Asynchronous Class: Post about readings

TORDA'S SPRING 2023 TEACHING SITE

Asynchronous Class: Post about readings

2/18/2022

Use this space to post about this week's reading

This week's reading gives an overview of what assessment looks like in the field of Writing Studies--primarily the way it has evolved over time in post-secondary writing classrooms (and, I would argue, that that discussion paved the way for other disciplines in the university to consider assessment).

WHAT TO POST: When considering "assessment" in the field, I think that there is a difference between assessment and responding to student writing--they are connected but they are not the same. For this week's post, please post a reading journal that considers how this history of assessment connects to or contrasts with Inoue's ideas about assessment? Do you see any connections?

ONCE YOU'VE POSTED: Again, because we are doing this class asynchronously, please respond to at least one of your colleagues. Identify the ways they either agree with a point you make, disagree with a point your make, or in some way extends/builds on a point you make in ways that makes you think more deeply about the reading.

17 Comments

Melissa Batty

2/19/2022 10:30:44 am

As a “newcomer” to pedagogy, I am finding myself at odds with the normative standards of assessment and realizing that I align more with Inoue’s arguments regarding anti-racist ideologies. This week’s readings begin with a key colonial rule to assessment: “objective testing was used to determine who would take pre-college writing courses” (Lippman 146) and who would be excused from said courses. These tests, dating back to the early 19th century, affirm Inoue’s arguments on why assessment in most classrooms, is racist; it focuses on a student’s ability to recognize grammar and syntax over writing a cohesive and thematically engaging text. The range of assessment practices from direct to portfolio, offer a variety of choices to student’s determinate on gauging their individual growth; meaning that a student’s involvement with their own assessment, increases the chances of them producing a holistic text outside the confines of unequitable parameters.

But what then of scoring? Scoring is the definitive way to continue to reward those whose educational background is akin to Harvard’s early days of assessment and to punish those whose school systems may put them into a category of educational oppression –– those lacking the equal educational tools, texts, teachers, and anti-racist pedagogical systems that Inoue acknowledges in his writings –– those are not as prevalent for students of color or those of lower-class socio-economic backgrounds. Scoring ultimately comes down to internal care or a system which places preference on a student’s growth, versus external care, which is a qualitative system, where the concern lies on the overall academic performance of the program/school. Therefore, scoring, presents either an anti-racist, equitable part of student writing, or it aligns itself with the imperial institution that systemically marginalizes large student populations.

This is seen throughout this week’s reading with programmatic assessment ––which values raw data over student success, and summative assessment versus formative assessment –– the first actualizing institutional success as key and the latter positing the student’s writing growth as prominent in determining holistic achievement systemically. Inoue argues that anti-racist pedagogy lies in centralizing the role of the student, which is what Lippman tries to achieve in several steps: first) since writing is rhetorical in context, students need to understand the rhetorical meaning behind their writings, and second) writers must have pertinent information in the prompt, including purpose, audience, form of text, and written criteria. However, Inoue argues that each student understands context differently, also, they interpret the prompt as it pertains to their individuality, voiding out what Lippman positions as equitable writing tools for scoring –– the same can be said for normative practices regarding the development of rubrics.

Overall, allowing students from various backgrounds to assist in shaping writing skills, techniques, rubrics, scoring, and testing, allows for two things: first) students find the writing process more engaging and of interest because it is relatable to the context surrounding their individuality, and second) as Inoue points out, as a student takes a more central role in classroom pedagogy, they are more apt to engage fervently with the writing process –– recognizing that by not placing constraints upon themselves, or by removing the constraints that others try to place upon them, they have the opportunity to become an auspicious and affective writer.

Matthew Cutter

2/22/2022 07:14:02 am

The ways we score assignments have always been a professional focus of mine. Our traditional scoring system, as you point out, is imperialist and colonialist and needs to be thought about. I definitely agree with both Inoue and Lippman that we need to make scoring more student centered, and therefore, less racist.

