ASKING STUDENTS TO PERFORM IN ZOOS: AN INVESTIGATION OF
STUDENT WRITING PROCESSES DURING WRITING ASSESSMENTS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of English
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
English
(Composition)
by
Brittany De Avilan
FALL
2012
ASKING STUDENTS TO PERFORM IN ZOOS: AN INVESTIGATION OF
STUDENT WRITING PROCESSES DURING WRITING ASSESSMENTS
A Thesis
by
Brittany De Avilan
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Fiona Glade
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dan Melzer
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Brittany De Avilan
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
David Toise
Date
Department of English
iii
Abstract
of
ASKING STUDENTS TO PERFORM IN ZOOS: AN INVESTIGATION OF
STUDENT WRITING PROCESSES DURING WRITING ASSESSMENTS
by
Brittany De Avilan
California State University, Sacramento students’ writing processes on the Writing Placement for
Juniors (WPJ) exams and 109W/109M portfolios were investigated as related to how many times
students engaged in a particular step the in writing processes, including prewriting, revising and
editing. General findings include support for portfolio as the form of writing assessment in which
student engagement with all steps in the writing process significantly outnumber student
engagement with all steps of the writing process on the WPJ. Implications for best practices and
further research in writing assessment are included.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Fiona Glade
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express the deepest appreciation for my husband, Josh Marker, for his
encouragement and love. This would not have been possible without you. Thank you dad for
reminding me that things get done “one day at a time.” Thank you Doug and Judy Adams for
encouraging me throughout my entire college education and for your incredible friendship. Thank
you Lisa Harper for our delightful weekly conversations that helped immensely throughout my
thesis writing and for your continuing friendship. Thank you David Toise for being an effective
advocate for me throughout the entire program. I’d like to thank Dan Melzer for his helpful
feedback and thoughtful guidance as my second reader. Finally, I would like to thank Fiona
Glade for her endless hours reading over my thesis—her timely feedback and thorough comments
made this all possible.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……………...……………………………………………………….. 1
Early Writing Process Scholars .................................................................................... 1
Post-Process ................................................................................................................. 7
Discussion of Writing Processes as Social-Rhetorical Events.....................................11
2. THE COMPLICATIONS OF TIMED WRITING EXAMS AND THE
ALTERNATIVE OF PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENTS ........................................... ……..16
Decontextualization of Writing Processes ................................................................. 16
Timed Writing Exams ................................................................................................ 18
Portfolio Assessment ................................................................................................. 22
3. THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE WRITING ASSESSMENT AT SACRAMENTO STATE ... 24
WPJ at Sacramento State ........................................................................................... 24
Writing Process Assessment Criteria on the WPJ ..................................................... 24
Portfolio Assessment at Sacramento State ................................................................. 27
Directed Self-Placement at Sacramento State............................................................ 28
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, METHODOLOGY, FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS........... 29
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 29
Data Collection on WPJ and English 109M/109W Portfolios ................................... 30
Findings ..................................................................................................................... 37
Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 41
Feedback versus Isolation .......................................................................................... 44
5.
RESULTS: THE IMPACT OF WRITING ENVIRONMENT ON
WRITING ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES ....................................................................... 46
Conclusions................................................................................................................ 46
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 50
vi
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 51
Works Cited……… ...……………...………………………………………………………..53
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Figure 1: Model by Flower and Hayes (1981)…………………………………………6
2.
Figure 2: Comparing WPJ Exam Booklets to Portfolios …………………………… 38
3.
Figure 3: Observing Writing Tasks by Frequency ………...………………………….40
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Early Writing Process Scholars
In writing, words are changeable. Statements can be recanted. Writers can create
and re-create. One of the enabling characteristics of writing is the very fact that writers
can use composition as a way to explore, and then change those explorations to better fit
their voice and/or the discourse conventions of the intended audience. Nancy Sommers
(2000) appreciates the exploratory freedom in writing in “Between the Drafts” when she
remarks, “It is deeply satisfying to believe that we are not locked into our original
statements, that we might start and stop, erase, use the delete key in life, and be saved
from the roughness of our early drafts” (p. 282). Sommers, like other writing process
scholars, values the ability to recant statements, insert new content, rephrase, reorganize
and edit her composition work. All of these characteristics of writing are part of what is
deemed “the writing process” in Composition Studies. The writing process is traditionally
thought of as a series of steps, including prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing
(Yagelski, 2006, pg. 535). Although traditionally scholars have discussed writing process
as a discrete set of steps, contemporary composition researchers have begun to
understand writing process as a fluid interconnected process. The early literature on
writing process, nevertheless, serves as a foundation to provide researchers with a set of
terms in which to refer to a writer’s tasks. Several writing process scholars have created
their own terminology to refer to the tasks that are completed during the writing process.
For example, Don Murray (1972) outlines the tasks writers accomplish on their journey
toward completing a final draft.
Murray (1972) distinguishes the tasks a writer completes and defines what occurs
during each task. Murray defines prewriting as “everything that takes place before
2
writing [the first draft]” (p. 4). Murray continues defining the various traditional steps of
writing process by asserting that the next stage after prewriting is “writing”: “producing a
first draft” (p. 4) The process of creating the first draft can become muddled, however,
because sometimes “first drafts” function more as “prewriting” for some writers. For
example, freewriting (a kind of draft) can also be used to generate ideas. Murray
continues by calling the next step in writing process “rewriting” or the “reconsideration
of subject, form and audience” (p. 4). “Rewriting” is the time when writers can
reconsider discourse community standards, the organizational patterns of their paper, any
additional ideas that need to be added, or unnecessary content that needs to be withdrawn.
Essentially, “rewriting” allows a writer to reconsider and reshape the structure and
content of their paper. The last step is “editing” or proofreading: reading to element
errors in spelling, grammar, diction and syntax. Murray distinguishes writer’s tasks by
dividing them into different categories: prewriting, writing, rewriting and editing. Other
writing process theorists distinguish a writer’s tasks in similar ways, but use different
terminology to label each task. For example, Flower and Hayes (1981) use similar
categories as Murray, but different terms.
Flower and Hayes defined the steps in the writing process in “A Cognitive
Process Theory of Writing” using different terms than Murray, but similar conceptual
categories. The first step of the writing process according to Flowers and Hayes is the
“planning, organizing, generating, goal-setting phase” which is most closely related to
Murray’s prewriting stage. During this stage, writers create a visual or linguistic map for
their paper, defining where their argument will begin and highlighting where the
argument will culminate. The next stage Flower and Hayes consider is the “translating”
stage or the process of producing the first draft, which is most closely related to Murray’s
“writing” stage. During the “translating” stage, writers use their work during the
3
“planning stage” to produce a first draft. “Reviewing, evaluating and revising” is the
stage in which writers reorganize and rework ideas (p. 365). Flowers and Hayes’
“reviewing, evaluating and revising” stage is most closely related to Murray’s “rewriting”
stage, the stage where writers add content, delete content, rephrase diction and syntax,
and reorganize content based on discourse community standards. Murray and Flowers
and Hayes show how writing scholars use terms to define a particular activity in writing,
and although these terms may be labeled differently, they largely encompass the same
activities. The potential overlap in the defined steps of the writing process demonstrates
that process is not a set of discrete steps. The definitions of the aforementioned steps
merely provide writers and scholars with terms to refer to a characteristic of a particular
aspect of writing.
Early writing process scholars can be credited for generating terms to discuss
what happens when writers navigate through the process of writing. As discussed above,
early writing process scholars outlined the activities writers engage in when completing a
paper or other writing task. Some early composition scholars include Peter Elbow,
Murray, Janet Emig, Ken Macrorie, Flowers and Hayes—ultimately these and a few
other scholars set the foundation for writing process to be an accepted theory within
Composition Studies. For example, Janet Emig (1971) in The Composing Process of
Twelfth Graders separates the activities writers complete into distinct entities including,
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing. Emig describes writing as a “sequence of
events which begins when (or perhaps even before) someone has identified a subject for
writing and ends when the writer is satisfied that he has finished his piece” (p. 137). Emig
describes the writing process as a period of time in which writers engage in a number of
activities until the final draft arrives. While early writing process scholars define writing
4
process as a sum of activities that can be separated into “stages,” “writing process” was
not meant to be reduced to a series of chronological steps.
During the beginnings of “writing process” theory, scholars “[did] not refer
simply to a chronological succession of events by which a piece is brought to
completion” (Larson, 1973, p. 137). Instead, the stages associated with writing process
were meant to be convenient terms for scholars and writers to use in order to refer to a
specific writing activity within the broad spectrum of writing process. Larson highlights
that writing is a contextualized process when he states, “The process includes conditions
and circumstances that surround and influence the composing, as well as identifiable
steps in the act of creation” (p. 137). Writing process scholars sought to label the
activities writers complete as they go from the beginning stages of writing to the final
draft. Murray (1978), for example, in “Write before writing” argues that the writing
process begins even before writing occurs. While there isn’t any actual writing taking
place, the ideas that will ultimately end up in the final draft begin to form during this
stage. Scholars and teachers needed a way to discuss and implement a curriculum that
fosters the thoughts that begin to form during this stage. Murray labeled this stage as
“daydreaming,” since the ideas that sprout are recursive, imaginative and disorganized (p.
375). Murray argues that teachers often scold students for daydreaming during class, but
daydreaming, he argues is part of the writing process. Murray’s hypothesis epitomizes the
ideas that early writing process scholars generated. They asked questions like: what do
writers do before, during and after writing content? The answers to their questions
ultimately led to the labeling that was previously discussed: writers prewrite, draft, revise
and edit. These stages are broad; but even in their breadth, writing process scholars
defined each stage by meticulously outlining the activities that writers tend to engage in
during each stage.
5
Early writing process theory can be credited for providing scholars with terms to
describe the process of writing. However, writing process theory was limited in its
inception, because although the steps weren’t meant to be interpreted as sequential,
oftentimes the steps were discussed as discrete entities rather than recursive and
intermingled processes. In the literature the terms early writing process scholars used
began to convey the idea that writing process was comprised of a discrete set of stages.
