Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study examined efficient modes for providing standardized feedback to improve performance on an assignment for a second year college class involving writing a brief research proposal. Two forms of standardized feedback (detailed rubric and proposal exemplars) were utilized is an experimental design with undergraduate students (N = 100) at three urban college campuses. Students completed a draft of a proposal as part of their course requirements and were then randomly assigned to receive a detailed rubric, proposal exemplars, or a rubric and proposal exemplars for use in revising their work. Analyses of students’ writing from first draft to second draft indicated that all three conditions led to improvements in writing that were significant and strong in terms of effect size, with the stand-alone detailed rubric leading to the greatest improvement. Follow-up focus groups with students indicated that a stand-alone rubric potentially engages greater mindfulness on the part of the student. Practical implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allal, L., & Chanquoy, L. (2004). Introduction. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57, 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. G. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4(4).

  • Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53, 27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. G., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing a theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bose, J., & Rengel, Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote student-centered self-regulated learning in higher education. US-China Education Review, 6(12), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E., & Glover, C. (2006). Evaluating written feedback. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 81–91). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, G., & Marasco, T. L. (2007). Exemplars: Your best resource to improve student writing. Markham, ON: Pembroke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D., & Davis, C. (2001). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology, 49, 550–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Historical review, meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009a). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009b). I really need feedback to learn: Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21, 347–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdés, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower-and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2007). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. L., Drake, S., & Beckett, D. (2011). Exploring teacher and administrator perceptions of assessment in the face of new assessment policies. Canadian Perspectives: Education Coast to Coast to Coast, 1(1).

  • Riordan, T., & Loacker, G. (2009). Collaborative and systemic assessment of student learning: From principles to practice. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning, and judgement in higher education. Dordrecth: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos, B., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Formative assessment: A cybernetic viewpoint. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12, 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13, 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative assessment. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, H. K., & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical Eduction, 41(6), 580–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svinicki, M. D., & McKeachie, W. J. (2012). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (Fourteenth ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symonds, K. W. (2004). After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, J. S., & Tregidgo, A. P. (2006). Improving student writing through effective feedback: Best practices and recommendations. Journal of Teaching and Writing, 22, 73–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queens College and The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Anastasiya A. Lipnevich

  2. The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Leigh N. McCallen & Katharine Pace Miles

  3. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Jeffrey K. Smith

Authors
  1. Anastasiya A. Lipnevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leigh N. McCallen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katharine Pace Miles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey K. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasiya A. Lipnevich.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 2.

Table 2 Rubric
Full size table

Appendix 2

Excellent Proposal Exemplar

Running head: MAINSTREAMING VS SEGREGATING

Mainstreaming versus Segregating: Which Approach is Conducive to Development?

Jane Smith

Queens College

THIS IS A STRONG PROPOSAL, WITH STUDENT SCORING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS (30)

I would like to conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of special education programs as compared to inclusive classrooms for children with special needs. Specifically, I would like to focus on how children who have special needs can either fail or thrive in these classroom settings. I am hoping to be able to determine which setting will bring the greatest results for children with special needs.

In order to successfully and efficiently carry out this study, I will use several methodological approaches. First, I will use experimental design, in which I will randomly assign participants to two classrooms: inclusive and special education. Experimental studies allow us to conclude whether one of these instructional approaches causes improvement in students. I will administer a series of pretests, measuring motivation, self-efficacy, emotion, as well as subject matter knowledge. 6 month later I will retest my participants on all the measures to compare whether one of these groups did better.

Second, I will track my students longitudinally. I will administer the aforementioned assessments twice a year for a period of 3 years in order to see in which environment students fare better. The same students will participate. Longitudinal design will allow us to make conclusions about gradual changes occurring over time.

Third, I will use naturalistic observation in both special education classrooms and inclusion classrooms. I will use a checklist to record students’ behaviors. I will record how special needs children are doing academically and socially in both settings; and analyze my findings to see which one works better for children with special needs. Observations will be conducted for a week every 6 months by the same experimenter. Although observations are rather subjective, they will provide us will rich data on students’ in-class behaviors.

Participants will include 50 children with documented qualification for special services that are 7 years old, and will be studied until they turn 10 years old. I will try to select participants of various ethnic backgrounds, races, and SES. I will try to recruit 25 male and 25 female students.

