Teaching in Higher Education

ISSN: 1356-2517 (Print) 1470-1294 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Student self-assessment: processes and

consequences

Maddalena Taras

To cite this article: Maddalena Taras (2010) Student self-assessment: processes and
consequences, Teaching in Higher Education, 15:2, 199-209, DOI: 10.1080/13562511003620027

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003620027

Published online: 06 Apr 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3596

View related articles

Citing articles: 21 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20
Teaching in Higher Education
Vol. 15, No. 2, April 2010, 199
209

Student self-assessment: processes and consequences

Maddalena Taras*

Faculty of Education and Society, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK

Empirical research signals that self-assessment is an important factor supporting

and engaging students with learning. Despite this, there has been no explicit
comparison or evaluation of recent models used across educational sectors or
within them. To the uninitiated, self-assessment often appears as an amorphous,
unique process. This paper evaluates four basic models used in higher education
to permit tutors to compare the different processes, timing and the degree of
involvement of learners and tutors (weak and strong models) and discusses how
each model could develop expertise in different contexts. It also summarises the
main issues which have fuelled debate over half a century. This evaluation will
benefit the educational community by providing a concise overview of self-
assessment processes thus providing an expedient means of making an informed
choice and encourage the take-up by practitioners.
Keywords: self-assessment; models; processes; consequences; sectors

Introduction
This paper examines models of self-assessment in higher education (HE) in the
Anglophone research world. The ‘standard model’, which was developed over the
years since its inception in the USA in the 1930s; ‘self-marking’; two models
developed by Cowan, ‘learning contract design’ (LCD; Boyd, Adeyemi-Bero, and
Blackhall 1985; Boyd and Cowan 1985; Cowan 1984, 1988) and the ‘sound
standard’ (Cowan 2002); and one developed by Taras (2001, 2003). These models
are considered representative of self-assessment models available in the literature
and give a good spread of different processes. Before examining the models,
assessment and self-assessment are contextualised within the learning and teaching
context of HE.
This paper examines the basic process of each model and what tutors provide to
learners in the way of training, support and materials for learners to carry out the
self-assessment. Subsequently, the paper proffers the rationale for each model and
how learners are intended to benefit their learning.
New terminology and concepts in the classification of these models are
introduced in this paper; that of weak and strong forms of self-assessment. These
intend to reflect the degree of involvement of students and tutors in each model.
The example of ‘essays’ is used to represent student work because they are complex,
multi-criterion assessments and therefore require more complex logistical processes
for marking and grading.

*Email: maddalena.taras@sunderland.ac.uk
ISSN 1356-2517 print/ISSN 1470-1294 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13562511003620027
http://www.informaworld.com
200 M. Taras

Common framework and definitions

The term ‘self-assessment’ is used to cover all judgements by learners of their work: it
subsumes terms such as ‘self-evaluation’ and ‘self-appraisal’. Each model requires
initiation of learners (and of course, tutors), both to reflective practice and to
contextual assessment procedures and regulations. In addition, a central tenet for all
models is access to discussions to promote the understanding, negotiating and
deciding of assessment criteria, knowledge of standards and learning outcomes
(Rust, Price, and O’Donovan 2003):

The defining characteristics of self-assessment is the involvement of students in

identifying standards and/or criteria to apply to their work and making judgements
about the extent to which they have met these criteria and standards. (Boud 1991, 5,
in Boud 1995, 12)

This would suggest the requirement of comments to explain how the work meets the
criteria, with the option of a grade to represent numerically the standard achieved:

In summary, self-assessment is about students developing their learning skills. . . . It is

not primarily about individuals giving themselves marks or grades. And it is not about
supplanting the role of teachers. (Boud 1995, 17)

This summarises the issues which have raged around self-assessment, that is, a
change of focus from the initial research which focused on students supplanting tutor
grading, to a means of including learners in the assessment community and to
develop independent judgement (Boud 1986).

