1. Using Multiple Assessment Vehicles to Promote a Dialogic Classroom
Leo Schmitt
December 14, 2010
Aplng 597 Language in Use
Dr. Celeste Kinginger
Introduction
Wells (1999) noted a tension in the realization of sociocultural theory, where the two primary aims of education
appear at first glance to pull in different directions. He called these differences ‘cultural reproduction’ and
‘individual development’. Koschmann (1999) sees a similar tension between what he terms intersubjectivity
(where participants agree on their meaning) and alterity (where individuals express their own ideas). While the
extent of their domain may appear vague and even ultimately indefinable, and as Tharp & Gallimore (1988) note
teaching that goes beyond the simple rote memorization has many names, they do represent clearly different foci
of the educational process. On the one hand there is the traditional ‘cultural reproduction’, where individuals are
socialized into the social historic traditions that the educational system wishes to perpetuate, whether those be
memorization of sacred texts, socialization into preferred hierarchical systems, or conformity to a particular
scientific paradigm. On the other hand, we see the encouragement of ‘individual development’ where individuals
are encouraged to apply their acquired skills in determining new directions hitherto unexplored or underexplored
by the educational system. This tension pulls on educators and learners alike, yet Wells (1999) argues they are
not in conflict, but rather ‘equally necessary.’As Tharp & Gallimore (1988, p21) put it, “Teaching must be
redefined as assisted performance” clarifying that this assistance is necessary when the student enters Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development. As Bakhtin (1981) notes, in language that predicts the tension mentioned above,
some language is ‘centripetal’, pulling towards the standards of stability and canonization, while other language

2. is centrifugal, pulling to towards life, experience and the ‘natural pluralism of language’. Following Bakhtin’s
allusion to physics, we can quickly conclude that if these two opposing forces are not appropriately balanced, the
system is likely to either collapse on itself or spin out of control. Thus teachers must look to a way that helps
move students further in their goals, simultaneously inculcating their cultural development while also supporting
the students’ quest for greater individual ability to realize personal goals.
This dialog between the educational institutional systems and the individual learners that attend them
risks the extremes of either thoroughly repetitive demands of the system, which must surely lead to stagnation,
or anarchic individualism with an absence of common ground in which no shared values can exist. Both
Nystrand (1997a) and Koschmann (1999) note that if all language is dialogic, then we would expect all teaching
to be dialogic. Yet we can see that at extremes the dialogic nature of teaching can deteriorate into an excessively
one-sided dialog.
Unfortunately, it would seem that there is tendency to highlight the authority of the genre and the
cultural reproduction with a concomitant sidelining of the learners’ autonomy (e.g. Halden-Sullivan, 1998). As
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997) point out, asking students questions to which the answer is already known does
not constitute authentic discourse, but rather ‘pseudo-discourse’. This pseudo-discourse may be appropriate for
generating cultural reproduction, but it is hard to see how a single received and formalized answer can promote
the cause of individual development. Authentic discourse, with an exchange of knowledge and viewpoints, is
necessary to engage students (e.g. Nystrand and Gamoran, 1997).
The question of how such an authentic discourse can be created now arises. As Kachur and Prendergast
(1997) note, it is the teacher who determines the structure of classroom interaction. Although many institutions
continue to lean heavily toward the centripetal aspects, Halden-Sullivan (1998) notes that many English
departments have moved from ‘pedants’ to ‘participants’, indicating that there is a greater recognition of the
value of individual development. This development of the individual not only promises greater possibilities for
future growth, but also supports the ethical impetus of allowing all participants to develop to their own fullest
individual potentials. As Dewey (2001, p103) notes, “Accomplishment of this end (eliminating inequality and
promoting the individual) demands … such modification of traditional ideals of culture, traditional subjects of
study and traditional methods of teaching and discipline as will retain all the youth under educational influences

3. until they are equipped to be masters of their own economic and social careers.” While the stabilizing and
unifying effect of cultural reproduction continues to permeate educational institutions, it behooves educators to
explore how the system can be reviewed to allow a greater possibility for all individuals to explore their own
optimal potentials as individuals rather than in how well they approximate the demands of the controlling
educational system. Such a goal will, as Dewey says, require some considerable modification of current
strategies.
The Importance of Interaction
To apply such a goal to a second language classroom, a basic theoretical model of language is necessary.
This paper will adopt the position taken by Halliday (1994) that language is functional, based on the meaning it
conveys rather than being syntactic in orientation, and that its scope is determined by its reference to social
interaction rather than to a notion of grammaticality. In this respect, we look at language as a functional tool
(Eggins, 2004) used to make meanings (interpreting meaning in its most general sense, following Halliday and
Hasan (1989)) for other Homo Sapiens. This view of language as a tool for communication fits well with the
outlined primary goals mentioned above, cultural reproduction and individual development. It is indeed difficult
to conceptualize a way that either of these aims could be achieved without the tool of language for creating
interpretable meanings.
Coming as this view does from the Systemic Functional Linguistics paradigm, it encourages us to
concentrate on ‘both production and analysis of texts’ (Lirola, 2010) or as Wells puts it (1999, p107), the process
and product provide “…two simultaneously valid perspectives on a single event”. This interchange between
what is instantiated and how it is received, or ‘re-instantiated’, provides a tool whereby participants can engage
in a dialog whereby Bakhtin’s two forces can be bounced back and forth. For as Nystrand (1997a) says,
following Bakhtin, meaning in an utterance is always a response to or an anticipation of the utterances of others.
If this is the case, then the growth of this dialog allows us to focus on how both cultural reproduction and
individual development can be created through a dialectical process. Indeed, Nystrand (1997b), citing Volosinov
and Bakhtin, argues that understanding is not seen through schemata, but rather through the interaction of the
writer and the reader. As this dialog continues, we can see how the two forces interact, with the ultimate aim of

