The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions Cvetka Sokolov Characteristics of the writing process acknowledged by adherents of both genre and process approaches to teaching writing seem to offer abundant evidence in favour of portfolio assessment. However, due to some disadvantages, most notably the danger of plagiarism and the alternative assessment’s timeconsuming nature, there are teachers who either avoid it altogether or at least insist on combining it with the traditional timed writing under exam conditions. This article focuses on some ways in which in-class assessment of writing can be conducted by taking the nature of the writing process into account as much as possible. Enabling candidates to use various resources, including technology, allotting time generously, not insisting rigidly on a particular length of exam essays, and assigning topics thoughtfully contribute considerably to achieving this aim. In addition, various stages of the writing process can be incorporated into in-class assessment if the exam period is expanded. Writing teachers should explore possible strategies, developing the optimal combination of approaches to assessing writing in their particular teaching context. 1. Introduction Characteristics of the writing process, recognized by adherents of both genre and process approaches to teaching writing and confirmed by research findings, call traditional in-class assessment into serious doubt. Therefore, alternative ways of assessing writing, specifically ways which take the writing process into account to the highest possible extent, need to be identified (cf., e.g., Camp 1996: 145). Such attempts resulted in the implementation of portfolio assessment a long time ago, representing an immense step forward in the development of teaching and assessing writing. Although the actual effectiveness of the process approach to teaching writing “has long been questioned (e.g. Feez 2002; Hasan 1996) as it fails to explicate what is to be learnt and minimizes the social authority of powerful text forms” (Hyland 2007: 150), this does not mean that the AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 39 (2014) · Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen u Cvetka Sokolov 130 proponents of genre-based pedagogies (cf., e.g. Hyland 2007; Johns 2008, 2011) deny the need of writing teachers to take the steps of the writing process into account (cf., e.g. Bawarshi in Johns et al. 2006: 245; Johns 2008: 243, 248; Johns 2009: 215; Johns 2011: 63, 64, 65; Yayli: 2011: 126; 128). The common strategies which help novice writers to tackle the writing process such as the encouragement to write several drafts and make use of peer review are common in genre instruction, too (cf., e.g., Hyland 2003a: 26; Hyland 2007: 158; Murie and Fitzpatrick 2009: 160; Yayli: 123). Similarly, the awareness of the significance of portfolio assessment continues to be sustained (cf., e.g., Hyland 2003a: 26; Hyland 2007: 162; Johns 2009: 212; Yayli 2011: 122, 124, 127, 128). However, the portfolio-based approach to assessing writing is not without weaknesses and cannot be used in all contexts; therefore, securing favourable exam conditions under which students can move through the stages of their writing process as comfortably as possible still remains one of the main tasks and challenges faced by contemporary writing teachers. As there is no such thing as the perfect approach to assessing writing, it is the responsibility of the writing teacher to become acquainted with possible approaches and to consider them carefully before opting for the combination of those that work best in their particular educational context. 2. The Writing Process 2.1. Stages of the Writing Process The writing process consists of several stages leading to the final product: choosing the topic, gathering ideas (e.g. by brainstorming or free writing), making an outline, writing one’s first (second, third …) draft(s), revising, proofreading and editing. Of course, the actual writing is much more complex than this (artificial if useful) classification of the stages suggests, and does not take place in such an orderly sequence - writers tend to cope with various stages simultaneously throughout the process of writing; they are quite likely to skip a step, returning to it later (or not at all); they may go back to the beginning (sometimes even to replace the topic with an entirely new one), and so on. In addition, every writer develops his or her own idiosyncratic ways of tackling the writing process, which usually vary at least to some extent from writing task to writing task: “Writers need their own timetables, their own ways of collecting and processing information, and their own versions of the writing process” (Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 75; cf. Murphy and Grant 1996: 287). An individual writer’s writing process is not static, though. It changes and develops as the writer matures and becomes more versatile. FL and L2 students’ writing processes depend also on their language proficiency. The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions 131 “[T]he recursive nature of L2 composing is mediated by proficiency: increased command of the L2 brings with it the possibility of sharing attentional resources among various composing processes” (Manchón et al. 2009: 115). Most writers find it rather difficult to step out of their own shoes, so to speak, when revising their own pieces of writing. Since establishing distance from one’s writing is essential before assessing its strengths and weaknesses, it is important for writers to have enough time to be ready to perceive their own texts as readers rather than their creators. The rapid development of technology and the increase of computerbased writing has had an enormous impact on the ways writers handle the writing process. New technologies have made the nonlinear nature of writing much easier to cope with by making drafting, editing, proofreading and formatting less laborious and time consuming. The ease with which texts can be manipulated by writers cutting and pasting, deleting and copying, checking spelling and grammar, and changing text layout makes it possible for them to create neater, more thoroughly developed and carefully revised texts, but, as some research has shown, has also resulted in an exaggerated focus on surface features, longer texts of poorer quality and a dramatic increase in plagiarism (cf. Hyland 2003b: 146- 147). On the positive side, the use of computer-based writing and the growing integration of new technologies into writing courses have made writing processes easier to observe and understand (cf., e.g. Hyland 2003b: 145, 146). 2.2. The Writing Process in the Light of Process and Genre Approaches to Teaching Writing The process approach to teaching writing emphasizes the personal and cognitive aspects of creating texts. Its adherents point out that the writing process is as important as the final product; therefore, writers should be discouraged from being too concerned about the latter too early during the process of text production (cf., e.g., Elbow 1981: 7). Writing teachers adopting this approach do give feedback on students’ writing but their interference with their “writing as self-discovery” is to be “non-directive and facilitating, providing writers with the space to make their own meanings through an encouraging, positive and cooperative environment” (Hyland 2002: 23). The cognitive view of composing texts draws attention to the exploratory nature of the writing process, which is recognized as recursive and interactive rather than linear (Hyland 2002: 25; cf. Lunsford and Connors 1995: 3; Raimes 1983: 2). The process approach to teaching writing has been praised for moving the focus of writing instruction from correcting grammatical errors to recognizing and acknowledging other important aspects of writing (cf., e.g., Hyland & Hyland 2006: 3) but also criticized for not considering u Cvetka Sokolov 132 “real-world contexts where writing matters”, and for lacking solid theoretical foundations. (Hyland 2002: 23-30; see also Hyland 2003a: 20; Hyland 2007: 149; Johns 2008: 250; Yasuda 2011: 123) Looking for a presumably more effective alternative has led to genre-based pedagogies, which work on “increasing learners’ awareness of the conventions of writing to help them produce texts that seem well-formed and appropriate to readers” (Hyland 2002: 17; cf. Clark & Ivanič 1997: 67-70). In addition, genre adherents point out the need to teach to L2 and FL students the very conventions of the target language writing in order to empower them socially - without being equipped to recognize and be able to use a wide range of genres they can gain no