<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href='static/style.xsl' type='text/xsl'?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-23T15:43:54Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:ebiltegia.mondragon.edu:20.500.11984/13972" metadataPrefix="mods">https://ebiltegia.mondragon.edu/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:ebiltegia.mondragon.edu:20.500.11984/13972</identifier><datestamp>2026-01-29T08:37:55Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_20.500.11984_473</setSpec><setSpec>col_20.500.11984_476</setSpec></header><metadata><mods:mods xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
   <mods:name>
      <mods:namePart>Arias-Hermoso, Roberto</mods:namePart>
   </mods:name>
   <mods:name>
      <mods:namePart>Garro, Eneritz</mods:namePart>
   </mods:name>
   <mods:name>
      <mods:namePart>Imaz Agirre, Ainara</mods:namePart>
   </mods:name>
   <mods:extension>
      <mods:dateAvailable encoding="iso8601">2025-11-11T10:27:19Z</mods:dateAvailable>
   </mods:extension>
   <mods:extension>
      <mods:dateAccessioned encoding="iso8601">2025-11-11T10:27:19Z</mods:dateAccessioned>
   </mods:extension>
   <mods:originInfo>
      <mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2025-09-30</mods:dateIssued>
   </mods:originInfo>
   <mods:identifier type="issn">2411-7390</mods:identifier>
   <mods:identifier type="other">https://katalogoa.mondragon.edu/janium-bin/janium_login_opac.pl?find&amp;ficha_no=191524</mods:identifier>
   <mods:identifier type="uri">https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11984/13972</mods:identifier>
   <mods:abstract>Introduction: Over the last two decades, research has suggested that academic and disciplinary literacies  (ADLs)  are  key  to  integrating  content  and  language,  as  language  is  used  to  express  content  knowledge,  often  through  Cognitive  Discourse  Functions,  discourse  patterns  that  respond to cognitive actions in formal education contexts. Nevertheless, systematic assessment tools are required to assess student production of ADLs.Purpose: This validation study focuses on developing an analytic rubric to measure three ADL skills, consisting of three dimensions. Two of these dimensions are CDFs: students’ skills to argue and compare. A third rubric measures an additional academic skill, students’ ability to write from sources. The rubrics are designed to capture cross-disciplinary and multilingual productions of these  skills,  therefore  being  applicable  for  various  disciplines  (history,  science,  mathematics,  among others...) and languages. Method: A five-step validation process based on expert judgement was used, involving 13 international  experts.  They  quantitatively  and  qualitatively  evaluated  the  proposed  rubrics  based on pertinence, conceptual clarity, coherence, and relevance across two iterative rounds. Quantitative  descriptive  statistics  and  agreement  indices  were  used,  in  addition  to  thematic  analysis of qualitative feedback.Results: The quality of the rubric showed clear progression between validation rounds. In the first version, several issues were raised by the experts–most criteria showed weak agreement and low means. After revisions, there was a substantial improvement in the second version, with 83 % of the criteria reaching strong or acceptable agreement. Qualitative feedback highlighted the  need  for  precise  and  multidimensional  operationalisations  in  each  ADL  dimension.  To  illustrate the application of the rubrics, multilingual student samples are provided.Conclusion: The rubrics offer the first steps towards systematising ADL assessment by combining qualitative and quantitative feedback from 13 experts, underscoring the importance of expert input in advancing assessment practices. The study has theoretical and practical contributions: it highlights the multidimensional nature of ADLs and provides an adaptable rubric that can be used across disciplines, languages and educational contexts. This study focused on the validation process; therefore, empirical use of the rubric is still required. Future research should apply the rubrics to large-scale corpora and complement the expert-based validation with psychometric approaches</mods:abstract>
   <mods:language>
      <mods:languageTerm>eng</mods:languageTerm>
   </mods:language>
   <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">Attribution 4.0 International</mods:accessCondition>
   <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</mods:accessCondition>
   <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">Copyright (c) 2025 National Research University Higher School of Economics</mods:accessCondition>
   <mods:subject>
      <mods:topic>Cognitive discourse functions</mods:topic>
   </mods:subject>
   <mods:subject>
      <mods:topic>Writing assessment</mods:topic>
   </mods:subject>
   <mods:subject>
      <mods:topic>Disciplinary literacies</mods:topic>
   </mods:subject>
   <mods:subject>
      <mods:topic>Source-based writing</mods:topic>
   </mods:subject>
   <mods:titleInfo>
      <mods:title>Assessing Academic and Disciplinary Literacies: Rubric validation to measure argumentation, comparison and source-based writing skills</mods:title>
   </mods:titleInfo>
</mods:mods></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>