The implications of studying this issue in terms of how it will affect a family is extremely important because of the rise of special needs children diagnoses. As of 2010, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the prevalence rate for autism, for example, as 1 in 110 children. If 1 in 110 children are diagnosed with autism, and there are so many other disabilities, the amount of families with special needs children that will need guidance is monumental. This study will enable parents of children with special needs to make informed decisions on which classroom environment will best suit their child and enable them to flourish, learn, and grow to the best of their abilities.

The implications of this issue in terms of how it will affect myself and professionals who will be working with children is vital as well. I believe one of the most important things in being an educator is to understand that every child, with special needs or not, is different and therefore learns differently. All educators need to understand that enabling children to learn to the best of their abilities requires flexibility and personalization. My study will show the importance of how different children thrive in different environments, and show educators how to accommodate and understand every child that passes through their classroom doors to the best of their abilities. This study may have serious policy implications. Superintendents of large districts may decide to introduce more special needs classrooms or inclusive classrooms, depending on the findings.

In conclusion, my study on whether special needs children succeed better in inclusion or integrated classrooms is of extreme importance to both families, educators, and most importantly the children themselves. This study will enable teachers and other school professionals to understand whether children with special needs learn better in certain environments. It is of extreme importance, and could be life changing for the future education.

Appendix 3

Average Proposal Exemplar

Mainstreaming versus segregating: Which Approach is Conducive to Development?

Jane Smith

Queens College

THIS IS AN AVERAGE PROPOSAL, WITH STUDENT SCORING BETWEEN 18–22 POINTS

I would like to conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of special education programs as compared to inclusive classrooms for children with special needs. People send their children to all kinds of schools, so parents should know which one is the best. For children with special needs, being in a classroom that fits their needs can make a big difference for how well they do in school.

In order to carry out this study, I will use several methods. First, I will use experimental design, in which I will lace participants into two classrooms: inclusive and special education. I will measure their motivation, self-efficacy, emotion, as well as subject matter knowledge. 6 month later I will retest my participants on all the measure to compare whether one of these groups did better. Second, I conduct longitudinal design. I will measure motivation, self-efficacy, emotion, as well as subject matter knowledge twice a year for a period of 3 years in order to see in which environment students fare better. Third, I will use naturalistic observation in both special education classrooms and inclusion classrooms. I will use a checklist to record students’ behaviors. I would like to study 50 children with special needs. The participants will be 7 years old, and will be studied until they turn 10 years old.

The implications of studying this issue in terms of how it will affect a family is extremely important because of the rise of special needs children diagnoses. As of 2010, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the prevalence rate for Autism, for example, as 1 in 110 children. If 1 in 110 children are diagnosed with Autism, and there are so many other disabilities, the amount of families with special needs children that will need guidance is monumental.

The implications of this issue in terms of how it will affect myself and professionals who will be working with children is vital as well. I believe one of the most important things in being an educator is to understand that every child, with special needs or not, is different and therefore learns differently. All educators need to understand that in order to enable children to learn to the best of their abilities requires flexibility and personalization. My study will show the importance of how different children thrive in different environments, and show educators how to accommodate and understand every child that passes through their classroom doors to the best of their abilities.

In conclusion, my study on whether special needs children succeed better in inclusion or integrated classrooms is of extreme importance to both families, educators, and most importantly the children themselves. This study will enable teachers and other school professionals to understand whether children with special needs learn better in certain environments. It is of extreme importance, and could be life changing for the future education.

Appendix 4

Weak Proposal Exemplar

Mainstreaming versus segregating: Which Approach is Conducive to Development?

Jane Smith

THIS IS A WEAK PROPOSAL, WITH STUDENT SCORING LESS THAN 10 POINTS.

I would like to study how good special education programs are. Also, if they are better than mainstreaming. To study special needs is very important. Children who have special needs need to have attention from parents and teachers. It will be very important to know what kind of classroom is better to them.

In order to carry out this study, I am going to observe children in school and at home and see whether students in mainstreamed classes do better or do worse than children in special education classes. Observations are good because you see what actually happens in classes. It is very important to observe children because you can also notice a lot of different things. You can also observe in childrens home. I will also interview teachers and parents and ask them questions about who does better. I will study boys and girls who have different special needs. Maybe I will ask 10 childrens.

The importance of studying this issue is extremely important because of the rise of special needs children diagnoses. Parents will appreciate if they know what they do. Nowadays people do not whether special education classes or mainstreamed classes are good for your child. That’s why the study is very important. For children it will also be important.

The importance of this issue in terms of how it will affect educators is also important. Because educators would like to know what to do with special needs children to help them learn a lot of things and grow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lipnevich, A.A., McCallen, L.N., Miles, K.P. et al. Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instr Sci 42, 539–559 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation