|
Articles Conference Reviews |
L.27 Writing About Writing Outcomes and AssessmentL.27 Assessing the Efficacy of a Contested Pedagogy: Writing About Writing Outcomes and Assessment This panel comprised of David Slomp, Mary Tripp, and Elizabeth Wardle discussed the challenges of implementing a Writing about Writing (WAW) curriculum in writing programs. David Slomp’s “Does Contested Pedagogy Translate into Contested Assessment?” began with a discussion of WAW outcomes: to understand writing as a subject of study, to support knowledge transfer, and to empower students. Through a study of syllabi and assignments from 17 WAW classes from across the country, Slomp attempted to answer two major questions: 1) How are the WAW outcomes reflected in WAW assessment? and 2) Can a core construct in WAW assessment be identified? After a discussion of several of the assignments he had collected, Slomp never really presented any concrete answers to either of these questions. Indeed, I was left wondering how to assess the WAW outcomes. How do you actually know that students have learned what you are trying to teach them? If the goal is transfer of learning, how do you know (in the course) that this has in fact happened? How do you assess students on that? In Mary Tripp’s “(Not Quite) All of the Relations Between Self-Efficacy in Writing and WAW Pedagogy,” she argued that a WAW pedagogy can help increase students’ self-efficacy. Her study showed that students’ confidence in their writing improved from the beginning of the course to the end. However, a closer look at her case study results showed that confidence curving down before coming back up at the end of the course. Students started out nervous but fairly confident in their writing ability, but as the course progressed, and especially when they got their first paper back, that confidence dropped drastically. At this point, many of them became desperate and were more likely to go to the instructors’ office hours or to writing centers. Yet, according to Tripp’s research, by the end of the course, students typically felt much more confident in their ability to write for the university. Tripp concluded with the suggestion that instructors not worry if their students initially get discouraged by difficult assignments and readings. Tripp’s study also implied that being honest with students about their writing confidence (i.e. telling them that you know they will get discouraged but that they should keep the faith because that confidence will increase by the end of the course) may actually lessen their initial discouragement in the course. The title of Elizabeth Wardle’s presentation was changed to “Intractable Writing Program Problems.” She discussed some of the challenges of implementing a WAW curriculum. According to Wardle, a major problem in writing programs is that research does not necessarily influence practice as much as it should. Wardle speculated that this is likely because many writing teachers are not experts in the field and do not sufficiently know the field’s research. Wardle argued that composition teachers need to be informed of the disciplinary knowledge and that WAW curriculum can solve some of these problems if teachers are trained in the research of rhet/comp, which could lead to more professionalized teachers and more effective teaching. In Wardle’s study, WAW curriculum resulted in more effectively trained teachers and thus better teaching and better learning. Wardle admitted that WAW is not miraculous or 100% effective, but reasserted that it typically does cause teachers to own their professional expertise, which thereby causes them to change their classrooms (thus resulting in research influencing practice). A major question brought up in the Q and A session was how to implement a WAW curriculum in a program that is resistant to it. Wardle advocated for “stealthy” measures, such as calling the course something other than WAW, something that other members of the department value (e.g., “academic literacy”). Also brought up were questions about student resistance and the effects it could have on instructor course evaluations. In answer to this question, panelists explained that although students complain about how difficult the course is, by the end, they tend to understand the usefulness of it, and are usually positive about it on the course evaluations. Wardle reported no real change in the average score on course evaluations since switching to WAW in her program. Although the panel left audience members with a lot of unanswered questions, it did give them several things to think about as they contemplated initiating a WAW curriculum. The panelists were honest about the difficulties and challenges facing those who wish to implement this into their own courses and programs. |