The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET
48,2/3 Learning style and student
self-assessment skill
Simon Cassidy
170 Directorate of Psychology, University of Salford, Salford, UK

Abstract
Purpose – In the light of the growing emphasis on independent learning and non-technical skills in
education and employment, the study aims to examine the relevance of learning style to student
self-assessment skill.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of first-year undergraduate students was asked to
provide self-assessed marks for their coursework and to complete measures of learning style. Tutors’
marks for student coursework were also gathered.
Findings – Results revealed a positive correlation between a deep approach to learning and
self-assessment skill, demonstrating the relevance of learning style to self-assessment skill. A negative
correlation between student-estimated mark and a surface approach suggested that students are
sensitive to the demand characteristics of assessments and are aware of how these correspond to their
preferred learning style. Both strategic and deep approaches to learning correlated positively with
tutor mark, as is commonly reported.
Originality/value – It is suggested that the study provides some insight into the composition of
self-assessment skill and implications for pedagogical practice are considered.
Keywords Learning styles, Self assessment, Skills
Paper type Research paper

Education þ Training
Vol. 48 No. 2/3, 2006
pp. 170-177
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400910610651791
1. Introduction
Independent learning has become a priority in both educational and employment
contexts (Cotton, 2001). There is a need for students to develop as independent learners
to enable them to cope with the demands of the changing curriculum and structure of
higher education and to meet the expectations of employers (Cotton, 2001). Although
characterising the independent learner commonly involves a range of attributes, skills
and propensities, the ability to self-assess appears central to many studies examining
the issue of independent learning. Self-assessment is seen as helping students take
responsibility for learning, encouraging self-motivation and independence in learning
(Peckham and Sutherland, 2000), encouraging success and life-long learning
(McAlpine, 2000) and to be fundamental to the development of intrinsic motivation
and autonomous learning (van Krayenoord and Paris, 1997).
In general terms, self-assessment skill involves a high level of self-awareness and
the ability to monitor one’s own learning and performance. As such, self-assessment is
associated with, or involves, metacognitive awareness and skill, which Reid (2001, p. 1)
describes as “thinking about thinking, being aware of the learning process and
utilising that in new learning”. A particular emphasis on metacognitive skill is evident
in both definitions of and discussions of self-assessment. Metacognitive skills have
The project was funded by the University of Salford’s Teaching and Learning Quality
Improvement Scheme.
been described by Vockell (2004, p. 6) as: “learners’ automatic awareness of their own Student
knowledge and their ability to understand, control and manipulate their own cognitive self-assessment
processes”. The particular skills cited under the metacognition banner include:
metamemory: awareness of memory systems and strategies to manipulate memory for
skill
optimal efficiency; metacomprehension: the ability to know what has and has not been
understood and to apply strategies to improve comprehension; self-regulation: the act
of self-monitoring and evaluating and adapting learning in light of experience and 171
feedback (Vockell, 2004).
Both Peters (2000) and Rivers (2001) identify metacognitive skills as important in
the development of independent learners. Peters (2000) sees metacognitive skills as
enabling self-management and appraisal of own thinking and learning, while Rivers
(2001) reports students’ self-directed learning behaviour as being associated with
students’ regular assessment of their academic performance, their approach to
learning, and how this compares with that of their peers and with the teaching styles
used. In a study examining the development of independent learning in children aged
three to five years, Anderson et al. (2003) include a number of metacognitive and
self-assessment skills in their list of identified factors underlying independent learning.
These include:
. ability to speak about own and others’ behaviours;
.
monitors progress and seeks help appropriately;
.
negotiates when and how to carry out tasks;
.
is aware of feelings and others;
.
is aware of own strengths and weaknesses;
.
can speak about how they have done something or what they have learned;
.
can speak about planned activities; can make reasoned choices and decisions;
.
engages in independent cooperative activities with peers;
.
initiates activities;
.
finds own resources without adult help;
.
develops own ways of carrying out tasks; and
.
plans own tasks, targets and goals.

