Assessment and academic writing: A look at the use of rubrics in the second language writing classroom

Abstract

Abstract 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 ...

Full text

Assessment and Academic Writing:
A Look at the Use of Rubrics
in the Second Language Writing Classroom
Gavin BROOKS*
Abstract
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.” (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007, p.130) However, recent studies in
the L1 writing classroom have shown that there are some significant
problems with the last of these items, using rubrics as a means of
promoting learning. This paper looks at some of the current research on
the use of rubrics in the classroom and attempts to construct a clearer
picture of both the benefits and drawbacks of the use of rubrics for both
grading and as a teaching tool in the L2 writing classroom. It is hoped
that in doing so this research will provide insight into the tools teachers in
Japan are using to respond to their students’ written work and act as a
starting point for further research into how to improve these tools.
─────────────────────────────────────────
─
*AssociateLectureofEnglish,SchoolofPolicyStudies,KwanseiGakuinUniversity
Kwansei Gakuin University
Humanities Review
Vol. 17, 2012
Nishinomiya, Japan
２２７

Article Contents
I. Introduction
II. Historical Overview of the Rubric
1. Rubrics in the L1 Classroom
2. Rubrics in the ESL/EFL Classroom
III. The Effectiveness of Rubrics in the Language Classroom
1. A case for using rubrics in the L2 writing classroom
2. A case against using rubrics in the L2 writing classroom
IV. Conclusion
1. Discussion
2. Final reflections
References
Appendix #1
I. Introduction
Written English may be one of the most important skills that students will learn
at university in terms of both their future academic and professional lives. While
many of the students studying English at universities in Japan will never be required
to use English outside of the classroom on a day to day basis they are often asked
to write compositions as part of the language tests that act as gatekeepers to their
future jobs or further studies. The feedback that students receive from their teachers
plays an important role in the students’ development as English language writers.
Because of this, one of the most important questions that we need to ask ourselves
as teachers of written English is: “What is the best way to respond to and guide
students’ writing in a way that enables them to improve in both their current and
future written assignments?” This question is essential, as a large part of the
language teacher’s job in the writing classroom is taken up with grading and
providing feedback to students. In fact, the job of evaluating students’ writing and
giving them feedback is so central to the English language writing class many
teachers do not even question how or why this process is necessary or how it should
be done: “Many of the decisions that both L1 and L2 writing teachers make in their
classes revolve around assessment of students’ writing . . . (and) because a culture
of assessment is built into the schooling enterprise, teachers rarely ask whether they
need to assess their students.” (Casanave, 2007, p.113) However, a closer
examination of how and why they are providing feedback to their students is an
essential part of professional development and a vital experience for teachers
interested in improving themselves as educators.
Gavin BROOKS
２２８

II. Historical Overview of Rubrics
1. Rubrics in First Language Education
Rubrics were first introduced into the L1 writing classroom as a means of
assessing student writing. In the traditional view of how writing should be assessed
there was an assumption that it was possible to come up with some type of
objective score that could be assigned to a students’ composition and that the
validity of this “‘true’ measure of student ability . . .can only be established through
technical and statistical rigor” (Huot, 1996, p.550). (See Figure #1) Because of this
there was a push for researchers and teachers to come up with a set of tools that
allow the reader to assign a valid score to the student’s writing. One of the most
commonly used of these tools is the rubric. A rubric is defined as “a scoring tool
for qualitative rating of authentic or complex student work. It includes criteria for
rating important dimensions of performance, as well as standards of attainment for
those criteria” (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007, p.131). Rubrics have long been a part of
the writing classroom in first language classrooms around the world.
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”
(Noyes, 1912 as cited in Turley & Gallagher, 2008, p.88). Of these scales the most
famous is the Hillegas scale, which was developed in 1912 and “gave English
Traditional Writing Assessment
Procedures, Purposes and Assumptions
Procedure Purpose Assumptions
Scoring Guideline Recognize features of writing quality Writing quality can be defined and
determined
Rater Training Forster agreement on independent rater
scores
One set of features of student writing for
which raters should agree
Scores On Papers Fix degree of writing quality for
comparing writing ability and making
decisions on that ability
Student ability to write can be coded and
communicated numerically
Interrater Reliability Calculate the degree of agreement
between independent raters
Consistency and standardization to be
maintained across time and location
Validity Determine the assessment measures what
it purports to measure
An assessment’s value is limited to distinct
goals and properties in the instrument itself
Figure #1: The traditional view of writing assessment (Huot, 1966, p.551)
Assessment and Academic Writing
２２９

teachers the first reliable means of estimating objectively the quality of their pupils’
written production” (Hudelson, 1923, p.164).In1915Thorndikeimprovedupon
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” (Hudelson, 1923, p.164).
One of the key benefits of these, and other rubrics, is that they are an attempt
to provide some type of inter-rater reliability. This is done as an attempt to get
around “one of the most vexing dilemmas in writing assessment . . . the
inconsistency with which different readers tend to evaluate the same piece of
writing” (Casanave, 2007, p.124). However, it is important to note that these rubrics
“were never designed to (improve student writing) directly, and any who attempt to
employ them for a such a purpose are certain to be disappointed” (Hudelson, 1923,
p.163). In fact the early rubrics developed by Noyes and his contemporaries were
designed not for the student, but for the administrator as a means “to provide a
standardized form of measurement that wouldallowadministratorsandinvestigators
to ‘measure and express the efficiency of a school system’1) so that comparisons and
rankings could be made between schools across the nation (Turley & Gallagher,
2008, p.88).
However, in the early 70’s, as the “process approach” method for teaching
composition became popular in classrooms around the United States, rubrics had to
evolve from an assessment tools into something that could be used to provide
students with feedback on how well their essay met a certain set of criteria and
some insight into what they can do to improve themselves as writers. (Ferris, 2009)
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. One only needs to look at the
sub-title of the 2008 paper by Turley and Gallagher, “Reframing the Great Rubric
Debate”, to see that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. One of the
reasons for this debate is that how writing is being taught in L1 classrooms has
changed significantly over the years and teachers are not being asked to simply
evaluate their students’ writing but to engage in a dialogue with their students in an
attempt to help them improve as writers:
─────────────────────────────────────────
─
1) Turley and Gallagher take this quotation from Hillegas, Milo B., (1913), A Scale for the
Measurement of Quality in English Composition by Young People. Teachers College, 13(4), 28
−50.
Gavin BROOKS
２３０

a relatively recent shift in writing pedagogy has not translated into a shift in
writing assessment. Teachers are given much more sophisticated and
progressive guidance nowadays about how to teach writing but are still told to
pigeonhole the results, to quantify what can’t really be quantified. Thus, the
dilemma: Either our instruction and our assessment remain “out of synch” or
the instruction gets worse in order that students’ writing can be easily judged
with the help of rubrics. (Wilson as cited in Kohn, 2006, p.14)
2. Rubrics in the ESL/EFL Classroom
Many techniques have entered the second language writing classroom by way
of the first language composition classes because, as “Silva, Leki and Carson (1997:
399) point out, ‘second language writing is situated at the intersection of second
language studies and composition studies’ . . .(and) work that has focused
exclusively on Ll writing assessment contributes greatly to our understanding of
both the process and the product of L2 writing assessment” (Kroll, 1998, p.222).
The rubric is one of those things that has been borrowed by L2 teachers from their
colleagues teaching in the L1 writing classroom. Similar to how they were used in
first language classrooms, rubrics began in second language writing programs as a
means of providing teachers with a standardized way to evaluate their students’
writing. They were also used as a tool to facilitate the placement of students at the
appropriate level. In fact, today “most, if not all writing programs have entry and
exit criteria or grading rubrics to guide teachers at various levels of the program.”
(Ferris, 2009, p.121)
In the field of second language writing the ECP, or ESL Composition Profile
(see Appendix #1), is probably one of themostrecognizablerubricsand“(i)t,orits
offspring, will be familiar from workshop handouts or Xeroxes left behind in faculty
coffee rooms” (Haswell, 2005, p.107). This rubric was developed in 1981 using
research taken from the compositions of first language students. Three researchers
from Educational Testing Services (ETS) took research done in 1953 on the grades
and comments on the written assignments of first-year students studying at
Middlebury College, Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania to come up with a
rubric that was composed of five main traits. Each of these traits was then broken
up into a number of sub-traits that the researchers believed could then be used to
objectively grade English compositions written by second language speakers.
(Haswell, 2005) One benefit of the ESL Composition Profile (Jacob et al., 1981) is
that it has been established to have a high degree of both internal and external
validity, with scores given on the rubric being shown to be both consistent between
raters and as being “highly correlated with (student’s scores on) the TOEFL and
Michigan Test Battery” (Bacha, 2001, p.374) It is no accident that this rubric was
Assessment and Academic Writing
２３１

