Ideas on Assessment of L2 Writing

Summary of Casanave – Chapter 4 Assessment

In her introduction, Casanave identifies and differentiates the various terms under the umbrella of “assessment;” for example:  “assessment, testing, measurement, grading, evaluating” (114). While all of these terms are related, they do not represent the same idea. Even within the individual terms there are shades of difference in meaning. For example, a student entering a program for intensive English instruction will take several types of tests, the scores of which will be used by teachers and administrators to assess his proficiency in the language by measuring his listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities. The student’s progress over the term of instruction will be evaluated periodically to ensure that his placement represented a fair and accurate assessment of his overall fluency and skill in using the language, and that he is making adequate progress in the program.

Casanave briefly discusses the construction of “rubrics” for evaluating pieces of writing, and provides an overview of the difficulties teachers face when trying to establish criteria for writing assessment. She also briefly discusses some of the arguments in research literature related to different types of assessment, and brings up several topics of concern: fairness, objectivity and subjectivity, reliability and validity, authenticity, and ethical issues related to assessment.

Of special interest to me are Casanave’s comments on the conflicting roles of writing teachers and “the dilemma of being both supportive nonjudgmental readers and critical evaluators who ultimately must assign a grade to student performance” (136). She shares her experience of assigning Japanese upper-level and graduate-level EFL students to work on a project of their choice throughout the semester (and even beyond). Assessment was provided weekly, in various forms, and students were promised that if they “attended all classes and worked regularly on a writing project” they “would easily pass with at least a B” (139). This project-writing concept seems like a great idea for a specific situation, such as the course Casanave taught. I am curious about its adaptability to other scenarios, such as K-12 ESL classes or undergraduate-level courses. My thought is that this “project approach” if we can call it that (another new term!) could be a way to incorporate the good elements of the process approach with the types of assessments that teachers seem a bit more comfortable with. By using this approach for a shorter period of time (to be determined by the teacher and the specific teaching situation), it would not preclude other classroom activities or teaching strategies; in fact, it might incorporate them in a desirable manner.

Summary of Leki, et al. – Chapter 10 Assessment

This chapter discusses the two main types of assessment: formal tests and formative assessment, and how the results of each type can inform the other.  Formal tests are designed to assess student proficiency in four areas of language skill development: listening, speaking, reading and writing. The results of these tests are typically used in determining admission or placement into particular academic programs, graduation from programs, evaluation of a program’s effectiveness, or to certify an individual’s abilities. Formative assessments are related to teaching and learning, and are ongoing throughout the student’s educational “career.” Teachers use formative assessments to help students improve their writing ability, to inform themselves of areas that need focus or further instruction, and to evaluate a lesson or assignment’s effectiveness, among other things.  This chapter reiterates the dilemma faced by teachers (mentioned in the Casanave chapter as well) regarding separating their role as “assessor” or critical evaluator of student writing from their role as instructor who is trying to respond “meaningfully to the ideas and content that students are attempting to convey in their written drafts” (84).

Leki, et al. reminds us of the ongoing debate related to “how” and “whether” teachers should respond to errors in L2 student writing.  Truscott (1996) argued “that correcting errors in L2 students’ writing is not beneficial, and even counterproductive, to students’ writing development” (84). Other researchers, such as D. Ferris, have pointed to specific types of error correction that seem to have merit. The chapter goes on to discuss various types of assessment (peer- and self-) as well as the timing, modes and media used for feedback, rating processes, and validity issues.

Questions for discussion:

1)      What suggestions would you offer your fellow teachers who ask for your advice on how to provide feedback on student writing?  For example, should feedback be done during one-on-one conferences with students, or should it be provided in writing, via email, via audio recording, or in some other mode? How much feedback should a teacher provide?

2)      Have you ever used peer response techniques in a writing course? What type of reaction did your students have? After using this technique, what was your reaction? Did you consider this an effective use of your class time? What reaction would you expect from students from “collectivist” cultures? Do you think this technique is appropriate or beneficial in an ESL context?

3)      The Ferris article discusses that initial L1 research findings (from Leki 1990a) showed that students who received teacher feedback did not show improvement in subsequent writing assignments, nor did they seem to appreciate the feedback.  Ferris offers several suggestions for teachers who want their feedback to be effective and useful (123-125).  If a teacher is able to implement all of these suggestions, would the peer response/feedback technique offer any additional benefit(s)?

4)      Have you experienced the role dilemma that both Casanave and Leki, et al. discuss? How have you dealt with this problem of separating your role as assessor/evaluator and your role as supportive/nonjudgmental reader? Does it seem that your role “morphs” from one to the other as the student proceeds through the writing process?