Brian Seibert

2/20/2022 07:54:01 am

Assessing student writing is a tricky and often controversial topic with many different viewpoints on the matter. As the readings this week mentioned, the two main types of assessment are formative and summative. That is not new to any teacher. The two types are drilled into our brains throughout the educational training. However, as it pertains specifically to writing, formative assessments would be aimed more at the writing process. The reading for this week offered some helpful tips when giving feedback or commenting on student writing. Some of which I am almost ashamed to admit I have not been using. As I reflected on my own practices, I realized that I focus mainly on the negative. My comments are mostly on corrections to be made, but not as much on the aspects that are positive. The tone likely comes off as scolding, which, I can’t imagine will motivate my students to write better. Summative assessments, which make us cringe, are the final judgements of writing. In the classroom, those assessments are more controllable. Teachers can explicitly tell students what they are looking for, but give enough freedom for them to show off their creativity. Summative assessments like standardized tests are much more restrictive and offer very little to gain about student achievement.

As the first section of chapter 5 details, writing assessments had begun as a means of placement in college classrooms but has since evolved far beyond that. While writing prompts are a far better measure of student writing than multiple choice tests on grammar, they are still a small sampling of student achievement. Unfortunately, our hands are mostly tied when it comes to teaching, especially in English. The districts in which I have taught have been ultra focused on test scores. Those tests do not account for student growth, just raw numbers. Many students feel good about their progress in writing just to be demoralized by the results of their MCAS scores.

While the Inoue reading and this week’s reading both address assessing writing, they differ in a number of ways. Many of the opinions of Julie Neff-Lipman were very informed and helpful to fellow teachers when judging student writing. But, as Inoue argued, those judgements are inherently racist, even if that is far from the intention. While Neff-Lipman’s focus was on the importance of core values (thesis, argument, evidence, development, etc.) over grammar and spelling errors, she did acknowledge that those were also important. Idea development is most important but grammar and spelling contribute to what Inoue would consider proper English, which also is attributed with the white racial habitus. In addition, Neff-Lipman did not appear to have a moral issue with writing prompts on standardized testing like Inoue did. She did not agree with them strategically because they do not offer enough time for revision and the writing process; while Inoue argued the prompts were steeped in whiteness and created an unfair disadvantage for students of color.

Melissa Batty

2/21/2022 12:36:23 pm

Hi Brian,

I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to adhere to the strict assessments given to you by school districts, the MCAS testing regimen, and what we'll label as "upper management" in terms of everyone determining how you should teach your students (even thoght they are not in your classroom). I feel as though it would be difficult to adhere to most of what Inoue argues for in terms of anti-racist assessment, when those deeming how and what you should teach, abide by racist strategies.

At any academic level, there should be more leeway in terms of what and how educators educate their students. Although, "proper" English is how society tends to gauge a student's ability to understand and process writing and reading, one cannot say that it provides an even level fireld for those who do not learn in an environment where emphasis is placed on the grammar and sentence structure associated with "proper" English. That assumption is also racist.

I think that you explain realistically, why it is so difficult for educators to step outside inherently Eurocentric classrooms and back into post-colonial ones. I believe there is more freedom at the post-secondary level, which is probably why I am drawn to academia in higher education.

Sarah Bond

2/21/2022 04:22:59 am

DISCLAIMER: I wrote in response to the original question on the syllabus: In what ways does tonight's reading fit with or fight against what Inoue is saying? I tweaked it to better suit this Discussion Board but wanted to explain the shift in emphasis.

