Self-assessment: grading or knowing?

Abstract

Self-assessment is intended to foster awareness of one's own knowledge and skill levels. It is also intended to foster learning beyond the classroom, especially in professional programs. Linking self-assessment to grading defeats these intentions. It limits the learners' focus to the course. This paper proposes an alternative that allows student self-assessment and instructor grading to coincide while encouraging students to assume control of their learning.

Introduction

By posing the question "How do they know they know?", adult educator Jane Vella (Vella, Berardinelli, & Burrow, 1998) challenges those of us in professional educational settings to closely re-examine our assessment practices. This question suggests two points: it is ultimately the learner who truly knows what he or she knows, and it is the responsibility of the instructor to ensure there is a means of making such knowledge possible on the part of the learner. This question also begs another question: "How satisfied are they with their level of knowing?" This further question can be addressed adequately neither by an instructor-assigned grade nor by a self-assigned grade. This further question requires explicitly asking learners to reflect on their learning and level of competence, and to clarify or to authenticate such learning and competence not merely for purposes of grading but for performance beyond the classroom. For learners to determine whether or not they are satisfied with their levels of knowledge and skills, they must participate in some form of self-assessment.

This theoretical paper is intended to lay the groundwork for reconciling student self assessment with instructor grading, particularly in professional programs. Students assess their own level of understanding or skill for specific objectives, indicating whether they are competent in it, they are not competent in it, or if they need more work. They do not assign grades to themselves. Instructors assign grades only on tangible student products or upon demonstration of a skill. This proposed alternative is intended to provide educators and students with a more appropriate means of measuring learning in that it will clarify for the learner his or her own status. Further, the implementation of this practice may help learners to take more ownership of their learning and thus transfer their classroom-developed skills beyond the classroom. Specifically, this paper will 1) briefly review issues with grading as a form of assessment; 2) examine the practice of self-assessment in professional programs; and 3) describe a methodology by which student self-assessment may co-exist with instructor grading.

Issues with Grading as a Form of Assessment

Grading is the ultimate form of assessment of student knowledge in formal education. It is a problematic but ubiquitous practice, bolstered by a strong accountability movement (Sirotnik & Kimball, 1999; Webb, 2005). To paraphrase Winston Churchill's famous pronouncement on democracy, grading is the worst form of assessment, except for all others that have been tried. Key criticisms of standard grading practices include the following: an inability to recognize the individuality of the learner (Sirotnik & Kimball, 1999), poor reliability and poor validity (Guskey & Bailey, 2001), their use for sorting and classifying (Kohn, 1994), and low correlation between grading and later occupational performance (Samson, Graue, Weinstein, & Walberg, 1984). Further, despite Michaelides' and Kirshner's (2005, para. 11) contention that "graduate education is structured differently from earlier levels and has other goals," grading practices in graduate education do not differ markedly from the K-16 level, even in professional programs (Gonnella, Erdmann, & Hojat, 2004; Kaufman, 1994).

Inconsistent grading practices at the graduate level are particularly problematic because many graduate programs serve as gateways to the professions. In addition, graduate education in some professions, such as education and accounting, must address the needs of students who are already practitioners. Researchers have found poor predictive power of grades in professional programs. Knight (2002) argues that in these situations, "the achievements that grades or degree classes signify may not be very transferable" (p. 280).

Such disparate findings have resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction of instructor grading as the sole means of assessment. Consequently, there is a growing movement to have students assess their own levels of knowledge and competencies, particularly in professional programs.

Self- Assessment in Professional Programs

The importance of self-assessment in professional programs has been explored and documented by several investigators (Fitzgerald, White, & Gruppen, 2003; Jackson & Popovich, 2003). In academia, self-assessment is often viewed as a means to increase responsibility on the part of the learner for his or her own learning. It is enacted through a wide spectrum of techniques, from individual learning contracts to portfolios to formal surveys. Because student self-assessment is thought to shift some of the responsibility for assessment from the instructor to the learner, it may also be thought of as a technique used to further authentic assessment.

