility for learning, emerged as a natural way
forward in language education.

The Changing Language Assessment Scene

For a long time, language assessment was dominated by the psychometric tradi-
tion of measuring abilities and achievement. This tradition had its roots in early
intelligence testing and was characterized by extensive use of discrete-point
testing (i.e., of discrete learning points) and norm referencing (relative ranking of
test takers), often on the basis of administration of multiple choice item tasks
(Spolsky, 1995). The tradition is being replaced by a more comprehensive model
of “educational assessment” that, among other things, emphasizes the importance
of the validity in measurements and the learner support functions that assess-
ments and testing can have (Gipps, 1995). Proponents of this model strive to align
methods of assessment with actual learning goal behaviors (Harris & Bell, 1994).
This is accomplished through the use of more performance-oriented test tasks,
particularly tasks that resemble real-world language use and, in the classroom,
common learning activities. Examples are oral interaction in pairs, formal group
discussion, reviewing and reporting exercises, and summarizing tasks. Perform-
ance assessment differs from more conventional testing particularly in the degree
to which the test task presented is congruent with the behavior domain to which
the tester wishes to make inferences.
Because authentic language is quite prevalent in many students’ daily lives, for
the most part out of school, students today are frequently in a comparatively good
position to make judgments about the effects of the instruction they receive in the
classroom, namely in relation to what they feel they need. The chances are, there-
fore, that they can provide useful information about the quality of their learning
in school. Seen in this perspective too self-assessment can be both a natural and
a valuable complement to teacher assessment.
The inter-relationship between the variables discussed in this introduction is
graphically represented in Figure 43.1.

Theoretical Framework

As the foregoing summary of trends in language education makes plain, there are
several practical explanations for the heightened interest in student self-assessment.
But also, more theoretical arguments speak in favor of it. Work in this field has
centered on the question of the general significance of self-observation and reflec-
tive monitoring of learning and achievement (e.g., Bandura, 1986, on a range of
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 5

Quest for Learners’ out-of-

authenticity in school language
language study contacts

Cooperative Improved conditions Performance-

for learner oriented
needs analysis
self-assessment language testing

Transparency of Communicative
goals objectives

M.O. 2013-02-15

Figure 43.1 Factors influencing conditions for learner self-assessment in language

education

significant self-regulatory mechanisms in human behavior and the functions of

self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction; Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner,
2000, on metacognitive processes and the principles of self-managed learning).
For arguments concerning raised levels of awareness, see, for instance, Holec
(1988), and for arguments related to increased motivation and improved learning,
McDonald and Boud (2003) and Butler and Lee (2010).
In particular, cognitive and constructivist theories of learning hold that self-
assessment can be seen as an integral part of effective acquisition of knowledge
and skills. Dale H. Schunk, a leading researcher in the field of metacognitive and
self-regulatory processes, makes the point that “goal setting and self-evaluations
of progress are important components of self-regulated learning. If a certain
instructional method requires students to set goals and evaluate their progress,
then we might predict that students who received such instruction would show
gains in self-regulation and achievement. That prediction can be tested in a
research study” (Schunk, 2008, pp. 466–7).
In the next section we will look into some of the language education work that
has been done in this respect.

Research

Research into self-assessment in language education has in particular focused on

the question of the significance and validity of the approach and its results: To
what extent are language learners, in general, able to make accurate and useful
6 Assessment and Learning

