Assessment in Teaching Writing

Assessment is central in the teaching-learning process because it provides evidence of learning and
informs the teacher on the course content that needs reinforcement or reteaching. However, with the
complexity of writing and the diversity of the writing outputs that students turn in, teachers often do
not prioritize writing assessment. Checking the written outputs of the learner is not only tedious but also
time-consuming. On the part of the students, they would get demotivated bY the feedback or the red.
Therefore, when we asses writing, we focus not only on the outputs but also on the writers (Tompkins,
2008).

“Assessment in the Context of Teaching Writing:

We need to review our understanding of writing as a product and as a process, formative vs. summative
evaluation, and assessment vs. testing.

a. Product vs. Process. A valid assessment of writing, according to Calfee and Miller (2007), “taps both
product and process.” We need to nuance a writer who demonstrates linguistic fluency but lacks the
depth in discussing the meat of the topic from one who has a good grasp of the topic subject but
commits some flaws in syntax and structure. To assess writing as a product means looking into the
students’ ability to observe proper mechanics, correct sentence construction, coherence, and cohesion.
To assess writing as a product is to look into the writers’ ability to produce written outputs that are
audience and purpose-driven, credible, and substantive.

Formative vs. Summative Evaluation. Formative evaluation monitors students’ progress and is often
informal and qualitative. On the other hand, summative evaluation gauges the students’ level of
competence vis-a-vis a mandated or expected standard. Summative evaluation is often a challenge for
teachers who handle heterogeneous classes with different backgrounds and abilities.

Assessment vs. Testing. Assessment is more favorable than testing because it takes into account the
context of the learners and finds ways of helping them forward. On the other hand, testing is associated
with the traditional, like the multiple-choice type of gauging the learner’s level of competence. This may
not be the ideal way of assessing writing but a necessary skill to develop among learners who need to
take standardized tests in their college admission or national assessments.
Purpose of Writing Assessment

We have established in the previous lesson that writing can be an effective tool for leaning. Calfee and
Miller (2007:284) reiterated the value of writing in their claim that writing “reveals thinking with unusual
clarity. The results are portraits that students construct in demonstrating their understanding of a topic.
revealing their capacity to ‘go beyond formation given.” So while writing can be an assessment in itself,
it must also be assessed accordingly because of the following reasons as offered by Tompkins (2008:78).

•Reflect the students’ growth as a writer

•Inform students and parents about students’ achievement

•Guide writing instruction

•Substantiate the grade-level standard met by the learner

•Evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional program

How to Assess Writing

Writing as a process is recursive, and as such, assessment is best done in every gage of the process. To
instill the basic strategy of plan- draft- revise- edit, teachers need to monitor their performance and give
feedback before they give their graded assessment. Feedback, according to Clark (2010.59) is “a
mentoring dialogue that helps the leamer’s repeated attempts to be articulate. . . ‘marking of pupils’
written work should be positive, encouraging and indicative of future steps.”

In correcting students’ errors, we need to make them understand the implications of their mistakes and
balance it with feedback on the positive achievements of the piece. Weigle (2015) classified the types of
feedbacks that we can offer to our student writers. They are:

a. Written comments. This is the most commonly used feedback mechanism where teachers write their
corrections either on the texts using symbols for editing or indicate comments on the margins of the
student's paper. This is helpful in correcting on the spot the errors committed by the learners. However,
it can be time-consuming for the teachers and intimidating for the students.
b. Individual conference. This type of feedback is useful for process writing, where teachers have to
assist student writers in every stage of the writing process. The conference is usually focused on the
students’ ability to comply with the given task, i.e., choosing a topic and narrowing the focus, ensuring
that developing ideas support the topic Statement. This requires the student’s ability to listen and take
note of the comments in their writing journal; otherwise, they would not get the feedback correctly.

c. Recorded feedback. This is an alternative conferencing, especially if the class is big and individual
conferencing would not be viable. The teacher will check the outputs and audio-record her comments to
the students for the students to listen and follow. But in places where technology is scarce or
unavailable, this does not work.

Other assessment strategies that may work in the writing classroom would include observation,
collection of writing samples, keeping records, and writing checklists (Tompkins, 2008).

• Observation can be used in monitoring the learner's writing habits, problems in executing the process,
interaction with peers during collaborative or peer writing activity.

• Collection of writing samples can be done by the teacher or the students themselves. Posting writing
exemplars on the wall is affirming for the learners. However, it would be best if the learners themselves
collected their written outputs in a portfolio. The collection includes the drafts and the final output as
well as the ones they consider as the worst and the best-written output. The learners can reflect on their
development as a writer.

• Anecdotal records note down the teacher’s comments on what they have observed or read from the
students’ outputs as evidence of learning.

• Checklists for the students and teachers to assess if the outputs have responded to the given prompts
or defined objectives.

In the context of the Philippine classrooms, where teachers handle big classes with learners coming
from diverse backgrounds and levels of competence, they need to employ strategies that could lighten
the arduous task of assessing writing. Some of these are:
• Focus on a specific aspect or competency (Harmer, 1998). This strategy that adheres to the principle of
‘less is more’ requires the teacher to orient the students on the target competencies that the writing
program or activity aims to achieve. Since it is impossible to correct all aspects of fluency
simultaneously, the teachers and students can agree to focus on vocabulary, spelling, and mechanics, or
subject-verb agreement on the next. If it is a big task, linguistic focus can be coupled with one stage of
the process at a time.

• Agree on the list of written symbols (Harmer, 1998). As the teachers focus on the specific aspect of
competency, they also can tell the students the codes used in correcting the errors. For beginner and
intermediate learners, the following codes would be useful:

1. SP - spelling error

2. WO - error in word order

3. P - punctuation error or problem

4. T - Tense of the verb

5. WW - wrong word

6. " - missing word.

7. [ ] - incorrect word

8 WF - error in word form

9, ~ - error in combining two words into one

Source: https://elttguide.com/the-most-useful10-symbols-to-use-forcorrecting-students-writing/ .

• Peer correction and feedbacking. This strategy is not only time-efficient but promotive as well of the
‘self-regulation’ in writing. Self-regulation, according to Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997:76), refers to
“self-initiated thoughts, feelings, and actions that writers use to attain various literary goals, including
improving their writing skills as well as enhancing the quality of the text they create.” Enlisting the
students’ participation in the feedbacking activities not only lightens the teacher’s load in checking
outputs; it also challenges the learners to grasp the expected competencies. It helps promote both the
habit of learning to write and writing to learn.

This peer correction, according to Clark (2010:61), is not intended for grading, but the students have to
be oriented on what to assess in their classmates’ work. Taking the role of the target audience, they are
suppose to look into “what they thought was good, what they did not fully understand, what could be
improved and how.” They also should be warned about patronizing their friend’s work because it would
defeat the purpose of peer correction.

• Utilize technology. Word processors are already equipped with editing features that can be helpful in
polishing the text in terms of grammar, structure, and mechanics. Some schools have softwares like
Turnitin and Grammarly that can detect not only linguistic errors but also plagiarized texts. Teachers can
encourage learners to use these technologies.

When to Assess Writing:

Writing assessment is ideally paired with instruction, so teachers do not stack written outputs for
wholesale checking. Timely feedbacking is meaningful not only for the teachers but, more importantly,
for the learners. It allows them to reflect on the mistakes they can avoid, ask for clarification on the
comments given or solicit suggestions for improvement. While we do not disregard the common
practice diagnostic tests that assess the learners’ level of competence prior to instruction, we are more
concerned about the formative assessments that monitor students’ progress.
How to Grade Written Outputs

Grading students’ output depends on the type of assessment is given. If it is testing the learners’
linguistic competence, then grades can be taken from the actual scores they get from the test. However,
if the assessment is intended to monitor students’ progress in learning the writing process or responding
to a writing task. the teacher can use rubrics to evaluate the learners’ performance.

A rubric is an assessment tool that defines the criteria to be evaluated and the rate given to each
criterion.

In designing rubrics, a teacher must also be clear on the criteria of assessments. Calfee and Miller (2007)
listed the following as the essential criteria for evaluating writing outputs:

• Idea refers to the substance or the student’s knowledge and command of the topic chosen.

• Organization is the student’s logical organization and use of the appropriate presentation pattern (i.e.,
exposition, cause-effect, problem-solution).

• Voice means that even if the students may have researched some of the ideas used in writing, they still
managed to surface their point of view or personality as a writer.

• Sentence fluency is the writer’s competence in observing lexical and syntactical structures.

• Convention refers to the learners’ mastery of grammar, spelling, and mechanics.

• Presentation refers to the overall style of the writer.

A rubric comes in two general types: the holistic and the trait rubrics. A holistic rubric, which assesses
the output based on a single scale for all the identified criteria, is time-efficient in terms of preparation
and easy to use for the rater. However, it does not give specific feedback for the learner on what area to
improve. The following are examples of a holistic rubric.
Target Competency: Articulating thoughts through written communication — final paper/project.

Above Average: The audience can easily identify the focus of the work and is engaged by its clear focus
and relevant details. Information is presented logically and naturally. There are no more than two
mechanical errors or misspelled words to distract the reader.

Sufficient: The audience is easily able to identify the focus of the student work, which is supported by
relevant ideas and supporting details. Information is presented in a logical manner that is easily
followed. There is minimal interruption to the work due to misspellings and/or mechanical errors.

Developing: The audience can identify the central purpose of the student work without little difficulty,
and supporting ideas are present and clear. The information is presented in an orderly fashion that can
be followed with little difficulty. There are some misspellings and/or mechanical errors, but they do not
seriously distract from the work.

Needs Improvement: The audience cannot clearly identify the central ideas or purpose of the student
work. Information is presented in a disorganized fashion causing the audience to have difficulty
following the author’s ideas. There are many misspellings and/or mechanical errors that negatively
affect the audience’s ability to read the work.

Source; Types of Rubrics https://resources.depaul.edu/teaching-commons/teaching-guides/feedback-