1 / 12

Writing Center Assessment as Reflective Practice

Writing Center Assessment as Reflective Practice. A (very) brief history, 1981-2009. Mary Lamb, “Evaluation Procedures for Writing Centers: Defining Ourselves Through Accountability (1981).

macy
Download Presentation

Writing Center Assessment as Reflective Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Writing Center Assessment as Reflective Practice A (very) brief history, 1981-2009

  2. Mary Lamb, “Evaluation Procedures for Writing Centers: Defining Ourselves Through Accountability (1981) • Six varieties of writing center evaluation to date: basic statistics, questionnaires, pre- and post-tests, follow-up on students’ grades, external evaluators, and publication or professional activities of staff • “Most centers must settle for strong indications rather than absolute proof that they are fulfilling their responsibilities .”(71)

  3. Stephen North, “Writing Center Research: Testing Our Assumptions” (1984) • Surveys as primary means of evaluation: number of students seen, number of hours tutored, reaction of students to center, reaction of teachers to center • “There is not a single published study of what happens in writing tutorials.” (28) • “By 1995 we will either have some answers—or we won’t be around to need them.” (33)

  4. Neal Lerner: The Idea of Beans • “Counting Beans and Making Beans Count” (WLN 1997) --“In the short term, our institutional survival is often dependent upon straightforward numbers. As I have shown, the methods to produce these numbers can be equally simple” (4). --Summative assessment: an external and sanctioning audience

  5. Neal Lerner: Revisiting the Idea of Beans • “Choosing Beans Wisely” (WLN 2001) --“Studying the writing center’s contribution to the development of student’s writing processes is a relatively untapped area—and a focus on processes rather than products surely represents the goals and values of our field.” (4) --Formative assessment: an internal and disciplinary audience

  6. Hard Questions/Local Response • James Bell, “When Hard Questions Are Asked: Evaluating Writing Centers” (WCJ 2000) --“Writing centers should conduct more sophisticated evaluations. Writing Centers should turn to educational program evaluation and select general types of evaluations most appropriate for writing centers.” (7) --”There cannot be a single evaluation design for writing centers” (24).

  7. Tutor, Tutee, Instructor Perceptions • TereseThonus, “ Triangulation in the Writing Center: Tutor, Tutee, and Instructor Perceptions of the Tutor’s Role” (WCJ 2001) “While the results of this study break no new ground, they corroborate anecdotal observations by writing center personnel and researchers that the tutor’s role must be redefined and renegotiated in each interaction.” (77)

  8. How Was Your Session? • Julie Bauer Morrison & Jean-Paul Nadeau, “How Was Your Session at the Writing Center? Pre-and Post-Grade Student Evaluations” (WCJ 2003) • “Our research confirms the difficulty of effectively conveying to students what to expect from a visit to the writing center.” • “Another way to think about this issue is to consider that some dissatisfaction isn’t necessarily a bad thing.” (37)

  9. Assessing the Writing Center: Lerner & Mayland (2008) • Neal Lerner (MIT) and Jason Mayland (Lansing CC) in conversation w/Jill Pennington (http://writing.wisc.edu/podcasts) • we can’t make changes to improve without knowing what we are doing (Lerner) • writing centers need to make efforts to control the terms of institutional assessment (Lerner) • conflating correlation and causation should be resisted in writing center assessment (Mayland)

  10. Formative Study/Summative Result • Isabelle Thompson et al, “ Examining Our Lore: A Survey of Students’ and Tutors’ Satisfaction with Writing Center Conferences” (WCJ 2009) • “Although much writing center lore is useful and has been empirically validated, especially the importance of students’ comfort, the mandates upholding equal roles for tutors and students need to be cast into our discard bin.” (101)

  11. New Directions? • Harry Denny & Lori Salem, “New Directions in Writing Center Assessment” (IWCA Summer Institute podcast: http://writing.wisc.edu) • Focus group assessment: 6-8 clients, faculty, consultants • Questions grounded in consultants’ concerns • Revisiting student satisfaction surveys: what does a positive response tell us? Should “happiness” be our primary concern?

  12. Denny/Salem: Principles to Guide Writing Center Assessment (2009) • Good assessment demands clear goals and a sense of audience(s) • Assessment should be in line with institutional values and goals • We can be pro-active rather than threatened by assessment • Assessment has rhetorical dimensions: how do we communicate results, with what intention?

More Related