1 Introduction

The concept of formative assessment has evolved in recent years to include the idea of assessment as learning. In higher education, this shift has implications for both students and instructors, as it views assessment not simply as a means of evaluating performance, but as a tool for promoting learning. In this chapter, we will explore the concept of assessment as learning and its application in higher education. We will examine the benefits of this approach, including improved student motivation, engagement, and deep learning. Additionally, we will discuss the ways in which technology and innovative assessment techniques can be used to support this approach and enhance the learning experience for students in higher education.Footnote 1

Higher education institutions (HEIs) should take the responsibility to empower students to learn how to develop Future Skills independently in order to overcome future challenges on a personal, professional, and societal level (Ehlers, 2020). The question is: how to include them systematically into learning, teaching and assessment practices? Students need genuine opportunities to experience, reflect on and develop their Future Skills within higher educational training. These opportunities need to be facilitated by educators and accompanied by means that make students’ progress visible and creditable; the latter being a particular challenge, given that competencies cannot be measured like knowledge. Student self-assessments bear a great potential to realise this challenge by supporting learner agency (Schoon, 2018) and self-directed development of Future Skills (Ehlers, 2020). E-portfolios represent one the means to track the students’ progress and support the shift from assessments of learning (AoL) towards assessments as learning (AaL) (Yan & Boud, 2022). This transformation of assessment practices at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is an essential step to empowering students for lifelong learning. This calls for the well-known, often discussed but still not completed shift from teaching to learning (Wildt, 2005) and for the autonomous, self-reflected learner and critical thinker. This poses a fundamental challenge to current practises in higher education, as most institutions and study regulations do not allow for the flexibility, nor are they equipped with suitable tools, concepts or staff resources for student self-assessments.

Following this introduction, the different assessment modes (assessment of, for, and as learning), the currently predominant practices at HEIs and the relevance of shifting towards assessment as learning are discussed (Sect. 21.2). This theoretical excurse is followed by a four-type model on how to integrate student self-assessment into teaching and assessment practices at HEIs (Sect. 21.3). Subsequently, we briefly introduce good practices for each of the four types (Sect. 21.4). We close with a conclusion on the current student self-assessment landscape in German HEIs and an outlook on how the project DIRK Dual at the DHBW Karlsruhe and Heilbronn can contribute to shaping the shift towards assessment as learning (Sect. 21.5).

2 From Assessment of Learning over Assessment for Learning towards Assessment as Learning

Three forms of assessments can be distinguished in relation to the role of learning: assessment of learning (AoL), assessment for learning (AfL), and assessment as learning (AaL) (see Fig. 21.1). The current call for a shift from AoL to AaL is in line with the demand to promote learner agency and empower students to manage their individual lifelong learning strategies (Ehlers, 2013). However, it requires fundamental changes in the assessment practices of higher education institutions towards a focus on students’ long-term development processes rather than on snapshots of their knowledge-based performance.

Fig. 21.1
3 illustrations. In the assessment of learning concepts, learning comes first and then assessment. In the assessment for learning concepts, assessment comes first and then learning. In the assessment as learning concepts, assessment, and learning are interconnected cyclically.

Relationship of assessment and learning in the concepts assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning (in close accordance with Yan & Boud, 2022, p. 15)

Full size image

The currently most popular form in higher education examination practice is AoL (Schindler et al., 2015), where students’ knowledge is tested after the learning process, i.e. at the end of a course or module, using a summative instead of formative feedback after tests. It is usually knowledge-related. It therefore has a minimal impact on students’ motivation and opportunities to improve their performance, and is considered unsuitable for equipping students with the future-relevant skill of lifelong learning (Boud & Falchikov, 2007; Ehlers, 2013).

The AfL-approach uses assessment as an integral part of the learning journey itself (Ehlers, 2013), with the aim of increasing students’ motivation to learn and their overall performance and competence development, rather than simply monitoring it (Stiggins, 2008). However, following the current shift to self-organisation (Ehlers, 2020), there is also a need to move beyond AfL as a standard in higher education examination practice towards increasing the use of AaL. Primarily, and in contrast to AaL, AoL delivers a judgement showing students their learning achievements and how much more is needed to meet their goals. This usually refers to learning outcomes set by teachers or study programmes (learning what is asked in the exam) rather than personal development goals (Yan & Boud, 2022, p. 11).

