Writing As an Experiment

In “Community-based assessment pedagogy,” Inoue points out that assessment can actually play a crucial role in writing as a process. Through peer review and mutual evaluation, assessment becomes part of writing itself. Students are trained to write and think while they review and comment on other students’ works. Inoue also mentions that one of his students even develops “the ability to evaluate my [his/her]own writing” (230). So, community-based assessment is actually a practice through which students can learn how to assess their own works by assessing others’ works.

    This practice provides students with a good opportunity to learn how to read their own works with critical eyes, but it also has its disadvantage. The disadvantage consists in, I think, the excessive public nature of the assessing process. Community-based assessment is a practice that heavily relies on discussions and examinations in public spaces. As Inoue states, “assessment practices that are reflective and publicly discussed can make reflective, more self-conscious writers” (230). But the assessment practice may make students not only a self-conscious writer but also a high self-monitoring writer before they learn how to write. They may become too careful with their writing and do not want to take a risk of experimenting with their works because their works will be assessed and evaluated by the public (other students).

    I was thinking if it is possible to read and assess peers’ works while not putting pressure on students whose works are being assessed. What if teachers remove the name on those works? Then, students can assess and receive assessments without too much pressure. Besides, students will tend not to see those assessments and comments as personal judgments but more like “objective” evaluations (even though it is impossible to be objective as Peter Elbow says in his article). This will encourage students to take those assessments and comments seriously even if they know those comments are not made by “experts” (teachers).

    In fact, I think teachers can combine different methods of assessments that are mentioned in Elbow and Inoue’s articles. The criteria they mention are not mutually exclusive. For example, Inoue states that assessment is not a “contract system,” but Elbow’s suggestion of unilateral grading contract does have its strength. Students do not have to worry too much about their grades if they can complete certain activities. With this contract, students are more willing to experiment with their writing because they will not receive a course grade of C by writing something that turns out to be really bad. But Elbow’s proposition also has its drawback. Though the contract offers students some flexibility in their writing quality, it is still a teacher-centered evaluation system. So, teachers may take advantage of different methods of assessments.