Inoue approaches the subject of writing success through a framework of student labor and interconnectedness, while Neff-Lippman maintains that the teacher or professor holds the ultimate authority on what can be considered “good” writing. I found, however, more crossover than I at first anticipated. Both Inoue and Neff-Lippman identify problems in FYW based on its historical underpinnings but offer different approaches toward a solution. First of all, in discussing teacher feedback, Inoue implies that teachers grade with a “single strand” (81) and a “unidirectional and monolinguistic” purpose (112), which is what has created a racist grading system. Neff-Lippman agrees (albeit not mentioning race explicitly), insisting that “the instructor will help students become better writers if they pay attention to the students’ ideas first” (155) and not minimize their work to that of a copy editor over coach and mentor. In both articles/chapters, revision and labor are essential to student success.
Furthermore, in the interest of developing students’ ideas more than students’ conventions, Neff-Lippman writes that teachers should create a community of shared ideas, offering opportunities for students to engage in the topic before approaching the writing prompt (153). This sense of community falls short of Inoue’s ecological model in that while students benefit from peer relationships (104), the students themselves are not determining what is ultimately “good” (80); the product is assessed according to the professors’ instructions, notes, guidance, and feedback. Both Neff-Lippman and Inoue would agree that this process requires individualized feedback and the holistic appreciation of each student as a thinker and creator with ideas worth exploring.
Another area of tension between the two theorists is in the writing prompt. Rather than students identifying a "problem" (Inoue), Neff-Lippman describes the “rhetorical context" of a prompt, implying that to be clear is to be kind (152). In response to the objections that “students should have more freedom” (153), Neff-Lippman cites the benefit of knowing audience, purpose, and reader expectation without micromanaging every variable, which would limit student agency. In other words, Inoue’s classroom is writing for one another with the ultimate goal of making the world better through shared ideas (117), while Neff-Lippman establishes a teacher-directed, student-focused classroom with a goal of equipping students to write for a variety of purposes and audiences, insofar as the teacher can represent those rhetorical contexts clearly and realistically.
Finally, both theorists see their students as writers who are in process and in need of individualized attention. Inoue meets this need through building peer partnerships and inviting students to participate in the development of rhetorical problems and assessment rubrics. His entire process is designed to welcome even the most reluctant writer into the conversation. Neff-Lippman is also mindful of anxious writers. Her approach (which I love!) is to ask students to submit a note with their essay which discusses their own sense of weakness and success. This system reminds teachers to grade each essay with the learning needs of the student as the primary motivator for their metaphorical red ink. In short, the history of assessing writing suggests that we’ve done more talking, writing, and theorizing about assessment than actual change in practice. Whether a professor adopts Inoue’s theory or one like Neff-Lippman’s, student feedback requires time and attention that many teachers of composition run out of all too quickly.

Ashley Merola

2/21/2022 05:12:31 pm

Hi Sarah,

I completely agree with your claim that Neff-Lippman’s model for assessing writing falls short in comparison to Inoue’s antiracist writing ecology, despite the crossover between the two texts. Her teacher-centered methods leave little room for student participation in the process of designing assessments, which forms the theoretical foundation of Inoue’s ideas. Regardless, I really appreciated how you addressed Neff-Lippman’s more mindful approach to teacher feedback. The practice of asking students to submit a note with their own comments prior to scoring their writing spoke to me as well. In my district, we use Google Classroom and it would be so feasible for students to add a private comment to an assignment with their thoughts before turning it in for a final grade. Such a routine would also serve as an effective and efficient end-of-unit activity that could be completed on the day a summative assessment is due, providing students with one more opportunity to play an active role in their writing instruction.

Lastly, you touched upon the topic of practicality in your response, which I found really relevant given our previous conversation about how realistic Inoue’s pedagogical practices would prove in the contemporary K-12 classroom. As you say, the type of feedback Neff-Lippman talks about requires time that teachers at all levels do not often have. This structural limitation is something I struggled with while reading her chapter and those of Inoue, because we want to implement these changes to the degree they deserve. However, we also need additional preparation periods, professional development days, and other district-provided resources to do so. Without those supports, I worry that we will not be able to improve writing instruction to the best it can be in our current circumstances.

Maura Geoghegan

2/21/2022 12:34:08 pm

Assessment can be difficult, and assessing students’ writing is especially challenging. I agree with Neff-Lippman’s conclusion that “assessing student writing is a complicated task that has become increasingly complex as we learn more about the teaching of writing and the assessment of it” (164). Neff-Lippman presents an overview of assessing writing by defining commonly used terms and placing them into historical context. Neff-Lippman argues that assessment should be done “thoughtfully and well” (164) by more clearly connecting pedagogical goals to writing assessment and getting students to be more engaged in their writing while Inoue is arguing for antiracist writing assessments that are equitable for all students and value their different backgrounds, experiences, and discourses. Throughout this week’s reading I saw some instances in which Inoue might be in agreement, but also several instances in which Inoue would be in disagreement.

In Chapter 5, Inoue offers an in-depth list of questions that despite its length “is not meant to be exhaustive, but generative” in order to show great care and consideration in designing antiracist writing assessments (284). Neff-Lippman attempts to do something similar by creating an adapted list of questions that can guide teachers in their creation of assignments, but this list is only composed of 5 questions in comparison to Inoue’s 6+ page list of questions and considerations. Neff-Lippman’s questions are important ones to consider, but none of the questions ask about the students who are writing. Inoue would argue that questions need to be added to ask who are the students that are writing, what are their unique experiences and backgrounds, and how has the assignment been designed to account for these differences equitably?

