Evaluation and Grading of Students Writing Holist

Journal for the Study of English Linguistics
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
Evaluation and Grading of Students' Writing: Holistic

and Analytic Scoring Rubrics
Abeer Al-Ghazo
Associate Professor
Department of English Language and Literature, Ajloun National University, Jordan
Issam Ta'amneh
Associate Professor
English Language & Translation Department, Isra University, Jordan
Received: September 11, 2021 Accepted: September 30, 2021 Published: October 2, 2021
doi:10.5296/jsel.v9i1.19060 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jsel.v9i1.19060
Abstract
The paper tries to investigate the most preferable writing scoring rubrics when
assessing students' writing assignments and to find the dimensions that teachers who
teach English as a foreign language (EFL) emphasize when scoring EFL writing
summaries. Thirty male and female Jordanian EFL teachers who teach English in
both basic and secondary schools were participated to collect the necessary data. To
conduct the study, a questionnaire consisting of twenty-seven items was prepared
and disturbed by the researchers to suit the purpose of the study. In order to analyze
the participants' respondents in the questionnaire, the researchers calculate
Percentages, Means, Standard Deviations. The results revealed that there is a high
interest in using analytic scoring rubrics to correct their students’ writing. The total
mean reached 3.27 with standard deviation (0.65) by high agreement degree.
Moreover, the results also highlight the importance of using scoring rubrics as
precise and effective methods to assess the learners’ writing performance.
Keywords: Rubrics, Holistic Scoring, Analytic Scoring, Writing Competence,
Evaluation
77 http://jsel.macrothink.org
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
1. Introduction
The goal of any educational policy is to prepare learners to become proficient in English
language. Consequently, to achieve this goal, students should master the main language skills
which involve listening, speaking, reading and writing (Chawwang, 2008). Writing seems the
most productive difficult skill (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Kurk&Atay, 2007; Latif, 2007)
because writing production depends on grasp of vocabulary, grammar, logical sequence of
ideas and presentation of mechanical prosperities such as capitalization spelling,
paragraphing, punctuation, references, and appearance.
Learners also need to learn how to arrange ideas, select suitable words; form sentences and
then combine these sentences into coherent paragraphs. For this reason, we cannot deny that
EFL learners suffer from weaknesses in writing despite the efforts of educationalists to
correct this weakness.
Whiteman (1985) states that students are not good at writing because teachers do not involve
them in the writing tasks as teachers emphasize on teaching grammar, vocabulary,
capitalization and spelling. Beside teachers neglect a proper evaluation of their students'
pieces of written work. The evaluation of writing, in a process-oriented classroom, is a
crucial issue to a writing development and students’ learning improvement. One of the main
purposes of writing evaluation is to provide corrections and give correct feedback.
Harvard Study of Writing (cited in Klim 2011) points out clearly that the feedback that is
presented to the students by their teachers is so important as it provides the students with the
needed evidences to show them their ability or disability of performing or failing in doing a
writing task. This action is necessary as it helps the students in their choices of favorite
majors.
A rubric is considered an excellent way for evaluating and assessing the learners' writing
tasks (Schafer, 2004). It is a well-organized criterion that is used to arrange a scale for the
students' expected writing tasks and the scores that they deserve for the presented writing
tasks. (Campbell, Melenyzer, Nettles, & Wyman, 2000).A rubric is used to assess the overall
proficiency level of a given written work on the scale. These descriptors are essential to give
reliable, valid discrimination and good evaluation. Herman, Aschbacher, and Winters (1992)
point out that there are many characteristic features of a rubric scale. First, it has a
well-organized list of criteria for the raters and the test-takers. Second, it has standards for the
different levels of writing proficiency and performance. Third, it has gradations of written
quality. Fourth, it contains modal exemplars of expected performance level.
Weigle (2002) mentions that there are three types of rubrics that are used when
assessing the students' written tasks. These are primary trait, analytic and holistic
scoring rubrics. Kuo (2007) indicates that these three types differ in their degree of
