Author(s)

Andrew D. Schenck, Eoin Daly

English Education, Department of Liberal Arts Education (LAEC), Ju Si-Gyeong College, Pai Chai University, Daejeon, South Korea.

Although writing rubrics can provide valuable feedback, the criteria they use are often subjective, which compels raters to employ their own tacit biases. The purpose of this study is to see if discreet empirical characteristics of texts can be used in lieu of the rubric to objectively assess the writing quality of EFL learners. The academic paragraphs of 38 participants were evaluated according to several empirically calculable criteria related to cohesion, content, and grammar. Values were then compared to scores obtained from holistic scoring by multiple raters using a multiple regression formula. The resulting correlation between variables (R = .873) was highly significant, suggesting that more empirical, impartial means of writing evaluation can now be used in conjunction with technology to provide student feedback and teacher training.

Writing Rubrics; Writing Evaluation; Cohesion; Grammar; Word Frequency

Schenck, A. & Daly, E. (2012). Building a Better Mousetrap: Replacing Subjective Writing Rubrics with More Empirically-Sound Alternatives for EFL Learners. Creative Education, 3, 1320-1325. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.38193.