Reflection 9: Meaning Making and Test Taking
I agree with Swenson et al. in their article, “Extending the Conversation: New Technologies, New Literacies, and English Education,” that the main purpose of writing (in any forum) is to make meaning. I also agree that our current model for assessing writing doesn’t promote teaching writing with this goal in mind. They write: “In an era of growing concern about student writing scores on standardized tests, we are also seeing large numbers of teachers and schools revert from more progressive pedagogies to reductionistic approaches that suggest that students need to master only a few steps to become successful writers (6+1 Writing Traits [2003], for instance)” (2006, p. 8). The “reductionistic” strategies do suggest that form is more important than content in writing. Likewise, I think that most writing teachers are dismayed by the current trends in writing instruction and are also well aware that content should come first; however, it is extremely difficult to focus on content in a time-constrained writing situation. How we assess students guides how we teach students. I am doing my students a serious disservice if I don’t give them a formula that will work when they go into a high-stakes, timed writing assessment. Therefore, as much as I would like to incorporate new literacies and more diverse composition assignments, I have limited time and my focus has to be on preparing students for the GHSWT. Don’t get me wrong—I do give students opportunities to engage in new literacies (I have a class blog, we do a multi-modal project, and students can choose from a variety of literacies in order to present their parallel novels), but when it comes to writing traditional text (an essay) my pedagogy definitely follows a set form.
I also worry, like Swenson et al., “that such formulaic conceptions of writing, instruction, and texts encourage students not to think critically, innovatively, or well, even as they reinforce the positivist impression that Truth can be known and communicated if writers only train themselves to think and write in a clear, linear, and orderly fashion” (2006, p. 9). But I don’t know how to reconcile the conflict between what I know are good writing practices and what I know are good test-taking practices. It takes me a long time to write a paper when my focus is to make meaning because writing is recursive and because I discover meaning as I go. If I tried to write for meaning in a timed-writing assessment, I would probably stare at a blank piece of paper for most of the test. I suspect that this is true for most of my students as well. Therefore, I use a set form that helps me create something that I know will earn a passing grade. I give my students a set form because I want them to get a passing grade as well. I guess my point is that there is always going to be resistance to new literacies and progressive pedagogies in composition classrooms as long as we are only testing students on their ability to write a traditional essay…especially when the focus is their ability to do it within a ninety-minute block of time. High school English teachers are expected not only to teach students how to read and critically analyze myriad texts, but also to teach students how to compose myriad texts of their own. In spite of this, the focus, naturally, is going to be on the kinds of texts that students (and teachers and schools) are going to be held accountable for. Change in the current climate, I am afraid, can only occur from the top down. I welcome disagreement, however, because I would like to know what kinds of things (other than what I am already doing with different kinds of marginal assignments) I can do to change the direction of composition instruction from the bottom up. Does anyone have any suggestions?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
We’ve talked about this issue a lot in the last week, but I think that the problem is ultimately the test. College writing professors tend to think that high school teachers are trying to give students a “magic formula” and “rigid rules” for their writing, which (in their opinion) kills their ability to write well and creatively. From our side, we have to prepare our students to pass the HSGT, so we have to prepare them, often by giving them formulae and rules. If we only had to prepare them for freshman composition in college, we may teach differently than we do now. I find myself in an interesting position as a 12th grade teacher because most of my students have already taken the HSGT (I’ll take that back—ALL of them have taken it—SOME of them have passed it) so I am in a position to “prepare them” for college writing, but I feel like I have so much to do just meeting the county’s standards for literature, technology, and writing that I don’t have enough time to “re-teach” them how to write for college. It’s almost as though I give them some tips, work with them the best that I can, and cross my fingers that they don’t fail freshman comp!