Reframing Writing Assessment to Improve Teaching and Learning

217 Pages·2010·1.39 MB·English

by  Linda Adler-Kassner

REFRAMING WRITING
ASSESSMENT

REFRAMING WRITING
ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE
TEACHING AND LEARNING
LINDA ADLER-KASSNER
PEGGY O’NEILL
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Logan, Utah
2010
Utah State University Press
Logan, Utah 84322-7800
Copyright 2010 Utah State University Press
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-0-87421-798-8 (paperback)
ISBN 978-0-87421-799-5 (ebook)
Manufactured in the United States of America
Cover photo and design by Barbara Yale-Read
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adler-Kassner, Linda.
Reframing writing assessment to improve teaching and learning / Linda Adler-Kassner,
Peggy O’Neill.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-87421-798-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-87421-799-5 (e-book : alk. paper)
1. English language--Rhetoric--Study and teaching. 2. Grading and marking (Students) 3.
Report writing--Evaluation. 4. College prose--Evaluation. I. O’Neill, Peggy - II. Title.
PE1404.A347 2010
808’.0420711--dc22
2010010079
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments vii
1  Higher Education, Framing, and Writing Assessment 1
2  Framing (and) American Education 13
3  The Framing of Composition and Writing 
Assessment 40
4  Reframing Strategies and Techniques 81
5  Reframing in Action 110
6  Reframing Assessment: Why Does My Participation 
Matter? 145
7  Reimagining Writing Assessment 179
References 192
Index 205
About the Authors 208

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We first began collaborating as part of the Network for Media
Action, a component of the Council of Writing Program
Administrators dedicated to developing strategies for program
directors and writing instructors to participate in public conver-
sations about writing. CWPA and the WPA-NMA have provided
a hospitable, engaging, and supportive community of fellow
writing instructors and program directors. This book came out
of generative conversations with colleagues from that organi-
zation, including Dominic Delli Carpini, Darsie Bowden, Eli
Goldblatt, and others. Once we started thinking about develop-
ing our ideas on reframing into a book, Leasa Burton encour-
aged us to create an initial proposal. We would like to thank
the reviewers for USUP who pushed and prodded us to do
more and the participants at various conference workshops and
presentations who were the initial audiences for several parts
of the manuscript, providing valuable feedback as we worked
through ideas and drafts. A special thanks to the colleagues who
participated in our research by sharing their experiences with
us through interviews and documents. Thanks also to our col-
leagues and friends, both near and far, who read drafts of differ-
ent parts of the manuscript, provided feedback, and helped us
along the way—especially , Bill Smith, Susanmarie Harrington,
Brian Huot, Cathy Fleischer, and the USUP anonymous review-
ers. Finally, thanks to Michael Spooner and others at USUP who
continued to encourage and support us through the various
stages of publishing. And of course, thanks to our families, who
listen to and live with us as we work every day.

1
HIGHER EDUCATION, FRAMING,
AND WRITING ASSESSMENT
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 dis-
cussions on campus, the program director turns to the national
community of writing professionals on the WPA-L to get back-
ground information for her upcoming meeting with the univer-
sity assessment committee. She learns that the test is just one
indicator the school wants to use to demonstrate “critical think-
ing”—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