access to power structures (cf., e.g., Clark & Ivanič 1997: 110-1; Flowerdew & Li 2009: 171-173; Hyland 2003a: 20, 24; Ortega 2009: 243, 242-243; Pearson Casanave 2009: 258; Reiff & Bawarshi in Johns et al. 2006: 240, 243; Tardy 2011: 2). To sum up, the key elements of the genre approach to teaching writing are “real life contexts”, “conventions of writing”, “the sense of audience” and “access to power structures”. But do the items on the list really justify the clear demarcation line between the two approaches advocated by many a distinguished theoretician? According to Ken Hyland’s (2003a) view expressed in his article “Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process”, they do. According to Hyland’s book Teaching and Researching Writing (2002: 87-95), they do not. In the former, the author states that “process represents writing as a decontextualized skill by foregrounding the writer as an isolated individual struggling to express personal meanings” (Hyland 3003a: 18; cf. Johns 2008: 244). In the latter, however, he presents a successful writing course based on the process approach to teaching writing established in New Zealand in 1987 by Janet Holst, who designed (along with three hours of workshops per week) one-hour lectures that emphasise the importance of clarifying purpose and meeting audience expectations, [and] also focus on the heuristics of the writing process, the features of each particular assignment genre, an awareness of the context of writing, and the interpersonal aspects typically associated with it. (Hyland 2002: 92) Obviously, the process approach to writing is not as decontextualized as genre proponents suggest. Even such “romantic” and “naive” (Hyland 2002: 24) process defenders as Peter Elbow and Donald M. Murray cannot be reproached for promoting personal writing in a vacuum. Elbow says in his Writing with Power (1981: 128-9) that “there is no such thing as good-writing-in-general. You must make it good for this purpose with this audience”, and Murray in his Read to Write (1986: xv) that “good writing is always in context”. 133 What is more, although mastering genres does “[enable us to make choices and facilitate] expression” (Hyland 2007: 152), genre-pedagogies are themselves prone to a different kind of decontextualized teaching of writing, namely to formulaic and prescriptive teaching of genre conventions separated from real-life contexts. Such an approach does not encourage students to express and develop their views on topics which they perceive to be significant, and is thus bound to smother their motivation, creativity and critical thinking skills. Hyland (2007: 152) argues, however, that “there is nothing inherently prescriptive in a genre approach”, and points out “that genres do have a constraining power which limits the originality of the individual way we write”. While originality is definitely promoted in process approaches to writing, it is not unrestricted either; on the contrary, it is limited by the ‘rules’ of good writing concerning the development of ideas, the text structure, and the like. And while it is true that any approach to teaching can become overly prescriptive and static if carried out by an incompetent teacher, teaching “formulas” of constructing genres is more likely to get repetitive and tedious. This has been confirmed by some researchers who “have documented the undesirable outcome of formulaic knowledge [in investigations of ESL contexts where L2 writing instruction was explicit]” (Ortega 2009: 247). As for conventions of writing, Hyland (2003a: 19) suggests that “disempowered teachers” using the process approach to teaching writing are reduced to “the role of well-meaning bystanders” who never teach “the structure of target texts types” to their students explicitly. Instead, they are expected to discover appropriate forms in the process of writing itself, gleaning this knowledge from unanalysed samples of expert writing, from the growing experience of repetition, and from suggestions in the margins of their drafts. (Hyland 2003a: 19). Genre-based pedagogies, on the other hand, are praised extensively for promoting the writing teacher’s central role and the use of model texts, which is the logical consequence of the approach’s intertextual nature (cf., e.g., Hyland 2003a: 23; Hyland in Johns et al. 2006: 237; Hyland 2007: 150, 154; Johns 2008: 249; Yasuda 2011: 113-6, 121; Yayli 2011: 122-3). “[W]hen audience expectations, purposes and/ or textual features in a particular genre bear resemblance to those of another, a transfer may emerge, that is cross-genre awareness” (Yayli 2011: 128; cf. Johns 2008: 245; Johns 2009: 209). The description of the process-based course Writ 101, however, stands in contradiction with the claim (quoted above) that students attending process-oriented writing courses are expected to “[glean the] knowledge [of appropriate forms] from unanalysed samples of expert writing”. The course book used in Writ 101 contains sample texts that do get analysed and evaluated by students “considering their content, purpose, possible The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 134 audiences, degree of formality, sentence lengths, vocabulary choices, and so on” (Hyland 2002: 90-1; emphasis added). So does Murray’s Read to Write (1986) writing process reader. Similarly, it is not true that process-based writing ignores the intended reader, whereas genre-based pedagogies make the writer aware of his or her audience’s expectations to “get things done” (Hyland in Johns et al. 2006: 237; cf. also Hyland 2007: 149; Johns 2008: 244), generally putting a lot of emphasis on the issue of the writer-reader relationship (cf., e.g. Yasuda 2011: 124, 125; Yayli 2011: 121). Not only do processoriented authors such as Elbow (1981: 177-235) and Murry (1986: 30-1) point out the importance of the audience explicitly, too, but also Hyland (2002: 93) himself recognizes the significant role that the audience plays in the process-based Writ 101, which is reflected also in the fact that assessment rubrics used to assess the writing skills of students who have taken the course include the category ‘reader awareness’. In fact, some genre adherents tend to promote reader awareness to an exaggerated extent. Ann M. Johns (2008: 239) establishes that “genres are purposeful, or, at the very least, responsive”. In academic settings, she observes, students mainly compose responsive texts: “their instructors assign the tasks and the students respond to them. The students’ purposes, in the main, are to please instructors [who are also their readers] and/ or pass the examinations.” Brian Paltridge (in Johns et al. 2006: 236) refers to the students’ skill of working out and conforming to the expectation to write according to their new teacher’s ideas “about how an essay should be written, what issues it should address, the extent to which students should show what they know, and how they show “a sensitivity to the values of those who are judging the effectiveness of the genre in a particular context”, which is a euphemistic way of praising social conformity. The following comment made by an L2 student on his passing a writing exam should not come as a surprise, then: “I don’t really know what they’re looking for. I just know how to pass it. That’s all I researched [laughs] before the exam” (Mott-Smith 2009: 123). In other words, students are encouraged to help sustain the existing power relations instead of employing their critical thinking skills to evaluate and challenge them. Should it not be the other way round? Do we really want student writers to be “nervous”, “tentative”, “hesitant”, “noncommittal”, “beating round the bush”, their “tone of voice always curing up into a mini-question mark at the end of every sentence”, “never daring to asset any of [their] real convictions” (Elbow 1981: 226-7)? Do we really want them to keep asking themselves “what [their instructors’] expectations and interests [are]” (Johns 2008: 244)? Which of the two approaches to teaching writing (if we insist on the sharp division line between the two) is socially more progressive, then? Which is the one which is more likely to “put [students] in boxes [so that] they all come out the same”, possibly in the shape of “bricks in the wall”? 