Writing Next--the power of the test

In response to our class conversation about blogs, I'm going to pick out one or two ideas from the readings that struck a chord or raised a flag as I read. This week's readings was sort of a time line of teaching philosophies; as Scherff and Piazza entitled their article "The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same." The tension between process and product as always been there. Current concerns and contemporary norms shift the emphasis as it cycles around. As Coker and Lewis noted in their discussion of the tension between educational psychology and composition studies approach to teaching writing, there is crossover. (They mentioned that the usefulness of strategy instruction, set goals, collaborative writing and inquiry activities have been adopted by each camp.) Each time we go around a cycle between process and product, educators gain vaulable insights and strategies we retain.

As someone who has been around education as student, parent, and teacher since 1953, I can attest that "the test" is a huge motivating factor in what is taught and how it is taught. Someone showed me an old English Regents from 1899--I could never have passed it--assessing spelling, grammar, classic literature, formal composition. I'm sure everyone who passed it had the perfect, even handwriting borne of creating endless rows of uniform O's and lines. When I passed the Regents in the 1960s, I had to answer multiple choice questions about literature, spell a few words, and write a "literary essay." I had been practicing this essay for four years, and could have chosen, compared, and written 5 paragraphs comparing two works of literature in my sleep. I can probably still do it, just as I can recite "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" and the Preamble to the Constitution. What one can predict will be tested is, and I suspect always has been, over-learned in schools.

The NYS English Regents is now a 2 day, six hour ordeal encompassing four tasks. JD devotes the entire 11th grade year to preparing for this test. Students begin writing critical lens (task 4) essays in 9th grade. Of Mice and Men and A Raisin in the Sun are read 4th quarter junior year because they can be productively viewed through almost any conceivable "critical lens." Any junior who can't recite the "format" for the introduction of a critical lens essay by June has clearly been asleep at the switch for three years. Poetry and common poetic devises are studied so that students will be prepared for Task 3 (which involves formulating and writing about a controlling idea given two texts, one of which is usually a poem). Note taking skills are emphasized for 10 weeks in preparation for task one. Eleventh grade English is "The Year of the REGENTS" just as it was in 1964.

I believe the English Regents drives changes in what is read in classes as well. In 1964, we had to answer questions about "traditional" classic works a well-educated person "should" know. We read Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello, Julius Ceasar, The Turn of the Screw, Daisy Miller, The Mayor of Casterbrigde, Joseph Andrews, Hard Times, The Scarlet Letter...you get the picture. I have no memory of any teacher being concerned about whether or not students were interested in reading these things or how they related to our lives. We read them because were told they were important and teachers helped us draw lessons from their texts. In my 9th grade co-teach class this year, we chose the novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian over The Pearl. Our primary consideration was the relevance of the material to the student's lives. English teachers are picking contemporary novels as texts; genre units are taught using book circles or individual choice selections. There are clear advantages in broadening the texts studied--choice, motivation, relevance, variety, novelty. However, I think that the present form of the Regents encourages this. Except for the "critical lens" task (hence, Of Mice and Men!)--the regents is about process. Texts are presented to the student, and the student must apply the processes learned to construct each type of essay. Since a specific body of literature is not pre-supposed by the test, teachers are free to pick and choose from an endless variety of classic and contemporary texts and genres.

The Regents is also about product...does your essay fit into a category 2, 3, 4, or 5. The holistic grading approach brings its own limitations) as noted by Graham and Perin as they discussed the protocol of their meta-analysis.) Grammar and sentence structure counts less on the rubric. I remember reading a level 5 sample essay and thinking, "You've got to be kidding me. This would have been mediocre at best when I took the Regents." On Task 3, if you don't mention a literary device you lose mega points. Students are taught to insert "characterization" or "setting" or "symbolism" even if it is not clearly connected or explained. Anyone who doesn't think we are teaching writing to the test, needs to sit in on an 11th grade English class. The upside--students do learn how to write an essay.

Which brings me the the question of authenticity. If we are teaching to the test, how reflective is the test of the skills students will need in the future? The readings, especially Coker and Lewis, elucidated the writing skills students will need to bring into higher education and the workplace: adaptability and flexibility to adopt to specific formats, language, and expectations; ability to write collaboratively; practical communication skills; ability to tailor writing to a specific audience and purpose; ability to modify writing skills as technology changes. Papers and projects written in the "real world" are not thrown out after getting graded--which struck me as a scary concept. As a teacher, I'm used to the artificial world as well. All high stakes assessments are, by nature, contrived. Students in school are usually writing a "decontextualized" composition for a "fictionalized audience." I'm not sure that the tasks required in the NYS Regents do the best job in emphasizing the writing skills that students will need to succeed in college or in life. Is a literary essay the best way to measure writing skills? Does the Regents encourage best practices in teaching writing skills? I'd love to hear what you think.

I'm old...I admit it. Yet my niece in law (a single mother who graduated from high school in Ohio in 2007) sent a thank you note for a baby gift. "How are you. We have bin fine. I'm going to have to start baby proffing everything...Thank you for the extreamly generous gift. It will be a great start for his saveings acount." Teaching students to write a "critical lense" essay is nice. To my mind, a more important question is when our graduates present themselves for a job or higher education, will their writing skills impede their paths? In the end, spelling does count.