4. balancing between the centripetal and the centrifugal through a balance between the production and the analysis.
The Importance of Context
Naturally, whatever its overall implications, this dialogic process must be situated within a particular
context if it is to have practical benefits. As Eggins (2004) reminds us, meanings are influenced by the social and
cultural context. The meaning of any work that seeks to resolve the competing forces mentioned above must take
into account how the contextual factors may impact one side or the other. In the words of Chapelle (1998), “In
short, SF theory states that particular aspects of a given context (such as the topics discussed, the language users
and the medium of communication) define the meanings likely to be expressed and the language likely to be
used to express those meanings.” And Lirola (2010) notes that SFL emphasizes that effective writing should be
appropriate to its cultural milieu. Thus looking at resolving the interaction between our two divergent aims in the
context of writing requires care as to the exact context in which that writing – and its concomitant reading –
takes place.
This context would naturally be expected to vary. Nystrand (1997b) notes that at times the context of
writing will tend toward the univocal, as in an exam situation, yet the dialogic approach allowing greater
interaction permits a social foundation for writing. This social foundation again should provide rich possibilities
for developing individuals as they negotiate the level of centrifugal force that is appropriate for them in contrast
to the level of centripetal force that pulls them toward the cultural reproduction often favored by institutions.
The Importance of Being Functional
Regardless of the context, it seems axiomatic that, as Wells puts it (1999, p86) “…for the information to
contribute to an increase in that person’s understanding, it must be incorporated into his or her own model of the
world through knowledge building and/or put to use to mediate the solving of some problem of personal
significance.” Thus Wells highlights the importance of the functionality of any exchange. Regardless of whether
we are talking about cultural reproduction or individual development, it seems clear that any such learning must
have a value. In any society that aims to foster the personal growth of individuals, that value must pertain not
only to the institutional system promoting the educational process, but also to the individual engaging in it. As

5. Edwards and Mercer (1987) remind us, simple knowledge transmission is pervasive in education. Wells (1999)
coherently argues that such transmission needs to be engaged and used rather than being simply transferred from
one individual to another. Regurgitation for teachers and standardized exams brings us back to a rote
memorization that does not benefit the individual to any level comparable to the benefit that would be derived
from a system where the individual could engage with others in an authentic dialog that promotes a depth of
comprehension. As Halden-Sullivan (1998) says, a focus on product at best makes students imitate what their
instructors have modeled. This simplistic aim to realize a final product rather than simultaneously attending to
the process and analysis as mentioned above (Lirola, 2010; Wells 1999) cuts out an entire side of the dialog and
thus reverts to a univocal world where only one view stands. This view, no matter how incisive, does not account
for the inherent dynamism of human interaction and offers little hope for including the thoughts and aspirations
of coming generations, nor for facing the inevitable new and unpredicted challenges of the future. As Dewey
(2001, 104) puts it, “Such a (democratic) society must have a type of education which gives individuals a
personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure social changes without
introducing disorder.” Not only does this extension of the dialog to include the individual support the
overarching society through strengthening member support, but it also aids the individuals who compose that
society. In the words of Wells, (1999, p108) “… by contributing to the joint meaning making with and for others,
one also makes meaning for oneself and, in the process, extends one’s own understanding. At the same time, the
“utterance” viewed from the perspective of what is said, is a knowledge artifact that potentially contributes
knowledge building of all those who are co-participants in the activity.” Thus a dialogic approach that
acknowledges the rights of the individuals in the educational process to have an input into their learning not only
benefits that individual, but also benefits the community to which that individual belongs.
Moving Toward Application
We have started from the tension between the two forces pulling toward the center of cultural
reproduction and conformity and pulling to the exterior in individual directions of individual viewpoints. We
have noted that between these two forces there is an important dialog between individuals which is dependent on
the context in which it occurs. Finally, we have opined that this dialog can play an extraordinarily functional role

6. in developing both the stability of the community and the potential of the individual. With an outline of a
theoretical approach in place, let us look at the general context of a second-language writing class, where
students can provide the teacher with some valid exchange. However, it would seem that many opportunities are
equally available when students can to talk to each other and thus provide details on lexico-grammatical,
organizational, and content-based issues. In this way, language-based issues can be incorporated into a discourse
and the potential for gaining proficiency in a second language can be enhanced.
A first step in supporting the individual development must be engaging students in their own learning
process. Nystrand (1997a) asserts that this engagement leads to a sustained commitment to the academic content
under consideration. Indeed he tells us that the dialogic approach is built upon the premise that the interaction of
conversants in an appropriate social and cultural context is true discourse. In order to create such an appropriate
social context in the classroom, Wells (1999, p164) tells us that we need a classroom where “…learners share
with the teacher the responsibility for deciding on the topics and on the means for their investigation”, noting
that each classroom offers its own opportunities for such decisions. It seems clear then that we need to rally
participants into the dialog on the goals of a particular learning experience in order to engage them and offer
them opportunities to develop.
While Nystrand (1997a) argues that language cannot be monologic, he accepts that classes can be
constructed as if it were. This is reflective of the teaching philosophy where there is but a single answer and the
teacher or system seems to be trying to ‘control the text’, yet Nystrand (1997a) avers that this approach has been
‘soundly refuted’. In his view, we have moved on to a position recognizing that readers now actively construct
the meaning of texts themselves. Thus we need to work collaboratively to get to what is not already understood,
rather than regurgitate what is already understood.
Implementing an Approach
Implementing an approach that accepts the need for a component recognizing individual needs for
expression requires considerable thought. Nystrand (1997b) avers that the best results come when the teacher
outlines general expectations and guidelines but leaves the manner of the execution in the hands of the students.
In this manner, students are compelled to negotiate how to achieve the given task in the most appropriate way.

