Visual attention to the highest performance level (PL4) predicts task performance, whereas verbal references to performance levels do not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Number of visits to and fixation time on PL4 significantly predicted better written task performance; no associations were observed for PL1, PL2, or PL3. → Panadero 2025 q2 i? Verbal references to performance levels in think-aloud protocols showed no significant differences in task performance. → Panadero 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Panadero 2025¶

Panadero, E., Delgado, P., Zamorano, D., Pinedo, L., Fernández-Ortube, A., & Barrenetxea-Mínguez, L. (2025). Putting excellence first: How rubric performance level order and feedback type influence students' reading patterns and task performance. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102168

q3 · i? · causal · r2

GLM analysis linking rubric reading behavior to written landscape analysis performance in the RCT. The study reports "the number of visits to PL4 significantly predicted better task outcomes" and fixation time on PL4 likewise; rubric order and its interactions with visits and fixation time were not significant.

"the number of visits to PL4 significantly predicted better task outcomes (t = 2.11, p = .04), as did the average fixation time on PL4 (t = 2.56, p = .01). No such associations were observed for PL1, PL2, or PL3."

Panadero 2025 (2)¶

Panadero, E., Delgado, P., Zamorano, D., Pinedo, L., Fernández-Ortube, A., & Barrenetxea-Mínguez, L. (2025). Putting excellence first: How rubric performance level order and feedback type influence students' reading patterns and task performance. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102168

q2 · i? · causal · r2

One-way ANOVA on 85 think-aloud protocols from Phases 1 and 2 referencing PLs; "A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences in task performance as a function of the referenced PL". The authors note the analysis does not fully meet the independence assumption.

"A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences in task performance as a function of the referenced PL, F(3, 81) = 0.60, p = .62"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Visual Processing — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Rubric-based feedback specifically increases PL4-to-task gaze transitions, which predict subsequent task performance — related
• Rubric performance level order shapes visual reading patterns—students attend most to the level presented first—but does not affect verbal references or performance — related
• University students visually prioritize the highest performance level (PL4) when first reading a rubric — related