CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Research and Methods

Rubric Use in Formative Assessment: A Detailed Behavioral Rubric Helps Students Improve Their Scientific Writing Skills

Greenberg, Kathleen P.·2015·Teaching of Psychology
DOI 10.1177/0098628315587618
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A detailed rubric initially designed as a scoring instrument for grading APA-style empirical research reports was tested for its ability to help students improve their scientific writing skills. Students who used the rubric while preparing their reports wrote a higher quality report than did students who did not. Students also improved the quality of their own reports after using the rubric to grade a report written by one of their classmates. These findings provide some of the first empirical evidence of the important role that rubrics can play in the process of formative assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0098628315587618

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 only one study (Greenberg 2015) peer feedback was instructed to be merely quantitative (e.g., scores).

    “In only one study (Greenberg 2015) peer feedback was instructed to be merely quantitative (e.g., scores; see Table 1).”

    From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Greenberg 2015

  • For the eight studies without a reference group, three studies where students engaged with no more than one peer had a composite effect size of 0.37 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.51).

    “For the eight studies without a reference group, students in three studies engaged with no more than one peer during peer feedback (Greenberg 2015; Hu and Lam 2010; Yoshizawa, Terano and Yoshikawa 2012). The respective effect sizes for these studies ranged between small (0.32 [0.11, 0.53]) and intermediate (0.41 [0.16, 0.66] and 0.41 [0.12, 0.70]), weighting into a composite effect size of 0.37 [0”

    From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Greenberg 2015

  • Greenberg (2015) reported an effect size of 0.32 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.53) for peer feedback consisting only of scores based upon a thematic three-point rating scale.

    “In the remaining one-group pretest-posttest study (Greenberg 2015), peer feedback only consisted of scores based upon a thematic three-point rating scale, for which an effect size of 0.32 [0.11, 53] was reported.”

    From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Greenberg 2015

  • Prior research underscores the positive impact of rubrics in this regard.

    “Prior research underscores the positive impact of rubrics in this regard (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Greenberg, 2015; López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Yu, 2021).”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Greenberg, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Greenberg, K. P.
Affiliations
SUNY Old Westbury (US)
Corresponding author
Greenberg, Kathleen P.
Venue
Teaching of Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-05-19
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
211-217
ISSN
  • 0098-6283 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8023
DOI
10.1177/0098628315587618
OpenAlex
W2125004514
Cited by
68
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
23.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Teaching of Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
rubrics, formative assessment, scientific writing, APA style, peer grading, self-assessment, writing instruction, student learning

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