Paperback(New Edition)
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Crusan not only makes a compelling case for becoming knowledgeable about L2 writing assessment but offers the means to do so. Her highly accessible, thought-provoking presentation of the conceptual and practical dimensions of writing assessment, both for the classroom and on a larger scale, promises to engage readers who have previously found the technical detail of other works on assessment off-putting, as well as those who have had no previous exposure to the study of assessment at all.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780472034192 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Michigan Press |
| Publication date: | 07/01/2010 |
| Series: | The Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers |
| Edition description: | New Edition |
| Pages: | 224 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.90(w) x 8.90(h) x 0.60(d) |
Read an Excerpt
Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom
By Deborah Crusan, Diane Belcher, Jun Liu
The University of Michigan Press
Copyright © 2010 University of MichiganAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-472-03419-2
CHAPTER 1
Historical and Theoretical Contexts of Second Language Writing Assessment
We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience.
— George Washington
Assessing student writing is quite possibly one of the most time-consuming (and) scary but most significant things teachers do. It is generally considered one of the biggest problems confronting writing instructors (both English and English as a Second Language) and composition program administrators today because assessing writing requires patience, a great deal of conscious preparation of assignments and criteria, and painstaking decision-making about student writing. Teachers at every level and in every context are gradually realizing how important the act of assessment is, an act that teachers perform again and again. And yet, many of us still reject any association with assessment, possibly because of its association with testing, psychometrics, and the standardized testing industry. The importance of responsible assessment practices cannot be underestimated, however, because assessment measures influence critical decisions. Like it or not, tests determine whether a student will pass on to another grade or level or whether a student will graduate (as in No Child Left Behind). Furthermore, in colleges and universities, tests control placement into composition classes, an act laden with pedagogical, ethical, political, psychometric, and financial implications. Bullock (1991) reminds us: "Any project to assess individual students' writing abilities, over time or in a single instance, is fraught with philosophical, ethical, and methodological peril" (p. 195). Bullock's words serve as a reminder that evaluation is far from neutral; tests have become a dominant force impacting both individuals and society.
Tests shape curricula and define what is and is not worth teaching and knowing. Evidence that federally mandated tests are changing what our children learn in school is all around us. Seldom does a day go by without a newspaper article or a radio or television news story about testing in our public schools and its effects on schools, teachers, and students. Simply put, assessment and teachers have much in common: both shape the lives of students.
Nevertheless, many teachers believe that assessment is not within their circle of influence, that someone outside the classroom should take on responsibility for it (usually testing organizations in charge of large-scale assessments). However, if teachers accept responsibility for their students and are invested in the belief that students should be fairly evaluated, then they must be involved with the assessment of their students (Hamp-Lyons, 2003). Further, if teachers give up control of assessment, someone outside their classrooms will control assessment. For instance, at my institution, we face a consistent barrage of requests from our testing services department inviting the Program in ESL to adopt online writing placement services. While the adoption of such outside assessment might make our jobs easier, the consequences of adopting these tests for placement would be deleterious for many reasons and on multiple levels. One consequence of adopting assessment measures developed outside local contexts revolves around what students need to know or be able to do in the particular context. Might students at one institution need to know something or be able to do something a bit different from students at another institution? Might the definitions of good writing or the very reasons for writing differ from institution to institution and from department to department? Moreover, outside assessment causes teachers to teach to that standardized measurement at the expense of creativity, teacher and student interest, and productive class time, sometimes sacrificing depth of understanding for surface knowledge of facts. A teacher who relinquishes control of assessment risks losing control of much of what goes on within her classroom.
Also, once institutions lose control of assessment, regaining that control is difficult, if not impossible (Haswell & Wyche-Smith, 1994), and the resulting assessments may very well be at odds with some of the teachers' pedagogical philosophies. Most important, teachers need to be cognizant that curriculum and evaluation are inextricably connected and that curriculum should guide assessment; assessment should never set the curriculum (Shannon, 2001; Shohamy, 2001). Examples of this narrowing of curriculum can be found everywhere. Addressing the 2005 incorporation of an essay test into the SAT®, Diane Fettrow, Broward County (Miami, FL) Public Schools Language Arts Curriculum Specialist for Secondary Schools, claims, "Teachers have narrowed their instruction to the tests that are given instead of looking at the whole spectrum of writing. Maybe some teachers have given up the writing of poetry in class because they have to prepare students for a test, and I'm not happy with that" (Cole, 2005, p. 1).
