essay writing in arabic

The Simplest Way To Improve Your Arabic Writing

If you are serious in your Arabic learning, you obviously need to follow a plan focused around your learning goals.

Just like with reading and speaking skills, you will need to follow a structured method to improve your Arabic writing skills.

I tried here to avoid the general writing advice that applies to writing in all foreign languages, focusing on the specifics of Arabic language composition.

I will share with  you the practical tips you can use to practice writing in Modern Standard Arabic. 

Please note that what I am sharing with you here does not apply to the colloquial dialects of Arabic.

I will also show you how to use the Arabic keyboard, develop your writing strategy, request writing assignments from your instructor if you have one, and spell correctly without looking it up online in addition to other tips you can incorporate in your learning.

Table of Contents

1.Read.. a lot!

Reading Arabic content is a prerequisite to good Arabic writing. To be able to generate output (write), you will need to be exposed to a good amount and quality of Arabic reading (input) at a regular frequency . 

Picking up a routine of reading Arabic content that is within your level or slightly above it will enrich your vocabulary. 

A suitable reading material is any content you can read and understand 80% of it. Anything less than that is a little too advanced for you at the current stage. To develop a Arabic reading skills, make sure you read this article .

It is important that you are intentional in your reading. That is to say you have to selectively read material that will help you with your language expression needs. 

For instance, if you are a beginner, try to read content that will help you write about yourself, your family and personal interests to equip yourself with the writing vocabulary and tools to meet your written expression needs as a beginner. 

As you progress, try to vary your reading content to cover different types of themes and styles such as comparative, argumentative, narration, instructions , to name a few, so that you can emulate them when you write.

2.Add the Arabic keyboard on your devices

In addition to practicing writing on a notepad the traditional way, it is equally important to add an Arabic keyboard on your phone and electronic devices. 

If you have not done it yet, use this detailed tutorial to add the Arabic keyboard to your iphone and other devices.

While handwriting will give you a kinetic experience in learning how to connect the letters together, the Arabic keyboard will provide you with a convenient way to practice Arabic composition.

You can use your phone Arabic keyboard to type a casual short text message or a newly encountered term or type up a small paragraph during your daily commute or lunch break. 

By incorporating this small adjustment in your daily routine, you are turning the new skill of Arabic typing into a second nature, further enhancing your Arabic writing ability.

3. Mimic writings you like.

There is a huge lack of  tested strategies in teaching Arabic writing. In the Arab world, dictation or orthography was almost the only writing exercise taught in grade schools in the Arab world. 

Composition was never drilled as methodologically as it is in French or English, except for the traditional breakdown of the introduction , body and conclusion . 

This means  you will have to be proactive in learning how to write in Arabic. You will need to select your favorite writing style or author(s) and try to emulate it and hone that skillset as you go. 

Certain Arabic news sites, like Doha-based Aljazeera TV and London-based Saudi daily As-Sharq al-Awsat , adopt modern writing styles. You can visit one or both websites for your daily dose of Arabic news and observe their writing style and word choice. 

Unlike traditional Arab writers, the two above-mentioned sites use a linear informative style with a minimal editorial touch due to their worldwide audiences. 

As you progress and build up your proficiency, you can move up to reading literature if you desire.

4. Adopt the multiple drafts approach.

If you are learning Arabic in a classroom setting and you are not being challenged to write in Arabic, you should raise the issue with your instructor and politely ask for the opportunity to produce writing essays.

Ideally the teacher will adopt the multiple drafts method . You submit your first draft, and the instructor would return it to you with comments on points that need improvement or more elaboration until you submit your third and final draft. 

This method prevents you from procrastinating and allows you to display your  early thinking and analysis, which could disappear if you wait until the last minute to submit a rushed write-up.

Early thinking allows the instructor to guide your writing attempts early on in the process before the pressure of deadlines starts piling up.

Also, by starting early, you focus on delivering good content, which makes for a more enjoyable experience in writing what you have to write. It also provides you with opportunities to  self-critique , improve your paper and re-submit. 

This process will consequently help you hone your Arabic writing skills because it forces you to apply your analytical thinking on your own writing.  

5. Incorporate the terminology and rules you learned.

Take everything you learn about Arabic as parts of a whole, and always think of the larger picture which eventually revolves around communicating effectively in Arabic. 

As you learn new grammar rules and memorize new vocabulary from reading and listening to Arabic content, make a deliberate effort to put everything you learn into practice. 

Incorporate in your writing a nice phrase or idiom you picked up recently and recall the grammatical and spelling rules you have been learning. 

In the Arabic language, there is a rule for everything. If you can’t recall the rule, look it up. For instance,  if you have to use a word that contains the hamza  (ء), see the rule that determines its placement such as its vowel ( harakat ) and that of the letter that precedes it instead of just looking up online how it is spelled. 

As a general rule, if you try to memorize word spellings, you will keep looking them up online; if you grasp the rule that governs the spelling, you will rarely have to look up a word. All you have to do is recall the spelling rule. 

For instance, if you have to write the hamza (ء) with a sukun vowel ْ  , the rule says that if it’s preceded by a kassra vowel it should be spelled as ئ as in بِئْر ( a well).

By grasping this rule, you will never have to look up how to write hamza with a sukun vowel when preceded by a kassra vowel. 

6. Consider your audience.

One thing about the Arab culture is that formalities and hierarchy are important, and the use of Arabic language in communication mirrors that. Therefore, it is very important to consider your audience as you attempt to write a letter, an email or even a text message. 

If you are writing a formal letter or communique, you want to make sure you refer to the person you are addressing in the second person plural. Not only it shows that you respect the other party, but also demonstrates that you know enough about the culture to use the proper form.

You also want to use a bit of flowery and deferential style as you address government employees and highly placed people. 

For example, use  صاحب السعادة or جنابكم الموقر — which roughly translates to “Your respected excellency”  — in official communication with Arab recipients.

This may sound unreasonable, or even laughable, in your native language, but this is the right register to use in formal communication and official letters. 

The Arab culture ranks high in the Power Distance Index (PDI) , a measure used by some sociologists. This means that Arabs respect and accept the hierarchical order that is set in their societies. As a learner of Arabic, you may want to show that you understand that.

Similarly, if you are writing to someone with a PhD, you should address the person as Doctor So & So   (الدكتور); if you are writing to an engineer, you address him as Engineer So & So (المهندس). 

7. Write regularly and solicit feedback.

Long-term consistency beats short-term intensity. Bruce Lee

The ideal frequency of writing practice is to do a little bit everyday over a long period of time instead of intense irregular sessions. 

Three or four short writing sessions a week are more effective than a three-hour  session once a week.

Make sure you ask for feedback on your Arabic speaking proficiency from qualified individuals, such as your instructor, educated native speakers, and even supportive peers who are familiar with your learning track.

Asking for feedback also means that you should take it as an opportunity to develop and improve without dwelling on your shortcomings.

Proceed with caution though. What you need is constructive criticism that can help you improve your speaking. Avoid asking negative or unqualified individuals who may demotivate you.

8. Build a repertoire of useful verbs, descriptions, and conjunctions

You may find that you have a tendency to selectively pick your vocabulary based on what you find easy, difficult or cool or even fun to the ear.  

Although this is not a very bad habit, you want to make sure you are intentional in collecting  the vocabulary that will help with your conversational needs. 

Make an effort to be deliberate in picking up functional verbs, phrases, adjectives and linking words that will help you with telling a story, describing a person, comparing ideas or making a conclusion.

If you are lucky and have a good instructor,  you may participate in guided conversational sessions built around specific themes and situations in accordance with your speaking abilities and objectives. 

A good use of vocabulary will not only leave a positive impression on your interlocutors but will also show what kind of an Arabic learner you are.

9. Plan ahead and use and outline

For writing structure and planning, you can use the traditional writing methods. Start with general ideas and work your way into the small details. 

Jot down your main ideas and start with your subheadings first. This will help you remain organized and focused on your topic. 

Remember that language is just a tool to convey meanings and ideas. Once you establish an outline to organize your main points and subheadings, you start using your vocabulary and own style to translate the ideas into words. 

Since your purpose is to improve your written expression, don’t give too much attention to the ideas at the expense of form.

The whole point is to practice the grammar and spelling rules you have been learning to come up with a coherent and easy to follow essay.

10. Don’t be afraid of writing

Finally, enjoy your status as a foreign language student and write without fear or anxiety of being judged. Expectations from you as a language student are not as high as what’s expected of you in your native language. 

Be bold and borrow a thick skin if you don’t have one. Try to write using your own style while you maintain good grammar, spelling and proper form. 

You will of course make mistakes, but what’s the big deal? Mistakes create the best learning opportunities in learning Arabic or any foreign language. 

Just like in other languages, your writing will only become better with regular practice over time.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

Happy writing!

Related Posts

Do I Learn Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) or a Dialect?

7 hacks for studying arabic (or any foreign language) on your own..

How Can I Improve My Arabic Skills?

How Can I Build My Arabic Vocabulary?

How do I improve my Arabic speaking skills?

7 Practical Steps to Improve Arabic Reading

1 thought on “the simplest way to improve your arabic writing”.

Am an English speaker, would like to learn Arabic writing and speaking.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The AI Arabic Writing Assistant

Qalam, the automated proofreading software, helps you write clear and impressive texts, free from spelling and grammar errors by utilizing the latest Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing Techniques.

Any time, any place, Qalam works for you!

Don’t worry anymore about grammatical and spelling correction or auto-tashkeel!

Wherever you are, Qalam writes with you; whether you're writing on desktop apps, websites, social media, or even while texting.

Qalam Features

Learn more about some of Qalam’s feature

Spellchecking

Grammar checking, phrasing improvements, auto tashkeel, sentiment analysis, english checker.

Through AI applications and natural language processing (NLP), we make an impact on an ongoing basis.

Our users’ review

What our clients and success partners say about Qalam

Multiple Writers One Style

Beside spell checking and grammar checking features, you can configure your unique style and Qalam will help your team to follow it. Qalam spots spelling and grammar errors, corrects them, and suggests more accurate linguistic alternatives and forms to make your teams’ writing perfect.

Security and privacy are our top priorities.

With Qalam, your data is in safe hands, data security and privacy are on top of our priority list.

We have a local software installation service for your own servers.

For more details, fill out the contact form and one of our delegates will reach out to you soon.

Arabic Essay Language

An Arabic language blog featuring useful phrases for writing essays in the target language. The blog includes Arabic idioms, proverbs, and academic phrases to assist the language learner in writing more complex essays.

Transitional Phrases I: Sequencing, and Additional Information

No comments:, post a comment.

"> img('logo-tagline', [ 'class'=>'full', 'alt'=>'Words Without Borders Logo' ]); ?> -->

• Get Started
• About WWB Campus
• Translationship: Examining the Creative Process Between Authors & Translators
• Ottaway Award
• In the News
• Submissions

Outdated Browser

For the best experience using our website, we recommend upgrading your browser to a newer version or switching to a supported browser.

More Information

Beyond Representation: Life Writing by Women in Arabic

Arabic literary traditions are rich with women telling their own stories, from Andalusian Wallada bint al-Mustakfi’s fakhr poetry—allegedly embroidered on her clothes—through the epistolary practice of Nahda writers like Mayy Ziyadeh to the autobiographies of feminist pioneers Huda al-Shaarawi and Nawal al-Saadawi, as well as the memoirs of established literary authors such as Radwa Ashour and Samar Yazbek. In this feature, we bring you a small selection of contemporary voices that expand and challenge these diverse traditions of nonfictional life writing.

Translations of women authors from the Arab world are often read in reductive ways. All it takes is a look at the rolling landscape of women in veils adorning book covers to realize that there’s a voyeuristic impulse that—at least until very recently—has governed many of the publishing trends around Arab women’s literature. And that, when it comes to writing by women from Arab countries, the assumption that women’s life writing would tend toward the domestic and private spheres still prevails. These considerations make it difficult to gather pieces under a header that contains both “women” and “Arabic” without running the risk of essentializing.

Much has been written since the early 2000s about the packaging and reception of Arab women’s writing, specifically in English translation. For instance, Margot Badran’s translation of Huda al-Shaarawi’s memoirs, titled Harem Years: The Memoirs of an Egyptian Feminist (1987) , gives more weight in the preface and other paratextual material to the subject of the veil than Shaarawi’s own narrative does. Life in the “harem” is also foregrounded in ways that it is not in the Arabic. Shaarawi, who redefined women’s public engagement through the Egyptian Feminist Union, affords a lot more space in her text to her public action and nationalist politics. The Arabic does not even have “harem” in the title.

Nawal al-Saadawi, one of the most translated authors from Arabic into English, has been read and discussed in ways that exaggerate her subversiveness. Saadawi occupies a space in the multifarious feminist and leftist movements of her country, but editors and critics in English have repeatedly—often against her own best efforts—foregrounded sensationalist topics in her writing, portraying her as a lone fighter and the majority of Arab women as hapless victims.

The term “Arab women” itself comes with its own set of problems. It imposes a fictive homogeneity on diverse life experiences and varied contexts that have as much to set them apart as to unite them. Then there is the question of language. Not all writers identifying as Arab write in Arabic, and not everyone who writes in Arabic lives in the Arab world. But even if we take Arabic language as a defining criterion—which we do for this selection—we have to be careful not to erase literary expressions in any of the many tongues that are not the predominant modern standard Arabic, including local colloquial variations.

What is to be done, then, to give Anglophone readers a better chance to appreciate women writers from the Arab world, beyond the politics of representation and away from the public/private dichotomy? Perhaps the answer is to let as many texts as possible speak for themselves: texts that are personal and specific enough to inevitably question easy assumptions and restore the plurality missing from the representation narrative, but also topical and daring enough to show that there are countless links between the personal and the public, and many routes from the particular to the universal. We hope that the selection of texts in this feature goes some way in the direction of doing just that.

“ Razor Blade Rattle and the Beginnings of Being Tamed ,” translated by Sawad Hussain, is an excerpt from the autobiography Woman of the Rivers (2015) by Ishraga Mustafa, a Sudanese-Austrian writer, poet, and translator. An intimate and visceral piece that describes childhood trauma with a chilling lyricism, it deals with the physical loss of genital cutting and the emotional loss of trust in older women in the family. But this is far from a story of female victimhood: Mustafa’s voice here is strong and poetic, connected to nature and to her own body, sharp in its resistance to the controls exerted over it. It recaptures the spirit of the defiant child owning her losses and growing “the fruit of that pain [. . .] into palm trees.” Just as she grows herself into the author who inhabits a place from which she can speak about “the hundred lanterns in her mind.”

If autobiography is defined by the concurrence of the author with the “I” that speaks, Nadia Kamel’s Born: The Story of Naela Kamel, née Marie Rosenthal challenges that supposition. This oral-history-cum-autobiography is based on Kamel’s recordings of her mother and written entirely in ammeya (spoken Egyptian Arabic). In a feat of literary ventriloquism, Kamel channels her mother’s voice to tell the story in the first person: mother and daughter crossing together—as Kamel puts it in the introduction—“the threshold of telling, an act of stepping out.”

Mary’s/Naela’s voice is wise and inquisitive, embracing the multiculturalism of the generations of migrants she hails from while constantly interrogating her place in the world. In “ Communism in Style ,” translated for this feature by Brady Ryan and Essayed Taha, Naela/Mary shares anecdotes from her covert work for the printing press of a 1940s Egyptian Communist cell. This is a sardonic account of the cell’s work that gently mocks her own youthful naivete as well as the amateurish operations of the group. She is subtly aware of questions of privilege and class prejudice and, without taking herself too seriously, insists on going against the grain of the expectations of her milieu.

Palestinian writer and activist Sahar Khalifeh is also known for her refusal to conform. In “ University Student ,” excerpted from her autobiography A Novel for My Story (2018) and translated by Sawad Hussain, she recounts her reaction to receiving an offer of place at Birzeit University as a mature student in 1973, a pioneering move at the time and especially daring under Israeli occupation. It is a bittersweet recollection of that era in Khalifeh’s life, told in a tone that is steady and determined but never overconfident. Her stated ambitions are to become a writer and to be financially independent, but the obstacles are many: societal expectations, lack of funds, and the logistics of movement under occupation, to name a few. Khalifeh’s account moves beyond the initial reactions from those around her—“What was that? One of whimsical Sahar’s latest pipe dreams?”—to offer a vivid snapshot of female solidarity and mutual empowerment.

The final piece in this selection is Rasha Abbas’s “ Six Proposals for Participation in a Conversation about Bread .” Included here in Alice Guthrie’s translation, it first appeared in al-Jumhuriya alongside a number of essays that interrogate the relationship of food to power and political turmoil. Poetically, it strips down the struggles of war and military coups, and questions of exile and belonging, to a focal point that is as basic as it is universal: bread in its many forms, traversing eras and geographies, from the 1940s through the 2010s in cities like Damascus, Moscow, Latakia, and Berlin. The first person is mostly implicit in Rasha Abbas’s personal essay, somewhat secondary, hiding behind the wider political upheavals, witnessing without seeming to directly engage.

In Greek tragedy, female choruses were introduced to serve the dramatic purpose of passive witnesses and commentators. A chorus of men, you see, would have been expected to intervene in the events unfolding onstage. Women, on the other hand, were not expected to act. In other, more recent European traditions, autobiography used to be considered an androcentric genre. In its most basic format, it depicted an individual hero’s journey from childhood to public accomplishments, focusing on external trials and triumphs and the role played in public life. It was assumed that to play a role in public life, you would have to be a man. Again, we see the division of what is ultimately expected of public- vs. private-sphere denizens.

But one cannot write about real-life experiences from the place of the “I” without laying claim to a place in the world. The pieces included here—like most genuine, impactful life writing by good writers of all genders or none—cut across the private and public spheres to give us stories that can be surprising, shocking, or eerily familiar and relatable. This feature is meant to broach rather than summarize a rich and diverse area of reading possibilities. We invite you to cross the threshold of telling and enjoy a discordant cacophony of voices—certainly not a passive chorus—each weaving the narrative of a life that is simultaneously individual and connected with the world around it, so that the Arabness of the writer’s identity or location becomes secondary to the vital human stories she shares.

© 2020 by Sawad Hussain and Nariman Youssef. All rights reserved.

Sawad Hussain

Sawad Hussain is a translator from Arabic who has run multiple translation workshops.

Nariman Youssef

Nariman Youssef is a Cairo-born, London-based translator…

What Comes after #NameTheTranslator?

Literature from the "axis of evil": writing from iran, iraq, north korea and other enemy nations.

Quick Links

Adult courses.

• Learn Quran Online
• Learn Arabic Online
• Islamic Studies Course
• Learn Quran Tafseer
• New Muslim Course

Kids Courses

• Online Quran Classes
• learn Arabic Online
• Pillars Of Islam
• Islamic Studies For Kids
• Islamic Supplication Dua Course

• Convention & Expo

About ACTFL

Actfl assessments, educator resources, professional learning, publications, career development, the language connects foundation.

• ACTFL Central
• Government & Industry

ACTFL Strategic Plan

Board of directors, research briefs, research findings, research priorities & grants.

ACTFL Assessments are recognized as the gold standard. ACTFL proficiency tests are used worldwide by academic institutions, government agencies, and private corporations.

K-12 Assessments

Postsecondary assessments, quality control of actfl assessments, test administration & delivery, tester & rater certifications, request an assessment - new language form, renew/reinstate membership, member-get-a-member campaign, special interest groups (sigs), organizational members.

Use our Educator Resources to guide your curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

World Readiness Standards

Roadmap to guide learners to develop competence to communicate effectively.

• Purchase the Standards

ACTFL Performance Descriptors

A roadmap for what learners should be able to do as they learn a language.

Can-Do Statements

Set goals and chart progress towards language and intercultural proficiency.

Guiding Principles for Language Learning

Get guidance and discover what is effective in language learning.

Position Statements

What the research shows, actfl proficiency guidelines 2024.

Explore real-world spontaneous situations by skill or level.

Resources by Topic

Find resources to improve your practice around a variety of important issues.

• Addressing Tragedy and Trauma, Mental Health, and Social Emotional Learning (SEL)
• Affinity Groups
• Crisis in Ukraine
• Race, Diversity, & Social Justice
• Teaching & Learning Remotely

Events and Deadlines

Individual workshops, institutional workshops, program review services, online learning.

• Digital Micro-Learning Series
• Facilitators-in-Training Webinar Series

Foreign Language Annals

The language educator magazine.

• TLE Sample Articles

ACTFL SmartBrief

Publish with actfl, advertise with us, facilitators-in-training, mentoring program, leadership initiative for language learning (lill), actfl awards.

• ACTFL Professional Awards
• Teacher of the Year Program

Internship & Scholars Program

Scholarships & grants, terms and conditions.

For Use of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines

Please review and agree to Terms and Conditions before accessing the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines resources.

Terms & Conditions

The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines are proprietary to ACTFL. Language educators and not-for-profit school entities may use the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for curriculum development, classroom-based assessment, and to estimate learner progress toward proficiency. The  ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and any previous or subsequent versions may be used for non-profit, educational purposes only, provided that they are reproduced in their entirety , with no alterations, and with credit to ACTFL. Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines in any form is prohibited other than for non-profit, educational purposes. You may not, except with ACTFL's express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit any media content. No other uses are authorized.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. View Cookie Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The raters’ differences in Arabic writing rubrics through the Many-Facet Rasch measurement model

Harun baharudin.

1 Faculty of Education, Center of Diversity and Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Selangor, Malaysia

Zunita Mohamad Maskor

2 SMK Khir Johari, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia

Mohd Effendi Ewan Mohd Matore

3 Faculty of Education, Research Centre of Education Leadership and Policy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Selangor, Malaysia

Associated Data

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Writing assessment relies closely on scoring the excellence of a subject’s thoughts. This creates a faceted measurement structure regarding rubrics, tasks, and raters. Nevertheless, most studies did not consider the differences among raters systematically. This study examines the raters’ differences in association with the reliability and validity of writing rubrics using the Many-Facet Rasch measurement model (MFRM) to model these differences. A set of standards for evaluating the quality of rating based on writing assessment was examined. Rating quality was tested within four writing domains from an analytic rubric using a scale of one to three. The writing domains explored were vocabulary, grammar, language, use, and organization; whereas the data were obtained from 15 Arabic essays gathered from religious secondary school students under the supervision of the Malaysia Ministry of Education. Five raters in the field of practice were selected to evaluate all the essays. As a result, (a) raters range considerably on the lenient-severity dimension, so rater variations ought to be modeled; (b) the combination of findings between raters avoids the doubt of scores, thereby reducing the measurement error which could lower the criterion validity with the external variable; and (c) MFRM adjustments effectively increased the correlations of the scores obtained from partial and full data. Predominant findings revealed that rating quality varies across analytic rubric domains. This also depicts that MFRM is an effective way to model rater differences and evaluate the validity and reliability of writing rubrics.

Introduction

Writing skills are complex processes and require the coordination of various high metacognitive skills. In order to produce written ideas, a writer must be able to organize and generate ideas, develop plans for ideas, review the writing, and monitor self-esteem in writing ( Olinghouse and Leaird, 2009 ; Dunsmuir et al., 2015 ). Writing skills must be mastered in foreign language learning as stated explicitly in the curriculum document. Writing is the ability of a human to communicate in a set of letters that become understandable sentences. Through writing, students’ thinking might be highlighted through the way it is organized, combined, developed, and strived to create an association of ideas to assist readers to understand their thinking organization. Based on writing performance in writing on gender, Adams and Simmons (2018) emphasized that there were significant gender differences in the writing performance of year 1 and year 2 among children from the North West of England, where boys produced shorter essays with fewer words spelled correctly, and were rated lower than girls. Findings also concluded that female students are more capable of producing quality writing than male students.

Writing skills are productive and expressive, and both are important as information conveyers. Writing skills are productive because writing is a productive activity of written work in the form of the expression of one’s thoughts. Whereas expressive implies appropriate (able to) give (expression) images, intentions, ideas, and feelings ( Mufidah et al., 2019 ). Writing skills are skills that are difficult for students to teach and master ( Kurniaman et al., 2018 ) because it involves the most complex level of literacy and requires a high level of cognition. Mastery of writing skills can make a person more confident in speaking because aspects of vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure have been mastered well.

The production of a piece of writing is the highest level in writing skills, which is the skill of producing an essay have harmony of words and meaning. The basic skills in writing are constantly developing and becoming more complex, especially when it comes to high-level writing skills that involve more complex knowledge about oral language skills, including knowledge of vocabulary and word retrieval as well as grammar and syntax. High-level writing also requires proficiency in the use of executive functions such as planning and working memory involved in the generation and transformation of ideas into words ( Decker et al., 2016 ).

Refers to the context of writing skills in learning Arabic; it is a language skill that is emphasized a lot. This is in line with the content of textbooks that are more inclined to a written assessment format than listening, speaking, and reading ( Mahmood and Zailaini, 2017 ). Students also need to be good at writing because most of the exam papers in Malaysia require answers in written form. Students who do not master writing skills often have difficulty answering questions to convey information and answers accurately.

Conducting a study to assess the mastery of writing skills is a necessity. The aspect of vocabulary knowledge is one of the aspects of language that need to be paid attention to in writing skills in addition to aspects of grammar, organization of ideas, and language style. In fact, vocabulary is also an aspect of the language that needs to be mastered, as stated in the Arabic curriculum document. There are several issues regarding the assessment of Arabic language writing. The first issue is that Arabic language teachers usually only focus on teaching grammar to the point of marginalizing the importance of vocabulary mastery ( Maskor et al., 2016 ). While foreign language learning at this point focuses more on the mastery and use of words in the target language as implemented in the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) as suggested by Alderson (2005) .

In line with this requirement, this research aims to examine written assessment in Arabic using an expository essay, which provides valid, accurate, and fair ratings that are compatible with students’ word acquisition in Form Four for religious schools in Malaysia. There are four aspects of language that are emphasized in the assessment of writing skills based on the rubric of the Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) Arabic Trial Exam in the State of Selangor, namely, (1) vocabulary, (2) grammar, (3) language style, and (4) aspects of text organization before formulated into the overall test score for students’ writing skills.

Literature review

The designed writing assessments are a reflection of language learning purposes. The essay produced by a student is an indicator of the student’s ability to master a foreign language communicatively ( Bachman and Palmer, 1996 ). In line with the theory requirements, Bachman and Palmer (1996) suggested that the assessment is aimed at a real-life simulation that includes individual performance and performance appraisal by raters. Although McNamara (1996) argued that the communicative theory is still relevant in testing language ability; hence, different aspects need to be considered before setting the level of writing abilities and scoring processes at school levels.

Examining the facts in-depth, Phelps-Gunn and Phelps-Terasaki (1982) and Khuwaileh and Shoumali (2000) identified three aspects of students’ weaknesses in writing: (a) a description that indicates the sentences are not elaborative, non-specific, and characterized by simple word usage, slang usage, and incomplete ideas; (b) writing styles that are less clear, not focused on topics, less integrated, less logical, less emphasis, and less consistent with writing goals; and (c) error in the punctuation, grammar, mechanical, spelling, and capitalization. Based on this weakness analysis, a scoring scheme for writing skills is triggered.

In line with Bachman and Palmer (1996) , the evaluation process is a strategic competency that includes the description of the assigned tasks and the scoring rubric. Scoring rubrics are methods of controlling the reliability and validity of student writing results. Several researchers noted the evaluation of educators is more accurate when using the rubric ( Jonsson and Svingby, 2007 ; Rezaei and Lovorn, 2010 ). Meanwhile, the adverse impact of using rubrics, such as the low reliability has yet to be elucidated in several studies. Consequently, many educators employed rubrics with the premise that they improve grading objectivity, especially regarding the written submissions of learners. Several empirical studies have raised serious doubts about the validity of rubric-based performance assessments, such as Sims et al. (2020) and Mohd Noh and Mohd Matore (2022) .

Weigle (2011) categorizes three types of writing rubrics, namely, analytical, holistic, and primary trait. Primary trait rubrics are mostly used to determine learners’ necessary writing abilities concerning particular writing tasks. Holistic rubrics are used to evaluate the characteristics of learners’ written works by utilizing an in-line score with the determined characteristics and superficially described distinct performance levels such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes ( Gunning, 1998 ; Weigle, 2013 ).

Holistic scoring is difficult for second-language learners as distinct elements of writing skills evolve differently for various writers. Wiseman (2012) concluded that some students might express strong content and organization but are limited in grammatical precision, while others can exercise excellent sentence language control but are unable to organize their writing. Some students may not perform similarly, for every component of written ability, necessitating more quality assessment methods such as lexical, syntactic, speech, and rhetorical characteristics.

A study conducted by Knoch (2011) comparing holistic rubrics with analytics revealed that the rater reliability was significantly higher and raters could better differentiate between various aspects of writing when more detailed analytical scale descriptors were used. Hence, analytic rubrics are more comprehensive evaluation guides used to clarify the level of expertise in distinct areas of written tasks ( Vaezi and Rezaei, 2018 ). In addition, Winke and Lim (2015) clarified that raters attended all the scoring categories described in the rubric, while concentrating on what they felt was essential with the holistic rubric.

Earlier studies have shown that raters have a significant effect on written assessment results. Researchers recognize the mediating importance of rater judgment in student writing ( Eckes, 2008 ; Engelhard, 2013 ; Zhang, 2016 ). In other words, many researchers are interested in the degree to which rating errors and systemic biases introduce irrelevant structural variation in the interpretation of ratings. Concerning rater impacts, features like rubrics can also lead to psychometric constraints in rater-mediated writing assessments ( Hodges et al., 2019 ).

The present study emphasizes that raters have several variables to address when rating and participating in tasks that require an assessment from various information sources. However, in contrast to the studies conducted in the Arabic language, written assessment receives less attention and emphasis on empirical validation and reliability. Therefore, it is essential to monitor rater quality in terms of their usage of rating scales and contribution to test the validity and reliability. The current study focuses on the examinees (essays), raters, writing domain (rubric), and rating scale for 15 Arabic essays. Thus, the analytical method was selected in order to control the consistency of raters’ ratings based on the designated scoring criteria.

This research aims to examine written assessment in Arabic using an expository essay, which provides valid, accurate, and fair ratings. Concurrently, this study provides information on the characteristics of effective writing. We used a scoring rubric from previous examinations that inform raters about high-quality writing throughout the scoring process. These rubrics also minimize discrepancies between raters given the distinct instrument interpretations. The following sections present the sample, rating processes, and data analysis procedures that demonstrate the validity, reliability, and fairness of the data scores. Specifically, the following research questions are to be answered in this study:

• a. To what extent do the interpretation and use of writing domains in the rubric demonstrate validity?
• b. To what extent do the interpretation and use of writing domains in the rubric demonstrate reliability?
• c. To what extent do interpretation and use of writing domain in the rubric demonstrate fairness?

Materials and methods

This study uses an analytic scoring rubric adopted from previous state examinations for the Malaysian Certificate of Education Trial Examination for Arabic. The main reasons of doing this research topic is because it has highly needs to examine written assessment in Arabic which will provides valid, accurate, and fair ratings. Previously, not much was discussed regarding empirical evidence about the accuracy of assessors in giving accurate assessments related to Arabic writing. Formerly, evaluation was limited to the use of analysis such as Cohen Kappa, which is more limited to raters. The main instrument/examinee in this study are 15 essay selections based on the writing performances of the respondents. The essay was produced by Form Four students from a religious secondary school, which is under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. However, the topic of the proposed essay is one of the themes in the Arabic language syllabus, which is written in the textbooks. Therefore, it is not a peculiar matter for respondents to write an essay according to the selected title. The essay selection was based on a researcher’s brief assessment of the essay quality ranging from good to moderate and weak. The essay was collected and printed in one booklet. Rubric scoring guides and rating scales were provided for each essay. The layout print was used to enable the raters to review the essays.

Five proposal titles were chosen for expository essays to gain experts’ agreement. First, the procedure for determining the content validity of the writing task involves five experts in the selection of appropriate essay titles and scoring rubric items. At this phase, the content validity index (CVI) was applied to determine the expert agreement scores. The CVI covers the validity of the item (I-CVI) and that of the entire instrument (S-CVI) ( Lynn, 1986 ). Each expert evaluates the level of item suitability based on four-level scales, where 1 = very inappropriate, 2 = inappropriate, 3 = suitable, and 4 = very suitable. In the first round, each expert is given at least 2 weeks to confirm the items proposed by the researcher and is asked to suggest improvements to the item if any. After 2 weeks, the researcher re-contacted the expert for the confirmation of the proposed item. The second round was conducted after the researcher made an improvement or correction based on the proposals received from the experts.

The value of I-CVI was used to determine the reliability between the experts in line with the average level of suitability of each item based on the assessment of all appointed experts. The accepted I-CVI value is 1.00 based on the value of the five expert’s agreement. Meanwhile, the S-CVI value of the essay is 0.91. Polit and Beck (2006) suggested that an S-CVI value of >0.80 is an indication of the overall acceptable quality of the item. The higher the value of S-CVI, the higher the quality of the item and the choice of the expert in meeting the criteria of the instrument. These five experts also served as the raters for examining the internal consistency of rubrics for essays that were evaluated using the MFRM.

Students were informed that the essay was to assess students’ knowledge of vocabulary and their ability to construct context-related sentences. Students were asked to write no fewer than 40 words based on their creativity within 30 min. The five raters were then given the five essays to evaluate. Five raters gave each essay a score, and the amount of connectivity needed for a Rasch analysis was found. The five raters were asked to rate the essays using the Malaysian Certificate of Education Trial Examination for the Arabic rating scale (analytical rating). The rubric is analytical, which comprises domains of writing known as vocabulary, grammar, language use, and Organization as agreed by experts. Every domain contains three scales: excellent (score 3), moderate (score 2), and weak (score 1). The reasons for choosing the analytical rubric are because it can explicitly segregate an assignment into its constitutive skills and provides the assessor with guidelines for what each performance level looks like for each skill.

The selected scoring rubric is from a previous state examination for the Malaysian Certificate of Education Trial Examination for Arabic. This examination was implemented in one of the states in Malaysia in 2015. The use of a scoring rubric is based on assumptions that the scoring format is similar to the summative test, which is commonly used for school-based assessment. Although the scoring rubric has been used widely, its validity and reliability have to be tested according to the scope of this study. In contrast, the respondents of this study are also exposed to such essays in the classroom.

The essay selection is the result of the respondents’ writing performances. They were 15 essays of Form Four students from a religious secondary school, which is under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. However, the topic of the proposed essay is one of the themes in the Arabic language syllabus, which is written in the textbooks. Therefore, it is not a peculiar matter for respondents to write an essay according to the selected title. The essay selection was based on a researcher’s brief assessment of the essay quality ranging from good to moderate and weak. The essay was collected and printed in one booklet. Rubric scoring guides and rating scales were provided for each essay. The layout print was used to enable the raters to review the essays.

Meanwhile, the selection of raters was based on their experience in Arabic language education. Two teachers are expert teachers in Arabic who have been teaching for more than 10 years in secondary schools. In contrast, two more raters are experienced teachers who have been teaching Arabic for over 20 years in a religious secondary school that is under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. Another teacher is a novice teacher who has 5 years of teaching experience in Arabic in a secondary school. They were chosen because of the research to evaluate the rubrics used as well as validate them using the Malaysian Certificate of Education Trial Examination for Arabic rating scale. Table 1 summarizes the criterion of each rater.

Summary of rater criteria.

This study employed the Many-Facet Rasch measurement model (MFRM) model to explain how the rater interpreted the scores of the writing tasks. For this research context, the Rasch model is extended by MFRM to situations in which more than two facets interact to produce an observation in Arabic writing. It enables the development of a frame of reference in which quantitative comparisons are no longer dependent on which examinee was rated by which judge on which item. In order to support the research in the Arabic language, this analysis seeks to evaluate the rubrics used as well as validate them. Raters mediate the scores of the essays. In other words, self-rating does not represent the writing quality of the test directly as the rater’s judgment plays a crucial role ( Engelhard and Wind, 2017 ; Jones and Bergin, 2019 ). Hence, research is needed to review scores on quality writing and the consequences of scoring tasks.

A previous study used MFRM to investigate the variations in rater’s severity and consistency before and after practice and found that rater training contributed to increasing the accuracy of the scorer’s intra-rater reliability (internal consistency) ( Weigle, 1998 ). Lim (2011) also conducted a longitudinal study for 12–21 months among novice and skilled raters to examine rater harshness/leniency, accuracy/inactiveness, and centrality/extremism. The study of the different impacts of the written rater can lead to better scores and rater training. It can also provide validation data on rating scales of writing assessment ( Shaw and Weir, 2007 ; Knoch, 2011 ; Behizadeh and Engelhard, 2014 ; Hodges et al., 2019 ).

The findings could portray in-depth that the MFRM can monitor rater’s performances and considers the potential effects of facets on the resulting scores. Facets such as raters, rating scales, and examinations are arranged within the standard interval scale with rater scores ( Goodwin, 2016 ; Eckes, 2019 ). Two assumptions were made to draw meaningful information from MFRM measures: The data must fit in with the model, and the test must measure a single unidimensional construct.

The raw data were keyed-in using Microsoft Excel and analyzed using the MFRM by the FACETS 3.71.4. A program named FACETS 3.71.4 was used to analyze the data in MFRM. This study represents the relationship between facets assessment and the probability in which specific results will be observed within more than one-faceted circumstances. In addition, this research is an expansion of the Rasch measurement theory ( Engelhard and Wind, 2013 ), in which raw scores are transformed into log odds. This interval scale implies that an equivalent range between any two information points is equivalent to the capacity of individuals or items ( Bond and Fox, 2015 ). The FACETS program can produce the interval scale as a variable map or Wright map for direct comparisons of the test-taker writing proficiency, raters’ severity, scale difficulty, or other facets of interest ( Eckes, 2019 ). Briefly, there were three facets in this research: raters, examinee (expository essays), and scoring rubric or item (analytical rating elements: vocabulary, grammar, language use, and organization).

This variation in the MFRM enables a classification scale framework to differ by item in this situation. The MFRM can demonstrate discrepancies among raters in the use of scoring classifications ( Engelhard and Wind, 2013 ). The Many-Facet Rasch measurement model used in this analysis can be expressed as:

where β n represents individual ability, δ i represents the level of scales difficulty, F k represents the level of threshold difficulty, and C j represents the level of rater’s efficiency.

Results and discussion

Table 2 shows the essay, rating scale, and raters’ reliability index based on the MFRM approaches using Facet 3.71.4 software. The findings indicate that the mean logit of the essay is at 0.00 logit with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.29. This finding reflects broad dispersion throughout the logit scale. This widespread ability level denotes the presence of various levels of essay quality. The rating scale at SD = 0.32 illustrates that the dispersions are not so vast on the logit scale, and this finding is equivalent to the raters at SD = 0.46. However, the average MNSQ outfit for the essay is 0.97, as the rating scale (0.97) and the raters (0.98) are approaching the expected value of 1.00. Therefore, based on the SD values for the essay, the rating scale and raters establish that the instrument aligns with the model. The chi-square values for raters (15.5) and essays (105.1) are significant Engelhard (2013) , whereas the rating scale does not reveal a significant value. Further analysis needs to be conducted to ensure the rating scale is reliable.

Summary statistics of essays, rating scale, and raters’ reliability.

* p < 0.01.

The reliability of the essay is 0.88, while the separation index is 3.88, thus indicating good reliability ( Fisher, 2007 ). Whereas the reliability of the raters is 0.68, and the separation index is 2.27, thereby corresponding to moderate reliability and acceptable separation ( Linacre, 2006 ; Fisher, 2007 ). The rating scale (0.47) demonstrates poor reliability ( Fisher, 2007 ), but the separation index (1.59), which equals two separation indices, denotes a good item separation ( Linacre, 2006 ). Although statistical findings revealed a non-homogeneous rubric with low-reliability values and non-significant chi-square, the separation index illustrates that the raters understood the rubric base rating scale.

Raters displayed reasonable agreement based on the value of the inter-rater reliability of 52.9%, which was not different from the 55.0% despite the moderate reliability. These findings may elaborate that the raters had the same opinion in scaling the essay rating and vice versa ( Linacre, 2004 ). Overall, the reliability value for essays, rating scales, and raters is reasonable and acceptable. Validation analysis in MFRM includes fit statistics and scale calibration analysis. Fit statistics is one of the validation indicators by observing the mean square, Z-standard (Z-std), and point-measure correlation values. Table 3 shows essay number 11 to be out of range in terms of mean square (0.5–1.5) ( Linacre, 2005 ; Boone et al., 2014 ), thereby exhibiting an adverse polarity. Whereas essay numbers 7, 8, and 11 demonstrate negative polarities, which denote that the content does not fit the topic. Essay numbers 2, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are less than 0.30 point-measure correlation values, indicating that the essays are unable to highlight the respondents’ abilities ( Linacre, 1999 ; Bond and Fox, 2015 ). Essay number 15 is considered the weakest at logit (−3.40), disclosing many errors but still on the topic. Meanwhile, essay number 12 is the best essay as it occupies the highest logit position (1.76). This finding indicates that some participants are unable to effectively compose essays even if the topic of selection is a prevalent subject in the formative and summative tests.

Analysis of fit statistic for essay.

Table 4 shows the appropriate rubric base rating scale statistics in the MNSQ range from 0.50 to 1.50 ( Linacre, 2005 ; Boone et al., 2014 ). The Z-std value was also within the range of +2.0 ( Linacre, 2005 ; Bond and Fox, 2015 ) and PTMEA’s, which represents a value greater than 0.30 ( Bond and Fox, 2015 ). These values indicate the item measures a single construct ( Bond and Fox, 2015 ). Of the four proposed domains, the vocabulary element is readily understood by the logit raters (−0.41), whereas the grammatical elements are the most challenging (0.39). However, the standard error is an excellent range, which is stated by a value of <0.25 ( Fisher, 2007 ). Overall, the rating scale disclosed that all rating scale elements are fit and suitable for the evaluation and measurement of the essays to be performed. All raters also deeply comprehend the rating scale.

Analysis of fit statistic for rubric base rating scale.

Table 5 shows the statistical coefficients of five raters from codes A, B, C, D, and E, ranging from 0.50 to 1.50 ( Linacre, 2005 ; Boone et al., 2014 ). The Z-std values are also within the range of +2.0 ( Linacre, 2005 ; Bond and Fox, 2015 ). The overall value of PTMEA is 0.30, indicating that the raters can distinguish between each rubric used in the rating scale ( Bond and Fox, 2015 ). Concerning the logit, rater B (logit 0.62) is the most stringent rater, while rater E (logit −0.78) is the most-lenient rater. The standard error value is quite good, within the range of <0.50 ( Fisher, 2007 ). This value indicates that the rater evaluates the essay carefully. The results also reveal that they can use the rubric precisely based on their knowledge.

Analysis of fit statistics for raters.

Rating scale functioning

This calibration was analyzed using a rubric-based rating scale, where scale 3 = distinction, scale 2 = medium, and scale 1 = weak. In general, the variation in each rubric scale is in the appropriate range of 1.4–5.00 ( Linacre, 1999 , 2004 ), as shown in Table 6 .

Rating scale calibration.

Figure 1 also portrays a non-threshold scale of scale 1 with scale 2 at −1.88 and scale 3 at 1.88. This finding depicts that the scale curve is apparent and separated from each other ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1 also defines that, in the assessment of the essay, each rater understands the function of each rubric. The scale ranking results in this study can be used for further research.

Probability curve of the rating scale.

Variable map (Wright map)

On average, the examinee (essays) locations were close to logit scales at the rater scale and rubric base rating scale (all-around zero logits). This measure suggests acceptable targeting between the three facets. Figure 1 provides additional information about the logit scale. Specifically, Figure 1 is a variable map that graphically displays the test-takers, raters, and the category of rating thresholds.

The first column indicates the estimated location of the logit scale of the test-takers (essay), raters, and item (rating scale). Higher numbers denote higher judged writing performance, more severe raters, and more difficult rating scale categories. The second column depicts the locations for essays. The examination of the essay locations reveals a wide range of locations between −3.40 and 1.76 logits for the lowest (mean rating = 1.18) and highest judged writing performances (mean rating = 2.45), respectively. The third column shows the locations for the item or writing domain for the rubric. The examination of these estimations reveals a range of item difficulties, between −0.41 logits for the item that was judged as easiest (item vocabulary; mean rating = 2.11) and 0.39 logits for the item that was judged as the most difficult (item grammar; mean rating = 1.91). The fourth column depicts the locations of the individual raters. The location estimates reflect differences in rater severity, ranging from −0.78 logits for the most-lenient rater (rater E; mean rating = 2.13) to 0.01 logits for the most severe rater (rater A; mean rating = 2.00). The final fifth column in the variable map illustrates the categories of the calibration of the rating scale ranging from scale 1 to 3.

The accuracy of the location estimation was assessed using SEs and separation statistics. Table 2 shows a small range of SEs for essays (0.45), raters (0.26), and rating scales (0.23) regarding the distribution of the logit scale. In particular, the average SE for the essay facet was relatively higher for the rater and the rubric base rating scale than the average SEs. This result is expected given the higher number of observations among each rater and every item in the rating scale compared with each student.

Figure 2 shows the descriptive mapping for each facet evaluated in this study. The first column is an essay using the value of “logit” (1.76 to −3.40), which describes the comparative quality of the essays (column Essay) tested. Essay number 12 is the most outstanding (1.76), while essay number 15 is the weakest because it is at logit (−3.40). Essays numbers 3, 4, 8, 12, and 14 are excellent category essays that conform to the writing scoring criteria. Essay number 13 fails in the aspects of grammar and language use. Essay number 5 only passes the vocabulary aspect, while essays numbers 7, 6, and 15 fail in all aspects of the rubric. Essay numbers 10, 11, and 9 fail to address all elements of grammar, language use, and organization but are likely to fail or pass in vocabulary.

All facet vertical unit.

The five raters who assessed the essay can be classified into three categories: stringent, moderate, and lenient. This measure can be seen in the fourth column (column Rater) in the range of −1 to +1. Rater E is considered the most lenient in scoring, while raters A and D are modest in scoring. Meanwhile, raters B and C are stringent raters in this essay scoring, and both of them taught Arabic in a lower form. Rater E is a novice teacher who only has 4 years of experience in teaching Arabic at a lower form in a secondary school. Rater B is an Arabic teacher who has taught Arabic for 15 years for lower form, and also rater C who taught Arabic for 22 years at a religious secondary school.

Rater E is a novice teacher who has taught the Arabic language for 4 years in a lower form at secondary schools. Meanwhile, raters A and B have been teaching Arabic at secondary schools for more than 10 years for upper and lower forms. In addition, rater C taught Arabic in the lower form, while rater D taught the upper form for more than 20 years at religious secondary schools. The diversity of the rater’s backgrounds reflects their performance in assessing the essay. The Arabic teachers who taught upper forms are considered a better scoring performance than those who taught lower forms. The performance displayed by raters A and D is likely to result from their experience in teaching senior high-school students. Notably, the type of school does not influence the rater’s performance. Conclusively, the variable map (see Figure 2 ) depicts that the rubric used for the rating scale can differentiate the quality of the essay produced by the respondent.

Limitations and future research

Additional proof is required in various contexts to determine the psychometric features of the rubrics in writing. Specifically, a future study could investigate whether the new rubrics may be added to determine the efficacy and efficiency of each rubric rating in terms of reliability, validity, and fairness. The raters in this study demonstrated different seriousness levels when using the rubrics to evaluate the students’ outcomes. Statistically, the Rasch model alleviates rater severity in the calculation of test-takers’ results ( Wright and Linacre, 1989 ). However, further research should provide significant reasons why raters use these rubrics for writing assessments to the extent of differences in seriousness. For instance, researchers could perform interviews with raters concerning their judgment procedures to understand how raters interpret and apply the rubric to student compositions. A future study among the population is required to determine whether the rubrics are fair among groups and individuals from different types of schools. Nevertheless, validity and reliability could be enhanced by involving more raters and essays in future studies.

The findings from this study demonstrate strong validity, reliability, and fairness of scores. Overall, the Many-Facet Rasch measurement model (MFRM), which is rarely used in Arabic studies, reflected that the rubric for rating scores has good reliability and validity and can be used in actual studies. All raters can effectively differentiate the functions of each rubric and rating scale. The use of rubrics in scoring can detect the strengths and weaknesses of students in writing skills (such as language use, organization, grammar, and vocabulary use). The feedback from scoring could assist teachers in developing ideas regarding teaching strategies based on students’ weaknesses. The choice of the analytical method is more accurate than the holistic method in order to assess the writing performance. Moreover, an analytical method could be provided through the information on the mastery stage of each writing domain.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ministry of Education Malaysia, Putrajaya. The ethics committee waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation.

Author contributions

HB was involved in data collection. ZM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors were responsible for the conception, design of the study, performed statistical analysis, contributed to the interpretation of findings, made critical revisions, and have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us improve the content, quality, and presentation of this article.

This research was funded by the Dana Penyelidikan FPEND, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia (GG-2022-023) and the Faculty of Education, Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) (FRGS/1/2019/SSI09/UKM/03/2) Ministry of Higher Education, and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Adams A. M., Simmons F. R. (2018). Exploring individual and gender differences in early writing performance. Read. Writ. 32 235–263. 10.1007/s11145-018-9859-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alderson J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bachman L. F., Palmer A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language testing tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10.2307/328718 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Behizadeh N., Engelhard G. (2014). Assessing writing development and validation of a scale to measure perceived authenticity in writing. Assess. Writ. 21 18–36. 10.1016/j.asw.2014.02.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bond T. G., Fox C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences , 3rd Edn. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315814698 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boone W. J., Staver J. R., Yale M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Decker S. L., Roberts A. M., Roberts K. L., Stafford A. L., Eckert M. A. (2016). Cognitive components of developmental writing skill. Psychol. Sch. 53 617–625. 10.1002/pits.21933 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunsmuir S., Kyriacou M., Batuwitage S., Hinson E., Ingram V., O’Sullivan S. (2015). An evaluation of the Writing Assessment Measure (WAM) for Children’s narrative writing. Assess. Writ. 23 1–18. 10.1016/j.asw.2014.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckes T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Lang. Test. 25 155–185. 10.1177/0265532207086780 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckes T. (2019). “ Many-facet Rasch measurement ,” in Quantitative data analysis for language assessment volume I , eds Aryadoust V., Raquel M. (London: Routledge; ). 10.4324/9781315187815-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engelhard G. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203073636 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engelhard G., Wind S. A. (2013). Rating quality studies using Rasch measurement theory. Research report 2013-3. New York, NY: The College Board. [ Google Scholar ]
• Engelhard G., Wind S. A. (2017). ) Invariant measurement with raters and rating scales: Rasch Models for rater-mediated assessments , 1st Edn. London: Routledge, 10.4324/9781315766829 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher J. W. P. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Meas. Trans. 21 : 1095 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin S. (2016). Assessing writing a Many-Facet Rasch analysis comparing essay rater behavior on an academic English reading/writing test used for two purposes. Assess. Writ. 30 21–31. 10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunning T. G. (1998). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodges T. S., Wright K. L., Wind S. A., Matthews S. D., Zimmer W. K., McTigue E. (2019). Developing and examining validity evidence for the Writing Rubric to Inform Teacher Educators (WRITE). Assess. Writ. 40 1–13. 10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones E., Bergin C. (2019). Evaluating teacher effectiveness using classroom observations: A Rasch analysis of the rater effects of principals. Educ. Assess. 24 91–118. 10.1080/10627197.2018.1564272 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonsson A., Svingby G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ. Res. Rev. 2 130–144. 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khuwaileh A. A., Shoumali A. A. (2000). Writing errors: A study of the writing ability of Arab learners of academic English and Arabic at university. Lang. Cult. Curric. 13 174–183. 10.1080/07908310008666597 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knoch U. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of individualized feedback to rating behavior–A longitudinal study. Lang. Test. 28 179–200. 10.1177/0265532210384252 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurniaman O., Yuliani T., Mansur M. (2018). Investigating Think Talk Write (TTW) learning model to enhance primary students’ writing skill. J. Teach. Learn. Element. Educ. 1 52–59. 10.33578/jtlee.v1i1.5394 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim G. S. (2011). The development and maintenance of rating quality in performance writing assessment: A longitudinal study of new and experienced raters”. Lang. Test. 28 543–560. 10.1177/0265532211406422 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linacre J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. J. Outcome Meas. 3 103–122. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linacre J. M. (2004). Predicting measures from rating scale or partial credit categories for samples and individuals. Rasch Meas. Trans. 18 : 972 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Linacre J. M. (2005). A user’s guide to Winsteps/Ministeps Raschmodel programs. Chicago, IL: MESA Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linacre J. M. (2006). A user’s guide to Winsteps/Ministep Rasch-Model computer Programs (3.91.0). Chicago, IL: MESA Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynn M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs. Res. 35 382–385. 10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmood M. U., Zailaini M. A. (2017). Kemahiran menulis jumlah Bahasa Arab dalam kalangan murid sekolah menengah. Online J. Islam. Educ. 5 20–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maskor Z. M., Baharudin H., Lubis M. A., Yusuf N. K. (2016). Teaching and learning Arabic vocabulary: From a teacher’s experiences. Creat. Educ. 7 482–490. 10.4236/ce.2016.73049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNamara T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohd Noh M. F., Mohd Matore M. E. E. (2022). Rater severity differences in English language as a second language speaking assessment based on rating experience, training experience, and teaching experience through many-faceted Rasch measurement analysis. Front. Psychol. 13 : 941084 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941084 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mufidah N., Suryawati D., Sa’adah N., Tahir S. Z. (2019). Learning Arabic writing skill based on digital products. IJAZ ARABI J. Arabic Learn. 2 185–190. 10.18860/ijazarabi.v2i2.8395 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olinghouse N. G., Leaird J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Read. Writ. 22 545–565. 10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps-Gunn T., Phelps-Terasaki D. (1982). Written language instruction: Theory and remediation. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corp. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polit D. F., Beck C. T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization , 6th Edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rezaei A. R., Lovorn M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assess. Writ. 15 18–39. 10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw S., Weir C. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sims M. E., Cox T. L., Eckstein G., Hartshorn K. J., Wilcox M. P., Hart J. M. (2020). Rubric rating with MFRM versus randomly distributed comparative judgment: A comparison of two approaches to second-language writing assessment. Educ. Meas. 39 30–40. 10.1111/emip.12329 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaezi M., Rezaei S. (2018). Development of a rubric for evaluating creative writing: A multi-phase research. New Writ. 16 303–317. 10.1080/14790726.2018.1520894 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weigle S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Lang. Test. 15 263–287. 10.1177/026553229801500205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weigle S. C. (2011). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weigle S. C. (2013). English language learners and Automated Scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assess. Writ. 18 85–99. 10.1016/j.asw.2012.10.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winke P., Lim H. (2015). Assessing Writing ESL essay raters’ cognitive processes in applying the Jacobs et al. rubric: An eye-movement study. Assess. Writ. 25 38–54. 10.1016/j.asw.2015.05.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiseman C. S. (2012). A Comparison of the Performance of Analytic vs. Holistic Scoring Rubrics to Assess L2 Writing. Iran. J. Lang. Test. 2 59–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright B. D., Linacre J. M. (1989). Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 70 857–860. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J. (2016). Same text different processing? Exploring how raters’ cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies influence rating accuracy in essay scoring. Assess. Writ. 27 37–53. 10.1016/j.asw.2015.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• e-Arabic Learners Portal | بوابة التعليم الإلكتروني لطلاب اللغة العربية

USEFUL PHRASES for Writing in Arabic

• Skill Level:  Beginners, Intermediate & Advanced
• Resources : Written by Mourad Diouri, U. of Edinburgh
• Useful Writing Techniques for Summarising Arabic Texts  
• Talking about my Family in Arabic [Useful Expressions]
• Talking about my Experience w/ Crime and the Law [Useful Arabic Expressions]
• Talking about Places: Common Conversation Questions [Beg.]
•   Talking about the Future [Useful Arabic Expressions]
•   Talking about Time [Useful Arabic Expressions]
• Talking About Tourism & Travelling [Useful Arabic Expressions]
• Arabic Letter Writing [Useful Expressions]

Related Articles

• Top 10+ NEWS WEBSITES to follow [for Arabic Language Learners] 🌐
• The Islamic Library | IMES Building 1
• The University's Oriental Manuscript Collection [Arabic, Persian & Turkish] 1
• Spelling Tests | Beginners 2
• Plurals Quizzes | Beginners

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

ARA 064: Arabic Essay Writing I An Undergraduate Course Developed for National Open University of Nigeria

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Sign In Sign Up
• / AI Writer Language

Write in Arabic

Write in Arabic with the AI Writer

30+ Languages

Write in Arabic or Translate

Short and Long-Form Copy

Free Forever AI Writer

The Best AI Templates for Arabic Content

Simplified's AI Writer has over 50 writing templates you can generate content with in over 30 global languages. Use the free Short Form Assistant to generate product descriptions, company bios, blog titles, ads, and more. Upgrade to write entire articles, blogs, books, and press releases in Arabic with the Long Form Writer Free Flow. It's never been simpler!

In your open AI project, select your 'Output Language' from the dropdown menu.

Fill in the prompts in any language - the same as the chosen for the output, or any other.

Then, click 'Generate'.

Check the options provided by AI, choose a result, and use it in your project.

Boost Traffic with High-Quality Arabic Content

Write mistake-free, human-like content that reaches bigger audiences in dozens of countries. Convert more customers with copy that speaks to them in their own language. Our unique copy AI is trained to generate trending hashtags and SEO-focused captions, blogs, and emails in Arabic, and more. Save 1 hour each day with AI!

Do More, Learn More With Simplified

Generate Entire Blogs, Long Articles, and Essays in Minutes with AI Long Form Writer

Best Free Long-Form AI Writer Copy Generator

Simplified's AI Short Form Assistant

How to Write a Blog in Less Than 30 Minutes Using AI

Discover More

Frequently asked questions, where can i access copy ai templates.

Right here! When you log into the free Simplified website (you heard that right... free), head on over to the AI Writer. Select the Short Form Assistant, choose the template you prefer as well as your output language, and you're off to the races!

Who is the AI content writer for?

What can simplified's ai write for you, can i use the ai writer with a free account, what is your refund policy, keep your creative flow going in any language.

Write Original, Relevant Copywriting with the Best AI Writer

What our 10 million+ users are saying about Simplified

Aggregate review rating.

Date - May 7, 2023

Revolutionize your content creation with Simplified

What I love about Simplified is that it's super easy to use. All you have to do is choose your output language and tone, complete the prompt, and click 'Generate.' It'll then give you several options to choose from, and you can pick the one that suits your needs best.

Date - Feb 24, 2023

Excellent writer, cuts down on working hours

High-quality AI writer, and it is excellent that it is free. I love to type, but in these cold winters, my hands start to freeze up and become stiff. Having an AI writer lets me keep my brain occupied with work tasks, without having to get the creative writing part of my brain involved.

Date - Jan 04, 2023

Easy to use & consistently quality AI writer!

While Simplified has many other features besides its AI writer which I hope to explore in the future, as the owner of multiple health websites, I love how it handles writing technical and health content with ease.

Date - May 2, 2023

New to writting a Blog

I reviewed several AI content writers and settled on Simplified. What I like best is it is so easy to use and yet gives you so many customizable options. It is sooooo quick and easy for beginners I would highly recommend it!

Date - Feb 13, 2023

Mind Blowing Powerful AI assistant

Simplified is now an essential writing tool in my life. Better than ChatGPT which is already mind blowing in and of itself so that is saying a lot.

Date - Mar 10, 2023

I loved the communication. AI including the diverse amount of options for generating!

Simplified allows anyone from a simple to an expert user of the AI—whether a beginner or expert writer—to use precise commands, prompts, context and lists to "communicate" with the said software to generate well-organised text that fits into whatever you form it to.

Made with ❤️ remotely by TLDR Technologies, Inc

© 2024, All Rights Reserved, TLDR Technologies, Inc