Reconsidering assessment: From checklist to dialectic

When composition teachers evaluate student essays, how well-aligned is their grading practice with what those teachers profess is important about writing? How do instructors discover this alignment? This article describes the consequences of inadvertent misalignment by analyzing a document typically found in many writing programs—an instructor's essay evaluation checklist. A critique of this common assessment instrument reveals that, in trying to promote evaluative consistency, the checklist privileges product over process, the authority of academic discourse over the autonomy of students' own voices, and an analytic predisposition to student writing as opposed to an instructor's reader-response. In so doing, the checklist undercuts the kind of composition pedagogy instructors claim to espouse in their classroom practice. Perhaps these conflicts cannot be overcome, but, in response to this precarious predicament, this essay poses this question: Can assessment find its direction and vitality by acknowledging such conflicts? A dual heuristic, of sorts, is proposed for locating assessment techniques that directly address the conflicts inherent in the checklist. This heuristic seeks out in assessment what the checklist clearly lacks: dialogic and dialectic dimensions. Defining which assessment methods best fulfill this heuristic—and in so doing more honestly align pedagogy with evaluation—is the purpose of the concluding remarks in this essay.