In contrast, AaL requires students to learn new knowledge or develop their competences further while working on the assessment task (Yan & Boud, 2022, p. 16). Yan and Yang (2022) define AaL as a strategy rather than a pure assessment method. It “requires students to learn from engagement with the assessment task itself as well as activities associated with it. An assessment-as-learning task has to generate learning opportunities for students beyond recalling and using their prior knowledge and foster the development of metacognition and self-regulation for students to monitor their performance and cater for their ongoing learning needs” (Yan & Yang, 2022, pp. 1–2). Assessment as learning requires students to take active agency for their learning and supports them in developing self-regulatory abilities to facilitate their lifelong learning (Lee et al., 2019; Yan & Yang, 2022). Therefore, it can be seen as the basis for AoL and AfL, as it inspires students to learn and supports the learning process (Yan & Boud, 2022).

Feedback is one of the success factors which helps students to process the results of the AaL task (Yan & Boud, 2022) by helping students to answer the three questions: „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?)“ (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 86). Despite all the studies indicating the benefits of feedback, some argue that it can only be called feedback if the students are willing to receive and process it instead of solely restoring it (Yang, 2022). The process/criteria for giving and receiving feedback effectively (feedback literacy) should be carefully designed. There should be sufficient time for students and teachers to give and reflect on feedback. For more details on feedback use and accountability, see Yang (2022).

3 Assessment as Learning and Student Self-Assessment

Student self-assessment is one of the keys to operationalising effective AaL practices. They serve to shift more responsibility from teachers to learners and allow them to reflect and learn during the actual assessment. They integrate well with portfolio-based learning approaches when they are repeated, as they can show progress and setbacks in the learner’s development process.

Before defining student self-assessment in particular, let us briefly consider the distinction between self-reflection, self-evaluation and self-assessment. So far, there is no consensus among researchers on the extent to which the three concepts can be distinguished from each other. What the three have in common is that they refer to the individual’s feedback on his or her performance and learning progress, and that self-regulation and self-regulated learning serve as a framework for all three concepts. This is because monitoring one’s own performance and learning and giving feedback to oneself leads to better development of self-regulation skills (Andrade, 2019).

Van Loon distinguishes self-reflection as monitoring learning attitudes and competence development qualitatively to identify learning opportunities from self-assessment, which is, in her opinion, a quantitative judgement of one’s own performance (van Loon, 2018). Szűcs, with reference to Athanasaou, on the other hand, uses self-reflection and self-assessment interchangeably, both characterised by a cognitive and an affective domain, taking place during the learning process. Self-evaluation, in contrast, follows those two as the judgement of the achievements that have been made during the process (Szűcs, 2018). Boud (1994, 1995) and Ehlers (2013) reckon self-reflection as a broader, informal, and rather explorative concept, whereas self-evaluation and self-assessment follow a clear process and criteria. According to Boud (1991), self-assessment is characterised by the involvement of students in the process of defining standards and criteria against which they can later judge their achievements. Following the idea that the ability to reflect is a prerequisite for learning (Ehlers, 2013) and that self-assessment and self-evaluation are at least similar concepts, we will use the term self-assessment as defined by Andrade and Du in the following elaborations:

“[Student 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. […] Put simply, we see self-assessment as feedback for oneself from oneself.” (Andrade & Du, 2007, p. 160)

Boud (1999) argued that student self-assessment is not an isolated or individualistic activity. On the contrary, students need to actively seek the feedback of peers, teachers, or other sources of information, and they should make student self-assessment a habit rather than a one-time activity. Student self-assessments omit self-grading, as self-grading focuses on collecting information about one’s performance and how this matches a specific goal at the end of a learning process. Without having the opportunity for adjustment and improvement, as is the case with self-grading, student self-assessment is ineffective (Andrade, 2019). Also, self-grading distorts the genuine self-reflection, as students tend to award themselves higher grades when they know their academic grade is influenced by their self-assessment (Andrade, 2019; Yan & Boud, 2022).

