CCCC 2005: ReviewReview: B.29 Why College Composition Teachers Need to Know about Secondary Writing Assessments Brian Huot, Sandra Murphy, and Peggy O’Neill reported on their study of state-mandated assessment of secondary writing. They chose three states, California, Georgia, and Kentucky, both because these states mandate the assessment and because they use three different approaches: portfolios (KY); single, timed writing samples(GA); and multiple-choice tests (CA). The session title under-represents the wealth of information and quality of insights in the papers: the presenters spoke not only of “why” but of “what” we need to know and made wise recommendations about how to use the study results in shaping college composition curriculum. Because of the content depth, what follows is largely summary. Chair Michael M. Williamson noted the essential need not to see this study and the conclusions/recommendations to date as critical of high school teachers, who work very hard and have many political and curricular pressures to deal with. In the context of one university per state, Huot, Murphy, and O’Neill surveyed teachers, convened focus groups, and examined state and institutional documents and policies. Their fundamental questions were: What goes on in high school classrooms? How does that affect composition classrooms? Brian Huot reviewed some of the history of writing assessment, noting that as early as 1942 the College Board recognized that testing affects teaching. (He also referred the audience to a soon-to-be-published book by Norbert Elliot on the history of writing assessment.) Huot noted how complicated the effects of state-mandated assessment can be on the high school classroom. One conclusion drawn from the research is the preeminence of “validity” as a criterion for assessment situations. Huot does believe that writing assessment has caused an increase in the teaching of writing in high schools since the 1970s, but pointed out that the “deleterious effects of testing” on curriculum and teacher autonomy are well documented. Huot concluded with the warning that, as more high-stakes testing like that mandated by No Child Left Behind occurs, teachers must remain wary of state and federally mandated assessments and must encourage the “robust teaching of writing.” Sandra Murphy, emphasizing results from focus groups and teacher surveys, substantiated the premise “you get what you assess.” She reviewed types of high school writing assignments over the past 25-30 years in all three states, documenting the dominant type of high school writing as literary analysis, with book reviews in second place. Based also on the type of secondary assessment mandated, she pointed out that California students (assessed by multiple choice instruments) did not write much in classes other than English, that Georgia students’ high school writing instruction aligned with the persuasive/problem-solving emphasis in the state’s single-sample, timed assessment test, and that Kentucky students (assessed by portfolio) were asked for multiple types of writing. She identified drawbacks of single-sample writing assessment for both writing instruction programs and placement. Students in the focus groups Murphy analyzed report that their high school writing didn’t prepare them for the types of writing they do in college, and surveys of college writing expectations bear out the students’ concerns. Murphy recommended that college writing instruction cover a variety of genres to prepare students for college and work audiences, and that writing assessment be aligned with the diverse writing tasks students will encounter in college and the workplace. Peggy O’Neill’s talk emphasized the importance of the connection between high school and college writing. Working with focus groups of first-year college students, she explored their high school writing test experience. She found that whether the students were well prepared for the test or not depended largely on their high school instructors, and that the students overwhelmingly believed the “graduation test” was not a good preparation for college writing. After giving examples of student responses and a summary of teacher results, O’Neill presented some preliminary conclusions: --neither students nor instructors see a clear relationship between the secondary testing and college --articulation between high school and first-year writing programs is lacking --preparation for the secondary assessment writing test varies, but most students have some instruction and practice --students come with a wide variety of writing experience, but one commonality is the five-paragraph theme --high school students see writing as a “school exercise” with little rhetorical context and little if any emphasis on making meaning Recommendations flowing from these results included: --college faculty/writing programs need to learn more about the tests --college faculty should offer support to high schools using “best practices” rather than “canned programs” --faculty in high schools need support recognizing that high schools are not simply prep schools for college --high school faculty should be helped to develop ongoing assessments of what students are actually learning (rather than teaching to the test) --faculty need to publish research based on study data as well as individual experiences in order to affect public policy Lively discussion ensued. Huot, Murphy, and O’Neill noted that the three states were chosen for the study because of their different assessment approaches, and that the study does not attempting to generalize beyond the three states involved. Nonetheless, to the audience, the data-supported insights do provide valuable ways to examine college composition programs and local articulations between high school and college writing programs. What a rich, substantive session to begin my 4Cs 2005 experience! |
Previous Message