In addition to metacognitive skills, learning style is also a feature – both explicit and
implicit – of many definitions of self-assessment. McAlpine (2000) emphasises
goal-directed learning and preferred learning styles, while Elwood and Klenowski
(2002) refer to self-knowledge about how we perceive, remember, think and act.
Although passing reference to learning styles is common in the context of
metacognition and, by association, self-assessment, there seems little work examining
the relevance of learning styles to self-assessment skill.
The current study aims to establish whether learning style – ways in which
individuals characteristically approach different learning tasks (Hartley, 1998) – and
self-assessment skill are associated and to provide some insight into the nature of any
such association.
ET While there exist many models and measures of learning style (see Cassidy, 2004),
48,2/3 Entwistle and Tait’s (1996) model based on depth of processing during learning was
adopted given its frequent use in the context of research into learning in higher
education. The model presents four approaches to learning derived from four different
modes of orientation of the learner:
(1) deep: intention to understand, relating ideas, use of evidence and active
172 learning;
(2) surface: intention to reproduce, unrelated memorising, passive learning and fear
of failure;
(3) strategic: study organisation, time management, alertness to assessment
demands intention to excel; and
(4) apathetic: lack of direction and lack of interest (Cassidy, 2004).

Although there is a lack of direct research on self-assessment and learning style,

Cassidy and Eachus (2000) do report associations between students’ approach to
learning and judgements regarding their academic proficiency. Self-report academic
proficiency was positively correlated with a deep approach to learning and negatively
correlated with a surface approach to learning. Positive correlations between a
strategic approach and negative correlation between an apathetic approach and
academic achievement were also reported. In addition, Marton and Saljo (1997) note
that the perceived demand characteristics of assessment will influence the particular
learning approach adopted. There is also some evidence that students show a
preference for assessment formats which they perceive to reflect their dominant
approach to learning (Entwistle and Tait, 1990). Entwistle and Entwistle (1991)
illustrate the point suggesting that surface learners would show preference for
multiple-choice formats and deep learners for free-format assessments such as essays
and reports.
As the assessment used in the current study was open-ended/free-format and could
be considered to be more closely aligned with deep and strategic approaches, it is
anticipated that students showing preferences for deep and strategic approaches will
achieve higher tutor marks. It is also suggested that, as it is possible to view
self-assessment skill as sharing some common characteristics with deep and strategic
approaches, that deep and strategic learners will be better equipped for self-assessment
and will thus provide more accurate estimated marks. In addition, because students
adopting these approaches perceive themselves as more suited to the assessment
format, deep and strategic learners will be less inclined to underestimate their mark
than surface and apathetic learners.

2. Method
Design
The study employed a between subjects design to establish levels of student
self-assessment accuracy (i.e. comparing tutor mark and student estimated mark) and a
questionnaire-based correlational design to explore associations between
self-assessment skill and student learning style.
Participants Student
A sample of 61 level one undergraduate students took part in the study. All were self-assessment
enrolled on a core introductory module in psychology. The mean age of the sample was
21.5 years (SD, 5.7; range 18-41 years) and consisted of 21 males and 39 females (one skill
did not declare gender).

Materials 173
The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (Entwistle and
Tait, 1996) is a 38-item inventory measuring learning style using four sub-scales
corresponding to the following approaches:
(1) deep: intention to understand, relating ideas, use of evidence and active
learning;
(2) surface: intention to reproduce, unrelated memorizing, passive learning and fear
of failure;
(3) strategic: study organisation, time management, alertness to assessment
demands, intention to excel; and
(4) apathetic: lack of direction and lack of interest.

Respondents show their level of agreement to each item using a five-point Likert scale.
Summing responses to items within each sub-scale gives a score for each of the four
learning styles.

Procedure
The sample were selected on the basis that they were enrolled on a module in which the
researcher had no involvement in student assessment and the assessment format was
clearly structured with explicit assessment criteria. Students were briefed regarding
the purpose of the study and the right not to participate was made explicit. Students
were told that they would be asked to provide a confidential estimate of their
assignment mark but it was made clear that any data gained from the study would be
entirely unrelated to assessment of the module, that the researcher will not be involved
in the assessment process and that data would not be made available to anyone
involved in the assessment process. Students then completed the ASSIST. All
self-report measures were completed early on in the module prior to completion of any
course work or exams. Students were then given full contact details of the researcher
(including e-mail address) and asked to provide an estimated mark (out of 100 per cent)
for their assessed coursework once they have been completed and submitted the work.
Students were given the option of posting or e-mailing their estimates to the researcher.
Students were also given the option of providing an e-mail address in order that a
distribution list of participants could be constructed to allow reminders to be sent. Both
verbal and e-mail reminders for estimates were given to students just prior and just
after the assignment submission deadline. A notice was also posted at the assignment
submission point in the School administration office. Tutors’ marks were collated
using module records and reflected marks which had undergone the normal
moderation procedure. Estimated marks were received from 36 of the 61 students who
completed the learning styles inventory, representing a 59 per cent response rate. Tutor
ET marks were available for 45 of the students completing the ASSIST. Student
48,2/3 self-assessment skill was represented in an index of accuracy according to the level of
agreement between student estimated mark and tutor mark. Thus, better
self-assessment skill was represented by smaller absolute differences between the
two marks.

