web view... argues, “formative classroom assessment can and should begin ... gaining insights...

Action Oriented Reflection 1

Action Oriented Reflection: An Ongoing Student Self-Assessment Strategy to Improve Learning

--Literature Review and Change in Practice--

Bo Green

Plymouth State University

ED 6900 Graduate Capstone

February 2011


Abstract

Schools are placing increased emphasis on the formative process of student learning as opposed

to primarily on summative outcomes. Many studies and publications delineate the inherent

benefits to student learning from this rebalancing. An important consideration in the formative

learning process is the extent to which students embrace ownership of their learning and utilize

strategies that effectively lead from formation of learning to demonstration of understanding.

One such strategy is arming students with an ongoing, user-friendly, proactive, results-oriented,

self-assessment tool that I call Action Oriented Reflection (AOR). There is growing evidence in

the literature across all educational levels from kindergarten to university that tools of this type

can result in improved student ownership, motivation and learning outcomes.


Action Oriented Reflection: A Student Self-Assessment Strategy to Improve Learning

Fisher & Frey (2007) make a clear distinction between formative and summative

assessments, arguing that the latter are given at the end of unit or course, and that they serve

entirely different functions in learning; teachers use them for grades and promotion while

students use them to gauge their progress toward course or grade-level goals and benchmarks.

The authors suggest that “formative assessments are ongoing assessments, reviews and

observations in a classroom” (p. 4), should be used throughout the unit, and that while teachers

use formative assessment results to check for understanding, students use them to self-monitor

understanding. Black & Wiliam (1998) define formative assessment as “all those activities

undertaken by teachers and/or by students which provide information to be used as feedback to

modify the teaching and learning activities in which they engage” (p. 7). Marzano (2006) argues,

“formative classroom assessment can and should begin immediately within a learning episode

and span its entire duration. Additionally, formative assessment can take a wide variety of

formats, both formal (e.g., paper-and-pencil quiz) and informal (e.g., a discussion with a

student)” (p. 9). I argue that one such format is Action Oriented Reflection (AOR).

Given the focus of this literature review, student reflection as an essential element of

formative assessment, I chose the following key search words in the EBSCO online Academic

Search Premier and ERIC databases: Reflection, Self-Evaluation and Self-Assessment. During

the course of research I found it important to include works in the area of Feedback as well.

While I found substantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that reflection and self-assessment

benefit student learning at all levels, the preponderance of research has taken place in university.

Of the 34 most relevant studies, 17.5 took place at the university level, 6 were general studies, 4

each occurred in elementary and middle schools and 2.5 took place in high school. A possible


explanation for this is 30 of the 34 studies occurred since 2000, implying that perhaps reflection

and self-assessment are relatively new concepts to educational institutions and educators, and

given that reflection and self-assessment entail higher-level metacognitive skills these practices

have been initially offered to more mature students. Perhaps these are the early penetrations of an

emerging important pedagogical development and with further awareness of student benefits

these powerful concepts will be more broadly embraced. Given the strong evidence in the

literature there appears to be clear justification for greater investment in reflection and student

self-assessment across the K-12 spectrum.

Since I chose to cast a wide research net this literature review is organized by major

heading, from broadest to most focused: Feedback, Reflection, Self-Evaluation and Self-

Assessment. Immediately prior to the final section identifying the change in my teaching practice

and setting student performance goals, I offer a citation regarding gender learning differences, a

supplementary area of inquiry that I am investigating and will report on in my AOR

implementation and results paper.

Literature Review

Feedback

It could be argued that, generally speaking, feedback is critical to affecting the change in

state of human potential, from not knowing or being able to do something, to a position of

knowledge or competence. We must have information to guide us along our learning path toward

goal achievement. Hattie (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of 7,827 studies and reported that of

33 measurable learning influences, “The most powerful single moderator that enhances

achievement is feedback. The simplest prescription for improving education must be ‘dollops of

feedback’. The effect-sizes for reinforcement is 1.13, remediation and feedback .65, mastery


learning (which is based on feedback) .50; more specifically, homework with feedback is much

more effective than homework without feedback, and recent reviews point to the power of

feedback as a discriminator between more and less effective uses of computers in classrooms.

This does not mean using many tests and providing over-prescriptive directions, it means

providing information how and why the child understands and misunderstands, and what

directions the student must take to improve” (p. 4). Hattie’s 2003 study built upon his 1992

work, analyzing distinguishing factors between expert and novice teachers, and he contended,

“excellence in teaching is the single most powerful influence on achievement” (p. 4). Hattie &

Timperley (2007) provided a feedback model and suggest that, “Effective feedback must answer

three major questions asked by a teacher and/or a student: Where am I going (What are the

goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next?

(What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?). These questions correspond to

notions of feed up, feedback, and feed forward” (p. 86). After further research, Hattie (2009)

reflected on his previous work and offered important modifications to his views on feedback,

stating, “The mistake I was making was seeing feedback as something teachers provided to

students—they typically did not, although they made claims that they did it all the time, and most

of the feedback they did provide was social and behavioral. It was only when I discovered that

feedback was most powerful when it is from the student to the teacher that I started to understand

it better. When teachers seek, or at least are open to, feedback from students as to what students

know, what they understand, where they make errors, when they have misconceptions, when

they are not engaged—then teaching and learning can be synchronized and powerful. Feedback

to teachers helps make learning visible” (p. 173). Marzano, Pickering & Pollock (2001) argued

that effective feedback is corrective in nature, timely, and specific to a criterion. They suggest,


similar to Hattie’s 2009 modification, that students can effectively provide some of their own

feedback, as in the form of self-evaluation, offer a rubric for providing feedback, and encourage

the incorporation of student-led feedback time during class.

