How to Assess EFL Narrative Creative Writing
Camilo VILLANUEVA,
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Abstract
Rubrics are one of the most effective ways of assessing creative writing. However, narrative
creative writing is often not properly assessed. The reason is that assessing creativity isdifficult.The workshop model is usually the most basic component of the creative writing class,where poetry and fiction are shared for peer feedback. Narrative writing is often scored as an „A‟
if the assignment is turned in on time. Here, a discussion follows on how the author has gradedhis creative writing class using analytical rubrics which increased student motivation to write
stories. There were two classes and a total of 25 students of CEFR (Common European
Framework of Reference) level B1 to B2. The literature is lacking in research on how rubrics areused in EFL (English as a foreign language) creative writing contexts. Rubrics allow for
feedback to be given to students in a very transparent manner. For example, in this study, theteacher explained the rubric and received feedback on the students‟ perceptions of the rubric via
a Google Form. Rubrics are an exemplary tool for writing assessments. In addition, this paper
introduces alternative ways to assess creative writing beyond rubrics. Thus, this paper presents
varied ways of grading creative writing, a genre that has traditionally been difficult to assess.

How to Assess EFL Creative Writing
The creative writing workshop dates to 1936 (Bennett, 2015, p. 16). The workshop is the basic
assessment model of the creative writing class. Students sit in a circle and discuss one of theirpeers‟ works of art while the writer is silent and the teacher guides the discussion. This model
has its critics (Bennet, 2015; Chavez, 2021; Salesses, 2021). Teachers of creative writing
desperately need a better approach to assessment. The reason is that assessing creative writing ishard, and often it will not be graded appropriately (Davenport, 2017); at least in this author‟sown MFA (Master of Fine Arts) program, instructors handed out „As‟ as long as the work was
turned in on time. Why is assessing creative writing so difficult for teachers? This is perhaps
because many teachers do not know how to do it. Before going into assessment, the question ofwhat is good creative writing must be asked. Writing is, in fact, a process, not a destination.
According to Nauman et al. (2011), good writing has the following features: “ideas, organization,
voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation” (p. 319). And according toKohls and Casanave (2023), “everyone seems to agree that good writing is readable, engaging,
and accessible, even if the language is complex and even if it deals with complex ideas, and that
it is free of gratuitous jargon” (p. xiii). Creative writing, which is the type of writing discussed
here, can be seen as different from standard writing. What qualities constitute good creative
writing? According to Burroway (2007), “all writing is imaginative” (xxii). Coming back toassessment, what is imagination anyway and can it be quantified? Young (2009) quotes the
Oxford English Dictionary, to explain thatimagination is the „faculty or action of forming ideas or images in the mind; the power offraming new and striking intellectual conceptions; the ability of the mind to be creative or
resourceful; poetic genius.‟ How does the average English teacher measure poetic
genius? (p. 74)
Young‟s question brings up a good point. Is imagination, as poetic genius, ever measurable? Thisis likely why assessing creative writing, the most imaginative of any writing, is so difficult.
Rodriguez (2008) states that “if creative writing is to be taught at institutions of higher
learning, then it must be a specialised field of knowledge with appropriate assessment processes”(p. 167). Such reasoning makes sense as creative writing has existed as a field in limbo between

