Assessing for Learning in an Age of Comparability: Remembering the Importance of Context

Abstract

Pa R t t W o : c u R R i c u l u m a n d P R o g R a m d e v e l o P m e n t t h R o u g h a S S e S S m e n t a n d a c c R e d i tat Pa R t t h R e e : Fa c u lt y d e v e l o P m e n t t h R o u g h a S S e S S m e n t a n d a c c R e d i tat i o n 211We see this collection as a resource for writing instructors and WPAs looking to answer the call to action in sustainable, research-driven, practice-tested ways. Contributions to the volume help readers to accomplish three key things:1. Understand the goals and limits of large-scale writing assessment from both the perspective of the accrediting bodies that require it and the writing instructors and WPAs who design, implement, and, ideally, benefit from it.2. Consider strengths and weaknesses of assessment structures and assessment-driven improvement initiatives that have been implemented at a variety of types of institutions (included are contributions from writing specialists from schools of differing sizes, student populations,geographical locations, and writing program structures). As the CWPA points out in their letter of fall 2007, "specific stories about successful assessment processes are compelling to a range of audiences." The examples offered in the chapters that follow thus provide invaluable support for writing instructors and WPAs as they attempt to persuade other faculty and upper administrators to implement responsive and responsible assessment processes. At the same time, contributors to this collection do not hesitate to identify struggles and setbacks that they encountered in the processes of conducting large-scale assessment and responding to assessment results. The examples are useful for the support as well as the cautions that they provide to readers.3. Use ongoing accreditation and assessment imperatives to cultivate productive campus-wide conversations that increase faculty members' ability to meet students' writing and learning needs. A benefit of large-scale assessment that receives attention in a number of chapters in this collection is the fruitful and revealing discussion about what is valued in writing across disciplinary contexts. Institution-wide assessment initiatives, then, can be occasions to discover and disrupt unstated and incorrect assumptions that "good writing is good writing" regardless of where it occurs in the university. Writing specialists and WPAs are in a unique position to lead the development of authentic writing assessment on their campuses and, through their efforts, to change campus understandings of and approaches to writing instruction in ways that have not been possible since the birth of the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) movement.We recognize that what is true of writing is also true of assessment: context always affects what can be effective in any given situation. In response, we bring together here a series of critical case studies of writing programs from across the country that have planned, implemented, and assessed the impact of large-scale, accreditationsupported initiatives. Some of the cha...

Retrospective. The Politics and Public Policy of Large-Scale Writing Assessment

“…As they grappled with these constructs in their contexts, new practices and research paths emerged. Early examples are detailed by Moore et al (2016) demonstrating the field of composition's historical response to external assessment mandates. The first was Elbow and Belanoff's (1997) portfolio system which replaced a mandated university proficiency exam.…”

Considering Students, Teachers, and Writing Assessment: Volume 1, Technical and Political Contexts

“…This move toward localization continued in the late 1980s when an area of research emerged from the lived experiences of teachers and students in composition courses in response to accreditation and accountability mandates. Moore, O'Neill, and Crow (2016) detail this extensive history of compositionists "using assessment to improve student learning before it was emphasized so much by accreditors . .…”