bias, their impact, inter-rater reliability, the cost-effectiveness, and discriminatory
power. Many studies have used analytic rubrics, holistic rubrics, and other studies
have compared both types of those scoring rubrics.
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
Perkins (1983) outlines the consequences and procedures of using three principles
methods of writing that include holistic, analytic and trait evaluation. In trait
scoring, teachers assign holistically based on a certain feature of the writing that is
being emphasized such as the structure of student’s piece of writing, the vocabulary
or the tone. In this type, teachers need to know the extent to which the writing piece
exhibits the certain traits that are essential to accomplishing a writing purpose. In
the holistic evaluation, one or more readers evaluate the text as a whole and a single
grade is assigned to it based on an overall impression. Holistic scoring criteria
consist of some general guidelines that define good writing performance at each
score point. These criteria involved “The clarity with which the thesis is stated,
developed and supported, the effectiveness with which an issue has been raised,
treated and resolved, the sufficiency of the support and development of the thesis
for the reader, the degree to which the writer has accommodate the needs of the
intended audience, the degree of grammatical and lexical cohesion and overall
coherence of the piece, and The effectiveness use of rhetorical devices. (Perkins
1983)
Weigle (2002) concludes that the holistic rubrics are considered effective and
practical as they short and they can be done quickly. They do not include much
detailed criteria of assessment and evaluation so they serve the interests of
university departments and employers.
In contrast, when using the analytical rubrics, the written tasks are divided into
separate parts to be graded and evaluated fairly. In this method, learners can be
provided with precise diagnostic feedback. An analytic scoring rubrics typically
include writing components relating to the written content, organization,
vocabulary, language and mechanics. This type of rubric offers more detailed
information about a learners’ writing proficiency than do the single score of a
holistic scoring rubric. In this method, teachers can get comprehensive feedback
about the weak or strong aspects in their learners’ written work (Hamp-Lyons, 1995;
and Crehan, 1997). In choosing an evaluative tool, EFL teachers need to know and
weigh the disadvantages and advantages of each to decide the best procedures that is
objective, fair and efficient.
Jacobs et al. (1981) indicates that ESL analytic schema is considered as the best-
known analytical scoring scale. Hamp-Lyons (1990, 78) commented that it is "the
best-known scoring procedure for ESL writing at the present time". This rubric is
divided into five components: content, organization, vocabulary, language, and
mechanics with each one having four rating levels of excellent to very good, good
to average, fair to poor, and very poor.
Writing skills are arranged into different ranges as in the following: first, content
13–16 (very poor), 17-21, (fair to poor), 22-26 (good to average) and 27-30
(excellent. Second, organization 7-9 (very poor), 13-10, (fair to poor), 17-14 (good
to average) and 18-20 (excellent to very good). Third, vocabulary 7–9 (very poor),
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
10-13, (fair to poor), 14-17 (good to average) and 18-20 (excellent). Fourth,
language 5–10 (very poor), 11-17, (fair to poor), 18-21 (good to average) and 22-25
(excellent) and the last component is mechanics 2 (very poor), 3 (fair to poor), 4
(good to average) and 5 (excellent). (Jacobs et al., 1981). Any researcher has to
follow these ESL composition profile, and then expresses the rating of learner’s
written work in percentages. Each level and component has its own descriptor that
has a specific level and a special numerical scale.
Brown (1991) using a sample of some essays provided the scores that they deserve
after evaluating them using the rubric scale that is consisted of three categories
content organization, discourse syntax, vocabulary and mechanics. Many
researchers did not agree to the system of weighting that is used for each category.
At every level of proficiency, written practice provides diagnostic feedback that
help our learners improve their linguistic proficiency and accuracy. A key to
successful assessment and evaluation is to get your learners to understand that their
grades are just forms of feedback to identify their writing performance and then
create input for the next piece of writing. Weir (1990) indicates that evaluating any
EFL essays has been mainly for diagnostic and developmental purposes.
In order to help our learners to identify their writing competence, holistic and