135 However, genre proponents disagree. In their view, it is exactly the socio-political aspect of genre-based pedagogies that makes up for the drawbacks of “an ideology of individualism” promoted by the process approach to teaching writing (Hyland 2003a: 20). By keeping ways of understanding the social nature of texts invisible and individual, process based invention strategies exclude even further those students whose cultural and linguistic backgrounds leave them on the margins of the dominant culture and its genres. (Bawarshi in Johns et al. 2006: 244) Understanding and mastering genres is important. Apart from empowering writers to resist marginalization, it is a prerequisite for questioning “the dominant culture and its genres” (cf. Hyland 2007: 149; Johns 2011: 65; Swales 2011: 83). But the process approach to writing does not make this less possible than genre-based writing does - we have established that students learning writing in a process-based course do learn about genres, too (cf., e.g., Hyland 2002: 91; Murray 1986: 9), so they also get equipped to meet social expectations concerning genre choices, which provides them with social power, and, at the same time, enables them to evaluate and negotiate genre conventions critically (cf., e.g. Hyland 2003a: 20). A valid concern, however, is the fact that “while such crucial culturally specific norms of thought and expression in process classrooms may be unreflectively transparent for mainstream American undergraduates [and undergraduates from other Western cultures], they may not always be recognized or accepted by students from cultures less entrenched in the ideology of individualism” (Hyland 2003a: 20; cf. also Hyland 2007: 149). But this may also be claimed about culturally imposed genre conventions which do secure access to power structures but at the same time sustain their dominant socio-political role (cf. Clark & Ivanič 1997: 118- 123; Hyland 2003a: 24-25; Hyland 2007: 151; Yasuda 2011: 125). It is true that “[l]earning about genre does not preclude critical analysis but, in fact, provides a necessary basis for critical engagement with cultural and textual practices” (Hyland 2007: 152; cf. Clark & Ivanič 1997: 119; Yasuda 2011: 125), though. But then again this is also true of critical evaluation of the process approach to writing as we have shown. Other reproaches have been levelled at process adherents such as their alleged harming students by “suggesting, even implicitly, that ‘product’ is not important” (Delpit 1988 in Hyland 2003: 19). In reality, process writing proponents do not suggest that, not “even implicitly”. Would they encourage their students to write so many drafts if they did not want the final product to be as good as it can get? What they suggest is that “when people think too much during the early stages about what they want to end up with, that preoccupation with the final product keeps them from The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 136 attaining it” (Elbow 1981: 7). Obviously, the final goal is a final product of fine quality, which is why teachers giving genre-based courses do not necessarily avoid recommending their students to see to other aspects of their writing “before grammatical accuracy and editing concerns are attended to” (Murie & Fitzpatrick 2009: 166). The above discussion on the two approaches to teaching writing has brought us to the conclusion that they do not differ as much as most theoreticians will have us believe. The main difference seems to lie in the aspects of composing texts to which the proponents of one or the other attribute more significance. Hyland’s thorough analysis of Writ 101 confirms this view, expressed in the following: There is nothing here that excludes the familiar tools of the process teacher’s trade. Genre simply requires that they be used in the transparent, language-rich, and supportive contexts which will most effectively help students to mean. (Hyland 2003a: 27) If we accept this view, the quite popular dual approach integrating genre and process approaches, which “are more usefully seen as supplementing and rounding each other out” (Hyland 2003b: 23; cf. also Nordin & Mohammad 2006; Yan 2005) is actually already there in both of the two approaches. 2.3. The Writing Process and Writing Assessment The writing process is so complex and time-consuming that it makes it difficult for teachers to decide upon the most appropriate method of evaluating students’ writing abilities. Some experts on (teaching) writing think that traditional forms of assessing writing under exam conditions should be given up altogether: “Gone should be the days when students are asked to complete their writing in forty-eight minutes […]. Gone should be the days when one draft - the first and final - is handed in for an unchangeable grade” (Lunsford & Glenn 1990: 404). Their radical view is supported by research results clearly indicating that students generally produce better pieces of writing when given home assignments rather than when writing under exam conditions (Kroll 1990: 142-150, Sokolov 1999: 185). “Many educators have replaced testing - or at least supplemented it - with assessment practices that provide students with not only greater freedom to select work on which they will be assessed but more extended periods of time in which to execute it.” (Hill & Parry 1994: 263; cf. McNamara 2000: 4) Alternative assessment has a positive effect on teaching and learning (the so-called washback), focuses on evaluation of the process and thus progress rather than the end product (formative assessment vs. summative assessment), and is more authentic (Brown 2004: 253). 137 3. Portfolios Portfolios are collections of all the pieces of writing a student produces during a term or academic year. A portfolio usually consists of different kinds of writing such as narrative, expository and argumentative essays as well as pieces of creative writing (also written out of class). University students’ portfolios will mostly contain various types of academic essay writing. “An academic essay is a genre. It is a socially approved way in which students show what they know, what they can do, and what they have learned in a course of study” (Paltridge in Johns et al. 2006: 235). Johns (2009: 207) also defines the academic essay as a genre per se: “The academic essay used to assess secondary or undergraduate students is a genre that becomes a catch-all name for a variety of texts requiring rhetorical stances and different approaches to argumentation and sources.” This does not imply, however, that other text types are excluded from a portfolio. Students are likely to be asked to create other genres, too, e.g. book and film reviews, reports, summaries, research papers, CVs, letters to the editor, or emails, which are particularly interesting because they lend themselves to very informal but also quite formal writing. Many different functional goals, including expressing gratitude, making a request, and applying for a job, can be achieved through written dialogue (mode) in response to a particular audience (tenor) for a particular social action being pursued (field). Thus, emails can be a medium through which many different genres can be generated and realized by the appropriate linguistic/ rhetorical decisions of writers who are guided by an awareness of context. (Yasuda 2011: 113) Aside from final versions of various text types, portfolios can also include earlier drafts, outlines, mind maps, free writing pieces, notes, and students’ reflective self-observations. In a portfolio, a student can also collect writing-course handouts, newspaper articles, statistical data, various quotes, pictures and other similar resources which he or she finds potentially useful for his or her future writing. William Grabe (and Robert B. Kaplan 1996: 419) observe(s), “In a sense, such a portfolio becomes a knowledge resource for future writing activities as well as a record of past and ongoing writing tasks.” 3.1. Advantages of Portfolios One of the main advantages of portfolio evaluation is that most of the writing takes place at home under student-friendly conditions devoid of exam-related pressure, in short - “in more natural and less stressful contexts” (Hyland 2003: 234; cf. Hamp-Lyons 1996: 236; Hamp-Lyons 2006: 142; Weir 2005: 66). The collection of essays furnished by the teacher’s The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 138 marginal and terminal comments, and peer suggestions for improvement encourages students to reflect upon their writing process and the progress they have already made, which increases motivation considerably. The benefit of portfolios can be enhanced further if student-teacher meetings on the contents and the quality of the texts assembled in the portfolio are conducted as part of the writing course programme. In this way the student is given reliable external support, developing additional skills: the ability to “[make] use of all the available resources - including social interactions” (Cushing Weigle 2002: 178; cf. Daiker et al. 1996: 258, Shaw & Weir 2007: 42), and to distinguish between good and weaker pieces of their writing in order to be able to really select their best work (cf. Hamp-Lyons 2006: 143). The comprehensive feedback and the prolonged period of the writing process encourage the awareness of the need for revision and give students the opportunity to improve their written texts more thoroughly, thus achieving better results. Whereas students get only one chance with multiple choice examinations or timed impromptu essays, portfolios allow as many chances as a student wants - and in this way they convey the positive message that continuing effort can lead to improvement. (Daker et al. 1996: 259) Portfolio assessment promotes students’ responsibility for their writing by leaving it up to them which suggestions for improvement to accept and how best to do so, and which to reject (cf. Roemer et al. 1991: 467). It is positive in other ways, too. By being allowed to brush up the essays of their own choice for the final grade, students retain control over their writing process. “When students are allowed to choose their best work based on explicit criteria, they will be intrinsically motivated to revise and improve their writing and take pride in their work” (Cushing Weigle 2002: 213; cf. Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 336, Roemer et. al. 1991: 456). To make good choices students need to consider their work carefully, developing reliable self-evaluation skills and “a sense of ownership of their writing” (Cushing Weigle 2002: 205; cf. Daiker et al. 1996: 258). The positive effect of portfolios can be increased if students are not only allowed but also encouraged to put into their portfolios the texts they have written for their own pleasure, and even more so if such (wellwritten) pieces of writing influence their final grade favourably. It is heartening that introducing portfolios actually surpasses the objective of grading students by becoming an integral part of teaching writing and thus creating a close connection between instruction and assessment (cf. Cushing Weigle 2002: 205, Eržen 2011: 75; Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 418, 420, Hyland 2002: 139, Neff Lippman 2003: 214). The teacher’s written response reminds developing writers of the basic theoretical foundations of good writing, gradually making them an inseparable part 139 of students’ writing skills. It is equally important that portfolios make it possible for the writing teacher to reward progress and encourage focus on development of ideas and structure of students’ compositions rather than be on the alert for (language) mistakes. In the portfolio assessment context, ESL writers can be convinced that concentrating on ideas, content, support, text structure, and so on is worthwhile because they don't have to fear that such concentration will be at the cost of attention to technically correct language - which most of them have been conditioned to believe that teachers value most. (Hamp- Lyons 1996: 236) 3.2. Disadvantages of Portfolios Possibly, the main disadvantage of portfolio assessment is the increased danger of plagiarism. Students working on their writing assignments at home are not supervised in any way. Thus, less conscientious and weaker students could be tempted into submitting essays, or portions of essays, written by someone else (cf. Hyland 2002: 142; Weir 2005: 114). If writing teachers rely exclusively on home assignments for their students’ final grades, they will not be able to compare them with essays written in class (which might have proved to be suspiciously weaker); therefore, it is possible that they will not even think of plagiarism. Even when they combine portfolio evaluation with in-class assessment such cheating is hard or even impossible to prove - a student cannot and should not be accused of plagiarism just because he or she has written a composition of considerably poorer quality in class; after all, there are many other factors that may have influenced his or her performance. That said, stealing intellectual property from the internet is usually fairly easy to detect - an essay pieced together from various (unacknowledged) sources in a suspiciously incoherent way, and spiced with an awkward sentence or two produced by the student himor herself has plagiarism written all over its pages. As long as the culprit has used somebody else’s essay (or its parts) without re-formulating the original (parts of the) text, the necessary evidence is easily accessible. However, most students ‘borrowing’ other people’s work are clever enough to change the original text(s) to such an extent that the suspicious teacher can spend hours looking for the actual source without success. Deliberate plagiarism can be fought against most successfully by making students aware of its true nature and consequences but will probably never be eradicated completely. Therefore, the only reliable way of making sure that all students are the actual authors of the work they submit is to make them take essay exams as Weigle (2002: 216) points out: “A timed writing test is the best way to ensure that the writing has been The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 140 done independently and thus represents the ability of the writer him or herself” (cf. Hill & Parry 1994: 269). Furthermore, multi-drafting, largely based on the teacher’s and peers’ feedback and seen as one of the principle benefits of portfolios to students, brings up the question of the actual authorship of the final product: can the final version signed by a particular student truly be attributed to his or her writing skills exclusively? Can it still be considered as independent work when so many other people have contributed their knowledge and their ideas in the process of its creation? Even if the teacher supervises the way feedback is given to developing writers (let alone when students take the very teacher’s advice and seek outside help), it is very difficult if not utterly impossible to draw a line between an ‘acceptable’ amount and type of feedback and ‘excessive’ outside assistance. Therefore, as Cushing Weigle observes, “[a] portfolio may become more of a collaborative work than an individual one” (ibid.; cf. Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 417, Hill & Parry 1994: 268, Hyland 2002: 142, Neff Lippman 2003: 201). Finally, portfolios are extremely time-consuming for both students and teachers. Teachers have to become acquainted with the theoretical aspects of the introduction of portfolios beforehand, plan the contents of portfolios in collaboration with their colleagues, prepare handouts and tasks (such as self-observation forms, peer-review guidelines, and the like), understand, accept and get used to a new way of assessing students’ writing, and play an active part in establishing assessment criteria and standardizing assessment. In addition, some teaching sessions must be devoted to the introduction of portfolios so that the students understand what makes them useful and how to arrange them (cf. Hyland 2003: 237). At first, the students are likely be excited about the new approach (who likes exams, after all? ) only to realise later on that they are required to do much more writing now. Of course, this is good for them, but on the other hand, the writing course is not the only one they have to take. Nor are their numerous essays the only ones their teacher has to mark. Add to this individual consultations between the teacher and individual students which can only partly be conducted in class - mostly the teacher and the student meet out of class during the teacher’s office hours, which often have to be prolonged considerably due to the complexity of the feedback process as well as due to the large number of students. For all this, though, most of the teachers who have worked with portfolios believe that it pays off, pointing out that “the time and effort involved in implementing portfolios is well worth the benefits received” (Cushing Weigle 2002: 210; cf. Hill & Parry 1994: 271, Neff Lippman 203: 214). Despite the advantages, portfolios may not always be beneficial to those less motivated students who rely on having an entire academic year 141 or semester to start putting effort into their work. Such students tend to turn in careless first drafts that seem to be nothing more than incoherent free writing pieces. Why do their best when they can wait for the teacher’s feedback, and then write something better much faster and more easily? Who cares if the teacher will spend twice the usual amount of time to give feedback on such careless writing! Another problem can arise if a student is unable to find a previous draft when the final assessment is due. If the lost pieces of writing contained feedback in the margins and at the end of the essay, such a student will be disadvantaged when revising his or her work. While this may seem like poetic justice, it harms the entire portfolio process. The teacher cannot chart the student’s progress and discuss it if he or she cannot compare the revision with the original. Finally, information about how skillfully students have used feedback on their work is also important, influencing the teacher’s decision on the final grade. 