Importance of self-assessment
Self-assessment has been shown to support student learning. Theories of formative
assessment support the mandatory use of self-assessment (Sadler 1989; Taras 2002,
2005), as does extensive empirical research across sectors and age ranges which
signals the importance of self-assessment to support student learning (Black and
Wiliam 1998; Boud 1995; Taras 2001). Self-assessment is considered one of the
most important skills that students require for effective learning and for future
professional development and life-long learning (Boud 1986, 1; Dearing 1997, 8, 12).
What exactly is this learning? Is it acquisition of content, demonstrating
outcomes and goals, or is it part of the personal development of the learner?
I would suggest that it is all of these, but that within epistemologies which support
and encourage self-assessment, it is the learner who increasingly decides as the needs
arise.
This paper looks at models of self-assessment which have been developed in
the context of HE. Any consideration of inclusion of learners in assessment to
support learning implicates the tutor in certain epistemological, philosophical and
educational perspectives.
To begin with, it subscribes to the integration of learning and teaching as
opposed to separating learners and tutors into discrete roles and areas. Secondly,
it acknowledges that assessment is an integral part of this learning/teaching
partnership, making it in fact an inseparable triumvirate. Thirdly, by integrating
 Teaching in Higher Education 201

assessment, learning and teaching, it also recognises the equal responsibility of the
participants (not necessarily in equal proportions at all times), but the equal
responsibility to ensure that each member of the group is equally involved, informed
and committed to the learning community (often the programme of study). Within
this framework, involvement of learners at all stages and at all levels of decision
making (or at least explain the decisions) is a critical aspect which supports learning.
Without this basic premise, it is difficult to imagine any real or effective self-
assessment occurring. Within this framework it is irrelevant to differentiate between
emphasis on acquisition of content and personal development, because the two are
interlinked and ultimately inseparable, particularly since the choice of content has
a direct impact on epistemological, ideological and social aspects of education.
Although discourse in HE focuses on learner and learning-centred paradigms, in
fact, any teaching or support of learning is predicated on the premise that the
individual learner can both understand or be led to understand their own needs and
that they communicate these needs to the tutor; tutors are neither psychic nor can
they be expected to know what is best for each individual, or indeed to understand
each individual’s mistakes, problems or learning needs. Self-assessment puts the
learner in a dual-control car
except physical short comings are easier to detect than
mental, emotional or conceptual ones.

Stronger and weaker forms of self-assessment

As previously noted, all self-assessment models conform to the above precepts to
some degree. The different models do not have different perspectives on learning as
such because they all engage with the essential premise of including learners in
assessment. This is the first and essential step. The variations within the models are
relatively minor by comparison with this first huge step. The degree of involvement
of students is often dependent on tutors perceived time pressures, co-operation of
student cohorts and their size, logistical and even classroom size and lay-out. The
choices open to tutors will hopefully become clearer during the descriptions and
comparisons of the models. All models would work best if tutors and learners can
discuss and negotiate understanding of both the process and product of assessment.
This paper classifies self-assessment models on a continuum of stronger to
weaker models. Without making these static or fixed categories, it is useful to
consider the extent to which the models can allow students access to involvement
with assessment and power sharing in decision making, particularly grading. The
classifications are not fixed because each model can be stretched in either direction
depending on how it is used.
The metaphor of strong and weak is not meant to denigrate or belittle the
importance of any of the models. Essentially, it is about the access to power and
decision making which is shared with learners (without diminishing the responsibility
of the tutor). For example, self-marking may be considered a stepping stone or more
dilute form of self-assessment if tutors have set all the parameters and learners just
carry out the comparison. This does not mean that students do not do a huge
amount of work in carrying out the procedure, and this work has to be justified and
the returns explained to them. Tutors may find this sort of exercise less threatening
and as they understand the importance for them and for learners, they may find it
202 M. Taras

easier to tackle greater student involvement. The issue of power is critically

important but beyond the scope of this paper (Taras 2008).

