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.
Alonso-TapiaJ.PanaderoE. (2010). Effects of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation and learning. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 33, 385–397. doi:10.1174/021037010792215145
2.
AndradeH.ValtchevaA. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 12–19. doi:10.1080/00405840802577544
3.
ArterJ. A. (2010). Scoring rubrics. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service.
4.
BrownellS. E.PriceJ. V.SteinmanL. (2013). A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence in their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. Advances in Physiology Education, 37, 70–79. doi:10.1152/00138.2012
5.
BruffeeK. (1978). The Brooklyn plan: Attaining intellectual growth through peer group tutoring. Liberal Education, 64, 447–468.
6.
ClineK. S. (2008). A writing-intensive statistics course. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Math Undergraduate Studies, 18, 399–410. doi:10.1080/10511970701203239
7.
EfklidesA. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538645
8.
Galer-UntiR. A.TappeM. K. (2006). Developing written communication and advocacy skills in entry-level health educators through writing-intensive program planning methods courses. Health Promotion Practice, 7, 110–116. doi:10.1177/1524839904270503
9.
GranerM. H. (1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer editing groups. English Journal, 76, 40–45.
10.
GreenbergK. P. (2012). A reliable and valid weighted scoring instrument for use in grading APA-style research reports. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 17–23. doi:10.1177/00986283114306443
11.
HughesI. E. (1995). Peer assessment. Capability, 1, 39–43.
12.
JonssonA. (2008). Educative assessment for/of teacher competency. A study of assessment and learning in the “Interactive Examination” for student teachers(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Malmö University Electronic Publishing. (2008-06-11T10:12:30Z).
13.
JonssonA.SvingbyG. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
14.
MarcusH. (1984). The writing center: Peer tutoring in a supportive setting. English Journal, 73, 66–67.
15.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090
16.
PanaderoE.JonssonA. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.
ReddyY. M.AndradeH. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 435–448. doi:10.1080/02602930902862859
19.
RourkeA. (2013). Assessment ‘as’ learning: The role that peer- and self-review can play towards enhancing student learning. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 8(3), 1–12.
20.
SchneiderF. J. (2006). Rubrics for teacher education in community college. Community College Enterprise, 12, 39–55.
21.
StellmackM. A.KeenanN. K.SandidgeR. R.SippleA. L.Konheim-KalksteinY. L. (2012). Review, revise, and resubmit: The effects of self-critique, peer review, and instructor feedback on student writing. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 235–244.
22.
The Regents of the University of California. (2012). Calibrated peer review[Online software product]. Retrieved fromhttp://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu
23.
ToppingK. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276. doi:10.2307/1170598
24.
ToppingK. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 20–27.
25.
WoltersC. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1
26.
YorkeM. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.