Flower & Hayes (1981) discuss the writing process as a discrete set of stages, but they
argue that the stages are “theoretical” (p. 368). Flower & Hayes outline the steps a writer
would need to complete stating, “First, you would need to define the major elements or
sub-processes that make up the larger system…Second, you would want to show how
these various elements of the process interact in the total process of writing. For example,
how is ‘knowledge’ about an audience actually integrated into the moment-to-moment
act of composing?... And finally… you would want to speak to the critical questions in
the discipline” (p. 368) While Flower and Hayes discuss writing process as a discrete set
of stages, using terms such as “First” “Second” and “Third,” they provide a visual sample
that reveals that they too recognized writing process is recursive. In the following
example the arrows going back and forth signify that writers can fluidly move back and
forth between stages and don’t need to sequentially move through the writing process.
The following is a model designed by Flower and Hayes (1981):
6
Figure 1: Model by Flower and Hayes (1981)
TASK ENVIRONMENT
THE RHETORICAL
PROBLEM
TEXT
PRODUCED
Topic
Audience
Exigency
SO FAR
THE WRITER’S
LONG-TERM
MEMORY
Knowledge of:
Topic
Audience
Writing Plans
WRITING PROCESSES
PLANNING
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
TRANSLATING
REVIEWING
ORGANIZING
EVALUATING
GOAL
SETTING
REVISING
MONITOR
7
Flower and Hayes created this model, showing that early writing process scholars may
have recognized that writing process is recursive, but lacked the language to discuss the
recursive elements in the theoretical and research elements of their work. Many writing
process scholars recognized that writing process is not necessarily sequential, but found
convenience in discussing writing process as a step-by-step process. Later, writing
process scholars moved away from this step-by-step model to recognize the fluidity of
writing process. As post-process writing theory emerged, focus shifted from the stages of
writing process as distinct to the stages of writing process as chaotic, non-sequential and
oftentimes overlapping.
Post-Process
Post-process theory built on the foundation set by early writing process scholars.
Post-process theory centers on the idea that “the activities involved in the act of writing
are typically recursive rather than linear” (Olson, 1999, p. 7). Post-process theory
recognizes the nonlinear nature of writing in a way that seeks to reject the notion that the
“stages” in writing are or can be systematized. Post-process theory argues that since
writing is situational and contextualized, writing processes differ for each writer and
differ with each environment. Therefore, writing processes are not homogenous—they
are instead “radically contingent, radically situational” (Olson, 1999, p. 9). Barbara
Couture (1999) writes in “Modeling and Emulating: Rethinking Agency in writing
processes,” “if we reduce writing to either a product or a procedure, we must teach it as a
device or tool for doing something that is distinct from the doer” (p. 31). Writing is not
simply a procedure, but a contextualized process that varies from individual to individual.
8
Couture as well as other post-process scholars highlight writing as an act that is not
separate from the individual who is writing. A writer is continuously influenced by
his/her environment, background and discourse community. The discourse community,
ideally, provides verbal and written feedback to the writer, and the writer revises his/her
draft accordingly. If composition scholars discuss writing as an act separate from the
background and identity of the writer, then writing processes will be inherently limiting
and decontextualized. Post-process scholars seek to “move both composition theory and
pedagogy beyond the dualistic device paradigm that separates our acts from ourselves
and begin to understand and teach writing as design” (Couture, 1999, p. 31). Post-process
theory aims to move writing processes theory beyond the idea that writing processes can
be taught as a rigid procedure. The developments of post-process theory expose the
highly contextualized nature of writing processes.
If writing processes are nonlinear and contextualized, then the route writers take
to come to a final draft can take many different forms. In essence, writing processes do
not always neatly begin at the prewriting stage, move to drafting, then to revising and
finally to editing. Instead, the stages are recursive and oftentimes don’t occur in any kind
of systematized sequence. Post-process scholars emphasize that writing is not
systematized, but rather a process where meaning-making is largely dialogic (Blyler,
1999, p. 66). Through conversations, readings and general social interactions writers
constantly gather information and ideas that influence their thought processes and
ultimately shapes their final draft. In post-process theory, emphasis is placed on how
writers make meaning through the surrounding world and discourse: “meaning making—
by, for example, conducting research or writing—is viewed as a ‘collaborative, dialogic,
9
and thoroughly public activity” (Blyler, 1999, p. 75). The surrounding environment, the
identity and background of the writer, input from other writers, and input from readers is
continually shaping how the writer navigates writing processes. Post-process composition
theory argues that writing processes are “interpretive, situational, and nongeneralizable”
(Blyler, 1999, p. 75). Post-process scholars argue that writing processes vary from
individual to individual and are influenced by elements such as the writer’s background,
current environment and identity. Writing processes do not take one cohesive form, but
many almost infinitesimal forms; even though post-process theorists recognize that
writing processes are nonlinear and contextualized, post-process scholars also do not
view the work of early writing process scholars as obsolete.
Post-process theory negates early process scholars’ ideas that there are stages, and
simply seeks to highlight that writing processes are a tool and each user can apply the
tools differently. Composition Studies has progressed through post-process theory, and
allows each writer to use the tools of writing processes in a way that fits with a writer’s
environment and background. David Russell (1999) in “Activity Theory and Process
Approaches: Writing (Power) in School and Society” celebrates the momentum postprocess theory has added to writing process theory stating, “The task for any discipline
or profession is to make the most useful tools, discursive and otherwise, and deploy them
to make them more widely useful—lengthen its network of influence, its power” (p. 87).
Russell (1999) notes that post-process theory simply aims to make the work of early
writing process scholars less generalizable and more applicable to each student in
Composition classrooms. Post-process scholars seek to provide tools for writers, and then
allow writers to implement those tools in a way that fits the writer’s present environment
and identity. Since post-process theory has sought to make writing processes taught as
unsystematized discursive processes, post-process theory has allowed the foundation of
10
writing process theory to become more accessible to writers. Thomas Kent (1999) writes
in Post-Process Theory, “no codifiable or generalizable writing processes exists or could
exist. Post-process theorists hold—for all sorts of different reasons—that writing is a
practice that cannot be captured by a generalized process or a Big Theory” (p. 1). As
Kent (1999) reveals, post-process scholars view writing processes as different for each
writer, and the traditional stages of writing processes are mere tools. Many authors create
a piece of writing by using the stages of writing processes in a unique way. To sum up
post-process theory, Kent (1999) asserts, “Most post-process theorists hold three
assumptions about the act of writing: (1) writing is public; (2) writing is interpretive; and
(3) writing is situated” (p. 1). Post-process scholars still value writing process theory as a
foundation, but seek to make writing processes a discursive, dialogic and situated event.
The key difference between post-process and early writing process scholars is the
language used to describe the actions of writers. Since early writing process scholars
were setting the foundation of the writing process, they discussed the writing process as a
series of events. As shown in Figure 1, Flower and Hayes (1981) identified the fact that
writing can be discursive in their visual diagram of writing processes. However, when
early writing process scholars were discussing the writing process in a non-visual way i.e.
through words, they used terms such as “First, Second, Third” or “prewriting, writing,
rewriting” (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Murray, 1978). The terms early writing process
scholars used held connotations that suggested writing was a step-by-step process. While
the terms early writing process scholars used implied there existed a chronological order
to the writing process (such as “First, Second, Third;” “prewriting” “writing”
“rewriting”), these terms were needed because early writing process scholars needed
11
readers to identify what generally happens when a writer navigates through the writing
process as time passes. In essence, early writing process scholars generated a rhetorical
problem, not a theoretical problem. As Flower and Hayes (1981) diagram shows, early
writing process theoretically identified that the writing process are discursive; they
simply lacked the crucial foundation needed to discuss writing processes as dialogic in
the way post-process scholars later could. Murray (1972) even explicitly highlights the
dialogic nature of writing when he states, “[the writing process] is not a rigid lock-step
process, but most writers most of the time pass through these three stages” (p. 4). Murray
states that the writing process is not rigid, but yet even he used terms that implied that
writers go through the writing process in a sequential manner. Early writing process
scholars identified that the writing process is discursive and non-sequential in theory, but
they were like the writer at the beginning of a paper defining terms. Only later, through
post-process theory, could those terms be used as they were intended. This study seeks to
use the terms early writing process scholars so meticulously defined, but this study also
seeks to embrace post-process theory and recognize that writing is discursive.
Discussion of Writing Processes as Social-Rhetorical Events
Ideally, writing processes takes place over time, not in one sitting. Although
writing processes are valuable, give writers more autonomy, produce a better reflection of
the writer’s thoughts and a more refined finished product, writing processes may not
always be easily accessible. In other words, writing processes may not always be a period
in which “between drafts” one can “take lots of showers, hot showers…[talk] to [oneself]
and watch the water play against the gestures of [one’s hands]”—the periods in which
12
Sommers (2000) claims the ideas for drafting hit her most frequently (p. 283). As
Sommers notes, time is an essential resource for revision. In “How Writers Evaluate
Their Own Writing,” Susan Miller (1982) argues that writing processes cannot take place
in one sitting: “Treating one’s writing as a product to be judged while it remains open to
the possibility of revision may prevent completion or at least make improvement
impossible” (p. 181). When students are coerced to treat a draft as a finished product, the
“between drafts” phase of pondering whether or not the draft reflects one’s own
intentions is nonexistent. In order to treat drafts as drafts (or unfinished products that
need revision and editing—the two final stages of writing processes) time is a necessary
component, a component that allows readers to have that phenomenal idea strike them in
the shower. Time is needed for writing processes to take place because “A writer—at
once the composer and auditor of the work—may be prematurely judgmental if he or she
too willingly moves from imagined revisions to overall self-evaluation” (Miller, 1982, p.
181). Mike Rose (1980) in “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language”
argues that when writers are not given enough time to pursue writing processes, they
experience writers block since without writing processes writers put so much pressure on
themselves to create stellar first drafts. Besides having time to reflect, writing processes
also require feedback from readers.
Feedback is a critical component of writing processes. To gather feedback,
collaboration (by way of discussion or workshopping scripts) is necessary. In “The
Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference” Don Murray (1979) discusses
how his students collaborate with him to better their papers, a part of the process of
drafting and revising Composition teachers who value writing processes know so well.
13
Murray states he has a series of questions to ask students about their papers including:
“What did you learn from this piece of writing?” and “What do you intend to do in the
next draft?” (Murray, p. 68). While the conference may begin with these questions,
students “quickly…ask these questions of themselves” (Murray, p. 68). The conference
becomes a conversation, a question and answer series where writer and reader are
communicating. The reader gives insights. The writer must organize and articulate ideas
to communicate the crux or specifics of the paper to the reader. The conferences Murray
conducts with students highlight the notion that writing processes are also a collaborative
process in which writer and reader communicate. Ellen Lavelle and Nancy Zuercher
(2001) in “The Writing Approaches of University Students” argue that students are most
successful when provided with the inquisitive environment of writer-reader
communication Murray demonstrates. According to their research, student writers are
most successful when given “a high quality writing climate to include deep tasks,
emphasis on revision and meaning, scaffolding, modeling and integrating” all products of
collaboration with readers (p. 384). In other words, students work best in a socialrhetorical environment (as demonstrated by Murray). In Composition Studies, a socialrhetorical environment is one in which writers have access to readers and their feedback
throughout each stage in writing processes. Social-rhetorical theory asserts that writing
processes are not isolated processes.
The idea that writing is dependent on communicating with others is not new.
Kenneth Bruffee (1981) argues that writing is a collaborative process when he stated,
“writing is not an inherently private act but is a displaced social act” that writers perform
in private when not given access to readers (p. 745). In many composition classes across
the country writing is being redefined as interactive, and students collaborate with readers
to mirror the social-rhetorical situation of writing. According to James Reither (1985)
14
creating social-rhetorical situations mirrors more authentically how writing occurs
outside academia: “…writing and what writers do during writing cannot be artificially
separated from the social-rhetorical situations in which writing gets done, from the
conditions that enable writers to do what they do” (p. 621). The fact that writing is
inherently collaborative urges faculty to enable students to mirror what writing actually
is, because if the context of writing processes are not facilitated, writers cannot do “what
they do.” According to Marilyn Cooper (1986) in “The Ecology of Writing,” “we can
enable our students to see each other as real readers, not as stand-ins… Students learn
about how to deal with their readers… by developing the habits and skills involved in
finding readers and making use of their responses” (p. 372). Cooper (1986) highlights the
fact that when students communicate with readers, they not only learn how to integrate
feedback, they also learn how to communicate with readers: what questions to ask, how
to interpret responses, and how readers assess writing. During the social-rhetorical
writing processes the authentic atmosphere of writing is created, since students can
interact with readers, gather several perspectives on their work, and make decisions about
how to revise based on feedback. Research has long indicated that writing processes are
social processes.
There are some problems that arise when a writer is in isolation that simply don’t
occur when a writer is writing in a social context. Freedman’s (1983) study highlights the
importance of communicating with an audience. Freedman found that when writers were
given a rubric and put in isolation their performance in response to the rubric was
correlated with how they felt about the topic. For example, writers who felt they knew
little about the topic wrote little. Writers who thought the topic was uninteresting
struggled to create meaningful content. When writers are in isolation they are completely
reliant on their present knowledge and perspective. In contrast, when students are able to
15
communicate with other writers, they are able to tap into the insights and experiences of
others, generate new ideas and write meaningful content on a topic they previously found
uninteresting. Social-rhetorical theory argues that writers function best when given access
to written materials in their discourse community, given access to an audience, and able
to make revisions while communicating with that audience. However, sometimes
students don’t have the “between drafts” period and feedback acquired through
collaboration to reflect and improve upon past work (Sommers, 2000, p. 283). Sometimes
writing processes are rushed. Sometimes writing processes are isolated (even if this
isolationism overturns the very definition of writing processes). For example, in a timed
writing scenario, the ways in which students can engage with writing processes are
limited. In these instances, writing processes are not a social-rhetorical event.
16
Chapter 2
THE COMPLICATIONS OF TIMED WRITING EXAMS AND THE ALTERNATIVE
OF PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENTS
Decontextualization of Writing Processes
Have you ever been to the zoo and noticed the lion, so well-known for robust
strength, looks weak and emaciated? Or the nightingale, praised for its perpetual song, is
voiceless? The playful monkeys frighteningly bored? These animals are not in their
natural environments. What visitors may expect of their behaviors may be unwarranted
since animals in zoos are taken out of the savannas, the jungles, the forests to be placed in
cages with completely different habitats, including different temperatures, elevations and
communal relations. Their behaviors are unnatural because their environments are
unnatural. Marilyn Cooper (1986) drew an analogy between the field of Ecology and
Composition. Ecology is the science of studying natural environments. Writers have
natural environments. Greg Myers (1985) in his research on social construction observed
that “Like ecologists, we should not only observe and categorize the behavior of
individuals, we should also consider the evolution of this behavior in its ecological
context” (p. 240). As outlined above, the natural environment for writers includes one in
which there is time enough for a between drafts phase in which writers can reflect and
collaborate with readers. Everything outside this context is unnatural. A good example of
an unnatural ecological environment for writers is a timed writing assessment.
Collaboration is an essential component of writing processes. Without some sort
of collaboration with others (through texts, readers and writers) writing processes would
never occur: writing processes require collaboration. On a timed writing exam, students
are not able to collaborate with readers, even if collaboration is a ubiquitous part of
writing processes—this is the first element which makes timed writing assessment a zoo
17
for writers. Writers, who normally have access to readers and revise based on feedback,
are put in isolation. In a timed writing assessment, writers have no time in between drafts
to reflect upon their work and revise according to what their intentions are—this is the
second element which makes timed writing assessment a zoo for writers. In a timed
writing situation, writers are taken out of the natural environment of writing, of
collaboration, of feedback, of time for reflection, of process, and put in isolation with a
clock ticking away reminding them that thoughts which spring to them that evening will
be obsolete, anachronistic. It’s too late. What they wrote was product. Any thoughts that
come later are for process (their natural environment) not for zoos.
Through writing processes, writers reveal what they value in their work. Without
input from peers or faculty, writers can make uninformed decisions about what to include
in their drafts—sometimes crossing out information that ought to have been included, and
including information that ought to have been crossed out. To provide an example of how
student writing can be influenced by the decontextualization of writing processes, a
sample of student writing provided by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson, Jeff Sommers and Paul
Tasson (2000) in “Rhetoric and the Writer’s Profile: Problematizing Directed SelfPlacement” will be discussed. The student under the pseudonym of Bishop embarked on
writing processes in a timed writing scenario to help determine his placement in
university composition coursework. In the prewriting stage, Bishop used an exceptional
metaphor, stating: “I can’t begin to tell you the uneasiness I feel about [writing]. I
imagine you could compare it to a baseball player being up to bat with the bases loaded
in the bottom [crossout] of the ninth” (p. 176) The metaphor provides an effective image
to make Bishop’s experience as a writer more tangible, more communicable to readers.
However, Bishop oddly edits this smartly designed metaphor out of his final draft. The
readers almost unanimously agreed that he shouldn’t have crossed this metaphor out. But
18
Bishop, in the timed writing situation, did not have access to this feedback. The example
Bishop provides shows that when writers have access to readers, writers can make more
informed decisions as to what to include in their final draft. When writers don’t have
access to readers (i.e. are stuck in a writer’s zoo) the way students revise is sometimes
arbitrary or based on the whims of the writer and what he/she thinks the readers will
think. Such guesswork is not an accurate reflection of reality, since in writing situations
outside of timed writing exams, writers have access to readers.
Timed Writing Exams
Writing assessment theory and research is a relatively new field. Before the
1990s, writing theorists were scrambling to come up with theories in regards to writing
assessment. Few of the theories were subject to scrutiny before the 1990s. Once a
sufficient amount of theories were developed on writing assessment, researchers were
able to transition from creating theories to analyzing and critiquing theories (Huot, 2002).
In the beginning stages of writing assessment theory, multiple-choice exams were
prominent. However, Edward M. White (1990) found that multiple-choice exams
discriminate against under-represented minority students. White (1990) claims, “minority
essay performance showed that something was wrong with the multiple-choice test” (p.
188). Multiple-choice exams proved to unfairly discriminate against under-represented
minority students. Multiple-choice exams also lacked validity, because the exam did not
measure student’s writing performance. In fact, on multiple-choice exams there was no
actual writing. Writing theorists later claimed, ‘ “The multiple-choice tests…seem clearly
insufficient for measuring writing ability as we now understand it”’ (Huot, 2002, p. 41).
Writing theorists were dissatisfied with the multiple-choice exams because no actual
writing was done on the exams and the multiple-choice exams proved to discriminate
against under-represented minority students. Although multiple-choice writing exams are
19
still widely used, writing theorists also created a way of evaluating writing as a
contextualized process.
Writing theorists later aimed to actually assess writing rather than multiple-choice
questions and worked to highlight the complications of examining writing based off
multiple-choice questions. Writing assessment theorists and researchers became more
concerned with creating exams that did not discriminate against any group. In order to
ensure that the exam was scrutinized and held up to the highest standards of justice,
writing theorists also sought to create a test that reflected what was being taught in
Composition classrooms. Huot (1994) claims, “Constructing an agenda for writing
assessment as social action means connecting assessment to teaching, something people
like Edward White (1994) and Richard Lloyd-Jones (1977), among others, have been
advocating for nearly three decades” (p. 8). If composition teachers were not teaching
students how to answer multiple-choice exams, why were university-wide writing exams
judging student writing achievement based on whether or not students knew how to
skillfully select a, b, c, or d? Huot and other writing scholars began questioning
university-wide writing assessments because they saw a huge disconnect between what
composition teachers, theorists and researchers valued, and how universities were judging
writing skills. Granted, universities may not have honestly valued students abilities to
score high on multiple-choice exams (and subsequently viewed this achievement as good
writing), but a multiple-choice exam proved inexpensive enough for universities to
embrace this standardized, inaccurate measure of writing achievement (White, 1996, p.