composition studies and English studies for quite some time. But what are these “processes” andwhich of them are best for EFL students in creative writing? In this paper, a brief overview ofrubrics and some of the current assessment practices in creative writing are provided. In addition,
the author presents findings from his own classroom regarding the use of rubrics as a formative
assessment tool.
Literature review
Good Writing for Creative Writing
Nauman et al. (2011) provides three perspectives in approaching whether writing is good or bad.
They state that good writing is either (a) “good thinking and communicating,” (b) good“structure and clarity;” and (c) good “purpose, voice, and correctness” (pp. 322-324). The best
definition of writing this paper‟s author has found comes from Barnet and Cain‟s (2012) A Short
Guide to Writing about Literature, which states that good writing is “getting on to paper somecoherent thoughts that are good enough to share with a reader” (p. 2). It is as simple as that. If
only grading good writing could be as easy. Good creative writing also requires craft elements,for example an application of characterization through dialogue, action, thought, and description.
In addition, a firm sense of setting is needed. Plot is important but it is basically an outcome ofgood characterization. Characters who have obstacles to achieving their goal make for goodstories. Thus, good creative writing will focus on elements of craft as well as being coherent
enough to keep the pages turning.
Creativity
Some scholars believe that creative writing cannot be adequately assessed unless first defining
what creativity is (Tung, 2015). Such an endeavor is attempted here: Creativity is about making
things better. As the late, preeminent biologist E.O. Wilson (2017) stated that, without creativity
in language, literature, and artistic endeavors, “[s]cience and technology would consist of the
sharpening of spear points, the knapping of stone axes, and perhaps the piercing of snail shells tothread for necklaces” (p. 181). Thus, creativity is interwoven into everything artistic we do andhope to aspire to as humans.
Rubrics
Rubrics for creative writing are difficult to define and their use is mostly missing in the literature.
Rubrics, in general, have taken on some criticism for their use. Some authors believe that rubrics
are prone to bias. Bennett (2016) states that “there is no standard definition of assessment orscoring rubrics. Different authors tend to emphasise different aspects depending on the problems
they are investigating or the qualities they wish to promote” (p. 52). Segal‟s (2008) take is more
concrete, as she defines “a rubric as an itemized „assessment tool‟ designed to measure astudent‟s prowess in completing particular academic tasks” (p. B28). Bennett quotes Jonsson and
Svingby (2007) in order to “define educational rubrics as „a scoring tool for qualitative rating ofauthentic or complex student work‟” (p. 131). Bennett‟s work is highly critical of rubrics inhigher education because they can often be too subjective. Some of his arguments are very
insightful. For example, regarding markers of rubrics, he quotes Sadler (2009, p. 165) when
stating thatmarkers are not usually concerned with how students performed on individual criteria but
on „how the work comes together as a whole‟. They tend to assess individual criteria„retrospectively and, in many cases, creatively‟. Indeed, if performed literally, marking to
the rubric would be extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming. (Bennett, 2016, p.
55)
Bennett‟s comments seem to make all rubrics invalid, at least removing some of the objectivity
that drives why we use rubrics in the first place. Much of Bennett‟s article on rubrics is damning,
and as a final word from him, we see how he gets straight to the point: “Rubrics reduce andsimplify complex processes for the purpose of evaluation, and in doing so trade richness,complexity and difference for efficiency, consistency and convenience” (p. 57). As Bennett sees
it, rubrics are too simplistic an assessment tool for a field such as creative writing.
Another study is critical of rubrics. D‟Souza (2021) conducted an analysis of 1,796
papers between 2000 and 2020 on the assessment of creativity in narrative writing. He foundseveral important features of how rubrics have been used in grading creative writing. In manystudies, rubrics are flawed in the following ways: they give “equal emphasis” to criteria where“nuances” abound; they are “highly influenced by political agendas;” “few studies haveidentified characteristics for creativity in writing.” They conclude that more research is needed
before a framework of assessment can be developed(p. 8). Although creative writing rubrics areabundant, there has been little progress in their refinement and development as creative writing
program numbers have surged in the past few decades. However, the majority of the research
points to rubrics as an essential assessment option for creative writing.