Weaker models of self-assessment

Self-marking
In self-marking, students use a model answer(s) with criteria (and possibly mark
sheets) to compare to their own work (Boud, Keogh, and Walker 1985, Boud 1995;
Cowan 1998, 2006). This process is equivalent to a marking form from a course
leader to co-tutors or novice tutors; it is a means of ensuring communality of focus,
understanding and process. The process requires the tutor(s) to interpret the criteria
and standards, select a hierarchy of content according to their priorities, structure
arguments and concepts, and award marks for each of the above.
Students are essentially understanding the interpretations of the tutor(s) who has
prepared the feedback sheets and using these to compare with, correct and grade
their own work. The benefit to support learning is the difference between doing and
having it done for you. During the self-marking, learners are carrying out the same
assessment process as tutors with all the process and product benefits. It also
endorses the possibility to question any lack of clarity.
Self-marking at its most basic can be seen as a behaviourist model of learning
because it takes a model answer as a frame and compares it systematically to the
learners’ work. However, having the responsibility of self-marking is for students
a huge step in being integrated into the assessment community and being trusted:
firstly, with a breakdown of the tutors’ work (in the form of the answer sheet) and
secondly, in being permitted to correct and grade. This is true even if the work is
double marked by tutors.
The advantages for learners and tutors are numerous for such a simple procedure:
immediate feedback; engagement with both process and product of assessment;
student engagement with assessment; and a huge time saver for tutors. The increased
trust resulting from permitting learners into the assessment community is invaluable
and immeasurable.
It is also easy to make this model stronger, i.e. to increase the participation of
students by communally (or in groups) deciding criteria, essay titles, focus of reading
or areas of study; and after the students complete the work, they can also be involved
in actually agreeing and producing the mark sheets. There is a danger that a single
model answer may be perceived as advocating that one single perfect solution is
possible. Providing choices within this model answer is one possible way to help to
dispel this belief.

Sound standard
The tutor provides an objective descriptor of ‘sound standard’ that is of medium level
work (which Cowan sets at 55.5%; Cowan 2002). In addition, students receive two
exemplars of work, one slightly above, one slightly below that standard, without
identifying which is which beforehand. Discussion by students of the two exemplars
against the descriptor deepens the grasp of the criteria (Cowan 2006, 114). The
 Teaching in Higher Education 203

learners are effectively guided by the descriptor to assess the two exemplars and use
these against which to judge their own work.
This process is similar to the self-marking model except that instead of providing
one ‘model’ answer, the two exemplars are close to 56%. Like self-marking, it
provides speedy feedback on summative or formative assessment tasks which are
graded, and helps them to understand criteria and assessment protocols and grading
procedures. It also involves students in making judgements.
The rationale for this model is that exemplars of excellent work may be
discouraging for students if comparisons are negative. Cowan’s sound standard
highlights positive as well as negative aspects in their work since it targets ‘average
work’. Sadler (1989) notes the use of a range of exemplars has been shown to help
learners to understand the requirements of assessment. Therefore, exemplars of
excellent work should perhaps be seen as a positive encouragement for learners.
However, this could be interpreted and aiming the assessment reviews at achieving an
average grade rather than pushing students to higher achievements of their potential.
In order to address this issue it would be possible to provide exemplars of each grade
band, i.e. excellent and pass in addition to the 55.5%.

Median models of self-assessment

Standard model
The standard model of self-assessment requires learners to use criteria to judge,
provide feedback and grade their work prior to submission to tutors:

Students were asked when submitting work to declare their expected mark, and to
accompany it with a note of the strengths and weaknesses which they had perceived and
which had contributed to that judgement. Tutors marked in the usual way, but commented
as endorsement of, or additions to, the students’ comments. (Cowan 2006, 120)

