Transcript 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)
• 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)
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)
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
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
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).
Tutor, Tutee, Instructor Perceptions
• Terese Thonus, “ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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?