9). Multiple-choice exams allowed universities to invest little in writing assessment; even
if the certifying exam was not accurate, it was inexpensive. The university-wide exams
lacked construct validity, but yet students were being placed into their writing curricula
based on the results of these tests that measured the wrong skills. Construct Validity “is
20
broadly defined as the extent to which an operationalization measures the concept it is
supposed to measure” (Bagozzi, 1993, p. 49). Construct validity is a critical component
of writing assessment because in order to be accurate, writing exams must measure
writing ability. Several issues were arising with university-wide writing assessments,
including under-represented minorities receiving disproportionately lower scores on the
assessment, and the assessment not actually testing what it intended to test. In an effort to
provide a more accurate and fair assessment, writing scholars moved from a multiplechoice exam to a timed writing scenario.
In a timed writing assessment, students are given an allotted amount of time to
write essays in response to prompts. Many teachers, however, remained resistant to the
assessment, because the timed exams conflicted with the curriculum students experienced
in Composition courses. White (1990) notes that teachers, students, researchers and
theorists alike were not advocates of the timed writing exam; students were using a
fundamentally different method of writing in Composition classrooms than on the timed
writing exams because they could not use the same methodologies in a timed writing
scenario. White (1990) argues that assessment is necessary and unavoidable, but the
university still has a responsibility to ensure that the university-wide writing assessment
is testing the same standards that teachers examine in university writing classrooms. Huot
(2002) cites one of the reasons why students and teachers are not advocates of the exam,
explaining, “Students and teachers have seldom recognized or been able to harness its
potential to improve teaching and learning” (p. 9). In essence, since testing itself does not
promote learning teachers struggle with seeing the purpose of the exam, while students
take the exams with disgruntlement and an understanding that they have to complete the
exam even if it is without any intrinsic rewards. Some teachers, theorists, students and
researchers, as Huot (2002) notes, have begun to dislike the exam, often viewing the
21
assessment as “a negative, disruptive feature” along a student’s academic path (p. 9).
Writing scholars and theorists began to take note of how students and teachers felt about
the exam, and started to envision ways to combine learning and assessment. If there were
a way to allow students to learn while they were being assessed, then the assessment
wouldn’t simply be a standardized measure for university administrators to place students
into the writing curriculum. While students and teachers griped that they didn’t learn
while taking the exam, there was another pressing problem: the timed-writing
assessment, like the multiple-choice writing assessment caused under-represented
minority students to receive disproportionately lower scores.
Timed-writing exams caused under-represented minority students to fall behind in
the writing curriculum, sometimes barring them from graduating altogether. Writing
theorists highlighted the need to produce an exam that didn’t disproportionately
negatively impact under-represented minority students. Huot (2002) claims “…it is time
we visited fully the impact of assessments upon under-represented minorities, so that
instead of adjusting test results, we could use tests that are fair to all” (p. 9). Huot
highlighted the importance of creating a timed writing exam in which students from highincome parents would not disproportionately receive higher scores (p. 9). The idea of a
test that is “fair to all” may seem like wishful thinking, but writing theorists began to
envision a new way to conduct writing assessment (Huot, 2002, p. 9). White (1996) notes
the importance of having a writing assessment that is “fair to all” when he outlines the
high-stakes results of these university-wide writing exams: “assessment helps determine
what programs are approved and offered, who receives opportunity, who gains power and
privilege, and who is successful” (p. 1). Writing assessments determine what writing
classes are offered at universities, who gets to enroll in those classes, how many writing
classes a student needs to take, how much extra tuition a student needs to pay to meet the
22
writing requirement, and indeed, as White (1996) claims, who is deemed “successful” at
that university. All of these high-stakes results caused writing theorists and researchers to
become inspired to create a writing assessment that was “as fair” as possible. Students
needed an exam that both allowed them to grow and learn as they completed the exam,
and allowed under-represented minority students to achieve high marks based on writing
standards; ultimately, a portfolio assessment achieves these tasks.
Portfolio Assessment
While many universities are still using timed writing assessments, Gordon
Brossell in “Current Research and Unanswered Questions in Writing Assessment,”
hypothesizes that the best way to increase reliability and validity for university-wide
writing assessments is to ensure that students respond to multiple prompts in varying
genres over a large span of time. Brossell states, “we know that for a valid test of writing
performance, multiple writing samples written on different occasions and in various
rhetorical modes are preferable to single samples drawn from an isolated writing
instance” (p. 179). According to Brossell, administrators and faculty need to review
several student writing samples that have been written in different genres and written in a
social-rhetorical environment in order to gather an accurate assessment of where a
student needs to be placed in the writing curriculum. Other Composition researchers and
scholars began to develop programs that were in agreement with Brossell’s philiosophy
on writing assessment. For example, Peter Elbow and Pat Belanoff, “used classroom
materials to create a writing assessment embodying Brosell’s description: multiple
writing samples written on different occasions and in various rhetorical modes. Or, a
portfolio” (Yancey, 1999, p. 492). Elbow and Belanoff designed a portfolio where
students could receive feedback, write in different genres and respond to multiple
prompts. In “Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment,”
23
Kathleen Yancey (1999) notes that, “this model with different genres and multiple texts
and classroom writing environment, seemed more valid still” (p. 492). In essence, the
portfolio writing assessment had more validity and reliability than timed writing exams.
Portfolio writing assessment can be completed within a semester and allows
students to gather feedback from teachers and peers. When students receive feedback,
they can then revise their work to produce a better next draft. Essentially, the process of
creating a portfolio allows students to go through writing processes while simultaneously
collecting feedback from teachers and peers in the form of comments, conversations and
readings. After students receive feedback, they can then add additional content, reorganize, take out unnecessary content, conduct more research to incorporate into their
argument and edit out errors of diction, syntax and grammar. Deborah H. Holdstein
(1996) in “Gender, Feminism, and Institution-Wide Assessment Programs” argues that a
portfolio “empowers both student and teacher-facilitator by its emphasis on individual
and collective judgment, judgment that is not quantifiable or at least not easily
quantifiable” (p. 216). A portfolio is a way to ensure that teachers are involved in the
process of certifying student writing skills within the university and ensuring that
students have access to those that are certifying them. A portfolio is also a more
“equitable” form of assessment, since students get to submit multiple samples of their
writing that span across different genres (Holdstein, p. 216). A portfolio allows students
to show various forms of their work, gather feedback and revise and edit based on that
feedback. The portfolio permitted students to work toward receiving a higher writing
score, rather than forcing them to write one or two essays within less than two hours. A
portfolio writing assessment proved promising, since it did indeed prove to be an
assessment that was at least more “fair to all” than a timed-writing assessment.
24
Chapter 3
THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE WRITING ASSESSMENT AT SACRAMENTO STATE
WPJ at Sacramento State
At California State University, Sacramento the Graduation Writing Assessment
Requirement (GWAR) is a “system-wide requirement” that is used for the purpose of
ensuring students’ writing proficiency “in an academic setting at an upper-division level”
(GWAR packet, 12). Once students reach junior standing and have completed ENG 20,
they must decide between the Writing Placement for Juniors (WPJ) or the ENG 109M or
ENG 109W class. The WPJ is a timed writing exam in which students have 60 minutes to
complete the first essay and 30 minutes to complete the second. On the WPJ, there are
several reasons why student engagement with writing processes are limited. As discussed
earlier, during writing processes students are given time between drafts to undergo
reflection, gather ideas, and collaborate with other writers and readers to create a rich
finished product. However, on the WPJ students have no time between drafts. Clearly due
to the time restraints, they must rush from one essay to the next. One student wrote in
Essay 2, “It’s hard to write a paper in fifteen minutes” suggesting that he/she indeed had
plenty of rushing to do and no time for a “between drafts” phase. The “between drafts”
step in writing processes are closely linked to feedback, since between each step in
writing processes students collaborate with readers. On the WPJ, several characteristics
of the exam including the inherent time constraint, make pursing writing processes
virtually impossible even for writers with awareness of writing as a process.
Writing Process Assessment Criteria on the WPJ
On the WPJ writing assessment there are several criteria that place students into a
writing course. The first four WPJ assessment criteria focus on writing elements that
must surface in the final draft. The first criterion states: “Identifies an issue arising from
25
the prompt and articulates its significance” (GWAR Packet). The writer must
demonstrate awareness of an issue evident from the prompt and show the importance of
the issue in the final draft. The second criterion states: “Advances an argument by
articulating the writer’s own position and at least two other positions” (GWAR Packet).
In the final draft, the writer must create an argument and refute two other counterarguments. The third criterion states: “Supports the argument by incorporating specific
details and examples from the texts provided and from the writer’s own experience”
(GWAR Packet). The writer must incorporate evidence from the prompt in the final draft
to show proper support. The fourth criterion states” “Demonstrates awareness of
academic audience expectations: provides attribution of sources; employs formal tone
and diction” (GWAR Packet). The fourth criterion shows that the writer has an awareness
of audience and can follow the reader’s standards and expectations. While all these
criteria are unique, they each relate to each other in that they focus on product writing.
The writer must show these elements in the final draft and cannot demonstrate these
elements in either discussing writing as a process or going through writing processes.
On the assessment criteria at Sacramento State, writing processes are included.
Two of six of the assessment criteria for Essay 1 and 2 on the WPJ focus explicitly on
writing processes: the last two. It is significant that the two that focus on writing
processes are positioned last on the rubric. This rubric is a hierarchy of values, and since
the criteria that value writing processes are on the bottom of the hierarchy, they are the
least valued criteria on the WPJ writing assessment. A WPJ assessment criterion on
writing processes requires writers to reflect on their own background:
“Provides evidence of awareness of writing as a process: demonstrates awareness
of or reflects critically on writer’s own literacy history and practices.”
26
This assessment criterion displays the value placed on students expressing “their world,
their language, and what they [have] to say about their world in their language” (Murray,
1979, p. 70). In sum, this criteria places emphasis on how students “react to their own
work” (Murray, 1979, p. 69). This component of writing processes are measured and
included in the WPJ score, highlighting the value Sacramento State places on the
components of process that require writers to critically reflect. While this assessment
criterion focuses (generally) on writing processes, another assessment criterion focuses
on a specific aspect of writing processes: editing.
Another criterion highlights another element of writing processes: editing (or
error deletion):
“Displays evidence of editing with adequate control of grammar and mechanics
appropriate to an early draft. Errors do not slow the reader, impede understanding, nor
seriously undermine the authority of the writer. Grammatical errors, inappropriate word
choice, or incorrect usage may occur throughout the essay but rarely interfere with
effective communication.”
According to Bartholomae (1980) in “The Study of Error” there are three types of errors:
“errors that are evidence of an intermediate system; errors that could truly be said to be
accidents, or slips of the pen as a writer’s mind rushes ahead faster than his hand; and,
finally errors of language transfer, or…dialect interference” (p. 262). In a classroom
setting with workshopping scripts all three types of errors can be deleted. However, in a
timed writing scenario students only can edit errors due to “accident.” Errors that are
evidence of an “intermediate system” or of “dialect interference” require the “between
drafts” phase(s) and the feedback components of writing processes in order to be fixed—
students have no input to even realize these types of errors are even seen as errors by
readers. Since only one type of error can be fixed in isolation, this WPJ writing
assessment criterion can only take into account “errors that could truly be said to be
accidents, or slips of the pen as a writer’s mind rushes ahead faster than his hand”—these
27
kinds of errors are only one third (as argued by Bartholomae) of the proofreading or
editing component of writing processes. Thus, even though Sacramento State scores the
editing component of writing processes, scorers’ ability to actually check students’
proofreading abilities is by nature limited.
The WPJ scorers are Sacramento State University professors that teach across the
disciplines. Each discipline has different writing standards, and professors from different
content-areas score the exam, but it is still possible for a student to have two readers that
are not in the writer’s field of study.
Portfolio Assessment at Sacramento State
If timed writing assessments provide a good example of how writers perform in a
zoo or in inauthentic writing situations, then portfolio provides a good example of how
writers perform in their habitat. The required contents in the English 109 portfolios at
Sacramento State reveal how as students work to complete the portfolio they perform in
an environment that accurately reflects real-world writing. For example, students must
produce “12 pages of revised, polished writing” (CSUS GWAR, 2011). The fact that
students can produce revised, polished writing reveals that “all the characteristics of any
individual writer or piece of writing both determine and are determined by the
characteristics of all the other writers and writings in the system” (Cooper, 1986, p. 368).
Students can receive feedback throughout the process of getting the materials of their
portfolio together, thereby making the process of making a portfolio one in which the
writer works with other “writers and writings in the system”—this makes the portfolio a
social-rhetorical event. This characteristic of the English 109 portfolio is stated more
explicitly in the requirement that students include “an early draft of each piece of writing
which shows instructor’s feedback, including written comments and/or a rubric marked
by the instructor” (CSUS GWAR, 2011). Since students receive instructor feedback and
28
collaborate with peers, emphasis is placed on producing the social-rhetorical environment
in which authentic writing takes place.
Directed Self-Placement at Sacramento State
At Sacramento State students can decide between taking the WPJ and English
109M or 109W, extending students’ ability to engage with writing processes as they
receive a placement score. Thus, students have the ability to either be in a writer’s zoo or
writer’s habitat. That is, students can decide to engage with writing processes while
having a between drafts phase in which they receive feedback (a writer’s habitat), or
students can decide to write in isolation with limited time (a writer’s zoo). In this way,
students who by chance can function in a writer’s zoo can do so, but those who cannot
function in inauthentic writing environments are not forced to perform in a zoo.
29
Chapter 4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, METHODOLOGY, FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Research Questions
As I began to learn about the nature of writing processes as a social-rhetorical
event, I started to hypothesize that writing in isolation in a timed writing setting (such as
the Sacramento State WPJ exam) did not allow students to complete all steps in writing
processes. In order to observe the difference between writing in isolation and writing with
feedback or in collaboration with others, I decided to collect and compare data on student
engagement with writing processes on the Sacramento State WPJ and the English 109
portfolios. The WPJ represents the situation in which writers perform in isolation and
with limited time (what I refer to as a writer’s zoo). In contrast, the portfolio represents
the situation in which writers perform with adequate time to reflect and work in
collaboration with peers and instructors or readers (what I refer to as a writer’s habitat).
My research questions are:
What steps in writing processes do students favor on a timed writing assessment
such as the WPJ? What steps in writing processes do students favor in a socialrhetorical assessment situation such as the English 109 portfolios?
My research questions seek to produce data on what steps in writing processes students
favor on the WPJ and the English 109 portfolios. Ultimately I wanted to compare the two
sets of data to analyze student engagement with writing processes in a writer’s zoo (with
limited time and isolation) versus a writer’s habitat (with adequate time and feedback
from readers). In other words, I wanted to compare student engagement with writing
processes on the WPJ and compare those results with how students engaged with writing
processes on the portfolio.
30
Data Collection on WPJ and English 109M/109W Portfolios
Writing processes are a fluid process that writers engage in over time. In a
university setting, writing processes essentially put “greater trust in students;” process
evokes the idea that students, in due time, with reflection and collaboration can work to
improve their own writing (Yagelski, 2006, p. 539). The entire writing process has been
traditionally broken down by early writing process scholars1 into the following steps:
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing. However, since writing processes aren’t a
discrete set of disconnected stages, scholars use the idea of steps for the sake of
convenience rather than as an exact summary of what occurs during writing processes.
Joseph Harris, for example, has critiqued the formalist idea of writing processes,
asserting that the steps are merely concepts: “Both versions [process and product] tend to
move backward, as it were from an ideal vision of the composition student: either the
mature individual of kind of humanist teaching or the expert practitioner of another more
technical sort” (Yagelski, 2006, p. 535). The idea of thinking of writing as a series of
steps may prove too technical an approach to actually define what occurs during writing
processes. As Yagelski (2006) states, problems arise when teachers internalize the notion
that writing processes “can be interpreted as resting on a conception of writing as a stepby-step process, compartmentalized and turned into a canned procedure for students to
follow” (p. 535). Teachers who view writing processes as standardized and generalizable
can limit the accessibility of writing processes. Yagelski (2006) argues, “As a result, the
radical potential of these ideas has rarely been realized in conventional educational
practice” (p. 535). I wanted to use the practical elements of early writing process
1
See Chapter One for a full discussion of the ways in which early writing process
scholars broke down the process.
31
scholars and simultaneously honor the interconnected view of writing processes
established by post-process scholars.
While collecting data means looking at sets of variables, this research sought to
view writing processes as a complex connected process. As such, while I needed to refer
to steps in order to collect data, I honored the recursive flow of writing processes by
allowing some stages to overlap. For example, a student may not have had an outline, but
may also have had a draft, which could’ve served both the function of prewriting and
revising—the student could’ve used the draft to come up with ideas, as well as to
reorganize, and rethink the content. The data collection process, though it references
writing process steps, was one in which writing processes was not treated as a rigid
technical approach to writing. The continuity and various purposes of different writing
acts were analyzed and used as data. The steps of writing processes, as Yagelski (2006)
claims, are recursive, because sometimes writers engage in the steps without any
pragmatic sequence. For example, re-thinking content, which is normally thought of as
part of the revision stage, could also be done simultaneously in the prewriting stage
where the writer actually generates content. Writing processes steps are defined for the
sake of convenience, but it’s important to remember that the steps are not actually
discrete, unconnected acts.
Any stage that served the purpose of any of the steps of writing processes was
used as data. For example, prewriting includes a host of strategies used to “generate and
clarify ideas” including brainstorming, clustering, freewriting and looping. However, any
writing that served the purpose or showed evidence that the writer generated ideas was
collected as data that suggested the student partook in prewriting. I collected data in this
way for all the steps of writing processes. If I saw a sign that a particular task in the
writing process was completed, I marked a tally under that task to show that step was
32
done. In order to gather data, I used quotes from various scholars that sum up the stages
in the writing process. If I saw evidence that a student writing act was reflected in a
scholarly quote on a stage or multiple stages in the writing process, I recorded that task.
The scholarly quotes I used to guide me in my data collection process for prewriting
include:
“What the writer hears in his or her head usually evolves into note-taking. This may be
simple brainstorming, the jotting down of random bits of information which may connect
themselves into a pattern later on, or it may be journal-writing, a written dialogue
between the writer and the subject” (Murray, 1978, p. 377)
-Don Murray taken from “Write Before Writing”
“Sometimes the writer not only talks to himself or herself, but to others—collaboratiors,
editors, teachers, friends—working out the piece of writing in oral language with
someone else who can enter into the process of discovery with the writer” (Murray, 1978,
p. 377)
-Don Murray taken from “Write Before Writing”
“Let the mind and pencil go until they fill a large-sized notebook page” (Macrorie, 1968,
p. 687)
-Ken Macrorie taken from “To Be Read”
“Students should underline (or indicate in the margin) any phrases or sentences they like
for content or expression, or both” (Macrorie, 1968, p. 687).
-Ken Macrorie taken from “To Be Read”
“Planning toward a goal is one of the most powerful of all problem-solving techniques
because it lets you factor large problems down to manageable size. When you write a
paper you are choosing among an immense number of possible things you could say…
you can streamline this decision process by shifting from focusing on your topic (what
you know) to focusing on your goal (what you want to do with what you know)” (Flower
and Hayes, 1977, p. 453).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
“The real problem you are working on here is not just getting ideas, but verbalizing them.