According to this definition, student self-assessment qualifies as a form of AaL. Several studies line out beneficial effects of student self-assessment on students’ learning, including:

  • enhancing academic achievement (Guo et al., 2022; Ross, 2006; Yan, 2020)

  • independent and self-regulated learning (Bakula, 2010; Panadero et al., 2017; Yan, 2020)

  • critical and reflective thinking, and lifelong learning (Guo et al., 2022).

The focus of student self-assessments is not on gaining better grades but on learning about necessary skills to build the ability to actively participate in and design society (Future Skills, twenty-first Century Skills) (Wanner & Palmer, 2018). These aspects do not only correlate with the definition of AaL but also indicate that student self-assessments are suitable instruments to reflect on and develop Future Skills, as long as they fulfil three conditions: (1) The steps of the process should be clearly defined, (2) students must be well versed in self-assessment literacy, and (3) they must receive feedback from peers or teachers, respectively, have the opportunity to discuss the results with others. Ehlers (2013) and Yan & Brown (2017) defined similar processes, including four or three steps. First, students and teachers need to define the assessment criteria. Second, students carry out the assessment; this step is not explicitly mentioned in Yan and Brown’s process but is logically necessary. Third, students seek feedback and process it. Fourth, students develop objectives, plans, and strategies for further learning. Yan and Brown call this step self-reflection. Various studies have adapted similar process steps (Guo et al., 2022; Nicol, 2020). Self-assessment literacy includes (1) comprehension: knowing what student self-assessment is and why one uses it, (2) application: knowing how to self-assess and being capable of setting criteria, seeking feedback, and reflecting on the outcomes, (3) interpretation: being able to process the results and derive a plan for improvement, and (4) critical engagement: being aware of the limitations of student self-assessment and possible errors during the process (Guo et al., 2022, p. 146). Feedback from others (e.g. peers and educators) increases the effectiveness of student self-assessment and the consistency and honesty of self-assessments (Andrade & Du, 2007, p. 161). However, the exact mechanisms and relations between formative feedback and learning effects are working (Andrade, 2019). Boud (1994) refers to feedback as a liberating factor in student self-assessment if carried out correctly.

As for the different types of student self-assessment, various attempts of typologies and taxonomies exist using different classification criteria. For instance, Panadero et al. (2016) summarise five different typologies. They demand a comprehensive typology including knowledge interest/purpose, involvement of teacher vs student on a continuum, power and transparency, presence and form of the assessment criteria, and student response format (Panadero et al., 2016). In contrast, Andrade focuses on the what (competence, process, or product), the why (formative or summative), and the how (methods, criteria, etc.) (Andrade, 2019). While a common taxonomy of student self-assessment types or formats would certainly help structure the variety and contribute to a commonly agreed definition, this paper aims not to find a generally applicable typology for all student self-assessment. Instead, the focus is on presenting examples/good practices that show how HEIs can operationalise Future Skills learning through student self-assessment in learning and teaching structures. This is why we present a classification model, which allocates different concepts of student self-assessment regarding its integration grade into the curricula of study programmes and/or strategies of HEI. When developing the model and selecting good practice examples, we focused on the fact that student self-assessments, as a form of AaL, help students reflect on their future skill development, as elaborated earlier, and therefore support the shift to self-organisation.

4 The Integration of Student Self-Assessments into Learning and Teaching Strategies at Higher Education Institutions—A Model

Following research on student self-assessment and e-portfolio use cases at German HEIs between October 2021 and February 2022, we discovered that the variety of these tools, instruments, and concepts can be categorised in four types referring to their strategic integration. What they all have in common is that the responsibility for reflecting on and dealing with the assessment of the subject matter is given to the learners themselves. The four types are: 1) individual/stand-alone, 2) course-integrated, 3) programme-integrated, and 4) institution-integrated and beyond (Fig. 21.2). They vary in terms of their scope, the role of students and teachers, the way they are integrated into the curriculum (in terms of number of modules, voluntary or compulsory participation) and their usability beyond university purposes. The following guiding questions were used to categorise the examples and develop the four types:

Fig. 21.2
An illustration of a house. The roof is labeled Institution Integrated and Beyond followed by the label Program Integrated. The 3 pillars are labeled Course Integrated. The horizontal base is labeled Individual.

