|
||||||
| OVERVIEW | ||||||
| Human thought is most commonly assessed
by its most common manifestation—writing. In the academy we depend especially upon
writing as a means of assessing, encouraging, and grading student thought. How well a
student writes, then, is a critical mirror not only of student performance, but also the
academy’s quality of instruction and scholarship. If a student has quality thought
and is unable to manifest that thought in writing, we have no proper means to assess that
thought. If this mirror reflects poorly, so does its thought. While there are accomplished wordsmiths in all fields and disciplines, many have trouble translating their tacit knowledge about writing effectively into explicit knowledge about writing. Many are like the dancer who dances well, but stumbles when attempting to illustrate individual steps. We must nevertheless make explicit what to many is tacit. As an art, writing is sensitive to unreasonable dissection. Yet, we must seek to clarify, to make explicit, the nature of quality writing. If we do not, we can neither depend upon student writing to assess thought nor fulfill our duty as translators and creators of thought. |
In the academy, quality writing is
characterized by two essential elements—
Quality writing is our best tool for assessing, encouraging, and grading student thought. We must, therefore, make explicit what we mean by "quality writing." To effect this understanding for the wordsmith and amateur alike, Drs. T. A. Flateby and E. A. Metzger developed the Cognitive Level and Quality Writing Assessment (CLAQWA) instrument. Designed to assist University Experience instructors assess, diagnose and grade student writing, CLAQWA conveys the writing skills and cognitive level necessary for a given writing assignment. |
|||||
| WHY CLAQWA? For many students writing is a mystery, yet writing well is a necessity. The Cognitive Level and Quality of Writing Assessment (CLAQWA) instrument demystifies writing processes for students and instructors alike. Since good writing is critical to the process of assessing, encouraging, and evaluating student thought, we must make explicit our understanding of good writing. The CLAQWA SYSTEM SOLUTION . . . In response to these concerns, CLAQWA was developed to help instructors standardize their evaluation of writing and assess the cognitive level attained in student writing (Flateby, 1998; Flateby and Metzger, 1999). CLAQWA helps identify, communicate and assess the writing skills and cognitive level expected for a given writing assignment. Although the instrument evolved from the evaluation of the Learning Community Program at the University of South Florida, CLAQWA was quickly recognized as a valuable instructional resource and was appropriated for use in a variety of general education and writing-intensive courses. The goal when designing CLAQWA was to provide a useful, accessible and flexible writing assessment tool for instructors who give writing assignments but who are not trained in writing instruction and assessment. The design of CLAQWA enables instructors to select the writing skills important for a particular assignment and develop the assignment to elicit a desired cognitive level. With the conscientious use of the instrument, students have a clear understanding of expectations, and the instructor has a consistent set of criteria to judge students' papers specific to the assignment. When using CLAQWA to assess students' papers, in process or after completion, the instructor identifies students' writing weaknesses, and highlights strengths to provide supportive feedback.
|
The CLAQWA INSTRUMENT Each scale of the two-scale system can be used separately or can be combined to target specific instructional objectives and evaluate student performance. Based upon the work of Bloom and his colleagues (1956), the first scale, Cognitive Level Assessment, is comprised of four levels: (1) knowledge, (2) comprehension, (3) application, and (4) analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. We discovered during the development of CLAQWA that fostering higher order thinking in a student's writing requires careful construction of the assignment; hence, CLAQWA also assists the instructor to clarify assignment expectations and communicate same to the student. The second scale, Quality of Writing Assessment, consists of skills commonly found in writing texts; each has been operationalized on a five point continuum. Guided by an interdisciplinary team and pilot testing, the skills and categories of the writing scale were developed to stipulate, and thereby clarify, the language instructors use when responding to student writing, and to reflect criteria common to most writing assignments. This scale also allows the instructor to affirm a student's accomplishment, and simultaneously direct student attention to specific areas for revision.
|
|||||
| — Selective Bibliography
—
Bloom, B. S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain. New York: McKay.
Flateby, T. L. and Metzger, E. (2001). Instructional Implications of the Cognitive Level and Quality of Writing Assessment. Assessment Update (13), 1, 4-5. Flateby, T. L. (1998). Writing Assessment for Higher Order Thinking Skills. Presented to the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Tampa. Flateby, T. L., and Metzger, E. (1999). Writing Assessment Instrument for Higher Order Thinking Skills. Assessment Update (11), 2, 6-7. Galbelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Mathews, R., Smith B. (1990). Learning Communities: Creating Connections Among Students, Faculty and Disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, N 41, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hairston, M., Ruskiewicz, J. & Friend, C. (1999). The Scott Foresman Handbook for Writers. NY: Longman/Addison-Wesley. Hodges, J., et al. (1998) Harbrace College Handbook. Fort Worth: HB College Publishers. Lunsford, A. and Connors, R. (1992). The St. Martin's Handbook. New York: St. Martin's Press. Madaus, G. F., Woods, N. E. & Nuttal, R. L. (1973). A causal model analysis of Blooms’ Taxonomy. American Educational Research Journal, 10, 253-262. Mulderig, G. and Langdon, E. (1990). The Heath Handbook. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. Olson, C. (1992). Thinking Writing: Fostering Critical Thinking Through Writing. New York: Harper Collins, 428-429. Resnick, L.B. and Resnick, D.P. (1992). Assessing the Thinking Curriculum: New Tools for Educational Reform in Changing Assessments. In B.K. Gifford, and M.C. O’Connor. Changing Assessments: Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. Boston: National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, 37-75. Schwalm, D. E. (1985). Degree of Difficulty in Basic Writing Courses: Insights from the Oral Proficiency Interview Testing Program. College English, 47, (6), 629-640. Spear, K. (1983). Building Cognitive Skills in Basic Writers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 9 (2). 91-98. Steele, J.M. (1997). Identifying the Essential Skills in Critical Thinking at the Post-secondary Level to Guide Instruction and Assessment. [Draft]. Iowa City: American College Testing. Troyka, L. Q. (1999). Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Wolcott, W. with Legg, S. M. (1998). An Overview of Writing Assessment: Theory, Research, and Practice. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. |
||||||