4. Assessing Writing Under Exam Conditions 4.1. The Disadvantages of Assessing Writing under Exam Conditions The main disadvantage of writing tests is that they require students to produce a single essay in a strictly limited time with little (or no) choice of topic and no opportunity for revision. Timed writing under pressure and on a topic that is not known to the writer beforehand does not resemble the usual conditions under which people undertake writing in ‘real life’ - when not being tested on their writing skills. It is a safe bet that ‘unnatural’ testing situations make the final grade rather unreliable since, among other things, a single essay is often far from a true reflection of the particular student’s general writing skills (cf. Cushing Weigle 2002: 197, Elbow 1996: 120, Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 407, Hill & Parry 1994: 263, Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 174, Weir 1990: 61; Weir 2005: 66). Can a language learner - or a native speaker, for that matter - adequately perform writing tasks within the confines of a brief timed period of composition? Is that hastily written product an appropriate reflection of what the same test-taker might produce after several drafts of the same work? Does this format favor fast writers at the expense of slower but possibly equally good or better writers? (Brown 2004: 233) In addition, students mostly get tested on one particular genre (most likely “an essay of some sort” - Cushing Weigle 2002: 98) under exam conditions although their actual writing ability could be evaluated in a more reliable way if other genres were included (cf., e.g. Cushing Weigle 2002: 153-4; Weir 2005: 116). The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 142 An important consideration is also the fact that modern approaches to teaching writing do not restrict writing skills to language and cognitive abilities of the writer but expect them to be capable of using all kinds of knowledge resources to create a satisfactory piece of writing - including their readers’ feedback (Cushing Weigle 2002: 178). Traditional timed essay tests make this impossible. Finally, not many institutions administering written examinations offer the possibility for candidates to choose between handwritten and word-processed writing under exam conditions. Computer-based writing has changed the way we write, “distributing the cognitive load (...) across the whole word-processing experience, [which, as research has shown] appears to be helpful for L2 writers”; what is more, it is likely “[to lead] to an improved sense of audience (...) [and] measureable increases in students’ motivation to write” (Shaw & Weir 2007: 200-1). Another important advantage of writers using computers was revealed by a study in which “[i]t was found that student writers paid more attention to higher order thinking activities while reviewing their written work using computers” (Li 2006 in Ismail et al. 2012: 272). Obviously, handwritten exams do not necessarily provide the true picture of a test taker’s writing ability. Some studies have actually confirmed that writing quality increases if papers are word-processed whereas others have shown no difference in the quality of the final products regardless of whether they had been computer or pen-and-paper composed (Shaw & Weir 2007: 199). 4.2. The Advantages of Assessing Writing under Exam Conditions The indisputable and most important advantage of assessing writing under exam conditions is, as already pointed out in 3.2., that the writing teacher is (virtually) absolutely sure that students have written their essays independently and without any outside assistance. Not only is this important in terms of preventing plagiarism, it also makes it possible for the teacher to establish reliably what individual students can actually achieve by themselves. For many classroom teachers the individual view of writing ability is important as well, even in classrooms where students are encouraged to receive feedback on their writing from classmates, the instructor, and / or tutors before turning it in for a final grade. Since the teacher cannot always control or monitor the kind and extent of help that students are receiving on out-of-class writing, many teachers feel it is important to give in-class timed writing tests so that they can evaluate what the students are able to accomplish on their own. (Cushing Weigle 2002: 178) In addition, some teachers report on students who do surprisingly well (that is, better than when asked to write home assignments) under exam 143 pressure - they can pull themselves together faster and better, they rarely digress, and produce essays that are generally better structured than the rambling piece of writing they might have created at home. To conclude, the claim that writing exams are ‘unnatural’ does not entirely hold water: exams are a part of every student’s life. Essay exams are not restricted to writing courses only but are an integral part of many other classes as well, e.g., literature and even grammar classes (cf. Carr 2000: 207, Cushing Weigle 2002: 203). It is true that essay exams of those kinds are usually based on studied material, but good writing skills will certainly make it easier for students to demonstrate their knowledge in any field more effectively. Developing strategies to tackle the writing process as part of classroom instruction can also be seen as “the preparation that learners need both to function in creative real-world writing tasks and to successfully demonstrate their competence on a timed impromptu test” (Brown 2004: 248). 4.3. Writing tests - taking the writing process into account 4.3.1. The Use of Dictionaries and other resources Using dictionaries and other resources is an integral part of the writing process. When students write at home, they have all sorts of resources at their disposal: various handbooks, the internet, the phone (to confer with a colleague if necessary), and so on. Despite this, not every student does well - teachers still get to grade essays that cover the entire quality range, that is, from excellent over average to poor essays. When students have finished their studies and enter the work world, they will mostly use all the resources available when they have to write something both professionally and privately. This should (and mostly is) taken into account when students take writing tests. After all, good writers differ from poor ones also by their ability to use resources critically, selectively and effectively (cf. Cushing Weigle 2002: 106). One drawback of letting students use dictionaries during the writing test is that looking words up is time-consuming, taking precious writing time from the candidates. Most students will soon realise this potential problem and take the necessary measures: many use dictionaries selectively and often at the very end of the exam session when all the pressing matters have been seen to - if they have not run out of time by then. If students are offered the option to word-process their response, this is not only likely to improve their performance (cf., e.g., Shaw & Weir 2007: 199) but will also provide them with easier and faster access to sources and web sites that they are officially allowed to use. Due to an increased danger of cheating computer-based examinations are usually taken on universityor exam-centre-owned computers, which should operate at the same speed. Students who use computers of their own have The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 144 to “download security software that blocks certain applications from laptops, making them suitable for exam use” (Ratcliffe 2012). Privately owned computers obviously need to be checked and approved before they can be used in exams. (For examples of guidelines for the use of computers in examinations see for instance Imperial College London and University of Washington’s guidelines.) Finally, teachers grading computer-written texts should be aware of the risks of rater bias resulting from the following factors listed by Shaw & Weir (2007: 200): ‣ computer-generated products may engender higher rater expectations; ‣ handwritten text may provoke an enhanced reader-writer relationship; ‣ the construction of handwritten responses may convey to the reader a greater sense of effort on the part of the writer; ‣ (...) while allowances can be made for handwritten responses, the same may not be true for those that are word processed. (Shaw and Weir 2007: 200) 4.3.2. Time Allotment When asked about it - and sometimes even when not asked about it! - the majority of students complain that they are never given enough time when taking writing tests (Sokolov 2005; cf. Jennings et al. 1999: 448). Many would like to have more time only to think about the topic (let alone to write something coherent, witty and generally sensible about it). According to F. Weaver’s findings, quoted in Liz Hamp-Lyons, the complaints are to be taken seriously: In interpreting a task and creating a response to it, each writer must create a “fit” between his or her world and the world of the essay test topic. There has been very little work done in this area, but Weaver's (1973) work suggests that each writer needs to take the other-initiated test task and transform it into ‘self-initiated’ topic - that is, make it his or her own. In order to match writer response to test expectations, the writer must follow the steps of attending to, understanding, and valuing the task. If this breaks down, the writer will replace the task with a different or a related one, but will not respond to the topic intended. (Hamp-Lyons 1990: 77) In fact, it is downright astonishing that anybody can expect students to write a proper essay in forty-five minutes, which is the time usually allotted to students in Slovenia when they take essay tests. Forty-five minutes may well be enough for developing writers to pull themselves through the free-writing stage (step two in the writing process! ) but they have a 145 long way to go before they reach the last stage - the final product reflecting the best they can do. Experts on writing, including Romy Clark and Roz Ivanič, warn teachers against such practices: [Writers] cannot be expected to hand in a 'perfect' piece of work at the end of one short classroom session, or one homework period. This expectation only encourages learner writers to see themselves as 'failures' because they cannot do what is expected, rather than come to an understanding that it is the writing process itself that is complex, difficult and takes time. (Clark & Ivanič 1997: 234) Admittedly, research in the area of time allotment does not confirm “the common-sense notion that more time is better”, which can often be attributed to culture-specific differences between students (Cushing Weigle 2002: 1012). Students who are expected to write essays in an extremely short period of time get used to it (and to producing first drafts only) and, if given extra time, do not know what to do with it - even if their draft could do with much improvement. On the other hand, other research results have shown that “scores on the writing measure [are] positively affected by allowing more time in which to write” (Powers & Fowler 1997: 451). All things considered, the complexity of the writing process, “[involving] the discovery of meaning, of what it is that the writer wants to say” (White 1988: 40), definitely speaks in favour of more generous time allotment, even more so in the case of foreign language writers (cf. Hill & Parry 1994: 263). “In FL writing contexts, it might be the case that available knowledge about, for example, text structure (developed from L1 writing experience) cannot be used, due to the fact that the writer has to allocate cognitive resources to other subprocesses, particularly when writing under time pressure.” (Schoonen 2009: 79, after Manchón & Roca de Laris 2007) 4.3.3. The Length of the Essay Taking the drastic time restrictions into account, candidates sitting for writing exams cannot be expected to write very long essays. Most experts suggest that the length (that is, the number of words, sentences, paragraphs or pages) should be determined beforehand so that the students will know what is expected of them (cf. Cushing Weigle 2002: 103). Another view often quoted in favour of this kind of exercise is the necessity of making sure that students can produce a well-developed and yet concise argument in, say, no more than 300 words. It's quite common to be given a word count when you're given an essay title. One reason for this is to make sure you write a decent amount of information; another reason is to stop you waffling on forever and a day: The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 146 the word count helps to focus your thoughts and make your writing more concise and clear. (Woodford 2008) Admittedly, it seems difficult to refute the reasons for assigning word counts given above (to say nothing about the fact that longer essays take longer to mark! ). Nevertheless, the characteristics of the writing process speak strongly against this kind of practice. Students submerging themselves in the process cannot know beforehand how much space they will need to get their message across. They can plan the number of pages they want (or are required) to write but may well end up writing more (or less). Writing teachers’ experience shows clearly that prescribing the number of words students can (and have to) use in their essays diminishes the quality of their writing - on the one hand, they either force paragraphs into their essays that do not fit the rest of the texts or deliberately use lengthy phrases and sentences (“Many of us have learned to pad our writing with all sorts of empty phrases to reach length requirements for academic writing.”, Kilborn 2000), on the other, they give up original ideas and strong arguments because they have ‘run out of words’ When the tests which we assign encourage students to become more concerned about the number of words their essay will consist of than about its persuasive power and good structure, it is high time to change the strategy (cf. Hilbert 1992: 76-7; Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 75). It seems reasonable to bear in mind that “the appropriate length is whatever length is necessary to accomplish whatever that individual [text] sets out to do.” (Lukeman 2010: 157) Some research has shown that penalizing students because they have written longer essays than prescribed is usually unfair since such compositions are predominantly of higher quality than shorter ones (Čokl & Cankar 2008: 65). Of course, pieces of writing of a particular length have their place in any writing course since it is sometimes necessary to produce such texts, too. Also, most students benefit from occasional length restrictions because they help them to eliminate wordiness and instances of digression from their writing. But generally speaking, insisting on a particular number of words rigidly tends to diminish the quality of writing. 4.3.4. Choosing the topic/ title All writing teacher should do their best to assign topics which the candidates are likely to find interesting and significant as well as topics about which they can be expected to be knowledgeable (cf. Clark 2003: 83, Cushing Weigle 2002: 91, Franklin Parks et al. 1991: 173, Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 252, Hyland 2003: 14, Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 139). Failing to pick the right topic will result in students’ writing that lacks per- 147 suasive power and enthusiasm (cf. Hamp-Lyons 1990: 73, Schoonen et al. 2009: 78). To offer a suitable range of varied topics appealing to young writers, teachers have to know and understand their students’ perception of the world. In addition, they have to make sure that the titles are not too demanding in terms of language (containing a pun difficult to figure out or a cryptic reference, for example) and content (requiring a discussion that surpasses the general knowledge and experience that can be expected from a particular group of students such as a topic revolving around a complex social or political issue) (cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 77). In other words, appropriate titles will be simple but not simplistic - lexically, syntactically and semantically. Finding suitable exam topics is much more difficult than one would initially expect. Research carried out in 2003/ 04 (Sokolov 2005) showed that a lot of students in fact liked what their teacher thought were unsuitable titles - titles that were either difficult to understand (“The hardest thing in life is to know which bridge to cross and which to burn”, to quote an example), or remote from young adults’ experience (for instance “The older we get the more difficult it is to make friends”). On the other hand, a number of students rejected ‘easy’ and ‘boring’ titles (such as “We should always tell the truth and nothing but the truth”). Interestingly enough, the students involved in the research displayed their