LAUSR

Abstract This quantitative study examines student self-assessment accuracy in supported, criteria-based self-assessment in two business discipline courses. Initial and subsequent student-instructor marking agreement were analysed in two consecutive assessable tasks. Initial over-assessment was widespread and student’s under-assessing was associated with higher achievement. Local Australian students and second-year participants were observed to be initially more accurate and to maintain accuracy more consistently than international and first-year participants. Inaccurate participants, both over and under-assessors, consistently responded to feedback of initial inaccuracy and improved accuracy in the second task through attention and response to criteria level feedback. A clear debiasing response triggered by the strength and direction of inaccuracy signal was noted among the very inaccurate. Persistence in individual’s general orientation in self-assessment was also evident. Self-assessment appeared especially beneficial for low achievers, who recorded strong learning (marks) gains. Overall the observations support the utility of criteria-level self-assessment as a mechanism for developing evaluative judgement and individual’s capacity to attend and respond to feedback. The study points to the ready trainability of self-assessment in suitably qualified populations. Future similar studies could confirm these findings and investigate the question of accuracy maintenance and individual’s persistence of orientation in self-assessment.