Laurence Stevens' recent posting about demonizers of writing competency tests
is a "shoe" which looks like it would just about fit me, and this makes me
uncomfortable enough to want to respond a little. Laurence has written well
about the positive functions of the writing test at Laurentian, and I
probably should have learned more from reading him in the past than my last
posting indicates. I don't, however, cling to all the false oppositions that
he mentions. I don't think that competency tests have nothing to do with
writing, though I do think that time-limited tests which draw only on the
general knowledge that students have at the point that they sit down in the
examination room have little to do with either writing in the disciplines
("gown") or with the kinds of writing students do in the world after they
graduate ("town"). It's not impossible to construct competency tests which
aren't time limited and which allow students to research/redraft etc. In
fact, the Program for Students with Learning Disabilities incoming students
at York, has used a 3 day "test" to do just this. But this test is
incredibly consumptive of time and energy. I also don't think that competency
tests need focus on a narrow enforcement of superficial rules--some may, but
the ones I'm familiar with use holistic scoring and at least officially are
more concerned with students communicative abilities.
My objection to competency testing programs is that you just don't learn
enough from them to justify the expense--given limited resources I'd rather
see these resources used elsewhere and in other ways.
James
--
James Brown
Assistant Secretary of the University
York University Secretariat
S883 Ross 736-5012
[log in to unmask]
