 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Keywords: Assessment"Computerized Scoring? A Question of Theory and Practice." by Kathryn R. Fitzgerald "Questioning Assumptions about Portfolio-Based Assessment." by Liz Hamp-Lyons and William Condon "What Can Our Students Tell Us About Essay Examination Designs and Practices." by Carol Peterson Haviland and J. Milton Clark "Using Pooled Judgments to Develop Tests of Basic Writing." by Jon Jonz Alternatives to Grading Student Writing. by Stephen Tchudi, ed. Teaching and Assessing Writing: Recent Advances in Understanding, Evaluating, and Improving Student Performance. by Edward M. White Fitzgerald analyzes computerized assessment of writing and argues that, while such assessment is less expensive, it is not applicable to even minor changes in situation and would have to be adapted to each test in order to be useful. So, guess what, it’s probably not going to be useful. Hamp-Lyons and Condon conducted a study of how writing instructors, attempting to evaluate student writing, "use perceive, and react to" student portfolios. Their investigation led them to conclude that portfolio-based systems of writing assessment "must continually be questioned, and must continually grow in response to new discoveries and to new phenomena" that may be revealed through the assessment process itself. The researchers identified five assumptions about portfolio-based assessment common to readers/evaluators, and offer suggestions as to how these assumptions may be addressed. Assumption One: Because a portfolio contains more tests than a timed essay examination, it provides more evidence and therefore a broader basis for judgment, making decisions easier. Hamp-Lyons and Condon’s research suggests that holistic reading is highly unlikely. They note that multiple texts "inevitably force readers to consider one text in the light of another," resulting in decisions grounded in a "weighing of the parts." Assumption Two: A portfolio will contain texts of more than one genre, and multiple genres also lead to a broader basis for judgments, making decisions easier. This includes two general assumptions: that writing quality will vary from genre to genre, and that a portfolio will contain texts from more than one genre. The researchers suggest that it is not necessarily the case that writing quality will vary between genres, and that, if it does, such variance will make decisions harder. Their data revealed that "the influence of multiple genres, when they occurred, seemed to be minor" (181). Their research also revealed that readers do not give equal time to each part of the portfolio, and that decisions are often made about the quality of the writing before the reader has even read the second essay. They note, "Our studies have already suggested that readers tend to reduce the cognitive--and time--load in portfolio reading by finding short cuts to decisions" (183). Assumption Three: Portfolios will make process easier to see in a student’s writing and enable instructors to reward evidence of the ability to bring one’s own text significantly forward in quality. The research suggests that while the curriculum we teach may emphasize revision and process, the curriculum we test is the finished product. Expanding portfolios to include drafts may help to eliminate this problem, but the important factor is that readers take notice of the drafts and revisions, not just the finished essay. Assumption Four: Portfolio assessment allows pedagogical and curricular values to be taken into account. This assumption represents the "common argument that portfolios somehow automatically represent a closer connection with curricular values" (185). This is only true when portfolio assessment allows these values to be taken into account by the readers--which comes through interaction of faculty members. A unified vision among the members is necessary; this runs beyond a norming session and must be cultivated throughout the writing program. Assumption Five: Portfolio assessment aids in building consensus in assessment and in instruction. Hamp-Lyons and Condon note that it is not the portfolio assessment that builds consensus, but a concerted effort on the part of the faculty to exchange information and views on writing instruction. They note that "maintaining a strong portfolio-based assessment program requires us to (a) seek out issues that demand consensus and (b) provide forums for building consensus" (187). In conclusion, Hamp-Lyons and Condon note that portfolio assessment brings many benefits to a writing program. Among these are the promotion of communication among faculty, promotion of faculty training and development, and the democratization of faculty. They note that even if they can never prove that portfolio-based assessment is a better tool for evaluating student writing, these benefits among the readers of the portfolios make portfolio-based assessment a valuable tool for writing programs. This three-year study deals with midterm and end-of-semester essay examinations. Some of the items discovered: On topic choice, two-thirds of students preferred to write about personal topics, while the rest were more comfortable with distance from the subject. On the number of questions, students preferred a choice, despite Ed White’s argument that students write better when forced to focus on one good question. The authors changed their midterm/postterm assessment to allow students time to read a writing sample, at least one class session to discuss possible questions, and to submit those questions to the entire staff who will then select what they believe are the best questions for students to write on. Jonz offers a method for group assessment of a basic writing program as an alternative to the holistically scored end-of-the-semsester written exam by which students must pass or fail the course. The exam itself is written in response to a passage that is