general lack of understanding of the more popular (and less suitable) titles - when asked to paraphrase them in their own words, the paraphrases often diverged considerably from the meaning expressed in the original titles. It is obvious that what students like is not always good for them. “Some studies have shown that writers do not always make the best choice” (Jennings et al. 1999: 432). It is certainly beneficial for writing teachers to be acquainted with their students' tastes and preferences as much as possible, but at the end of the day they will have to make a professional choice based on their knowledge and experience (Sokolov 2005: 236). Finding a fresh topic is quite an achievement in this respect - students are reluctant to write on certain (‘easy’) topics simply because they have grown tired of them after years of similar essay topics assigned by their teachers of English at various levels of their education. Another factor that makes thinking of student-friendly topics/ titles difficult is the fact that tastes differ (cf. Jennings et al. 1999: 433), which makes finding out what students actually want ever more difficult (if not virtually impossible). It is therefore essential to provide students with a range of varied topics. The more the better? No, not really. It turns out that students generally prefer to be given no more than three titles (Sokolov 2005: 240), since more choice makes it more difficult for them to make a decision, and requires more time investment. Also Cushing Weigle (2002: 103) suggests that the time students spend on choosing a title could be better spent on writing itself. On the other hand, students The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 148 fear the danger of not finding any of the topics suitable enough if they are offered just one or two titles. The anxiety could affect an individual’s performance in a negative way; in addition, “increased choice is beneficial in that it empowers the test-taker and may help to shift the balance of power from the tester to the test-taker” (Jennings et al. 1999: 451). Letting test-takers influence the choice of topics boosts their power, too. One possible way to of doing this is the writing teacher collecting students’ wishes and suggestions before the exam date. However, when given the opportunity to participate actively in the creation of exam writing tasks, students prove to be at a loss - they lack original ideas (even more than their fatigued teachers) and make lists of worn-out titles of the kind they reject when their teachers assign them. The situation is even worse when students are encouraged to write an essay on anything they want - it turns out time and again that most students like specific titles much more than general topics which they have to narrow down first. Some authors attribute the fact that many if not most students do not know what to do “without an assigned topic” to their instructors teaching them “that coming up with a topic is not part of the student writer’s responsibility” (Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 139). Vicki Spandel and Richard J. Stiggins (ibid.) suggest that the appropriate response to this sorry state of affairs could be encouraging students “to explore several of [many potential] topics in various ways - through reading, writing, and talking with others”. Despite teachers’ best effort to find generally acceptable titles when they assign topics themselves, there will always be students who approve of none of the given options. Elbow’s (1981: 229) recommendation to such students goes: “Work out alternative assignments with your teacher so that it will be easier and more natural to give your writing to others.” Being open to such adjustments is certainly worth considering - even under exam conditions (cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 139). Some teachers inform their students of exam topics beforehand, thus enabling them to shorten or even drop some stages of the writing process. The approach is worth consideration, although there are drawbacks that accompany the benefits. For example, it is likely to encourage (some) students to write essays at home (possibly with outside assistance) before the exam session and to learn them by heart just to reproduce them from their memory when taking the exam; obviously, such occurrences undermine the main objective of the writing test - obtaining reliable information about what students can manage on their own. 4.3.5. Making process writing an integral part of writing tests Cushing Weigle (2002: 186-8) describes a number of ways in which it is possible to incorporate process writing into writing exams. To begin with, the teacher can make a common pre-writing session a part of the exam 149 session - students produce ideas related to the topic(s) assigned, while the teacher puts them on the blackboard for everybody to use at their discretion. Such an approach eases exam tension, helps students to get started and saves them precious time. Some teachers will even divide the exam into two sessions - one for students to work on their first draft, and another for them to create the final product (cf. Carr 2000: 207), sometimes even based on their peer’s feedback. The time between the two exam periods enables students to get the necessary distance from their first draft, giving them a chance to improve it more effectively - in addition to “[recognizing] the truth that writers perform better on some days than on others” (Daiker et al. 1996: 257; cf. Spandel & Stiggins 1990: 170). The implication here is that because changing physical and psychological factors affect performance, even multiple writing samples, if they are collected at the same time, cannot adequately measure writing ability. (ibid.) Apart from organisational difficulties and limitations (such as time and space), there are other disadvantages to promoting process writing under exam conditions. Firstly, it blurs the demarcation line between out-ofclass writing and timed writing tests, thus making the main objective of the latter difficult to achieve (cf. 4.3.4.). Secondly, peer feedback under exam conditions puts students into an unequal position since weak students cannot provide their fellow students with such useful assistance as more advanced students can. Thirdly, pre-exam brain storming can influence the students’ performance negatively by restricting them to the list of ideas on the blackboard rather than encouraging them to think of original ones themselves and to make their own voice an indispensable part of the text they produce. 5. Conclusion Finding a fair, objective and reliable way of evaluating students’ writing is as complex a process as the writing process itself. Research into various aspects of assessing writing has resulted in important conclusions which writing teachers should be familiar with, making sure to follow new developments in the field, too. The most important considerations to bear in mind are the following: ‣ Portfolio assessment (if extremely time consuming for both students and teachers) remains a reliable and valid approach to assessing writing skills. The danger of cheating makes in-class writing tests a necessary supplementary form of assessment in most educational contexts, though. The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 150 ‣ The process/ genre debate has affected none of the basic findings about the nature of the writing process, which should be taken into account when designing in-class writing tests. ‣ Writing exams should be conducted in a way which facilitates the candidates’ writing process to the highest possible extent: relevant resources need to be available to them; they should preferably be given the choice between handwritten and computer-based exams; they should be allotted enough time to compose their final drafts, which will be marked; the length of the final products should be flexible; test takers should be given a range of varied topics to choose from and the possibility to negotiate them; and, ideally, the exam should be extended over a longer period of time, allowing examiners to incorporate stages of the writing process into it. Of course, not all the recommendations are feasible in every educational context. Teachers working at the same institution and teaching according to the same curriculum should consider them thoroughly, and join the efforts to find an optimal combination of approaches that take the writing process into account without making the final grade less reliable. “Recent research has […] pointed out that different types of assessment are better suited to distinct instructional contexts, student abilities and goals, teacher preferences and purposes, and institutional expectations” (Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 421). In accordance with a particular educational context, then? Yes, definitely, but also with an open mind on introducing necessary changes and reflecting on future challenges in the area of testing and assessment as “eventually an entirely different sort of test is going to need to be devised in order to register individuals’ multiliteracy competences and to predict success in a new technological and educational environment” (Kellner 2000: 255). References Brown, H. Douglas (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman. Camp, Roberta (1996). “New Views of Measurement and New Models for Writing Assessment”. In: Edward M. White, William D. Lutz & Sandra Kamusikiri (Eds.). Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 135-147. Carr, Nathan (2000). “A Comparison of the Effects of Analytic and Holistic Rating Scale Types in the Context of Composition Tests”. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11/ 2. 207-241. Clark, Irene L. (2003). Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. Mahwah, New Jersey and London: LEA (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Clark, Romy & Roz Ivanič (1997). The Politics of Writing. London: Routledge. 151 Connors, Robert & Cheryl Glenn (1995). The St. Martin's Guide to Teaching Writing. 3 rd edn. New York: St. Martin's Press. Cushing Weigle, Sara (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Čokl, Sonja & Gašper Cankar (2008). Raziskava različnih vrst kriterijev za ocenjevanje maturitetnih esejev iz slovenščine. Ljubljana: Državni izpitni center. Daiker, Donald A., Jeff Sommers & Gail Stygall (1996). “The Pedagogical Implications of a College-Placement Portfolio”. In: Edward M. White, William D. Lutz & Sandra Kamusikiri (Eds.). Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 257-270. Elbow, Peter (1981). Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elbow, Peter (1996). “Writing Assessment: Do It Better, Do It Less”. In: Edward M. White, William D. Lutz & Sandra Kamusikiri (Eds.). Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 120-134. Eržen, Vineta (2011). “Posodabljanje pristopov k preverjanju in ocenjevanju znanja angleščine“. In: Veneta Eržen (Ed.). Posodobitve pouka v gimnazijski praksi: Angleščina. Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo. 74-91. Flowerdew, John, & Yongyan Li (2009). “The Globalization of Scholarship: Studying Chinese Scholars Writing for International Publication”. In: Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 156-182. Grabe, William & Robert B. Kaplan (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. London and New York: Longman. Hamp-Lyons, Liz (1990). “Second language writing: Assessment issues”. In: Barbara Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69-87. Hamp-Lyons, Liz (1996). “The Challenges of Second-Language Writing Assessment”. In: Edward M. White, William D. Lutz & Sandra Kamusikiri (Eds.). Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 226-240. Hamp-Lyons, Liz (2006). “Feedback in portfolio-based writing courses”. In: Ken Hyland & Fiona Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 140-161. Hilbert, Betsy S. (1992). “It Was a Dark and Nasty Night It Was a Dark and You Would Not Believe How Dark It Was a Hard Beginning“. College Composition and Communication 43/ 1. 75-80. Hill, Clifford & Kate Parry (1994). “Assessing English Language and Literacy Around the World”. In: Clifford Hill & Kate Parry (Eds.). From Testing to Assessment. London and New York: Longman. Hyland, Ken (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Harlow, London, New York: Longman. Hyland, Ken (2003a). “Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process”. Journal of Second Language Writing 12. 17-29. Hyland, Ken (2003b). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, Ken & Fiona Hyland (2006). “Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction”. In: Ken Hyland & Fiona Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-19. The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 152 Hyland, Ken (2007). “Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction”. Journal of Second Language Writing 16. 148-164. Imperial College London (2011). “Guidance for the use of computers and assessment”. https: / / workspace.imperial.ac.uk/ registry/ Public/ Exams/ Guidance for the use of computers in examinations approved QAAC May 2011.pdf (accessed June 16, 2014). Ismail, Sadiq Abdulwahed Ahmed, Hamed Mubarak Al-Awid & Abdurrahman Ghaleb Almekhlafi (2012). “Employing Reading and Writing Computer-Based Instruction in English as a Second Language in Elementary Schools”. International Journal of Business and Social Science 3/ 12. 265-274. Jennings, Martha, Janna Fox, Barbara Graves & Elana Shohamy (1999). “The testtakers' choice: An investigation of the effect of topic on language-test performance”. Language Testing 16/ 4. 426-456. Johns, Ann M., Anis Bawarshi, Richard M. Coe, Ken Hyland, Brian Paltridge, Mary Jo Reiff & Christine Tardy (2006). “Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts”. Journal of Second Language Writing 15. 234-249. Johns, Ann M. (2008). “Genre awareness for novice academic student: An ongoing quest”. Language Teaching 41/ 2. 237-252. Johns, Anne M. (2009). “Situated Invention and Genres: Assisting Generation 1.5 Students in Developing Rhetorical Flexibility”. In: Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol/ Buffalo/ Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 203-220. Johns, Ann M. (2011). “The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional decisions”. Journal of Second Language Writing 20. 56-68. Kellner, Douglas (2000). “New Technologies/ New Literacies: Restructuring Education for a New Millennium”. Teaching Education 11/ 3. 245-265. Kilborn, Judith (2000). “Strategies for Reducing Wordiness”. LEO: Literacy Education Online. The Write Place. http: / / leo.stcloudstate.edu/ style/ wordiness.html (accessed March 5, 2014). Kroll, Barbara (1990). “What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions”. In: Barbara Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 140-154. Lukeman, Noah. (2000/ 2010). The First Five Pages: A Writer's Guide to Staying Out of the Rejection Pile. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lunsford, Andrea & Robert Connors (1995). The St. Martin's Handbook. 3 rd edn. New York: St. Martin's Press. Lunsford, Andrea A. & Cheryl Glenn (1990/ 1995). “Rhetorical Theory and the Teaching of Writing”. In: Robert Connors & Cheryl Glenn (Eds.). The St Martin Guide to Teaching Writing. 3 rd edn. New York: St. Martin's Press. 394-407. Manchón, Rosa M., Julio Roca de Larios & Liz Murphy (2009). “The Temporal Dimension and Problem-Solving Nature of Foreign Language Composing Processes. Implications for Theory”. In: Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.).Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 102-124. McNamara, Tim (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mott-Smith, Jennifer A. (2009). “Responding to High-Stakes Writing Assessment”. In: Mark Roberge, Meryl Siegal & Linda Harklau (Eds.). Generation 1.5 in College Composition: Teaching Academic Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL. New York and London: Routledge. 120-134. 153 Murie, Robin & Renata Fitzpatrick (2009). “Situating Generation 1.5 in the Acadamy: Models for Building Academic Literacy and Acculturation”. In: Mark Roberge, Meryl Siegal & Linda Harklau (eds.). Generation 1.5 in College Composition: Teaching Academic Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL. New York and London: Routledge. 154-169. Murphy, Sandra & Barbara Grant (1996). “Portfolio Approaches to Assessment: Breakthrough or More of the Same? ” In: Edward M. White, William D. Lutz & Sandra Kamusikiri (Eds.). Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 284-300. Murray, Donald M. (1986). Read to Write: A Writing Process Reader. New York/ Toronto/ London/ Sydney: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Neff Lippman, Julie (2003). “Assessing Writing”. In: Irene. L. Clark (Ed.). Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. Mahwah, New Jersey and London: LEA (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). 199-220. Nordin, Shahrina Md (2006). “The best of two approaches: process/ genre-based approach to teaching writing”. The English Teacher XXXV. 75-85. Oretega, Lourdes (2009). “Studying Writing Across EFL Contexts: Looking Back and Moving Forward”. In: Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 232-255. Parks, A. Franklin, James A. Levernier & Ida Masters Hollowell (1991). Structuring Paragraphs: A Guide to Effective Writing. New York: St. Martin's Press. Pearson Casanave, