Library:

Back to browse by author or by subject

Back to Last Page Visited

STUDENT SELF-EVALUATION: WHAT RESEARCH SAYS AND WHAT PRACTICE SHOWS

By Carol Rolheiser and John A. Ross

Introduction
Teachers today are experimenting with alternatives to traditional tests. Performance assessment, portfolio collections, classroom observation, peer assessment, and self-evaluation are joining the unit test and the final exam in the repertoire of the skillful teacher. Such teachers ensure that an over-reliance on testing does not seriously distort instruction or impede important school improvement efforts. Accordingly, their programs are based on a range of assessment approaches. Teachers who include authentic assessment in their repertoires are driven by a belief that curriculum-assessment experiences should prepare students for life in the real world.

While teacher-made tests and standardized tests give us information about student learning, they do not provide all the information. Alternate forms of assessment can generate that other information. For the last seven years we have been working with teachers at all grade levels to develop alternate forms of authentic student assessment strategies. The research evidence accumulating in our studies, and the data produced by other researchers, make us optimistic about the impact of one form of authentic assessment -- self-evaluation -- on the learning of students and their teachers.

Self-evaluation is defined as students judging the quality of their work, based on evidence and explicit criteria, for the purpose of doing better work in the future. When we teach students how to assess their own progress, and when they do so against known and challenging quality standards, we find that there is a lot to gain. Self-evaluation is a potentially powerful technique because of its impact on student performance through enhanced self-efficacy and increased intrinsic motivation. Evidence about the positive effect of self-evaluation on student performance is particularly convincing for difficult tasks (Maehr & Stallings, 1972; Arter et al., 1994), especially in academically oriented schools (Hughes et al., 1985) and among high need pupils (Henry, 1994). Perhaps just as important, students like to evaluate their work.

In the following five sections we explore the research and practice related to student self-evaluation. The first two sections will be of particular relevance to academics and other educators who are interested in the research and theory background to self-evaluation. The last three sections will be helpful for those readers with a more practical orientation. Together these sections provide a composite picture of what research says and what practice shows.

1. Shifts in conceptions of assessment
2. The theory/ theoretical model behind student self-evaluation
3. A Four-Stage Model for teaching student self-evaluation
4. A sample of the 4-Stage Model for self-evaluation...how to involve students step-by-step!
5. Debunking myths: Frequently asked questions about self-evaluation

1. Shifts in Conceptions of Assessment

It is important to understand the broader context of assessment reform and the experiences of teachers who are experimenting or adopting new assessment practices. Four major shifts in conceptions of assessment influence how we consider supporting teachers who are adopting approaches such as student self-evaluation.

First, as part of a broader assessment reform movement, conceptions of good assessment are moving toward direct observation of complex performance rather than brief written tests that correlate with the target aptitudes (Linn et al., 1991). In these performance assessments, students are observed working with complex tasks (for example, Baron, 1990; Shavelson et al., 1992) or dealing with real-life problems (Raizen & Kaser, 1989). These instruments are often administered to groups of students because group work represents out-of-school performance better than individual production (Webb et al., 1995). Such approaches to testing would seem to be ideal for the many classrooms today that focus on collaborative and cooperative approaches to learning.

Second, teachers' responses to alternate assessment have been mixed. Mandated alternate assessment programs produce teacher resistance due to schedule disruption, concerns about consistency, and doubts about the usefulness of the data (Wilson, 1992; Howell et al., 1993; Maudaus & Kellaghan, 1993; Worthen 1993). Yet, when teachers have the freedom to choose, there is enthusiasm for alternate assessment (Calfee & Perfumo, 1993; Bateson, 1994).

Alternate conceptions of evaluation escalate demands on teachers. Alternate assessment must be transparent (Fredericksen & Collins, 1989), meaning that the criteria for appraisal, the population from which tasks are drawn, the scoring key and interpretive schemes must be visible to students, even when the teachers who devised these procedures have an imperfect grasp of them. Asking teachers to engage students in setting evaluation criteria (Bellanca & Berman, 1994; Garcia & Pearson, 1994) intensifies demands. Authentic assessment standards require precise specification of what will be measured, identification of multiple levels of attainment, and descriptions of opportunities to learn (Linn, 1994). The heightened concern with the moral dimension of evaluation (for example, Wiggins, 1993) requires that teachers support due process and allow students to be assessed at an appropriate level of difficulty, when ready.

