Community-based assessment pedagogy

Inoue, A. B. (2004). Community-based assessment pedagogy. Assessing Writing, 9(3), 208-238.

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2004.12.001

For Inoue, the most important part of the learning process for writers is their ability to own their
own education by working as a group to define a common goal or outcome for the course, then
discussing and debating how their own writing should be assessed, then to apply those
assessment criteria as a guide to provide insightful feedback and constructive criticism on the
potential within the writing, and, by repeating and refining this cycle, come to an individual
understanding of what makes writing effective and how to assess their own writing outside of the
classroom atmosphere. . . .

The most prominent benefit of this pedagogy is that it allows students, perhaps for the first time
in their academic lives, to define their own standards of assessment by which they and their
classmates are held accountable instead of standards imposed by an academic institution or
single professor. Through this act, the students learn more than just the rules and rhetoric of
writing, they teach themselves what makes a work good, how to think outside of a rigid
tradition of scholarly assessment towards a more subjective assessment based on the needs of the
classroom-community and the readership, and to rely on a community of peer writers and
reviewers as a source not of ultimate knowledge but of shared experience. . . .

Speaking from personal experience with a similar pedagogy through my Advanced Composition
course at ASU, I most closely identify with Inoues student Kelly who walked into the class with
vast writing experience and technical proficiency and thus had a hard time seeing what non-
experts, like her community of classmates, had to offer her through peer assessment. . . .

However, one key difference I identified that might have changed my experience of peer
assessment is Ineous belief that the assessment should focus on the potential within in the
writing instead of focusing on the flaws (223). Had I, instead of only focusing on what I might
have been doing wrong, asked for feedback about where my peers might want to see my work go,
I might have walked away with a very different impression of peer assessment. Reading this
article has helped open my mind to that type of approach as I take steps towards guiding others
in their writing. . . .

In a course on the rhetorical policies of writing, I think community-based assessment pedagogy

could work well and I love the idea of students taking ownership over their own assessment and
learning outcome. In my professional life, I have witnessed how granting a willing participant
ownership over a piece of the business has increased that individuals desire for success, not
only personally, but for the business as community. . . .

I believe, based off my learning from Inoues article as well as from my personal experience that
there are four vital factors for a successful online discussion:
The discussion is focused on the potential, not the flaws. Asking questions such as,
Where would you like to see this paper go?, What interests you most about this
paper?, Were there any disconnections for you as a reader?, What questions were
you left with at the end?.
 The discussion will use the rubric (or other agreed-upon assessment tool) to provide
focused and insightful response that elicits action from the author.
The discussion will provide accountability through evidence that the discussion provoked
an appropriate assessment from the peer as well as a thoughtful, though not necessarily
compliant, reaction from the author.
The discussion will invoke a feeling of community, of a common goal. The idea that each
peer is offering unique insight on a particular readers reaction to the writing is key.