With these studies supporting the vital nature of feedback as background, the following

literature review sections (Reflection, Self-Evaluation and Self-Assessment) provide strong

evidence supporting the benefits of reflection and student self-assessment practices.

Reflection

Grossman (2009) provided an in-depth report citing 33 references on the complexities

and various modes and definitions of reflection. After 30 years of college-level psychology

teaching, he embarked on a comprehensive literature review on reflection and provided examples

from his own experience. He began with the so-called self-reference effect, where students

reflect on course concepts and attempt to apply them to their own lives, which has been proven

to be an effective method of improving memory and deepening learning. Grossman then detailed

content-based, meta-cognitive, self-authorship and transformative modes of reflection, providing

clarity to this complex topic. Within content-based reflection, Grossman cited important previous

works and argued that using scaffolding structures can be helpful to effective reflection by

encouraging students to focus on evidence. Metacognitive reflection focuses students’ thoughts

on their own thinking, a process shown to aid their ability to apply learned concepts to new

settings. Importantly, Grossman reported on the fundamental process of reflection where

students must be able to stand apart from content and make insightful observations about their

learning. Grossman states, “only mature problem solvers have developed a mental place that

allows their inner experience to be the object of their observation” (p. 17). He argued that

bridging structures can be helpful to this process and provided the following four-step bridge of


metacognition: using a descriptive model of the mind, applying the model to a case study,

applying case study learnings to other settings, and metacognitive documentation. Self-

authoring, Grossman reports, involves creating “enough distance from their thoughts and

feelings to see how mental contents are dynamically interrelated” (p. 20). This relatively

sophisticated level of thought allows the reflector to reframe thinking and develop new ways of

making meaning. Transformative reflection involves students gaining insights into why they

think, feel and act as they do and results in altered frames of reference about their assumptions

while engaging in learning experiences. Glaze (2001) reported a similar transformative potential

within reflection in her qualitative study of nurse practitioners using data triangulation and

reflective contracts, noting that 13 the 14 individuals viewed reflection as positive and the

majority found it to be transformative and empowering. The nurse practitioners found the

experience so powerful in deepening their learning that they subsequently viewed reflection as

an integral component of the learning process. I personally experienced the power of this

heightened level of reflection late in my PSU master’s program work in Dr. Jim McGarry’s

Social Psychology and Mythology course writing my 27-page personal mythology, combining

important insights from the previously completed Philosophy, Ethics and Education class by Dr.

Allan DiBiase.

Quinton & Smallbone (2010) cited 48 references in their report on a university-level

reflection practice that students employ when receiving written feedback on a graded assessment.

The authors refer to “feeding forward,” similar to Hattie & Timperley (2007), and Husu, Toom

& Patrikainen’s (2008) comments on reflection-for-action which is the basis of my Graduate

Capstone, where students proactively direct reflective insights to benefit subsequent learning.

Similar to my own approach, the authors deploy dedicated time in the classroom for students to


engage in reflection. Quinton & Smallbone argued that quality feedback is a key element of

formative assessment, stating, “students need help making the connections between their

feedback, the characteristics of their work, and how to improve it in the future” (p. 127). Quality

feedback, in their opinion as well as those they cite, is accurate, timely, comprehensive,

appropriate, accessible to the learner, has catalytic and coaching value, and inspires confidence

and hope. The authors suggest that reflection should take place immediately upon the return of

graded work, similar to the arguments made by Fluckiger (2010) and Taras (2001). The

reflection tool Quinton & Smallbone used is called a self-copying sheet, comprised of a two-

page carbon copy paper document, where students respond to three questions on the top sheet,

tear it off for teacher review if they choose to submit it, and retain the bottom sheet for action,

subsequent review and possible inclusion in a Personal Development Plan. The three questions,

quite similar to the entries on my AOR template, are What do I feel about this feedback?, What

do I think about this feedback?, and Based on this feedback what actions could I take to improve

my work for another assignment? Quinton & Smallbone provide a model of reflection, recording

and forward action, again quite similar to my AOR approach, and call for educators to provide

more feedback and greater dedication of class time for reflection, thereby improving subsequent

student learning and developing important habits they will need in the work place.

Husu, Toom & Patrikainen (2008) reported on student teachers using reflection during

their teaching practicum and the resulting contributions made to the development of their

professional knowledge. They also sought to define reflection, citing previous works, and

suggest that effective reflection is a complex, rigorous, intellectual and emotional undertaking, a

meaning-making process seeking to take the learner to a higher level of understanding, a

systematic and disciplined way of thinking that best occurs including interactions with others,


and is influenced by one’s attitudes and emotions about the reflection process. The authors

define three categories of reflection: reflection-in-action (reflecting during an activity),

reflection-on-action (reflection after an activity) and reflection-for-action. The latter

classification, reflection-for-action, is particularly salient for and consistent with the focus of my

Graduate Capstone because “the learner defines her or his purposes and aspirations for

subsequent action” (p. 39). Husu et al. argued that there are two aspects of teacher reflection,

attitudinal and functional development, where attitudinal development modifies teacher attitudes

toward their work while functional development refers to the process whereby teaching practice

has been improved. The dual nature of the authors’ distinction here supports the qualitative and

quantitative measures I am employing on my Graduate Capstone as I am measuring student

attitudes toward the process of reflection as well as the impact of reflection on student learning

outcomes. Directionally consistent with Davis’ (2003) directed prompt strategy, Husu et al.

employed a guided practice known as stimulated recall where teachers “revisit (classroom

learning) incidents, consider their meanings in a wider context, and explore the possibilities for

changing the teacher’s actions” (p.41). They discuss seven distinctive forms of reflection based

on eight student teacher stimulated recall interviews: habituation, introspection, association,

integration, validation, appropriation and transformation. Their data revealed two major findings:

one, contrary to previous works, that teachers can successfully employ several reflection

techniques when analyzing their teaching practice, and two, consistent with prior studies, it is

difficult for student teachers to move beyond immediate teaching practice concerns and address

longer-term professional implications.

