Theorizing failure in us writing assessments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

How do teachers define failure when learning to write? We don't ask the question often enough. In this article, I attempt to offer a definition and critique of the nature and production of failure in writing classrooms and programs. I argue that the production of failure in writing assessments can create more purposeful consequences, particularly for those historically most likely to suffer "failures" in writing classrooms: students of color, multilingual students, and workingclass students. Drawing upon survey and grade data from California State University, Fresno, I examine two kinds of failure produced in writing classrooms, quality-failure and labor-failure. I argue that quality-failure (associated with judging the quality of drafts) is the least useful kind of failure for writing classrooms, while labor-failure (associated with work and effort) offers better consequences for student-writers and can help articulate a more robust writing construct by including noncognitive dimensions of writing. I conclude by proposing "productive failure" as a future possibility for writing classrooms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)330-352
Number of pages23
JournalResearch in the Teaching of English
Volume48
Issue number3
StatePublished - Feb 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

classroom
Writing Assessment
student
labor
writer
teacher
learning
Labor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Education
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Theorizing failure in us writing assessments. / Inoue, Asao B.

In: Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 48, No. 3, 01.02.2014, p. 330-352.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{289a93636a524f3c905f0e0d320e6d73,
title = "Theorizing failure in us writing assessments",
abstract = "How do teachers define failure when learning to write? We don't ask the question often enough. In this article, I attempt to offer a definition and critique of the nature and production of failure in writing classrooms and programs. I argue that the production of failure in writing assessments can create more purposeful consequences, particularly for those historically most likely to suffer {"}failures{"} in writing classrooms: students of color, multilingual students, and workingclass students. Drawing upon survey and grade data from California State University, Fresno, I examine two kinds of failure produced in writing classrooms, quality-failure and labor-failure. I argue that quality-failure (associated with judging the quality of drafts) is the least useful kind of failure for writing classrooms, while labor-failure (associated with work and effort) offers better consequences for student-writers and can help articulate a more robust writing construct by including noncognitive dimensions of writing. I conclude by proposing {"}productive failure{"} as a future possibility for writing classrooms.",
author = "Inoue, {Asao B.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "330--352",
journal = "Research in the Teaching of English",
issn = "0034-527X",
publisher = "National Council of Teachers of English",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Theorizing failure in us writing assessments

AU - Inoue, Asao B.

PY - 2014/2/1

Y1 - 2014/2/1

N2 - How do teachers define failure when learning to write? We don't ask the question often enough. In this article, I attempt to offer a definition and critique of the nature and production of failure in writing classrooms and programs. I argue that the production of failure in writing assessments can create more purposeful consequences, particularly for those historically most likely to suffer "failures" in writing classrooms: students of color, multilingual students, and workingclass students. Drawing upon survey and grade data from California State University, Fresno, I examine two kinds of failure produced in writing classrooms, quality-failure and labor-failure. I argue that quality-failure (associated with judging the quality of drafts) is the least useful kind of failure for writing classrooms, while labor-failure (associated with work and effort) offers better consequences for student-writers and can help articulate a more robust writing construct by including noncognitive dimensions of writing. I conclude by proposing "productive failure" as a future possibility for writing classrooms.

AB - How do teachers define failure when learning to write? We don't ask the question often enough. In this article, I attempt to offer a definition and critique of the nature and production of failure in writing classrooms and programs. I argue that the production of failure in writing assessments can create more purposeful consequences, particularly for those historically most likely to suffer "failures" in writing classrooms: students of color, multilingual students, and workingclass students. Drawing upon survey and grade data from California State University, Fresno, I examine two kinds of failure produced in writing classrooms, quality-failure and labor-failure. I argue that quality-failure (associated with judging the quality of drafts) is the least useful kind of failure for writing classrooms, while labor-failure (associated with work and effort) offers better consequences for student-writers and can help articulate a more robust writing construct by including noncognitive dimensions of writing. I conclude by proposing "productive failure" as a future possibility for writing classrooms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894221460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894221460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84894221460

VL - 48

SP - 330

EP - 352

JO - Research in the Teaching of English

JF - Research in the Teaching of English

SN - 0034-527X

IS - 3

ER -