The Promise of Directed Self-Placement for Second Language Writers

College Conference on Composition and Communication (2004) CCCC Position statement on teaching, learning, and assessing writing in digital environments Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/digitalenvironments Dikli, S (2006) An overview of automated scoring of essays Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1), 1–35 Elliot, S., Darlington, K., & Mikulas, C (2004, April) But does it really work? A national study of MY Access! Effectiveness Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA Ericsson, P F., & Haswell, R (Eds.) (2006) Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences Logan, UT: Utah State University Press Lai, Y-H (2009) Which students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x Landauer, T K., Laham, D., Foltz, P W (2003) Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor In M D Shermis and J C Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp 87–113) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Leacock, C (2004) Scoring free-responses automatically: A case study of a largescale assessment Examens, 1(3) Lee, Y-W., Gentile, C., & Kantor, R (2010) Toward automated multi-trait scoring of essays: Investigating links among holistic, analytic, and text feature scores Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 391–417 doi: 10.1093/applin/amp040 Shermis, M D., & Burstein, J (2003) ‘‘Introduction.’’ Automated essay scoring: A crossdisciplinary perspective (pp xiii–xvi) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ware, P (2005) Automated writing evaluation as a pedagogical tool for writing assessment In A Pandian, G Chakravarthy, P Kell, & S Kaur (Eds.), Strategies and practices for improving learning and literacy (pp 174–184) Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D (2008) Automated writing assessment in the classroom Pedagogies, 3(1), 22–36 Warschauer, M., & Ware, P (2006) Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 1–24 doi: 10.1191/1362168806lr190oa Xi, X (2010) Automated scoring and feedback systems: Where are we and where are we heading? Language Testing, 27(3), 291–300 doi: 10.1177/0265532210364643 The Promise of Directed Self-Placement for Second Language Writers DEBORAH CRUSAN Wright State University Dayton, Ohio, United States doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.272524 & Evaluation is far from being a neutral process In recent years, tests have commanded increasing influence, which in turn, has broad 774 TESOL QUARTERLY implications for both individuals and society (Crusan, 2010b) One purpose for testing—writing placement or ‘‘where to put students’’ (Yancey, 1999, p 485)—has presented particular challenges, especially in writing programs at the college level Further, because the first-year experience in college so clearly defines the academic success or failure of students (di Gennaro, 2008), placement deserves teachers’ attention Scholars have long recognized the challenges of writing placement, both in L1 and L2, calling it the ‘‘knottiest of our assessment problems’’ (White, 2008, p 141; see Crusan, 2002, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; di Gennaro, 2006, 2008; Huot, 1994; Hamp-Lyons, 2002, 2011; Haswell, 1998; O’Neill, Moore, & Huot, 2009; Royer & Gilles, 2003; Weigle, 2002; White, 2008; Yancey, 1999) Placement into composition courses has been a perennially thorny issue for students whose first language is not English but who are matriculated students at American universities At the heart of this conundrum is the question of method How can we evaluate students? What tools can we use to evaluate them? Though these questions have been asked and answered countless times by countless writing programs, some answers have been more acceptable and successful than others In this article, I focus on one specific placement method: directed self-placement (DSP), its varieties, advantages, and disadvantages ‘‘The strength of a writing program often lies in its assessment techniques’’ (Crusan, 2010a, p 30), so I strongly suggest that writing programs consider DSP as one option for placement of second language writers DEFINITIONS Placement generally relies on an assessment instrument to pair students with appropriate courses At postsecondary institutions in the United States, placement tests are used to evaluate readiness for collegelevel coursework and to help faculty decide whether incoming students should enroll in developmental or introductory courses In theory, these tests are tools used to place students in the level of coursework best suited to their preparation and skills Since many standardized tests (ACT, SAT, TOEFLH) are not designed as placement tests, their use as the sole criterion for placement is inappropriate Another placement problem is cost Like any writing assessment, if we want to it right, we need money to develop the tests, train raters, and pay for scoring Because of the costs associated with direct writing assessment (i.e., an essay), many administrators opt for cheaper, faster methods The next issues—politics, differing definitions of writing, power, and control—are inextricably intertwined Sadly, they, too, usually have to with money Typically, the definition of writing TEACHING ISSUES 775 held by the person in power determines ways that writing will be assessed For instance, if a person defines writing as mechanics, usage, grammar, and spelling (MUGS—the subskills of writing), the assessment of choice will be primarily some multiple-choice instrument One answer to the placement dilemma is DSP Royer and Gilles (1998) first designed, implemented, and reported on DSP as a placement method (for native speakers) at Grand Valley State University when they realized The placement universe revolves around teachers; we choose the methods, we score the essays, we tell students what courses to take Now we began to envision students at the center, and for the first time we turned our attention to the people who knew our students best: the students themselves (p 61) With that realization, they developed their system and shared it with the composition community in the form of conference presentations, journal articles, and a book Bold statements in favor of DSP come from many corners Blakesley (2002) states, ‘‘ being placed or classified, naturally breeds resistance among those who feel its effects’’ (p 9), so he sees DSP as ‘‘an act of restoration to the extent that it asks students to learn from the past to make decisions about their future’’ (p 29), and calls DSP ‘‘a superior method of placement to standard writing placement’’ (p 29) White (2008) wrote, ‘‘DSP proposes a radical solution to the persistent problems of over-testing, negative labeling, and student discomfort with required coursework’’ (p 139) and recommends it as an answer to the perennial problems associated with placement In a similar vein, the CCCC Committee on Second Language Writing (2009) advocates DSP as a viable and appropriate placement method for second language writers Inoue (2009), whose writing program features a very diverse student population, argues for programmatic self-assessment and sees DSP as one piece of that important evaluation She states, ‘‘A centering on selfassessment asks that teachers and students turn their energies and time not to perfecting products but articulating reflexive, effective, and flexible reading and writing practices, rhetorical activities that are also self-assessment activities’’ (p 1) She paints herself and her colleagues as continually rediscovering literacy in themselves and their teaching and believes that self-assessment fits well with a continually developing definition of literacy DSP at Royer and Gilles’ institution works as follows Students are informed about the different composition classes offered and the kinds of writing that will be expected of them for each required course The importance of selecting the right course to match abilities is emphasized 776 TESOL QUARTERLY again and again With guidance and instruction from program instructors, students answer questions about the kinds of readers and writers they are Students place themselves using the information given to them about the courses, the answers on their questionnaires, and their honest examination and evaluation of their writing abilities They decide for themselves if they are ready and able to the work of the course However, more than a decade before Royer and Gilles’ work with L1 students, LeBlanc and Painchaud (1985) discussed using self-assessment for adult ESL learners They contend, ‘‘When adults place themselves in a classroom learning situation, they have a very fair idea of why they are doing so, of what they expect from the course’’ (p 675) They also present counterevidence that ‘‘good students tend to underestimate themselves while students who have arrived at a plateau tend to overestimate their ability’’ (p 675) but arrive at the conclusion that these discrepancies indicate a gap in researchers’ and teachers’ knowledge about self-assessment in second language assessment In a later study focusing on self-evaluation, Butler and Lee (2010) found that when instructed, Korean elementary school students’ ability to judge their own writing improved over time, and considering the importance of their own work positively influenced their English learning and confidence While these studies are not specifically about students appraising their writing abilities, they certainly offer evidence that students can develop the ability to critical analysis Proponents of using DSP for writing placement recognize that it seats accountability squarely on the shoulders of those who purportedly know their writing skills better than anyone else: the writers themselves Teachers seem pleased when placement responsibility lies with the students Additionally, it greatly reduces the costs associated with placement Test security issues are eliminated; student involvement in decision making increases responsibility for learning—many students who have used DSP succeed because they placed themselves in a certain class and feel the need to prove something (Royer & Gilles, 1998; Gere, Aull, Green, & Porter, 2010) Students certainly know their combined language abilities better than any test could show Of course, we need to recognize factors that might negatively impact placement, including overconfidence or reticence, but when students are informed about the course expectations and the responsibilities that accompany their course selection, the concerns of misplacement are greatly reduced TEACHING ISSUES 777 IMPLEMENTATION OF DSP DSP’s form depends on the institutional constraints, its writing program, students, and teachers It may include face-to-face DSP with personal guidance from writing program administrators and teachers in the programs, PowerPoint presentations, web sites, and brochures outlining the most important issues concerning DSP Quite frequently, surveys are used to ask questions about past and present reading and writing experiences such as, ‘‘I like using computers to draft and revise writing; I turn in assignments on time, and no one has to remind me to get the work done; Generally I don’t read when I don’t have to; In high school, I wrote several essays per year’’ (Crusan, 2010a, p 144) There are also many online versions of DSP to meet the needs of students far from campus, many with similar instrumentation (actual writing, demographic questionnaires, surveys about reading and writing habits and experiences) An online system affords global accessibility, an important component for institutions admitting a large undergraduate nonnative-English-speaking population The good news in this diversity: institutions are taking placement and making it their own These myriad versions of DSP are ‘‘site-based, locally-controlled, context-specific, and accessible’’ (Huot, 2002, p 105) and thereby adhere to current writing assessment theory (CCCC Committee on Assessment, 2006; CCCC Committee on Second Language Writing, 2009) The varied institutional interpretations of directed self-placement are astounding One example is the University of Michigan, which asks students to write an academic essay in response to an article and answer questions about themselves as writers Although the students select their class, their essays are submitted online and sent to students’ instructors to aid in identifying strengths and weaknesses (Gere, 2011) This variety of DSP is just one of the many adaptations of the