Your goal is to get your thinking down in words, phrases, sentences—fragments of
writing” (Flower and Hayes, 1977, p. 453)
33
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
“Brainstorming is a form of creative, goal-directed play. It has two rules: keep writing
and don’t try to censor or perfect as you go” (Flower and Hayes, 1977, p. 454).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
“Brainstorming is like “freewriting” in that it encourages you to follow where intuition
leads… freewriting is a form of free association, stream of consciousness expression—
one idea leads to another which leads to another, like links in a chain…Brainstorming, on
the other hand, is goal-directed thinking” (Flower and Hayes, 1977, p. 454).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
“People often come up with their best ideas and most powerful arguments when they are
caught up in a live discussion. You can give yourself this same advantage by staging your
own discussion… You can use this ability to help generate better ideas in words by
simulating the response of various readers or listeners: make them ask you questions
(basic questions and difficult ones), raise objections, or make their own interpretations”
(Flower and Hayes, 1977, p. 454).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
“Much of our creative thinking is done by analogies. When we see a partial resemblance
between two things… we acquire a whole new set of concepts to think with” (Flower and
Hayes, 1977, p. 455).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
“Planning… involves a number of sub-processes. The most obvious is the act of
generating ideas, which includes retrieving relevant information from long-term
memory… When the structure of ideas already in the writer’s memory is not adequately
adapted to the current rhetorical task, the sub-process of organization takes on the job of
helping the writer make meaning, that is, give a meaningful structure to his or her ideas”
(Flower and Hayes, 1981, p. 372).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “A Cognitive Process
Theory of Writing”
34
“Many writers know they are ready to write when they see a pattern in a subject”
(Murray, 1978, p. 380)
-Don Murray taken from “Write Before Writing”
“Another signal [for drafting] the writer looks for is a point of view. This can be an
opinion towards the subject or a position from which the writer—and the reader—studies
the subject” (Murray, 1978, p. 378).
-Don Murray taken from “Write Before Writing”
In sum, the quotes on prewriting highlight meaning-making or creating ideas that
will be included in the first draft. The Composition scholars highlight the characteristics
of meaning-making activities and oftentimes these activities are centered on generating
and organizing ideas.
The scholarly quotes I used to guide me in my data collection process for revising
include:
“Reviewing… may be a conscious process in which writers choose to read what they
have written either as a springboard to further translating or with an eye to systematically
evaluating or revising the text. These periods of planned reviewing frequently lead to new
cycles of planning” (Flower and Hayes, 1981, p. 374).
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “A Cognitive Process Theory of
Writing”
“Revision is not just clarifying meaning, it is discovering meaning and clarifying it while
it is being discovered. That makes revision a far more complicated process than is usually
thought—and a far simpler process at the same time” (Murray, 1972, p. 88).
-Don Murray taken from “Learning By Teaching”
“Soon [writer’s] do not revise to become correct, they revise to discover their individual
meaning, to hear their own voices making those meanings clear and to hear the reader’s
delight as an unexpected meaning is recognized as true” (Murray, 1972, p. 89).
-Don Murray taken from “Learning By Teaching”
35
“’Scratch out and do over again: “I say scratching out and do over, and that means what
it says. Scratching out and cutting out [words] to put another word in’ (Sommers, 1980,
p. 381).
-Nancy Sommers taken from “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and
Experienced Adult Writers”
‘Reviewing: Review every word and make sure every word is right. I see if I am
rambling; I see if I can put a better word in or leave one out’ (Sommers, 1980, p. 381).
-Nancy Sommers taken from “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and
Experienced Adult Writers”
‘Redoing: Redoing means cleaning up the paper and crossing out. It is looking at
something and saying, no that has to go, or no, that is not right’ (Sommers, 1980, p. 381).
-Nancy Sommers taken from “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and
Experienced Adult Writers”
‘Marking Out: I don’t use the word rewriting because I only write one draft and the
changes I make are on top of the draft. The changes that I make are usually just marking
out words and putting different ones in’ (Sommers, 1980, p. 381).
-Nancy Sommers taken from “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and
Experienced Adult Writers”
‘Slashing and Throwing Out: I throw things out and say they are not good. I like to
write… by inspiration, and I feel inspired when I don’t need to shash and throw much
out’ (Sommers, 1980, p. 381).
-Nancy Sommers taken from “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and
Experienced Adult Writers”
“Rest and Incubate: This can be an important part of the creative process if you do it well.
When you need to stop work do so only after you have formulated the next unsolved
problem before you. Let your unfinished business simmer actively in the back of your
mind and return to it from time to time. The corollary to using incubation well is that you
are prepared, whenever a new idea or connection comes to you…” (Flower and Hayes,
1977, p. 455)
-Linda Flower and John R. Hayes taken from “Problem-Solving Strategies and the
Writing Process”
36
“On the first revision, we emphasized organization and relevance. Quotations had to be
trimmed to manageable size, extraneous information had to be cut, paragraphs had to be
either divided or combined to achieve coherence” (O’Mealy and Register, 1984, p. 232).
-Joseph O’Mealy and James Register taken from “Editing/Drilling/Draft-Guiding:
A Threefold Approach to the Services of a Writing Workshop”
In short, the scholarly quotes on revising focus on rewriting or adding/deleting content
and reorganizing. The quotes on revising range in activities but all reveal that when
students revise, they are changing both content and organization.
The scholarly quotes I used to guide me in my data collection process for editing
include:
“We began [editing] by identifying the faults in sentence structure” (O’Mealy and
Register, 1984, p. 232).
-Joseph O’Mealy and James Register taken from “Editing/Drilling/Draft-Guiding:
A Threefold Approach to the Services of a Writing Workshop”
“We pointed out examples of run-on sentences in the first few pages, then… corrected
them… We emphasized smaller grammatical and stylistic points.” (O’Mealy and
Register, 1984, p. 232)
-Joseph O’Mealy and James Register taken from “Editing/Drilling/Draft-Guiding:
A Threefold Approach to the Services of a Writing Workshop”
“Consider word choice. Is he using “big” words? Is he using jargon?” Some examples of
editing include: “Replacing with simpler words. Using the dictionary to find the easier
words. Changing noun forms of verbs back to verb form. Consider sentence structure.
[Does the student consider if] the sentences are too long and involved? Breaking involved
sentences into two or more sentences? Putting main ideas into separate sentences?
Consider transition. Does the thought move easily from one point to another.” Does the
student consider “the need for expansion with more familiar material” (Drake, F. E.,
1950, p. 4).
-Francis E. Drake taken from “Developmental Writing”
“Now he himself searches for his inadequate grammatical usages, confusing sentences,
misspelled words, and faults in punctuation” (Drake, F. E., 1950, p. 4).
-Francis E. Drake taken from “Developmental Writing”
37
The quotes on editing focus on correcting diction, syntax, grammar and punctuation
errors. While the number of editing activities varies widely, all editing activities focus on
error eliminating activities. With these quotes functioning as definition for prewriting,
revising and editing, I began the analysis of the WPJ exam books and English 109
portfolios.
There are a number of limitations to my research. I only looked at WPJ booklets
and portfolios and I did not interview students or conduct questionnaires with students;
therefore, I cannot comment on student experiences, thoughts or views of each type of
exam. This limitation made it difficult to comment on elements of social-rhetorical theory
evident in writing processes as students experienced interactive characteristics of writing
processes while taking each time of writing assessment. Another limitation of my
research was the fact that I solely drew quotes from early writing process scholars to
define steps in the writing process; while this allowed my data to be quantifiable, I was
not able to accurately reflect the complexity of writing processes in my data collection
method.
I analyzed 60 WPJ exam books and 60 English 109 portfolios. I analyzed Essay 1
on the WPJ exams, from the beginning stages of writing processeses until the completion
of the essay. I also analyzed the evolution of one essay throughout writing processes in
the English 109 portfolios.
Before collecting the data, I hypothesized that on the WPJ students would favor
editing, while on the portfolio students would favor revision.
Findings
The numbers in the raw data chart and the graphs represent the number of times
students went through their writing and engaged in a particular step in writing processes.
38
For example, students engaged in revising 98 times on the portfolios. The number 98
does not represent the number of students (after all there are only 60 students). Instead,
98 represents the total number of times those students collectively engaged in revising.
As discussed in the literature review, students can engage in prewriting, revising and
editing multiple times throughout writing processes. If a student engaged in a step
multiple times, then I put multiple tallies under that step in the data.
Figure 2: Comparing WPJ Exam Booklets to Portfolios.
Editing
WPJ: number of tasks
completed
Revising
Portfolio: number of tasks
completed
Prewriting
0
50
100
150
Figure 1 shows the disparity between how many students engaged in various steps on
writing processes on the WPJ versus the portfolio. In the editing step of writing
processes, students show that they collectively engaged in an act of editing 40 times on
the WPJ; in contrast, on the portfolio students collectively engaged in editing a total
number of 76 times. In reviewing the graph, the data show that the difference in number
of edits between the WPJ and portfolio is 36. In essence, the pool of 60 students who
completed the portfolio completed 36 more revision tasks than the pool of 60 students
39
who took the WPJ. In the revising step of writing processes, students collectively
engaged in an act of revising 14 times on the WPJ; in comparison, on the portfolio
students collectively engaged in revising a total number of 98 times. The graph shows
that the difference in number of revisions between the WPJ and portfolio is 84.
Consequently, the pool of 60 students who completed the portfolio completed 84 more
revision tasks than the pool of 60 students who took the WPJ. Again, the graph displays
the difference between the number of prewriting tasks on the WPJ and portfolio. In the
prewriting step of writing processes, the pool of 60 students who took the WPJ
collectively completed a total of 17 prewriting tasks; on the portfolio exam, the pool of
60 students collectively completed a total of 96 prewriting tasks. The graph reveals the
difference in number of prewriting tasks on the portfolio versus the WPJ to be 79. In
other words, the students who took the portfolio writing exam collectively completed a
total number of 79 more prewriting tasks. In sum, Figure 1 shows the difference in
number between how many times each pool of students engaged in a particular step in
writing processes.
Figure 2 shows what steps in writing processes students favor on both the WPJ
and the portfolio. The blue represents the portfolio. As the graph shows students
completed more revising tasks than any other step in writing processes on the portfolio.
In total, students completed 98 revising tasks on the portfolio.
40
Figure 3: Observing Writing Tasks by Frequency.