7. This requirement that students find the approach to solving the problem is comparatively straightforward to give,
such as when a writing instructor gives an overall essay assignment with minimal guidance as to format, content,
length, etc. What is much more challenging to implement is the evaluation of the process and final product
chosen by the student. In the words of Halden-Sullivan (1998, p26) “…while in their teaching instructors place
value on students’ flexibility in developing effective writing (and thinking) behaviors, in assessment instructors
rarely address or value that flexibility.” A part of the problem must surely be the time and effort required to
evaluate each individual’s development. It is challenging enough to read and respond to a pile of essays without
needing to delve into the depths whereby the teacher can read the mindset and approach behind the product.
Another problem Wells (1999) raises is that sociocultural theory prefers the assessment of activities in which the
subject habitually engages. The approach described below; which aims to bring self-assessment, peer-
assessment, and group assessment in as support for the more traditional teacher assessment; reduces some of the
load on the overburdened writing teacher by shifting some of the responsibility back onto the shoulders of the
learners and also attempts to engage students in a somewhat more natural dialog with themselves and their peers.
It also offers opportunities for formative assessment along the way so that students who are pulled too far by
centripetal forces to their own individual directions can be gently brought back to a more intersubjectively
acceptable product.
This dialog offers greater opportunities for enhanced and diversified feedback, which can develop
learning and improve motivation (Sutton, 2009). Through multiple voices, learners may avoid the dangers of
ineffective feedback (e.g. Sutton, 2009). It is not simply a question of instructors giving some brief indication of
where problems are, but rather an authentic dialog that can allow students to understand, internalize, and act
upon the information provided.
Nystrand and Gamoran (1997, p38) propose the concept of authenticity, meaning “Authentic questions
are questions for which the asker has not prespecified an answer and include requests for information as well as
open-ended questions with indeterminate answers.” In this manner, there is more than one possible answer and
discourse is required to determine the success or failure of the question. This stands in contrast to ‘test questions’
that have a single correct answer; such questions would be clearly monologic. A situation where a teacher has
sole discretion over interpretation must clearly stand closer on the continuum to such a monologic approach. As

8. Halden-Sullivan (1998) proposes, “In evaluating writing, this interchange can be multi-vocal, for example,
involving teacher commentary, students’ self-assessments, and peer evaluation.” Not only would such a response
move teaching away from the overly monologic approach that threatens the dynamism of learning, but these
voices are also able to evolve over time offering new insights that can again benefit both the community and the
individual.
The importance of audience is often mentioned in academic writing (e.g. Oshima and Hogue, 2006).
Within an academic classroom, the audience is generally limited to the instructor and the students. Nevertheless,
these participants can bring vastly different viewpoints to the table. The writer him/herself will have a view of
his/her own efficacy in conveying what he/she wants to say. His/her peer will view the writing through a
different prism, looking to compare how his/her classmate has performed and inevitably comparing it both with
his/her own work as well as, most likely, a typical exemplar of an idealized piece that both students strive
toward. It should be noted that the view of this exemplar can vary considerably. Some students will look toward
a single correct ‘answer’, while others will look for an effective paper that communicates the ideas desired. The
class as a whole will bring in a new dynamic, looking at the work again as compared to the exemplar of the
idealized paper. It is the successful completion of a work resembling this platonic ideal of a paper that should
indicate that a student has successfully produced a text that is worthy of passing the course and moving on to
further challenges. Thus a freshman composition class will aim to produce a quality freshman paper, whatever
that may be. The interspersion of ideas here will allow a richer view of what constitutes quality. Finally, the
instructor stands as the (paid) arbiter on behalf of the institution of what is acceptable or not. He/she is often seen
as the final judge on the quality of an assignment, and brings experience and knowledge in the assessment, yet
he/she is an individual like any other member of the class. While speaking to the centripetal forces for which
he/she is remunerated, he/she also has the opportunity to encourage the individual expression of the human
beings with whom he/she has engaged over the course of the semester.
Each of these strands represents a different view of the writing audience. While we may give more
weight to one or the other, and society and institutions usually give most weight to the cultural reproduction
vested in the instructor’s charge, each has a value of its own. Below we will visit strengths and rationales of each
and conclude by discussing how to interweave these varying strands.