judgments of their own (linguistic) ability? What faith can be placed in the results
self-assessment procedures generate? Questions have also concerned develop-
ment work in the area of methodology. In what forms and by what means can
self-assessment be realized in common language-learning situations, primarily in
the foreign language classroom? Issues of validity and practicality have thus been
at the forefront of the research conducted.
An early meta-study in the field of psychological assessment indicated that
self-assessment can be reasonably accurate and that it can, under certain condi-
tions, yield results that are comparable to external assessment methods (Shrauger
& Osberg, 1981). Generally positive correlation between self-assessments and
teachers’ marks was obtained in a similar meta-analysis conducted by Falchikov
and Boud (1989). They also found that the degree of agreement tended to be
functionally linked to certain other variables such as level of learning (a higher
degree of correspondence at more advanced levels) and quality of the research
(higher correspondence in more carefully designed studies). The type of assess-
ment task, on the other hand, did not seem to be clearly coupled with the variabil-
ity observed.
In a literature review of studies in the particular field of language learning it
was found that there is often a good deal of agreement between learners’ self-
assessments and external criteria (Oscarson, 1984). Variables such as learner
background, previous education, and extent of preparatory training were,
however, believed to impinge on the reliability of self-assessed scores. In a later
summary of 16 research studies on the same topic, Blanche and Merino (1989)
noted that there was “consistent overall agreement between self-assessments and
ratings based on a variety of external criteria” (p. 315). They also found evidence
of enhanced learner motivation in half of the studies surveyed. Ross (1998) simi-
larly analyzed the results of 10 language studies and could confirm a statement
made by Blanche and Merino that self-assessment tends to provide “robust con-
current validity with criterion variables” (p. 16). He further concluded that
“learners will be more accurate in the self-assessment process if the criterion
variable is one that exemplifies achievement of functional (‘can do’) skills” and
that they may be less accurate when the instrument they use contains items of
a more abstract kind. The findings also suggest that more accurate assessments
are made by learners who have had more extensive experience with the skill
they are asked to self-assess.
In a comprehensive and much publicized survey of the literature on classroom
formative assessment, Black and Wiliam (1998a, 1998b) focused on the perceptions
of students and their role in self-assessment. The authors concluded that there
exists firm evidence of the benefits of formative assessment and that it is capable
of raising standards. It was also pointed out that for formative assessment to be
productive, students need training in self-assessment so that they can grasp what
their learning tasks entail.
Research of this kind, reporting gains in academic achievement of students
involved in self- (and peer) assessment, has prompted further research and critical
evaluation of results obtained. In a survey reported by Sebba et al. (2008) the fol-
lowing vital question was posed: “What is the evidence of the impact on students
in secondary schools of self and peer assessment?”
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 7

Three types of impact were considered: outcomes relating to (1) attainment,

(2) self-esteem, and (3) the superordinate goal of “learning to learn.” Results were
based on in-depth analyses of 26 studies finally included in the survey. “All curricu-
lar areas,” most of them focusing on English and mathematics, were represented.
The first conclusion drawn was that self-assessment tends to have a favorable
impact on learning. In most cases an increase in attainment was observed. Positive
results were also noted with regard to the development of students’ self-esteem.
Seven out of nine studies reporting outcomes on this variable recorded a positive
effect. Furthermore, there was a clear indication that students improved their
learning-to-learn skills. A majority of the studies showed positive outcomes on
“goal setting, clarification of objectives, increased responsibility for learning and/
or increased confidence” (Sebba et al., 2008, p. 16). No differential effects for
groups of students (e.g., by gender, ethnicity, or previous learning) were observed.
It has often been assumed that self-assessment can only be effective with mature
students. Research has shown, however, that it can also be used in developing an
understanding of how children perceive and reflect on their learning. Butler and
Lee (2010) investigated the effects of implementing self-assessment on a regular
basis for a semester in a number of sixth-grade English classes at two schools in
South Korea. The main research questions were: Can young learners improve their
self-assessment ability over time? Does this ability influence their learning and
their attitudes toward studying English? What views do teachers and students
hold on self-assessment in their specific teaching/learning contexts?
Two types of self-assessments were used. One was a “summative self-
assessment” of a general kind administered at the beginning and at the end of the
semester, both to treatment (i.e., self-assessment) and control classes. Items were
of the type “I could follow the directions delivered in English” (with reference to
the domain of listening).
The other type consisted of a series of more specific “unit-based self-assessments,”
which together covered the course content in the textbook all classes were using.
These were only administered to the treatment classes. An example of a “unit-
based self-assessment” (in the domain of reading and decoding) was “I could read
aloud sentences such as ‘I’m thirsty’ and ‘Can I have some hamburgers?’ ”
Teacher and student attitudes were measured by means of interviews and ques-
tionnaires. The English instruction itself, as well as tests measuring student per-
formance, were the same in treatment and control classes.
Analyses of results at the end of the semester indicated that students in the
treatment group had improved their self-assessment ability (confirming earlier
results with older students, reported by Chen, 2008). The control group did not
improve their ability. Quantitative analyses furthermore showed significant (but
rather small) treatment effects. That is, self-assessment tended to have some ben-
eficial influence on students’ learning of English. It also had a marginal positive
effect on students’ confidence in learning. Finally, it turned out that quite different
views of the effects of self-assessment were expressed at the two schools involved.
Such variations in attitudes, as well as differences with respect to the need for
information and guidance, were found to have an impact on outcomes. The
authors concluded that “contextual and individual factors greatly influenced the
ways in which the self-assessment was situated, administered, and valued in their
8 Assessment and Learning