"More than many issues within the field of composition studies, writing assessment evokes strong passions" (Conference on College Composition and Communication [CCCC] Committee on Assessment, 1995, p. 430). These strong feelings are often the result of how writing ability is defined — one's definition of writing ability drives the means by which one assesses writing ability. As might be expected, writing assessment is often considered contentious and problematic. Some problems can be attributed to "the lack of a firm theoretical base" (Huot, 1990, p. 258), some with the assessment instruments used, some with the manner of scoring, and others with the entire process.
As a field, we have difficulty agreeing on and articulating what good writing is and, consequently, have difficulty agreeing on ways to assess it. Belanoff (1991) claims, "Our profession has no agreed upon definition of proficiency and certainly, as a consequence, no agreed upon definitions for proficiencies at various levels of schooling" (p. 58). Leki (1995) concurs and maintains that we make assumptions about what good writing is and assume that everyone else, including our students, knows what our assumptions are. She reminds us that good writing is highly contextualized and that we need to "develop awareness of what other faculty on our campuses are assuming about writing" (p. 45) to make certain that our students are aware of the spectrum of faculty expectations regarding writing. This is no small task.
Chaper 1 discusses why writing assessment matters, argues that assessment, regardless of its contentious and often disconcerting nature, is every teacher's job, defines writing ability and good writing assessment, discusses the relationship between writing ability and the choice of writing assessment method, demonstrating their interdependence, and presents a brief history of writing assessment, situated mostly in the United States, examining its deep relationship to the history of composition, both L1 and L2.
By doing these things, I locate assessment theories and practices in teaching environments, thus providing the background information for a theoretical framework. As a result, teachers will be able to articulate what they mean by writing assessment and discuss more confidently the principles that drive writing assessment; moreover, teachers will be able to examine and possibly transform their own writing assessment beliefs and practices.
Why Assessment Matters
Assessment is everywhere. We perform assessments all the time. We make assessments (or judgments) about hundreds of things, big and small, every day — the tomatoes at the farmer's market, our friend's new haircut, the weather and how it might affect our weekend plans, the job of our football coach, the fabric for a new sofa, the latest technology, what we will include in a class we're planning. We are often quick and many times relentless in our decision-making. It's in our nature. Assessment assists us in making all kinds of decisions, helps us grow intellectually and socially, and maybe saves our lives.
Writing is both important and complex. Through writing, we discern meaning. The struggle to put words on paper (or on the blank computer screen) can clarify our thoughts like no other process can, leading to increased complexity of thought. Regarding writing as a process, its messiness and complexity, Murray (1980) notably claimed that writing is rewriting. And this is where writing assessment matters. Without the ability to assess writing, to notice good writing, to understand what we are saying and what we are meaning to say, we, as teachers and as writers, sacrifice a valuable avenue of communication.
Writers rarely move through a piece of writing in any linear fashion. Generally, writers shuffle back and forth, engaged in a process that features phases of planning, revising, reflection, drafting, and researching. Writers need to become critical assessors of their own writing; as they shuffle back and forth through the various phases of writing, they are assessing what they have written. For those struggling with language, writing can promote fluency. Through assessment, most writers can learn to be more careful evaluators of their own writing as well as the writing of others. This is a necessary skill because many times in life we will be asked for our input and ideas in writing.
Weigle (2007) reminds us that writing assessment is one of the most fundamental duties of a writing teacher. Like me, she is passionate about adequate preparation of writing teachers "to construct, administer, score, and communicate the results of valid and reliable classroom tests" (p. 195). She also believes that teachers need to know about "the uses and misuses of large-scale assessments" (p. 195) to become effective supporters of their students when faced with mandatory assessments. Hamp-Lyons (2002) reminds us that writing assessment matters because it remains unexamined, that the written word remains the principle means of communication, and "that access to written language, and to writing in English in particular, remains a 'good' that greatly influences access to many, even, most, other 'goods' in the twenty-first century world. When writing is assessed, that which is assessed is less well-understood than many other constructs. The questions: What is good writing? How do we know? According to whom? and similar ones, remain intriguing because they remain unresolved" (p. 5). Hamp-Lyons raises critically important questions. I would be overconfident, perhaps arrogant, if I were to claim that I could answer them; however, I will attempt to address them in a variety of contexts. In this way, I hope to raise the awareness of second language writing teachers to the importance of the act of assessment, an act they perform every time they walk into a classroom, create an assignment, or talk to students about their writing.
