DOI
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol3-iss2-pp146-151Keywords
written communication skills , pre-service English teachers , rubrics , CEFR , teaching , assessing , pedagogical tool , feedback , student engagement , academic success.Abstract
Developing strong written communication skills is essential in the preparation of pre-service English teachers, as it not only underpins academic success but also equips them to effectively teach and assess writing in their future classrooms. This article explores the integration of rubrics—particularly those aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)—as a pedagogical and technological tool to support writing instruction. It highlights how rubrics enhance self-regulation, promote fairness, and facilitate feedback while aligning learning outcomes with internationally recognized proficiency standards. Drawing from contemporary research, this article outlines the benefits of rubric use in language teacher education and addresses the challenges involved in rubric design, implementation, and student engagement. Practical considerations and implications for teacher education programs are discussed to encourage more effective writing assessment practices and foster reflective, competent educators.
References
Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-30
Arter, J. & Chappuis, J. (2007). Creating and recognizing quality rubrics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Broad, B. (2000). Pulling your hair out: Crises of standardization in communal writing assessment. Research in the Teaching of
English, 35, 213-260.
Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. Logan, Utah: Utah State University
Press.
Covill, A. E. (2012). College students' use of a writing rubric: effect on quality of writing, self-efficacy, and writing practices. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1).
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
North, B. (2014). The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. Council of Europe.
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
Panadero, E., & Andrade, H. (2018). A review of self-assessment: Past achievements and a way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1303582
Popham, W. J. (1997). What's wrong--and what's right--with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72-75.
Quinlan, A. M. (2006). A complete guide to rubrics: Assessment made easy for teachers, K-college. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859
Turley, E. D., & Gallagher, C. W. (2008). On the “uses” of rubrics: Reframing the great rubric debate. English Journal, 97(4), 87–92.
Downloads
40 12Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Гузал Тураева

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.