[the teachers’] teaching and learning practices” (Butler & Lee, 2010, p. 27). This
piece of research shows that self-assessment can have a place in the elementary
school classroom too, and that attention to contextual factors such as the teaching
and learning situation and teachers’ and students’ attitudes to the approach is of
great importance.
The general pattern of research results reviewed in this section warrants an
optimistic view of self-assessment. Assigning a greater role for student participa-
tion in assessment can therefore be regarded as meaningful. It seems to be equally
clear, however, that students need training in this particular “learning-to-learn”
skill and that teachers need self-assessment issues to be “further built into both
initial and continuing professional development” (Butler & Lee, 2010, p. 19). This
tallies with some other findings reported elsewhere (e.g., AlFallay, 2004; Oscarson
& Apelgren, 2011).

Examples of Self-Assessment: Methodology and Materials

This section deals with applications of foreign or second language self-assessment

in direct pedagogical practice, primarily in the language classroom. Illustrations
are provided of some of the ways in which it can be used for very practical pur-
poses in the day-to-day monitoring of school-based language learning.
Some preliminary early work in this area was undertaken in the Council of
Europe modern languages project referred to above, and a study exploring

C1 I can use this language to express all the things I would normally express in date
my own language. I can join in most lively discussions. I can choose the most suitable you
way of saying things. I can give a presentation and hardly think about my language. teacher
I rarely search for a word or phrase, and am always understood by people who know
the language reasonably well—and I more or less always manage to understand
them.
B2 I can switch over to this language for long periods. I can talk freely and in date
detail about things that interest me. I can follow discussions about things that are you
topical and argue for my point of view. I can give a presentation without sticking teacher
to a careful plan. Even though I must sometimes search for the best word or phrase,
I am nearly always understood by people who know the language well, and I
normally understand them.
B1:2 … …

B1:1 … …

A2:2 … …

A2:1 I can use language I’ve practiced to say a bit in a number of ordinary date
situations. I can tell a little bit about myself and things I know about well. The people you
I talk to must be patient and willing to help so that we understand each other. teacher

A1 I can use and understand some words and phrases I have learnt. I can ask date
and answer some very usual questions, as long as the other person speaks slowly you
and clearly and is very helpful. teacher

Figure 43.2 A “can-do” scale (spoken interaction) for young learners. Adapted from
Hasselgreen (2003, pp. 76–7) © Council of Europe Publishing
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 9

possible forms of self-assessment for use in adult language learning was reported
by Oscarson (1980). A number of “behaviorally” organized self-assessment mate-
rials, such as checklists, questionnaires, and rating scales, were designed and
piloted in the project. Subsequently interest was also devoted to the development
and use of other introspective materials such as learner log books (records of
activities undertaken), diaries, journals, portfolios, protocols, conferences, and so
forth.
Student–teacher collaborative assessment involving young learners is exempli-
fied in a Norwegian “can-do” project reported by Hasselgreen (2003). Materials
used include proficiency scales adapted to suit the 13–15 age bracket. Figure 43.2
shows an example. In this case the scale is designed to link learner and teacher
assessments. Learners first judge their performance level and then “calibrate”
their estimates in consultation with their teacher.
Pupils are instructed about the criteria for each level. The author comments that
in using this material “Pupils and teachers are expected to be jointly involved in
deciding when the pupil has reached a new level” (Hasselgreen, 2003, p. 19). Sup-
plementary self-assessment materials in the form of “can-do” checklists accom-
pany the proficiency scales.