Assessment: Every Teacher's Job
Writing assessment is fundamental to the work of writing teachers. Its many applications and its ubiquitous nature make it impossible to ignore. Moreover, writing assessment is incredibly complex. Perhaps that is why many teachers approach writing assessment with more than a little consternation, but, ironically, teachers who teach writing (generally) also assess writing. Some teachers shrink from writing assessment (Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Weigle, 2007), claiming a complexity beyond their understanding coupled with a fundamental distaste for statistics and/or confusion about what constitutes good assessment. Many other writing teachers often either have an aversion to writing assessment (Yancey, 1999; Weigle, 2007) or do not recognize writing assessment as a fundamental component of a teacher's responsibility (Hamp-Lyons, 2003). Therefore, they may not be systematic in their approach to assessment and quite possibly avoid assessment activities or carry out assessment without reflection. Teachers sometimes view writing assessment as villainous (Yancey, 1999), especially when events linked to assessment occur outside the classroom (e.g., the abolition of basic writing programs or mandated large-scale assessment of writing for placement). There is irony in this situation. If teachers are not involved in and do not control the forms of assessments used by their institutions, the institutions will control assessment. Even worse, some factions external to the institution with little or no vested interest in the institution or knowledge of the kinds of assessment that would benefit the specific population of students enrolled at that institution, overtly or covertly, assume control over assessment. Despite their trepidation, it is vital that teachers learn about writing assessment and become involved in the design, implementation, and politics of writing assessment at their institutions. If teachers are not involved in assessment, the loss of control will eventually seep into the classroom, affecting the kinds of assessments (and, invariably, the curriculum) teachers use; unfortunately, in many cases, it already has.
Haswell and Wysche-Smith (1994) contend that composition faculty have often found themselves ancillary to the political reform movements promoting assessment within their own institutions. "They blink an eye, and suddenly some victor is nailing a manifesto right on their classroom door directly affecting their programs and the lives of their students. The only recourse seems frustrated acceptance or angry protest" (p. 221). Much of this usurpation of power regarding assessment can be attributed to the vacuum created in the field of composition by faculty who have been slow to embrace writing assessment as an integral part of their job. White (1994) admonishes that faculty should be strong advocates for retaining control of assessment decisions such as placement of incoming freshman students into their composition classes. Faculty who teach composition are in a better position to accurately evaluate what is expected of their students than anyone outside the teaching community. White (2001) cautions us: "Once we are evaluated as unable to fulfill our roles, no one in a position of power need take seriously our claims, and our discipline becomes easy to dismiss as an expensive frill" (p. 306). Thus, despite many writing teachers' natural distaste for and anxiety about assessment, teachers must be involved in assessment at every level, from the smallest informal classroom assessments to the largest institution-wide assessments.
Assessment specialists and writing assessment specialists (Bachman and Palmer, 1996; Broad, 2003; CCCC Committee on Assessment, 1995; Crusan, 2002a, 2002b, 2006; Hamp-Lyons, 1996, 2000, 2003; Haswell and Wyche-Smith, 1994; Huot, 2002; Lynne, 2004; Weigle, 2002; White, 1994, 1996a, 2001; Wolcott & Legg, 1998; Yancey, 1999) call for writing teachers and writing program administrators (WPAs) to incorporate writing assessment as an integral part of their jobs. Like Huot, (2002) they believe writing assessment is "inextricably linked to its practice" (p. 165) and to the teaching of writing, for responsibly teaching writing requires consistent engagement in the practice of writing assessment. Further, writing assessment must be "site-based and locally controlled" (Huot, 2002, p. 19). Huot posits that those who teach writing should create writing assessment tools; further, he contends that, since every context is different, what works as assessment in one context may either not work or not work as well in another. With assessment, one size does not fit all (Gallagher, 2007; McNeil, 2000; Shannon, 2007). Hence, teachers and WPAs should be involved in the creation of contextualized assessments — assuring that each assessment is a good fit for the students they will be testing.
