Writing assessment is a complicated thing, particularly in the classroom. The belief that Cherry and Witte articulate that all acts of writing assessment are inauthentic merely illustrates the paradox that is writing assessment in the classroom as writing assessment is simultaneously authentic and inauthentic. While it is true that the assignments and the assessment of those assignments are constructed and not what happens in the “real world,” they are situations in which there are real consequences for the students and instructors. Writing assessment is a very powerful and often political act. However, I believe that writing assessment can also serve a very important role in teaching and learning.

I believe writing assessment is symbolic of something much greater. To borrow the title of Bazerman and Prior’s book, writing assessment directly relates to “what writing does and how it does it.” Assessment in general, and writing assessment in particular, carries with it a strong set of statements about what is acceptable, what is effective, and what is valued in specific communities or systems. Through writing assessment instructors and teachers convey what is seen to be good and affect change, both good and bad, in the writing of students.

Beyond the classroom, writing assessment serves a powerful means of developing and illustrating knowledge. Desires and policies impressed on teachers regarding writing assessment reinforce and illustrate the implicit values for teachers, classrooms, and students. As it shows the values of those involved, studying writing assessment is a means of studying cultural norms and beliefs. Studying writing assessment across the curriculum is a means of seeing similarity, difference, and grey areas in which unwritten rules and differing, often unexpressed definitions, can disrupt understanding or even allow compromise.

To this end I choose to celebrate writing assessment and use it in the classes I teach as a powerful tool of inquiry. My philosophy of writing assessment has been influenced by many along the way. Scholars like Bob Broad and Richard Haswell have influenced my beliefs that acts of writing assessment are very complex and need to be respected for that fact. I have turned to scholars such as Asoa Inoue and Richard Selfe who provide examples of ways to allow authority beyond the instructor, to be share power among many important people both in and out of the classroom. I align myself with scholars such as Kathleen Yancey who value reflection as an important part of assessment and for my reverence for the history of assessment. I have been greatly influenced by Brian Huot’s respect for teachers and students and Ed White’s example and call for negotiation with established values both local and beyond. Cynthia Selfe has caused me to see the importance of students’ abilities to assess writing in many forms. My philosophy though has perhaps been most influenced by my work with Lee Nickoson-Massey, years of experience being assessed, assessing writing, reading the assessments of others as a writing tutor, and working on committees that assessed curriculum and assessment across programs and an entire university.

Because writing assessment carries the values of entire disciplinary histories, acts of assessment need to carefully considered. Writing assessment, like all aspects of classroom interaction, is dynamic. There is no one-size-fits-all means of assessment. Students have different needs which should, whenever possible, be taken into consideration when assessing writing. Different strengths and perceptions call for different approaches. Also, a single student will have different needs at different times in their personal writing process. I believe, as Huot has articulated, that writing assessment should reinforce rhetorical choices and not fix all solutions. To this end, writing assessment needs to emphasize possibilities, particularly when working through the act of creation and revision. However, there also reaches a point when feedback needs to be directed toward fine-tuning with less focus on the rhetorical choice that have been made. Writing assessment, like writing, needs to be adjusted for audience, purpose, and function. Writing is a tool that serves many functions and needs meaning that the definition of effective writing is something that is constantly changing. Thus, helping students to recognize and adapt to these changes is crucial to helping students learn to communicate in their many systems and communities. As Murray once wrote, teaching writing is a means of helping students learn what questions to ask about their writing and when to ask those questions.

It is because of individual needs and adjustments along with the situated nature of writing that writing assessment needs to be localized and communal. A localized process of writing assessment allows local, situated needs to be discussed. It also allows for an easier adaptation to the particular needs of students as the practices, hopefully, will be designed around the needs of the teacher and students in that situation. I believe communal writing assessment helps students to see that differences in the assessment of writing are natural and to be expected. Pure agreement is something that has been openly challenged by many writing assessment scholars, but the belief that there can be complete agreement and that it is necessary for assessment is still entrenched. Communal writing assessment practices, particularly when designed by the people whose writing will be assessed, can help to model the inquiry into the specific values and local context that creates effectiveness. It can also model the negotiation of values, needs, and function that is imperative to be successful communicators in writing situations beyond the classroom.

In the end, writing assessment is a complex activity. This complexity should be valued, and even celebrated, in the classroom. Writing assessment should be a means of teaching. Writing assessment should be done in the spirit of aiding in the development of the students and not merely protecting the teacher.  Writing assessment should be a positive motivator. Writing assessment should reflect the complex and social nature of writing situations. Writing assessment, when carefully considered, has the ability to do all of these things. It is my desire to enact as many of these goals in as many situations as possible in the classroom.