Language Portfolio Assessment

The well-known portfolio concept involves students actively in the recording and
reporting of their learning and achievements (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000). The
basic methodology has been used in many different contexts and forms, the
common denominator being that of storing of work samples (such as pieces of
writing and audiorecordings) for documentation and evaluation purposes. The
collection of samples is based on systematic reviewing and assessment by the
learner, resulting in a selection that he or she finds illustrative of successive phases
of learning (i.e., through a form of self-assessment). Students may also be asked
to write a text in which they reflect on their development as learners. The conver-
sation with the teacher, or with peers, about the samples selected offers a further
opportunity for self-reflection on the progress of learning.
Deliberate student reflection is thus a prominent feature of portfolio methodol-
ogy in that the selection of work samples is made on the basis of personal judg-
ment, which is, or can be, followed up by evaluative discussion. In other words,
working with portfolios is a way of strengthening the learner’s capability for
self-assessment.
The recently developed European Language Portfolio (ELP) uses the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) concept as its frame of
reference (Council of Europe, 2001). It exists in a range of languages and has often
been produced in different versions for different age groups, including young
learners. The learners are themselves involved, by self-assessment, in the estima-
tion of the CEFR level they have reached. A central feature of the ELP is a language
biography, which among other things provides opportunities for self-assessment
based on (1) checklists of CEFR-related “can-do” statements and (2) a global CEFR
self-assessment grid. There is also a dossier where the learner keeps a selection
10 Assessment and Learning

of work (such as texts, video or sound tape recordings, learning logs, and project
work) which he or she thinks best mirrors his or her achievement.
It has been claimed that use of the ELP in the classroom has several advantages.
In an international pilot study reported by Little (2003), participating teachers
concluded that young children find the ELP entertaining and highly motivating
and that it has a favorable impact on the learning process (p. 3), that “learning to
be more reflective in general contributed to the students’ abilities to assess their
language skills” (p. 8), and that “as a planning and self-assessment tool it helps
to make the learning process more visible to the learners and as such involves
them more” (p. 36). Few negative points were recorded, but it may perhaps be
added that there has been some concern among teachers elsewhere that the
keeping and updating of files and binders, filling out forms, responding to check-
lists, and so forth may put too great a strain on some students who find this sort
of “clerical paperwork” demanding.
The report referred to above also contains a wide sample of illustrative ELP
pages produced by students participating in the study.

A Web-Based Model

A concrete example of how the principles of self-assessment may be realized in

the classroom is afforded by a set of “materials for self-assessment in English”
published on a Swedish governmental Web site (Skolverket, 2012). The set was
produced as an adjunct to the annual national testing of English in the secondary
school, primarily in order to strengthen the dialogue between teachers and stu-
dents in matters of achievement and skills development. The Web site and the
guidance and support materials have, at the time of writing (April 2012), been in
place for more than 10 years. Information about this initiative is included here
because it illustrates an interesting and useful way of stimulating self-assessment
in schools as seen from a central administrative perspective. It also offers practical
tips for teachers on classroom procedures.
Through this resource, schools are supplied with some basic ideas as to how
they may introduce and maintain self-assessment as a regular feature of classroom
interaction. The explanatory texts are in the national language (i.e., Swedish) while
the instruments themselves and a set of questions (suggested points for discus-
sion) are in English.
The set comprises the following components:

1. A description of the purposes and contents of the materials offered. It is pointed

out that the content reflects basic educational tenets in the national curricu-
lum, that these need to be considered very carefully when students’ work and
attainment levels are discussed, and that students’ awareness of different
modes of learning and of personal goals are crucial aspects of successful
studies.
2. A brief written account of the theoretical background to and rationale for autono-
mous assessment. This text also provides references to pertinent literature
on educational assessment, to portfolio methodology, and to autonomous
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 11