analytic scoring tools are used in different EFL and ESL programs levels for
different purposes. Some of these techniques may be a combination of analytical
and holistic rubrics as the Jacobs’ et al. (1981). The main question is: Which scoring
rubric, holistic or analytic, is more preferred by teachers to evaluate their students’
writing proficiency?
Many studies tried to study and compare the teachers' behaviors toward holistic and
analytic scoring rubrics. Chi (2001) uses many-faceted Rasch measurement to find
the most appropriate scoring rubrics. The results revealed that there are significant
differences between raters using holistic scoring rubrics, but not analytic scoring
rubrics. Jacobs et al., (1981), Perkins, (1983), Al-Fallay, (2000); Knoch, (2009);
Nakamura, (2004) confirmed that analytic rubric is chosen for diagnostic purposes
because teachers and learners can get comprehensive feedback about their
performance. By contrast, Wiseman, (2012) indicates that holistic scoring rubrics
offer many advantages of reduced cost in money and time.
Several studies are investigating the importance of using scoring rubrics for written
assessment. Bacha (2001) conducts a study to find out which scoring rubrics can
provide EFL teachers about their learner’ essay writing competence. The researcher
used ESL Composition Profile by Holly Jacobs et al., 1981.The researcher carried
out the study on a sample final exam essay written by L1 Arabic non-native students
of English at the Lebanese American University. The findings revealed analytical
scoring rubrics are more beneficial to provide comprehensive feedback about
learners writing performance.
Shi (2001) examines differences in rater judgment of Forty-six teachers (23 Chinese
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
and 23 English teachers) who evaluated ten essays by using a 10 -point scale. The
scale has these categories: content, organization, language, and length. Findings
revealed that there are not any significant differences between non-native English
speakers and native English speakers in their scores for the 10 essays.
Yin (2010) explores teachers’ perceptions when conducting a classroom language
assessment in an EAP context in a British university. In this study, two teachers
observed their learners during teaching activities as an assessment form. Those
teachers observed the classroom pedagogy across one semester. After each
observation, the teachers were asked to recall their thoughts during classroom
assessment practices as they were revealed to them in video excerpts selected by the
researcher. The results revealed that the two teachers shared a number of common
assessment practices such as reading students’ written scripts and observations of
their group discussions.
Zhang and Elder (2011) conduct an empirical study to evaluate the oral English
proficiency of 10 English speakers’ speech samples who are elicited by CET-SET of
China.19 native English and 20 non-native English teachers provide data which
were derived from holistic scoring rubrics. After analyzing the data quantitatively
and qualitatively, the results revealed that there were not any significant differences
in raters’ holistic judgments of the speech samples
Hijikata-Someya .et al (2015) examine the ratings of EFL summaries written by 51
Japanese students who study at university. In order to identify differences in EFL
instructors’ evaluations, three native English speakers and three non-native English
speakers used the Educational Testing Service’s holistic rubric. The results reveal
that there is a lower Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for NNES raters when compared
to NES raters.
Thikra, K.et al (2015) use analytic and holistic scoring rubrics to compare EFL
learners’ scores on essay writing performance. The participants of the study were 30
Yemeni students attending an English undergraduate program. The researchers used
suitable statistical analysis to attain the correct results. The results reveal that both
Holistic Analytic rubrics are reliable and valid tools to evaluate learners’ writing
competence.
Qasim and Qasim (2015) examine Pakistani university teachers' perspectives and
their viewpoints toward the effectiveness of using rubrics to evaluate their students’
writing performance. Through extensive interviews with six respondents indicated
the perceived advantages and disadvantages of use of these kinds of rubrics. The
results also revealed that the teachers give a crucial importance to details and
elaborations.
Hosseini and Mowlaie (2016) investigate the possible significant effect of using the
analytic and the holistic assessments on improving Iranian EFL learners' writing
skill. To achieve the purpose of study, the EFL participants were divided into two
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
groups. The participants writing compositions in Group (A’s) were scored