designed by researchers working for a testing organization as the ECP provides
these testing services with an invaluable tool that allows them to grade a large
number of student essays using multiple raters while still maintaining a high level of
inter-rater reliability. Because of this, other ESL/EFL testing companies are now
also using rubrics as a means of grading the writing component of their tests. While
the traits may vary from test to test (see Figure 2) the underlying rationale and
principles remain the same.
In most writing classrooms the teacher has no need for this type of inter-rater
reliability and is more likely to be interested in the pedagogical value of the rubric
and the benefits of students accessing the rubrics to improve the quality of their
writing. However, the debate about the pedagogical effectiveness of rubrics that is
being played out in first language classrooms and research journals is only just
Main Traits of Scoring Rubrics for Six Tests of ESL Writing
Test Trait
Test in English for Education Purposes
(Associated Examining Board)
Content
Organization
Cohesion
Vocabulary
Grammar
Punctuation
Spelling
Certificate in Communicative Skill in English
(Royal Society of Arts/ University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate)
Accuracy [of mechanics]
Appropriacy
Range [of expression]
Complexity [organization and cohesion]
Test of Written English
(Educational Testing Service)
Length
Organization
Evidence
Style
Grammar
Sentences
Michigan English Language Battery Topic development
Sentences
Organization/ coherence
Vocabulary
Mechantcs
Canadian Test of English for Scholars and Trainees Content
Organization
Language use
International English Language Testing System Regtster
Rhetorical organization
Style
Content
Figure 2: Traits measured by various rubrics usedinstandardizedESL/EFLTests(Haswell,2007,p.8)
Gavin BROOKS
２３２

reaching the field of second language writing. While rubrics are mentioned in both
texts and journals devoted to the study of second language writing (Bitchener,
Young, & Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 1995; Hyland, 2010) they are usually mentioned
in passing as one of a number of possible assessment tools with very little time
given to the analysis of their effectiveness as tools for rating and improving student
writing. For example, a look at the issues of the Journal of Second Language
Writing over a 4 year period, from 2008 to 2011, reveals only 9 original research
articles that even mention rubrics and, in all of these articles, rubrics are used
unquestioningly as a tool for evaluating students’ written work. In fact, a further
search of this journal reveals only 2 articles from 1992 to 2011 that actually
question the effectiveness of rubrics (Paulus, 1999; Weigle, 2007). One of these,
Weigle, simply mentions the current controversy that exists in first language writing
about the use of rubrics before dismissing the issue without providing any sources
or evidence for her position: “while holistic scales are faster and more efficient,
analytic scales tend to be somewhat more reliable than holistic scales, and certainly
provide more useful feedback to students, as scores on different aspects of writing
can tell students where their respective strengths and weaknesses are.” (2007,
p.203).
This view is changing and second language researchers such as Haswell (1998,
2005) are beginning to ask if rubrics are the best tools for language teachers to use
as a means of improving their students’ ability to write. However, as with the use of
rubrics in first language composition, this is not the type of question that allows
researchers to come down either in favor or against the use of rubrics in the
classroom. In their article “On the Uses of Rubrics”, Turley and Gallagher (2008)
point out that, “instead of declaring all rubrics ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ we need to examine
what they do, why, and in whose interest” (p. 92). They propose a 4 point heuristic
to analyze the value of rubrics (or any pedagogical tool):
1. What is the tool for?
2. In what context is it used?
3. Who decides?
4. What ideological agenda drives those decisions? (Turley & Gallagher, 2008,
p.87)
It is these 4 questions that provide a starting point for the evaluation of the
effectiveness of rubrics in English language writing classes at Japanese universities.
Assessment and Academic Writing
２３３

III. The Effectiveness of Rubrics in the Language Classroom
1. A case for using rubrics in the L2 writing classroom
While they might have their downside, rubrics can be useful tools in the
language classroom. Along with setting relevant tasks, setting a clear topic and
prompts, helping students to choose the appropriate rhetorical modes and giving
students adequate time to complete the writing task; setting an appropriate scoring
criteria and the need to attain valid and reliable scores are essential elements of a
successful English writing program (Jacobs et al., 1981). Rubrics can help teachers
to achieve this goal as they set clear criteria for both the students and the teacher
when it comes to grading written work.
Furthermore, rubrics also make it possible to evaluate components within
written assignment, such as rhetorical structures, grammatical accuracy and the
ability to stay on topic. This is especially important for second language writers as
the level of the various skills essential to writing can vary significantly from student
to student. In the L2 writing classroom we are much more likely to see “varying
levels of proficiency/skill in different aspects of the product (and) products can vary
widely across genres” (Kroll, 1998, p.224). Because second language writers are
more likely to show varying levels of performance on the different traits “if we do
not score for these traits and report the scores, much information is lost” (Hamp-
Lyons, 1995, p.760). Rubrics make it easier for the teacher to record a score for
each of these traits, or sub-traits, so that students are able to receive feedback on,
and improve, the areas that require attention.
Another advantage of rubrics in the second language classroom is that they
help the teacher or evaluator focus on more than just the sentence level structures
found in the written assignment. In a 1993 study that involved six graders
evaluating six samples of student writing Sweedler-Brown found that when a
holistic scale was used to grade two sets of essays, one set that had the grammatical
and spelling errors already corrected by the researcher and one set that had not been
corrected, those essays that had poor mechanics consistently got lower scores,
regardless of the proficiency of the rhetorical structures used in the essay. However,
she found that graders who used a rubric to evaluate the essays were shown to focus
more on “the high quality of the essays’ organization and paragraph development
(and) were not distorted by the different qualities of the sentence-level features in
the original and corrected essays” (Sweedler-Brown, 1993, p.11). The ability to
focus on and encourage students to improve their discourse and rhetorical skills is
essential if we want our students to become better writers of English as a second
language.
Gavin BROOKS
２３４

2. A case against using rubrics in the classroom
While there are many positive things to be said for using rubrics in the
classroom the use of rubrics in the second language writing class is not without
problems. Recently a number of researchers have begun to raise “significant
concerns about the consequences of writing assessment and the ways in which
assessment practices sometimes seem to be antithetical to teaching practices” (Kroll,
1998, p.222). For example, Haswell (2005) notes that one of the big issues with
rubrics are that they do not solve the problems involved with holistically grading an
essay that they were designed to address. Rather, a rubric with five traits would
simply be asking “the rater to perform theholistic(rating)fivetimes”(Haswell,
2005, p.107). Also, while the rubric may succeed in grading how well the writer has
met the criteria set out by the rubric, it does not do a good job of taking
individuality into account and rubrics will often penalize the use of creativity,
humor, or clever writing. These are often things that second language writing
teachers are trying to encourage in their students. With second language learners the
problem of tailoring their writing to meet the criteria laid out in the rubric is often
compounded by the fact that second language students are often not aware of the
different genres that the rubrics may have been developed to evaluate, genres that
first language speakers are exposed to from an early age. As such, second language
writers will often answer an essay question in a different way than a native speaker
would, and subsequently receive a lower score on a rubric that is designed for, or
by, L1 writers. However, as “(t)here is no single written standard that can be said to
represent the ‘ideal’ written product in English...wecannot easily establish
procedures for evaluating ESL writing intermsofadherencetosomemodelof
native-speaker writing.” (Kroll, 1990, p.141)
Another problem, for both L1 and L2 speakers, is that they may not know how
to use the rubrics to improve their writing. Because rubrics are usually designed as a
way of rating students those students are often not provided with adequate training
on how to use the rubric to improve their writing skills. This problem is further
compounded in the field of second language writing as many of the rubrics being
used are based on rubrics that were designed for first language speakers and are
often incomprehensible to L2 learners as they may contain information about traits
or metaskills that the L2 writer is unable to understand.
IV. Conclusion
1. Discussion
So what can language teachers do? Should we be incorporating rubrics into our
writing classes? Well, as I have already stated, this is not a simple yes/no answer.
Assessment and Academic Writing
２３５

Rubrics can provide both teachers and students with a valuable tool for improving
students’ second language writing. However, there are some steps we should be
taking to make sure that the rubrics we use are providing our students with the
support they need to develop as English language writers. To begin with, it is
important that the rubrics we use in the classroom are developed for the type of
assignment we are asking the students to perform. Many teachers take a one-size fits
all approach to grading rubrics, often using a modified version of the same rubric to
grade a wide variety of assignments or making use of one of the standardized
writing rubrics that can be found in language teaching books. This approach can
often lead to confusion on the part of both the rater and the students as the rubric
may not be designed to evaluate the traits that the teacher is hoping to see in his or
her students’ compositions. Teachers need to take into account “the purpose of the
essay task, whether for diagnosis, development or promotion . . . in deciding which
scale is chosen. Revisiting the value of these scales is necessary for teachers to
continue to be aware of their relevance” (Bacha, 2001, p.371). In fact, the most
effective rubrics are those that are “developed on-site for a specific purpose with a
specific group of writers and with the involvement of the readers who will make
judgments in [that] context” (Hamp Lyons 1991 c:248).” (Kroll, 1998, p.228)
However, “the downside of this sort of procedure is that for a thorough analytic
judgment, each writing assignment would need to be scored on a specifically created
assessment instrument” (Kroll, 1998, p.228) the creation of which can be a time
consuming process.
Another issue with the use of rubrics in the second language classroom is their
accessibility to the students. If the students are unable to comprehend the categories
and or sub-categories contained in the rubric they will not be able to use it in any
meaningful way to improve their writing abilities. Even when students are able to
understand the rubric they may not understand how it relates to their composition,
or be unaware of how to use the information provided by the rubric to improve their
writing. The solution to this problem goes beyond just teaching students how to
read the rubric. As they are stakeholders in the writing and assessment process the
most effective rubric is one that has been “created with (the) students and reflects
their values, goals, and language” (Turley & Gallagher, 2008, p.90). While this can
also take up time it is an essential part of the process of using rubrics in the
classroom as it is the only way to ensure that both the students and the teacher
understand the nature of the assessment and it ensures a solution that links together
the concerns of the various “stakeholders” in the assessment process.
2. Final Reflections
While the analysis of the use rubrics in the second language classroom is still
Gavin BROOKS
２３６

in its infancy I believe that it will become more important in the future. Similarly to
what is happening now in the field of first language writing, both teachers and
researchers working in the field of L2 composition will, in the near future, be forced
to look at the tools they are using to assess their students and decide if these tools
are doing the job for which they were designed. This should not a be viewed as a
negative trend as “rating process research can help us learn more about and improve
writing teachers’ everyday feedback practices” (Connor-Linton, 1995, p.765). Which
in turn will enable us to better help our students reach their full potential as second
language writers.
Assessment and Academic Writing
２３７

Appendix #1: Example of ESL Composition Rubric
(Haswell, 2005, p.108)
Gavin BROOKS
２３８

References
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership,
57(5), 13−19.
Andrade, H. L., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-Referenced Self-Assessment
and Self-Efficacy for Writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287−302.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective
feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191−205.
Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: what can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us?
System, 29, 371−383.
Broad, B. (2000). Pulling Your Hair out: “Crises of Standardization in Communal Writing
Assessment.” Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 213−260.
Broad, B., & Boyd, M. (2005). Rhetorical Writing Assessment The Practice and Theory of
Complementarity. Journal of Writing Assessment, 2(1), 7−20.
Casanave, Christine Pearson. Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and
Decisions in Research and Instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,
2003.
Clary, R. M., Brzuszek, R. F., & Fulford, C. T. (2011). Measuring Creativity: A Case Study
Probing Rubric Effectiveness for Evaluation of Project-Based Learning Solutions. Creative
Education, 2(4), 333−340.
Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Looking behind the curtain: What do L2 composition ratings really
mean? TESOL Quarterly, 29(4), 762−765.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33−53.
Ferris, D. (2009). Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Rating Nonnative Writing: The Trouble with Holistic Scoring. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(4), 759−762
Haswell, R. (1998). Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization theory and systems of
writing placement. Assessing Writing, 5(2), 231−268.
Haswell, R. (2005). Researching Teacher Evaluation of Second Language Writing. In T. Silva &
P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Second Language Writing Research: Perspectives on the Process of
Knowledge Construction (pp.105−120). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hudelson, E. (1923). The development and comparative values of composition scales. The
English Journal, 12(3), 163−168.
Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and
Communication, 47(4), 549−566.
Hyland, K. (2010). Teaching and Researching Writing (2nd Edition). Harlow: Pearson ESL.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and
educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130−144.
Kohn, A. (2006). The trouble with rubrics. English Journal, 95(4), 12−15.
Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class
compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Assessment and Academic Writing
２３９

Classroom (pp.140−154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 219−
242.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 265−289.
Sweedler-Brown, C. O. (1993). ESL essay evaluation: The influence of sentence-level and
rhetorical features. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(1), 3−17.
Turley, E., & Gallagher, C. (2008). On the uses of rubrics: Reframing the great rubric debate.
English Journal, 97(4), 87−92.
Weigle, S. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16(3), 194−209.
Wilson, M. (2007). Why I Won’t Be Using Rubrics to Respond to Students’ Writing. The
English Journal, 96(4), 62−66.
Gavin BROOKS
２４０