Advertisement

Is University Students’ Self-Assessment Accurate?

  • Alicia Bolívar-CruzEmail author
  • Domingo Verano-TacoronteEmail author
  • Sara M. González-Betancor
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

The paper’s main objective is to evaluate the self-assessment accuracy of university students. Specifically, the study analyzes the self-assessment of oral communication skills. It was carried out in a Firm Labor Organization course included in the Labor Relations and Human Resources Degree. The literature on self-assessment in Higher Education does not provide clear evidence about its accuracy, as a number of methodological problems have been detected. To reduce them, we have taken a number of precautions. Thus, a rubric was designed, and students were trained to use it. Several teachers and peers were introduced as referents, and a segmented analysis was conducted based on gender and the students’ level of competence from the teachers’ point of view. Results show that self-assessment accuracy is low. Moreover, regardless of the degree, men’s self-assessments are higher than women’s. Moreover, the findings suggest that the scoring rubric improves self-assessment accuracy when the speaker has good oral communication skills, but not when these skills are poor. These results lead us to propose the development of correction factors that can be adapted to any situation, thus allowing self-assessment to be used for summative purposes.

Keywords

Self-assessment Accuracy Oral Communicative Competence Summative Purposes Falchikov Peer Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Al-Fallay, I. (2004). The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the rater in the accuracy of self- and peer-assessment. System, 32, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=3
  3. Archer, J. (1992). Sex bias in evaluations at college and work. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 5(5), 200–204.Google Scholar
  4. Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 960–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birenbaum, M., & Dochy, F. (Eds.). (1996). Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Bolívar-Cruz, A., Dávila-Cárdenes, N., Fernández-Monroy, M., Galván-Sánchez, I., González-Betancor, S. M., López-Puig, A. J., et al. (2013). Evaluación y fomento de la competencia de comunicación oral de los estudiantes universitarios. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 6(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  7. Boud, D. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 14, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, K. S., Mothersbaugh, D. L., Brammer, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Peer- versus self-assessment of oral business presentation performance. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cela-Ranilla, J. M., & Gisbert Cervera, M. (2013). Learning patterns of first year students. Revista de Educación, 361, 171–195.Google Scholar
  12. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in Higher Education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: practical solutions for aiding learning in Higher and Further Education. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falchikov, N., & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group process work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. García-Ros, R. (2011). Análisis y validación de una rúbrica para evaluar habilidades de presentación oral en contextos universitarios. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(25), 1043–1062.Google Scholar
  19. Gessa-Perera, A. (2011). La coevaluación como metodología complementaria de la evaluación del aprendizaje. Análisis y reflexión en las aulas universitarias. Revista de Educación, 354, 749–764.Google Scholar
  20. Hanrahan, S., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwan, K. P., & Leung, R. W. (1996). Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a simulation training exercise. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langan, A. M., Shuker, D., Cullen, R., Penney, D., Preziosi, R., & Wheater, P. (2008). Relationships between student characteristics and self-, peer and tutor evaluations of oral presentations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langan, A. M., Wheater, C., Shaw, E., Haines, B., Cullen, W., Boyle, J., et al. (2005). Peer assessment of oral presentations: Effects of student gender, university affiliation and participation in the development of assessment criteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lew, M. D., Alwis, W. A. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students' self‐assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magin, D., & Helmore, P. (2001). Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marín-García, J. A. (2009). Los alumnos y los profesores como evaluadores. Aplicación a la calificación de presentaciones orales. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 242, 79–98.Google Scholar
  28. Pallier, G. (2003). Gender differences in the self-assessment of accuracy on cognitive tasks. Sex Roles, 48, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Regehr, G., Hodges, B., Tiberius, R., & Lofchy, J. (1996). Measuring self-assessment skills: An innovative relative ranking model. Academic Medicine, 71(10 supplement), 52–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sellnow, D., & Treinen, K. (2004). The role of gender in perceived speaker competence: an analysis of student critiques. Communication Education, 53(3), 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stefani, L. A. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taras, M. (2010). Student self-assessment: Processes and consequences. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tejeiro, R. A., Gómez-Vallecillo, J. L., Romero, A. F., Pelegrina, M., Wallace, A., & Emberley, E. (2012). Summative self-assessment in higher education: Implications of its counting towards the final mark. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(2), 789–812.Google Scholar
  35. Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. S. R. Segers, F. J. R. Dochy, & E. C. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward, M., Gruppen, L., & Regehr, G. (2002). Measuring self-assessment: current state of the art. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economía y Dirección de EmpresasUniversity of Las Palmas de Gran CanariaIslas CanariasSpain
  2. 2.Métodos Cuantitativos en Economía y GestiónUniversity of Las Palmas de Gran CanariaIslas CanariasSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options