From TAMUCC Wiki

SGarza: BroadChapter4

Willma's Beginning Entry

Okay everyone, I am totally confused about chapter four. Who are the participants? Are they the students or the instructors or the evaluators? In my opinion -- and I am aware I have the wrong opinion -- there are issues with the staff and faculty who are a part of the norming and trio teams. I feel sorry for the students. HELP! I DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Willma's Ending Entry

Eda's Entry

First of all, Willma, I think you got it right, since this is also how I understood what chapter 4 presents: this chapter basically talks about the issues, difficulties, topics that instructors of English 1 tried to dealt with during their norming sessions. And I feel bad for the students too Willma. In addition, as far as I understand, this chapter mainly focuses on the issues on Contextual Criteria- how instructors evaluated student-authors' essay according to the contextual criteria. These are some of the terms and concepts I have found important to mention:

Contextual Criteria: "demonstrated how pedagogical, ethical, collegial, and other aspects of the environment surrounding students' texts guides and shaped evaluators' decisions" (73)..."The Contextual Criteria explored in this chapter represent mainly uncharted territory in the study of rhetorical judgment" (117).

"Dynamic Criteria Mapping can document and bring to light evaluative systems of which composition faculty might otherwise remain unaware (or about which they prefer to remain silent), including the previously unexplored realm of contextual criteria" (73-74).

"Standards/Expectations reveals three specific dynamics by which standard systematically shifted: what English 1 is about, Indeterminate Borders between passing and failing, Shifting Borders...These considerations help to explain why standards refused to be as solid, stable, and portable en entity as participant wished" (74).

"In the process of Dynamic Criteria Mapping, a writing program would take up the question in the context of course and university goals and try to describe to all concerned (students, instructors, and faculty across the curriculum) whether "basic competency" should be viewed as minimal or substantial" (75).

The dividing line between pass and fail or between A and B: both dividing lines are equally indeterminate (77).

Constructing a portrait or narrative of the student-author: Instances of constructing writers fell into two main groups: a)Teachers' Special Knowledge-TSK-(an instructor sharing with trio-mates direct and exclusive knowledge about a student-author taught by the instructor), b)Outside instructors' imagined details about student-authors and their writing processes (83).

"Constructing Writers is a wide-spread and perhaps inescapable feature of reading. We always construct an ethos behind a text as a means of interpreting and evaluating that text. What is new is our awareness that we need to document such evaluative dynamic so we can hold them up to critical scrutiny and make programmatic decisions about how to handle them. Dynamic Criteria Mapping provides a method for just this sort of reflective inquiry into assessment and for action based on that inquiry" (83-84).

Ethos: "as a Textual Criterion consists of inferences drawn by readers on the basis of clues observable in the text" (84).

"A judgment of Learning/Progress/Growth was not a judgment of the rhetorical strength pf the texts under consideration. Instead, Learning drew on differences in the relative rhetorical strengths of texts to construct an implicit narrative of the students-author's Growth" (96).

"Plagiarism/Originality has nothing to do with the quality of the textual performance presented for judgment" (99-100).

"Plagiarism/Originality as a rhetorical value points to our implicit expectations that each student-author will do the intellectual, artistic, and physical work of fulfilling writing assignments and always carefully document and material drawn from other sources" (100).

End of Eda's Entry

Denise's section

expectation: Discussion or study of the way people anticipate language use or language performance and usually how those anticipations affect their subsequent behavior, for instance how readers may expect political conformity in a piece of writing and then be defied by the author (John Schilb, 2007), or how dissertation writers negotiate the assumed standards of their dissertation committee (Dana Britt Lundell & Richard Beach, 2003), or how employers presume writing proficiency levels of their new hires (Nancy M. Shullery)(from

"draw the line" or establish the "bottom line": I don't have a definition for these terms, but thought it was important aspect of grading/evaluating/assessing student writing

gatekeeping: The act of limiting the number of successful applicants to an institution, or program, course, professional journal, discipline, or workplace, sometimes with classist or elitist motives, sometimes with sincere need to keep standards up ( I selected this term because of its relevance to the gatekeeping purpose/function of the criteria of fullfilling the assignment. (p. 81)

constructing writers (p. 84): "is a Contextual Criterion precisely because the clues from which readers construct these portraits or narratives of authors come from outside of the student-authored text"

portfolios (p. 103): "powerful contexts for rhetorical judement"

:A collection of different written works by a student demonstrating the student's writing achievement or competence, and related issues from the angle of instruction, composing, evaluation, and assessment (

End of Denise's section

Retrieved from
Page last modified on March 06, 2012, at 05:04 PM CST