Improving Assessment through Student Involvement

By N. Falchikov. 2005

230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4162682013ef13e05b30dc73253971b6c67612f8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. D. Carless
2. David J. Nicol
3. David Boud
4. Sue Bloxham *
5. S. Deeley
6. V. López-Pastor
7. Raoul A. Mulder
8. N. Liu

Citations in the corpus

• Assessment for learning: a catalyst for student self-regulation (2017, background): “…roles within this process – they act as reviewers of peer’s work and receive feedback from peers. while students appreciate feedback from peers (Falchikov 2005) and as a consequence make revisions to their work (Cho and MacArthur 2010), nicol (2013) argues that having students review and…”
• How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? (2012, background): “As to self-assessment, a meta-analysis of Falchikov (2005) indicates that some, but clearly not all, students are able to assess in the way that teachers apply assessment criteria.”
• Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work (2011, methodology): “Wen and Tsai 2006); clarity about peer assessment criteria (Falchikov 2005; Smith et al. 2002); and support and training in regard to the peer assessment process (Cheng and Warren 1997; Falchikov 2005, 2007).”
• Formative and shared assessment in higher education. Lessons learned and challenges for the future (2017, methodology): “In addition, if self-assessment is developed, this could equip students for lifelong learning (Boud 2000; Boud and Falchikov 2007; Falchikov 2005).”
• Summative co-assessment: A deep learning approach to enhancing employability skills and attributes (2014, background): “Self-assessment is a reflective process that ‘refers to the involvement of learners in making judgements about their own learning’ (Dochy et al., 1999: 334) and, as such, is conducive to deep learning (Falchikov, 2005; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Race, 2001).”
• Learning‐oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications (2003, methodology): “Within this strand, we include drafting criteria (Orsmond et al ., 2002); engaging with quality exemplars (Sadler, 2002); peer feedback (Liu & Carless, 2006) or peer assessment ( Falchikov, 2005 ); and the development of self-evaluation skills or ‘evaluative expertise’ amongst students (Sadler, 1989”
• Feedback-dialogues: exploring the student perspective (2012, methodology): “…Relations, male, Level 6) Through the use of formative peer feedback (and not requiring students to grade each other’s work) it has been found that in many cases, students are able to provide effective feedback on each other’s work (Falchikov 2005) and this may be an area for further consideration.”
• The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations (2008, background): “Feedback is a necessity for learning, and it is a key component in formative assessment (Wiliam and Black 1996 , in Falchikov 2005 ).”
• Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment (2006, background): “Falchikov, probably the most prominent writer on peer involvement in assessment, seems to reach a similar conclusion as evidenced by the evolvement of her practice towards peer feedback (Falchikov, 1995, 2001, 2005) rather than peer assessment.”
• Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge (2010, methodology): “…that many studies have methodological weaknesses, because it is not clearly determined whether teachers and students use common standards and criteria when assessing learning (Boud and Brew 1995), selfgrading is often not defined, or very different scales and methods are used (Falchikov 2005).”
• Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement (2010, methodology): “Here are three examples, the emphases being in the originals: ‘The validity of a measure is how well it fulfils the function for which it is being used’ (Hopkins 1998); ‘Validity is an evaluation of the adequacy and appropriateness of the interpretations and uses of assessment results’ (Linn and Gro”
• Marking and moderation in the UK: false assumptions and wasted resources (2009, background): “Thus, as Black and Wiliam (1998, 15) assert, ‘self assessment is a sine qua non for effective learning’ and certainly systematic reviews of research (Black and Wiliam 1998; Falchikov 2005) indicate strong positive results and benefits to students of being involved in their own assessment.”
• Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation (2014, background): “It is widely acknowledged that peer assessment has the potential to be a valuable and effective education tool (Ballantyne et al., 2002; Falchikov, 2005; Gielen et al., 2011).”
• Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (2014, unknown): “First, research shows that students often perceive the feedback they receive from peers as more understandable and helpful than teacher feedback, because it is written in a more accessible language (Topping 1998; Falchikov 2005).”
• Learning‐oriented assessment: principles and practice (2006, background): “We believe that peer assessment and self-assessment have both a conceptual rationale in promoting learning (Falchikov, 2005) and also a pragmatic rationale in that they can help students to do better in summative assessments.”
• From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education (2010, background): “Falchikov (2005) has also reported on studies of peer feedback.”