Studies also reveal that reflection practices can benefit science and math education

specifically. Garner (2007) reported on the use of Screencasting where tutors provide relevant


feedback and students reflect on their progress in a computer programming university-level

course. They cited works by Guzdial et al. (1996) and Herrington & Oliver (1997) that effective

reflection “leads to deep transferrable knowledge and skills” and is characterized by “enabling

abstractions to be formed and the articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit” (p.

1). Garner argued that reflection and feedback tools such as Screencasting can be particularly

beneficial in “problem solving domains such as mathematics, science and engineering” (p. 3).

Davis (2003) investigated the impact of using generic versus directed prompts with middle

school science students and found that students using the generic prompt format developed more

coherent understandings, such as through the appropriate use of principles. Generic prompts are

ones that encourage student responses to open-ended calls for assessment of understanding while

directed prompts include hints designed to steer student reflection. She argued that reflection

involves “metacognition and sense-making” (p. 92) and that “productive reflection promotes

important knowledge integration processes of expanding one’s repertoire of ideas and identifying

weaknesses in one’s knowledge” (p. 135). Farren (2008) reported on the use of Math Moments at

the college level as a mechanism to connect previous mathematics learning experiences, both

positive and negative, to the formation of student self-perceptions and attitudes toward math

learning. She focused primarily on at-risk college students, asking them early in the semester to

document poignant Math Moments in their K-12 education in an effort to create both a trusting

bond with her students and a better understanding of their learning needs. She found

considerable evidence of previous student disconnection with productive engagement citing the

primary reasons as excessive pace of coverage of high school curriculum and lack of relevance

to students. Farren argues that “too much of what we ask our students to do involves

computation or following the algorithms in a directed way” (p. 9), that students would benefit


from greater experiential learning opportunities involving real-world connections, and that the

use of journals and written reflection can engender a more positive learning atmosphere

conducive to learning.

Other studies have shown positive results from journaling. Nickerson (2007) reported a

direct correlation between Algebra II student achievement on summative assessments and the

quality of their journaling during the learning unit. He found upper quartile students expressed

their thoughts and examples in a more personalized context in journal entries while lower

performing students tended to copy material from the textbook. Corley (2000) found that

electronic journaling by his first-year college education students resulted in gains in student

learning and understanding, with journals providing structure to promote thinking and reflecting.

Campbell (2009), in a study of Year 8 boys, argues that online journaling improves student

ownership of the learning process, goal-setting ability, and motivation to achieve their goals.

One study shed light on the fact that reflection is not necessarily an easy proposition.

Leijen, Lam, Wildschut & Simons (2009) captured difficulties encountered in student reflection

based on 14 interviews with dance teachers. They reported four categories of difficulty including

general problems such as those that might be encountered on various reflection formats including

emotional dispositions, difficulties describing an experience, difficulties evaluating an

experience and difficulties relating to multiple perspectives.

Self-Evaluation

Klenowski (1995) examined student self-evaluation processes and their impact on

pedagogy in promoting sound student reflection practices in Australia and England. The study

was conducted over a six-month period at the high school and college level. Klenowski noted

that at these schools, “independent learning is an intended student outcome, and student self-


evaluation is one of the relevant skills which is being developed to achieve this goal” (p. 6). Both

informal and formal self-evaluation processes were employed and results were used in a Social

Studies class to determine class readiness to sit for tests as well as negotiate the grading system,

and English and Mathematics classes to determine the pace of instruction. Students in Science

classes maintained portfolios including a self-evaluation component to collect evidence of

learning progress. Klenowski noted that three key dimensions emerged from this research: the

use of criteria by students to self-evaluate their own learning, the interactive dialogue which

occurs between student and teacher during the analysis of the student’s self-evaluation, and the

ascription of a grade by the students for their own work. She reports that student self-evaluation

resulted in an increase in student ownership of their work, including a greater awareness of when

to ask for teacher assistance.

Olina & Sullivan (2004) studied the impact of teacher evaluation and student self-

evaluation on student performance involving high school students in Latvia. Their protocol

involved a control group of no evaluation and three experimental groups (student self-evaluation

only, teacher evaluation only, and combined student as well as teacher evaluation), measuring

the impact based on the following: ratings of student projects, post-test scores, student attitude

surveys and teacher attitude surveys. The results showed no statistical difference in post-test

data, but students in the teacher evaluation and self-plus-teacher evaluation groups received

significantly higher experimenter ratings on their research projects, students in both self-

evaluation groups reported more positive attitudes toward the program and had greater

confidence in their ability to conduct future experiments, and both teachers and students believed

teacher evaluation generates greater improvement on their projects overall than student self-

evaluation.


Ross, Rolheiser & Hogaboam-Gray (1998) studied the effects of self-evaluation on grade

five and six math students in a cooperative learning environment. The authors suggest self-

evaluation has two primary components: self-judgment, where students determine how well

goals were met, and self-reaction, where students assign a level of satisfaction with their result.