approved by the staff prior to the exam. He includes a sample exam, and a chart of exam results from five semesters. Tchudi, Stephen. Ed. Alternatives to Grading Student Writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997. This collection of essays is a result of an NCTE Committee's investigation into "all alternatives to giving students grades in writing so that progress can be evaluated in ways sensitive to the needs of students as well as universities, colleges, and school districts" (xi). The committee hopes to provide practical ideas, even for those who are required to work with a grading system. The four parts of this book include "Background and Theory," "Responding to Student Writing," "Classroom Strategies and Alternatives to Grading Student Writing," and "Faculty Workshops in Alternatives to Grading Student Writing." The first section, "Background and Theory," presents research demonstrating that grading writing does not enhance learning and "is in conflict with the new paradigms for writing instruction" (xii). An article by Liesel O'Hagen briefly provides a history of grading, which began relatively recently, around 1850, with studies questioning its validity soon following . Studies in 1912 and 1913, for instance, questioned the subjectivity of grading, especially in writing instruction. The major criticisms of grades pointed out in past and current research are that they are scientifically invalid; they provide false motivation; they are false indicators of worth; and they create superficial learning, student/teacher barriers, and limits on teaching and teachers. The other article in this section, by Marie Wilson Nelson, advocates growth-biased assessment rather than traditional assessment, which tends to be deficiency focused. Rather than operating from a "norm," growth-focused assessment looks at "effort, quality of writing, and progress made," and proposes offering suggestions for improvement "at the point of need" (18). The committee found response to be very important to the writing process and devoted all of section two to it. Lynn Holaday, in her article, urges that students, especially those who are apprehensive about engaging in writing and therefore miss out on necessary practice and feedback, need coaches who will be supportive and offer specific, individualized feedback, not judges, who might label and intimidate them. This article, like the majority of the articles in this section, indicates that it is simply necessary to allow plenty of time to respond to and interact with student writing before it is to be graded. Students who have interested teachers and peers responding to their texts (providing non-judgmental reactions and offering individualized suggestions), and students who then have opportunities to improve that writing through practice, are more likely to improve their writing. Section three of this book, "Classroom Strategies and Alternatives to Grading Student Writing," provides practical alternatives to grading student writing. Even those who must eventually provide student grades can use some of these alternatives in their classrooms. Jean Ketter and Judith Hunter suggest that if grades must be used, it is helpful to engage students in a discussion of (and even allow them to collaborate in) how the grading criteria are established. If the criteria are clearly articulated, and if students have had a voice in establishing them, they may be more likely to understand and work toward them. Kelly Chandler and her student Amy Muentener, in another article, advocate teacher-student conferences. Here, teachers can model the kinds of questions students should ask about their writing, as well as provide focused feedback. Gail Young advocates the use of rubrics, which motivate students because they clearly define elements of an excellent product and provide explanations of grades to students, parents, and administrators. Jacob Blumner and Francis Fritz had students in pairs assess and evaluate their classmates' writing using trait scoring. The teachers believed that this helped students to "look more closely at what constitutes good writing," engage in talk about writing, and consider the complexity and consequences of assessment. Other articles in the book suggest such things as portfolio assessment, the accept/revise system, and outcomes-based assessment. The final section of this book outlines ideas for faculty workshops on alternatives to grading student writing so that new approaches and ideas can be considered and implemented and so that current ideas can be further explored and tested in classroom practice. The workshops cover items such as contract grades, rubrics, communication with parents and the public, and developing intrinsic motivation for students' writing. Part One: Assessment-A Critical Tool in the Teaching of Writing This is the most relevant part to in-class activities. White calls it formative assessment, assessment that is designed to help students improve their writing. Ch. 1: Assessment as Threat and Promise Assessment/testing can be bad when it is too narrow, does not address the skills being taught, and when teaching is directed towards such tests. Assessment can be good if it is valid; which means that the test measures what it claims to measure. White emphasizes honesty with the students. Students cannot follow your criteria unless you are honest and clear about them. In other words, the student should receive those criteria in writing. Once the criteria for the writing assignment are clear, students are better able to assess their own writing. Clear assessment criteria leads to reliability in grading. Consistent grading leads to respect from students and outside parental and political forces. White's final word on the necessity of assessment is that we must do it well ourselves or those outside forces will do it for us in the form of standardized tests. Ch. 2: Assessment and the Design of