Effects of Rubrics on Academic Performance, Self-Regulated Learning, and self-Efficacy: a Meta-analytic Review

• Published in: Educational psychology review Vol. 35; no. 4; pp. 113 - 150
• Main Authors: Panadero, Ernesto, Jonsson, Anders, Pinedo, Leire, Fernández-Castilla, Belén
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.12.2023; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Academic Achievement; Age Differences; Child and School Psychology; Education; Educational Attainment; Educational Psychology; Educational Sciences; Elementary Secondary Education; Gender Differences; Higher Education; Learning and Instruction; Learning Strategies; Meta Analysis; Research Design; Samhällsvetenskap; Scoring Rubrics; Self Efficacy; Self Management; Social Sciences; Utbildningsvetenskap; Self-regulated learning; Rubrics; Academic performance; Self-efficacy; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 1040-726X; 1573-336X; 1573-336X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4

Rubrics are widely used as instructional and learning instrument. Though they have been claimed to have positive effects on students’ learning, these effects have not been meta-analyzed. Our aim was to synthesize the effects of rubrics on academic performance, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy. The moderator effect of the following variables was also investigated: year of publication, gender, mean age, educational level, type of educational level (compulsory vs. higher education), number of sessions, number of assessment criteria, number of performance levels, use of self and peer assessment, research design, and empirical quality of the study. Standardized mean differences (for the three outcomes) and standardized mean changes (SMC; for academic performance) were calculated from the retrieved studies. After correcting for publication bias, a moderate and positive effect was found in favor of rubrics on academic performance ( g  = 0.45, k  = 21, m  = 54, 95% CI [0.312, 0.831]; SMC = 0.38, 95% CI [0.02, 0.75], k  = 12, m  = 30), whereas a small pooled effect was observed for self-regulated learning ( g  = 0.23, k  = 5, m  = 17, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.60]) and for self-efficacy ( g  = 0.18, k  = 3, m  = 5, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.91]). Most of the moderator variables were not significant. Importantly, to improve the quality of future reports on the effects of rubrics, we provide an instrument to be filled out for rubric scholars in forthcoming studies.