In her discussion of the different types of scoring for assessments, Neff-Lippman notes that holistic scoring is often the favorite because it has been found “to be a reliable way to measure writing samples when well-trained readers from similar backgrounds use it to evaluate student writing” and that it “requires each scorer to look at the essay or portfolio as a whole” (148-149). Inoue would find this problematic because if the readers of the assessment are from the same background, then how can they effectively or fairly assess writing from students of different backgrounds? Also, even though scorers have the opportunity to assess the work as a whole, the prompt and the way in which students are being assessed also needs to be taken into account, which Neff-Lippman doesn’t address or seem as concerned with as Inoue.

However, one practice that Inoue might agree with is the opportunity for students to provide a note to their instructor about their writing. This gives an opportunity for the student to explain their thinking and engage in a conversation with their instructor that will then help the instructor “focus on the issues that are important to the student” and provide “positive and productive” comments (Neff-Lippman 158). This might have helped the student who wrote about the Great American Boycott of 2006-2007 that was deemed off topic because the scorer didn’t “find such Latino/a cultural references valid in a discussion about the marketing of consumer products” (Inoue 41). If provided with the opportunity to write the instructor or scorer a note, the student could have further explained their thinking for how the boycott fit with the prompt in their mind or shared any uncertainties they had as to whether this fit with the prompt.

Sarah Bond

2/21/2022 01:38:10 pm

Hey Maura,
Your comments circle around the tension between Inoue’s and Neff-Lippman’s understandings of individualized assessment, as did mine, but you offer great clarity into the missing piece of my response: Inoue’s discussion of who each student is, not merely as a writer, but as a participant in the classroom ecology. Specifically, you recall Inoue’s concern that in writing assessments, teachers consider “who are the students that are writing, what are their unique experiences and backgrounds, and how has the assignment been designed to account for these differences equitably?” My response reveals my natural tendency to focus more on how to provide meaningful feedback and a fair grade than in the actual development of the assignment as part of the assessment process.
Regarding the scoring process, your comments about the shortfalls of holistic grading are intriguing. I may deviate here from Inoue in believing that, albeit broken and unreliable, teacher-directed grading, when done as part of a careful and equitable assessment, can offer effective and meaningful direction to any and all students in the classroom. As valuable as peers are in helping students to develop their voice and solidify their ideas, a teacher whose work is immersed in reading and writing processes ought to have an authoritative voice in the final product. Admittedly, I’m still working this through in my own mind…
Finally, I also commented on Neff-Lippman’s idea of the student note, which creates a partnership between student and teacher and builds the community of shared ideas that both theorists commend.

Ashley Merola

2/21/2022 01:20:13 pm

Julie Neff-Lippman’s chapter, “Assessing Writing,” serves as a synopsis of how the pedagogical approaches to writing assessment have progressed since the 1800s, specifically in the post-secondary setting. Similar to Asao Inoue, Neff-Lippman argues that “assessment should be an integral part of teaching writing” - one that “needs to engage [students] in their text” (164). She does not, however, consider the various contexts of writing in the contemporary English classroom as clearly and as carefully as Inoue. Although the foundation of his antiracist writing ecology does focus on student engagement, he prioritizes their participation in the fight for freedom against the legacy of colonialism over the text they produce. Neff-Lippman’s analysis thus assumes less of a sociological perspective than that of Inoue, since it addresses individual instructors or institutions without presenting the issues with teaching writing as in need of systemic change. Despite this fundamental difference, both scholars apply their ideas to two significant aspects of assessment: designing and scoring.

When designing writing assessments, Neff-Lippman communicates how crucial it is for teachers to create prompts that provide important information students will need to succeed. Portfolios in particular prove popular to her and to Inoue as a type of assessment that promotes this principle of transparency. Whether they are physical or digital, Neff-Lippman discusses how portfolios “measure students’ ability to write and revise in a rhetorical setting,” “involve student choice and reflection,” and “are authentic - that is, the assessment, as much as possible, occurs in a meaningful, real-life context” (147). Her description embodies many key elements of Inoue’s ecology, excluding equity. By not calling direct attention to the concept of fairness here, Neff-Lippman indirectly (and most likely unintentionally) discourages her reader from analyzing the role power plays in the writing classroom - a component that Inoue places at the forefront of his text. This discrepancy therefore demonstrates how teachers must recognize their responsibility to include students in the process of designing assessments, even portfolios, to improve their writing instruction for all of the identities in their classrooms.

