CCCC 2005: ReviewReview: B.29 Why college composition teachers need to know about secondary writing assessments Brian Huot presented “The Power of Writing Assessments to Define Writing and Pedagogy” Brian began by briefing listeners on a four year project that examines the effects of state-mandated writing test on secondary school pedagogies and the preparation of incoming freshman for FYC. The study was done in three states, California, Georgia, and Kentucky, each focused on a specific university. The data collected included surveys of high school teachers, focus groups of high school teachers, first-year instructors and first year students. The purpose was to determine how writing assessments in each context defined writing. Brian suggested that it is best to think about assessment ecologically, that testing, at its best, could be an agent for active curricular reform, arguing that writing assessment programs may be partly responsible for writings current place in the curriculum. Brian further suggests that Kentucky’s portfolio assessment is advantageous for writing because it provides experience in writing, revising and compiling a portfolio for a specific purpose. He reminds us that all this is not to say that current assessment isn’t conflicted. Mandated testing can have deleterious effect on curriculum, teachers, and student learning. He went on to discuss high stakes testing in the classroom and its mixed potential for curricular change. Specifically he mentioned the much criticized No Child Left Behind Act and quoted Gerald Bray as saying that the goal of the NCLB is “the destruction of public schools.” Brian’s tempered and informed response was a nice change from the rancor of ongoing SAT discussions. Next, Sandra Murphy presented “The Impact of Writing Assessments on High School Students, Teachers, and Curricula” Sandra Murphy presented on the kinds of writing that high school students do. She opened by illustrating quotes from student focus groups. The students reported that they wrote about books, mainly responses to literature. Sandy’s study of what high school teachers reported that they taught bore that generality out. In California, 72% of the teacher polled reported that they assigned the response to literature most often. She reported that in a previous 1988 survey that only 52% of teacher assigned response to literature most frequently. This is not limited to California. Sandy also shared that teachers in Georgia and Kentucky assigned the response to literature 50% and 52% of the time, respectively. That means that students in California are receiving experience in fewer types of writing than in Georgia and Kentucky. Sandy speculated that the Variety of other writing found in Kentucky might be because of the portfolio assessment in the state that request a variety of texts that represent different genres. Georgia’s writing assessment that examines persuasive and problem/solution writing. Sandy then turned to the issue of authenticity in assessment and argued that students should be prepared and tested on the kind of writing they will encounter in college and beyond. She agreed with Roberta Camp about that single sample, impromptu, timed writing test are are invalid. Since writers strategies and textual features differ in response to the writing task students are assigned familiarity with the kinds of tasks assigned can make a difference in the valuation of their writing assessments. So the concern from all angle sis that students are learning how to write primarily responses to literature when they will encounter many othergenres readily. Sandy was careful to say that this is not to blame teachers because they are assigning what is appropriate for their discipline. Sandy ended by explaining that contextual validation and this notion of authenticity are important for two reasons: the first because of its relation to construct validity and the second because of the consequences for assessment and far reaching effects on curriculum teachers and students. Peggy O'Neill presented “The Consequences of Secondary Writing Assessments for College Students, Teachers, and Curricula” Peggy’s presentation focused on how secondary writing assessment affects students transitioning into college composition. She focused her discussion on Georgia and its high school graduation test in concordance with a comprehensive regional university. Peggy shared data from the 2001 collection about student responses to preparation for the writing test, how they felt about the writing test, and the student’s preparation for college. The responses ranged from general positivity to bemused ambivalence. The most important factor to the students was the teacher. Instructors seemed to be less informed but generally felt that students were depending to much on formulaic conceptions of writing. A number of preliminary conclusions were drawn; among them were the weakness of connections between the high school writing test and college preparation and between the high school English curriculum and college FYC. Peggy closed with a call that we need to learn more about mandated testing, develop language that can articulate best practices with school teachers and develop our own going assessments. |
Previous Message