holistically while the students' writing compositions in group B’s were scored
analytically. The results reveal that both scoring methods caused statistically
significant differences between pre- and post-test in both groups.
Yamanishi, Ono and Hijikata (2019) examine the applicability of analytic and
holistic scoring rubric to classrooms in the EFL context. 16 summaries written by
Japanese EFL university student writers were evaluated by six teachers using the
new rubric developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). After analyzing the
results quantitatively and qualitatively, the results revealed that The results reveal
that the overall quality dimension could work well even if used alone, and the new
rubric and the ETS holistic rubric had a positive and moderate correlation for L2
summary writing evaluation .
Ono, Yamanishi, and Hijakata (2019) try to reveal teachers’ perceptions of grading
the writing task on the TOEFL IBT. To achieve the reliability and validity, teacher-
raters’ holistic and analytic ratings are investigated. Seven raters used both a holistic
and an analytic scale to score 36 compositions and completed a questionnaire about
their perceptions of the scales. Results revealed that both holistic and analytic
scoring rubrics exhibited high inter-rater reliability and there were high correlations
between them.
2. Purpose of the Study

In order to enhance students’ writing competence, they need to know their level of
proficiency and this can be achieved through the assessment and evaluation of their
writing summaries. This study tries to investigate the most preferable writing
scoring rubrics when assessing students' writing assignments and to find the
dimensions that EFL teachers emphasize when scoring EFL writing summaries
The study tries to answer the following questions:
1- Which scoring rubric, holistic or analytic, is more preferred by EFL teachers
to evaluate their students’ writing proficiency?
2- Which dimensions do EFL teachers emphasize when scoring EFL writing
summaries?
3- Do these kinds of rubric give a clear picture about the students' writing
competence?
3. Statement of the Problem

Writing seems to be the most difficult skill because any writing production depends
on many factors such as grammar rules, grasp of vocabulary, logical sequence of
ideas (coherence and cohesion of the ideas) and presentation of mechanical
prosperities such as spelling, punctuation, citation of references, appearance. There
are many reasons behind the EFL learners' weakness in writing, one of these reasons
is because teachers in different educational stages focus on some of language
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
components such as grammar and vocabulary rather than trying to concentrate and
develop their students' writing competencies. Beside they neglect a proper
evaluation and assessment of their learners’ written work. The evaluation and
assessment are very crucial to improve and develop student’s writing. Due to the
challenging nature of writing in foreign language, EFL teachers have to find
appropriate teaching and assessment methods to improve their learners' proficiency
in writing skill.
4. Significance of the Study
This study aims at identifying the most important and appropriate teaching and
assessment methods and rubrics that can be used for writing assessment to enhance
and improve the learners' proficiency in writing skill. It also gives EFL teachers an
opportunity to diagnose their students’ weaknesses and strengths in their writing
competence through using the proper evaluation and assessment methods.
Moreover, scoring rubric also gives the learners with more correct detailed
information about their writing performance. In addition, using suitable and correct
rubrics can be helpful for program developers in which that these kinds of using
rubrics can play an essential role in remedial courses to focus and concentrate on the
weak points and to determine the degree of mastery of a given writing task
5. Method and Procedures
In this section, the researchers present the methodology which includes the
participants of the study, the instrument, validity and reliability of the instrument,
and the appropriate statistical analysis.
5.1 Participants
To conduct the study, thirty male and female Jordanian EFL teachers in both basic
and secondary schools participated in the study. They have had a good experience in
teaching English.
5.2 The Instrument
In order to investigate the most preferable evaluation rubrics that EFL teachers use
in evaluating their students' writing, the researchers prepared a questionnaire. The
questionnaire consisting of 27 items based on Likert Four-Point Scale. The
researchers used a four-point Likert Scale: (4) reflected strongly agree (SA), (3)
reflected agree (A), (2) reflected disagree (D) and (1) reflected strongly disagree
(SD).
5.2.1 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
To achieve the validity of the questionnaire, the researchers asked a jury of EFL
specialists in various Jordanian universities to assess the questionnaire. All their
suggestions were taken into account when adopting the final draft of the
questionnaire. As for the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbch’s alpha coefficient
was calculated. It was found to be (0.84). This value is considered satisfactory and
reliable to adapt the questionnaires in order to collect the needed data.
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
5.2.2 The Questionnaire Correcting Method

To find the degree of acceptance, the researcher used the following model (Oxford,
2003) that classified the means into three levels according to their categories.
6. Results and Discussion

The study tries to investigate the most preferable evaluation rubrics that EFL
teachers use in evaluating their students' writing. Moreover, it tries to find the
dimensions that EFL teachers emphasize when scoring EFL writing summaries, and
whether these kinds of rubric give the teachers a clear picture about their students
writing competence.
The first question was: Which scoring rubric, holistic or analytic, is more preferred
by EFL teachers to evaluate their students' writing proficiency?
To answer this question, the researchers measured the means and standard
deviations for teachers' responses in the questionnaire's items.
Table (2): Means and Standard Deviation for Teachers’ Perspectives toward the
Effect of Holistic Scoring on Improving the Writing Skill
No Items Mean Standard. Agreement

Deviation Degree
1 I think holistic scoring rubrics assess the 1.85 0.80 Low
learners’ writing proficiency level.
2 I think holistic scoring rubrics have the 2.03 0.73 Low
highest construct validity.
3 I think holistic scoring rubrics are done 2.13 0.94 Low
quickly and impressionistically
4 I think holistic scoring rubrics are more 2.35 0.86 Medium
practical ones.
5 I prefer using holistic scoring rubrics 1.85 0.74 Low
because they can not be subjective.
6 I see that it is difficult to obtain reliable 1.83 0.81 Low
scoring through using holistic scoring
rubrics.
7 I think holistic scoring rubrics have many 1.95 0.75 Low
advantages e.g., they reduce cost in time
and money.
8 I prefer using holistic scoring rubrics 1.93 0.76 Low
because they help me in assessing and
evaluating the students’ works as a whole.
Total Means 1.99 0.071 Low
Table (2) shows that means ranging from (1.83-2.35). Item 4 "I think holistic
scoring rubrics are more practical ones." receives the highest mean (2.35) with
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
standard deviation (0.86) while the lowest mean was (1.83) with standard deviation
(0.81) for item (6) "I see that it is difficult to obtain reliable scoring through using
holistic scoring rubrics". The total mean reached 1.99 with standard deviation
(0.071) by low agreement.
Table (3): Means and Standard Deviation for Teachers’ Perspectives toward the
Effect of Analytic Scoring on Improving the Writing Skill
Standard. Agreement
No Items Mean
Deviation Degree
I think that analytic scoring rubrics are more 3.66 0.48
1 precise diagnostic feedback that can be High
presented for the students.
I think that analytic scoring rubrics are better 3.200 0.414
2 because they assess the features of a given High
written sample separately.
I think that analytic scoring rubrics provide
3 3.46 0.516 High
my students with comprehensive feedback.
I think that analytic scoring rubrics put much 2.86 0.83
4 emphasis on various dimensions of students' Medium
written work.
I think that analytic scoring rubrics have more 3.80 0.414 High
ability to discriminate the weak as well as the
5
strong aspects of the students' writing
performance.
I think that that analytic scoring rubrics are 2.88 .680
6 not preferred scoring method especially in Medium
long-scale testing context.
Total Means 3.31 0.166 High
Table (3) shows that the means ranging from (2.86-3.80). It also shows that item (5)
" I think that analytic scoring rubrics have higher discriminating power of the weak
and strong sides in learners’ writing competence." receives the highest mean (3.80)
with standard deviation (0.414), followed by item 1 " I think that analytic scoring
rubrics are more precise diagnostic feedback that can be presented for the students."
with mean (3.66) with standard deviation (0.48). The lowest means was (2.86) with
standard deviation (.83) for item (4)"I think that analytic scoring rubrics put much
emphasis on various dimensions of students' written work. "The total mean reached
(3.31) with standard deviation (0.166) by high agreement degree.
After analyzing the results of the items taken by teachers, one can observe that there
is a high interest in using analytic scoring rubrics to correct their students’ writing.
Teachers think that analytic scoring rubrics are more precise diagnostic feedback
that can be presented to the students. They also assess the features of a given
written sample so they have higher discriminating power of the weak and strong
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
sides in learners’ writing competence. This indicates that the majority of EFL
teachers who hold the responsibilities of teaching writing in secondary schools
preferred using an analytic scoring rubric that provide them with comprehensive
feedback about their students’ writing performance.
Although some of the teachers shows that holistic scoring rubrics reduce cost in
time and money and they are more practical because they are short and do not
include detailed criteria, and the body of work is assessed as a whole, they are in
favor of analytic scoring rubrics. This method of scoring allows for more
diagnostics in which students can know their weakness in writing then try to
improve and enhance it .(Bacha, 2001;Cumming, 1997; Hamp-Lyons, 1995) assert
that holistic rubrics cannot provide EFL learners or teachers with a sufficient
feedback that may improve the learners’ writing performance .
Question Two: Which dimensions do EFL teachers emphasize when scoring EFL
writing summaries?
To answer this question, the researchers measured the means and standard
deviations for teachers' responses in the questionnaire items.
Table (4): Means and Standard Deviation for Dimensions that EFL Teachers Focus
on When Scoring Writing Summaries
No Items Mean Standard Agreement

. Degree
Deviation
1 I put much emphasis on how well the 3.75 1.55 High
passage’s content was significant,
appropriate and well thought out.
(Content).
2 I put much emphasis on how well the 3.15 1.27 Medium
written sample was organized.
(Organization).
3 I put much emphasis on word choice and 3.20 1.24 Medium
the appropriate use expressions.
(Vocabulary).
4 I put much emphasis on sentential and 3.70 1.22 High
discourse grammar. (Language).
5 I put much emphasis on writing rules. 3.05 1.23 Medium
(Mechanics)
6 I put much emphasis on the clarity that 3.25 1.33 Medium
the thesis is stated and supported.
(Clarity of thesis).
Total Means 3.35 .125
As shown in Table 4, two out of six dimensions that EFL teachers focused on when
scoring writing summaries are at the level of high. These dimensions are content
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
(3.75) and language (3.70). Through assessment writing summaries, teachers put
much emphasis on their student’s comprehension of the topic they have written
about, whether they write the statement first and the outlines of the essay before
they start writing or not, and whether they have been able to write more narrowed-
down statements and support them through using more supporting sentences or not.
Moreover, teachers try to focus on meaningful and logical sequence of the sentences
and the correct use of the words through assessing any written samples (sentential
and discourse grammar).
The results also show that there is a medium awareness of how well the written
sample was organized. They consider that students still have some problems indirect
quotations, complex and compound sentences, adverb and adjective clauses, using
punctuations … etc.
Question three: Do these kinds of rubric give a clear picture about their students
writing competence?
Table 5: Percentages, Means, Standard Deviations and Rank of the Effects of
Rubrics on Writing Competence
Dimension Percentages in Categories: Std.

Ran k Items Mean
ID S.D. D. Neutral A. S.A. Dev.
Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics
1 1 are highly helpful and effective for essay 0.0 0.0 15.0 75.0 10.0 3.875 0.40
scoring.
provide a sufficient feedback that may

2 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 3.490 0.62
improve the learners’ accuracy and fluency
in their writing ..
3 3 can enable teachers to diagnose their 0.0 20.0 55.0 25.0 0.0 3.067 0.51
students’ weak points.
By using scoring rubrics, students will be

4 4 0.0 10.0 85.0 5.0 0.0 2.900 0.35
more confident in teachers' comments.
5 5 can not provide learners with a clear 0.0 40.0 45.0 15.0 0.0 2.767 0.69
picture of their weak points.
6 6 draw learners’ attention to their spelling, 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 2.325 0.49
grammar, and punctuation.
7 7 try to overcome my students' shortcomings 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.290 0.47
through meaningful feedback.
Over Whole 0.0 5.0 85.0 10.0 0.0 3.050 0.31
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
Table 5 shows that the overall degree for the effects of rubrics on writing
competence is moderate as the mean is 3.050. The table also shows that item
(1)"Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics are highly helpful and effective for
essay scoring." receives the highest mean (3.87) with standard deviation (0.40). This
is followed by item (2) "Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics provide a
sufficient feedback that may improve the learners’ accuracy and fluency in their
writing" with mean (3.06) with standard deviation (0.62). The lowest means was
(2.29) with standard deviation (.47) for item (7)"Using holistic and analytic scoring
rubrics try to overcome my students' shortcomings through meaningful feedback".
This result highlights the importance of using holistic and analytic rubrics as
precise and effective methods to assess the learners’ writing performance. It shows
that using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics provide a sufficient feedback that
may improve the learners’ accuracy and fluency in their writing. It shows that using
these kinds of scoring rubrics would enable teachers to diagnose their students’
weak points. Learners’ attention would be drawn to their spelling, grammar,
punctuation, capitalization, and handwriting errors. The findings agree with
(Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005), and (Liu, 2008) who have shown that
sufficient feedback on learner’s errors either grammatical or lexical ones results in
significant improvement in their writing competence and performance. The results
are in complete harmony with the result of Hosseini, Mowlaie (2016) who have
shown that there is a significant effect of analytic and holistic assessments on
improving writing skill among Iranian EFL learners.
7. Conclusion
Holistic and analytic rubrics are scoring scales used by EFL teachers as a process of
evaluating the students' writing compositions. There are many benefits for using
scoring rubrics as a tool to assess students’ writing performance. They can provide
sufficient feedback that may improve the learners’ accuracy and fluency in their
writing task and to overcome the grammatical and lexical errors. In other words,
students can overcome their shortcomings through meaningful feedback. The results
reveal using analytical rubrics yields is more accurate and consistent than using
holistic scoring methods. Teachers consider that analytic scoring rubrics are more
precise diagnostic feedback that can be presented for their learners because they can
assess the features of a given written sample so they have higher discriminating
power of the weak and strong aspects in writing performance as well as the learning
needs. To sum up, without providing feedback in writing, students will not be able
to improve and monitor their progress effectively and efficiently.
References
Al-Fallay, I. (2000). Examining the analytic marking method: Developing and using
an analytic scoring schema. Language & Translation, 12, 1-22.
Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: what can analytic versus holistic essay
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371-383.

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.
Brown, J. D. (1991). Do English and ESL faculties rate writing samples differently?
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 587-603.
Campbell, D. M., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H., & Wyman, R. M. Jr. (2000).
Portfolio and performance assessment in teacher education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Chawwang, N. (2008). "An Investigating of English Reading Problems of Thai 12th
Grade Students in Nakhonratchasima Educational Region 1, 2, 3 and 7", Master
Thesis, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chi, E. (2001). Comparing holistic and analytic scoring for performance assessment
with many-facet Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2(4), 379-388.
Crehan, K. (1997, October). A discussion of analytic scoring for writing
performance assessments. Paper presented at the Arizona Education Research
Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions.
Language Testing, 7(1), 31-51.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Rating nonnative writing: The trouble with holistic scoring.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 759-762.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second language.
Harvard Study of Writing, Online available from
https://www.unl.edu/writing/assessing-student-writing
Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to
alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Hijikata, Y., Yamanishi, H., & Ono, M. (2011, June). The evaluation of L2 summary
writing: Reliability of aholistic rubric. Paper presented at the Tenth Symposium on
Second Language Writing. Taipei, Taiwan: Howard International House.
Hosseini, M., & Mowlaie, B. (2016). Effect of Holistic vs. Analytic Assessment on
Improving Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Skill. Journal of Language
and Translation, 6(11), 31-41.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B.
(1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
House writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 69-87). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating
scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275-304.
Kurk, G., & Atay, D. (2007). Students' Writing Apprehension. Journal of Theory and Practice
in Education, 3(1), 12-23.
Latif, M. A. (2007). The factors accounting for the Egyptian EFL university students’
negative writing affect. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language & Linguistics., 9, 57-82.
Retrieved from:
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/egspll/volume_9/pdf/57-82%20Muhammad.p
df
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and Second Language Learning: Toward
a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2), 251-275.
Nakamura, Y. (2004). A comparison of holistic and analytic scoring methods in the
assessment of writing. Retrieved from
https://jalt.org/pansig/2004/HTML/Nakamura.htm
ONO, YAMANISHI, and HIJIKATA (2019) .Holistic and Analytic Assessments of
the TOEFL iBT® Integrated Writing Task. Japan Language Testing Association. vol.
22: pp. 65–88, 2019.
Perkins, K. (1983). On the use of composition scoring techniques, objective
measure, and objective tests to evaluate ESL writing ability. TESOL Quarterly,
17(4), 651-67.
Qasim A. Qasim, Z. (2015). Using Rubrics to Assess Writing: Pros and Cons in
Pakistani Teachers’ Opinions. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics.
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLLL/article/view/27152/0
Schafer, L. (2004). Rubric. Retrieved February 9, 2015, from
http://www.etc.edu.cn/eet/articles/rubrics/index.htm
Shi, L. (2001). Native- and nonnative-speaking EFL teachers’ evaluation of Chinese
students’ English writing. Language Testing, 18, 303-325.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800303
Thikra K. Ghalib, T & Al-Hattami, A. (2015). Holistic versus Analytic Evaluation of
EFL Writing: A Case Study. English Language Teaching; 8(7), 225-235.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, S. (2007). Which rubric is more suitable for NSS liberal studies? Analytic or
holistic? Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 179-199.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall Regents.
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
Wiseman, S. (2012). A Comparison of the Performance of Analytic vs. Holistic

Scoring Rubrics to Assess L2 Writing. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 2(1),
59-92.
White, E. M. (1985). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Yamanishi, H., Ono, M., & Hijikata, Y. (2019). Developing a scoring rubric for L2
summary writing: a hybrid approach combining analytic and holistic assessment.
Lang Test Asia, 9, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0087-6
Yin, M. (2010). Understanding Classroom Language Assessment through Teacher
Thinking Research. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(2), 176-195.
Zhang, Y., & Elder, C. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and
native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs?
Language Testing, 28, 31-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532209360671
Appendix 1
No. Statements Totally Agree Disagree Totally
Agree Disagree
Evaluation and Grading of Students' Writing : (Holistic and Analytic Scoring)
1- I think holistic scoring rubrics assess the learners’ writing
proficiency level .
2- I think holistic scoring rubrics have the highest construct
validity.
3- I think holistic scoring rubrics are done quickly and
impressionistically
4- I think holistic scoring rubrics are more practical ones .
5- I prefer using holistic scoring rubrics because they can’t be
subjective.
6- I see that it is difficult to obtain reliable scoring through
using holistic scoring rubrics.
7- I think holistic scoring rubrics have many advantages e.g.
they reduce cost in time and money.
8- I prefer using holistic scoring rubrics because they help me
in assessing and evaluating the students’ works as a whole.
9- I think that analytic scoring rubrics are more precise
diagnostic feedback that can be presented for the students.
10- I think that analytic scoring rubrics are better because they
assess the features of a given written sample separately.
11- I think that analytic scoring rubrics provide my students
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
with a comprehensive feedback.

12- I think that analytic scoring rubrics put much emphasis on
various dimensions of students' written work.
13- I think that analytic scoring rubrics have more ability to
discriminate the weak as well as the strong aspects of the
students' writing performance.
14- I think that that analytic scoring rubrics are not preferred
method of scoring in long-scale testing context.
The most Focused Dimension for EFL Teachers when
Scoring Written Samples
15- I put much emphasis on how well the passage’s content was
significant, appropriate and well thought out. (Content).
16- I put much emphasis on how well the written sample was
organized. (Organization).
17- I put much emphasis on word choice and the appropriate
use expressions. (Vocabulary).
18- I put much emphasis on sentential and discourse grammar.
(Language).
19- I put much emphasis on writing rules. (Mechanics)
20- I put much emphasis on the clarity that the thesis is stated
and supported. (Clarity of thesis).
The Role of Holistic and Analytic Scoring Rubrics in Measuring the Students' Writing Performance.
21- Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics are highly
helpful and effective for essay scoring.
22- Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics provide a
sufficient feedback that may improve the learners’
accuracy and fluency in their writing .
23- Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics can enable
writing teachers to diagnose their students’ weak points.
24- By using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics, students will
be more confident in teachers' comments.
25- Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics cannot provide
learners with a clear picture of their weak points.
26- Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics draw learners’
attention to their spelling, grammar, punctuation,
capitalization, and handwriting errors.
27- Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics try to overcome
my students' shortcomings through meaningful feedback
.
ISSN 2329-7034
2021, Vol. 9, No. 1
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Evaluation and Grading of Students Writing Holist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation and Grading of Students Writing Holist

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation and Grading of Students Writing Holist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal for the Study of English Linguistics

Evaluation and Grading of Students' Writing: Holistic

doi:10.5296/jsel.v9i1.19060 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jsel.v9i1.19060

groups. The participants writing compositions in Group (A’s) were scored

2. Purpose of the Study

3. Statement of the Problem

5.2.2 The Questionnaire Correcting Method

6. Results and Discussion

No Items Mean Standard. Agreement

No Items Mean Standard Agreement

Dimension Percentages in Categories: Std.

Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics

Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics

provide a sufficient feedback that may

Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics

students’ weak points.

By using scoring rubrics, students will be

Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics

picture of their weak points.

Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics

grammar, and punctuation.

Using holistic and analytic scoring rubrics

through meaningful feedback.

Over Whole 0.0 5.0 85.0 10.0 0.0 3.050 0.31

scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371-383.

Wiseman, S. (2012). A Comparison of the Performance of Analytic vs. Holistic

with a comprehensive feedback.

You might also like