ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
133
EVALUATING THE USE OF RUBRICS: A METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE IN
WRITING CLASSES
Rаkhmаtоvа E’zоzа Оtаbek qizi
Teаcher, scientific reseаrcher
Uzbekistаn Stаte Wоrld Lаnguаges University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15790858
Abstract:
The current article discusses some effectiveness and priorities in writing
classes in teaching English language. The article covers ample theoretical data on rubrics of
writing assessment and practical experiment done in language university of Uzbekistan
covering language and literature teacher. The study aims to focus more comprehension of
writing pieces and task fulfillment of student by means of writing rubrics.
Keywords:
rubrics, writing task, feedback, judgement, assessment criteria.
Introduction.
One of the most important aspects of the job of an English teacher is giving
students the feedback and corrections they need to improve as second language learners. This
is especially true for written English. In writing classes, the process of providing feedback to
students on their writing takes-up significant amounts of time and effort both inside and
outside of the classroom. In order to streamline the feedback process teachers often make use
of tools, such as rubrics, to help them provide their students with feedback. Traditionally
rubrics have been seen as tools that have the potential of “increased consistency of scoring, the
possibility to facilitate valid judgment of complex competencies, and promotion of learning ”[2].
In the field of first language composition whether or not the rubric is an effective tool in
providing students with the feedback that they need to improve as writers is a topic of debate
in a variety of academic journals. Researchers have come out both in support of (H. G. Andrade,
2000; H. L. Andrade, Wang, Du, & Akawi, 2009) or against (Broad, 2000; Kohn, 2006; Wilson,
2007) the use of rubrics as a means of providing students feedback about their written work.
Literature review. Essay writing for literature courses remains a problem for students
and teachers alike. While most of EFL students have had writing experience, it is important for
them to realize that academic writing for a literature domain at university level is different from
the practices they have so far encountered. A potential drawback of this viewpoint is the lack
of a perspective on how lecturers may take students’ experience in the academic world into
account, and how this concern may play out in their responses to students’ academic outcomes.
Thus, a set of writing rubrics (referred to hereafter as META) were designed in the research
reported here to scaffold EFL English majors’ academic writing in literature classes. META
focuses on four key elements of academic writing, that is, mechanics, use of evidence,
presentation of the thesis/claim, and analysis [4].
Andrade (2000) defines a rubric as “a scoring tool that lists the criteria for a piece of work”
and one which “articulates gradations of quality for each criterion, from excellent to poor” [1].
Research by Schafer, Swanson, Bené, and Newberry (2001) offers indirect support to the view
of students as users of assessments. They speculate that the higher test scores are the result of
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
134
teachers incorporating operational definitions of achievement into their instruction in ways
that were understood and used by students [7].
This suggests that if carefully designed, rubrics can help students in goal- setting and
planning. These are metacognitive strategies which support their learning and at the same time,
can help them understand the goal of an assignment and support teachers in unbiased grading,
giving feedback and assigning more challenging work to students [1,2]. Thus, rubrics have the
potential to help students develop understanding and skills, as well as make dependable
judgments about the quality of their own works beyond traditional testing [2].
Rubrics were first proposed as a tool to analyze writing in 1912 when Noyes suggested
the use of a rubric as a means of standardizing the evaluation of student compositions: “Our
present methods of measuring compositions are controlled too much by personal opinion,
which varies with the individual. What is wanted is a clear-cut, concrete standard of
measurement which will mean the same thing to all people in all places and is not dependent
upon the opinion of any individual” [5] . Of these scales the most famous is the Hillegas scale,
which was developed in 1912 and “gave English teachers the first reliable means of estimating
objectively the quality of their pupils’ written production”. In 1915 Thorndike improved upon
Hillegas rubric for grading student compositions by “substituting new specimens for certain of
the original samples and by including several examples in the steps at or near the middle of the
scale” [6].
Methodology. " Writing is vital to students’ achievement in school, the working
environment, and society at large" [8]. Since the voices of all educators and students ought to
be valued, particularly in the zone of evaluating students’ writing, this study investigates the
perspectives of EFL instructors toward rubrics to develop insights into the reasons behind such
dispositions. For this reason, there were conducted a investigation at Uzbek State World
Languages university among language and literature teacher. To conveniently access the
participants, the researchers selected the university where one of the researchers worked. The
participants consist of three language teachers and three literature teachers. Even though the
data represent only a small group of respondents from only one Uzbekistan university which
may not offer absolutely generalizable answers, it brings out some serious points of
considerations for the application of assessment tools in diverse cultural contexts. The data
collection instrument, questionnaire, provided:
1.
What are the perspectives of the teachers pertaining good writing?
2.
How do the teachers evaluate writing?
3.
How do the teachers perceive the use of rubrics for the writing assessment?
Moreover, to study on quantitative research more research questions are covered on
experimental classes.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
135
№
Questions
Yes
No
1
Do you use a rubric to assess your students’ writing?
100%
2
Do you agree that rubrics provide the students a clear
idea of your assessment criteria?
100%
3
Do you use one specific rubric to grade every writing
assignment?
50%
50%
4
Do you feel that students generally write better, if the
teacher provides them a grading rubric ahead of time
67%
33%
5
Does students’ performance reflect their understanding
of your expectation from their work?
83%
17%
Table shows that all teachers use rubrics in writing classes and they consider that it is
good idea to assess writing tasks. Moreover, half of the teachers think that it is practical to use
one single rubric for everyday writing classes while other 50% claim that is not practical
enough. Additionally, more teachers, 67%, feel that providing rubrics ahead lesson impacts to
compose writing piece, whereas only 33%. Likewise 83% of teacher consider rubrics gives
more understanding and expectation on the works of students and just 17% do not support this
option.
Conclusion.
The analytic rubric should be used for the assessment of written expressions.
Thus, it allows teachers to determine the deficiencies in students’ writing skills right at the
beginning of the school year, to act in line with these deficiencies, and to adopt an appropriate
strategy. Rubrics developed in accordance with the analytic rubric preparation principles
should be applied at schools. The English language teachers and classroom teachers should test
the practicability of the rubrics through scoring trials.
References:
Используемая литература:
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
1.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Metacognition in writing: Facilitating writer awareness. In A.
Stubbs & J.
2.
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational
Leadership, 57(5), 13-18
3.
Chapman (Eds.), Rhetoric, uncertainty, and the university as text: How students construct
the academic experience (pp. 10-30). Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of
Regina.
4.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). Newyork:
Routledge.
5.
Crehan, K. D. (1997). A discussion of analytic scoring for writing performance
assessments. Annual Meeting of the Arizona Educational Research Association.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
136
6.
Hudelson, E. (1923). The development and comparative values of composition scales. The
English Journal, 12(3), 163−168.
7.
Schafer, W. D., Swanson, G., Bené, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge
of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas. Applied Measurement in Education,
14(2), 151–170
8.
Stevens, D.D., & Levi, A.J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save
grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Virginia: Stylus
Publishing.
9.
Stiggins, R.J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
10.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Wolcott, W., & Legg, S. M. (1998). An overview of writing assessment: Theory, research
and practice. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
