


































Yun & Bennett (2017) Final .pdf


Educational Renaissance Vol. 6  (2017)

Shar ing t he Responsibil i t y for  Teacher  Preparat ion: 
Collaborat ive Design of  a Teaching Observat ion Rubr ic

Cat hy Yun, PhD, California St at e Universit y, Fresno
     email: cyun@csufresno.edu

Lisa Bennet t , PhD, California St at e Universit y, Fresno
     email: lbennett@csufresno.edu

Research Article

Based on current research and literature, scholars, 
experts, and school districts are calling for 
transformative change in how teachers are 
prepared toward programs built around a strong 
clinical practice model in partnership with school 
districts (Grossman, 2010; National Research 
Council, 2010). The National Center for Teacher 
Residencies (NCTR, 2015) identified three 
necessary shifts for moving toward a clinically 
orientated teacher preparation program: 1) 
Restructure clinical experiences, emphasizing 
competency-based assessments aligned to district 
and/or state measures; 2) Revise courses to 
include more theory-to-practice connections and 
opportunities for simulations and rehearsals; and 
3) Build authentic and substantive collaborations 
with schools and school districts. The ongoing 
rubric work described in this proposal addresses 
all of these three shifts.

The first shift is toward focus on clinical 

experiences in the field, with meaningful feedback, 
as a critical part of learning for novice teachers. 
Many traditional models of teacher preparation 
privilege coursework and position fieldwork as a 
place where candidates have the option to try out 
coursework learning. Recent critiques of such 
traditional models call for the clinical experience 
to be the central component, with prolonged time 
in the field, multiple opportunities to practice in 
authentic contexts, and intentional guidance or 
scaffolding (Grossman, 2010). The rubric was 
created to help coaches focus on specific 
action-oriented competencies aligned to both 
district and state standards. The rubric provides a 
?common language,? vetted by multiple 
stakeholders, supporting consistency and helping 
to prevent mixed messages or misinterpretations 
of jargon. Using the rubric, various constituents 
can provide specific feedback and next steps for 
strengthening candidate practice. 

Abst ract

This case story describes the collaborative development and use of a teaching observation rubric to 
support and scaffold evidence-based changes in the focal educator preparation program (EPP). The 
case highlights the power of EPP-district collaborations for improving the teaching and coaching 
practices for both stakeholders while strengthening trust. Additionally, this case demonstrates how 
the focal EPP worked with districts to ease preservice-to-inservice transitions for novice teachers, 
through development of a feedback instrument that spans the transition, thereby decreasing 
teacher attrit ion within the first three years on the job. 

mailto:cyun@csufresno.edu
mailto:lbennett@csufresno.edu


YUN & BENNETT |  2 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

The second shift is toward stronger 
theory-to-practice connections, with rehearsal 
opportunities. A new course (?Inquiry and Puzzles 
of Practice?) provides a structured safe space for 
candidates to engage in their own inquiries. Within 
this course, candidates will become familiar with 
the rubric, use it to guide curriculum design, and 
practice with it as they observe each other. This 
course will continue throughout the program so as 
candidates grow in their practice and gain 
experience with the rubric, they will be able to 
internalize what ?good teaching? looks like and 
self-monitor development across different 
competencies.

The third shift is toward building authentic and 
substantive partnerships with schools and school 
districts. The collaborative rubric work has 
fostered deeper relationships between the two 
IHEs and three partner districts based on shared 
vision and trust. The rubric was developed by 
synthesizing existing district observation tools, and 
aligning this synthesis to the new state standards. 
Because the school districts have committed to 
using the rubric through induction for new 
teachers, program completers will have a more 
seamless entry into the local workforce (NCTR, 
2015). The rubric will support not only better 
prepared first year teachers but also new teacher 
retention by easing the preservice-to-inservice 
transition. 

