Theorizing Failure in US Writing Assessments

Asao B. Inoue California State University System

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 working-class 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.

Journal
Research in the Teaching of English
Published
2014-02-01
DOI
10.58680/rte201424581
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (7)

  1. Teaching English in the Two-Year College
  2. Pedagogy
  3. Teaching English in the Two-Year College
  4. College Composition and Communication
  5. Pedagogy
Show all 7 →
  1. Pedagogy
  2. College Composition and Communication

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

CrossRef global citation count: 16 View in citation network →