learning initiatives. It furthermore reports on experiences gained from the use

of learner self-assessment in language education.
3. An English usage checklist, which can be used to give an overview of the
students’ use of English outside of school and thus to remind them of
the degree to which they often use English in their daily lives. The checklist
can furthermore stimulate students to start thinking about how they might
capitalize on such out-of-school language contacts for the good of their lan-
guage studies in school. Types of English usage referred to are reading of
books and instruction manuals, finding information on the Internet, listening
to songs, watching videos and films, writing e-mails, meeting foreign tourists
in Sweden, and so forth. Response options are “Often,” “Sometimes,” and
“Never.”
4. A self-assessment questionnaire, which contains samples of situated assessment
items covering the four skills (reading, speaking, listening, and writing) plus
the variables of strategic competence and intercultural knowledge. It is
intended to help students to assess their ability in relation to goals of the kind
embodied in the curriculum and the syllabus for English. The advice is that
the questionnaire be used at least a couple of times during the course. An
example is shown in Figure 43.3.
5. A student background questionnaire, which contains questions on attitudes to
and experiences from using English under different circumstances. For
example: What strategies do you use if you get stuck when writing? What do
you think you need to work more on to improve your English? It gives stu-
dents an opportunity to become more conscious of their own, as well as
alternative, ways of acquiring language skills and may be used as a basis for
teachers and students when planning an English course.

How well do you think the following statements match your ability in English? Answer by putting an X in the boxes
below. There are no correct answers. This questionnaire can be useful to you when learning English. It will help
you see the different areas in Course A English that you are good at and those you need to work more on.

Speaking
I think that the statement below matches my level of English
not at a little fairly well very perfectly
all well well

4 I can take part in conversations about things that

I know well, without having to figure out what to
say beforehand.

5 After some preparation, I can inform others about

something or describe something that I’m
interested in.

6 I know what type of language to use in different

situations. I know for example the difference
between speaking to an employer and to friends.

Comments on my speaking skills: … …

Figure 43.3 Self-assessment questionnaire sample items. Adapted from Skolverket

(2012)
12 Assessment and Learning

In addition to the above, there is an appendix which contains general guidelines

for teachers on how the components are best presented and used in class, or indi-
vidually. It is stated, for instance, that it is important for students to understand
the rationale for and purposes of the support materials. Students need to be
informed that the content and tasks are clearly related to important goals in the
curriculum and the syllabus. It should also be made plain to students that self-
assessment can be a useful complement to other forms of evaluation with which
they are likely to be more familiar: teacher observation, classroom assignments,
quizzes, essays, tests, exams, and so forth. The reason is, of course, that many
students are not used to the idea that they can be “judges” of their own learning.
In the case of the present set of materials the teacher may, as needed, refer to the
accompanying text, which sets out the background to the practice of self-
assessment and also quotes some research of interest.
The teacher is furthermore advised to point out that self-assessment is an essen-
tial feature of effective study habits, that is, that it is as much part of the process
of learning as it is an alternative or complementary way of estimating what is being
learned. Tips on how to explain and exemplify this are provided. It is recom-
mended that the three instruments intended for students should be administered
on different occasions in order not to overburden students during a particular
class, and also in order to allow time for reflection and discussion. It is indicated
that the self-assessment questionnaire can profitably be used more than once
during the course as a means of monitoring the progress of learning.
Written responses are not necessarily viewed as the best approach in all cases.
The various issues raised in materials of this kind may also be commented on by
the students directly and orally. The activity can then be organized as a teacher-led
group discussion or it can be conducted in small groups reporting back to class.
In certain cases, informal discussion between the teacher and students individu-
ally may be the best strategy.
Finally, there is also included a document which provides references to
literature on assessment in general, as well as to autonomous learning and
self-assessment.

A Case Study: Self-Assessment of Writing Skills

Other, more detailed examples of how self-assessment may be practiced in the

classroom are given in the Swedish research project “Self-Assessment of Learning:
The Case of Languages” (SALL). A major part of this project centered on the tech-
nique of process writing, that is, the iterative model of practice in which a draft
text is successively elaborated in a stepwise fashion to form a final “edited product”
(Dragemark Oscarson, 2009). The aim was to investigate the extent to which ado-
lescent learners are able to perceive and realistically assess their developing
writing competences in English in relation to set goals. Since this research is illus-
trative of some of the main principles discussed in this chapter, it will be described
in a little more detail. The approach and the types of activities are, moreover,
directly transferable to regular classroom work, which may be of interest to some
practicing teachers at this level.
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 13