Taken to its logical extreme, it could be argued that this feedback should be used to
improve the work before presenting it to tutors. Therefore, self-assessment is a
continual cycle which should focus learners on producing work to their maximum
potential and that the final piece of work would in fact not have a note of weaknesses
as these would have been addressed. The question is why would students hand in
work signalling weaknesses they have not addressed? The obvious repost is that
firstly, time constraints have not permitted learners the luxury of constant updating
and secondly, various logistical factors, i.e. access to books, journals, etc., could
impede the production of the ‘perfect’ piece of work.
The timing requires learners to think and reflect first and then possibly to ask for
help and receive feedback from their peers; the tutor is the final arbiter and port of
call. It can be both a positive and a negative that the tutor is not part of the self-
assessment process. The consequence is that the student self-assessment and the tutor
assessment are separate which means students do not have access to the power house
of assessment, i.e. tutor grading (Boud 1995; Taras 2001, 2008). When the tutor
finally assesses, it is both the work and the self-assessment, providing feedback on
both. Both should help learners understand their true strengths and weaknesses as
opposed to the perceived ones when they handed in their work (Taras 2003).
204 M. Taras

Most models reported in the literature generally follow the standard self-
assessment model and are personalised and adapted by tutors to their own
educational context. To name but a few: Elton (1999), Falchikov (1989), McDonald
and Boud (2003), Orsmond, Merry and Reiling (1997), Somervell (1993), and Stefani
(1998).
There is also a lack of logic in the argument that working in an informal, non-
graded context is the best way for learners to build up expertise for formal, graded
assessment:

Traditional assessment provides feedback which is generated by a staff member, tutor or

mentor. A continual process of self- and peer-assessment helps students understand the
requirements of formal assessments (i.e. assessment tasks which count towards certifica-
tion). This is done by helping them develop and practice making qualitative judgements.
Feedback is therefore generated by and for the student. (Hinett and Thomas 1999, 7)

A major difference between their distinction between formal and informal

assessments is that the former is graded and the latter is not and that the latter is
unlikely to receive the same attention from either the students or the tutor (Taras
2001). If understanding graded assessment and standards is the final aim, perhaps it
would be more effective if these were the point of focus. On the other hand, reducing
the pressure of the graded context may be more conducive to students being less
emotionally involved, thus improving the understanding of the process.

Stronger models of self-assessment

Self-assessment with integrated tutor feedback
This model requires learners to integrate tutor and peer feedback before students
self-assess. The process has changed and developed: the original (2001), requires
learners to hand in work as usual. The tutor provides feedback (either on the work or
on a separate sheet) against the required and agreed criteria. In class time, students
receive their work and the feedback but no mark or grade. Students discuss feedback
with their peers, receive peer feedback and grading and then, using the tutor and peer
feedback, they grade their work and respond to the feedback. The rationale is that
learners self-assess without the emotional pressure of the grade, and from an
informed position using tutor and peer feedback (Taras 2001, 2003).
The later version (2003) has two self-assessment processes: the first is the
‘standard’ model (students providing a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses and
a grade), then the integrated tutor-feedback version.
This new version provides minimal tutor feedback on the students’ work as
opposed to detailed feedback; the rationale being that learners focus on thinking
about their work. Therefore, firstly, learners consider this minimal feedback alone to
understand and resolve areas signalled by it. This reflection aims to help learners to
see their work with new eyes and also to appraise it after a time lapse. Secondly,
learners discuss feedback and grade at least two other peers’ work. Thirdly, students
exchange their completed feedback sheets with their own comments and grades as
well as their peers’ with the pre-prepared feedback and graded sheets of tutors.
Finally, students’ scrutiny of the tutors’ feedback and grades ensures that there are
no outstanding issues or disagreements.
 Teaching in Higher Education 205

Research noted (Taras 2003) that students identified the majority of their
problems very quickly, leaving precious class time to really address the real issues.
The standard self-assessment procedure could be compared to the Taras’ model and
permit learners to understand how their learning/assessment perspective had
changed. Both versions suggest a practice assignment to ensure learners are
‘improving’ and understand the assessment framework:

Interestingly, this study not only shows the benefits of integrating external and internal
feedback but it also shows ways of helping students internalise and use tutor feedback.
(Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2005, 208)

