Search

It has been suggested for many years that students who are able to judge their own performance should do well in academic assessments. Despite the increasing number of empirical studies investigating the effect of self-assessment on academic performance, there has not been a recent synthesis of findings in the higher education context. The current meta-analysis aims to synthesise the effects of self-assessment on academic performance. In particular, it examines the difference between situations in which the process of self-assessment is revealed or observable (explicit) or not revealed or unobservable (implicit). A total of 98 effect sizes from 26 studies either reported a comparison between a group with self-assessment interventions and a control group (n = 20, k = 88) or a pre-post comparison (n = 6, k = 10). The overall effect of such interventions was significant (g = 0.455). Self-assessment interventions involving explicit feedback from others on students' performance had a significantly larger effect size (g = 0.664) than those without explicit feedback (g = 0.213). There were no other significant moderators identified for either the overall effect or the effect of interventions involving explicit feedback.

Teachers are playing crucial roles in the implementation of formative assessment, which has been widely recognised as a valuable strategy in enhancing students' learning outcomes. However, systematic analysis on factors that might facilitate or hinder teachers' intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment is scarce. This review covers 52 eligible studies and identifies factors, which have been categorised into personal and contextual factors, that influence teachers' intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. The results of this review may benefit researchers, school leaders, and policy makers when they aspire to facilitate the implementation of formative assessment.

Briggs and Peck (2015) have written a thought-provoking article on the use of learning progressions in the design of vertical scales that support inferences about student growth. Organized learning models, including learning trajectories, learning progressions, and learning maps have been the subject of research for many years, but more recently they are being considered for and used in the creation of large-scale assessments (Almond et al., 2012; Kingston & Broaddus, 2015; Kingston, 2015). In this commentary we note an expansion of the view of learning maps presented by BP with regard to the relationships among content domains and grades. The relationships among the content domains are not so simple that a domain at one grade band leads directly into another, yet there are relationships among content standards to suggest the need to consider multiple pathways and the concept of a fine-grained learning map versus a course-grained, linear, learning progression (which is not to say that grain size or linearity is inherent in the terms "learning map" or "learning progression"). The concepts of grain size and linearity have implications for test specifications and help clarify previous debates regarding on-grade-level and off-grade-level testing. This is important, because measuring growth is not inherently meaningful if one does not allow for the measurement of precursor and successor skills.

It has been suggested for many years that students who are able to judge their own performance should do well in academic assessments. Despite the increasing number of empirical studies investigating the effect of self-assessment on academic performance, there has not been a recent synthesis of findings in the higher education context. The current meta-analysis aims to synthesise the effects of self-assessment on academic performance. In particular, it examines the difference between situations in which the process of self-assessment is revealed or observable (explicit) or not revealed or unobservable (implicit). A total of 98 effect sizes from 26 studies either reported a comparison between a group with self-assessment interventions and a control group (n = 20, k = 88) or a pre-post comparison (n = 6, k = 10). The overall effect of such interventions was significant (g =.455). Self-assessment interventions involving explicit feedback from others on students' performance had a significantly larger effect size (g =.664) than those without explicit feedback (g =.213). There were no other significant moderators identified for either the overall effect or the effect of interventions involving explicit feedback. Supplemental data for this article is available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2012644. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]