174 3. Results
Self-assessment skill and learning style
The tutors’ mark was found to be significantly positively correlated with both deep
and strategic approaches to learning, while the student estimated mark was found to
be significantly negatively correlated with a surface approach. Students’
self-assessment skill was significantly positively correlated with a deep approach.
None of the other correlations reported in Table I reached significance (p . 0:05).

4. Discussion
The aim of the study was to assess the evidence for an association between
self-assessment skill and learning style. The reported correlation between a deep
approach to learning and self-assessment skill (r ¼ 0:345, p , 0:05) goes some way to
establishing the relevance of learning style to student self-assessment skill. That such
an association exists supports those authors who include learning style within their
discussion of self-assessment skill (McAlpine, 2000; Elwood and Klenowski, 2002) and
establishes learning style within another conceptual area and field of practice.
The nature of the relationship of the various approaches to learning with
self-assessment skill also suggests that learning style may be legitimately bracketed
within metacognitive skills. Although only the positive correlation between a deep
approach and self-assessment skill reached statistical significance, sample sizes were
small and small positive correlations between strategic and surface approaches and
self-assessment skill and a negative correlation between apathetic approach and
self-assessment skill were reported. If we accept that a – or perhaps the – fundamental
element of metacognition is awareness of cognitive and learning processes (Reid, 2001;
Vockell, 2004), and if we also accept that each of the three learning styles deep,
strategic and surface represent an active approach to learning, while an apathetic
approach is essentially passive, then it is possible to – albeit tentatively – suggest that
engaging with any of the “active” learning approaches might improve self-assessment
skill. That it was a deep approach which was most convincingly aligned with
self-assessment skill fits with such a suggestion given that this approach is

Deep Strategic Surface Apathetic

Table I. Cronbach’ alpha 0.73 0.8 0.67 0.83
Correlation coefficients Tutor mark (n ¼ 45) 0.252 * 0.304 * * 20.046 20.247
for tutor mark, student- Student estimate (n ¼ 36) 20.162 0.08 20.381 * * 20.007
estimated mark, Self-assessment skill (n ¼ 34) 0.345 * 0.218 0.222 20.241
self-assessment skill and
learning styles Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:025
characterised by active learning and Sorbal’s (1997) proposition that a deep approach Student
to learning can be enhanced by improving students’ metacognitive skills. self-assessment
It was also suggested that because of the nature of the assessment format used in the
current study (i.e. open-ended/free-format), students showing a preference for a skill
strategic or a deep approach to learning would achieve higher tutor marks. Findings
did reveal a significant positive correlation between tutor marks and a both strategic
(r ¼ 0:252, p , 0:05) and deep approaches to learning (r ¼ 0:304, p , 0:025). These 175
findings provide some support for the notion that students show a preference for
assessment formats which reflect their dominant approach to learning (Entwistle and
Tait, 1990) and are able to perform more effectively when assessed according to their
preferred approach. It should, however, be pointed out that both deep and strategic
approaches are commonly associated with increased academic success irrespective of
the assessment format (see Cassidy and Eachus, 2000).
Jackson and Williams (2003) have demonstrated that students are able to express
preferences for assessment format and that students assessed in accordance with their
first choice outperformed students assessed according to a format other than their first
choice. That students are aware – on some level at least – of their assessment
preferences strengthens the assertion made in the current study that students
preferring deep and strategic approaches will recognise their potential to perform well
on the open-ended/free-format assessment used here and be less likely to
underestimate their mark, while the opposite effect will be observed for surface
learners. While no association between deep or strategic approaches and
student-estimated mark were found, student-estimated mark was significantly
negatively correlated with a surface approach (r ¼ 20:381, p , 0:025), so that surface
learners were more inclined to provide lower estimated marks for their work. Although
not completely convincing, this could be offered as some evidence for students’
awareness of their preferred approach and associated expectation for success.
In terms of students’ ability to accurately estimate their marks, it was suggested
that because self-assessment skills may be viewed as sharing some similar
characteristics with deep and strategic approaches, deep and strategic learners will
be better equipped for self-assessment and will provide more accurate estimated marks
for their work. Increased self-assessment accuracy (indicated by smaller accuracy
index scores) was found to be significantly correlated with deep (r ¼ 20:345,
p , 0:05) but not strategic approach. This suggests that factors characterising a deep
approach are more relevant to self-evaluation than other approaches, including
strategic, despite an apparent sensitivity to assessment demands commonly associated
with the strategic approach.