9. Self-assessment
Each writer must take responsibility for his/her final product. Although readers may choose to engage
with the product in their own process, the responsibility falls to the writer to put his/her ideas forward succinctly
and clearly so as to avoid unnecessary confusion as well as to avoid stating his/her positions vaguely or weakly.
A writer must thus gain the necessary tools to analyze texts effectively (e.g. Lirola, 2010). Indeed, a writer needs
to take a dialogic approach not only with others but with him/herself Sutton (2009). A poorly written paper is
ultimately the responsibility of the writer, no matter how many editors, reviewers, and instructors it may go
through in the drafting stages. Thus the writer should gain a better understanding of the teacher’s expectations
and authority through developing self-assessment Halden-Sullivan (1998). Teachers sometimes have difficulty
letting go of the control, but as Sostak (1998), a sixth-grade teacher, found “I have learned to be a guide, not a
director; a facilitator, not a controller. I have learned to have faith in my students…” Self-assessment guided and
supported by the student is able to produce empowered students, capable of both cultural reproduction to satisfy
external expectations and individual development to grow in an agentive manner.
Self-assessment has been posited as a valuable tool for writers to evaluate their own writing both prior to
and after submission (Barlow, 2006). It is a skill that needs considerable work and is especially challenging for
second language writers who may not have reached the zone of proximal development in a particular area.
Second language writers may at first stumble over basic areas of language and only be able to express
themselves in the crudest of terms. As they improve, they are pulled by the centripetal forces that expect them to
conform to the patterns used by first-language users, including for example cultural references or idiomatic
expressions. Yet at the same time, as they gain a greater understanding of what can and cannot be said, they find
doors open that will allow them to create new sentences and new phrases in a manner similar to a first-language
user. However, as Harris and Graham (1996) note, learning good self-evaluation can take time and students who
tend to look for external reinforcement may take longer to acquire effective self-assessment. These students may
prefer the more reassuring aspects of the centripetal forces than striking out to create their own acceptable
individual contributions. One challenge for the teacher in this case, then, is to help individuals develop at their
own rate.

10. In the end, self-assessment requires students to compare what they have produced with what they believe
they should produce and what they are expected to produce. In doing this, they engage in aligning with the
norms of cultural reproduction to a greater or lesser extent, and make (hopefully) informed decisions as to how
to interact with the larger discourse community.
Peer-assessment
Peer-assessment has many supporters - Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) reported that a review of literature
showed only one ‘truly discouraging’ report - who use it as a tool to help students not only see what their peers
are doing, but ideally to reflect further on their own writing styles. In this latter regard, it exhibits some
similarities with self-assessment. Sometimes it is more challenging for students to see their own errors in their
own work, but they are more adept at finding the mistakes that others make. The impact of a distance can often
make it easier for students to see errors that they do not consciously register when they make them themselves. It
may be that this is another facet of the interaction of the centripetal and centrifugal forces insofar as the
individual sees his/her own voice as part of the individual development, but might be expected to see other
individuals’ products more as variances from the cultural reproduction. A further advantage of peer-assessment is
that as Nystrand (1997b) mentions, peers are the most easily available group for student writers to find as an
audience for their dialog. As an added bonus, the idea of seeing the work of classmates seems to hold some
interest. As Ferris (1998:133) says “Students enjoy peer feedback and find it helpful.”
As most rigorous second language writing classes are based on comparable skill levels, students are able
to review the work of peers who have attained approximately the same facility with written language as it
pertains both to the standards of cultural reproduction and to individual development. How such peer-review is
actually executed is a matter again for the specific cultural and social context of the specific classroom. As Ferris
(1998) notes, there is considerable divergence in what is done in peer-feedback. Again, well-thought out and
informed assessment is better assessment. Thus, peer-review brings the opportunity for students to focus on the
challenges they are facing at a particular point in their development of both reproducing the target culture or
genre and developing an individual voice. For example, students in the same intermediate class might be
expected to have comparable understandings of the situationally accepted use of transition signals for improving

11. cohesion. Then, when students see their classmates overusing ‘therefore’ despite the instructor’s remonstrations
on their overuse during this lesson, they can solidify their understanding of the overuse of transition signals by
seeing how their peers have engaged with the conventional wisdom on transitions. The dialog can continue as to
whether such overuse constitutes a viable individual voice or an unacceptable deviance from socially constructed
norms.
As students look at the differences between their own writing and their peers’ writing compared to the
exemplars touted as superior, they can, as Ferris and Hedgcock (2005:226) aver, “test and revise their L2
hypotheses.” If compromises can be reached that satisfy the necessary communicability standards of the L2,
communication can be maintained and student awareness of possible divergences is enhanced. Peer-assessment
thus empowers students as arbiters of what is good writing, a position supported by Land and Whitley (1989)
and H. G. Widdowson (1994), as they gain an understanding of how their own individual development can
remain sufficiently anchored by the cultural reproduction expected by the established powers. It should be noted
that Nystrand (1997b) maintains that peer-writing leads to more addressing of the differences between what they
want to express and what they have actually written, whereas writing for teachers leads them to compare their
writing with an ‘idealized’ non-existent text. Thus peer-assessment would seem to pull somewhat more
centrifugally than teacher-assessment.
In sum, peer-assessment requires students to compare what their peers have produced with what they
believe they should produce and what they are expected to produce. This comparison provokes thought about
appropriateness in terms of register and genre as well as focusing students to pay attention to form.
Group-assessment (through wikis)
Traditional peer-assessment often takes on a one-to-one guise, with individuals giving feedback to other
individuals (e.g. Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005). Group assessment can take several shapes. On one level, it is
similar to peer-assessment, but larger in scale. Indeed, group assessment supports peer assessment. Researchers
have found that collaborative writing contributes to a willingness to utilize peer feedback (Sotillo, 2002) Here I
will review group-assessment occurring within the context of a single group-produced assignment, the wiki. The
wiki encourages all participants not only to contribute to the final product but also to edit and assess what their