In order for feedback to bridge the worlds of 
preservice and inservice, it must be relevant to the 
intersecting standards and goals of EPPs and 
partnering districts. Maintaining relevance to a 
dynamic policy landscape can be challenging for 
EPPs as state and national standards for 
curriculum, preservice teacher performance, and 
inservice teacher performance continue to evolve. 
Partnering with school districts can help EPPs 
remain relevant to practitioners and smooth the 
transition into the field for novice teachers. For 
school districts, partnering with EPPs can provide 
access to resources and cutting-edge 
evidence-based practices. Frequently, school and 
district administrators struggle to operationalize 

?good teaching? and to provide meaningful 
feedback to classroom teachers that will help 
improve their practice in non-threatening ways. 
The collaborative process described in this case 
story resulted in development of an observation 
feedback instrument that explicitly bridges the 
preservice-to-inservice transition, aligns to both 
preservice and inservice teacher state standards, 
operationalizes evidence-based pedagogical 
practices, and provides consistent language for 
action-oriented constructive feedback throughout 
the novice to expert continuum. 

Addressing Puzzles of  Pract ice

Rubric development emerged as a solution that 
could address multiple ?puzzles of practice? for the 
case EPP which leveraged these puzzles to initiate 
conversations with regional partners. The EPP was 
facing newly revised preservice state standards, a 
need to update candidates? clinical experiences, 
and a campus initiative to reduce fees for students 
-- all while remaining responsive to regional needs. 
In response to these puzzles of practice, the case 
EPP chose to locally develop a standards-aligned, 
research-based teaching observation instrument 
for providing meaningful feedback to candidates in 
the field. 

To develop as reflective practitioners, preservice 
candidates require consistent high-quality, 
standards-based feedback and opportunities for 
facilitated next-steps planning that builds toward 
effective instruction. Many traditional models of 
teacher preparation privilege coursework and 
position fieldwork as a place where candidates 
have the option to try out coursework learning. 
Recent critiques of such traditional models call for 
the clinical experience to be the central 
component, with prolonged time in the field, 
multiple opportunities to practice in authentic 
contexts, and intentional guidance or scaffolding 
(Grossman, 2010). Various feedback instruments 
are available; however, most are aligned to 
national rather than state standards (e.g., INTASC), 
and they frequently require usage fees that are 
passed along to candidates (e.g., Danielson, 2013). 
Such fees are problematic for regions with high 



YUN & BENNETT |  3 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

poverty rates and EPPs with food-insecure 
candidates (Jargowsky, 2015). To address these 
puzzles related to state-specific standards 
alignment and equitable access for teacher 
candidates, and based on recommendations in the 
extant literature, the EPP developed the 
Continuum of Reflective, Engaging, and Accessible 
Teaching Rubric (CREATe Rubric) in partnership 
with another EPP and three school districts. 

This case story describes the collaborative process 
of these two EPPs and three school districts in 
developing a common rubric to provide 
action-oriented formative feedback for new 
teachers while they are teaching in the field. The 
rubric focuses on specific action-oriented 
competencies aligned to both district and state 
standards, and provides a ?common language,? 
vetted by multiple stakeholders, supporting 
consistency and helping to prevent mixed 
messages or misinterpretations of jargon. Using 
the rubric, various constituents can provide 
specific feedback and next steps to strengthen 
practice for any teacher along the novice to expert 
continuum. Furthermore, because each 
competency is represented in the rubric as a 
separate continuum, the rubric can help identify 
each teacher?s individual zone of proximal 
development (Vygotsky, 1978) and help teacher 
educators provide tailored and targeted 
scaffolding. Thus, the rubric provides a way to 
create practice profiles across multiple 
competencies that can help document teacher 
development over time.

Collaborat ive Par t ners and Cont ext

The CREATe Rubric was developed over a period of 
18 months in collaboration with a second EPP 
(EPP-2) and three of the major area school 
districts. The focal EPP leveraged existing 
relationships to engage program coordinators 
from both EPPs and high-level district 
administrators from the three districts in this 
collaborative process. The focal EPP is a regional 
comprehensive university in the western United 
States and is one of the largest EPPs in the state. 
The region that the EPP serves is 

lingusticallylinguistically and culturally diverse but 
is challenged by high poverty rates (25.5%) and low 
educational attainment (19.7% have a BA or 
higher) (FC Economic Development Corporation, 
2017). CREATe Rubric development was launched 
in concert with other initiatives and innovations at 
the focal EPP, which were all part of a 
comprehensive program revision and rebranding 
effort. Incorporating rubric development into a 
larger strategic plan and vision for the EPP allowed 
the focal EPP to use resources and leverage 
existing relationships in creative ways to 
accomplish the work. 

Rubr ic Developm ent

Rubric development began with close examination 
of the new state standards. The focal EPP first met 
with each school district team and the EPP-2 team 
separately to carefully review the new preservice 
standards. Each team analyzed the six standards 
and 45 substandards to identify those that are 
critical for novice teachers and could be directly 
observed in a classroom setting. The selected 
observable standards were compared and 
synthesized across teams, with nearly 100% 
consensus across all constituents regarding which 
observable standards should be represented on 
the rubric. From this analysis, 14 rubric items were 
developed, aligned to 17 preservice substandards.

Next, extant district inservice rubrics were 
synthesized and incorporated into CREATe so that 
it could be aligned and used across districts as a 
continuum of development from novice to expert 
teacher. Different districts? inservice rubrics varied 
in regard to complexity and explicitness of how 
inservice standards were operationalized. These 
three district inservice rubrics were coded and 
synthesized to develop evidence-based language 
for common ?look-fors? as descriptive anchors in 
the more advanced performance categories of 
CREATe. Based on the analysis and synthesis of the 
three inservice district rubrics, seven performance 
categories were developed for CREATe: five 
(unobserved, attempting, exploring, emerging, 
developing) spanning the expected developmental 
trajectory of preservice teachers and two (skillful, 



YUN & BENNETT |  4 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

masterful) extending teacher development into 
inservice practice. Integration of the district 
inservice rubrics into CREATe explicitly bridges the 
instrument from preservice to inservice. 

Once the structure of CREATe was built, the most 
recent literature and evidence in teacher 
preparation was consulted in operationalizing the 
practices and strategies associated with culturally 
sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012), developmentally 
appropriate practices (Bredekamp, 1997), and 
universal design for learning (Meyer, Rose, & 
Gordon, 2014; Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012; Meyer, 
Rose, & Gordon, 2014). These three frameworks 
were operationalized based on evidence-based 
practices, theoretical foundations, and language 
woven throughout the preservice and inservice 
state standards. Research on rubric development 
and testing was also consulted during initial 
development. For example, in a comprehensive 
review of published empirical research on rubrics 
Jonsson and Svingby (2007) outlined five major 
considerations of reliable rubrics: 

1. Benchmarks increase agreement, but should 
be chosen with care (Denner, Salzman, & 
Harris, 2002; Popp, Ryan, Thompson, & 
Behrens, 2003);

2. Analytical scoring is preferable (Johnson, 
Penny, & Gordon, 2000; Johnson, Penny, & 
Gordon, 2001; Penny, Johnson, & Gordon, 
2000a; Penny, Johnson, & Gordon, 2000b);

3. Training is necessary but not sufficient for 
inter-rater agreement (Stuhlmann, Daniel, 
Dellinger, Denny, & Powers, 1999; Weigle, 
1999); 

4. Topic-specific rubrics are more generalizable 
and dependable than generic rubrics 
(DeRemer, 1998; Marzano, 2002); 

5. Careful consideration should go into the 
number of levels on the rating scale. 

These research-based recommendations were 
used as guidelines to ensure development of a 
reliable and valid instrument. 

Rubr ic St ruct ure

The CREATe Rubric includes 14 items, aligned to 

preservice and inservice state standards. The 14 
items are organized into four sections: Positive 
Environment, Instructional Design and 
Implementation, Rigorous and Appropriate 
Content, and Reflection-In-Action. Each of the 14 
items is rated along a seven-point developmental 
continuum with the following rating categories: 
Unobserved, Attempting, Exploring, Emerging, 
Developing, Skillful, and Masterful. Each rating 
category has an anchor descriptor that 
operationalizes each of the 14 items with 
action-oriented, observable ?look-fors.? Table 1 
summarizes the 14 items. 