Third, making such changes is not easy. Briscoe (1994) found that when beliefs about teaching and the constructivist learning theory implicit in alternate assessment conflicted, conventional test practices returned. In Briscoe's study, conflict centered on one teacher's theory of how assessment influenced learning. The teacher believed that regular monitoring based on unambiguous criteria, such as work completed, stimulated student productivity. For the teacher, the motivational power of assessment resided in the fairness of objective procedures. When he/she tried to use performance assessment, he/she felt that objectivity was lost. The teacher had little confidence in the rules he/she developed for interpreting students responses, believed that given grades favoured students he/she liked, and felt assigning a single grade to all students in a group was unfair. Although the teacher tried to resolve these conflicts, he/she eventually returned to multiple-choice testing. Lorsbach et al., (1992) observed two teachers for whom the purpose of assessment was control of students; tests emphasized knowledge reproduction, and work completion was a heavily weighted grading criterion. Shifting to assessments based on observations and interviews to accommodate experiments with constructivist teaching created conflicts for both teachers. One teacher resolved the conflict by redefining her metaphor of assessment from that of "fair judgment" to providing a ‘"window into a student's mind" (p. 309), thereby reconciling assessment with her new conception of teaching. The other teacher did not resolve the conflict. At the end of the study, the tension between his constructivist approach to teaching and objectivist assessment practices continued. Other researchers have reported teacher misconceptions about specific alternate assessment techniques. Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson (1995) found over inclusion: teachers thought performance assessment was anything that involved manipulation of concrete objects. Oosterhof (1995) found under-inclusion: teachers treated only formal tests as valid assessment procedures and included informal methods like observations and oral feedback only after probing.

Finally, one of the most challenging shifts in conceptions of assessment is related to the changing role of the teacher and the changing educational environment. The context for educators is changing rapidly and dramatically. It is more complex and volatile. Teachers are in an environment of conflicting and ever-increasing demands where the school is expected to meet all these demands. As Hargreaves & Fullan (1998) state, "In times of turbulent social change, redefining one's relationship to the environment is crucial" (p. 4). One of the redefinitions relates to our current capacity to build democratic communities within and beyond our schools. If we value "participation, equality, inclusiveness and social justice," (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998, p. 13), then our classrooms and schools need to be places where students share leadership and responsibility for learning. Hargreaves & Fullan further suggest that "Involving students and parents in decision-making, teaching and learning decisions, parent conferences and assessment of achievement, extend these democratic principles further" (p.13). In such a shifting context our outcomes for students have sufficiently changed and traditional assessment practices are no longer adequate.

All of these factors place the demand on teachers to develop assessment literacy themselves. We define assessment literacy as the: 1) capacity to examine student data and make sense of it; 2) ability to make changes in teaching and schools derived from those data; and 3) commitment to engaging in external assessment discussions. Developing assessment literacy facilitates teacher confidence about the defensibility of their evaluation practices and reduces feelings of vulnerability. It means that teachers are able to provide the home with clear and detailed assessments, and are able to provide a rationale for the assessment choices they make in their classrooms. Becoming more assessment literate also means teachers becoming critical consumers of externally generated assessment data so that they can engage in the arguments about standards and accountability (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). Educators who can clearly and respectfully discuss assessment issues with non-educators and educators alike, will be better able to link student learning and instructional approaches for the purpose of continuous improvement.

Four conceptual shifts have just been elaborated: 1) the movement toward direct observation of complex performance rather than brief written tests; 2) the mixed responses by teachers to alternate assessment; 3) the difficulty in making assessment changes; and 4) the changing role of the teacher and the changing educational environment that necessitates the need for teacher assessment literacy. In our quest to more clearly understand self-evaluation, and in working with teachers to help students get better at self-evaluation, it has been important for us to keep these shifts front and center. In the sections that follow we focus on these shifts in numerous ways, from the elaboration of research findings to the practical strategies that have facilitated the assessment change process for teachers and students alike.

2. The Theory/ Theoretical Model Behind Self-evaluation

In the model that follows we provide the theoretical model for self-evaluation (Rolheiser, 1996). Research indicates that self-evaluation plays a key role in fostering an upward cycle of learning. When students evaluate their performance positively, self-evaluations encourage students to set higher goals (1) and commit more personal resources or effort (2) to them. The combination of goals (1) and effort (2) equals achievement (3). A student's achievement results in self-judgment (4), such as a student contemplating the question, "Were my goals met?" The result of the self-judgment is self-reaction (5), or a student responding to the judgment with the question, "How do I feel about that?"

