Talking Back Senior Scholars and Their Colleagues Deliberate the Past, Present, and Future of Writing Studies, 2020
In Talking Back, a veritable Who’s Who of writing studies scholars deliberate on intellectual tra... more In Talking Back, a veritable Who’s Who of writing studies scholars deliberate on intellectual traditions, current practices, and important directions for the future. In response, junior and mid-career scholars reflect on each chapter with thoughtful and measured moves forward into the contemporary environment of research, teaching, and service. Each of the prestigious chapter authors in the volume has three traits in common: a sense of responsibility for advancing the profession, a passion for programs of research dedicated to advancing opportunities for others, and a reflective sense of their work accompanied by humility for their contributions. As a documentary, Talking Back is the first history of writing studies in autobiography.
Contributors: Jo Allen, Ann N. Amicucci, Akua Duku Anokye, Paige Davis Arrington, Doug Baldwin, John C. Brereton, Judy Buchanan, Hugh Burns, Leasa Burton, Ellen C. Carillo, William Condon, Dylan B. Dryer, Michelle F. Eble, Jennifer Enoch, Joan Feinberg, Patricia Friedrich, Cinthia Gannett, Eli Goldblatt, Shenika Hankerson, Janis Haswell, Richard Haswell, Eric Heltzel, Douglas Hesse, Bruce Horner, Alice S. Horning, Asao B. Inoue, Ruth Ray Karpen, Suzanne Lane, Min-Zhan Lu, Donald McQuade, Elisabeth L. Miller, Rebecca Williams Mlynarczyk, Sean Molloy, Les Perelman, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, Stacey Pigg, Sherry Rankins-Robertson, Jessica Restaino, J. Michael Rifenburg, Eliana Schonberg, Geneva Smitherman, Richard Sterling, Katherine E. Tirabassi, Devon Tomasulo, Martha A. Townsend, Mike Truong, Victor Villanueva, Edward M. White, Anne Elrod Whitney, Kathleen Blake Yancey
Uploads
Papers by Norbert Elliot
improvement measure, to mine data for changes in writing performance, or to demonstrate the effectiveness of a single technology and accompanying validity arguments. This article adopts a broader perspective and offers a standpoint theory of action for formative automated writing evaluation (fAWE). Following presentation
of the features of our standpoint theory of action, we describe our two study sites, and each instructor documents her experiences using the fAWE application (app), Writing Mentor (WM). One instructor analyzes experiences using the app with nontraditional adult learners to provide career pathway access through a high school equivalency (HSE) credential awarded by successful completion of the GED(General
Educational Development Test) or of the HiSET (High School Equivalency Test). A second instructor analyzes WM experiences working with a diverse population of two-year college students enrolled in first-year writing. These instructors’ experiences are used to propose two theory-of-action frameworks based on the instructors’ standpoints, with particular attention to fAWE components, pedagogies, and consequences. To explore the representativeness of these two case studies, we also analyze student feature use and self-reported self-efficacy data from a general sample (N = 5,595) collected through WM user engagement. We conclude by emphasizing
the pedagogical potential of writing technologies, the advantages of instructionally situating these technologies, and the value of using standpoint theories of action as
a way to anticipate local impact.
and the public to the broad set of test components and consequences stemming from an assessment’s implementation. We demonstrate the force of an integrated ToA and IDAF approach through a case study of a required secondary school English Language Arts Diploma Examination, and we conclude with implications for classroom teachers. Our aim in this column is to advance a way for teachers to leverage power in literacy assessments on behalf of their students by raising questions regarding the components of an assessment, its delivery mechanisms, and its manifold consequences.
of three lines of work: the growing understanding of fairness, validity,
and reliability as both categories of evidence and ethical frameworks
(Kelly-Riley and Whithaus 2016); an ecological view of human cognition
as applied to writing (White, Elliot, and Peckham 2015); and a sociocognitive view of assessment as an expression of contextualized, purposive arguments (Mislevy 2018). Significantly, our model thus resonates with that of David Slomp’s (2016) framework for using consequential validity evidence in evaluating each step in writing assessment design. These lines of work inform the structure of our chapter and the model proposed in it. We first turn to an integrative perspective in which a defined view of psychometrics (identified as sociocognitive) is used to design a construct-driven approach to writing (identified as nomothetic). We then combine the desire to use situative perspectives with efforts to describe the span of the writing construct. We conclude with a summary of four ethical principles that are implicit in our model that, taken together, call for enhanced attention to construct validity and the integrative framework that is provided by evidence of fairness. In emphasizing this integrative approach, we believe researchers can structurally design assessments that, in context and use, are ethical in nature. With the reservation that conceptual models are limited in terms of their applications—as are all human endeavors intending to structure opportunities—we hold that ours bakes a certain kind of ethical perspective (identified with fairness) into the assessment itself.
the presence of β (the bias factor) was fair. Since its founding, ASW has continued to be a space where evolving discussions about fairness play out. In this article, we examine a selection of 73 ASW research studies published from 1994 to 2018 that use fairness as a category of evidence. In tracing the use of fairness and related terms across these research articles, our goal is to understand
how the conversation about fairness has changed in the last quarter century. Following a literature review that situates fairness within generational, standards-based, and evidential scholarship, we analyze five trends in the journal: fairness as the elimination of bias; fairness as the pursuit of validity; fairness as acknowledgement of social context; fairness as legal responsibility; and fairness as ethical obligation. A tidy narrative that theoretical conceptualization of fairness has deepened over the ASW lifespan is not born out by our findings. Instead, evidence suggests that the disparate
stances and methodological challenges that informed early research on fairness remain. As well, the textual record suggests that we have not developed or shared taxonomies for systematically investigating questions of fairness. In our desire to make the research we present actionable, we
close by calling attention to the need for theorization of fairness, the advantages nuanced of research
methods, and the benefits of non-Western perspectives.
seven research articles, two research notes, and a special section featuring research presented at a US educational measurement conference. As was the case with Volume 1 in 2017, our 2018 authors advance a remarkable range of research. And, as was the case last year, this year’s
authors continue to come from diverse fields advancing focused interest.
We begin by introducing the research of our colleagues and then turn to a reflection on the developments we see in their work. For Volume 2, see https://journals.colostate.edu/analytics/issue/view/13
improvement measure, to mine data for changes in writing performance, or to demonstrate the effectiveness of a single technology and accompanying validity arguments. This article adopts a broader perspective and offers a standpoint theory of action for formative automated writing evaluation (fAWE). Following presentation
of the features of our standpoint theory of action, we describe our two study sites, and each instructor documents her experiences using the fAWE application (app), Writing Mentor (WM). One instructor analyzes experiences using the app with nontraditional adult learners to provide career pathway access through a high school equivalency (HSE) credential awarded by successful completion of the GED(General
Educational Development Test) or of the HiSET (High School Equivalency Test). A second instructor analyzes WM experiences working with a diverse population of two-year college students enrolled in first-year writing. These instructors’ experiences are used to propose two theory-of-action frameworks based on the instructors’ standpoints, with particular attention to fAWE components, pedagogies, and consequences. To explore the representativeness of these two case studies, we also analyze student feature use and self-reported self-efficacy data from a general sample (N = 5,595) collected through WM user engagement. We conclude by emphasizing
the pedagogical potential of writing technologies, the advantages of instructionally situating these technologies, and the value of using standpoint theories of action as
a way to anticipate local impact.
and the public to the broad set of test components and consequences stemming from an assessment’s implementation. We demonstrate the force of an integrated ToA and IDAF approach through a case study of a required secondary school English Language Arts Diploma Examination, and we conclude with implications for classroom teachers. Our aim in this column is to advance a way for teachers to leverage power in literacy assessments on behalf of their students by raising questions regarding the components of an assessment, its delivery mechanisms, and its manifold consequences.
of three lines of work: the growing understanding of fairness, validity,
and reliability as both categories of evidence and ethical frameworks
(Kelly-Riley and Whithaus 2016); an ecological view of human cognition
as applied to writing (White, Elliot, and Peckham 2015); and a sociocognitive view of assessment as an expression of contextualized, purposive arguments (Mislevy 2018). Significantly, our model thus resonates with that of David Slomp’s (2016) framework for using consequential validity evidence in evaluating each step in writing assessment design. These lines of work inform the structure of our chapter and the model proposed in it. We first turn to an integrative perspective in which a defined view of psychometrics (identified as sociocognitive) is used to design a construct-driven approach to writing (identified as nomothetic). We then combine the desire to use situative perspectives with efforts to describe the span of the writing construct. We conclude with a summary of four ethical principles that are implicit in our model that, taken together, call for enhanced attention to construct validity and the integrative framework that is provided by evidence of fairness. In emphasizing this integrative approach, we believe researchers can structurally design assessments that, in context and use, are ethical in nature. With the reservation that conceptual models are limited in terms of their applications—as are all human endeavors intending to structure opportunities—we hold that ours bakes a certain kind of ethical perspective (identified with fairness) into the assessment itself.