Strongest model of self-assessment

Learning contract design (LCD)
The LCD was developed in the context of self-directed learning (Boyd, Adeyemi-
Bero, and Blackhall 1985; Cowan 1984, 1988) and is self-assessing to students’ own
criteria. The self-assessment is embedded in a learning contract where the learner
makes all the decisions: what, when and how to learn. However, learners were not
isolated and received regular, time-tabled support from tutor and peers, support and
feedback which students are required to respond to. Features included weekly
objectives, peer feedback with a new peer each week, original, reviewed objectives
and methods on display at the public notice board:

I would facilitate development, not instruct, direct or guide, but outline several viable
competitive and contrasting learning activities from which the learners were to choose
between, or to adapt or reject, my suggestions. (Cowan 2006, 115)

The significant feature as concerns self-assessment is that, in a major course of

learning and assessment for the academic year 25% of the graded work is in the
hands of the learner. Each assessment involved the students in summarising the
standards and criteria, describing their performance in comparable terms and
reporting the process of judgement by comparing their work with the chosen
standards/criteria thus justifying the mark. The tutor’s role in assessment ‘. . . was
simply to confirm that the conditions had been met’ (Cowan 2006, 115).
This model was developed in the mid-1980s and is one of the few and earliest
examples where graded assessment is placed in the hands of the learners and where
the student’s mark contributes to the final student grades. These radical practices
took place in a vocational course where a professional body accredited the degree
(Cowan 2006). This shows that it is possible even within strict curriculum constraints
to allow students the freedom to manage and assess their own learning. As far as
I am aware, this experiment has not been repeated elsewhere.
What is particularly interesting and unique about this experiment is that it is
within a holistic context of both learning and assessing, where both are inextricably
integrated and therefore aligned and where students are truly the decision makers.
This model relies heavily on the belief in the autonomous learner. It is comparable
to the Alverno model (Loaker and Jensen 1988) where self-assessment also permeates
all levels of the curriculum, the learning process and assessment at institutional level
(http://www.alverno.edu/).
206 M. Taras

At HE level, when dealing with adult learners, supporting learner autonomy and
independence in assessment would be a logical and expected procedure, particularly
since it reflects the rhetoric and aims of HE. It requires learner participation in and
understanding of assessment practice which all models of self-assessment aim to
support. Cowan’s discussion not only highlights the difficulties encountered by
tutors supporting self-directed learning and especially self-assessment which involves
learner grading, but also the rewards which ensue.
It was a brave experiment for all concerned; it requires co-operation and support
from peers and tutors in true team work. The main disadvantage is that it requires
a heavy commitment and courage level on the part of the tutor. It requires a
framework which encompasses learning, reflection and assessment within a given
knowledge base.
This is a timely point to consider the links of the models to learning theories.

Linking self-assessment to learning theories

Self-marking at its most basic can be seen as a behaviouristic model of learning
because it takes a model answer as a frame and compares it systematically to the
learners’ work. Cowan’s sound standard could be seen in the same way except that
reflection and decisions about the two exemplars are required. However, particularly
in the context of essay work which has been used as an example in the paper, working
with complex conceptual requirements would seem to mitigate against behaviourist
learning. Also, rote learning has an important place within conceptual development
despite claims to the contrary (Haggis 2003). Both could thus provide a more
complex development of ideas and maximal student involvement at all stages.
The standard model and the LCD require learners to rely on their own potentials
and decisions, although ultimately, they too are subject to tutor endorsement. Thus
these two models have in common the fact they place learning, reflection and
decisions primarily in the hands of learners and therefore reflect a cognitive view of
learning.
Taras’ model is more prescriptive than the standard and LCD models. Students
are required to complete the cycle of ‘learning’ by understanding and using feedback
to inform their self-assessment. In this manner, the social dialogue necessary in the
Vygotskyian view of learning is required.
All models require students to reflect on criteria, the standard of their work and
the grade which represents the quality of their work. It is the degree of engagement
which varies, but this can also be changed and adapted quite easily (see Table 1).