12. colleagues have written. Using wikis, (e.g. Schmitt, 2008), students edit each other’s work and vie with each
other to produce the most effective text possible by combining each one’s strengths.
This form of group assessment provides checks and balances. Students are encouraged to engage their
individual development and to create an essay that is representative of quality writing. This has the further
advantage of offering a more legitimate dialog for second language learners. As Nystrand (1997b) points out, the
teacher usually knows the topic, especially if the emphasis is on effective second language writing rather than
on particular content. In this case then, writers are also demonstrating effective written communication for their
peers who are trying to master the same skill. This dialog thus becomes more authentic than writing an essay for
a teacher who already ‘knows’ what aspects about the essay do or do not work. Additionally as Sutton (2009, p6)
notes, “One factor in students’ unwillingness or inability to engage in dialogue may be asymmetries in tutor-
student power relations.” Setting up a wiki that allows students to interact away from the direct intervention and
control of the teacher, representative of the centripetal forces, can offer greater opportunities for dialog.
Assessment in wikis can vary widely. Nevertheless, a key ingredient is the constant checking by peers to
ensure that a link with the more widely accepted norms is maintained. This call for intersubjective accuracy that
requires each student to consider how his/her own contribution will be adjudged by his/her peers reflects the core
concepts of the centripetal and centrifugal discussed above. Indeed, this balance is a key to the accuracy of the
most famous wiki, Wikipedia. As Wikipedia says “…articles are collectively owned by a community of editors
and are agreed on by consensus” This means that consensus forms the heart of assessment and an article’s
validity is attested to by common agreement. As Kessler (2009:80-81) says “…this openness to collaboration
may also result in the rapid correction of such erroneous information.” Here we see a brake on individual
creativity to ensure that individual ideas do not devolve into unintelligible chaos.
In this way, this form of group assessment empowers students as arbiters of what is good writing, much
as peer-assessment does (q.v.). As Wells (1999, p304) puts it, learning does not always need a teacher. It can be
assisted by other students “through the help they give each other as they work together collaboratively on jointly
undertaken tasks.” Students need to negotiate with their peers on a single piece of work and then put this
forward. As the multiple versions are created, students’ awareness should be raised as they work toward a single
finished product. Group assessment stimulates discussion and debate on areas of concern. Although there is

13. what Sykes, Oskoz, and Thorne (2008:531) describe as a “blurring of historical notions of authorship”, thus
seemingly reducing the individual component, there is a real opportunity for learners to experiment with what may or may not be
acceptable to the larger community. Additionally, they are exposed to the concept of ‘uptake’ where one participant takes up
the concepts raised by another and develops this idea (Nystrand and Gamoran , 1997). This bonus allows not
only cultural reproduction and individual development, but quite possibly a separate though allied aspect where
individual development becomes group development, again to the potential benefit of both individual and
community.
Group-assessment through wikis, as with peer assessment, requires students to compare what they have
produced as a group with what they believe they should produce and what they are expected to produce as
individuals. It also encourages them to enter a dialog with peers grounded in the need for mutual intelligibility
and acceptability rather than directly following the dogmatic norm of the curricular objectives.
Teacher-assessment
Traditional assessment in education follows traditional power-distributions. Instructors are vested with
the authority and power to assess the quality of their charges’ work. They have been the proverbial ‘judge, jury,
and executioner.’ Teacher assessment looks at what students have written and then ideally tries to give valuable
feedback that will help the students to reach their goals in writing. As discussed above, these goals have often
centered on the centripetal forces pulling in toward standardization and conformity rather than out to individual
expression. Teachers rely on their training, knowledge, and experience to assess writing and this continues our
historical tradition of cultural reproduction, punctuated at points by individual development as well as historic
changes to the social and cultural context. As has been noted, assessing writing is no easy task. Teachers employ
a wide variety of methods to assess and grade students’ work. Nevertheless, all grading and summative
assessment is seen from a position of authority and hence carries a far greater amount of prestige.
Given the position that formal education occupies in contemporary society, teachers can often play the
role of what Shaughnessy (1976) describes as “Guarding the Tower”. Thus teachers provide legitimacy to
students desperate to find the acceptance that will secure them better jobs, more prestige, and higher income
potential. Teachers are hired by the institution that then certifies a student as attaining the required level. This

