Au, W. W. (2008). Devising inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of high‐stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639-651.

Eriksson, K., Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., & Ryve, A. (2019). Cultural variation in the effectiveness of feedback on students’ mistakes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3053. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03053

Hand, M. (2006). Against autonomy as an educational aim. Oxford Review of Education, 32(4), 535-550.

Lim, L. (2013). Meritocracy, elitism, and egalitarianism: A preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore's primary education review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 1-14.

Tan, K. H. K. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 651 - 662.

Tan, K. H. K. (2009). Meanings and practices of power in academics' conceptions of student self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 361-373.

Taras, M. (2008). Issues of power and equity in two models of self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 81-92.

Eriksson, K., Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., & Ryve, A. (2019). Cultural Variation in the Effectiveness of Feedback on Students’ Mistakes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3053. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03053

One of the many things teachers do is to give feedback on their students’ work. Feedback pointing out mistakes may be a key to learning, but it may also backfire. We hypothesized that feedback based on students’ mistakes may have more positive effects in cultures where teachers have greater authority over students, which we assume to be cultures that are high on power distance and religiosity. To test this hypothesis we analyzed data from 49 countries taking part in the 2015 wave of the TIMSS assessment, in which students in the 4th and 8th grades were asked whether their teachers in mathematics and science told them how to do better when they had made a mistake. For each country we could then estimate the association between the reported use of mistake-based feedback and student achievement. Consistent with our hypothesis, the estimated effect of mistake-based feedback was positive only in certain countries, and these countries tended to be high on power distance and religiosity. These results highlight the importance of cultural values in educational practice.

Taras, M. (2015). Situating power potentials and dynamics of learners and tutors within self-assessment models. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-18.

Many twenty-first century educational discourses focus on including and empowering independent learners. Within the context of five self-assessment models, this article evaluates how these practices relate to the realities of student involvement, empowerment and voice. A proposed new classification of these self-assessment models is presented and theories of power and student voice are utilised to build on the limited existing literature that examines issues of power in self-assessment. The results of the evaluations show that the standard self-assessment model, which has been the default model since the 1930s, is the least empowering for students and also detrimental to producing a dialogic forum with tutors. The other models are far more conducive to permitting a shared understanding of assessment protocols, processes and products and therefore potentially lead to more equitable and transparent assessment communities. The value of this study is that it helps to clarify the possible implications and impacts resulting from the use of each self-assessment model in order to make an informed choice, which will also support the alignment of assessment practices with learning and teaching and curriculum choices.