What about Assessment?
"Humanizing the Assessment Process in the Composition Classroom" (Beth Trudell)
In traditional writing assessments, students are given a prompt and are expected to write an essay. Mazur (as cited in Vaughn, 2014) states assessments should mirror real life and be planned with the students’ future in mind; traditional assessments do not do this. To address these concerns, our program designed an alternative assessment process that integrates reading and writing and involves interaction, application, and engagement. Students work in groups because in the future, they will collaborate with colleagues in the workplace or graduate school. Reading and writing are integrated because reading adds complexity and authenticity (Plakans, 2010). The tasks are interactive because this triples students’ knowledge gains (Lambert, 2012).
Since students are assigned to modules according to their language skills, mid-level students were selected for the pilot program. Summary and response are part of the curriculum, so the final assessment evaluates these skills. In groups, the students read, discuss, complete a reading guide (Grabe & Zhang, 2013), an outline, and two drafts, which are peer reviewed. There is feed forward (Koen, Bitzer, & Beets, 2012) rather than feedback. There is a practical use of knowledge and skills (Li & Yang, 2014), and a move from struggling alone (Adams & Oliver, 2019). Instead of focusing on deficits, assessments promote success. The classroom is lively, with students sharing and learning from each other.
The facilitator will share the process steps and multiple day schedule, and describe how students and teachers evaluate group participation. In addition, she will present students’ and teachers’ feedback and the excellent outcome information.
"Cultivating a Self-Assessment Mindset in Student Writers" (Nanda Warren)
Conversations about “ungrading” have become more common among college composition instructors in recent years (Blum, 2020), and the movement away from traditional grading of student writing is often driven by equity goals (Inoue, 2019). Alternative grading approaches include labor-based grading contracts (Inoue, 2022/2019), co-constructed rubrics (Sackstein, 2021), specifications grading (Nilson, 2015), and other diverse practices that aim to actively engage students in determining the grade that goes on their transcript. To move beyond simply following the latest trends, we should look closely at the learning opportunities afforded by alternative grading practices and enact strategies that best support students in our own teaching contexts. For me, one desired outcome is developing students’ willingness and ability to self-assess their own writing according to audience, purpose, and occasion. The ability to critically examine one’s own writing and judge how well it meets the demands of a given situation is a skill that students can apply and adapt throughout their lifetimes. As an equity practice, self-assessment can help students move toward greater agency and ownership of their writing and can lead instructors to recognize our own biases when it comes to defining what constitutes “good writing.”
My own perspective on student self-assessment of writing has been informed by my experience teaching first-year composition in a four-year university, my observations as a writing tutor coordinator at that same university, and my ongoing inquiry with colleagues and students on the issue of non-traditional grading in writing classes. In this panel discussion, I hope to share some lessons learned from this experience and suggest principles to keep in mind to help us stay focused on student learning and the development of flexible and empowered writing skills.
"The Problem with Grading: Practices to Soften the Learning Process" (Marlise Ajanae Edwards)
I propose practices that I developed during pandemic teaching to soften the learning process for my students by shifting my grading structure yet again, from contract grading to a new model of grading that uses incomplete/complete as an evaluatory binary on most assignments. I have identified a problem with both the standard practices of institutionally structured evaluation and contract grading because both assume the possibility of perfection with the idea of the A, which looms over students and teachers as an expression not only of student ability, but also commitment and potential.
While rigor and high standards remain buzzwords in academia, and nod to the requirements of teaching and learning within an evaluative structure, strategic softening that does not require individual negotiations around contract grades, changes the tone of student/teacher interaction and shifts more focus on learning outcomes than the contract grading model.
In response to the unpredictable and inescapable reality of teaching today, I learned to question the assumptions of the subjective standards of perfection symbolized by the grading scale, whether I was imposing it on students or they were imposing it on themselves. As such I shifted much of my grading to an incomplete/complete evaluation practice with flexible deadlines. My presentation will share the practices of shifting away from standard grading and explore the theoretical models for teaching writing and literature without this crutch of evaluation. By setting aside the perfect A, I find a softer space in my own response to student writing; as learning eclipses evaluation.
The practice of grading without discouraging students in the two-year institution, as many students continue to need an education that allows them to build basic skills while working towards their goals in college level composition classes, requires an alternatives to the A-F grading scale.