For decades, reformers, practitioners, and researchers have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of teacher-assigned grades. Advocates of grades frequently highlight their importance for selection and prognostic purposes and express concerns that abolishing grades could lead to substantial declines in performance standards. Opponents of grades often emphasize the limited information grades provide to help improve learning and raise concerns that assigning grades may undermine student motivation and well-being. They argue that grades must be eliminated to cultivate classroom cultures that prioritize and nurture learning processes. Despite the long-standing sociopolitical nature of this debate, no review has summarized its most prominent theoretical foundations. Moreover, there is little evidence from studies that have examined the effects of abolishing grades under natural school conditions. Therefore, we first present a review outlining the key theoretical positions and empirical findings. Second, we report results from a unique elementary school field trial in which grades were abolished in participating schools. Our analysis draws on rich longitudinal data from 1,218 students in 35 trial schools and 1,124 students in 40 control schools. To provide a comprehensive assessment, we examined a wide range of outcomes: performance in reading and mathematics, subject-specific self-concepts and interests, performance anxiety, joy of learning, well-being, and perceived classroom climate. Aside from math interest, we found no statistically significant differences between students in trial schools and those in control schools by the end of Grade 3, after accounting for baseline differences. Implications for the debate on the advantages and disadvantages of grades are discussed.
Fractions are challenging but essential for mathematical learning. Educational technology may support students’ acquisition of fraction concepts. This study investigates underlying cause-and-effect mechanisms, i.e., whether features, e.g., authentic simulations, have a motivating effect in learning situations—resulting in an indirect learning-promoting effect. In a randomized controlled trial with N=292 sixth-grade students, we examined the effects of a digital, simulation-based exploration of fractions compared to a paper-based version on students’ subjective task value and their learning gains related to ‘part of many wholes’ concept. Results showed a significant positive effect of the digital, simulation-based exploration on a composite scale of students’ intrinsic value and attainment value. Mediation analysis further indicated that the digital simulation significantly enhanced students’ subjective task value, which in turn significantly improved posttest achievement. Consistent with the mediation hypothesis, we found a significant indirect effect. These findings underscore the importance of integrating features into digital learning environments that enhance student subjective task value in the challenging content area of fractions.
Critical thinking is widely regarded as a key competency in STEM education, particularly in light of 21st-century challenges such as digitalisation, climate change, and technological transformation. Although critical thinking is included in educational policies, its implementation in classroom practice remains limited, partly resulting from a lack of a common understanding that is both theoretically grounded and usable for teachers. In this paper, we introduce a rubric that aims to support the integration of critical thinking into STEM education. The rubric is based on an epistemic understanding of critical thinking rooted in the scientific process of discovery. It was developed through an iterative design process grounded in the Synergy Model of Critical Thinking and piloted with pre- and in-service teachers in four European countries. Their feedback was collected using qualitative questionnaires and focus groups and was analysed using a comparative analysis of the pilot implementations. Results suggest that the rubric captures the central aspects of critical thinking from a scientific perspective and provides a useful reference point for STEM teaching and reflection. However, its use as an assessment tool for critical thinking in all its manifestations is limited, due to its reliance on subject-specific knowledge. Overall, the findings indicate that this rubric could be used to flexibly support instructional design and professional reflection, rather than as a standardised instrument for assessing student performance.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in higher education as an interactive tutoring partner rather than a passive information tool. While AI offers opportunities to support learning, concerns remain regarding cognitive offloading, reduced engagement, and unreflective use. Although instructional scaffolding is a well-established design principle for supporting complex learning, its role in shaping cognitive and metacognitive processes in AI-supported settings remains underexplored. This quasi-experimental pre–post study examined how varying levels of scaffolding influence learning outcomes and motivational, cognitive and metacognitive processes during AI-tutored learning. A total of 175 first-semester students from two faculties and diverse academic backgrounds completed the same academic task within a four-hour university session under one of three conditions: (1) full scaffolding, including a structured prompting template based on the Goal–Context–Constraints (GCC) strategy, iterative refinement, and reflective guidance; (2) light scaffolding, including the GCC prompting template; or (3) no scaffolding template as the control condition. Measures included knowledge gain, motivation, cognitive load, critical thinking, and reflective use. Data were analysed using ANOVAs, ANCOVAs, regression models, and PROCESS moderation and mediation analyses. Across the conditions, students showed significant gains in knowledge, critical thinking, and reflective use, while motivation remained stable and intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load decreased; no significant differences between scaffolding conditions were observed. The scaffolding conditions did not produce significant interaction effects, although descriptive trends suggested higher gains in higher-order knowledge under scaffolded conditions. Overall, the findings suggest that short-term learning gains in AI-supported settings may not depend on scaffolding intensity alone, but rather on how learners engage with AI during the learning process.
Gender differences in educational achievement, particularly in math, science, and reading, are a prominent research focus in educational psychology. However, findings are often inconsistent, influenced by various social, cultural, and methodological factors. This cross-cultural study examines whether there are consistent domain-specific gender effects in math, science, and reading achievement globally and explores their relation to motivation and cultural factors. Using meta-analytic methods, we analyzed data from 1,055,394 fifteen-year-olds across 55 countries from three PISA cycles. Results indicate a significant gender effect in math achievement favoring boys, mediated by self-efficacy, no significant gender effect in science, and a significant gender effect in reading favoring girls, mediated by enjoyment & interest. Additionally, gender differences vary with cultural context: in more egalitarian countries, boys excel more in math and science, while in less egalitarian countries, girls excel more in reading. Educational relevance and implications statement This study highlights the complex relationship between gender, academic achievement, and cultural context. Our findings indicate that gender differences in math, science, and reading are influenced by both internal factors like motivation (i.e., expectancies and values), and external factors such as cultural norms. Understanding these dynamics can help educators and policymakers develop more equitable educational strategies. By recognizing how cultural context influences gender differences in achievement, targeted interventions can be designed to support both boys and girls in their academic pursuits, ultimately promoting a more balanced and fairer educational environment.