A sample of four classes of upper secondary school students, with little previous
experience of self-assessment, were presented with an extensive writing task
which was to be completed as part of their ordinary English as a foreign language
(EFL) coursework. In the initial phase of the self-assessment period, students first
studied the goal of writing in the curriculum and discussed the criteria specified
for each of the four grades available in the course. Typical questions to be consid-
ered were: What is required for a pass grade in written expression (linguistic
accuracy, etc.)? What is required for a pass with special distinction? The students
then practiced assessing a number of texts which had been produced by other
students in a past national test and which had later been used in the form of
annotated benchmarks (related to grade levels) in teachers’ test administration
guidelines. After a group discussion the students compared their estimates with
the benchmarks and again discussed the results. This procedure helped students
form a better picture of the goals for writing in the course and of the criteria for
the different grade levels.
For the sake of comparison of methodological procedures, it may be mentioned
that when it came to oral skills the groups were given samples of students’ audio-
recordings at various proficiency levels and were asked to mark these according
to the set criteria. They were furthermore requested to judge their own ability in
comparison with the examples they heard (“the same? higher? lower?”). Finally,
they gave the arguments for their conclusions and discussed them, whereupon
the teacher disclosed the national expert group’s grading of the various examples,
as well as that group’s reasoning behind each grade.
After the practice session on standards of writing, the groups started
working on their own texts. There were two themes to choose from: “A letter”
and “The media.” Following the principles of process writing, the students
first discussed their writing with their teachers and made preparations for the
task. They were also encouraged to cooperate with their classmates in this
introductory phase of the writing. The teacher explained the marking system
that was going to be used.
The actual writing was done both in class and at home. Scripts were collected
twice: in draft form and as a final text. When the students handed in their first
drafts for comments they were also requested to complete a self-assessment form
containing items such as those shown in Figure 43.4 (in rough translation). The
teachers did not see the results of the self-assessment questionnaires.
Following special assessment guidelines the teachers commented on the draft
scripts by indicating (but not correcting) passages, phrases, and words that might
be clarified or improved, and also by adding brief general questions and com-
ments to guide students in their further work on the task.
The next step was for students to hand in their revised texts. The teacher
read, added comments, and returned the texts to the class. When the texts were
handed in this second time, the students were again asked to self-assess their
writing skills. Figure 43.5 exemplifies the points raised.
In the analyses of the outcome, it transpired that students were quite self-critical
in that they tended to underestimate their competence in the different specific
writing skills they self-assessed. Expert ratings were actually higher. But practice
14 Assessment and Learning

Self-assessment questionnaire 1

Content
• I think I was able to express myself well when I …
• I think I can improve my text in the following respects …

Language
• In writing this text I was satisfied with my …
grammar spelling
vocabulary sentence structure
paragraphing punctuation

• But I think I may need to improve my …

(ditto options)

• I estimate that my achievement level in this assignment, so far, is …

•…

Figure 43.4 Self-assessment questionnaire 1. Excerpted and translated from Drage-

mark-Oscarson (2009)

Self-assessment questionnaire 2

• In relation to what is specified as the goals for writing in the curriculum, I NOW think I can …

• But I think I need to improve …

• After having revised [title of text] I would NOW give myself the grade of … for this assignment.
My reason for this is that …

Figure 43.5 Self-assessment questionnaire 2. Excerpted and translated from Drage-

mark-Oscarson (2009)

made a difference. Students who had participated longer in the study were rather
more accurate in their estimates than students with a shorter record.
Toward the end of the project, the students took the National Test of English,
which has advisory status but which historically correlates highly (r ∼ .85) with
the final grades students are awarded nationwide later in the term. At the end of
the test session, students predicted the grades they were going to get in each of
four language skills tested (Figure 43.6). The correlations between these self-
assessments and later test data were quite low but still statistically significant
(r = .30 and r = .59 for writing in two main groups compared; n tot = 100).
The study also included interviews, with both teachers and students. In the
main, both parties felt that the combination of a writing assignment with a self-
assessment procedure was useful and that it increased students’ awareness of their
strong and weak points in the language (i.e., not only in writing). The exercise of
grading sample texts in relation to syllabus goals was felt to be difficult but at the
same time very informative. Students thought that it helped them to better under-
stand the criteria for grading in the course they were taking.
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 15

Prediction of National English Test Results (Part IV: Writing)

1. Now that you have completed the Writing Test in English, what grade do you think you
will receive?
Fail
Pass
Pass with distinction
Pass with special distinction
2. How certain are you that your estimation is correct?
Very certain
Certain
Uncertain
Very uncertain
3. Why do you think you will receive this grade?

Figure 43.6 Form for students’ prediction of National English Test results (Part IV:
Writing). Excerpted and translated from Dragemark-Oscarson (2009)

Some students were a bit dubious about the reliability of self-estimates. Certain
students who were particularly ambitious and goal-directed feared that the prac-
tice of self-assessment had meant time missed “for real learning” (in the form of
“study of new words,” for instance).
Summing up: What we can learn from this educational project is that self-
assessment in the classroom can be usefully employed for enhancing the learner’s
own role in language learning. In combination with the process writing model,
self-assessment proved to be a fruitful strategy for teacher–student interaction in
the monitoring of achievement.

Another Model

A very important aspect to consider in developing fruitful self-assessment is the

definition of criteria, as was the case in the above self-assessment project, and is
indeed the case in any type of assessment. Without a clear sense of what the
important goals are and what they mean in a particular educational setting, it is
impossible for any student to make meaningful judgments of his or her own learn-
ing. The teacher typically needs to expend a great deal of energy making sure that
students are clear in their minds about what their assessment task amounts to in
practical terms.
A good example of how to approach the problem is provided by Rolheiser and
Ross (2012). In their four-stage model for teaching student self-evaluation, the
definition of criteria is central. At Stage 1 the students are involved in defining
the criteria, in negotiation with the teacher. The goal is to create a shared set
that the group perceives as meaningful. At Stage 2 students are taught how to
apply the criteria to their own work. The idea is to try to connect criteria to
evidence in the self-assessments. Next there is a stage of moderation, Stage 3,
16 Assessment and Learning

where students are given feedback on their assessments in order to “recalibrate”

their attempts to apply the criteria. At Stage 4, finally, students are encouraged to
develop “productive goals and action plans,” whereby it is particularly important
to monitor their work and provide support when they, in due course, assess their
achievement.

Conclusions and Future Directions

As will be apparent from the above, significant headway has been made in the
field of self-assessment in the classroom. Both awareness of its importance and
familiarity with adequate and useful procedures have increased considerably over
the last few decades. It is, however, also evident that a great deal of research and
development work remains to be done before we can realistically expect to see
self-assessment implemented and practiced on a wider scale. So far, the field
constitutes relatively uncharted territory. For comments related to what can be
regarded as still largely extant issues in research on self-assessment, see Oscarson
(1997, pp. 183–6).
Two areas in particular seem to require attention in future work in the sphere
of classroom self-assessment:

1. research on the theoretical bases and epistemology of the approach, and

2. theory-based and empirically grounded development of purposeful and flex-
ible materials and techniques suitable for direct application in the classroom.

Both of these areas suffer from a certain lack of clear evidence from research and
development work. More empirical groundwork is thus needed, not least in the
form of studies that address practical didactic issues. One problem, for instance,
is that of how one may negotiate and reconcile diverging opinions about best
testing and evaluation practice, among both students and teachers. Attitudes
toward self-assessment as an activity in the classroom are very diverse, ranging
from outright rejection of the very idea to firm conviction of its usefulness. There-
fore further explication of the issues involved, as well as a continued mapping
out of teachers’ and students’ conceptions of achievement and its measurement
(see Oscarson & Apelgren, 2011), are very important tasks.
Some other areas in need of development are teacher training focusing on
student-centered formative assessment (for an account of the issue and some
results, see Oscarson & Apelgren, 2011); investigation of the effects of self-
assessment procedures on motivation and achievement, relative to developmental
factors such as the learner’s age and level of maturity; and analyses of the ways
in which the strand of self-assessment may be incorporated into curriculum plan-
ning and course design on a more regular basis. Finally, it is desirable that more
concerted attention be devoted to further development of materials and method-
ologies that can support continuous self-assessment, that is, self-assessment which
is well integrated with day-to-day learning and teaching activities in a longer
perspective, and which is smoothly coordinated with necessary external evalua-
tion procedures.
 Self-Assessment in the Classroom 17

All the above projections of possible future developments serve the dual func-
tion of instructional efficacy and productive collaboration in language education.
Their ultimate objective is to enable learners and teachers alike to make the most
of their potential as facilitators of purposeful language learning and helpful self-
assessment in the classroom.