Writing Assignments This chapter uses some of Erika Lindemann's criteria/questions for developing writing assignments. White's stages for the writing assignment are 1) detailed planning for each assignment to allow prewriting and revision, 2) distributing the assignment in written form, 3) discussing the assignment in class, and 4) writing drafts (21-27). The last half of this chapter is given over to sample writing assignments for descriptive, analytical, and expository writing. Ch. 3: Using Essay Tests The difference between topics for testing and topics for teachings: the wrong topics used on a test can lead to bad writing by good students. Structured Versus Open Essay Test Topics (56): A Model for Topic Development (60): First, determine what is to be tested or discovered. Second, the characteristics of a good writing topic are Clarity, Validity, Reliability, and Interest (explained on pages 61-63). Ch. 4: How Theories of Reading Affect Responses to Writing White compares traditional with contemporary theories of reading. The Formalistic theory of reading finds meaning in the form of the writing. Poststructural Theories of reading look at reading as an interaction between the reader and the text, and expression is not necessarily the same as meaning. This theory of reading brings reading and writing together with the result that students must be forced to think about their audience rather than just the form. Poststructuralist readings support "what many of us have been doing intuitively" (99). That is, holistic assessment of writing is the natural outcome of this theory of reading. White concludes the chapter by relating holistic assessment to Stanley Fish's interpretive communities. Ch. 5: Responding to Student Writing In this chapter, White argues for assessment of writing in each of its stages, saying that if we value writing as a process we must evaluate it as a process and not place too much emphasis on the final product. He offers a caveat of not over-evaluating each draft of an essay by placing too much emphasis on a single part. Some of the best responses students get on their writing is from their peers because, if peers do not understand or like what is written, the student cannot ignore that criticism. Finally, White calls for realistic levels of assessment, grading drafts and essays by the finish called for at each level. For example, a draft of an essay should not be graded at the same level as a paper being prepared for a formal presentation. That sounds obvious, but when we evaluate drafts and automatically correct sentence errors we are treating it like a final draft. That is something we should avoid doing. Ch. 6: Using Portfolios An advantage of portfolio assessment is that it allows the student more freedom in producing good writing while allowing the teacher to observe the student's progress in different revisions of the same essay. Disadvantages can stem from the use of portfolios, namely in deciding what will go into the portfolio, the emphasis and type of evaluation on drafts of essays, how outside readers will assess the portfolio holistically, and the criteria for assessing a portfolio. These are problems that White deals with consistently as part of the argument that good assessment requires knowing what you are assessing and letting the students understand the requirements by which you judge them. The biggest problem in portfolio assessment is, of course, the amount of time needed in evaluating such a large number of essays. Part Two: Writing Assessment Beyond the Classroom Here White begins to deal with outside assessment of writing, which he calls summative assessment, and by which he refers to outside forces judging the effectiveness of a writing program. English teachers often show an unwillingness to pay heed to such outside pressures. Ch. 7: Language and Reality in Writing Assessment This chapter "looks at the interplay of language and theory of assessment, showing how different kinds of summative writing assessments emerge from the different worldviews of different disciplines." Ch. 8: Assessing Writing Proficiency This chapter "focuses on the particular ways in which universities assess writing for such purposes as placement or graduation certification." Ch. 9: Selecting Appropriate Writing Measures This chapter "turns to the measures customarily used to assess writing ability, with particular attention to the differences between multiple-choice and essay testing." Ch. 10: Organizing and Managing Holistic Essay or Portfolio Readings This chapter "is addressed to the teacher or administrator charged with scoring large quantities of essay tests or writing portfolios; it gives practical details about the most effective procedures now in use." Ch. 11: Avoiding Pitfalls in Writing Assessment This chapter "summarizes much of the previous four chapters, discussing the pitfalls that await the unwary conducting large-scale writing assessments." Ch. 12: Evaluating Writing Programs This chapter "turns to program evaluation, the difficult attempt to document the effectiveness of such writing programs as freshman composition, writing across the curriculum, and writing intensive courses." Ch. 13: The Politics of Assessment: Past and Future This chapter "looks back at twenty years of writing assessment, with an eye to the political and academic issues that have emerged, and then forward to an uncertain future." Appendices: Resource A, a Sample Holistic Scoring Guide, (298-299) gives criteria for six levels of competency ranging from Superior to Incompetent. This guide may be used as a guide in preparing our own evaluations of midterm writings. Other sources: White, Edward. "Process Vs. Product: Assessing Skills in Writing." AAHE Bulletin, October 1988: 10-13. Wiener, Harvey S. "Evaluating Assessment Programs on Basic Skills." Journal of Developmental Education 13 (Winter 1989): 24-26.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