14. stamp of legitimacy cannot be underestimated in its real impact on people’s lives. Thus students are attuned, both
by personal interest and entrenched cultural expectation, to rely heavily on the teachers’ endorsement of their
success in reproducing the cultural mores of the system. This legitimacy gives teacher-assessment tremendous
face validity.
As teachers have been through the system themselves and are paid and expected to follow the standard
curriculum, they provide the ‘authenticated’ model to students. Their knowledge of the conventions and
expectations of appropriate written discourse, while never exhaustive, is expected to surpass those of the
students. As experts in the field of writing, they provide the view supported by administrators and the institution,
however loosely or specifically this may be defined in any given context. They must then decide how far to go. It
is their job to create a dialog that will create opportunities for their learners to compare their own work with that
of the ‘ideal’ Sutton (2009). This question, as Spack (1988) puts it, is especially true when confronting second
language writers who will bring entirely distinct cultural, historical, and linguistic experiences to the writing
endeavor. This diversity of the second language writing classroom brings another sort of pressure to the
instructor as he/she must be able to respond quickly to unexpected directions that students may take if they offer
students authentic questions (Nystrand, 1997b). This can certainly comprise a risk for teachers who do not have
a depth of subject knowledge and will subsequently need to better understand the written product. Of course, this
leads the analysis in the direction of a more authentic dialog.
Expert and qualified teachers are thus expected to provide more valuable feedback than untrained peers.
As Ferris and Hedgock (2005:185) note, “…one element has remained constant: both teachers and students feel
that teacher feedback on student writing is a critical, nonnegotiable aspect of writing instruction.” While
arguments may rage as to what constitutes good writing among academics, just as art critics may disagree on
what constitutes a good painting, it is hoped and believed that qualified teachers have a bank of knowledge that
allows informed assessment. The guidance that teachers provide must be of a high value if only because they are
recognized experts in the field and more capable and experienced in assessing writing, in particular as to how it
refers to the expected format. It should also be noted that although there is much in the teacher’s role that calls to
centripetal force, there is still wide scope for the instructor to support the individual. Wells (1999), for example,
says that the teacher should tailor his/her work to the individual student, clearly leaving the door open for

15. originality and individuality. In the words of Nystrand (1997a), “The Teacher’s role is to moderate, direct
discussion, probe, foresee, and analyze the implications of student responses”, allowing students plenty of room
for personal growth. Thus it is no surprise that he cites Guttierez’ (1993) (as cited in Nystrand, 1997a) argument
that the role of dialogic exchange which includes the teacher may still have an implicit objective of sharing
knowledge. Nevertheless, it still retains a preference for ‘correct information.’
While teachers assess from a position of authority and knowledge, even among teachers there is not
complete accord. Although Vann, Lorenz, and Meyer (1991) found that overall there was considerable agreement
among faculty from various disciplines as to which errors were the more egregious, they note that their study
was much less context-dependent than writing produced in specific courses and would anticipate numerous
factors would change the response to errors. Johns (1991) has advocated for significantly more sophisticated
criteria than are generally used now in academic writing classes, even though they would be ‘idealistic,
demanding, and expensive.’ Thus, a paper may pass muster for one journal or professor, but may fail completely
in a different venue. The question of different audiences conflicts with frequent student expectations that
appropriate academic writing has a single format and that there be a simple set of rules. This expectation of a
single cultural reproduction complicates the concept. There may be centripetal force, but the exact center seems
to be contextually dependent. In practice, the teacher is left to sort this out.
In sum, teacher-assessment requires teachers to compare what their students have produced with what
they believe they should produce and what they are expected to produce. This evaluation can, and probably
should, be formative much of the time, but it is inevitably summative at certain junctures. The massive
distinction between teacher-assessment and other actors’ assessment has coexisted with the ‘gatekeeper’
mentality that Shaughnessy (1976) decries. A move to increase the symbiotic nature of these various levels of
assessment would help to improve the relationship between the two competing forces discussed above, and as
Nystrand (1997a) points out, the way that students think and how they can learn depends on how teachers deal
with students’ responses.
Tying the strands together
Tying these different assessment vehicles together allows us to recalibrate our own individual and

16. cultural lenses. As Basham and Kwachka (1991) suggest “…readers, whether novice or expert, are influenced by
cultural expectations. When confronted with writing that ‘doesn’t sound quite right,’ as one GE student put it, the
tendency is to assume that it is wrong rather than to read more carefully to figure out what is different about it.”
Basham and Kwachka’s (1991) call for respect for the centrifugal force of individual expression alongside the
time-honored formats of writing may go some way to encouraging a more pluralistic approach to writing that
will infuse greater dynamism into the received model while at the same time dignifying the individual.
Each of the forms of assessment discussed above offers a different perspective on the same thing. Like
Kurosawa’s (1950) Rashomon or the proverbial (e.g. Jain World, 2010) blind men and the elephant, ‘truth’ can
be viewed from a plurality of perspectives. A deeper understanding is possible if we validate self, peer, and
group assessments more and use them as formative tools to help guide students’ writing just as we use
instructors’. This requires a rejection, or at least a modification, of a Platonic view of quality, but it is one more
in tune with the democratic spirit and one which validates the voices of students. This is not to say that we
should surrender to a wholesale relativism and allow Bakhtin’s centrifugal forces to bring us spinning out of
control. As noted above, the instructor has the expertise and experience. These qualities have considerable value
and should not be discarded lightly. Rather, it is to say that instructors and the cultural meme which they seek to
reproduce are not infallible. It is to say that the voices of acolytes have a value, and if we truly embrace John
Stuart Mill’s (1869) support of truth, then we should not fear a ‘lesser’ voice. That value should be enhanced by
seeing what it offers that can improve the collective voice while paring away the aspects that impede general,
and even specific, comprehensibility. Each individual can then contribute effectively without losing his/her voice
and still ensuring that the writing does not deviate excessively from the cultural reproduction. The teacher can
then stand, not as the sole gatekeeper of quality, but rather as the Socratic leader guiding others in exploring
possibilities that will enhance both their individual growth and the wider community’s resources. In this manner,
the teachers’ stronger intentions (Wells, 1999) do not overwhelm the learners, for as he notes, teachers can
choose how they evaluate and the level of intervention, whether focusing on correct answers, extending learners’
thoughts on the topics at hand, or having students justify an approach that seems at odds with the conventional
wisdom – “…which encourages students critically to examine and evaluate the answers that they make to the
questions that interest them and which simultaneously provides an opportunity for their apprenticeship into these