Stronger and weaker forms of self-assessment

The weakest model would be the self-marking because students would be the least
involved in making decisions relating to criteria, standard and marking framework.
However, if learners are involved at all stages of this decision making, then the
strength of the model would increase. A variation which would move the model
towards the stronger end of the spectrum would be for example, for students to be
divided into groups; each group could devise an assessment and produce the ‘model’
answer. Groups would choose an assessment outside their own group and thus all
would benefit from engaging with each stage of assessment and learning. Tutors
 Teaching in Higher Education 207

Table 1. Comparing different self-assessment models.

Criteria Feedback Grade Final grade

a
Self-marking Tutor Learner/tutor Learner Learner/tutor
Sound Tutor Tutor/learnerb Learner/tutor Learner/tutor
standard
Standard Learner (with tutor/peer Learner (peer) Learner None
input
Taras’ model Tutor/learner Tutor/peers Learner/peers/ Learner/tutor
tutor
Cowan LCD Learner Learner and Learner Learner
peers
Notes: aLearner is first in order of involvement.
b
Tutor is first in order of involvement.

would act as consultants and support, but the work and hence the learning, would be
done by those who should be doing it, i.e. the learners. Similarly, each model
discussed here could be used, adapted and stretched to suit most contexts and needs.
Also, it does not have to be the lone tutor to invent or devise the adaptations as the
students can be co-opted to use their creativity and ingenuity.
Similarly, although Cowan’s sound standard could be classified on the weaker
end of the continuum because learners are comparing their work against a model,
this too could be adapted to a stronger format. The standard model would be on the
mid-line of the continuum with potential for moving in either direction depending on
learning involvement. Taras’ model would be towards the stronger end for two
reasons: firstly, learners are required to engage with and integrate tutor and peer
feedback, and secondly, they are required to self-assess and grade with the benefit of
tutors’ guild knowledge (Sadler 1989), guild knowledge being an accumulation of
experience of assessing and working with assessment protocols within the context;
this is often difficult to make explicit and communicate to others directly. Cowan’s
LCD is on the stronger end of the spectrum because it places all the major decision
making with learners.
All the models examined require engagement by learners with understanding and
comparisons of their own and tutors’ grading; the difference with the standard model
is that the learners’ grade is provided to the tutor first.
The weaker models do not require learners to be actively involved in the initial
processes of deciding criteria, standards and how these are interpreted and used for
grading. Involving learners in grading is equivalent to allowing them into the inner
sanctum of tutors’ guild knowledge (Sadler 1989) and therefore access to power
(Taras 2008). The standard self-assessment by separating assessment and grading
effectively separates student assessment from tutor assessment.

Conclusion
This paper has proffered a critical analysis of some self-assessment options currently
available to individual tutors, which could permit students both to be included in the
assessment process and to be initiated into the assessment culture of HE. The paper
provides a mechanism to evaluate student self-assessment practices in terms
208 M. Taras

of student involvement and power sharing. It permits tutors to select the

self-assessment model which is most appropriate for their context. For current
self-assessment practitioners, it allows them to assess their models in order to be
explicit about the choices they have made.
These different models include self-marking which has the advantage of
providing students with immediate feedback on their work; the standard model
which is essentially separate from the tutor assessment and permits learners to
consider their work against criteria and standards, and has the advantage of
encouraging learner independence. The sound standard is a similar and perhaps a
more sophisticated version than the standard model and focuses on grading and
students learning to understand and appreciate standards and make grading
transparent. The LCD (Cowan 1998, 2006) where learners take over responsibilities
normally exercised by tutors and set their own goals, criteria and assessments to
reflect their learning. This model places all major decisions in the learner’s hands and
tutors provide support choices if these are requested. Importantly, the grading is also
in the hands of learners, a rare occurrence. Taras’ model also clarifies transparency of
grading with the added dimension of requiring the assimilation of tutor and peer
feedback for graded work.
These models can be adapted to different audiences, communities of practice and
contexts and can be used as single entities or incorporated as part of learning cycles.
Importantly, they also permit different levels of tutor ‘handover’ of assessment and
differing access of students to assessment protocols and expertise. All are in
accordance with the philosophy of learner and learning-centred education which HE
in the UK purports to support.
The question remains why there are so few examples of the use of self-assessment;
this paper suggests clarifying the processes may help to increase understanding of the
issues involved and so promote its uptake and dissemination.
In the short term, this paper hopes to be of use not only to academics in HE, but
also for teachers and developers in the compulsory sectors where increasing use of
self-assessment in the framework of ‘Assessment for Learning’ is taking place.
In the longer term, increased use and research on the models discussed above will
provide invaluable feedback and information for future developments.