On the topic of scoring assessments, there are more connections between the theories of Neff-Lippman and Inoue in regard to grading scales, rubrics, and teacher comments. Neff-Lippman’s section on formative feedback resembles Inoue’s definition of Standardized Edited American English (SEAE) that supports the white racial habitus. She notes how “when instructors focus on the local features of the text (grammar, spelling, usage), they communicate that commas or other surface errors are more important than the students’ ideas” (155). As much as Inoue would agree with this observation and advocate for commenting on global features first, Neff-Lippman does not use the term SEAE to explain how assessments that emphasize mechanics tend to have racist roots. Her section on grading contracts achieves a similar balance between agreement and disagreement when compared to Inoue’s. While they both establish what an “A” paper should look like, Neff-Lippman does not acknowledge the value of involving students in the construction of the contracts themselves. This missing piece becomes apparent throughout her chapter for anyone who has read Inoue’s text, illustrating how investigating the history of writing assessment alone is not enough to improve writing instruction. Teachers at all levels must respond to their more current, cultural contexts to collectively foster better pedagogical practices in the field.

Maura Geoghegan

2/22/2022 10:42:49 am

Hi Ashley,

I also noticed similarities and differences between Neff-Lippman and Inoue when it came to designing and scoring student writing. As you mention here, Neff-Lippman focuses much more on the teacher than the student in comparison to Inoue. Inoue understands that true power and transparency are given to the student when they are involved in the process. I didn't mention this in my discussion post, but I also noticed that portfolios were seen as an ideal writing assessment for the same reasons you listed above. I thought that Inoue would argue that the prompts students are being asked to write on and the rubrics or criteria being used by teachers to grade student portfolios would still need to be taken into account, which Neff-Lippman doesn't address. I agree that overall, Inoue would argue that Neff-Lippman needs to discuss the inclusion of students in this process more.

Alyssa Campbell

2/23/2022 07:53:01 am

Hi Ashley-

I really liked how in-depth and descriptive you were with the breakdown of what exactly Neff-Lippman does in her work, as well as juxtaposing this process to Inoue's. The part you wrote that stands out to me the most is "While they both establish what an “A” paper should look like, Neff-Lippman does not acknowledge the value of involving students in the construction of the contracts themselves." I think this is exactly correct, and the absence of the role of students as affecting and being effected by their writing community as they interact with their peers, instructor, and they both interact with them, is an essential component of the classroom and education that Neff-Lippman misses. Students should be involved in the process, not least because it makes it more "fair" or engaging to students, but because they are a part of the environment and they deserve to be able to work to set the constraints and parameters through which they are expected to succeed.

Matthew Cutter

2/22/2022 07:10:25 am

In chapter 5 “Assessing Writing”, by Julie Neff-Lippman, there are many connections to Inoue’s ideas about creating an anti-racist assessment ecology. They both take the stance that standard, traditional forms of assessment do not do what they should to promote student growth in writing. They advocate many other ways to create a path toward assessment that is actually helpful in creating better, and more equitable, student writing assessment.

Neff-Lippman starts with a brief history of writing assessment and it’s roots in a perceived objectivity. Neff-Lippman explains how this objectivity is actually just an illusion, “The objective tests were popular with teachers and administrators because they were easy and inexpensive to administer and score” (146). Lippman expands on this a little further on, “A student’s score on a grammar test could not predict whether the student could actually write an essay any more than the written driver’s test could predict whether a person can drive a car” (146). These tests are serving no other purpose but to provide an easy data set that a teacher can use to assign a grade conveniently. Good writers can be good writers independent of the results of a grammar exam. We need to develop stronger forms of assessment that actually help writers get better.

One of the ways that Julie Neff-Lippman advocates for better writing assessment is in her call for as much specificity as possible in the assignment itself. Neff-Lippman explains how some teachers resist this position, “Some teachers object to specificity in assignments, claiming that students should have the freedom to approach the assignment as they see fit” (153). Neff-Lippman goes on to explain that while this is a great sentiment, most writers have some sort of specific goal in mind when they sit down to write. They know their audience, their subject, and generally have some sort of outline. Neff-Lippman asks, “Shouldn’t students have the benefit of similar details about audience, purpose, and reader expectations?” (153). We absolutely should be giving students these details whenever we can.