District partners and EPPs participated in initial 
CREATe testing and refining through joint 
classroom visits and debriefing sessions. District 
administrators, EPP teacher educators, and 
classroom teachers completed surveys to provide 
expert feedback on each item. After this initial 
round of field testing in Spring 2017, each rubric 
item was revised based on feedback data. During 
Fall 2017, the CREATe Rubric was piloted on a small 
scale, with data and feedback loops regarding 
training, calibration process, and usability 
(including time, costs, challenges). The CREATe 
Rubric is currently undergoing reliability and 
validity testing. 

Rubr ic Test ing

CREATe is currently undergoing a rigorous testing 
and vetting process. Multiple sources of data are 
being used to evaluate the validity, reliability, and 
practice-based value of CREATe. In the initial 
design, construct validity was addressed through 
alignment of the rubric anchor descriptors to 
theory, evidence-based practices, local district 
standards, and state standards. Internal 
consistency will be explored using Cronbach?s 
Alpha and exploratory factor analysis. Content 
validity can be addressed through careful selection 
of items (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997) as well as expert 
feedback. For every item on the rubric, experts 
(e.g., teacher educators, school administrators, 
classroom teachers, fieldwork coaches) complete a 
short researcher-developed feedback survey 
(Foxcroft, Paterson, le Roux, & Herbst, 2004) to 



YUN & BENNETT |  5 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

rate: 1) extent to which the item is observable, 2) 
degree of alignment between rubric item/indicator 
and standard, 3) degree of face validity, and 4) 
extent to which the item and indicator reflect 
positive teaching practices. Criterion validity will be 
examined through comparing candidate scores on 
rubric items with qualitative observation notes, 
course grades, Teacher Performance Assessment 
scores, and post-completion employer ratings. 
Inter-rater reliability is being established through 
rigorous initial training and paired observation 
sessions, comparing observer rubric ratings with 
those of the rubric developers. Observers will be 
required to recertify annually. Throughout the 
validation process, rubric data usability will be 
examined for tracking individual candidate growth, 
providing targeted just-in-time scaffolds for 
candidates, fostering reflective practice in 
candidates, and tracking overall program efficacy. 
In addition to previously mentioned comparisons, 
usability analyses will utilize data from 
semi-annual focus groups, candidate exit surveys, 
and district administrator feedback.

Im plicat ions

Decontextualized, summative teacher observation 
protocols do not foster engagement in cycles of 
reflective practice and continuous improvement. 
Development and adoption of the CREATe Rubric 
across EPPs and partner districts has the potential 
to support evidence-based practices at multiple 
levels for multiple constituents (i.e., candidate, 
coaches, program, regional) and will provide both 
qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform 
practice on a system-, and potentially, statewide 
level. CREATe Rubric adoption will provide data for 
monitoring progress of candidates and for guiding 
EPP continuous improvement efforts. 

In addition to the innovation of the rubric itself, 
the development process has deepened the level 
of collaboration and understanding between EPP 
and district stakeholders. In developing, testing, 
revising, and validating the CREATe Rubric, it has 
been necessary to have difficult conversations 
around pedagogy, equity, curriculum, and 
standards. These conversations have fostered 

growth and new understanding for all involved 
parties. District stakeholders have had to 
acknowledge that every teacher (even star veteran 
teachers) has potential to grow; EPP stakeholders 
have had to recognize the need to more 
substantively model and require rigor, pedagogical 
content knowledge, and inclusive culturally 
sustaining pedagogical practices. Future 
collaborative work also includes alignment of 
CREATe to other standards and frameworks (e.g., 
NGSS; INTASC) to increase usability.  