120
100
80
60
Portfolio: number of tasks
completed
40
WPJ: number of tasks
completed
20
0
Prewriting
Revising
Editing
Second to revising, students completed 96 prewriting tasks on the portfolio. The graph
shows that students did not favor revising by much (only 2 tasks), and revising and
prewriting were both favored by students in comparison to editing. On the portfolio,
students completed 76 editing tasks. The graph shows a clear decline between revising
and editing. In essence, students favored revising, while prewriting was a close second,
and editing a distant third. In addition, Figure 2 shows the steps in writing processes
students favored on the WPJ. The most favored step in writing processes on the WPJ was
editing. Students completed a total number of 40 editing tasks on the WPJ. Next, students
favored prewriting as a step in writing processes, completing a total of 17 prewriting
tasks. Figure 2 shows the steep incline in the number of tasks completed between
prewriting and editing tasks on the WPJ: students by far favored editing. The difference
between editing and prewriting tasks completed amounts to 23. In sum, there was a 42 %
drop in the number of times students completed prewriting compared with the number of
41
times students completed editing. The same applies to revising: Figure 2 shows a steep
incline between the number of revising tasks students completed on the WPJ and the
number of editing tasks students completed. Students completed a total number of 14
revising tasks on the WPJ, a sharp difference between the total number of editing tasks
completed. Figure 2 gives a clear synopsis that students favored editing the least on the
portfolio writing exam and favored editing the most on the WPJ.
The data show that on the portfolio 60 students completed 96 prewriting tasks, 98
revising tasks and 76 editing tasks. On the WPJ, 60 students completed 17 prewriting
tasks, 14 revising tasks and 40 editing tasks. Figure 1 shows a visual representation of the
Raw Data. Figure 2 shows a trend in the number of times students engaged in editing on
the WPJ and the Portfolio and also shows a visual representation of the Raw Data.
Analysis
WPJ
I reviewed 60 WPJ student booklets. On the WPJ, students overwhelmingly
favored editing as a step in writing processes. Students completed 40 editing tasks on the
WPJ. In comparison, students only completed 17 prewriting tasks and 14 revising tasks
on the WPJ. Sometimes editing was the only step in writing processes students partook
in. The second most favored step in writing processes on the WPJ was prewriting. In
total, 17 prewriting tasks were completed. Oftentimes students used a separate sheet of
paper for prewriting. The least most favored step in writing processes on the WPJ was
revision. Only 14 revision tasks were completed. On the WPJ, revising was the least
favored step in writing processes.
42
Portfolio
Alongside the WPJ booklets, I also analyzed portfolios to see which steps in
writing processes were favored. I reviewed 60 portfolios. On the portfolios revision was
the most favored step in writing processes. There were 98 occurrences of revision on the
portfolios; therefore, many students engaged in revision multiple times in the writing of
one essay. Likewise, students also engaged in prewriting multiple times during the
process of completing one essay. There were 96 occurrences of prewriting; consequently,
many students engaged in prewriting multiple times on the portfolio writing assessment.
Prewriting was the second most favored step in writing processes on the portfolios.
Editing was the least favored step in writing processes on the portfolios. There were 76
occurrences of editing tasks completed, which shows that most students engaged in
editing at least once throughout writing processes.
Comparison
Revising was the most favored step in writing processes on the portfolios. Figure
1 reveals a striking difference between how many revising tasks were completed on the
WPJ (14) and how many revising tasks were completed on the portfolios (98). There
were in total 84 more revising tasks completed on the portfolio than on the WPJ.
Revising proves to be the category in writing processes that signifies the most prominent
difference between the portfolio and WPJ. There is also a sharp difference in the number
of prewriting tasks completed on the portfolios and on the WPJ. Figures 1 and 2 show
that students completed far more prewriting tasks on the portfolios (96) than on the WPJ
(17). In total, there were 79 more prewriting tasks completed on the portfolios than on the
43
WPJ writing exams. Lastly, editing proved to be the category in writing processes with
the smallest difference between the WPJ writing exams and portfolios. There were 76
editing tasks completed on the portfolios and 40 editing tasks completed on the WPJ
writing exams. There were 36 more editing tasks completed on the portfolios than on the
WPJ. In sum, students completed more tasks in all categories of writing processes on the
portfolios. There is a fundamental difference between the portfolios and WPJ writing
exam. In a social setting, students complete more tasks in writing processes than in an
isolated setting.
In the timed writing environment (WPJ) students completed fewer writing
processes tasks than in a writing environment where feedback was readily available
(portfolio). Clearly, some aspect of completing a portfolio encouraged students to engage
in writing processes. The data show that the portfolio is more conducive to writing
processes and is more likely to encourage students to complete multiple tasks in writing
processes than the WPJ is. In contrast to the portfolio, the isolation of the WPJ exam did
not encourage students to engage in writing processes. As the data reveals, many students
who took the WPJ failed to complete as many steps in writing processes as students
completed on the portfolio. In order to gather an understanding of why students engaged
in all steps of writing processes and often did so multiple times on the portfolios and
didn’t engage in writing processes tasks multiple times (or at all) on the WPJ, I will first
look to what is different about these two types of writing assessments.
44
Feedback Versus Isolation
As discussed earlier, the portfolio setting gives writers access to readers, feedback
and the time needed to reflect on the feedback and engage with writing processes. On the
WPJ, students are not allowed access to readers and to feedback and are only allotted a
short duration to complete the entire exam. If these differences on these two forms of
writing assessments are analyzed through a social-rhetorical theory lens, the WPJ could
be described as an isolated environment, while the portfolio could be described as a
collaborative environment. On the WPJ, students are forced to imagine an audience. On
the portfolio writing assessment, writers interact with a real audience. I am defining “real
audience” as it is often defined in the literature of writing processes and social rhetorical
theory—an audience that can respond through feedback. An imagined audience is one a
writer never has contact with—writers can only “imagine” what an “imagined” audience
would say as feedback (Mezo, 2009; Ede & Lunsford, 1984). The data shows that there is
some difference between what happens when writers are absolutely isolated and must
imagine an audience and when writers are in a collaborative environment and can interact
with a real audience. When writers are isolated in a writing assessment, prewriting and
revising are the least favored steps in writing processes. When writers are in a
collaborative environment for a writing assessment, prewriting and revising are the most
favored steps in writing processes.
Analysis of the WPJ and portfolio suggest that environments influence writers.
When the environment is alive and active, other writers influence all acts of an individual
writer in the same system or discourse community. When a writer is isolated, the writer
45
cannot be influenced by the system in any way, because the environment is unchanging,
inactive, and dead. On a timed writing exam, students are not able to research articles,
books, and other materials, read those articles and respond in a meaningful way that
contributes to the entire momentum and trajectory of a particular discourse community.
Students are also entirely choked from discussions with anyone within their peer group or
any instructor that can provide feedback. On a portfolio exam, students are able to
interact with all elements that comprise a discourse community, including texts, peers,
teachers, researchers and theorists. An important differentiation between a timed writing
exam and portfolio is the way real time impacts writers on each type of exam. In real
time, discussion occurs, ideas sprout, research occurs, and students are able to interact
with their audiences. The portfolio is the writing assessment that allows students to
interact with a responding, changing, dynamic audience that provides feedback in real
time, and in contrast, a timed writing assessment has a stagnant “imagined” audience that
only responds weeks later with a dreaded score.
46
Chapter 5
RESULTS: THE IMPACT OF WRITING ENVIRONMENT ON WRITING
ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES
Conclusions
Social-rhetorical theory and writing processes theory are closely connected in that
both theories highlight that writing is a social act. In social-rhetorical theory, writing
processes theory and post-writing processes theory, an ideal writing environment is one
where writers have access to a real audience. James Reither (1985) highlights the role of
a real audience in “Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining Writing Processes” when
he states, “We need to extend our understanding of the process of writing so that it will
include not only experience and memory-probing activities, but also inquiry strategies
and techniques that will enable students to search beyond their limited present experience
and knowledge” (p. 624). To search beyond one’s own experience, a writer needs the
perspective of another. By giving students contact with peers, teachers and other potential
audience members, students are able to construct a new idea or add a new revision to
their writing. A portfolio writing assessment gives students access to readers, while the
WPJ isolates students from readers. If feedback from readers is what prompts writers to
prewrite and revise (the two stages dedicated to constructing and organizing ideas) then
the assessment that requires feedback will prove to encourage students to complete more
prewriting and revising tasks. The data reveals that the portfolio writing assessment
encourages students to engage in prewriting and revising tasks more often. The data also
reveals that the assessment (portfolio) that requires feedback from readers is the same
47
assessment where students engage in far more prewriting and revising tasks and even
more editing tasks. Thus, the data implies that a writing assessment that gives writers
contact with readers throughout several drafts allows students to prewrite and revise
multiple times. In contrast, a writing assessment that isolates writers from readers will be
a writing assessment that does not allow students to engage in the steps of writing
processes multiple times and discourages some students from engaging in particular steps
of writing processes at all.
The portfolio and WPJ comparison reveals that writers not only imagine
audiences, but more significantly, writers communicate with audiences and rely on
feedback throughout writing processes. Writers adapt their writing based on feedback
from audiences. Thus, the ecology or environment of a writer is a critical component of
how writers navigate through writing processes. On the portfolio, rather than having an
abstract or imagined audience, writers have access to real readers, ones that can provide
insightful discussion. For example, on an assignment where a student had to interview a
professional about his career, a reader asked a problem-posing question- “how does he
use writing to communicate with clients?” The student subsequently answered the
question in the cover letter, noting that the professional had to develop content for his
website and thus writing was a critical component of his career. On the WPJ, writers are
isolated and have no input from readers, discussion with readers, their feedback and texts
that the audience produces. Without feedback and problem-posing questions, writers
can’t respond with an awareness of what an audience is thinking and requesting. The
portfolio setting is analogous to a natural environment, an environment that is alive,
48
changing and responds. The WPJ is a dead, unchanging environment similar to a zoo—
where an animal is taken out of its natural environment into a confined space.
Writers have natural environments and unnatural ones. A writing assessment can
honor the environment in which writing occurs by contextualizing writing processes.
According to Kenneth Bruffee (1981) in “Collaborative Learning” a natural writing
environment will “help students test the quality and value of what they know by trying to
make sense out of it to other people like themselves—their peers” (p. 745). A student
working to complete the portfolio writing assessment gets feedback from peers and can
make adjustments to his/her next draft accordingly. Without any feedback, as Bruffee’s
logic hints, students cannot “make sense out of” their ideas and drafts. When students
don’t receive feedback from their environments, they don’t adjust to their environment,
their audience—how could they? Just as the field of ecology recognizes that animals have
a relationship with their environment, Composition Studies recognizes that writers have a
relationship with their environments; more specifically, as the data show, writing
assessment environments skew assessment results. Cooper (1986) notes, “an important
characteristic of ecological systems is that they are inherently dynamic” (p. 368).
Systems, their content and organizational patterns are always changing; they are in real
time and at any given moment they can look unrecognizable from the moment past. R.C.
Lewontin (1984) describes (as cited in Cooper, 2007) the dynamic attributes of an
environment:
49
…all organisms—but especially human beings—are not simply the results but are also the causes
of their own environments…. While it may be true that at some instant the environment poses a
problem or challenge to the organism, in the process of response to that challenge the organism
alters the term of its relation to the outer world and recreates the relevant aspects of that world.
The relation between organism and environment is not simply one of interaction of internal and
external factors, but of a dialectical development of organism and milieu in response to each other
(p. 275).
As Lewontin describes, humans respond to their outer world. Throughout writing
processes peers and teachers challenge a writers ideas, content and organization through
feedback, and just as organisms do in ecology, writers respond to those challenges. A
writer responds to feedback by reflecting on the feedback received or the “challenge”
received and “alters” some aspect of their writing through another outline, freewrite or
draft. Without the inputs that an environment provides, writers have little incentive to
change aspects of their writing. Animals in a zoo also have little incentive to adapt—
there are no inputs, no dangerous predators lurking that an animal must learn to respond
to. Since the WPJ takes writers out of a natural writing environment where writers
receive feedback, the WPJ provides little incentive or encouragement for writers to
engage in the steps of writing processes multiple times or at all. The data shows that very
few tasks of writing processes are completed when writers are in an enclosed
environment, cut off from feedback. The portfolio writing assessment needs to be an
option for students who prefer to work in a contextualized writing environment where
feedback is readily available.
50
Discussion
In ecology, innate animal behavior is not studied in a zoo. To gain an
understanding of how animals behave, researchers venture out to the animal’s habitat and
then make their observations and analysis. To study animal behavior in a zoo and then
consider that behavior innate would mean obtaining inaccurate results. Why is it that in
university settings writers are observed and analyzed in unnatural settings? The data in
this research shows that writing processes are a social-rhetorical process. Writing is an
inherently dynamic system of reader-writer communication and “the systems are entirely
interwoven in their effects and manner of operation” (Cooper, p. 369). Part of that system
involves interacting with readers, getting feedback, reflecting on each stage to improve
the next. When writers have access to writing as a dynamic system, writers can engage in
all steps of writing processes thoroughly and in a way that reflects their true writing
ability. The portfolio serves as an example of an assessment that allows writers to engage
in writing processes within the broader context of writing as a dynamic system. In
contrast, the timed writing situations decontexualize writing processes and coerce writers
to produce in the unnatural setting of isolation and time constraints. To judge writers in
this setting would mean to get inaccurate results. As shown by the data, without a socialrhetorical atmosphere, students favor certain elements of writing processes over others
and present product without any feedback from readers during process.
If writing is a social-rhetorical process, then writers should be able to perform in a
collaborative setting or the natural habitat of all writers, a contextualized environment
where feedback is available (portfolio). In the WPJ at Sacramento State, students are
51
being placed into writing curriculum based on how they perform in isolation. This system
condones writers to perform in a zoo by accepting the WPJ as a valid form of assessment.
Some by stroke of luck can perform in a zoo. But what if one can’t? The research shows
that the portfolio at Sacramento State is critical. Without portfolio, writing administrators
would have to place students based off inaccurate results, or how writers perform in a
zoo. To implement best practices, students must perform on a portfolio, because writers
need to be assessed in a valid and reliable way that reflects environments with real
audiences. Writers must be assessed on how they perform in their natural habitat.
Recommendations for Future Research
There needs to be more research that evaluates the idea that writing is constituted
by ever-changing social systems that provide feedback, analysis and consist of discourse
communities. Another study could use the same methodology to provide further results
on the findings outlined in this article. Research needs to be done at other universities and
in other settings to ensure external validity. Beyond validating results found in this study,
researchers could also involve student and teacher questionnaires into the methodology to
capture the needs, thoughts and experiences of participants. How do they view isolated
exams versus assessments that are completed in a social context? Interviews would be
specifically helpful in gathering data on the participant’s experiences when taking each
type of writing assessment-social and isolated. Researchers could also conduct more
quantitative research using a different methodology. Perhaps researchers can pick one
step in writing processes to examine on an isolated writing assessment and a socially
contextualized writing assessment. How does that one step differ on each exam? If
researchers examined prewriting on both types of exams, for example, they could analyze
how many ideas carried over from each draft to the next. How many new ideas were
incorporated later on that were not found in the prewriting drafts?
52
The idea that writing is a social event is not new, but this idea needs to be applied
to the field of writing assessment. In order to provide the most valid and reliable
assessments, researchers need to analyze how students navigate through writing
processes in a social context and in an isolated context.
53
Works Cited
Bagozzi, R. P. Assessing construct validity in personality research: applications to
measures of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49-87.
Bartholomae, D. (1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication,
31, 253-69.
Blyer, N. (1999). Research in professional communication: a post-process perspective. In
Kent, T. (Ed.) Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm (6580). Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
Brossell, Gordon. (1986). "Current research and unanswered questions in writing
assessment." In Greenberg, K, Wiener, H. and Donovan, R (Eds.) Writing
Assessment: Issues and Strategies. New York: Longman.
Bruffee, K. (1981). Collaborative learning. College English, 43, 745-46.
Cooper, M. M. (1986). The ecology of writing. College English 48(4), 364-375.
Couture, B. (1999). Modeling and emulating: rethinking agency in the writing process. In
Kent, T. (Ed.) Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm (3048). Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
Drake, F. E. (1950). Developmental writing. College Composition and Communication,
1(4), 3-6.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-87.
Freedman, S. W. (1983). Characteristics and essay test writing performance. Research in
the Teaching of English, 17(4), 313-325.
54
CSUS GWAR Workshop packet.
http://www.asn.csus.edu/writing/gewritingrequirements/GWAR_Workshop_Pack
et.pdf.
[CSUS WPJ exam books]: Unpublished raw data.
[CSUS English 109 Portfolios]: Unpublished raw data.
Huot, B. (2002). Writing assessment as a field of study. In Huot, B. (Ed.),
(Re)articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning (1-58). Utah: Utah
State University Press.
Holdstein, D. H. (1996). Gender, feminism, and institution-wide assessment programs. In
White, E.M, Lutz, W. D., Kamusikiri, S. (Eds.), Assessment of writing: politics,
policies and practices (p. 9-24). New York: The Modern Language Association.
Kent, T. (1999). Introduction. In Post-process theory: beyond the writing process (1-6).
Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
Lavelle, E. & Zuercher, N. (2001). The writing approaches of university students.
Higher Education, 42(3), 373-391. Retrieved from JStor.
Larson, R. L. (2012) The composing process of twelfth graders by Janet Emig. The
English Journal, 62(1), 137-9.
Lewiecki-Wilson, C., Sommers, J., Tassoni, J. P. (2000). Rhetoric and the writer’s profile
problematizing directed self-placement. Assessing Writing, 7(2000), 165-83.
Mezo, R. (2009) A note on audience. Rhetoric Review, 28(1), 88-90. Doi: 10.1080/07
35019802540799
55
Miller, S. (1982). How writer’s evaluate their own writing. College Composition and
Communication, 33(2), 176-83.
Murray, D. M. (1979). “The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference.”
College English, 41, 13-18. Rpt. In The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook. Ed.
Edward P.J. Corbett, Nancy Myers and Gary Tate. New York: Oxford U P, 2000.
66-71. Print.
Murray, D. M. (1978). Write before writing. College Composition and Communication,
29(4), 375-381.
Murray, D. M. (1972). “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.” The Leaflet, 1114. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. 30 Jan. 2012
Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Written
Communication, 2, 219-45.
Olson, G. A. (1999). Toward a post-process composition: abandoning the rhetoric of
assertion. In Kent, T. (Ed.) Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process
Paradigm (7-15). Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
O’Mealy, J. & Register, J. (1984). Editing/drilling/draft-guiding: a threefold approach to
the services of a writing workshop. College Composition and Communication,
35(2), 230-233.
The University of Kansas. (KU). (2011). http://www.writing.ku.edu/guides/
Reither, J. A. (1985). Writing and knowing: toward redefining the writing process.
College English 47, 620-28.
56
Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: a cognitivist
analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 389401.
Russell, D. (1999). Activity Theory and Process Approaches: Writing (Power) in School
and Society. In Kent, T. (Ed.) Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process
Paradigm (80-95). Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
Sommers, N. (2000). Between the drafts. In Corbett, E.PJ., Myers, N. and Tate, G. (Eds.),
The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook (p. 270-285). New York: Oxford University
Press.
White, E. M. (1990). Language and reality in writing assessment. College Composition
and Communication, 41 (2): 187-200.
White, E. M. (1996). Power and agenda setting in writing assessment. In White, E.M,
Lutz, W. D., Kamusikiri, S. (Eds.), Assessment of writing: politics, policies and
practices (p. 9-24). New York: The Modern Language Association.
Yagelski, R. P. (2006). ‘“Radical to many in the education establishment:” the writing
process movement after the hurricanes.” College English, 68(5), 531-44.
Yancey, K. B. (1999). “Looking back as we look forward: historicizing writing
assessment.” College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 483-503.