Giving students specific details surrounding audience, purpose, etc. will go a long way toward the goal of making our assessments anti-racist. When we are specific with what we expect we are allowing our students greater access to the assignment and our course content. A white-bred upper middle class student would probably have no issues with a vague writing assignment, but an inner-city black kid who is going to school full time while also raising their siblings and working will not have had the same access to the discourse that allows that white-bred suburban kid to succeed on a vague assignment. By simply making our assessments more specific we are helping give everyone access to a quality education.

Kayleigh Holt

2/22/2022 01:07:33 pm

Hi Matt, that connection that you made, between Neff-Lippman’s argument for specificity making the assessments anti-racist as well, is something that also stood out to me in my reading. In Inoue’s writing he spoke about the seven ecological elements that are part of antiracist writing assessments, and how all of them should be discussed and examined with the students, but that process is something that seems quite overwhelming when first looking at it. Combining Inoue’s idea with Neff-Lippman’s call of specificity though, is something that I could see myself and other teachers being able to incorporate into our writing assessments easily. Instead of just giving the students the answers to “who is the audience” and “what is the purpose of this assessment” we could make it a class discussion to determine those answers before the students begin their writing.

Also, the quote that you included from the piece that equates using a grammar test as an indicator of writing ability to a written driving test being used as a predictor of driving ability, was one of my favorite quotes from the article.

Kayleigh Holt

2/22/2022 12:42:09 pm

The assessment of student writing is a practice that can quickly begin to feel overwhelming as a teacher. As Julie Neff-Lippman described in her chapter, “Assessing Writing”, there have been numerous changes in the types of assessment for writing since its inception in the late nineteenth century. Those changes, which seemed to occur frequently throughout the twentieth century, gave rise to many drastically different schools of thought on how best to assess student writing. This has all led to there being no one set pedagogy for how to conduct assessments of writing, meaning that many times teachers are left to combine methods and create their own assessments.

In the second half of her chapter, Neff-Lippman provides instruction on how to develop writing assessments that are engaging and useful to students. She also provides examples of what that process would look like for teachers, not just in how the assessments could be scored, but also in how to structure prewriting, discussions and reflections throughout. Ultimately, for a writing assessment to be a true indicator of a student’s skill, while also helping the students to become better writers through the process, writing assessments must be holistic in nature.

This idea, that students need to see and understand the larger picture of why they are writing for them to fully engage with the writing process is an area where I saw a lot of overlap between Neff-Lippman and Inoue’s pedagogical philosophies. Neff-Lippman talks about this specifically when discussing how writing prompts are often lacking rhetorical context, which can then lead to misunderstandings by the students and lackluster writing. In explaining the need for context, Neff-Lippman specifically mentions that prompts should include “the purpose of the paper, the audience for it, the genre the audience expects, and the context within which it would be produced” (p. 152). This transparency is also important to Inoue’s as it is addressed in his discussion of the seven ecological elements that constitute antiracist classroom writing assessments, particularly in his explanation of ecological purpose, ecological people, ecological products, and ecological places.

One major difference that stood out to me between Neff-Lippman and Inoue’s ideas about assessment is the role that they feel student’s should take in the development of the assessment itself. Neff-Lippman, while wanting to inform students and encourage them to take a more active role in their education, still has a firm separation between the teacher and the students and who actually creates the assignments in the classroom. On the other hand, Inoue views an antiracist classroom writing assessment as something that is developed jointly between the teacher and the students. Inoue encourages teachers and students to discuss and interrogate who holds power in the classroom, allowing students to become fully involved in the creation of the assessments.

Olivia Limoncelli

2/22/2022 05:23:02 pm

Kayleigh,
I like that you bring up the changes brought up by Neff-Lippman about the types of writing assessments. It seems that this came in waves and effected schools differently. It was described almost like a trend. Each school eventually picked up their own way of assigning and assessing writing. This is what makes it most difficult to assess writing! I agree with you that Neff-Lippman and Inoue have similar arguments when discusses how to engage each individual with the writing assignment. I wrote similarly, that each has their own writing process and that can be deemed inequitable when given the same assessment with the same time limit.
I think the next piece also relates back to both writers. Students need to be actively involved in the writing process including how their prompts are chosen. It gives the students autonomy and power and also helps them to become engaged in the topic and encourages them to write for a purpose.