Development of the rubric and buy-in of partner 
districts and EPPs to utilize it are examples of the 
kinds of work that can be accomplished through 
the research-based practice of working in 
partnership with the larger community. This case 
story demonstrates an example of how 
collaboration between EPPs and districts can result 
in powerful initiatives that can inform the field. By 
sharing our work in progress, we hope to 
encourage other IHEs to consider the potential 
impact of similar collaborations within their own 
contexts.



YUN & BENNETT |  6 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

Table 1  
CREATe Rubric Items and Item Description

Section & Item Item Description

A. Positive Environment

1: Caring Community Implementation of systems and routines for behavior intervention, restorative justice, and 
conflict resolution

2: Inclusive Learning 
Environment

Classroom climate including considerations regarding physical  safety, psychological safety, 
tone, peer interactions, and inclusive practices

3: High Expectations Classroom includes scaffolded high expectations for all learners, opportunities for students 
to  practice self-regulation, differentiated instruction based on the learners in the context. 

4: Positive Behavior 
Expectations

Routines, procedures, and norms established and maintained in the classroom 

5: Reflection, Assessment, & 
Self-Assessment

A culture of reflective practice, which includes self-assessment, teacher assessment with high 
quality feedback, opportunities for revisions based on feedback, a culture of intellectual 
risk-taking, and encouragement of metacognitive thinking about engagement, learning, and 
behavior. 

6: Funds of Knowledge Familiarity with and leveraging of students? funds of knowledge

B. Instructional Design & 
Implementation

7: Student Motivation, 
Engagement, & Active 
Learning

Engagement and motivation of students through design and implementation of a range of 
instructional activities that incorporate the needs and interests of the learners in the 
classroom.

8: Varied Strategies Use of multiple developmentally- appropriate strategies and resources, technology, principles 
of UDL, tiered support and scaffolds, and differentiation

9: Research-based Instruction 
for Emergent Bilinguals and 
Students with Special Needs

Use of research-based instructional approaches to provide a supportive learning 
environment for first and/or second language acquisition and student with special needs. 

C. Rigorous & Appropriate 
Content

10: Critical & Creative Thinking Opportunities for students to engage in critical and creative thinking 

11: Subject Matter Knowledge Teacher application of subject matter knowledge, standards, and frameworks

12: Content Accessibility Supports and scaffolds to ensure curriculum and content are accessible to all students

13: Interdisciplinary 
Integration

Subject specific pedagogy, integration across content areas, and incorporation of visual and 
performing arts

D. Reflection-in-Action

14: Monitoring Student 
Learning & Adjusting 
Instruction

Teacher monitoring of student learning, instructional modifications, and differentiation



YUN & BENNETT |  7 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

Figure 1 Sample Item from CREATe Rubric (Yun & 
Bennett, 2017)



YUN & BENNETT |  8 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

References

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological 
testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall.

Bredekamp, S. (1997). NAEYC Issues Revised 
Position Statement on Developmentally 
Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood 
Programs. Young Children, 52(2), 34-40. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42727311

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: 
Evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: Danielson 
Group.

Denner, P. R., Salzman, S. A., & Harris, L. B. (2002, 
Feb.). Teacher work sample assessment: An 
accountability method that moves beyond teacher 
testing to the impact of teacher performance on 
student learning. Paper presented at the 54th 
Annual Meeting of the American Association of 
Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY.

DeRemer, M. L. (1998). Writing assessment: Raters' 
elaboration of the rating task. Assessing Writing, 
5(1), 7-29. 

Foxcroft, C., Paterson, H., Le Roux, N., & Herbst, D. 
(2004, July). Psychological assessment in South 
Africa: Aa needs analysis: the test use patterns 
and needs of psychological assessment 
practitioners: final report. Retrieved from 
http://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2
0.500.11910/7498/1716_Foxcroft_Psychological
assessmentin%20SA.pdf?sequence=1

Grossman, P. (2010). Learning to practice: The design 
of clinical experience in teacher preparation. 
Washington DC: AACTE. Retrieved from 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;
jsessionid=825DA42BB0721BACFC03ADC3AEF4
F7F9?doi=10.1.1.178.4088&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hall, T., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2012). Universal 
design for learning in the classroom: Practical 
applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Jargowsky, P. A. (2015). Architecture of segregation: 
Civil unrest, the concentration of poverty, and 
public policy. Washington DC: The Century 
Foundation. Retrieved from 

https:// tcf.org/assets/downloads/Jargowsky_Arc
hitectureofSegregation.pdf

Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., & Gordon, B. (2000). The 
relation between score resolution methods and 
interrater reliability: An empirical study of an 
analytic scoring rubric. Applied Measurement in 
Education, 13, 121-138.

Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., & Gordon, B. (2001). Score 
resolution and the interrater reliability of 
holistic scores in rating essays. Written 
Communication, 18, 229-249.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of 
scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and 
educational consequences. Educational 
Research Review, 2, 130-144.

Marzano, R. J. (2002). A comparison of selected 
methods of scoring classroom assessments. 
Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 249-268.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). 
Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. 
Wakefield, MA: CAST. 

National Center for Teacher Residencies (NCTR). 
(2015). Clinically oriented teacher preparation. 
Washington DC: NCTR. Retrieved from 
https://nctresidencies.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/07/NCTR-COTP-Final-Single-Pgs.pdf

National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Preparing 
teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. 
Report by the Committee on the study of 
teacher preparation programs in the United 
States. Washington, DC: National Academies 
Press.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A 
needed change in stance, terminology, and 
practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97.

Penny,Penny, J., Johnson, R. L., & Gordon, B. (2000). 
The effect of rating augmentation on 
inter-rater reliability: An empirical study of a 
holistic rubric. Assessing Writing, 7, 143-164.

Penny, J., Johnson, R. L., & Gordon, B. (2000). Using 
rating augmentation to expand the scale of an 
analytic rubric. The Journal of Experimental 
Education, 68, 269-287.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42727311
http://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2 0.500.11910/7498/1716_Foxcroft_Psychological assessmentin%20SA.pdf?sequence=1
http://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2 0.500.11910/7498/1716_Foxcroft_Psychological assessmentin%20SA.pdf?sequence=1
http://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2 0.500.11910/7498/1716_Foxcroft_Psychological assessmentin%20SA.pdf?sequence=1
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download; jsessionid=825DA42BB0721BACFC03ADC3AEF4 F7F9?doi=10.1.1.178.4088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download; jsessionid=825DA42BB0721BACFC03ADC3AEF4 F7F9?doi=10.1.1.178.4088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download; jsessionid=825DA42BB0721BACFC03ADC3AEF4 F7F9?doi=10.1.1.178.4088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/Jargowsky_Arc hitectureofSegregation.pdf
https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/Jargowsky_Arc hitectureofSegregation.pdf
https://nctresidencies.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/07/NCTR-COTP-Final-Single-Pgs.pdf
https://nctresidencies.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/07/NCTR-COTP-Final-Single-Pgs.pdf


YUN & BENNETT |  9 SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

Popp, S. E. O., Ryan, J. M., Thompson, M. S., & 
Behrens, J. T. (2003, April). Operationalizing the 
Rubric: The Effect of Benchmark Selection on the 
Assessed Quality of Writing. Paper presented at 
the Annual Meeting of the American 
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Stuhlmann, J., Daniel, C., Dellinger, A., Kenton, R., & 
Powers, T. (1999). A generalizability study of the 
effects of training on teachers' abilit ies to rate 
children's writing using a rubric. Reading 
Psychology, 20, 107-127.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning 
and development. Readings on the Development 
of Children, 23, 34-41.

Weigle, S. C. (1999). Investigating rater/prompt 
interactions in writing assessment: 
Quantitative and qualitative approaches. 
Assessing Writing, 6, 145-178.

Yun, C., & Bennett, L. H. (2017). Continuum of 
Reflective, Engaging, and Accessible Teaching 
(CREATe) Rubric [Rubric and manual]. 
Unpublished instrument. Fresno, CA: Fresno 
State.


