I
really enjoyed Yancey’s piece, “Writing Assessment in the Early Twenty-First
Century.” It seems that I find her voice very easy to listen to as she explains
the particulars of assessing a student’s writing. The idea of becoming both
hero and villain when in this position creates an amusing, and accurate visual,
at least for me. Her concern over how this challenge can be both met and
overcome is very refreshing as was the reminder about both the importance and use
of reflection in writing.
The
brief, yet concise, history of the “three waves” of writing assessment helped
clarify the various changes along the way, including rubrics and portfolios
which have been integrated smoothly, and proven advantageous additions. I also
enjoyed the information on “writing-across-the-curriculum” or WAC programs
(mainly because my knowledge of such programs is limited). I felt the proposal to
include digital technologies in writing as far back as 2008 in their program is
evidence of their revision process as
well as of healthy progress.
The
model I found most impressive was the one at University of Kentucky—this one
piqued my interest. The five outcomes they used were: ethos, structure,
analysis, evidence and conventions. These were “…designed into a four-point
analytic scoring guide that was used to see how students fared on each of the
five criteria”(177) based on various scales of development. The findings were
positive, and produced target areas to further develop such as critical
thinking skills. Overall, this seemed a very successful program.
Once
again, the global and local issues were addressed, and the VSA exam, that a
student might be paid to take, seems a waste of time for student development as
well as aiding in curricula. Yancey’s references to reflection are sadly true—one
needs TIME to effectively utilize reflection in their writing process. I know I
often wish I had that time to truly think about what I wanted to say instead of
having to write it all down in such a flurry.
John
C. Bean’s “In Using Rubrics to Develop and Apply Grading Criteria” was a very
simple breakdown of several types of Rubrics, including examples of the
different types. I never realized the sea of contention over grading students
writing fairly, and the numerous methods tried by teachers over the years.
Probably because I was the student and usually felt comfortable with whatever
was written on my papers, I never gave it much thought. Of course, now that I
am thinking about being the teacher, I am giving it a great deal of thought, so
I find all of this very beneficial information.
The
history, Diederich’ research and its effect on group assessments of writing was
very interesting, especially because it also enabled individuals to grade
papers more fairly. The overview of rubrics was quite helpful to me as I only
was introduced to them when my younger children would bring them home from
school. I tried to grasp them fully, and often wondered if I was getting them
right. When I returned to school myself, there they were again, and I hoped I
was fulfilling all the areas as was expected.
Reading
about them like this was very simplified so I liked it. The generic rubric I am
more familiar with but have seen the Task-Specific one on occasion. Now that I understand
how this can simplify things for the teacher as they grade, they seem less
ominous. I think the task-specific ones can be wonderful as long as they aren’t
overwhelming for the student. Between both essays, I came away with a renewed
interest in portfolios, which I find helpful (though I like to have enough time
to prepare one and to write my reflection of this process) and a new interest
in Rubrics, as they appear to be a very helpful tool for both teachers (for
grading) and students to incorporate into their writing process. At last, using
a Rubric seems less complicated then solving a Rubik’s cube!
No comments:
Post a Comment