Students who accessed exemplar examination answers on the LMS achieved higher grades than those who did not¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? In one reported study, students who accessed exemplar examination answers posted on the LMS achieved higher grades than students who did not access them. → David Carless & David Boud 2018
Evidence¶
David Carless & David Boud 2018¶
David Carless & David Boud. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
q2 · i? · review · r2
Narrative review section on analysing exemplars, reporting a second-hand finding from Scoles, Huxham, and McArthur (2013) comparing students who accessed LMS-posted exemplar exam answers with those who did not. No effect size is printed.
"In a study by Scoles, Huxham, and McArthur (2013), it was found that students who accessed exemplar examination answers posted on the LMS achieved higher grades than those who did not."
Studies bearing on this claim¶
Does giving learners exemplars of finished work, analysed against the criteria, improve their own work and their judgement of quality? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 2 narrower claims that bear on it: 4 distinct studies (2 causal, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q2, 0 of 4 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.
| Study | Design | Effect as recorded | Bears on this claim through |
|---|---|---|---|
| David Carless & David Boud 2018 | q2 · review · r2 | i? | this claim |
| Bradley Irwin and Theron Muller 2026 | q1 · theoretical · r2 | i? | Exemplar-based calibration is expected to align student ratings with expert ratings at the (supports) |
| Andrade et al. 2010 | q2 · causal · r? | i? | Self-assessing against a rubric improved the quality of student work in two non-randomised (supports) |
| Panadero & Romero 2014 | q2 · causal · r? | i? | Self-assessing against a rubric improved the quality of student work in two non-randomised (supports) |
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Exemplar-based calibration is expected to align student ratings with expert ratings at the criterion level — related
- Self-assessing against a rubric improved the quality of student work in two non-randomised studies, one of which also found more stress and performance-avoidance — related
- Graded Exemplars Shift an LLM Grader by the Level They Are Marked At — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
lms-exemplar-access-associated-with-higher-grades |
title |
Students who accessed exemplar examination answers on the LMS achieved higher grades than those who did not |
description |
Students who accessed exemplar examination answers on the LMS achieved higher grades than those who did not |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
source_checked |
2026-10-18 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — david-carless-david-boud-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.