Compete With Yourself (CWY): Maximising Learning Gain in Schools

  • Sunita Gandhi


Compete With Yourself (CWY) is an approach to learning organised around the individual school pupil and based on the principle of ipsative assessment. A pre-test goes beyond diagnosis to provide three-band personal reports that avoid relative comparison, reinforce self-knowledge and promote self-learning. Transparent and achievable goals are met with the help of personal work plans and a personal selection of small concept-based, skill-level, instructional units that can be technology supported. These spotlight effort, boost individual confidence and motivation and improve performance. The ultimate test of CWY is whether it leads to positive change in a pupil’s behaviour, and whether it produces greater excellence than previous methods. Drawing on evidence that is built-in through surveys that measure progress per pupil, the chapter argues that it does and concludes that that there is a strong case for ipsative assessment and for reporting on a pupil’s learning gain.



I would like to most humbly thank all those who have helped me move along my own continuum of learning about CWY starting with Bodvar Jonsson, Steinunn Gudnadottir, Hanna Ragnarsdottir, and other members of the Islensku menntasamtokin, IMS, Iceland. Many amazing people have helped shape my thinking. These include Bob Saunders, Co-Founder, Council for Global Education, USA, Bob Baratta-Lorton, Center for Innovation in Education, USA, Fred Mednick, Teachers Without Borders, USA, Deryn Harvey, former Director, Innovations Unit, DfES, UK, Helena Thuneberg and Mari Pauliina Vainikainen, University of Helsinki, Finland, Pirjo Koivula and Irmeli Halinen from the Finnish National Board of Education. I want to especially thank Gwyneth Hughes for all our interactions following a long Skype session some 2 years ago.


  1. Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, A. J. (2008). Assessment and grading in classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D.(1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1996). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by pupils and teachers alike. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New York.Google Scholar
  4. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delisle, J. R. (2015). Differentiation doesn’t work. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from
  6. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Achiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., & Brengelman, S. U. (1996). Grading and academic feedback for special education students and students with learning difficulties. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: 1996 Yearbook of ASCD (pp. 47–57). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  8. Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning. London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  9. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning; a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes, G. (2011). Towards a personal best: A case for introducing ipsative assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes, G. (2014). Ipsative assessment: Motivation through marking progress. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnston, J., & McClune, W. (2000). Selection project sel 5.1: Pupil motivation and attitudes, self-esteem, locus of control, learning disposition and the impact of selection on teaching and learning. Belfast: Queen’s University.Google Scholar
  14. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leonard, M., & Davey, C. (2001). Thoughts on the 11 plus. Belfast: Save the Children Fund.Google Scholar
  16. Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Madaus, G. (1991, November). The effects of important tests on students: Implications for a national examination system. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 226–231.Google Scholar
  18. Page, E. B.(1958). Teacher comments and student performance: A seventy-four-classroom experiment in school motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reay, D., & Wiliam, D.(1999). ‘I’ll be a nothing’ structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sadler, R.(1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Selby, D., & Murphy, S. (1992). Graded or degraded: Perceptions of letter-grading for mainstreamed learning-disabled pupils. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 16(1), 92–104.Google Scholar
  22. Stewart, L. G., & White, M. A. (1976). Teacher comment, letter grades, and student performance: What do we really know? Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment. 3rd edition. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Story, N.O., & Sullivan, H.J. (1986). Factors that influence continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global ClassroomLucknowIndia
  2. 2.Council for Global EducationAshburnUSA

Personalised recommendations