MAY-EJ1.QXD

4/26/2005 1:58 PM

Page 28

Speaking My Mind

Grading Student Writing: High-Stakes Testing, Computers, and the Human Touch P. L. Thomas Furman University Greenville, South Carolina [email protected]

“No, no. You’ve got something the tests and machines will never be able to measure: you’re artistic. That’s one of the tragedies of our times, that no machine has ever been built that can recognize that quality, appreciate it, foster it, sympathize with it,” explains Paul to Anita in Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano (154). This fictional moment seems eerily relevant: An article in the May 19, 2004, New York Times reveals the grading of student essays by computers in Indiana and the concerns raised by English teachers there (Hurwitz). With 2002 NCES writing results (“Writing”), high-stakes testing of writing, the report of the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, and the inclusion of an essay on the 2005 SAT, a new light has begun to shine brightly on writing instruction in our schools, revealing a crucial dynamic—writing instruction and the grading of writing by humans and computers. Writing teachers face a wonderful opportunity and a time to proceed cautiously, with our voices contributing significantly to the debate. The promise of grading student writing by computers may cost schools and students funds and instructional quality that we cannot afford, but incorporating computers in writing assessment and instruction can offer great benefits if we embrace the possibilities and work to avoid the dangers.

Opportunities: Computer-Assisted Writing Instruction and Assessment Recently, I visited the high school where I taught English for eighteen years. The principal showed me an addition to the building and the new computer

28

English Journal

Vol. 94, No. 5

software implemented for writing instruction. I visited a class using that software, taught by one of my mentors and best friends, with a great deal of skepticism. However, I saw the benefits that computerassisted writing instruction and assessment offered both students and teachers. Whether students work with a writing software program or a word-processing program, students are writing, composing original works as the basis for the direct writing instruction they receive. Access to computers supports composition and encourages instruction based on student writing. Computer writing programs and word-processing programs flag concerns in student writing and force students to make decisions about their work. The decision-making processes that students develop and implement while composing are crucial for students to grow into independent writers. Computer writing programs allow teachers to manage time and to implement writing workshops more efficiently. The computer allows students to work independently and with focus while the teacher circulates the room and conducts minilessons and conferences based on student needs and requests. The interactive nature of the computer may increase student focus in writing workshops, which can be difficult for students not accustomed to the open structure of a workshop. As well, many computeraided writing programs can provide teachers with valuable data in many formats that can assist in planning whole-class and individualized direct instruction based on the demonstrated needs of the students. If the actual grading of student writing continues to be shifted to computers, computer writing

May 2005

Copyright © 2005 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.

MAY-EJ1.QXD

4/26/2005 1:58 PM

Page 29

Grading Student Writing: High-Stakes Testing, Computers, and the Human Touch

programs can aid teachers as they prepare students for high-stakes assessments. While the nature of standards and high-stakes testing can perpetuate practices we want to avoid in writing instruction, teachers and students are better served if we work within the conditions that create the possible problems. Here, however, we must be cautious not to allow the demands of standards and high-stakes testing to become the entire writing program. Writing teachers need to see the inevitability of computer-assisted writing instruction and assessment as a great opportunity. We should work to see that this influx of technology can help increase the time students spend actually composing in our classrooms and increase the amount of writing students produce. The positive contributions that computers can and should make to writing instruction, however, come with strong cautions. As Vonnegut’s characters noted, there is an art to writing that is beyond technology; I would add that there is an art to teaching and grading writing that is also beyond the machine.

Cautions: Computer-Assisted Writing Instruction and Assessment Many of the roadblocks to more effective writing instruction—the paper load, the time involved in writing instruction and assessment, the need to address surface features individually—can be lessened by using computer programs. But computer-assisted writing instruction and assessment can just as easily contribute negatively to our efforts. Crispin Sartwell has offered a sharp criticism of the template approach to teaching writing, and he fears that computer-aided grading of student writing will only increase the problems. We must be skeptical. Since computer programs and word processors are able to identify surface-feature concerns in student writing, there is a danger that computeraided writing instruction and assessment could increase the disproportionate value placed on surface features at the expense of the writing process and the content of authentic student writing. Computer writing programs that assess writing can also reduce all writing to templates. Sartwell notes that “machines are cheaper” than humans, so we must be sure that we do not allow expense to supersede quality when we are teaching writing and grading student compositions.

Who designs the computer writing programs and how those programs are designed could ultimately dictate what matters in writing instruction and assessment. We must be certain that the standards endorsed by computer programs properly reflect the field of writing. Composition experts must determine what students learn about writing; if that is left to the programmers and the testing experts, we have failed. Without our checking the system, it is entirely possible that high-stakes tests could create highly superficial writing instruction that conforms well to the assessment process but actually erodes the quality of writing instruction. In fact, high-stakes tests are already doing so without the impact of computer assessment, as shown by Sarah Warshauer Freedman, George Hillocks Jr., and Linda Mabry. How can a computer determine accuracy, originality, valuable elaboration, empty language, language maturity, and a long list of similar qualities that are central to assessing writing? Computers can’t. We must ensure that the human element remains the dominant factor in the assessing of student writing. We must be cautious about investing large sums of money in hardware and software; the benefits of computers in the writing program and in the whole school program must be weighed and considered carefully. Though technology can be a wonderful thing, it has never been and never will be a panacea. Finally, we must acknowledge that technology can increase the gaps that exist in our society concerning access to knowledge due to wealth—or lack of it. If computers and programs are distributed fairly throughout a student population and if we can ensure that more affluent students don’t receive a technology advantage through their access to technology at home, then the use of computers to aid writing instruction and assessment can serve us well. If, however, the use of technology further stratifies students, computers must be avoided.

The Art of Grading Student Writing: Our Voices Raised As a writer, I cannot imagine composing without my trusted iMac and iBook. And as a writing teacher, I watched the value computers and word processors

English Journal

29

MAY-EJ1.QXD

4/26/2005 1:58 PM

Page 30

Speaking My Mind

had for my students—particularly as the technology contributed to students’ ability to write more and to revise more efficiently. While computers and computer programs do offer a huge benefit for the teaching of writing, they must remain merely a tool; we cannot allow anyone to suggest that computers can substitute for humans in the ultimate evaluation of a composition. Our students’ writing has “something the tests and machines will never be able to measure,” and it is now the duty of all writing teachers to make known the art of human assessment of writing. Works Cited

Freedman, Sarah Warshauer. “Exam-Based Reform Stifles Student Writing in the U.K.” Educational Leadership 52.6 (1995): 26–29.

Hillocks, George, Jr. “Fighting Back: Assessing the Assessments.” English Journal 92.4 (2003): 63–70. Hurwitz, Sol. “Indiana Essays Being Graded by Computers.” New York Times 19 May 2004. 14 Jan. 2005 . Mabry, Linda. “Writing to the Rubric: Lingering Effects of Traditional Standardized Testing on Direct Writing Assessment.” Phi Delta Kappan 80.9 (1999): 673–79. National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 2003. 14 Jan. 2005 . Sartwell, Crispin. “The Lobotomized Weasel School of Writing.” Los Angeles Times 20 May 2004. Vonnegut, Kurt. Player Piano. 1952. New York: Laurel, 1980. “Writing 2002 Major Results.” National Center for Educational Statistics. 23 Sept. 2003. 14 Jan. 2005 .

P. L. Thomas, assistant professor of education at Furman University, taught high school English for eighteen years before entering teacher education full time. He writes about the teaching of writing and he recently published Numbers Games (2004) and Teaching Writing (2005) with Lang USA.

1/2-PAGE AD CENTERED ON TEXT WIDTH 7” x 4 7/8”

30

May 2005