Goals, effort, achievement, self-judgment, and self-reaction all can combine to impact self-confidence (6) in a positive way. Self-evaluation is really the combination of the self-judgment and self-reaction components of the model, and if we can teach students to do this better we can contribute to an upward cycle of better learning.

d

But it is not hard to see how a downward cycle could develop if there was a significant gap between students' goals and those of the classroom or if students perceive themselves to be unsuccessful performers. In the downward cycle low self-evaluations lead students to develop negative orientations toward learning, select personal goals that are unrealistic, adopt learning strategies which are ineffective, exert low effort, and make excuses for poor performance.
The problem is that without teacher involvement in student self-evaluation, teachers have no direct knowledge about whether individual students are on an upward or downward path. The choice for teachers is not whether students evaluate their own work (they will regardless of teacher input) but whether teachers will attempt to teach them how to do so effectively. The goals of our ongoing research and the practical model and ideas that follow, are aimed at assisting teachers with this important work.

3. A Four-Stage Model for Teaching Student Self-Evaluation

In one stage of our research we interviewed exemplary users of cooperative learning methods (Ross et al., 1998a). When individual insights were assembled into a composite picture, a generic four-stage procedure emerged for teaching students their role in self-evaluation.

STAGE 1- Involve students in defining the criteria that will be used to judge their performance. Involving students in determining the evaluation criteria initiates a negotiation. Neither imposing school goals nor acquiescing to student preferences is likely to be as successful as creating a shared set that students perceive to be meaningful. Workplace studies, for example, indicate that involving employees in making decisions about their work increases satisfaction and goal commitment. In addition to increasing student commitment to instructional goals, negotiating intentions enables teachers to help students set goals that are specific, immediate, and moderately difficult, characteristics that contribute to greater effort. It also provides an opportunity to influence students' orientations toward learning, a long term guidance effort, that is particularly timely in cooperative learning contexts since students sometimes adopt orientations in group learning (such as letting someone else do all the work) that impede learning.

STAGE 2- Teach students how to apply the criteria to their own work. If students have been involved in a negotiation in Stage 1, the criteria that result will be an integrated set of personal and school goals. Since the goals are not entirely their own, students need to see examples of what they mean in practice. These models or examples help students understand specifically what the criteria mean to them. Teacher modeling is very important, as is providing many numerous examples of what particular categories mean, using language that connects criteria to evidence in the appraisal.

STAGE 3- Give students feedback on their self-evaluations. Students' initial comprehension of the criteria and how to apply them are likely to be imperfect. Teachers need to help students recalibrate their understanding by arranging for students to receive feedback (from the teacher, peers, and themselves) on their attempts to implement the criteria. Having different sources (e.g., peers and teacher) provide data for comparison helps students develop accurate self-evaluations. Discussion regarding differences in data can prove most helpful.

STAGE 4- Help students develop productive goals and action plans. The most difficult part of teaching students how to evaluate their work consists of designing ways to provide support for students as they use self-evaluative data to set new goals and levels of effort. Without teacher help, students may be uncertain whether they have attained their goals. Teachers can also help students connect particular levels of achievement to the learning strategies they adopted and the effort they expended. Finally, teachers can help students develop viable action plans in which feasible goals are operationalized as a set of specific action intentions.

4. A Sample of the 4-Stage Model for Self-Evaluation...how to involve students step-by-step!

The first thing we have found is important in teaching students how to be self-evaluators is to deal with their misconceptions or pre-determined views of self-evaluation (Ross et al., 1999). We do this up front by defining self-evaluation, and then by generating reasons why this practice might be beneficial. In one of our studies we found that some students confused self-evaluation with peer-evaluation, and were unable to define self-evaluation (even when they had been involved in it). They often described it as "marking yourself". We need to move beyond this definition to help students see the role that criteria play in the judgment of their work.

Younger students might be provided with a simple definition such as: Self-evaluation is judging the quality of your work. Over time, however, or with older students we would want to expand this definition to include the following two dimensions: Self-evaluation is judging the quality of your work, based on evidence and explicit criteria, for the purpose of doing better work.

