Examiners' use of rubric criteria for grading bachelor theses

Publication date

2021

Authors

Haagsman, MarjoleinISNI 0000000506596834
Snoek, BastenISNI 0000000419527486
Peeters, Anton
Scager, K.ISNI 0000000387117334
Prins, FransISNI 0000000390255260
van Zanten, MartijnISNI 0000000393000140

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article
Open Access logo

License

cc_by_nc_nd

Abstract

Students are generally required to demonstrate diverse skills when writing their bachelor thesis. Accordingly, examiners are expected to consider all these skills when assessing the thesis, regularly with one overall grade. In this study, we examine which criteria of a rubric contribute most to the overall assessment. The study is performed through quantitative analyses of 318 theses of undergraduate biology students. The analyses demonstrate that all criteria scores are predictive, but that scientific quality and professional attitude give the best prediction of thesis grade, together with structure. The predictiveness of scientific quality and professional attitude correspond with the instructions given to examiners that these are important criteria to consider. Presentation-related criteria scores on writing skills and expressing catchy and justifying titles give the lowest prediction of grade. This study identifies that some criteria appear more predictive for low grades than for high grades, with professional attitude being a good predictor for low grades and abstract being a good predictor for high grades. We recommend similar analyses for students to help them prioritise the most relevant criteria, for supervisors to instruct students on these criteria, and for education managers to evaluate whether bachelor theses are assessed on the criteria they find most relevant.

Keywords

Rubrics, bachelor’s thesis, scientific writing, summative assessment, Education

Citation

Haagsman, M, Snoek, B, Peeters, A, Scager, K, Prins, F & van Zanten, M 2021, 'Examiners' use of rubric criteria for grading bachelor theses', Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1269-1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1864287