They also argue that, “self-evaluation plays a key role in fostering an upward cycle of learning

when two conditions are met: that the child’s self-evaluation be positive, which encourages

students to set higher goals and commit more personal resources to learning, and that the child’s

self-evaluations be accurate” (p. 6). Students received self-evaluation training prior to the

engagement and results showed that the training helped treatment students become more accurate

in their self-appraisals, which, the authors argue, is significant because overestimated

competence reduces student likelihood to seek teacher help. They also report that the self-

evaluation process had a negligible impact on mathematics achievement and that self-evaluation

training clarifies student understanding of learning expectations. Ross, Hogaboam-Gray &

Rolheiser (2002) followed up on their 1998 study that they felt was flawed in several respects

including their concern that the duration (8 weeks) was insufficient and that perhaps additional

teacher training was needed. Again, grades five and six math students were subjects of the study,

this time over 12 weeks, and students received self-evaluation training. Teachers received more

in-service training included mathematics-specific exemplars. This time the results showed self-

evaluation had a statistically significant effect on mathematics achievement. The authors

conclude, “the finding suggest that the effects of student assessment vary with the subjects in

which they are embedded. Proponents of innovative approaches to student assessment should

seek to identify the conditions under which particular assessment practices are more effective


than traditional assessment, rather than assume that one approach will be universally superior”

(p. 56).

Boersma and Others (1995) focused their work on kindergarten and grades one and five

to address overemphasis on teacher assessment. Three strategies were evaluated: modified

instructional methods, development of a portfolio system, and implementation of reflective logs

and response journals. The authors reported improvement in student self-evaluation and goal

setting across all grade levels with greatest success for grade five students. They hypothesized

that primary student results were less positive because, “developmentally, the primary students

may be unable either to understand the basic definition or grasp the abstract concept of goal

setting” (p. 63). Another benefit reported was student ownership in assessing their own learning.

The authors state, “A decrease in dependence on the teacher for grading was noted after the

intervention. It appears evident from the increased student responses that many more of the

students in the targeted classrooms now perceive a joint responsibility for assessing the quality of

their work. Their ownership in the assessment process shows marked improvement and opens an

avenue for better student/teacher communication” (p. 71).

Two studies focused specifically on using self-evaluation as intervention techniques. Carr

(2002) argued that self-evaluation practices are beneficial for students with learning problems

and states that in order for students to critique their learning journey effectively they must be

taught explicitly how to do it. Best practices from her work included appropriate student-teacher

conferences, checklists, rating scales, questionnaires, journals and learning logs. Carr also states

that student “self-evaluation is also an important source of information for teachers because it

provides them with feedback about their instruction, helps them to develop patterns of strengths

and weaknesses in individual students, and provides evidence of individual student progress” (p.


199). Cunningham, Krull, Land & Russell (2000) conducted an action research project involving

kindergarten, second, fourth and fifth grade classes designed to motivate students to overcome

poor learning habits through goal-setting and self-evaluation over a 12-week period. The results

were gathered through student surveys and teacher observation checklists and showed substantial

improvement for kindergarten and second grade students, while fourth and fifth grade student

surveys remained unchanged but teacher observations revealed some improvement.

Wolcott (1999) argued that self-evaluation is one answer to the call for improved student

critical thinking skills and fostering life-long learning. The tool she suggests is a one-page self-

evaluation form to be used when solving an unstructured problem, one in which there is no one

correct answer. Her findings include that students need practice to become proficient in applying

critical thinking to their own work and that student self-evaluations inform her of subsequent

instructional needs.

Self-Assessment

McMillan & Hearn (2008) argued that, “Student self-assessment stands alone in its

promise of improved student motivation and engagement, and learning. Correctly implemented,

student self-assessment can promote intrinsic motivation, internally controlled effort, a mastery

of goal orientation, and more meaningful learning” (p. 40). They defined self-assessment as “a

process by which students 1) monitor and evaluate the quality of their thinking and behavior

when learning and 2) identify strategies that improve their understanding and skills” (p. 40) and

suggest self-assessment is a cyclical process involving three components: self-monitoring, self-

evaluation and identification and implementation of appropriate instructional correctives. They,

too, cited Black & Wiliam (1998), contending that, “there is substantial evidence that appropriate

formative assessment activities relate positively to student motivation and achievement” and


“self-assessment is essential to using feedback appropriately” (p. 42). Suggesting that teachers

have an important role in helping students become proficient at self-assessment, they offered

Rolheiser’s (1996) four-stage process, stating that “her growth scheme is useful to check how

often teachers use student self-evaluation and to determine any necessary improvements in the

process. Modifications are needed at different grade levels, but even elementary students can

understand and apply criteria to evaluate their own work and others’ work” (p. 47).

From a university-level setting Andrade & Du (2007) reported on a self-assessment

initiative involving teacher education students and gathered results in focus groups segregated by

gender. Students reported increasingly positive attitudes toward self-assessment with practice,

felt they can effectively self-assess when they know their teacher’s expectations, used self-

assessment to check their work and guide revision, and believed that their grades, quality of

work, motivation and learning improved. There was no evidence of differences between male

and female student responses. The authors observed, similar to Lee & Gavine (2003), as did I

during my research that, “the literature on student self-assessment tends to use the terms ‘self-

assessment’, ‘self-reflection’ and ‘self-evaluation’ interchangeably” (p. 160). They felt it

necessary to make clarifying distinctions, suggesting the following, which I find quite helpful:

“self-reflection takes a global view of learning in terms of one’s own general qualities, attitudes

and dispositions” (p. 160) frequently over an extended period of time and without established

criteria; “self-evaluation involves students in making summative judgments of their work that

result in a final grade or mark” (p. 160); and self-assessment is a process of formative assessment

during which students reflect on and evaluate the quality of their work and their learning, judge

the degree to which they reflect explicitly stated goals or criteria, identify strengths and

weaknesses in their work, and revise accordingly” (p. 160). The authors reported their surprise in


the lack of gender perspectives on self-assessment, stating, “given the differences between male

and female students in some earlier research, we predicted that female and male students would

report differences in their reaction to and/or perspectives on self-assessment. We combed the

data carefully for such differences but did not find them” (p.169).

Tan (2008) conducted a university-level study of the varied ways academics employed

student self-assessment, finding that there are “five qualitatively different conceptions that depict

how academics understand and use self-assessment” (p. 15). He identified the five conceptions

as involving students in judging their behavior in: self-assessment activities, knowledge in self-

assessment practices, standards within the program of study, proficiency within the program of

study, and self-assessment ability beyond the program of study. Tan defined self-assessment as

“the involvement of students in making judgements of their learning” (p. 16). He argued that the

findings reveal benefits in terms of the “potential for academics to understand and use student

self-assessment to enhance students’ self-assessment ability, to further students’ lifelong learning

and to empower, rather than discipline, students.” (p. 15).

Fluckiger (2010) cited from the literature that there is significant evidence supporting the

benefits of using self-assessment as a formative assessment tool to help students take increased

responsibility for their own learning, but suggests that many teachers are not equipped with

effective strategies to do so. Similar to the contentions made by Quinton & Smallbone (2010)

and Taras (2001), she argues in favor of self-assessment when students interpret graded

assessment results and set goals for improvement, and she suggests using a single-point rubric.

The single-point rubric includes the following self-assessment sections designed to process

feedback on previous work into improved subsequent revisions: I know where I’m going, I know

where I am now, I know how to get there and I know how to go beyond. Fluckiger offers the


analysis of her collective case study of 10 action research projects using the single-point rubric

spanning pre-school through high school with “benefits evidenced in the areas of student

achievement, engagement in learning and in students being effective at self-assessment” (p. 21).

Similar to Wolcott (1999), Baldwin (2000) and Ross, Hogaboam-Gray & Rolheiser (2002), she

found that students become more proficient at self-assessment with practice.

van Hattum-Janssen & Lourenco (2008) reported on a university-level study where first

year civil engineering students used peer and self-assessments to increase responsibility for their

own learning success. The authors noted that the European university system is shifting away

from a traditional teacher-oriented, individual focus toward learner-oriented programs that

promote cooperative learning. They argue that, “If students participate in their own assessment, it

is no longer a process that happens to them, but becomes a process in which they have an active

role. A student-centered approach to learning asks for a student-centered approach to assessment,

as learning and assessment need to be consistent” (p. 347). The study used Assessment

Moments, defined as discrete junctures during the curriculum where students used assessment

forms to evaluate and grade their peers and themselves. The authors report that, “Classroom

observations showed active discussion on the meaning of essential concepts during the correction

and grading process. The frequent revision of the material made students reflect on their own

performance repeatedly. While assessing and grading peers, their own performance served as a

frame of reference and students used their own work to make recommendations for improved

performance to their peers. Classroom observation also showed that students gained new insights

from their colleagues” (p. 350). The authors summarize that, “the findings showed a positive

correlation between student and teacher marks as well as increased motivation and accountability

that justified the extra time effort of the teacher” (p. 346).


Walser (2009) conducted an action research project on student self-assessment in a

university-level setting. She accepted Tan’s (2008) definition of self-assessment, “the

involvement of students in making judgements of their learning,” as well as his self-assessment

conceptions, and based her self-assessment exercises on his program of study conception,

“whereby the instructor uses self-assessment to give students responsibility for monitoring and

attaining progress and as a way of encouraging students to develop reflection as a professional

trait” (p. 301). She timed her self-assessments at the beginning of the semester, at mid-term and

at semester end. Walser concludes that, “student self-assessment exercises provided students the

opportunity to reflect on the course and their performance, helped them monitor their own

progress, motivated them to do well in the course, and provided the opportunity to give feedback

to the instructor. Additionally from the instructor perspective, the exercises provided useful

feedback for course improvement and facilitated interactions and relationships with students” (p.

305).

Taras (2001) argued from a British university perspective that student self-assessment

results are maximized with three key elements: use summative, graded work for the basis of the

self-assessment (similar to the assertions made by Quinton & Smallbone (2010) and Fluckiger

(2010)), receive tutor feedback prior to conducting the self-assessment in order to help students

identify and understand their errors, and students should receive their grade or mark only after

they have completed the formative, learning aspect of the self-assessment exercise. She reports,

“The overwhelming majority of students, always upwards of 80 per cent, were very positive

about the process. All of them valued the discussion of their work and the examination of tutor

feedback in relation to the marking criteria” (p. 611). Taras concludes, “If we want students to

take responsibility, then we have to allow them to do so. If we exclude them from assessment,


we are excluding them from any real responsibility and we need to examine our own position

and our own motives.” (p. 613).

Brookhart, Andolina, Zuza & Furman (2004) reported on an action research project

involving third-grade students using Minute Math when learning multiplication facts

accompanied by weekly reflection of their progress and success of their studying and problem-

solving strategies. They devised a “GPAR” reflection form including Goal, Plan, Action and

Reflection sections. The authors state, “student self-assessment was successful at turning the rote

memorization of learning the times tables into a deeper experience for students about monitoring

their own mathematics learning” (p. 213). The authors cited other works arguing that self-

assessment has two main benefits, motivational and cognitive, where “motivation theorists

suggest that student self-assessment will contribute to feelings of control over their own learning,

of choice and of agency, and of self-worth” while “theorists who focus on the formative

feedback loop emphasize that the learning task requires students to compare their performance

with desired performance to close that gap. Accurate appraisal of their own work is a necessary

part of this cycle” (p. 214).