Young (2009) asks if “imagination [is] just an ephemeral wind that blows through theclassroom and the minds of our students at will, or can teachers identify components and teachimaginative and creative thought processes?” (p. 74). Young states that yes, we can. She also
brings up an important point of why rubrics are necessary in the creative writing classroom. They
make what is expected creatively apparent to the student. She goes on:
The purpose of using a rubric and criteria is not to put imagination and creativity in a box
but to create a framework so that students and teachers can discuss, explore, and discover
the limitless possibilities inherent in creatively imagining. The paradoxical nature ofusing rubrics to assess that which is admittedly often not assessable speaks to thecomplexity of the teaching/learning experience. (p. 76)
Thus, for creative writing teachers, rubrics can be seen as a necessary evil to judge what cannot
be judged for the sake of judgment alone. But judgment is needed. Young‟s (2009) mostimportant contribution to how to use rubrics in creative writing is about developing criteria andcreating rubrics for creativity (see Appendix A). However, it is difficult to apply this rubric to
EFL students in the creative writing class, so the author of this paper has modified it for histeaching contexts, as will be discussed later. Lastly, Young states that “developing rubrics thatprovide growth in creative thinking may more effectively align problem-solving activities,
imaginative research projects, performance events, and artistic representation with state
standards and higher-order thinking” (p. 79). Young‟s take on rubrics is at direct odds with
Bennett‟s, and more in line with the opinion of this paper‟s author. Others have attempted rubrics
for creative writing.
Carey et al. (2021) developed a creative writing rubric (see Appendix B) and evaluated it
compared to an Australian writing assessment standard (NAPLAN). Their 10-week project wasquite scientific and used statistical analyses to find strong reliability and validity in the rubric.
Student writing improved when using the rubric for creative writing, which privileged craftbased approaches to imaginative writing. In addition, Rodriguez (2008) developed a creative
writing rubric (not shown) composed of 10 questions, for example, “Is the plot open or closed?
… If it‟s open, is there an epiphany, even if it‟s ambiguous?” (p. 174). Such specific questions
allow the teacher to explicitly state what the students need to know when writing their stories.
Furthermore, Vaezi and Rezaei (2019) created a rubric for creative writing (not shown) with nine

criteria. It was also tested for interrater and intrarater reliability. Regarding the use of rubrics andthe reasoning behind creating their own, they state that suchrubrics, if designed properly, can also pay major contributions to objective, valid, andreliable assessment of students‟ creative works. Clarifying grading criteria minimises the
subjectivity involved in the assessment of creativity, reduces the marking time, increases
the transparency of assessment, and improves the consistency with which students‟
writings are evaluated. Students will also accept the fairness of their teachers‟ judgments
and become less critical of their scores when they are informed that all of the students‟
creative artefacts are measured equitably against a common set of standards. (p. 311)
Rubrics are an important part of assessment, and there are numerous benefits. The fact thatstudents can accept the “fairness” of them and that rubrics clarify grading for students, makes
them indispensable. Feldman (2019) explains how rubrics make a “grade transparent andunderstandable…. Every student can know her grade at any time and know exactly how to get
the grade she wants” (p. 192). This is empowering to students. Therefore, rubrics are the obvious
solution when it comes to the question of how to assess creative writing. However, this study
also briefly discusses other forms of assessment that may be applicable to creative writing, as
described below.
Storyboard task
Storyboards are images of action in a film in a particular sequence. Taylor etal. (2020) “assess
creative writing using the storyboard task, a new assessment approach designed to elicit anarrative structure based on the integration of visual information, mirroring the way thatnarratives are constructed in daily life” (p. 478).They found that there is a correlation between