Types of integration of portfolio and student self-assessment concepts in degree programmes

Full size image

  • Is it a single instrument or rather a concept with various aspects?

  • If it is a concept: Of what scope is it, i.e. how many different instruments/processes does it include? How many different (future) skills does it address?

  • Is it voluntary or mandatory to participate for students?

  • Is it anchored in the curriculum? If so, does it refer to one or more modules and do students receive credit points for it?

  • Can the tool be used beyond the study, i.e. for lifelong learning processes?

The model is depicted as a house, with type one (individual) being the foundation of reflection and self-assessment. Type two concepts (course-integrated) act as pillars, and the more of them there are, the more stable the building is. Type three (programme-integrated) can be seen as the ceiling that connects the different pillars. Type four (institution-integrated and beyond) acts as the roof of the building, making it watertight and holding everything together.

Type one represents stand-alone instruments such as (online) questionnaires and personality tests. These are usually open access solutions developed by professionals, e.g. psychologists, universities or other institutions, and in most cases do not explicitly relate to higher education contexts, but are useful for all individuals. These tools can be integrated into study programmes in different ways. Usually, they are recommended or used by teachers in individual modules related to the development of key competences or similar, but they are neither embedded in the curriculum nor credited. Often, extra-curricular offerings work with this type one instruments by recommending them in learning management systems or on websites of university competence centres, without offering to discuss the results with students. Accordingly, these tools do not influence the learning and teaching strategies of higher education institutions. Concerning the success factors of student self-assessments, this type is unlikely to have a sustainable impact on students’ competence development because of the lack of feedback and because teachers or institutions do not verify whether students are assessment literates or not. Examples are:

  • VIA inventory of strengths by the University of Zurich: an online self-assessment for character strengths in 24 categories like creativity, judgement, social intelligence, leadership etc. (free online access) (Values in Action Institute, 2021)

  • KompetenzNavigator by the University of Passau (eng. competence navigator): student self-assessment on the university’s learning management system with 120 items. Students assess eleven competences in the three fields 1) personal competence, 2) social-communicative competence, and 3) methodological competence (Zentrum für Schlüsselkompetenzen, 2017).

Type two describes student self-assessment options that are guided by educators as learning facilitators. The process follows specific criteria set individually by educators and/or students or follows well-known reflection models such as Kolb’s reflection cycle (Kolb, 2015; Kolb & Fry, 1977) and the four steps of self-evaluation (Ehlers, 2013, p. 189). These approaches are broader in scope. They consist of several building blocks rather than isolated tools. These can be, for example, certificates of competence, portfolios and cross-module assignments. It is characteristic that reflection is not a one-off exercise, but is applied repeatedly and linked to at least one course/module, i.e. initiated by teachers. In between, students should plan and implement development steps independently. The long-term impact of this type of student self-assessment is likely to be more sustainable as it involves cyclical repetition and guidance by teachers and feedback from various sources, e.g., peers. Depending on how the approaches are organised, there may also be a strategic impact. This is the case, for example, when interdisciplinary courses are offered or are compulsory for students in all programmes and university management is involved in the design, e.g. through the deans. One example is:

  • DigKom—Certificate of Digital Competences by the TH Nuremberg: A networked and structured qualification programme for students from all degree programmes in which they can strengthen their self-learning and digital competences. Students learn about current digitalisation topics during the programme, work on their methodological skills for a digitalised world and are asked to process several self-reflection and self-assessment tasks. The programme is integrated into the university’s strategy and involves bi-directional feedback of students and educators (Le Thi & Zinger, 2021)

Type three includes reflection and student self-assessment approaches which are compulsory for the duration of a whole programme, or at least for a significant part, and which carry ECTS points. At least in Germany this form is very popular in teacher training programmes. Successful implementation requires that student self-assessment is not simply added on top of the usual curricula, but is truly integrated into them. This means that students use the experience of their studies to reflect on and develop their student self-assessment. This reflection is in turn used to improve their personal and professional skills. The support of university management and programme directors is essential for mandatory integration into the curriculum. Otherwise, students and teachers may not value the use of such concepts. Type three approaches offer a high degree of strategic impact and sustainable growth in learning and teaching, but also require a high degree of coordination, communication between different stakeholders and consistent evaluation of the approach/process itself. Examples are:

  • p:ier e-portfolio by the University of Bremen: Electronic portfolio tool for integrating theory and practice within teacher training along the whole student life-cycle (undergraduate, graduate and traineeship). The goal is to support students in developing a professional and reflective capacity to act and become Reflective Practitioners. In encompasses reflections of different practical phases in the training, but they do not necessarily built upon each other (Wulf, 2022).

