Claims

Student choice is rare in authentic assessment designs while assigned, sometimes graded, self-reflection is more common

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Only eight studies gave students choices in what, how, when and where they take AA, whereas eighteen studies embedded self-reflection, usually as an assigned task and in some cases rewarded by grades. → Ying Zhan 2025

Evidence

Ying Zhan 2025

Ying Zhan, David Boud, Zilu Du. (2025). Designing for authentic assessment: a scoping review. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01588-9

q2 · i? · review · r2

Review coding of student agency across the 37 studies. It reports 'only eight studies gave students choices in what, how, when and where they take AA', while eighteen studies embedded self-reflection practices, mostly as assigned tasks, sometimes graded.

"However, only eight studies gave students choices in what, how, when and where they take AA."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id aa-student-choice-rare-reflection-assigned
title Student choice is rare in authentic assessment designs while assigned, sometimes graded, self-reflection is more common
description Student choice is rare in authentic assessment designs while assigned, sometimes graded, self-reflection is more common
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2025
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — ying-zhan-2025

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.