Early on in the process we also want to engage students in an activity or discussion that generates why self-evaluation is important. This might be a simple activity such as passing a recording sheet around a group of four in a round-table fashion, with each person contributing an idea regarding why self-evaluation might be important (e.g., "So you have a say in deciding the quality of your work"; "So the teacher will know how much effort you put in"). The ideas could then be collected and posted on a class chart for reference whenever the students engage in self-evaluation.

Next, select a performance or outcome that your students have had some experience in, and take them through the Four-Stage Model. Choosing an outcome with some experiential base is important as it is very difficult to have students generate criteria for an outcome they have had limited or no experience with. For example, if students have had experience with narrative writing, that might be a place to begin.

The following sample takes you through the actual steps of a classroom example based on students' narrative writing, specifically, writing the introduction to a horror story.

Performance/Outcome:
Narrative writing - introduction to a horror story

As an effective mental set or beginning to the process the teacher can read the students an opening from one or more horror stories. In groups of three or four the students briefly interview each other or have a discussion. The questions for the interview or discussion might include: "What other horror story have you read that captured your interest...why? What made the introduction so interesting? What made these particular story openings hold your attention?"

STAGE 1- Involve students in defining the criteria that will be used to judge their performance. The specific steps to guide this stage are as follows:

• students brainstorm criteria
• teacher and students negotiate criteria
• use student language to co-develop standards, or a rubric

The teacher brainstorms with the entire class the elements they feel make an effective opening for a written horror story (try to elicit general elements as opposed to specific examples). These elements might include items such as "introduction of a main character or characters", "setting (time and place)", "establishing a mood", etc. The teacher can also feel free to be an active contributor to this list.

From the brainstormed list of elements or criteria have the students rank order them from most important to least. This can be done in a number of ways, including having each small group reach consensus on their three top criteria. The teacher collects each team's list of three and determines what the class consensus is. Again, this is a negotiated process, so it may be that the teacher chooses one criterion, and the class chooses the other two, or whatever the negotiated balance might be. For this particular experience, and to ensure success with the next stages of the model, the class should only focus on the top three or four criteria.

Next, the teacher defines a rubric for the students and shows them different samples to illustrate the concept. The definition will need to be adapted to the grade level, but should communicate the following, "A set of scoring guidelines for evaluating student work. The rubric or scoring tool contains a set of criteria used do discriminate effectively between performances of different quality". For example, the teacher might use the example of the criterion "Action" for regular narrative writing. If one were designing a rubric based on LOW-MIDDLE-HIGH performance, the standards might be as follows:

LOW - slow pace, few scene changes
MIDDLE - moved along, several scene changes
HIGH - fast pace, numerous scene changes

Next, as a class or in small groups (with each group assigned one criterion) the students develop a three-standard rubric (see form below). By starting with three standards for each criterion we increase the chances of initial student success in developing rubrics. As the students gain more experience, the teacher can move to the development of a four-standard rubric. In the process of developing a rubric, the teacher supports the students by providing appropriate rubric language or examples. The students will need to be encouraged to use language that clearly describes each level of performance, and avoids comparative ("better than low") or evaluative language ("excellent, poor"). Finally, it is critical that student language is used in the development of the rubric and that the final rubric with all criteria on it, is shared as a class. Stage 1 might be Lesson #1 in this self-evaluation training sequence. Carrying out the steps of this stage ensure that the criteria for assignments or tasks are negotiated and therefore shared, as well as being understandable since "student language" is used.

Evaluation

Performance/Outcome: ______________________________

Name: ____________________________________________

Date: ______________________

Rated by: __ Self   __ Peer   __ Teacher  __ Parent   __ Other ____

STAGE 2- Teach students how to apply the criteria to their own work. The specific steps at this stage are as follows:

• show examples
• students practice classifying the examples using the criteria generated

In Stage 2, and perhaps Lesson #2 in the self-evaluation training experience with students, the teacher might provide the students with a written sample opening of a horror story. This stage is like a "trial run"; a chance to try out the rubric before using it on their own work for the purposes of self-evaluation. Have students apply the class rubric developed previously to the sample. The purpose of this activity is to work through their applied understanding of the rubric, and provide evidence from the sample of the judgments made. At this stage the rubric may need to be refined based on class discoveries of what works or what doesn't.

At this stage of the model teachers would now have the students write their own introductions to their horror stories. When completed the students carry out a self-evaluation using the class-developed rubric.