17. “genres of power”” (Wells, 1999, p264). Clearly, the choices the teacher makes will be based on the social and
cultural context of the classroom.
A caveat already expressed, but in need of repetition, is that self, peer, and group assessment must have
solid groundings in current theory and practice, just as we (sometimes vainly) expect of instructors’ assessment.
The connection with the received genres of knowledge must be neither so tenuous that individuals disperse and
destroy societal bonds, nor yet so rigid and controlling that they restrict innovative solutions to pressing issues.
In the words of Wells (1999, p242) “…as newcomers become progressively more able to engage in solving the
problems that the community faces, they may contribute to a transformation of the practices and artifacts that are
employed,”
If each of these aspects of assessment is built to its strongest level, then each of them can contribute to a
better understanding of what makes good writing. Peers give feedback both individually in peer-assessment and
collectively in group-assessment. This alerts the writer to the views of the larger group while simultaneously
allowing a more authentic dialog that promotes thought and exchange. And as Sutton (2009, p4) reminds us,
dialogic learning is itself “… central to the process of enabling students to learn how to learn and to become
reflective, autonomous learners.” The instructor then indicates the standards expected for the particular
assignment and in the particular context that are derived from the curriculum or other artifact of the canon, and
finally the writers evaluate their own work to see if it best expresses their own views while bearing in mind that
their own views cannot progress beyond their personal space without acknowledgement of the community
standards. The strongest writing, in essence, is the one where the writer consciously puts forward what he or she
believes to be a quality paper reflective of his/her own views, where the writer’s peers have reviewed it and
comprehended and accepted its message, and where the instructor has assessed the quality and appropriateness
within the context of the academic institution.
The adoption of intersubjectivity allows us to deal with some of the assumptions attacked by
Shaughnessy (1976) and move past ‘guarding the tower’ and ‘converting the natives’ to the received canon to a
point where we recognize the individual voices of our students, while still maintaining a balance that avoids
thoroughly unchecked solipsism. No longer are writers in the academic arena held solely at the whim of the
institutionally created standards beyond their control, but neither are they free to snub all responsibility to make

18. their writing clear and accessible to their peers and discourse community. Following Koschmann’s (1999)
argument, we look to pull students into the orbit of academic writing while still enabling them to find their own
voice. A working equilibrium can be struck by incorporating these forms of assessment and balancing them
(Halden-Sullivan, 1998) depending on the specific contexts, even if the writing process does not have a clear end
(Wells, 1999) or final product.
Discussion
Is there really a canon of good academic writing that we can and should pursue? To what extent does the
Platonic form of an idealized essay that we reproduce exist? Horowitz (1991) has argued that generally the
ability to write well is ‘task-specific’, bringing us back to the importance of the specific context. Zamel (1993)
has raised similar concerns. If second language writing instructors are serious about incorporating the voices of
their students and not simply parroting the party line in each essay, incorporating valid assessment vehicles
outside of the standard instructor approaches makes a lot of sense. It allows greater opportunities for true dialog
which lead to a negotiation for meaning when learners are not simply trying to reach some idealized form but
rather trying to create their own unique work while still staying within the parameters of the acceptable, which
are themselves influenced by the situational context.
It is worth noting that this paper discusses generalities of the value of multiple views on assessment and
does not address specific contexts. Dealing with the plethora of factors which can influence a second language
writing class is beyond the scope of this modest submission. Even Wells (1999) concedes that his far more
detailed discussion and framework needs further clarification to broach activity types and discourse genres.
As Hamp-Lyons (2003:182) says “One of the most important lessons that people who work in the field of
educational assessment/measurement have learned in the past decade is that no assessment is value-free.” The
idea that a single arbiter can indeed play the role of ‘judge, jury, and executioner’ militates against egalitarian
and democratic principles, yet this is what teacher-assessment can boil down to. This is no call for anarchy, yet it
is a call for the values that our society trumpets to be more wholly and sincerely embraced. Writers, especially
second language writers, need to bring their own strengths to the proverbial table. By combining these strengths
with the multiple viewpoints of their peers and the knowledge, wisdom and experience of the instructor, the

19. writer can produce a far stronger piece of writing, better informed than one simply pandering to the institutional
demands established by actors uninvolved in that particular classroom and often long dead or retired. The
dialogic approach supports these multiple views bringing life to assessing writing. As Koschmann says (1999,
p311) “it (dialogism) is itself a theory that allows for the expression of multiple voices”
The practical applications of this approach will require understanding of the context. They will also
require, like so much in the learning process, time and effort. As Sutton (2009) puts it “… if dialogic feedback is
to become a central component of learning and teaching then time and space within the curriculum must be
made. This will necessitate teaching less so that students can learn more.” And although some may see the
demands of taking on a dialogic approach as ‘utopian’, Nystrand (1997b, p89) argues that if we truly believe that
knowledge is not “…previously formulated by someone else but rather as continuously regenerated and co-
constructed among teachers and learners and their peers”, then a simpler teacher-centered approach relying on
the ‘transmission of knowledge’ is destined to fail. This would clearly be a far greater waste of precious time and
resources.
Finally, as should go without saying, the need for mutual trust and respect is fundamental for successful
learning (e.g. Kachur and Prendergast, 1997; Wells, 1999). Empowering students as (partial) arbiters of their
own and their classmates’ work can easily propagate these vital classroom factors.