References
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice 5, no. 1: 7
74.
Boud, D. 1986. Implementing student self-assessment. Sydney: Higher Ed. Research and
Development Society of Australia.
Boud, D. 1995. Enhancing learning through self assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D.J. 1991. Implementing student self-assessment (HERDSA green guide). 2nd ed.
Sydney: Higher Ed. Research and Development Society of Australia.
Boud, D.J., R. Keogh, and D. Walker. 1985. Promoting reflection in learning: A model.
In Reflection: Turning experience into learning, ed. D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker.
London: Kogan Page.
Boyd, H., and J. Cowan. 1985. A case for self-assessment based on recent studies of student
learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 10, no. 3: 225
35.
Boyd, H.R., A. Adeyemi-Bero, and R.F. Blackhall. 1985. Acquiring professional competence
through learner-directed learning
an undergraduate perspective. Occasional Paper 7.
Edinburgh: Royal Society of Arts (in Education for capability).
 Teaching in Higher Education 209

Cowan, J. 1984. Acquiring professional competence through learning-directed learning.

Occasional Paper 7. London: Royal Society of Arts.
Cowan, J. 1988. Struggling with self-assessment. In Student autonomy in learning ed. D.J.
Boud, 192
210. London: Kogan Page.
Cowan, J. 1998. On becoming an innovative university teacher
reflection in action.
Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Cowan, J. 2002. Plus/minus marking: A method of assessment worth considering? York, UK:
The Higher Education Academy.
Cowan, J. 2006. On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dearing, S.R. 1997. Higher education in the learning society. London: HMSO.
Elton, L. 1999. Facilitating change through self-assessment. Paper presented at the national
conference teaching and learning for the new millennium: Facilitating change through self
assessment, September 9
10, in University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Falchikov, N. 1989. Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research 59, no. 4: 95
430.
Haggis, T. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to
learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 29, no. 1:
89
104.
Hinett, K., and J. Thomas, eds. 1999. Staff guide to self and peer assessment. Oxford: Oxford
Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Loaker, G., and P. Jensen. 1988. The power of performance in developing problem solving and
self-assessment abilities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 13, no. 2: 128
50.
McDonald, B., and D. Boud. 2003. The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects
of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in
Education 10, no. 2: 209
20.
Nicol, D.J., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2005. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning:
A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31,
no. 2: 199
218.
Orsmond, P., S. Merry, and K. Reiling. 1997. A study in self-assessment: Tutor and students’
perceptions of performance criteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 22,
no. 4: 357
69.
Rust, C., M. Price, and B. O’Donovan. 2003. Improving students’ learning by developing their
understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 28, no. 2: 147
64.
Sadler, D.R. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science 18: 145
65.
Somervell, H. 1993. Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: The case for self,
peer and collaborative assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18, no. 3:
221
33.
Stefani, L.J. 1998. Assessment in partnership with learners. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education 23, no. 4: 339
50.
Taras, M. 2001. The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative
assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 26, no. 6: 606
14.
Taras, M. 2002. Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 6: 501
10.
Taras, M. 2003. To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 28, no. 5: 549
65.
Taras, M. 2005. Assessment
summative and formative
some theoretical reflections. British
Journal of Educational Studies 53, no. 3: 466
78.
Taras, M. 2008. Issues of power and equity in two models of self assessment. Teaching in
Higher Education 13, no. 1: 81
92.