STAGE 3- Give students feedback on their self-evaluations. The specific steps that can guide this stage are:

• provide comparative data
• talk about similarities and differences

After a self-evaluation has been completed, the teacher or a peer apply the same rubric (using an identical form) to the student's opening to a horror story. Either through a face-to-face conference, or sharing written evaluations and comments, there is a discussion of the similarities and/or differences between the student's self-evaluation and the other person's comparative judgment.

STAGE 4- Help students develop productive goals and action plans. The specific steps to guide this stage are as follows:

• students identify strengths/weaknesses based on comparative data
• students generate goals
• teacher guides students to develop specific actions towards their goals
• students goals and action plans are recorded.

Based on the comparative data provided by the self-evaluation and peer or teacher evaluation carried out in Stage 3, the student now records a specific goal (based on strengths/weaknesses) for the next phase in the writing process. Specific actions toward that goal are also recorded (see bottom of previous rubric form). The goal sheets provide a written record and can then be referred to in the future to help students monitor their growth and achievement.

5. Frequently Asked Questions About Self-Evaluation

A. Do students who are taught how to evaluate their work learn better or more poorly than other students?

Three kinds of student benefits have been observed in the studies we and other researchers have conducted. The first is cognitive achievement, especially narrative writing skills (Ross et al., 2000). Students become better writers by learning how to evaluate their prose. The effects are strongest for the weakest writers. Self-evaluation training helps the low group the most because they are less certain about what constitutes good writing. All students, however, seem to benefit from the focusing effect of joint criteria development and use. The second benefit is in the area of motivation. Students who are taught self-evaluation skills are more likely to persist on difficult tasks, be more confident about their ability, and take greater responsibility for their work. Third, students' attitudes toward evaluation become more positive when they participate in the process. As students grow older they become increasingly cynical about traditional testing. When self-evaluation is included as a contributor to their final grade, students are more likely to report that evaluation is fair and worthwhile. Clearly, there is heightened meaningfulness of self-evaluation over assessment data.

B. Do students self-evaluate fairly?

Many teachers, parents, and students believe that if students have a chance to mark their own work they will take advantage, giving themselves higher scores regardless of the quality of their performance. We have found that students, especially older ones, may do this if left to their own devices. But, when students are taught systematic self-evaluation procedures, the accuracy of their judgment improves. Contrary to the beliefs of many students, parents, and teachers, students' propensity to inflate grades decreases when teachers share assessment responsibility and control (Ross, et al., 2000). When students participate in the identification of the criteria that will be used to judge classroom production and use these criteria to judge their work, they get a better understanding of what is expected. The result is the gap between their judgments and the teacher's is reduced. And, by focusing on evidence, discrepancies between teacher and self-evaluation can be negotiated in a productive way.

C. What kinds of self-evaluation techniques have the greatest chance of increasing student achievement and accuracy of self-appraisal?

Thoughtfully designed self-evaluation procedures that provide students with explicit criteria at an appropriate level of generality, that provide for student involvement in assessment decision-making, that elicit student cognitions about their performance, that ground student goal setting in accurate data, and that are integrated with sensitive instruction may provide teachers with a powerful lever for enhancing student learning.

D. What research or theory-based argument best connects student self-evaluation to achievement gains?

We base our expectations that a self-evaluation assessment system enhances student achievement on four arguments. Students will learn more because (i) self-evaluation will focus student attention on the objectives measured, (ii) the assessment provides teachers with information they would otherwise lack, (iii) students will pay more attention to the assessment, and (iv) student motivation will be enhanced.

Our own research and that of others substantiate these four arguments. For example, it has long been demonstrated that being clear about goals makes a positive contribution to performance (Locke et al., 1981). Self-evaluation helps focus students' attention on the objectives being measured.

As well, self-evaluation is unique in asking students to reflect on their performance. Conventional test procedures provide no information about students' inner states during task performance, their subsequent interpretations about the quality of their work, and the goals they set in response to feedback. Self-evaluations that elicit information about students' effort, persistence, goals orientations, attributions for success and failure, and beliefs about their competence, give teachers a fuller understanding of why students perform as they do. When incorporated into teachers' deliberative planning they can anticipate impediments to learning, especially motivational obstacles.

As students move through the school system their skepticism about the validity of test scores increases (Paris et al., 1991). Students view self-evaluation more positively than other kinds of assessment. We found that students like self-evaluation because it increased clarity about expectations, was fairer, and gave students feedback that they could use to improve the quality of their work (Ross et al., 1998b).

Finally, self-evaluation has an indirect effect on achievement through self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs about one's ability to perform actions that lead to desired ends). What is crucial is how a student evaluates a performance. Positive self-evaluations encourage students to set higher goals and commit more personal resources to learning tasks (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1995). Negative self-evaluations lead students to embrace goal orientations that conflict with learning, select personal goals that are unrealistic, adopt learning strategies which are ineffective, exert low effort and make excuses for performance (Stipek, et al., 1992). Higher self-efficacy translates into higher achievement (Pajares, 1996).

These four research-based arguments suggest that self-evaluation is a potentially powerful stimulant of achievement.

E. Is simply requiring self-evaluation enough, or do students have to be taught how to evaluate their work accurately?

Students harbor misconceptions about the self-evaluation process (e.g., the role that evidence plays). As a result, self-evaluation is unlikely to have a positive impact on achievement if these misconceptions are not addressed by teaching students how to evaluate their work. Simply requiring self-evaluation is unlikely to have an effect on achievement. Students have to be taught how to evaluate their work accurately and need time to develop the appropriate skills.

F. Are there any benefits for teachers by training students in self-evaluation?

Teaching self-evaluation also has benefits for teachers. Teachers who participate in in-service focused on how to teach self-evaluation grow more confident in their skills as teachers and use a greater variety of assessment techniques in the classroom.

In one of our studies where teachers were involved in action research on student self-evaluation as a mechanism for professional growth, we found that teacher self-efficacy was enhanced (Ross et al., 1999). Teacher-efficacy is the belief that teachers, individually and collectively, will be able to bring about student learning. There is a generative power of teacher expectations. Teachers who anticipate that they will be successful set higher goals for themselves and their students, are more willing to engage in instructional experiments, persist through obstacles to implementation, and have higher student achievement. The connection between teacher learning and student learning is a critical and essential link.

G. What is the greatest challenge for teachers incorporating self-evaluation into their assessment repertoires?

One of the greatest challenges for teachers is the recalibration of power that occurs when assessment decisions are shared. Data collected in one of our projects (Ross et al., 1998a) suggested that teachers found it difficult to share control of evaluation decision-making, a responsibility at the core of the teacher's authority. Such difficulty may be due to the fact that teaching students to be self-evaluators involves the implementation of fundamental changes in the relationship between teachers and students in the classroom. Changing root beliefs, behaviors and relationships is difficult and takes time. Accordingly, another challenge is time. Teachers need considerable time to work out how to accommodate an innovation that involves sharing control of a core teacher function with their existing beliefs about teacher and learner roles. As well, students need time to understand what self-evaluation is and how it relates to their learning, in addition to learning how to do it.

Challenges such as these will demand that teachers be patient with the change process, for themselves and for their students.

H. What are some tips for getting students started with self-evaluation?

• Define self-evaluation for students (e.g., "judging the quality of your work").
• Make the benefits of self-evaluation visible to students.
• Talk about the benefits, and address such benefits consciously, both at the beginning of the process and throughout.
• Overtly confront students' feeling and beliefs about self-evaluation. This means directly dealing with misconceptions.
• Start small. Create lots of small, short self-evaluation opportunities for your students. These experiences may involve daily work with various aspects of the Four-Stage Model.
• Use a variety of quick pre-designed forms to get your students into the practice of self-evaluating during or after regular activities they do in the classroom (see Rolheiser, 1996, for a variety of sample forms).
• Choose a performance that you and your students have had some experience with (e.g., oral presentations, research reports, narrative writing). Try out the entire Four-Stage Model for this performance or outcome (see the elaborated example provided in Section 5 of this chapter).
• Expect a range of reactions from your students as you help them get better at self-evaluation. You will have a continuum of responses, from positive reactions as students see this as "fair" assessment, to negative reactions as students discover that sharing control also means sharing the workload.
• Create collaborative conditions for your own professional learning. Work with a peer or colleague in experimenting with self-evaluation. Such experimentation will enhance personal assessment literacy. The constructive dissonance, social comparison, synthesis, and experimentation that occur when working with others will have a significant effect on your learning, and ultimately, on your students' learning. Collaboration will help you more effectively link student learning and instructional approaches for the purpose of continuous improvement.
• Let all stakeholders (students, parents, administrators, colleagues) know what assortment of assessment practices you are using in your classroom, and practice articulating a rationale for why self-evaluation is an important part of your assessment repertoire.
• Trust that your students can be integral assessment partners, and with time, teaching, and co-learning, that you and your students will become better at it.

References

Arter, J., Spandel, V., Culham, R. & Pollard, J. (1994). The impact of training students to be self-assessors of writing, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Baron, J. (1990). Performance assessment: Blurring the edges among assessment, curriculum and instruction, in: A. Champagne, B. Lovitts & B. alinger (Eds.). Assessment in the Service of Instruction, 127-148. (Washington, DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science).

Bateson, D. (1994). Psychometric and philosophical problems in "authentic" assessment: Performance tasks and portfolios, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 233-245.

Bellanca, J. & Bermam. S. (1994). How to grade the thoughtful, cooperative classroom (if you must), paper presented at the International Conference on Cooperative Learning, Portland.

Briscoe, C. (1994). Making the grade: Perspectives on a teacher's assessment practices, Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 7, 14-16, 21-25.

Calfee, R. & {erfi,p. P. (1993). Student portfolios: opportunities for a revolution in assessment, Journal of Reading, 36, 532-537.

Fredericksen, J. & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing, Educational Researcher, 18, 27-32.

Garcia, G. & Pearson, P. (1994). Assessment and diversity, in: L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.). Review of Research in Education, Vol. 20, 337-339 (Washington, DC, American Educational Research Association).

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (1998). What's worth fighting for out there? Mississauga, ON: Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation.

Henry, D. (1994). Whole Language Students with Low Self-direction: A self-assessment tool, ERIC ED 372 359 (Virginia, University of Virginia).

Howell, K., Bigelow, S. & Evoy, A. (1993). A qualitative examination of an authentic assessment, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Hughes, B., Sullivan, H. & Mosley, M. (1985). External evaluation, task difficulty, and continuing motivation, Journal of Educational Research, 78, 210-215.

Linn, R. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy, promises and technical measurement standards, Educational Researcher, 23, 4-14.

Linn, R., Baker, E. & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria, Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.

Locke, E., Shaw, K., Saari, L., & Latham, G. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.

Lorsbach, A., Tobin, K., Briscoe, C. & LaMaster, S. (1992). An interpretation of assessment methods in middle school science, International Journal of Science Education, 14, 305-317.

Maehr, M. & Stallings, R. (1972). Freedom from external evaluation, Child Development, 43, 177-185.

Maudaus, G. & Kellaghan, T. (1993). The British experience with "authentic" testing, Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 458-469.

Oosterhof, A. (1995). An extended observation of assessment procedures used by selected public school teachers, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.

Paris, S., Lawton, T., Turner, J., & Roth, J. 91991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 12-20, 40.

Raizen, S. & Kaser, J. (1989). Assessing science learning in elementary school: What, why, and how?, Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 718-722.

Rolheiser, C (Ed.). (1996). Self-evaluation...Helping students get better at it! Ajax, ON: Visutronx.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray. (1999). Effects of collaborative action research on the knowledge of five Canadian teacher-researchers. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 255-274.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray. (1998a). Student evaluation in cooperative learning: Teacher cognitions. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 4(2), 299-316.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray. (1998b). Skills training versus action research inservice: Impact on student attitudes on self-evaluation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(5), 463-477.

Ross, J.A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray. (1998c, April). Effects of self-evaluation and training on narrative writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of CSSE, Ottawa.

Ruiz-Primo, M. & Shavelson, R. (1995). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April.

Shavelson, R., Baxter, G. & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality, Educational Researcher, 21, 22-27.

Schunk, D.H. (1995, April). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's mathematical skill acquisition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Stipek, D., Roberts, T., & Sanborn, M. (1984). Preschool-age children's performance expectations for themselves and another child as a function of the incentive value of success and the salience of past performance. Child Development, 59, 1983-1989.

Webb, N., Nemer, K. & Chizhik, A. (1995). Using group collaboration as a window into students' cognitive processes, paper presented at the, San Francisco, CA, April. Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing Student Performance: Explore the purpose and limits of testing (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Wilson, R. (1992). The context of classroom processes in evaluating students, in: D. Bateson (Ed.). Classroom Testing in Canada, 3-10. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Worthen, B. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternate assessment, Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444-457.

Carol Rolheiser is associate dean for teacher education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She is a member of the CDL Professional Advisory Board.

John Ross is head of the Trent Valley Centre in Peterborough, Ontario, and Professor of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.