  • Study Journal by Cologne International School of Design: e-portfolio tool that encompasses the whole student life cycle and serves as a means for the documentation, reflection and dissemination of results/learning outcomes students achieve during their studies. The study journal is compulsory to pass courses and is justified by students having a high degree of autonomy in choosing their courses. It includes course reports, semester reports, a social learning environment and a mentoring concept (Großhans et al., 2019; Köln International School of Design, 2022).

Type four goes one step further. It describes concepts that are not only integrated into curricula and accompany students throughout their lifecycle, but can also be used after graduation. In terms of lifelong learning, both constant self-reflection and self-assessment are necessary for the continuous development of Future Skills (Ehlers, 2013; European Commission—Education and Training, 2019; OECD, 2021). These are development portfolios in terms of Baumgartner’s typology (Baumgartner, 2012). Type four concepts encourage lifelong self-assessment, support the process with guidelines and criteria, and provide a platform for collecting artefacts and feedback among peers and/or coaches. In addition to their strategic relevance for improving the quality of learning and teaching, these approaches can have a lifelong impact on the development of Future Skills and therefore have societal implications. It goes beyond higher education and can be extended to professional and societal contexts.

  • Digitales Reflexionstool zur Kompetenzentwicklung im dualen Studium (DIRK Dual) by DHBWFootnote 2: the project’s aim is to develop a concept for a module that integrates Future Skills learning systematically into the curricula of dual study programmes. It therefore combines face-to-face workshops, online self-learning modules on a set of 17 Future Skills reflection tasks and coaching sessions. The programme spans across the whole student life-cycle and is facilitated by an e-portfolio tool that can be used further on after graduating. The concept uses experiences of the practical phases and asks students to reflect on them in order to explore their Future Skills development. The concept, which is also scalable and adaptable for enterprises and organisations, is currently being tested and evaluated in various settings and faculties at DHBW (Geier et al., 2022).

5 Conclusion and Outlook

In the German higher education landscape, several lighthouse projects have included student self-assessment by means of e-portfolio concepts. Considering differences in scope, involvement of students and educators, integration into curricula, and usability beyond study programmes, four types can be distinguished: 1) individual/stand-alone, 2) course-integrated, 3) programme-integrated, and 4) institution-integrated and beyond (Fig. 21.2). Research revealed that most of the concepts are not systematically integrated into curricula and/or strategy. E-portfolios in teacher training represent an exception, as they have been included in study programmes in most universities some years ago. This becomes necessary to impact the 1) the shift from Assessment of Learning to Assessment as Learning, 2) the shift to self-organisation, and 3) the integration of Future Skills development strategies into curricula. To support these developments, pilot and practice projects need more attention and continuation. In particular, research should focus on:

  • development of better definitions and more operational concepts for self-reflection, self-evaluation, and self-assessment, as the blurry lines between the definitions of those concepts complicate the differentiation of practice examples,

  • a broader systematic benchmarking analysis of good practice examples in which criteria for selection and integration of good practices into higher education would be specified to give orientation to educators and leaders in higher education and provide a more transparent view on student self-assessment for learners,

  • creation of an observatory to map the current situation at (German-speaking) higher education institutions and therefore foster peer exchange among the institutions leading to an accelerated progress.

What remains open is to gain a deeper understanding of the motivational, cognitive and attitudinal aspects which are addressed in and supported through student self-assessment. Andrade refers to it as “the next black box: the cognitive and affective mechanisms of students who are engaged in assessment processes” (Andrade, 2019, p. 10). In conclusion, student self-assessment practices are becoming more popular in higher education but are not yet considered a standard procedure or an integral part of assessments.