Olivia Limoncelli

2/22/2022 04:20:32 pm

From the first page on "Assessing Writing", I already noticed a few things that fit with Inoue's arguments. First, as new teachers, we assume that students know exactly what we want them to do without specifically telling them. Inoue talks about being open with our students and working together to create a rubric. We also need rubrics for our own sanity. The instructor discussed about on the first page gets caught up grading grammar and sentence structure and content with others. It is messy and disorganized. In order to have a successful and meaningful assessment, we must find an organized way to actually "assess" them. As writing assessments were first introduced to place students into the appropriate leveled classes, they evolved into something that seemed to claim that college students were "ill-prepared" for college-level work (p 145). At the same time, the assessments given could not prove much. You could pass the grammar test, but still not be a proficient writer the same way you can pass a driver's test, and still not be a good driver (p 146). Inoue gives a similar analogy. The assessments were too focused on "lower-order" skills which take up too much time when you are just "teaching the test".
Neff-Lippman also talks about the equity in writing processes. After being trained to use a specific writing process, students are put at a disadvantage when taking a timed test. Neff-Lippman said, "Direct Assessment does not reflect recent thinking about process or social constructivist theory. The advantage to writing tests was that they measured 'writing' proficiency rather than grammar proficiency, but they defined writing in a narrow, reductive way." (p. 147). This narrow way of testing is exactly what Inoue warned against. It is not equitable for all students and furthermore, by looking at the writing prompts provided, I can assure it was even less fair. While, it is difficult to set an assessment that is fair to all students, we must keep in mind that grading these assessments creates a new issue as well. Scaling grades is something to consider as well which I do very often for my EL students. Inoue claims that those who do not have English as a primary language will struggle with grammar and usage. It is then inequitable to grade those students just on their ability to use appropriate spelling, grammar, and even content if it is not relatable or anti-racist. Finally, Neff-Lippman includes questions posed by the so-called composition teacher, which Inoue spends time trying to answer. "How do I write assignments that help my students understand what I want from their papers? How can I shape the writing process in a way that will help engage the students in their writing? How much should I correct? Should I read drafts? How can I write comments that will help students grow as writers and learners?" (p 151). In short, Neff-Lippman's answer is to create and use assignments and assessment of them to help students become better writers.

Alyssa Campbell

2/23/2022 07:47:02 am

(Sorry everyone, my iPad did not post this yesterday like I thought it did! Will be posting through the laptop from now on!)

Though there were earlier points that I wish to comment on as well, I want to start my reading journal reflection by discussing the ideas Julie Neff-Lippman holds about looking forward and moving forward in the notions of assessment and how we even think about assessment. When I was reading through this, something that I kept in the back of my mind to think about was the notion of when and how assessment has changed over time in writing (and more broadly, how it has changed across the disciplines and in other areas of English as well), and whether it has actually changed all that much. In reading Neff-Lippman’s work and examining the section titled “Looking Forward,” I was struck by the lines, “Assessment seems to come in waves that are sometimes overlapping…Currents, some strong, some weak, also influence writing assessment (p.151). This stood out to me as significant because it so aptly describes the relationship between public education at the K-12 level and their decisions, and the way those decisions interact with public opinions on testing as well as with higher education.

Thinking about the imagery of waves and currents also makes me think of the way Inoue is going upstream, indeed perhaps without a paddle, as he fights the churning waters of the way things have “always” been done. In terms of differentiating between assessing and responding to student writing, I come back to the idea of feedback. With responding to student writing, in the name alone, the implication is that there is going to be words written in some form of thoughts, feelings, and reactions to the work. With the word assessment, the implication in the name is that there is going to be some sort of value, score, or indication of whether or not the writer was successful in the assigned work. I think about how the words assignment and assessment connect to one another, and I think it sort of makes sense. At least in the world of the K-12 teacher, we must have our assigned work reflect the outcome we want to see; in other words, we plan what we assign based on how we want to assess for understanding, completion, and/or quality of work.

Coming back to Inoue’s conception of labor being the merit by which writing is determined to be successful or not, the history here in some ways supports it and in most ways directly opposes it. The emphasis on the quality of work is something that struck me in the pages and pages of prompts, evaluative tools, and writing assignment descriptions. This reminded me too of our in-class conversation about rubrics, and how inherently, rubrics and just generally looking at “quality” as a value, is subjective and not an objective or unbiased grading mechanism.

Asynchronous Class: Post about readings

Use this space to post about this week's reading

Leave a Reply.

ENGL 513

Archives

Categories