SEE ALSO: Chapter 9, Assessing Speaking; Chapter 12, Assessing Writing; Chapter
40, Portfolio Assessment in the Classroom; Chapter 44, Peer Assessment in the
Classroom

References

AlFallay, I. (2004). The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the rater
in the accuracy of self- and peer-assessment. System, 32(3), 407–25.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assess-
ment. London, England: GL Assessment.
Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). Self assessment of foreign language skills: Implications
for teachers and researchers. Language Learning, 39(3), 313–40.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self-assessment among young learners of
English. Language Testing, 27(1), 5–31.
Chen, Y.-M. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case
study. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 235–62.
Council of Europe. (1981). Modern languages (1971–1981). Strasbourg, France: Council of
Europe.
Council of Europe. (1988). Evaluation and testing in the learning and teaching of languages for
communication. Strasbourg, France: Author.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dragemark Oscarson, A. (2009). Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign
language: A study at the upper secondary school level. Göteborg studies in educational sciences,
277. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. J. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430.
Gipps, C. (1995). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London, England:
Falmer Press.
Girard, D., & Trim, J. (1988). Project no. 12: Learning and teaching modern languages for com-
munication: Final report of the project group (activities 1982–87). Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory,
and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Harris, D., & Bell, C. (1994). Evaluating and assessing for learning. London, England: Kogan
Page.
Hasselgreen, A. (Ed.). (2003). Bergen “can do” project. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
18 Assessment and Learning

Holec, H. (Ed.). (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields of application. Stras-
bourg, France: Council of Europe.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behaviour: Aware
versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–84.
Little, D. (Ed.). (2003). The European Language Portfolio in use: nine examples. Strasbourg,
France: Language Policy Division.
McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects
of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in
Education, 10(2), 209–20.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Oscarson, M. (1980). Approaches to self-assessment in foreign language learning. Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Oscarson, M. (1984). Self-assessment of foreign language skills: A survey of research and develop-
ment work. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Oscarson, M. (1997). Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In
C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 7: Lan-
guage testing and assessment (pp. 175–87). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Oscarson, M., & Apelgren, B. M. (2011). Mapping language teachers’ conceptions of student
assessment procedures in relation to grading: A two-stage empirical inquiry. System,
39(1), 2–16.
Rolheiser, C., & Ross, J. A. (2012). A four-stage model for teaching student self-evaluation. Re-
trieved June 26, 2012 from http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/self_eval.php
Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis
of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1–20.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research
recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463–7.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. American Journal of Evalua-
tion, 17, 151–61.
Sebba, J., Crick, R. D., Yu, G., Lawson, H., Harlen, W., & Durant, K. (2008). Systematic review
of research evidence of the impact on students in secondary schools of self and peer assessment.
London, England: Institute of Education, University of London.
Shrauger, J. S., & Osberg, T. M. (1981). The relative accuracy of self-predictions and judg-
ments by others in psychological assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 322–51.
Skolverket. (2012). Bedömningsmaterial: Engelska [Assessment materials: English]. Retrieved
June 29, 2012 from http://www.skolverket.se/prov-och-bedomning/ovrigt-bedomn
ingsstod/gymnasial-utbildning/2.1200/bedomningsmaterial-engelska-1.106335
Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words: The development of objective language testing. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1),
3–14.

Suggested Readings

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2002). Inside the black box. London, England: NFER-Nelson.
Ekbatani, G., & Pierson, H. (Eds.). (2000). Learner-directed assessment in ESL. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Roberts, T. S. (Ed.). (2006). Self, peer and group assessment in e-learning: An introduction.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Tsagari, D., & Csèpes, I. (Eds.). (2012). Collaboration in language testing and assessment. Frank-
furt, Germany: Peter Lang.