Rubric for Objective Writing

Introduction

The nature of objective writing is defined in this research, with the use of theories derived
from cognitive psychology, communication theory, and philosophy of knowledge. This is
followed, in essence, by Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) to simplify complexities and
eliminate load which interferes with the comprehension of the context and the message to be
conveyed and the principles of neutrality and impartiality by Popper (1959). To evaluate
these elements, the study employs a rigorously developed rubric based on Allen and Knight's
(2009) collaborative approach, assessing Clarity of Ideas, Impartiality, Evidence-Based
Reasoning, Logical Organization, and Language Mechanics across four performance levels:
Good, Average, Below Average, and Poor. In creating the rubric, objectives include defining
goals, choosing examples, writing down descriptors, conducting pilot tests, revising for
instructors and professionals, validating with Delphi, and achieving differentiation and
accuracy, measured statistically. While the process of structured peer review appears to be a
valuable aid in measuring up academic programs against key criteria, it also enhances the
teaching and learning of skillful writing.

Theoretical Foundations of Rubric Development

As with many assessment practices, the idea of rubrics is grounded in historical education
theories and philosophies giving a conceptual explanation and introduction to how they can
be constructed and used. These theories therefore highlight the use of rubrics in the modeling
of learning processes, the facilitation of collaboration and the promotion of the assessment
processes.

Constructivist Learning Theory

According to the learning theory that belongs to constructivism and is developed by

Vygotsky (1978) learning concentrates on meaning making systems of the learners involving
meaningful learning processes. This principle is well served by rubrics as the latter specify
expectations and criteria for performance or in other words, build up the learner’s concept of
a complex task. Such alignment of rubrics with the design and the constructivist approach
enables learner’s to self-regulate and be critical of the criteria meant to guide their learning.
For instance, learners who are using the rubrics for self-evaluation are not only performing
assigned tasks as instructed or as required, but partaking in the governance of corporate
practices (i.e., benchmarking standards) in their way, which necessarily enhances their
learning and cognition. In particular, this active construction of knowledge is vital for
supporting higher order thinking abilities as well as generalization of skills.

Sociocultural Theory

According to Vygotsky (1978) social context of learning is very important as everybody

knows that learning is not an individual process but a social process. The principles of rubric
construction often follow these guidelines, which in most cases requires the contribution of
educators, learners and other players. This way, teachers and students develop a common
vision of learning goals and evaluation criteria which encourages formation of the community
of practice based on shared responsibility. In addition, rubrics, as instruments of shared
understanding, allow educators and students to coordinate their conceptions of quality thus
controlling vagueness of expectations. This shared framework can also enhance equality and
diversity because all learners enter the learning landscape with the same predictors of success
regardless of their background experiences and cultural environments.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory advanced by Sweller (1988) enables an application of a cognitive

perspective to the usefulness of the well-designed rubrics. In this theory, the authors suggest
that extraneous cognitive load, which arises when instructions are unclear or expectations are
ambiguous takes attention away from learning. However, rubrics help to overcome such a
problem due to the clear and easily understandable criteria that decrease the amount of mental
work to determine the specific nuances of the tasks. For example, if a rubric has a clear
descriptive criterion that reflects the level of poor, average, and excellent performance, the
learner has fewer cognitive loads distinguishing between the three but instead has to decode
the meaning of the criterion provided. Besides improving the execution of the tasks, this
minimization of the extraneous cognitive load boosts learning-achievement complemented by
improved recall.

Assessment for Learning Principles

Wiliam and Black’s (1998) categorization of formative assessment principles highlight the
formative purpose of assessment as a process that supports and builds up learning. This
principle is best exemplified by rubrics as these present performers with specific prescriptions
on what they positively did, or negatively did not, well for their learning. Although often
characterized as limiting and assessing only final performance, the use of rubrics promotes
the activity-learning approach. For example, when students are trying to write using the
rubrics in order to improve their work then the students are doing formative cycles of
assessment. In the same manner, rubrics make assessment clear so that learners working
under them are calm knowing that at the end of the day their performance will be judged
based on the assessments provided in the rubrics thus avoiding much stress that would hinder
growth and creativity in their projects.

The concept and practice of rubrics are firmly based on the approaches to learning activities
which are more active, collaborative, cognitively effective, and efficient. According to the
principles of constructivist learning theory, sociocultural theory, cognitive load and
assessment for learning rubrics become high-powered tools for enhancing meaningful
learning processes. Not only does this theoretical work increase their functionality but it also
stresses how they could revolutionize assessment into an educative mechanism that promotes
learner growth. Rubrics are not just assessment tools but tools that enhance learning,
togetherness and growth in learning communities.

Criteria's for Objective Writing Rubric

Clarity of Ideas

On this concept, simplicity is the main goal of writing since the reader does not require any
additional effort to comprehend any information. One key principle of writing is; simplicity is
aplenty; it means that the reader should not be put through much of a mental effort when
making sense of written information. According to Sweller (1988), there is a restricted
cognitive capacity in the human cognitive system which must be lightened by adopting
strategies of eliminating unnecessary cognitive load. The crucial purpose of clarity in
academic and professional writing is to make students and professionals understand the
content of the message without distracting them by the obscure or oratorical expressions. For
instance, in technical papers, it is always very crucial to provide precision in describing
techniques and outcomes that may been followed or observed respectively. Therefore, clarity
is not a mere protocol, but a condition for information-processing efficiency, or the capacity
to transmit knowledge.

Impartiality
Neutrality in the narrative is inherent in objective writing approach that aims to work as free
as possible from individual prejudices and present the material fairly. In a way, the
epistemological concepts introduced by Popper (1959) prescribe impartiality as a principal
hole of scientific proximate process, abstracting from bias in observation and logic. In
practical terms, political impartiality of the writer means critical analysis of multiple sources
and non- selection of views. For example, in policy analysis or journalism, neutrality
enhances their reliability by providing an extensive picture of the problem. Lack of neutrality
is detrimental to the credibility and academically annihilates the work and diminishes
audience trust which makes it important and sensible criteria for effective and professional,
ethical communication.

Evidence-Based Reasoning

Situating evidence is a key in constructing sensible arguments and logical support of

assertions. According to Chalmers (1999), it has become explicit due to the fact that it turns
the scientific method on its head, and puts empirical evidence forward as the way of
guaranteeing the reliability of conclusions. In professional writing, it is mandatory to
incorporate data into the flow of the writing where data connects argumentation with findings
and situates them in the discursive practice. For instance in the field of law or in the academic
writing, baseless arguments have less strength in comparison with the arguments have solid
backup proof. The usage of arguments backed by evidence serves not only to improve the
argument but is also critical every time the writer communicates with the readers, making
evidence a necessity in writing.

Logical Organization

Reasoned structure keeps the information well-arranged and definite, which allows readers
make their logical conclusions after reading materials following the provided chain of
thought. According to principles of rhetoric by Aristotle (1996), the tangling of ideas must be
planned so that one element can follow the other in a logical manner and Discourse Analysis
by van Dijk (1977) stresses the same point for a fact. Technical writing requires the proper
use of headings and subheadings, proper paragraphing, and the creating of titles that include
questions, statements or propositions. For instance in persuasive writing style, a well-
structured logical argument makes the work easy to be understood by the reader as well as
improving the chances of its acceptance by the reader. On the other hand, error-some writing
creates clutter, which overpowers the intended message; that makes this criterion crucial.
Language Mechanics

Various writing rules such a grammar, punctuation, and word choice are essential for
avoiding complicated, and unprofessional writing. According to Strunk and White (2000), it
is an accumulation of exacting and correct document that is vital in good communication.
Simplification sin such as grammar and syntax discrepancies can divaricate the attention of
the readers, diminish the authority of the presented text, and make the past information hard
to comprehend. For instance, if in business communication, dealing with grammar skills will
make the writer prove otherwise by having more grammar errors resulting in reduced
credibility. The mastery of language mechanics on the other hand improves the quality of
writing; and as such, demonstrates the author’s desire for professional dignity, and makes it
one of the imperatives of writing.

The standards of good writing coherence, neutrality, use of arguments and proofs,
mathematical and logical structures, and correct language syntax are supported by solid
theoretical foundations that emphasize the need and possibilities of effective communication.
In fact, each criterion performs a specific, yet interconnected task so that writing is not only
informative and sound but also interesting and readily comprehensible. In this way, writers
can create the work entirely corresponding to the criteria of academic and professional
quality to promote active discussion and knowledge-based decision-making.

Rubric Levels for Objective Writing

It is an obvious fact that concept clarity is a major determinant of the quality of writing,
which measures the level of expertise a writer is able to address with clarity to a nondescript
audience. Every of the described levels reflects not only the general academic standards, but
also educational theories that explain the cognition and instructional aspects of clear
meaning.

Excellent (4): Mastery Learning

This level may be said to represent the extent of clarity of a writer, increased comprehension
of the topic under discussion and mastery of skills. The theoretical framework for this level is
Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives at the highest cognitive level of
learning poor mastery stating that mastering knowledge is essential to reach the highest
learning outcomes. In Mastery learners elicit features such as synthesis and precise stating of
ideas while exhibiting multiple forms of integration. In writing, this equates to writing
coherently and concisely while making the offered information easy for anyone to
comprehend. For example, the kind of work found in academic journals where authors share
complex concepts that bear an abstract idea is an excellent example of this level of mastery
because of the extensive understanding and ability to pass this information across.

Good (3): Competency-Based Education

At the “Good” level, a writer shows good proficiency in writing, by comprehensively

presenting the subject, although with minimal errors with application of principles in writing.
Concerning Competency-Based Education, Stiggins (2004) calls for the accomplishment of
specified outcomes that signal competency attainment. Writers at this level can write
consecutively and coherently but punctuality is occasional blunted by inconsistency of clarity
and depth occasionally. For instance, reports or essays of any professional group showing the
overall message of what has been produced but not so polished or filled in could be said to
belong to this level. Although adequately informative, all these writings can be made far
more effective through polishing the writing style or increasing the focus on specific
elements.

Needs Improvement (2): Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

This level shows that on the way to improve writing clarity, the writer needs more direction
but is far from reaching an advanced level. To understand this stage Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone
of Proximal Development (ZPD) is beneficial since it captures a learning period where he
observed learners could accomplish tasks in the presence of assistance but could not on their
own. In writing, this results in partial uncovering of the knowledge in which may be
presented as a key message that is semantically or syntactically unclear, may not have much
structure, or may contain an argument from where some important points may be missing.
Writing feedback and instruction for this type of student requires positive reinforcement and
extensive support in order to help close the gap between where the student is now and where
the student can be. For instance, the preliminary writings, which contain poor focus and
organization, and thus may be rewoven into a new form, are in this category.

Poor (1): Error Analysis

The “Poor” level imitates clear and concise concepts and ideas; including many mistakes
interrupting communications and sharing of wrong ideas. Brown’s (1994) Error Analysis
shows how misunderstandings and ineffective approaches lead to low performance levels. At
this level, writing contains a logical flow of ideas, lack of organization, generalization or
contradiction of ideas, proposals that are emotionally charged. Limitations of knowledge
could also be caused by poor understanding of principles or organizational problems that lead
to poor focuses. For instance, written tasks filled with grammatical mistakes, fail to finish an
argument or idealess show this stage. If the misconception is rooted deeply in understanding,
then it is required that the problem is diagnosed and appropriate intervention be made.

The transformation from poor to excellent quality in writing can be seen as a cognitive and a
pedagogical transformational sequence. Each level as Bloom’s mastery learning, Stiggins’
competency-based education, Vigotsky ZPD and Brown’s error analysis helps one to
understand the writer’s potential in the present and probable evolution. An awareness of these
levels may richer practice and educate interventions to promote enhanced clarity or
communication. Finally, gaining of clarity is not just the technicality of accomplishments but
rather evidence of a thinker’s carefulness and expertise.

Descriptors in Objective Writing Rubric

Clear exposition of thought, absence of bias, rationality, the ability to arrange an argument
logically, and spelling and grammar comprise the skills which make for clear and formal
writing. Every part is very important to make the message relayed appropriately and shows
the writer’s comprehension and professionally.

Clarity of Ideas

Any kind of text should be as clear as possible so the reader does not have to overthink about
the message that is being convey.

Precise Expression

Accuracy prevents generalization and makes sure that the audiences are in a position to
determine the real intention of the message passed. For example, Sweller (1988) presented
that according to his Cognitive Load Theory, uncluttered communication can be effective
enhancing cognitive achievement because they lessen the extraneous cognitive load.
Logical Structure

The organization of points also contributes to the creation of easy to read material as well as
the understanding of the content. A systematic flow and rational organization of ideas
dominate the text and aid the reader in a rational trip. Studies on written language from
discourse analysis perspective such as van Dijk (1977) all support the need to adopt a
structured writing.

Avoiding Ambiguity

When using ambiguous words, there is always a misinterpretation that witnessed by the fact
that the text is no longer very reliable. I think that in view of this principle, Strunk and White
(2000) correctly note that clear and concise writing should be maintained to keep the
argument solid.

Impartiality

The principles which are followed when preparing objective written work include
impartiality, which is strategic in achieving fairness in presenting facts.

Unbiased Presentation

Writing can never be in any bias but must follow standard principles of fairness. According to
Popper (1959), it is of outmost importance that there are no bias interpretations in scientific
research, as they distort the fact.

Balanced Perspectives

Incorporation of ideas primarily opposite to the authors allows for adding the layer of
richness and objectivity to the evaluation. This practice fits into the principals of critical
thinking, establishing credibility and academic rigor in the telling of the story.

Evidence-Based Reasoning

Credibility and logic should always be the corner stones of an argument.

Thorough Support

All the claims that are made to the audiences have to be backed by evidence from research,
survey or any other credible information. The view of Chalmers developed on the basis of the
necessity of evidence for proper conclusions in the framework of scientific method
(Chalmers, 1999).

Logical Analysis

To a large extent the approach of avoiding logical fallacies and stating support systematically
makes the case strong on both efficacy and defending the case as well. For example,
Toulmin’s (1958) scheme of argumentation calls for the increased integration between
claims, evidence and warrants with a view of improving elements of the argument.

Logical Organization

Proper organization is central to preventing a loss of the audience’s interest and in the
realization of conveying knowledge successfully.

Cohesive Flow

Proper use of connectors results in smooth shift of references between points and thus make
reading easier. Aristotle (1996) principles of rhetoric all points to the need to cohesion in the
persuasive communication process.

Logical Sequencing

When giving ideas it’s essential to arrange them in a logical manner so that they flow and
decompose arguments. Errors in text arrangement are an interruption of logical structure in
the reader’s mind, and therefore just harms the value of the work.

Language Mechanics

Language mechanics represent professionalism and attention paying to details and using them
enhance the validity of writing.

Professional Vocabulary

The distinguishing and relevant language improves both the writing’s precision and color as
it aligns it to its target audience. Organizational and scholarly materials enhance domain-
specific vocabulary to prove the academia’s authority.

Grammatical and Punctuation Accuracy

Misconceptions in either grammar or punctuation can easily misrepresent the main message
or even the authority of the writer. Proper mechanics, and should stressed by Strunk and
White (2000), makes a writing both refined and clear.

Clear writing and playing the mediator role, the use of arguments and rationale, the
proper structuring of an argument and ideas, their punctuation. All of these combine and
enhance the theoretical underpinnings of each part as well as successful real life applicability
thus adding to the authority of the text. When these standards are complied with, writers can
create material that is persuasive and professional but also scholarly and easy to understand
by anyone.

Rubric for Writing Objectivity

This rubric is developed with the help of the approach presented in the article discussing a
method for collaboratively developing and validating the rubric by Allen and Knight (2009).
It assesses five key criteria for writing objectivity: Reason, objectivity, rationality, logic,
order, and mechanics of language. Each criterion is justified and evaluated across four
performance levels: The group options on the template of the post-modifying response were
Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement, and Poor.

Criteria Excellent (4) Good (3) Needs Poor (1)

Improvement
(2)
Clarity of Ideas are Ideas are mostly Ideas are Ideas are
Ideas precise, well- clear, with occasionally confusing and
organized, and minor unclear or lack logical
completely free ambiguities. disorganized. structure.
from ambiguity.
Writing is
completely
Writing is Some bias is
unbiased, Writing is
mostly evident,
Impartiality presenting heavily biased
objective, with affecting
balanced or one-sided.
slight bias. objectivity.
perspectives
throughout.
Claims are
thoroughly Claims are Claims lack
Most claims are
Evidence-Based supported by inconsistently evidence or
supported, with
Reasoning strong evidence supported by logical
minor gaps.
and logical evidence. reasoning.
reasoning.
Logical Writing flows Writing is Writing is Writing lacks
Organization cohesively, with generally well- inconsistently structure and is
a logical organized, with organized, difficult to
 progression of
ideas that
minor lapses. disrupting flow. follow.
enhance
readability.
Writing is free
of grammar and Significant
Minor errors in Frequent
punctuation errors obscure
Language language do not language errors
errors, with meaning and
Mechanics detract from moderately
professional reduce
meaning. affect clarity.
vocabulary professionalism.
usage.

1. Clarity of Ideas
Clarity as a function of formulated, coherent, rational, and sequentially integrated
thoughts. Clarity is important to refer to in order to avoid subjective content as
confusion in the writing can lead to confusion in objectives (Allen & Knight, 2009).
2. Impartiality
The degree to which they are free from bias and herein the ability to present both side
of any story. Writing objectively implies working strictly to the facts without bias,
which is important in work that needs credibility (Stevens & Levi, 2005).

3. Evidence-Based Reasoning

Argumentation supported by facts, and factual evidence in general. Higher objectivity

is achieved and erroneous information is eliminated than by using evidence based
reasoning as stated by Andrade (2005).

4. Logical Organization

The general organization and structure of thoughts from one line to another and from
one paragraph to the other. This boosts the flow of the whole document because
materials are presented in order; this also assures that the arguments in any work are
presented in a sequential order (Stevens & Levi, 2005).

5. Language Mechanics

Compliance with all the rules of punctuation, grammar, and lexicon. Good use of
language is required to maintain a professional and unambiguous tone, both of which
belong to the virtue of objective writing according to Messick (1989).
Steps taken to develop the Rubric

1. Develop Learning Objectives

State the objectives of the rubric as follows: clarity, neutrality, argument supported by
evidence, structure and professional and academic language usage.

2. Identify Representative Work

Choose such objective writing activities as essays, reports, where the students will be
able to use these skills.

3. Develop Initial Rubric

Take the performance levels and descriptors developed by the academic and
professional input to write out the stated performance of each criterion.

4. Test the Rubric

Then use the rubric on student work samples and collect data from instructors and
professionals.

5. Identify and Address Gaps

The rubrics should be adjusted depending on test results, where some elements might
have contradictory descriptions or might be overly complex.

6. Validate the Rubric

Another way of gaining agreement on weights and criteria is to use such techniques
as Delphi technique in involving professionals and faculty.

7. Differentiate Performance

Make sure that the rubric can recognizes the different level of performance by the
students using the statistical measure such as the ANOVA test.

8. Improve Reliability

It’s important to assess the degrees of inter-rater reliability and description

consistency across different analysts.
Conclusion

The study has analyzed and synthetically revisited the major facets of the objective style of
writing using perspectives of cognitive science, theories of communication, and
epistemology, with an emphasis of clarity, specifications, neutrality, logical structure, appeals
to evidence and proper use of language. The rubric applied in this analysis is underpinned by
strong theoretical constructs of simplicity as reducing cognitive load (Sweller, 1988),
neutrality in representations as a lack of bias (Popper, 1959), and postulates an evidence-
based approach of rationality as fundamental to the quality of the arguments (Chalmers,
1999). The flow and, as taken from van Dijk (1977) and Aristotle’s (1996) works logical flow
of the text also has to be made so it is easily comprehensible which is made possible by
adherence to certain language mechanics that are depicted by stylistics (Strunk and White,
2000). Following constructivist learning theory by Vygotsky (1978) and assessment-capable
learning, or assessment for learning principles by Black and Wiliam (1998), the development
of the rubric ensures it is useful for learning and feedback. For educators and learners, these
results have important consequences, as they present a possibility of directing the process of
development of objective writing and guarantee a structured approach.
 References

Allen, S., & Knight, J. (2009). A method for collaboratively developing and validating a
rubric. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2),
Article 10.

Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College
Teaching, 53(1), 27-30.

Aristotle. (1996). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain.

David McKay Company.

Brown, J. S. (1994). The adaptive design of educational technology. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 42(1), 1-11.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103).

New York: Macmillan.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save
grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Stylus
Publishing.

Stiggins, R. J. (2004). New assessment for student learning. Allyn & Bacon.

Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style. Longman.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12(2), 257-285.

van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of
discourse. Longman.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Harvard University Press.