5. Conclusion
Whether learning style fits within the category of metacognitive skill is better
described as metalearning (awareness of and control over self as learner (Biggs, 1985))
or process learning (emphasising developmental processes in education rather than
outcomes) or, is considered outside all of these, may be debatable. What the current
study does demonstrate is that learning style is a relevant concept when considering
student self-assessment skill. That some learning styles are associated with improved
self-assessment skill provides a better understanding of what may be the constituent
ET parts of the skill, and provides a basis to consider how better to develop the skill in
48,2/3 students. As educators we are becoming increasingly aware of the need and
expectation for students to develop non-technical skills (such as independent learning)
in order to exploit educational resources and meet the demands of the employment
market (Cassidy and Weinberg, 2005). Because of this, there should be an emphasis in
educational research on understanding non-technical skill development and how best
176 to design learning environments which cultivate the development of both technical and
non-technical skills.

References
Anderson, H., Coltman, P., Page, C. and Whitebread, D. (2003), “Developing independent learning
in children aged 3-5”, paper presented at the European Association for Research on
Learning and Instruction 10th Biennial Conference, Padova, August.
Biggs, J. (1985), “The role of metalearning in study processes”, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 185-212.
Cassidy, S. (2004), “Learning styles: an overview of theories, models and measures”, Educational
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 419-44.
Cassidy, S. and Eachus, P. (2000), “Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student
proficiency and academic achievement in higher education”, Educational Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 307-22.
Cassidy, S. and Weinberg, A. (2005), “What university students think about peer assessment –
developing employability skills”, Innovative Learning in Action, No. 3, University of
Salford, Salford.
Cotton, K. (2001), Developing Employability Skills, Northwest Regional Educational Research
Laboratory, Portland, OR, available at: www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c015.html (accessed
January 2005).
Elwood, J. and Klenowski, V. (2002), “Creating communities of shared practice: the challenges of
assessment use in teaching and learning”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, Vol. 27 No. 3.
Entwistle, N.J. and Entwistle, A. (1991), “Contrasting forms of understanding for degree
examinations: the students’ experience and its implications”, Higher Education, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 205-27.
Entwistle, N. and Tait, H. (1990), “Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and
preferences for contrasting academic environments”, Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 169-194.
Entwistle, N. and Tait, H. (1996), Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students, Centre for
Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Hartley, J. (1998), Learning and Studying: A Research Perspective, Routledge, London.
Jackson, R.H.G. and Williams, M.R. (2003), “Are undergraduate preferences as to method of
assessment well founded and rational?”, research paper 2003-1, University of Wales,
available at: www.aber.ac.uk/smba/english_ver/research/rsp2003/rp2003-1.pdf (accessed
January 2005).
McAlpine, D. (2000), “Assessment and the gifted”, Tall Poppies, Vol. 25 No. 1, available at: www.
tki.org.nz/r/gifted/pedagogy/tallpoppies_e.php (accessed January 2005).
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1997), “Approaches to learning”, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Student
Entwistle, N. (Eds), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 2nd ed., Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, pp. 39-59. self-assessment
Peckham, G. and Sutherland, L. (2000), “The role of self-assessment in moderating students’ skill
expectations”, South African Journal for Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 1.
Peters, M. (2000), “Does constructivist epistemology have a place in nurse education?”, Journal of
Nursing Education, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 166-70. 177
Reid, G. (2001), “Metacognition, learning style and dyslexia”, paper presented at the 5th BDA
International Conference, University of York, York, 18-21 March.
Rivers, W. (2001), “Autonomy at all costs: an ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and
self-management among experienced language learners”, Modern Language Journal,
Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 279-90.
Sorbal, D.T. (1997), “Improving learning skills: a self-help group approach”, Higher Education,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
van Krayenoord, C.E. and Paris, S.G. (1997), “Australian students’ self-appraisal of their work
samples and academic progress”, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 523-37.
Vockell, E.L. (2004), Educational Psychology – A Practical Guide, University of Purdue, Purdue,
IN, available at: education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook (accessed December
2004).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints