A systematic review of rubric types and their influence on marking and feedback efficacy

Abstract

Rubrics are widely used in higher education to promote fairness, transparency, and consistency in assessment and feedback. Yet, the diversity of rubric designs complicates efforts to evaluate their impact systematically. This study set out to investigate whether differences in rubric ‘type’ influence marking and feedback efficacy (measured through student outcomes or perceptions of feedback) through a systematic review of 63 empirical studies published between 2009 and 2024. Dawson’s (2017) 14-element framework was used to analyse rubric design and implementation in depth. Findings reveal that while rubrics are reported to improve transparency, support equitable marking, and enhance engagement, inconsistent reporting makes it difficult to establish if universally effective designs for rubrics exist. Variation in how rubrics were reported across studies hindered direct comparison and replication, limiting the ability to determine which design features are most impactful. These findings underscore the need for clearer reporting standards, greater methodological transparency, and targeted comparative research to identify the rubric characteristics that most enhance educational efficacy.