The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of rubric use in higher education
Abstract
This paper critically reviews the empirical research on the use of rubrics at the post‐secondary level, identifies gaps in the literature and proposes areas in need of research. Studies of rubrics in higher education have been undertaken in a wide range of disciplines and for multiple purposes, including increasing student achievement, improving instruction and evaluating programmes. While, student perceptions of rubrics are generally positive and some authors report positive responses to rubric use by instructors, others noted a tendency for instructors to resist using them. Two studies suggested that rubric use was associated with improved academic performance, while one did not. The potential of rubrics to identify the need for improvements in courses and programmes has been demonstrated. Studies of the validity of rubrics have shown that clarity and appropriateness of language is a central concern. Studies of rater reliability tend to show that rubrics can lead to a relatively common interpretation of student performance. Suggestions for future research include the use of more rigorous research methods, more attention to validity and reliability, a closer focus on learning and research on rubric use in diverse educational contexts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Sharing the rubrics with students can have the added benefit of enhancing learning by allowing for feedback and self-assessment (Jonsson and Svingby, 2007; Reddy and Andrade, 2010).”
From Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently) (2014) · cites this paper as Reddy and Andrade, 2010
In the citing paper
“Designing and using rubrics to grade assignments or tests can reduce inconsistencies and make grading written work more objective.”
From Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently) (2014) · cites this paper as Reddy and Andrade, 2010
In the citing paper
“Perhaps most importantly, sharing grading rubrics with students can support them in identifying where their thinking has gone wrong and promote learning (Jonsson and Svingby, 2007; Reddy and Andrade, 2010).”
From Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently) (2014) · cites this paper as Reddy and Andrade, 2010
Citations
Cites
The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 · Cited by 1,509 · cited 1×
“As with any form of assessment, the clarity of the language in a rubric is a matter of validity because an ambiguous rubric cannot be accurately or consistently interpreted by instructors, students or scorers (Payne 2003).”
BackgroundUsing Rubrics To Promote Thinking and Learning.
Andrade, H. G. (2000) · Educational leadership · Cited by 528
Self-citationScoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability
Moskal, B., & Leydens, J. A. (2020) · Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/q7rm-gg74 · Cited by 502
Teaching With Rubrics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Andrade, H. G. (2005) · College Teaching · doi:10.3200/ctch.53.1.27-31 · Cited by 436
Self-citationWhat's Wrong--and What's Right--with Rubrics.
Popham, W. J. (1997) · Educational leadership · Cited by 346
Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2020) · doi:10.7275/g367-ye94 · Cited by 332
Self-citationStudent-Involved Classroom Assessment
Stiggins, R. J. (2000) · Cited by 288
Arter, J. A., & McTighe, J. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 262
Hafner, J., & Hafner, P. (2003) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069022000038268 · Cited by 258
Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008) · Educational Measurement Issues and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00118.x · Cited by 248
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Arter , J. and Chappuis , J. 2007 . Creating and recognizing quality rubrics , Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall .
- 10.1177/016146810210400603 · DOI
- Lapsley , R. and Moody , R. 2007 . Teaching tip: Structuring a rubric for online course discussions to assess both traditional and non‐traditional students . Journal of American Academy of Business , 12 ( 1 ) : 167 – 72 .
- Marzano , R.J. , Brandt , R.S. , Hughese , C.S. , Jones , B.F. , Presseisen , B.Z. , Stuart , C. and Shhor , C. 1998 . Dimensions of thinking , Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
- Powell , T.A. 2001 . Improving assessment and evaluation methods in film and television production courses PhD diss., Capella University. UMI No. 3034481
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose.
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L. K. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239 · Cited by 892
The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002 · Cited by 839
Assessment rubrics: towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice
Dawson, P. (2017) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294 · Cited by 368
Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)
Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054 · Cited by 326
The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics
Brookhart, S., & Chen, F. (2015) · Educational Review · doi:10.1080/00131911.2014.929565 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H.
- Affiliations
- ICFAI Business School (IN)
- University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reddy, Y. Malini
- ORCID
- Andrade, Heidi
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-08-07
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 435-448
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2025828126
- Cited by
- 917
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 46.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University at Albany
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- rubrics, higher education assessment, academic performance, rater reliability, rubric validity, student perceptions, program evaluation, course improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