original Royer and Gilles’ (1998) brand of DSP Although a few TESOL educators might still retain the belief that English language learners are not equipped to assess themselves accurately, with the addition of directing or guiding students through the process, DSP holds great promise for second language writers DSP allows students more choice in their own educational decisions and relates well with the idea of the independent language learner Finally, it is very important to carefully consider the message a placement system sends to students about writing DSP sends a powerful message to students because it affords them some agency and includes students’ self-evaluations as an essential component in the placement decision DSP tells students that they are important, that what they have to say and how they evaluate themselves matters 778 TESOL QUARTERLY THE DECISION TO USE DSP Placement has tremendous consequences for students (Crusan, 2006) because it can speed up or delay graduation There may be no single right answer (Hamp-Lyons, 2011) to the placement question Assessment is not a one-size-fits-all proposition; therefore, our selection of method must take into consideration our local context, the classes into which students will be placed, and the students themselves (CCCC, 2006) Assessment should be grounded by the definition of writing locally; further, the support system for the writing program needs to be considered—does the administration value assessment that is authentic, reinforced in pedagogy, controlled by those who teach? Further, DSP requires that a program understand its own goals and expectations and that the teachers of the program actually follow those goals and adhere to those expectations In the end, when we are considering which method to use to place second language writers, DSP, because of its student-centered philosophy and concern for autonomy, deserves more than a passing glance THE AUTHOR Deborah Crusan is professor of TESOL/applied linguistics at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, United States Her research interests include writing assessment, particularly for placement of second language writers, directed selfplacement, and its consequences for second language writers, and the politics of assessment Her 2010 book, Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom, was published by University of Michigan Press REFERENCES Blakesley, D (2002) Directed self-placement in the university WPA: Writing Program Administration, 25(3), 9–39 Butler, Y G., & Lee, J (2010) The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English Language Testing, 27(5), 5–31 doi: 10.1177/0265532209346370 CCCC Committee on Assessment (2006) Writing assessment: A position statement Retrieved from www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment CCCC Committee on Second Language Writing (2009, November) CCCC statement on second language writing and writers Retrieved from www.ncte.org/cccc/ resources/positions/secondlangwriting Crusan, D (2002) An assessment of ESL writing placement assessment Assessing Writing: An International Journal, 8, 17–30 doi: 10.1016/S1075-2935(02)00028-4 Crusan, D (2006) The politics of implementing online directed self-placement for second language writers In P K Matsuda, C Ortmeier-Hooper, & X You (Eds.), The politics of second language writing (pp 205–221) West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press Crusan, D (2010a) Assessment in the second language writing classroom Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press TEACHING ISSUES 779 Crusan, D (2010b) Assess thyself lest others assess thee In T Silva & P K Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp 245–262) West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press di Gennaro, K (2006) Fairness and test use: The case of the SAT and writing placement for ESL Students Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Aplied Linguistics, 6(2), 1–3 di Gennaro, K (2008) Assessment of generation 1.5 learners for placement into college writing courses Journal of Basic Writing, 27(1), 61–79 Gere, A R (2011, April) Assessment 2.0: Networking directed self-placement with instruction and research Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Convention–College Conference on Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA Gere, A R., Aull, L., Green, T., & Porter, A (2010) Assessing the validity of directed self-placement at a large university Assessing Writing, 15, 154–176 doi: 10.1016/ j.asw.2010.08.003 Hamp-Lyons, L (2002) The scope of writing assessment Assessing Writing, 8, 5–16 doi: 10.1016/S1075-2935(02)00029-6 Hamp-Lyons, L (2011) Writing assessment: Shifting issues, new tools, enduring questions Assessing Writing, 16, 3–5 doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.12.001 Haswell, R H (1998) Searching for Kiyoko: Bettering mandatory ESL writing placement Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 133–174 doi: 10.1016/S10603743(98)90011-X Huot, B (1994) A survey of college and university writing placement practices WPA: Writing Program Administration, 17(3), 49–65 Huot, B (2002) (Re)Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning Logan, UT: Utah University Press Inoue, A B (2009) Self-assessment as programmatic center Composition Forum, 20 Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/20/calstate-fresno.php LeBlanc, R., & Painchaud, G (1985) Self-assessment as a second language placement instrument TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 673–687 doi: 10.2307/3586670 O’Neill, P., Moore, C., & Huot, B (2009) A guide to college writing assessment Logan, UT: Utah State University Press Royer, D J., & Gilles, R (1998) Directed self-placement: An attitude of orientation College Composition and Communication, 50(1), 54–70 doi: 10.2307/358352 Royer, D J., & Gilles, R (Eds.) (2003) Directed self-placement: Principles and practices Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Weigle, S C (2002) Assessing writing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press White, E M (2008) Testing in and testing out WPA: Writing Program Administration, 32(1), 129–142 Yancey, K B (1999) Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 483–503 doi: 10.2307/ 358862 780 TESOL QUARTERLY