This month’s publication review was contributed by Cherry Danielson, Associate Director of Institutional Research and Assessment at Carleton College (cdaniels@carleton.edu). Cherry reviews Assessment of Writing, edited by Marie C. Paretti and Katrina M. Powell. This is the newest installment in AIR’s Assessment in the Disciplines series. Order a volume in the series.

In the midst of assessment tensions, Assessment of Writing calms, instructs, and provides tools to bring assessment processes down to earth. Authors of this newest volume in AIR’s Assessment in the Discipline series have packed each chapter with ground-level insight on developing sound practices around the assessment of writing throughout the curriculum. Granted, this may not sound new. However, the editors offer an attractive twist as they promote a partnership between IR measurement professionals and writing faculty expertise.  Co-authored chapters meld both voices and resources with the belief that such coupling develops dynamic, meaningful work around writing evaluation. This intention plays out in the thorough way the authors address this collaboration.

Paretti and Powell (Eds) point out that as a highly valued learning outcome, college-level writing exists in a much broader context than we may realize. They help us understand the influences on this conversation by first situating the assessment of writing in a long and well-grounded history of research and thought. A number of the chapters describe the growing interest of national professional organizations to establish standards, weigh-in on best practices, and challenge higher education to develop theoretical and functional frameworks concerning the assessment of writing.  Additionally, the distinctive language and approach of both IR and writing faculty is a common theme woven throughout the text.  Through these chapters, we can appreciate that the development of writing assessment processes on our campuses is surrounded by this larger on-going conversation.

In its most productive purpose, assessment results are used as tools to meaningfully support teaching and learning and academic program improvement. The authors assert that this calls for pooling expertise across disciplinary and professional lines. Phillips and Ahrenhoester (Ch. 6) propose that there is much to be gained by approaching the assessment of writing from the point of view of the scholarship of teaching and learning.  As an example, they focused on the question of what students gain—if anything— from peer review during the writing process. The authors point out that asking a question of real interest to faculty and of consequence to student learning places assessment findings in a position of utility.  Toward that end, depending on the results of the assessment, faculty could discover ways to strengthen peer review or consider ways in which it could potentially be more useful to student learning. 

Overall, the authors impress upon us that developing a culture of assessment involves hearing— really hearing— how faculty describe the intrinsic link between the writer and the writing – which includes the occasion for writing.  For this reason, they stress the importance of embedding the assessment of writing in the curriculum where it displays the valued language, methodologies, and traditions of the field. Each chapter is written from a particular vantage point or curricular context where students write in their college experience and as such, where evaluation of writing can be useful.  The ability to write is not merely conquering the mechanics of writing, but conveying thought that is grounded in the milieu of the subject matter.

Assessment of writing can become a highly involved process on many campuses. In their candid analysis of an assessment program, Schneider, Leydens, Olds, and Miller (Ch. 5) offer learned wisdom in their guiding principles and identify behaviors key to implementing those principles. As colleges and universities grapple with developing assessment programs, these authors target important steps to institutionalizing assessment processes.  They remind us that the first generation of assessment work is accomplished by those who have enthusiasm and a willingness to move these processes forward. As such, a clear plan for succession is critical to the sustainability that we seek in our assessment programs. They caution us to keep the processes manageable and to recognize when assessment projects are at risk of “collapsing under their own weight.”   

A real strength of this volume is its pragmatic position on assessment. This is not a theoretical set of writings. It is a collection of well written, thoughtful essays that focus on sensible assessment processes. Each chapter includes a rich set of examples and references, and offers significant “take-away” considerations.  For busy IR professionals, it is nice to know that although the whole book is worth reading, any of the chapters can stand alone as a valuable resource filled with assessment approaches, principles, examples, and rationales for such. Sharing this book with faculty and institutional research staff might prompt good conversations and ultimately may lead us to listen better to each other as we work toward common goals.

Many thanks to Cherry for writing this book review. Have you come across a new publication you think would be of great interest to your IR colleagues? Send your suggestions to Marne Einarson (mke3@cornell.edu).