Self-assessment in professional programs is clearly aligned with the proliferation of competency-based programs. These programs seek to produce individuals who can think and perform as novice professionals. Such programs emphasize case-based and problem-based instruction (Ryan & Marlow, 2004). The development of case-based and problem-based curricula seeks to embed learners in situations that resemble, as closely as possible, the environment beyond the classroom. For according to Frank and Barzilai (2004), "the real learning is often in the doing or in the process leading up to the product" (p. 44).

Professional competence and expertise are difficult to attain, and it is unlikely that the utilization of case-based and problem-based curricula alone are enough to ensure their attainment. Nieweg (2004) asserts that "professionals have to be able to control and assure their own quality" (p. 207). If we agree with Nieweg, that students in professional programs must learn to assure their own quality, then these students must be given ample opportunities to do so. They must be given opportunities to control and assure their own quality through practicing self-assessment.

Traditionally, self-assessment in professional programs--and in formal educational settings in general--has been inextricably linked to self grading. Often, studies focus on how closely students' self-assessments match those of their teachers (Fitzgerald, White, & Gruppen, 2003; Pope, 2005) or of their peers. The results of such studies have been inconsistent. Per Pope (2005) on student self-assessment and peer assessment, "both these forms of assessment are highly correlated with faculty-awarded marks" (p. 60). Yet, Regehr, Hodges, Tiberius, and Lofchy (1996) maintain that, "educators find it troubling that researchers who have attempted to establish the validity or accuracy of self-assessment have often come to the conclusion that people's ability to self-assess is quite poor" (p. 52). Establishing the validity or accuracy of self-assessment by correlations with instructor grading evades the crucial issue of control. By eliminating the element of self-grading from self-assessment, we can facilitate students control and assurance of their own quality in professional programs.

Student Self-Assessment and Instructor Grading

It is unlikely that grading will disappear from professional programs in the foreseeable future. It is possible, however, to encourage students' assessment of their satisfaction with their own knowledge and skills and to encourage simultaneous performance-based, formative and summative assessment by instructors.

Rather than asking students to grade themselves on projects or performance, we can ask them to remark on their own progress toward competencies. Using a simple form listing the competencies to be progressed towards, we can ask students to periodically indicate whether they are competent in it, they are not competent in it, or if they need more work. This periodic reporting positions student self-assessment as both formative ('How am I doing?') and predictive ('Could I perform this task on the job?'). In addition, we can ask them to provide open-ended comments on their ratings, encouraging further reflection. Instructors would assign grades only on tangible student products or upon demonstration of a skill. See issue website http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2006.htm Figure 1 shows a proposed progress-tracking sheet for a graduate course in instructional design. The following considerations should be taken into account when implementing this proposed self-assessment practice: l) clarity of purpose; 2) the use of feedback; 3) and the mechanics for implementation.

First, students must understand that their self-assessments do not influence the grades they receive. Instructors must spend ample time at the beginning of a course ensuring that this concept is clear.

Second, though there is general agreement that feedback on student performance is extremely important (Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Hampton, S. & Reiser, R., 2004), it is unclear how instructor feedback would influence this proposed self-assessment practice. Taras (2003) asserts that "traditionally, student self-assessment (SA) has not included feedback, either from tutor or peers, as an integral part of the process" (p. 549). In a study on enhancing the self-assessment skills of medical general practitioners through feedback, Jansen, Grol, Crebolder, Rethans, and van der Vleuten (1998) conclude that "self-assessment is more closely related to generalized self-attributions and only minimally influenced by external feedback" (p. 150). If we want students to take responsibility for their own learning and to measure their own level of satisfaction with that learning, it is prudent for instructors to refrain from commenting on students' tracking sheets. Instructors should merely note whether tracking sheets have been received or not. At the start of a course, instructors should explain to students that they will not be receiving feedback on their tracking sheets; students must come to understand that only they can measure their satisfaction with their own learning.

