Why rubrics for writing

Part I: All Kinds of Rubrics. Common Misconceptions About Rubrics. Susan Brookhart is professor emerita in the School of Education at Duquesne University and an educational consultant at Brookhart Enterprises LLC, working with schools, districts, regional educational service units, universities, and states doing professional development. She was the — editor of Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , and is author or co-author of 19 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on classroom assessment, teacher professional development, and evaluation.

She serves on the editorial boards of several journals. Member Book. Jamieson, J. Johnson, R. The relation between score resolution methods and interrater reliability: An empirical study of an analytic scoring rubric.

Jones, C. The relationship between writing centers and improvement in writing ability: An assessment of the literature. Journal of Education , 1 , 3— Jonsson, A. The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review , 2 , — Kane, M. Brennan Ed. Kane, T. Oxford essential guide to writing.

New York: Berkey Publishing Group. Kellogg, R. The role of working memory in planning and generating written sentences. Journal of Writing Research , 7 3 , — Kim, Y. Diagnosing EAP writing ability using the reduced reparametrized unified model. Language Testing , 28 4 , — Klein, P. Trends in research on writing as a learning activity.

Knoch, U. The assessment of academic style in EAP writing: the case of the rating scale. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing , 13 1 , Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: what should they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing , 16 2 , 81— Kondo-Brown, K. A facet analysis of rater bias in Japanese second language writing performance. Language Testing , 19 1 , 3— Kong, N.

A confirmatory approach to differential item functioning. Kroll, B. Second language writing Cambridge Applied Linguistics : research insights for the classroom. Boston: Pearson Education. Kuo, S. Which rubric is more suitable for NSS liberal studies?

Analytic or holistic? Educational Research Journal , 22 2 , — Lanteigne, B. Unscrambling jumbled sentences: an authentic task for English language assessment?

Leki, L. A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. Levin, P. Write great essays. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Loughead, L. Lu, J. Assessing and supporting argumentation with online rubrics. International Education Studies , 6 7 , 66— Lumley, T.

Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: what do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing , 19 3 , — Frankfurt: Lang. MacDonald, S. Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Mackenzie, J.

Essay writing: teaching the basics from the group up. Markham: Pembroke Publishers. Malone, M. Matsuda, P. Basic writing and second language writers: Toward an inclusive definition. Journal of Basic Writing , 22 2 , 67— McLaren, S. Essay writing made easy. Sydney: Pascal Press. McMillan, J. Classroom assessment: principles and practice for effective instruction , 2nd ed. Melendy, G. Motivating writers: the power of choice. Asian EFL Journal , 20 3 , — Messick, S.

The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessment. Educational Researcher , 23 2 , 13— Moore, J. Common mistakes at proficiency and how to avoid them. Moskal, B. Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Moss, P. Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher , 23 2 , 5— Muenz, T. Psychology and Schools , 36 1 , 31— Muncie, J. Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes.

Myford, C. Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet rasch measurement: Part I. Journal of Applied Measurement , 4 4 , — Noonan, L. Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Performance , 14 1 , 3— Nunn, R. Designing rating scales for small-group interaction. ELT Journal , 54 2 , — Toward the development of interactional criteria for journal paper evaluation.

Asian EFL Journal , 9 4 , — Nystrand, M. Where did composition studies come from? An intellectual history. Written Communication , 10 3 , — Examining the invariance of rater and project calibrations using a multi-facet rasch model.

Obee, B. Practice tests for the revised CPE. Berkshire: Express Publishing. Panadero, E. The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purpose revisited.

Educational Research Review , 9 , — Pollitt, A. Calibrating graded assessments: rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language Testing , 4 1 , 72— Raimes, A. Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. Reid, J. Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs: Regents Prentice Hall. Rezaei, A. Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing.

Assessing Writing , 15 1 , 18— Richards, J. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. New York: Pearson Education. Roch, S. Frame of reference rater training issues: recall, time and behavior observation training. International Journal of Training and Development , 7 2 , 93— Rosenfeld, M. Identifying the writing tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Research report Rupp, A. Automated essay scoring at scale: a case study in Switzerland and Germany RR ETS RR Saeidi, M.

Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 16 1 , — Sasaki, M. Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: an explanatory study. Journal of Second Language Writing , 9 3 , — Development of an analytic rating scale for Japanese L1 writing.

Language Testing , 16 4 , — Schaefer, E. Rater bias patterns in an EFL writing assessment. Language Testing , 25 4 , — Schirmer, B. Writing assessment rubric: an instructional approach for struggling writers. Teaching Exceptional Children , 33 1 , 52— Schoonen, R. Generalizability of writing scores: an application of structural equation modeling.

Language Testing , 22 1 , 1—5. Shaw, S. Examining writing: research and practice in assessing second language writing. Shermis, M.

State-of-the-art automated essay scoring: competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Shi, L. Language Testing , 18 3 , — Spratt, M.

Spurr, B. Successful essay writing for senior high school. Staff, M. GRE guide to the use of scores. In Graduate record examination. Stevens, J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences , 4th ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Stewart, A. Tardy, M. The construction of author voice by editorial board members.

Written Communication , 26 1 , 32— Trace, J. Ward, J. Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education , 20 3 , — Weigle, S. Assessing writing. Book Google Scholar.

English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing , 18 , 85— Weir, C. Communicative language testing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Weissberg, B. Developmental relationship in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. Wesolowski, B. Evaluating differential rater functioning over time in the context of solo music performance assessment. White, E.

Teaching and assessing writing , 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Teaching and assessing writing. Wiggan, G. The constant danger of sacrificing validity to reliability: making writing assessment serves writer.

Wilson, M. Rethinking rubrics in writing assessment. Postmouth: Heinemann. Reimaging writing assessment: from scales to stories. Wind, S. Do raters use rating scale categories consistently across analytic rubric domains in writing assessment? Wiseman, C. A comparison of the performance of analytic vs.

Iranian Journal of Language Testing , 2 1 , 59— Wyldeck, K. Everyday spelling and grammar. Zahler, K. Zhang, B. Assessing the reliability of self-and-peer rating in student group work.

Download references. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their fruitful comments. We would also like to thank the raters who kindly accepted to contribute to this study.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. The authors made almost equal contributions to this manuscript, and both read and approved the final manuscript. Enayat A. Shabani 1 eshabani tums. His areas of research interest include language testing and assessment, and internationalization of higher education.

Jaleh Panahi 2 Jaleh. How to Make a Rubric for Differentiation. Testing and Assessment for Special Education. Fantasy Christmas Shopping Lesson Plan. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for ThoughtCo. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page.

These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes.

Establishes a clear focus Uses descriptive language Provides relevant information Communicates creative ideas. Develops a focus Uses some descriptive language Details support idea Communicates original ideas. Establishes a strong beginning, middle, and end Demonstrates an orderly flow of ideas. Skillfully combines story elements around main idea Focus on topic is profoundly clear. Characters, plot, and setting are developed strongly Sensory details and narratives are skillfully evident.

What are the upsides to designing rubrics for your students? Rubrics also help to clarify expectations. Studies show that even just distributing and explaining a rubric can lead to higher student scores.

Rubrics help students identify their own strengths and weaknesses within and across papers. Students provided with rubrics report less anxiety about the writing process, and they perceive grades they receive on an assignment with a rubric as fairer than those assigned without one. Rubrics produce better papers. Designing a rubric can help you design stronger assignments. Sometimes the process of assigning value to different components of an assignment can encourage you to clarify or streamline your prompt.