Two self-assessment studies focused on the benefits of employing learning journals.

Droegkamp (2004) argued that if an educational goal is to encourage students to become self-

directed learners then they “need tools and techniques to help them identify their learning goals

and measure their progress” (p. 3). The arsenal of self-assessment strategies she included in her

university-level online course were learning biographies, learning journals, private chats, guiding

questions, learning styles inventories and group discussion. Baldwin (2000) built on the available

research suggesting that learning, and self-assessment as a component of learning, best occurs in

a social construct, not in isolation. He argued, “self-assessment is of particular importance to


students as they progressively understand learning to be an iterative process rather than an event”

(p. 451). Baldwin’s work focused on university-level social work students using learning logs as

a self-assessment tool. He reports the following results: students found the learning logs served

to validate the value of prior learning, curricular outcome benefits were mixed, and students used

learning logs more effectively over time. Baldwin noted that although measuring his own ability

to teach and learn was outside the purview of the study he reported significant self-learning in

facilitating group learning. Baldwin shared the occurrence of some students feeling

uncomfortable using group feedback for personal learning, acknowledging the difficulty inherent

in group self-assessment since “we are up against a discourse of individualism when it comes to

learning and assessment” (p. 460).

Lee & Gavine (2003) reported on their study to increase Year 7 student involvement in

their spelling and punctuation learning. The authors defined self-assessment as “a process by

which a learner is empowered to make explicit judgements about the achievement of, or progress

towards, curricular goals” further stating that, “self-assessment is sometimes used

interchangeably with self-evaluation but the latter may also refer to psychological domains other

than curricular” (p. 50). The authors found “the project was successful in raising pupils’

attainment on spelling and punctuation scores. At post-test, compared to pre-test, the pupils had

made significant improvement in these areas,” further noting that, “this result was not affected by

the ability of the pupil” (p. 56). They also shared an unanticipated, but important, insight after

evaluating pupil and teacher perception data indicating that students in the self-assessment

experimental group “recorded an accurate reflection of their progress and perceived how they

felt their teacher would rate them. In the target where concrete feedback was not given, pupils

were unable to both provide an accurate reflection of their progress or a reflection of how they


felt their teacher would rate them. Although not directly measured in this study, the amount of

concrete feedback to pupils, which, in turn, creates a shared perception of the difficulty of a task

and the understanding needed to achieve the task, may have been the key factor needed to

achieve the pupil targets” (p. 57).

Orsmond, Merry & Reiling (2002) conducted a U.K. university-level study of student

constructed marking criteria in the presence of exemplars. The authors argued, “Preparing a

context that will allow students to achieve high quality learning outcomes may necessitate that

teachers write and present their teaching in a student focused way. Using exemplars with

meaningful formative feedback is one way to achieve this” (p. 320). The study revealed that, “(1)

the use of exemplars can help students demonstrate greater understanding of both marking

criteria and subject standards; (2) the use of exemplars can help students learning so that higher

quality outcomes are produced; (3) the use of exemplars forms a focus for meaningful formative

feedback; and (4) students may make more objective judgements as a result of peer assessment

compared to self-assessment” (p. 321).

Taras (2003) studied the importance of feedback for learning at a British university by

focusing on two types of self-assessment: self-assessment prior to peer and tutor feedback and

self-assessment that integrated feedback as part of the process, finding that students

overwhelmingly preferred the latter. She noted that traditionally self-assessment has not included

an external feedback component and also cited Black & Wiliam (1998) that, “since feedback is

unequivocally considered central to learning, it would follow that positive student engagement

with feedback is only to be encouraged” (p. 549).

Munns & Woodward (2006) studied the relationship between student engagement and

student self-assessment of primary school students in poor Australian communities. The Fair Go


Project specifically targeted “students from backgrounds historically characterized by school

disaffection and resistance” whom hail from communities of “substantial numbers of people

from low socio-economic backgrounds” (p. 196). To evaluate the relationship between student

engagement and self-assessment the authors implemented a framework called REAL (Reflective

Engagement: Authentic Learning) involving probes prompting student oral and written

reflection. The initial probes were What I learnt, What I liked, What I didn’t like and What I

want to know and as the project evolved the REAL framework focused on three self-assessment

dimensions: Affective (feelings), Cognitive (thoughts) and Operative (actions). The authors

reported that, “one of the key issues to emerge from this project is the importance of classroom

discourse, teacher inclusive conversations and a student community of reflection, a form of

classroom discourse that opens up the expectations of the students so that they can openly

communicate with others about their thinking, their feelings and their development as learners”

(p. 209).

Tan (2004) took a contrarian study approach and questioned whether student self-

assessment automatically enhances student autonomy or is a form of control, or even discipline.

He critically examined “the notion of the teacher’s unilateral power as the basis for student self-

assessment against three contrasting notions of power in student self-assessment: sovereign

power, epistemological power and disciplinary power” (p. 651). The sovereign power issue

relates to the balance of assessment power between the student and teacher and Tan argues that

sovereignty requires that “student self-assessment is viable only if the student’s self-assessed

outcome is subservient to the teacher’s assessment” (p. 654). In terms of epistemological power,

Tan stated, “the student’s self-assessment need no longer be solely summative since the purpose

of having students judge their own work is not to challenge the teacher’s judgement of their


work, but to assist both parties to negotiate a new understanding of the work” (p. 656). The

author suggested, “disciplinary power may be exercised in student self-assessment through

examination and confession” (p. 658), “students who self-assess and demonstrate their

competence (or lack of it) invite and incite power to be exercised against them” (p. 658), and

“the paradox of student self-assessment is that by providing students with more autonomy to

judge their own work, more is known about the student in terms of how they view themselves”

thereby becoming “subject to greater control and surveillance as a result of exercising more

autonomy in their assessment” (p. 659). Tan summarized his study by stating that both teachers

and students must first determine clear objectives for self-assessment practices and what matters

most is maximizing student learning benefit, not the power intricacies.