effort, defined as time on task, and creativity. Although their study was quite scientific involving
several statistical analyses, the method in how they carried out the tasks can be illustrative to
EFL creative writing teachers seeking alternative assessment practices, as “perseverance” isknown as one of the “contributing factors for successful creative writing” (Taylor et al., p. 476).
Creative Narrative Assessment
Bailey and Bizarro (2017) show how an alternative approach to assessment using creative
narratives themselves as assessment data. They conducted a study with 57 participants andanalyzed 57 creative pieces for identification, metaphors and images. They then createdcharacters for a novel from the data set as representations of a more “aesthetic approach that usesthe students‟ creative efforts in the researchers‟ artistic process” (p. 82). Furthermore, they argue“that reports of data in aesthetic forms––that is, aesthetic renderings of/responses to findings––
are a legitimate mode of research, especially in creative writing” (p. 93). This approach is similar
to some Ph.D. creative writing programs which require a creative work of art and acorresponding thesis highlighting how the creative piece exhibits various qualities. Although thestudy as is would not be feasible for EFL students, using students‟ work in a portfolio-stylerendering of data would be an alternative way to assess creative writing.
Think-aloud protocol
Beck et al. (2015) describes a method long used in composition research as an alternative methodof writing assessment. The think-aloud protocol (TAP) requires students to “think aloud” while
they write for thirty minutes. “As the student writes, the teacher listens to what the student says
aloud, observes the student‟s composing process, and takes notes on a record-keeping sheet that
prompts him or her to attend to certain features of writing in general” (Beck et al., 2015, p. 671).
In Beck et al.‟s study, participants were high school students. The TAP Assessment was found tohelp teachers attend to characteristics of students as writers in precise ways not cloudedby their holistic impressions of students as learners or speakers of English or by the
degree to which they perceive students as intelligent, persistent or well-behaved. (p. 675)
Beck et al.‟s study did not measure university students nor in a creative writing context; however,as an alternative to rubrics, it is an interesting assessment method worth investigating further increative writing contexts because attention is paid to the writer‟s thought processes when trying
to incorporate elements of craft characterization, such as dialogue, action, and thought.
Teaching context
The author of this paper works in a major foreign language university in central Japan. The
students were, according to the author‟s own evaluation, at a CEFR (Common European
Framework of Reference) level B1 to B2, which is at an intermediate level of English. This study
consisted of 25 students in an Advanced Writing course, which is a third-year writing course
offered in various genres. None of the students had had creative writing classes previously.
However, all of the students had taken two years of academic English writing courses by thetime they enrolled. The various genres offered to students included business writing, thesis
writing, journalism, and general topic writing; the authortaught creative writing. The lessons
were 90 minutes each, and there were 15 lessons per semester. For the 2023-2024 school year,the focus of this study, creative nonfiction was taught first semester and fiction writing wastaught second semester.
Method and survey results
The goal of the study was to assess the rubrics and other assessments being used in the second
semester of 2023-2024 in order to find weaknesses and flaws and to fix them. This was
facilitated by student input. Before explaining the assessments, some background is provided
here. The class was divided into 15 weeks and was based on Janet Burroway‟s Writing Fiction(2015) text (see Table 1). During weeks 8 and 15, short stories were due. A short critical essay
was due week 15. The two short stories and the critical essay were the major assignments for theclass. Google Classroom was the lesson management system. Figure 1 shows the assignment fora short story.

Table 1: 15-week course schedule
Week Lesson topic
1

Orientation

2

What is fiction?

3

Showing and telling

4

Characterization: Description

5

Characterization: Dialogue

6

Characterization: Action

7

Characterization: Thought

8

Workshop 1

9Setting

10

Point of view

11

Conflict

12

Plot

13

Workshop 2

14

Theme

15

Course reflection

Figure 1:Assignment for one of the short stories

The purpose of this study, already briefly described, was to revise the past rubrics and create new
rubrics based on the findings in the research. Participants of the study were asked to examine therubrics and decide if there was anything that they would like to change. Finally, Young‟s (2009)
rubric on measuring creative thinking (see Appendix A) was modified for this study (see Table
2).
Table 2. A modified version of Young‟s (2009) rubric for creative thinking.

Short Story Rubric
Using effectively

Developing

Emerging

5 points

4 points

3 points

Craft
Does the author show
awareness of craft
elements?
Characterization
Is there character
development?
Originality
Is the story novel(new)?
Word count andtimelinessIs the story at least
800 words? Was it
submitted on time?
DraftsWere in-class drafts
completed?
Workshop
Does the author
discuss their work in
the workshop?

The revised rubric was handed out to students and each criterion was explained. Students
were then instructed to go to a Google Form and participate in the study by answering thequestions (see Appendix C). Twenty-five of 30 students agreed to participate in this study. The
first questions asked whether the students understood the criteria. Results were between 76% and96%. The next section asked if the students agreed with the points assigned to the rubric and theminimum word count. A Likert scale was used and the results were 96% and 80% in favor (=5),
respectively. The following section asked students if they thought they would work harder after
having knowledge of the rubric. 91.7% of the students said that they would now work harder on
the story compared to 8.3% saying “I‟m not sure.” Students who said they would work harder
mentioned that knowing what was clearly expected of them gave them more motivation tocomplete the assignments. None said that they would not work as hard. Then, students wereasked about their opinion on having a rubric for a short story. One student wrote that
I would say having a rubric is more fair than using a different way like teacher‟s original
grading way since the second one have a possibility to occur a serious problem whichteachers change grades depending on their mood that day and on the pupil‟s likes anddislikes. (original quote, unedited)
Another wrote that “It makes easier to write my short story as I can know what I should include.”
Writing stories is difficult, especially in one‟s L2, so anything that makes it easier for the student
is invaluable in the creative writing classroom.
They were then asked if they thought the rubric was fair and, based on their answer, toexplain. 20% of students gave it a 4 (1 to 5 scale) and 80% of students gave it a 5. Their
explanations were similar to the earlier question on their opinion of rubrics. Mainly, the judging
with the rubric was fair and easy to understand.
Discussion
There are many ways to assess creative writing, but the best way to do so is with rubrics. In
essence, they are fair and simple. The results of this study show that rubrics, when clearly
explained to students, can inspire them to work harder. By using rubrics we can improve student
motivation. Another important part of assessment is grade transparency. In this study, nearly allof the students stated in the survey that they could understand the criteria. Therefore, each
student knew how to get the grade they wanted.
One of the more interesting parts of the rubric was that the minimal score to be achieved
was a „B‟. This is in part to extend equity to students who may have difficulty writing a story
from scratch. Even though students were required to create three drafts, some students felt
uncomfortable being graded on their first story. Letting the students rest assured that the lowest

score they would achieve on their paper would be a „B‟ could have helped them focus on the task
at hand, which was writing.
Based on the feedback of the surveys, the rubric was slightly edited (see Appendix D).
More specific information was put into the rubric for each of the criteria since a couple of thequestions regarding comprehension of rubric criteria had results not as high as the others.
In conclusion, rubrics of the type described here should be used in EFL creative writingclasses. The reason is that they are based on quality research and can be clearly explained to
students, resulting in grade transparency and increased student motivation.
Limitations and future considerations
The literature review for creative writing assessment was quite limited due to the dearth ofresearch in EFL creative writing assessment. A more thorough study on rubrics in EFL with alarger participation should be conducted to look more closely at student motivation. A future
study comparing analytic and holistic rubrics in EFL creative writing should be conducted since
there are no studies in this area. Finally, it is the hope of this author that future research will
focus on the area of creative writing in EFL since it is a growing area of instruction in Japan andworldwide.

BIO DATA:
Camilo Villanueva is an EFL lecturer at the Nagoya University of Foreign Studies. He has a BA
in Anthropology from Emory, and MFA in Creative Writing from Concordia-St.Paul and a DA
in English Pedagogy in progress at Murray State.

References
Bailey, C., & Bizzaro, P. (2017). Research in creative writing: Theory into practice. Research in
the Teaching of English 52(1),77-97.
Barnet, S.,& Cain, W.E. (2012). A short guide to writing about literature (12th ed.). Pearson.
Beck, S.W., Llosa, L., Black, K., &Trzeszkowski-Giese, A. (2015). Beyond the rubric: Thinkalouds as a diagnostic assessment tool for high school writing teachers. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58(8), 670-681.
Bennett, C. (2016, Spring). Assessment rubrics: Thinking inside the boxes. Learning andTeaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences 9(1), 5072.
Bennett, E. (2015). Workshops of empire: Stegner, Engle, and American creative writing during
the cold war. University of Iowa Press.
Burroway, J. (2007). Imaginative writing: The elements of craft (2nd ed.). Penguin.
Burroway, J. (2015). Writing fiction: A guide to narrative craft (9th ed.). Pearson.
Carey, M.D., Davidow, S., & Williams, P. (2022). Re-imagining narrative writing andassessment: A post-NAPLAN craft-based rubric for creative writing. The Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy 45, 33-48.
Chavez, F. R. (2021). The anti-racist writing workshop: How to decolonize the creativeclassroom. Haymarket Books.
Davenport, A. (2017). Assessing creative writing is hard, so here are three ways to avoid it.
EdSurge, https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-02-assessing-creative-writing-is-hardso-here-are-three-ways-to-avoid-it.
D‟Souza, R. (2021). What characterises creativity in narrative writing, and how do we assess it?
Research findings from a systematic literature search. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100949
Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform
schools and classrooms. Corwin.
Jonsson, A., &Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity andeducational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130-144.

Nauman, A.D., Stirling, T., & Borthwick, A. (2011). What makes writing good? An essential
question for teachers. The Reading Teacher 64(5), 318-328.
Peckham, R. (2011). The elephants evaluate: Some notes on the problem of grades in graduate
creative writing programs. Composition Studies 39(2), 79-99.
Rodriguez, A. (2008). The „problem‟ of creative writing: Using grading rubrics based on
narrative theory as solution. New Writing: The International Journal of the Practice andTheory of Creative Writing 5(3), 167-177.
Sadler, D.R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34(2), 159-179.
Salesses, M. (2021). Craft in the real world: Rethinking fiction writing and workshopping.
Catapult.
Segal, C.F. (2008). Crossing the rubricon. Chronicle of Higher Education 54(33), B28.
Taylor, C.L., Kaufman, J.C., &Barbot, B. (2020). Measuring creative writing with the storyboard
task: The role of effort and story length. The Journal of Creative Behavior 55(2), 476-488.
Tung, C.K. (2015). Assessment of creative writing: The case of Singapore secondary Chinese
language curriculum. Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(10), 655-662.
Vaezi, M. & Rezaei, S. (2019). Development of a rubric for evaluating creative writing: A multiphase research. New Writing: The International Journal of the Practice and Theory ofCreative Writing 16(3), 303-317.
Wilson, E.O. (2017). The origins of creativity. Penguin.
Young, L.P. (2009). Imagine creating rubrics that develop creativity. The English Journal 99(2),pp. 74-79.

Appendix A:Rubric for Creative Thinking; from Young (2009, p. 78).

Attributes to Stimulate Creativity

Using

Developing

Emerging

Attribute

Attribute

AttributeEffectively
Intellectual Skills:● Using conventional andnonconventional modes of thinking● In-depth analysis evident● Recognizes ideas worth pursuing
Knowledge:● Gaining knowledge andunderstanding of subject● Effectively interprets information● Innovative use
Thinking Styles:● Recognizes important questions andtopics● Good use of new ideas or a new
approach● Questions and analyzes assumptions
Creative Functioning:● Working to overcome obstacles● Tolerates ambiguity● Taking reasonable risks● Taking responsibility for ups anddowns in process
Motivation:● Focus on purpose of project rather
than grade● Demonstrating interest in
project/process developing personal
angle for project● Working to “sell” conclusions andideas
Use of Resources:● Using a variety of resources● Collaborates, discusses ideas withteachers/peers● Uses feedback both positive andnegative

Appendix B:Creative writing rubric task criteria by Carey et al. (2022, p. 45).
1. Moving through time and space––reflects an evaluation of how the narrative holds
together and how overall plot logic unfolds, taking into account the use of conflict tohook readers and whether the piece is a good fit for its target audience.
2. Words, sentences, and voice––reflects an assessment of vocabulary choice and “voice” ofthe writer. Consideration is given to the use of metaphors and symbolism as well as
whether the author is conscious of aspects of unintentional overwriting or lazy writing. It
considers whether aspects of elision and silence are used effectively.
3. Those who speak: characters and context––reflects the way the author uses setting tosupport/reflect underlying themes, whether dialogue serves to reveal characters andrelationships and to move the plot along, as well as how point of view is used.
4. Creativity/innovation/research––reflects a response to the new or innovative in the piece––to techniques or ideas that “hook” the reader.
5. Structural elements and presentation––reflects the control of structural elements such as
spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing, and formatting.

Appendix C:Results of questionnaire to students about revised rubric.

Appendix D:Revised rubric for assessing creative writing