Bean begins the article by discussing the subjectivity of evaluation criteria. He states, professional writing teachers grant that the assessment of writing like any art, involves subjective judgments. But the situation is not entirely relative either, for communal standards for good writing can be formulated and readers with different tastes can be trained to assess writing samples with surprisingly high correlation. To illustrate this argument Bean brought up Diederich research on composition in which he discover that a diverse group of readers could be trained to increase the correlation of their grading. Bean wrote, by setting descriptions for high, middle, and low achievement in each of the five criterion areas ---idea, organization, sentence structure, wording, and flavor. Bean wrote that Diederich was able to train readers to balance their assessments over the 5 criteria. Bean further adds that since then many researchers have refined or refocused Diederich’s criteria and have developed strategies for training readers as evaluators and for displaying criteria to students in the form of rubrics. Further in the article Bean went on to talk about the different type of rubric used and their importance to evaluation and the evaluator.
I
agree with Bean that rubrics are important because they clarify for students
qualities their work should have and I like that he value rubric, but he did
not mention how little some teachers use rubric over time. Some teachers would
develop a rubric for a particular assignment and project and at the end of that
project or assignment that’s the end of that. The rubric is not reused or
applied in different areas. I think rubrics should be designed for repeated
use, or used on several tasks. Students should be given a rubric at the
beginning of an instruction. Then they should complete the work, receive
feedback, practice, revise or do another task, continue to practice, and
ultimately receive a grade all using the same rubric. I think this reinforce
learning more than anything.
In
this article Yancey discuss writing assessment and how it has changed and
varied across different time periods. She begins by describing the first wave
of writing assessment in the early century. She wrote that “testes” what
assessment were referred to at the time were indirect measures, that is a test
that sampled something related to but other than the individual student’s
writing typically a multiple choice test of editing skills serving as a proxy
for writing. She added the most important question in this first wave of
writing assessment was informed by an ideology located in a machine-like efficiency
characterizing the early part of the century. “Which measure can do the best
and fairest job of prediction with the least amount of work and the lowest
cost?”
Yancey
also discussed the second wave of writing assessments. She states that this
wave dated back to the 70s and 80s was prompted by the explosion of interest in
writing process and new pedagogies enacting the field’s new understandings of
process. Due to these new understanding holistic scoring was developed. Yancey
wrote that this type of assessment relied on a direct measure, or sample, of
good writing by developing and using scoring guide that provided a reliability
analogous to the reliability of indirect measures, holistic scoring was able to
meet the standard of consistent scoring. She further wrote, the questions about
assessment dominating this period were very different, then, than those driving
the first wave: what roles have validity and reliability played in writing
assessment? Who is authorized and who has the appropriate expertise to make the
best judgements---teachers or experts?
Yancey
further discussed the third wave of writing assessments as occurring from the
late 1980s up until the turn of the century. She stated that this wave was characterized
by attention to multiple texts, the ways we read those texts, and the role of
students in helping us understand their texts and the processes they used to
produce them. The vehicle for practicing assessment keyed to these principles
was typically a portfolio of writing. Yancey defined as a set of texts selected
from a larger archive and narrated, contextualized, and explained by the
student himself---or herself. During this period of writing assessment the
question one was asking, “Whose needs does writing assessment serve? And “how
is it a political and social act?” Yancey also talks about the current moment in
writing assessments, but I thought her explanation of writing assessments throughout
the different periods was interesting. Yancey not only provide a historical component
to her argument, but she also includes the important questions that were raised
by shifts in writing assessments in accordance with their time period.
No comments:
Post a Comment