Gender learning differences and possible reflection implications

Gurian & Ballew (2003) documented the neurological and endocrinological differences

between boys and girls, citing numerous medical and developmental psychology references, and

explained why the genders have behavioral and learning differences. These differences have

profound implications in education. The authors explained that girls’ brains develop faster than

boys and make better use of both hemispheres, giving them an advantage in complex cognitive

processing such as in language. In fact, they stated teenage girls are about a year and a half ahead

of boys in reading and writing competence. Gurian & Ballew detail that adolescent male brains

tend to operate more deductively and quickly, starting with generalizations and then applying

them to individual cases, resulting in their general advantage on timed tests, such as the SAT.

Girls tend to favor inductive reasoning, beginning with specific, concrete examples and then

build general theory, are more emotive, and are better listeners than boys, hearing more of what

is said and being more receptive to details in a lesson or conversation. The authors noted that


girls generate more advantageous learning benefits than boys from note taking and journaling.

These gender differences along with the fact that girls prosper in more sedentary, language-

oriented learning environments potentially places girls in a position to yield more positive results

from reflection and self-assessment practices, a phenomenon noted by Andrade & Du (2007).

Current Formative Learning Practices

Since this Graduate Capstone focuses on the formative learning process employed in my

teaching I shall briefly describe the primary relevant practices I presently use so as to provide

perspective on my change in practice.

In my Grade 8 Algebra I class at Shanghai American School I employ a variety of

formative learning opportunities designed to build student understanding beginning with unit

pre-assessments, sample problems when I teach, assigning problems for students to work at their

collaborative table clusters, directed questioning of students, and open response questioning of

the class. Since all my students have MacBook laptops I regularly use internet-based virtual

manipulatives such as Explore Learning’s Gizmos which incorporate short self-assessments to

check for understanding. Students consistently enjoy the challenge of solving as many

assessment questions correctly as possible. I also provide time at the end of class for students to

begin homework during which I work individually with students, assign homework problems

including odd-numbered questions which students can check the answers against in the textbook

Selected Answers appendix, offer individual tutoring sessions, and at the beginning of the next

class I ask for homework questions they found difficult, solving them with the class. None of

these formative learning engagements are graded as they are intended to provide feedback to

help students develop skills and construct understanding so that they are in a position to

successfully demonstrate their learning on graded assessments.


While my students perform well and I believe the formative learning strategies mentioned

above are effective, an assertion supported by both assessment data as well as anonymous

student survey results, I fundamentally believe in the power of continuous improvement. As my

graduate studies progressed I felt compelled to identify a relatively simple, yet highly effective

practice to help students reflect and take proactive steps to maximize their understanding during

the formative learning phase resulting in improved demonstrated understanding on subsequent

formative and summative assessments. I believed that such a practice might also result in

heightened student ownership of their learning. Having conducted the above Literature Review I

am optimistic about the potential of AOR to meet these objectives.

Change in Practice

The change I am instituting for this Graduate Capstone is daily, end of class, student

reflection and documentation in a running Word or Pages AOR file on student MacBook laptop

computers, using an Action Oriented Reflection Template that I provide (Figure 1.1). Students

will devote the last five minutes each class to complete the template and save their running AOR

file in an electronic Algebra I folder on their MacBooks. Per the template, students are to

document the topics studied that class day, which concepts they feel confident about and what

topics they need to work on to gain a deeper understanding. For any areas they feel require

additional focus, students then complete the four Plan columns based on their evaluation of what

works best for them. In the case where students have a firm grasp of the material learned that day

they simply enter None or I’m Good in those columns.


Figure 1.1Action Oriented Reflection Template

Name: Date:Topic(s) we studied today:Quiz/Test feedback:I have a strong understanding of:I need a better understanding of:

PLAN RESULTSpecific area of focus:

What I need to do to get a better under-standing:

Who I need to get with to get a better under-standing:

When I amtaking action:

Action I took:

Where myunder-standing isnow:

When students identify they need a better understanding and take positive steps such as

complete homework or seek help from a friend or me, they are to complete the final two Result

columns for the appropriate day’s template to identify their subsequent understanding. On class

days when I return graded work students are to reflect on the written feedback I provide and

make appropriate entries on the Quiz/Test feedback and Plan sections of the template. I review

their running AOR file at the beginning of class as a component of homework check in order to

gauge the extent to which students are taking advantage of this process, discuss their learning

progress and determine any other appropriate steps they might take.

Student Performance Goal from Change in Practice

Since I am analyzing both qualitative (attitudes toward reflection) and quantitative

(assessment results) measures of student learning impact there are two components of my student

performance goal. For the qualitative component, positive AOR impact should result in an


increase (post- versus pre-AOR) in student survey responses viewing reflection as beneficial to

their learning. Regarding the quantitative component, positive AOR impact should result in a

higher gain average assessment score of the AOR experimental group compared to the non-AOR

control group. Finally, relative to gender learning differences my goal is to analyze assessment

data to determine the extent to which there is a gender bias in favor of girls.