20. References:
Barlow, L.(2006) Tips and Techniques for Student Self-Assessment. Presentation at TESOL Convention, 2006,
Tampa Florida.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: Unversity of Texas Press.
Basham, C. S. and Kwachka, P. B. (1991). Reading the world differently: A cross-cultural approach to writing
assessment. In Liz Hamp-Lyons (Ed.) Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. (pp. 37–49).
Norwood: Ablex Publishing
Blyth, C. (2008). Research perspectives on online discourse and foreign language learning. In S. Magnan (Ed.),
Mediating Discourse Online. (pp47-70) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Some notes on systemic-functional linguistics. Retrieved December 13, 2010 from
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carolc/LING511/sfl.html
Dewey, J. (2001). Democracy and Education. Hazleton: Penn State Electronic Classics available from
http://www.twinsphere.org/library/philosophy/non-analytic/modern/American/Dewey,%20J.%20-
%20Democracy%20and%20Education.pdf
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London, New York: Continuum
Ferris, D. R. (1998). Responding to writing. In Barbara Kroll (Ed.) Exploring the dynamics of second language
writing, (pp.162-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: The University of
Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. and Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. London &
New York: Routledge.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration.
Language Learning & Technology , 7 (2), 12-16.
Halden-Sullivan, J (1998). Writing to learn, assessing to learn. Language Learning Across the Disciplines, 3, 25-
40.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Systemic theory. In Asher, R. E., & Simpson, J. M. (Eds.) The Encyclopedia of
language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, E. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In Barbara Kroll (Ed.) Exploring the dynamics
of second language writing, (pp162-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, K. R. and Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-
regulation. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Horowitz, D. (1991). ESL writing assessments: Contradictions and resolutions. In Liz Hamp-Lyons (Ed.)
Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. (pp. 71-85). Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

21. Jain World (2010). Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://www.jainworld.com/education/stories25.asp
Johns, A. (1991). Faculty assessment of ESL student literacy skills: Implications for writing assessment. In Liz
Hamp-Lyons (Ed.) Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. (pp. 167–179). Norwood: Ablex
Publishing.
Kachur R. and Prendergast, C. (1997). A closer look at authentic interaction: Profiles of teacher-student talk in
two classrooms. In Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English
Classroom. (pp75-88). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning &
Technology 13(1) 79-95.
Kurosawa, A. (Director). (1950). Rashomon [Motion picture]. Japan: Criterion Collection.
Lirola, M.M. (2010). How to apply SFL in classroom practice: an example in bilingual education programs in
the USA. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3, 205-219.
Mill, J. S. (1869). On liberty. London: Longman, Roberts and Green.
Nystrand M. (1997a). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In Opening dialogue:
Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. (pp. 1-29). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Nystrand, M. (1997b). What’s a teacher to do? Dialogism in the classroom. In Opening dialogue: Understanding
the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. (pp. 89-110). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Nystrand, M. and Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons.
In Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. (pp.30-
74). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schmitt, L. (2008). Using wikis to support the academic writing process. In P. Davidson et al. (Eds.) Educational
technology in the Arabian Gulf: Theory, research and pedagogy. (pp. 325-334). Dubai: TESOL Arabia.
Oshima, A. and Hogue, A. (2006). Writing Academic English. Pearson Longman.
Shaughnessy, M. (1976). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing in rhetoric. In V. Zamel and R. Spack (Eds.)
Negotiating Academic Literacies (pp85-101). London & New York: Routledge.
Sostak, R. (1998). Helping children monitor their own learning. In G. O. Martin-Kniep (Ed.) Why am I doing
this? Purposeful teaching through portfolio assessment (pp53-73). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Sotillo, S. (2002). Constructivist and collaborative learning in a wireless environment. TESOL Journal,
11(3), 16-20.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? In V.
Zamel and R. Spack (Eds.) Negotiating Academic Literacies (pp. 85-101). London & New York: Routledge.
Sutton, P. (2009). Towards dialogic feedback. In Critical and Reflective Practice in Education, 1(1) 1-10.

22. Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., and Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments,
and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vann, R. J., Lorenz, F. O., and Meyer, D. M. (1991). Error gravity: Faculty response to errors in the written
discourse of nonnative Speakers of English. In E. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.) Assessing Second Language Writing in
Academic Contexts. XXX Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge:Cambridge.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English in V. Zamel and R. Spack (Eds.) Negotiating academic
literacies (pp237-248). London & New York: Routledge.
Wikipedia (2010). Retrieved December 11, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Wikipedia (2010). Retrieved December 11, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS
Zamel, V. (1993). Questioning Academic Discourse in V. Zamel and R. Spack (Eds.) Negotiating academic
literacies (pp187-198). London & New York: Routledge.