Using rubrics has a positive, moderate effect on students' academic performance (corrected g = 0.45; standardized mean change = 0.38)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Across 21 studies (54 effect sizes), rubric use improves academic performance relative to control groups, with a corrected pooled effect of g = 0.45. → Panadero 2023 q3 i? Across 12 studies reporting pre-post measures for both groups, the standardized mean change favoring rubrics was 0.38. → Panadero 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Panadero 2023¶

Panadero, Ernesto; Jonsson, Anders; Pinedo, Leire; Fernández-Castilla, Belén. (2023). Effects of Rubrics on Academic Performance, Self-Regulated Learning, and self-Efficacy: a Meta-analytic Review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Three-level meta-analysis of 54 standardized mean differences from 21 studies comparing rubric users to controls, with a pooled effect of g = 0.57, described as "a large overall effect"; after selection-model correction, "The corrected overall effect was 0.45 for moderate bias, and 0.33 for severe bias."

"The overall Hedges’ g was 0.57 (SE = 0.125, t = 4.59, p-value < 0.001, 95% CI [0.312, 0.831], 95% PI [-0.558, 1.701]), which is a large overall effect."

Panadero 2023 (2)¶

Panadero, Ernesto; Jonsson, Anders; Pinedo, Leire; Fernández-Castilla, Belén. (2023). Effects of Rubrics on Academic Performance, Self-Regulated Learning, and self-Efficacy: a Meta-analytic Review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Second meta-analysis of 30 standardized mean changes from 12 studies reporting pre- and post-measures for both intervention and control groups, with a standardized mean change of 0.38, described as "a medium overall effect" favoring rubrics.

"The overall standardized mean change was 0.38 (SE = 0.16, t = 2.34, p-value = 0.042, 95% CI [0.02, 0.75], 95% PI [-0.75, 1.51]), which is a medium overall effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For standardized mean changes, rubric effects on performance decrease with mean age, yet secondary-education studies show larger effects than primary and middle school — contradictory moderator results — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Most moderator variables are not significantly related to rubric effects on academic performance, including rubric design specifics — related
• Structured criteria in peer assessment are not shown to improve its effect on academic performance over freeform review — related
• Peer assessment improves academic performance by a small average amount relative to no assessment or to teacher assessment — related
• Providing a rubric does not significantly improve relative accuracy of self-assessment across criteria — related
• Rubric use has a small, statistically non-significant pooled effect on self-regulated learning (g = 0.23) — related
• Rubric use has a small positive effect on students' self-efficacy (g = 0.18), based on only four studies — related
• In one community-college lab class, six scorers rating six teams with an engineering rubric differed by a mean of 1.2 of 9 points, which the authors read as a sign the rubric may not be reliable — related