References

Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-181. doi.10.1080/0260293060

0801928. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Baldwin, M. (2000). Does self-assessment in a group help students to learn? Social Work

Education, 19(5), 451-462. doi:10.1080/026154700435977. Retrieved January 21, 2011,

from EBSCOhost.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from

EBSCOhost.

Boersma, G., and Others. (1995). Improving student self-evaluation through authentic

assessment. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Brookhart, S., Andolina, M., Zuza, M., & Furman, R. (2004). Minute Math: An action

research study of student self-assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2),

213-227. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Campbell, C. (2009). Middle years students’ use of self-regulating strategies in an online

journaling environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 98-106.

Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Carr, S. (2002). Self-evaluation: Involving students in their own learning. Reading &

Writing Quarterly, 18(2), 195-199.doi.10.1080/10573560252808549. Retrieved January

21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Corley, E. (2000). A qualitative study of student perceptions regarding electronic journaling.



Cunningham, J., Krull, C., Land, N., & Russell, S. (2000). Motivating students to be

self-reflective learners through goal-setting and self-evaluation. Retrieved January 21,

2011, from EBSCOhost.

Davis, E. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection:

Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142. Retrieved

January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Droegkamp, J. (2004). Self-assessment techniques help students become self-directed

learners. Online Classroom, 3-8. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Farren, V. (2008). A reflection on my teaching practices using students' Math Moments.

College Quarterly, 11(4), Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). In Checking for understanding: Formative assessment

techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Fluckiger, J. (2010). Single Point Rubric: A tool for responsible student self-assessment.

Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(4), 18-25. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from

EBSCOhost.

Garner, S. (2007). The support of student articulation of reasoning, student reflection and

tutor feedback. Online Submission. Retrieved January 21, 2011 from EBSCOhost.

Glaze, J. (2001). Reflection as a transforming process: Student advanced nurse practitioners’

experiences of developing reflective skills as part of an MSc programme. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 34(5), 639-647. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01793.x. Retrieved


Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1),


15-22. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Gurian, M. & Ballew, A. (2003). In The boys and girls learn differently: Action guide for

teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guzdial, M., Kolodner J., Hmelo, C., Narayanan, H., Carlson, D., Rappin, N., Hubscher, R.,

Turns, J., & Newsletter, W. (1996). Computer support for learning through complex

problem solving. Communications of the ACM. 39(4), 43-45.

Hattie, J. (2009). In Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. New York: Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational

Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487. http://rer.sagepub.com/

content/77/1/81. Accessed January 31, 2011.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? http://www.

visionschools.co.nz/assets/documents/john_hattie.PDF. Accessed January 31, 2011.

Hattie, J. (1992). What works in special education. Presentation to the Special Education

Conference. http://web.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/education/staff/Prof.%20John%20

Hattie/Documents/John%20Hattie%20Papers/talks%20from%20western%20aus/Special_

Education.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2011.

Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1997). Multimedia, magic and the way students respond to a

situated learning environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 127-

143.

Husu, J., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2008). Guided reflection as a means to demonstrate

and develop student teachers' reflective competencies. Reflective Practice, 9(1), 37-51.

doi:10.1080/14623940701816642. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.


Klenowski, V. (1995). Student self-evaluation processes in student-centred teaching and

learning contexts of Australia.. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,

2(2), 145. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Lee, D., & Gavine, D. (2003). Goal-setting and self-assessment in Year 7 students.

Educational Research, 45(1), 49. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Leijen, Ä., Lam, I., Wildschut, L., & Simons, P. (2009). Difficulties teachers report about

students' reflection: Lessons learned from dance education. Teaching in Higher Education,

14(3), 315-326. doi:10.1080/13562510902898882. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from

EBSCOhost.

Marzano, R. (2006). In Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). In Classroom instruction that works:

Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McMillan, J., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student Self-Assessment: The key to stronger student

motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49. Retrieved


Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self‐assessment: The

REAL framework. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 193-

213. doi:10.1080/09695940600703969. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Nickerson, L. (2007). Journaling as a test preparatory measure in secondary mathematics:

Successful student strategies. Online submission. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from

EBSCOhost.


Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. J. (2004). Student self-evaluation, teacher evaluation, and learner

performance. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(3), 5-22. Retrieved


Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback

when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 309-323. Retrieved February 4, 2011 from

EBSCOhost.

Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student

reflection and learning - a teaching model. Innovations in Education & Teaching

International, 47(1), 125-135. doi:10.1080/14703290903525911. Retrieved January 21,


Rolheiser, C. (1996). In Self-evaluation…helping students get better at it! A teacher’s

resource book. Toronto: Cooperative Learning Evaluation & Assessment Research Group.

Ross, J., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Rolheiser, C. (2002). Student self-evaluation in Grade 5-6

mathematics effects on problem-solving achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 43.


Ross, J., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Impact of self-evaluation training on

mathematics achievement in a cooperative learning environment. Retrieved January 21,


Tan, K. (2008). Qualitatively different ways of experiencing student self-assessment.

Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 15-29. doi:10.1080/072943607016587


Tan, K. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students? Assessment &


Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 651-662. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from

EBSCOhost.

Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549-565. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from

EBSCOhost.

Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative

assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605-614. doi:10.1080/02602930120093922.


van Hattum-Janssen, N., & Lourenço, J. (2008). Peer and self-assessment for first-year

students as a tool to improve learning. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering

Education & Practice, 134(4), 346-352. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2008)134:4(346).


Walser, T. (2009). An action research study of student self-assessment in higher

education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 299-306. doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9116-


Wolcott, S. (1999). Developing and assessing critical thinking and lifelong learning skills

through student self-evaluations. Assessment Update, 11(4), 4. Retrieved January 21,