Third, to help ensure the successful implementation of this practice, the following recommendations are offered. The frequency for collecting progress-tracking sheets depends on the competencies being gained as well as the timing for instruction related to those competencies. When planning the frequency of collecting progress-tracking sheets, instructors should remember the recommendation of Boud (2000): "frequent self-evaluation is highly efficacious in enhancing student achievement" (p. 157). Instructors should supply students with an electronic template on which to record their progress; this places the emphasis on the content, not on the format. Additional benefits of using a template include the elimination of having to interpret poor handwriting, and the potential for electronic storage and for subsequent review and data analysis by individual students and instructors alike.

Conclusion

There is little doubt that student self-assessment fosters learning. However, to foster learning beyond the course and beyond the classroom, separating self-assessment from self-grading should be explored in professional programs. The value of this proposed student self-assessment practice must be substantiated by rigorous research, initially of a qualitative nature. At a minimum, we must ascertain and document the following: how students determine whether they are competent or need further work for a particular skill, and what plans, if any, students make to ameliorate their lack of competency. Only by obtaining the answers to these and additional questions, can we build an effective model for self-assessment that strives to authenticate student knowledge for the student, not for the instructor or institution.

References

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.

Fitzgerald, J.T., White, C.B., & Gruppen, L.D. (2003). A longitudinal study of self-assessment accuracy. Medical Education, (37)7, 645-649.

Frank, M. & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 41-61.

Gonnella, J., Erdmann, J. & Hojat, M. (2004). An empirical study of the predictive validity of number grades in medical school using 3 decades of longitudinal data: Implications for a grading system. Medical Education, 38,425-434.

Guskey, T. & Bailey, J. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Hampton, S. & Reiser, R. (2004). Effects of a theory-based feedback and consultation process on instruction and learning in college classrooms. Research in Higher Education, (45) 5, 497-527.

Jackson, T., & Popovich, N. (2003). Instructional design and assessment: The development, implementation, and evaluation of a self-assessment instrument for use in a pharmacy student competition. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 67(2), Article 57.

Jansen, J., Grol, R., Crebolder, H. Rethans, J., & van der Vleuten, C. (1998). Failure of feedback to enhance self-assessment skills of general practitioners. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 10(3), 145-151.

Kaufman, N. (1994). A survey of law school grading practices. Journal of Legal Education. 44(3), 415-423.

Knight, P. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275-286.

Kohn, A. (1994). Reporting what students are learning. Grading: the issue is not how but why. Educational Leadership. 52(2), pp. 38-41.

Michaelides, M. & Kirshner, B. (2005). Graduate student attitudes toward grading systems. College Quarterly, (8)4. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2005-vol08-num04-fall/ michaelides_kirshner.html

Nieweg, M. (2004). Case study: Innovative assessment and curriculum redesign. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 203-214.

Pope, N. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 51-63.

Regehr, G., Hodges, B., Tiberius, R. & Lofchy, J. (1996). Measuring self-assessment skills: An innovative relative ranking model. Academic Medicine, 71, 52-54.

Ryan, D. & Marlow, B. (2004). Build-a-case: A brand new continuing medical education technique that is peculiarly familiar. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 24, 112-118.

Samson, G. E., Graue, M. E., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). Academic and occupational performance: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, (21) 2, 311-321.

Sirotnik, K. & Kimball, K. (1999). Standards for standards-based accountability systems. Phi Delta Kappan.

Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 28(5), 549-562.

Vella, J., Berardinelli, P., & Burrow, J. (1998). How do they know they know? Evaluating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Webb, P. T. (2005). The anatomy of accountability. Journal of Education Policy, (20) 2, 189-208.

Vince Cyboran, Roosevelt University, Chicago, IL

Cyboran, Ed.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate Program in Training & Development