the presence of β (the bias factor) was fair. Since its founding, ASW has continued to be a space where evolving discussions about fairness play out. In this article, we examine a selection of 73 ASW research studies published from 1994 to 2018 that use fairness as a category of evidence. In tracing the use of fairness and related terms across these research articles, our goal is to understand
how the conversation about fairness has changed in the last quarter century. Following a literature review that situates fairness within generational, standards-based, and evidential scholarship, we analyze five trends in the journal: fairness as the elimination of bias; fairness as the pursuit of validity; fairness as acknowledgement of social context; fairness as legal responsibility; and fairness as ethical obligation. A tidy narrative that theoretical conceptualization of fairness has deepened over the ASW lifespan is not born out by our findings. Instead, evidence suggests that the disparate
stances and methodological challenges that informed early research on fairness remain. As well, the textual record suggests that we have not developed or shared taxonomies for systematically investigating questions of fairness. In our desire to make the research we present actionable, we
close by calling attention to the need for theorization of fairness, the advantages nuanced of research
methods, and the benefits of non-Western perspectives.
seven research articles, two research notes, and a special section featuring research presented at a US educational measurement conference. As was the case with Volume 1 in 2017, our 2018 authors advance a remarkable range of research. And, as was the case last year, this year’s
authors continue to come from diverse fields advancing focused interest.
We begin by introducing the research of our colleagues and then turn to a reflection on the developments we see in their work. For Volume 2, see https://journals.colostate.edu/analytics/issue/view/13
The essays—by contributors from diverse fields, from writing studies to nursing, engineering, and architecture—demonstrate innovative classroom practices and curricular design that place fairness and the situatedness of language at the center of writing instruction. Contributors reflect on a wide range of examples, from a disability-as-insight model to reckoning with postcolonial legacies, and the essays consider a variety of institutions, classrooms, and types of assessment, including culturally responsive assessment and peer feedback in digital environments.
The essays—by contributors from diverse fields, from writing studies to nursing, engineering, and architecture—demonstrate innovative classroom practices and curricular design that place fairness and the situatedness of language at the center of writing instruction. Contributors reflect on a wide range of examples, from a disability-as-insight model to reckoning with postcolonial legacies, and the essays consider a variety of institutions, classrooms, and types of assessment, including culturally responsive assessment and peer feedback in digital environments.
Contributors: Jo Allen, Ann N. Amicucci, Akua Duku Anokye, Paige Davis Arrington, Doug Baldwin, John C. Brereton, Judy Buchanan, Hugh Burns, Leasa Burton, Ellen C. Carillo, William Condon, Dylan B. Dryer, Michelle F. Eble, Jennifer Enoch, Joan Feinberg, Patricia Friedrich, Cinthia Gannett, Eli Goldblatt, Shenika Hankerson, Janis Haswell, Richard Haswell, Eric Heltzel, Douglas Hesse, Bruce Horner, Alice S. Horning, Asao B. Inoue, Ruth Ray Karpen, Suzanne Lane, Min-Zhan Lu, Donald McQuade, Elisabeth L. Miller, Rebecca Williams Mlynarczyk, Sean Molloy, Les Perelman, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, Stacey Pigg, Sherry Rankins-Robertson, Jessica Restaino, J. Michael Rifenburg, Eliana Schonberg, Geneva Smitherman, Richard Sterling, Katherine E. Tirabassi, Devon Tomasulo, Martha A. Townsend, Mike Truong, Victor Villanueva, Edward M. White, Anne Elrod Whitney, Kathleen Blake Yancey
Early Holistic Scoring of Writing addresses the history of holistic essay assessment in the United Kingdom and the United States from the mid-1930s to the mid-1980s—and newly conceptualizes holistic scoring by philosophically and reflectively reinterpreting the genre’s origin, development, and significance.
The book chronicles holistic scoring from its initial origin in the United Kingdom to the beginning of its heyday in the United States. Chapters cover little-known history, from the holistic scoring of school certificate examination essays written by Blitz evacuee children in Devon during WWII to teacher adaptations of holistic scoring in California schools during the 1970s. Chapters detail the complications, challenges, and successes of holistic scoring from British high-stakes admissions examinations to foundational pedagogical research by Bay Area Writing Project scholars. The book concludes with lessons learned, providing a guide for continued efforts to assess student writing through evidence models.
Exploring the possibility of actionable history, Early Holistic Scoring of Writing reconceptualizes writing assessment. Here is a new history that retells the origins of our present body of knowledge in writing studies.