Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Linda Adler-Kassner is professor of writing and director of the writing program at University of California, Santa Barbara, where she teachers undergraduate and graduate writing courses. Through 2011, she is also the President of the Council of Writing Program Administrators and served an additional five years on the Executive Board of that organization, including working as founding coordinator of the WPA Network for Media Action. Most recently, her research has focused both on analyzing the implications of public policy for writing instruction, and on developing strategies for writing instructors and program directors to affect policy. She is also author of The Activist WPA: Changing Stories about Writers and Writing (Utah State University Press, 2008), and co-author or co-editor of five additional books. She also has published many articles and book chapters in journals such as College Composition and Communication, WPA Journal, and Journal of Basic Writing.

Peggy O'Neill, associate professor, directs the composition program and teaches writing and rhetoric courses in the department of writing at Loyola University Maryland. Her scholarship focuses primarily on writing assessment and pedagogy. Her work appears in academic journals, such as the Journal of Writing Assessment and College Composition and Communication, as well as in several edited scholarly collections. Her most recent book is A Guide to College Writing Assessment (Utah State University Press, 2009), which she co-authored with Cindy Moore and Brian Huot. O'Neill has also edited or co-edited four books: Assessing Writing: A Critical Sourcebook (Bedford St.Martin's / NCTE 2009); Blurring Boundaries: Developing Writers, Researchers and Teachers (Hampton Press 2007); A Field of Dreams: Independent Writing Programs and the Future of Composition Studies (Utah State University Press, 2002);and Practice in Context: Situating the Work of Writing Teachers (NCTE, 2002).

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

REFRAMING WRITING ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Contents

Acknowledgments...............................................................vii1 Higher Education, Framing, and Writing Assessment...........................12 Framing (and) American Education............................................133 The Framing of Composition and Writing Assessment...........................404 Reframing Strategies and Techniques.........................................815 Reframing in Action.........................................................1106 Reframing Assessment: Why Does My Participation Matter?.....................1457 Reimagining Writing Assessment..............................................179References....................................................................192Index.........................................................................205About the Authors.............................................................208

Chapter One

Consider the following scenario, discussed on the Writing Program Administration listserv (WPA-L). The scenario is based on the experiences of a writing program administrator at a large midwestern university:

The writing program director learns that "there is a movement afoot" at her university to administer the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to first-year students and seniors. This will mean that these students will take a ninety-minute essay exam designed to "test" their critical thinking skills. The tests results will be published so that her institution can be compared to others in its category and, if necessary, used to improve any weaknesses that are identified.

In listening to the conversations on campus, this program director feels there is an implicit message that the test would be a way of marketing the school as a "first-rate institution." Although no one explicitly discusses the CLA as an assessment of writing (instead, they say, it is an indication of critical thinking skills), she feels strongly that it will reflect on the writing program.

In response to what she is learning as she listens to the discussions on campus, the program director turns to the national community of writing professionals on the WPA-L to get background information for her upcoming meeting with the university assessment committee. She learns that the test is just one indicator the school wants to use to demonstrate "critical thinking"—although the other indicators were never articulated, at least not to her. After the meeting, she writes a memo to the committee and administrators outlining her concerns based on her knowledge of writing pedagogy, assessment, and the curriculum at her institution. The memo outlines the disadvantages of the test and the possibilities of developing an in-house assessment. This type of assessment, she argues, would better serve the needs of the local institution and would be more likely to improve teaching and learning. By her own admission, she doesn't know if this detailed memo (almost three pages long) will do any good. However, much later, she learns that the CLA was abandoned, but she doesn't know why. She "heard that one of the administrators who was involved in this mentioned" that her "memo was 'unhelpful.'" None of her suggestions for a locally designed assessment that would track students across their undergraduate careers was adopted—nor was it even discussed seriously at the time, she admits. In her words, the CLA "threat" just went away. In the end, she has ideas about the motivation behind the initial move, but she has no concrete evidence. The writing program does do ongoing program review, and it has always been praised by the administration for that review. As the program director, she wasn't aware of the conversations about using writing as way to assess critical thinking at the university level, and she wasn't brought into the deliberations. She did, however, react to the news and provide her perspective as the program director and a composition scholar.

This example, which has been repeated in various permutations in listserv discussions, in hallway conversations at conferences, and on campuses across the country, illustrates the dilemmas and questions that can emerge around assessment. While the example reflects the experiences of many writing instructors, program directors, department chairs, or other writing professionals, it represents just one type of assessment—institutionally based, university-wide assessment—about which we hear fairly often. As the example also illustrates, the extent to which we writing professionals are "included" (asked or invited to participate; directed to provide input) in these discussions varies, sometimes from moment to moment or day to day.

We know that all postsecondary educators live in a culture where assessment is increasingly important. From the nearly ubiquitous process of program review to assessments (also) linked to accreditation to institutional participation in initiatives like the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA, which might involve administration of one of three standardized tests: the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Progress [CAAP], Measure of Academic Progress and Proficiency [MAPP], or the Collegiate Learning Assessment [CLA]; or might involve use of the AAC&U's VALUE rubrics), the sheer number of efforts—and acronyms—surrounding assessment can be at best incredibly confusing, and at worst positively dizzying. Whether a classroom instructor, a course director, someone who works with a writing program, or someone who serves in some other teaching and/or administrative capacity on campus, it's likely that all of us have dealt with some kind of assessment scenario in our courses, programs, or institutions. Often these writing assessments are locally designed and administered, but they can be part of the alphabet soup that marks the national standardized testing marketplace. Conversations also frequently include exams more directly connected to writing programs, such as the SAT Writing Test, ACCUPLACER, COMPASS , E-rater, or even AP or CLEP exams.

Regardless of the end point or process used, three very broad questions can be asked about assessments:

1. What is the purpose of an assessment?

2. Who is (or are) the primary audience(s) for an assessment and its results?

3. What decisions might, or will, result from an assessment?

Within these broad questions, a number of others are also present: What assessments are appropriate, and why? What will be the relationship between assessment and curriculum? Who will determine what assessment(s) will be used, when, and how? How will the assessment results be interpreted, communicated, and used? More importantly, how do faculty—whether classroom instructors, directors of writing programs or centers, department chairs, or any other interested faculty—get involved in these discussions earlier than we so often do, hearing about them only as they drift down through campus administrators or conversations?

With so many different processes, programs, tests, and options, these discussions can be overwhelming and confusing. However, we believe they are currently not just important, but the most important discussions happening on our campuses (and even beyond them) today. They affect everything about...