The concept of localized assessment allows stakeholders to make a very strong case for involvement of local faculty in any assessment at their institutions. Huot argues, too, for diligence on the part of teachers lest bureaucracy wrest assessment from our hands. However, even at our most diligent, we are constantly at risk of losing control over assessment, an act that has critical implications for teachers. When assessment is mandated by someone or some entity other than teachers, whether it is the type of assessment used or how often students are assessed, it is usually through means unrelated to curriculum, with the resultant tail wagging the dog phenomenon — test-driven curriculum — rather than the opposite, and far more robust, curriculum-driven assessment.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom by Deborah Crusan, Diane Belcher, Jun Liu. Copyright © 2010 University of Michigan. Excerpted by permission of The University of Michigan Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Why This Book? 1
What's in This Book? 3
1 Historical and Theoretical Contexts of Second Language Writing Assessment 5
Why Assessment Matters 8
Assessment: Every Teacher's Job 10
How Is Writing Ability Defined? 13
Good Assessment Defined 14
The Importance of Historical Perspective for L2 Writing Teachers 17
A Brief History of Writing Assessment 19
A History of the Field 25
The Influence of Science and Measurement on L2 Writing Assessment 27
Suggestions for Teachers 30
Suggestions for Further Reading 30
2 An Overview of the Tools of Writing Assessment 31
Purposes for Assessing Writing 32
Rules of Writing Assessment 33
Standards 34
Objectives 38
Reliability 39
Validity 41
Practicality 42
Washback 42
Rubrics 43
Writing Assignments 50
Suggestions for Teachers 55
3 Designing Assignments and Rubrics 56
Personal Experience as a Student 57
Personal Experience as a Teacher 58
Considerations in Designing Assessments 59
Designing Assignment/Assessment Tasks for the Classroom 64
Timed Essays and Prompt Development 64
Criteria Generation 70
Rubric Creation 72
Peer Review and Its Place in Writing Assessment 77
Portfolio Assessment 79
Suggestions for Teachers 86
4 Biases in Writing Assessment: What Are They and What Can We Do about Them? 87
Teacher Bias 89
Teachers' (Assessors') Personality Types 91
Bias Regarding Pedagogy 92
Bias toward Grammar Correctness 98
Peer Bias 104
Administrative Bias 107
Political Bias 111
Suggestions for Teachers 113
Suggestions for Further Reading 114
5 Large-Scale Writing Assessment and Its Influences on L2 Writing 115
An Overview of Large-Scale Writing Tests: Product and Purpose 116
Advantages and Disadvantages of Standardized Tests of Writing 124
The Politics and Business of Assessment 129
The Effect of NCLB Legislation on the L2 Writer 131
Strategies for Making Large-Scale Writing Assessment Work 133
Suggestions for Teachers 136
Suggestions for Further Reading 136
6 Innovative Technology in the L2 Writing Classroom 137
Technology in the Classroom 137
Using Synchronous and Asynchronous Technology for Assessing Writing 138
The Impact of Technology on L2 Writing Assessment 143
ODSP 144
The Dark Side of the Internet: Paper Mills 146
Combating Internet Plagiarism 147
Outsourcing of Grading 148
Suggestions for Teachers 154
7 Looking Beyond: What Can We Expect of Writing Assessment in the Future? The Machine Scoring of Essays 156
Machine Scoring of Essays Defined 157
Origins of the Machine Scoring of Essays 161
Major Purveyors of Machine Scoring 164
A Closer Look: MY Access! 167
Writing as Meaning Making 171
Positive Views 172
Negative Views 173
Professional Claims 174
Truth and Consequonces 176
Suggestions for Teachers 179
Suggestions for Further Reading 179
Epilogue: Where Do We Go from Here? 180
ELL Population in the United States 180
Teacher Training 181
The Uses of Technology for Assessment 182
Large-Scale Assessment/Accountability 184
Final Thoughts 185
Appendix 1 186
References 189
Index 206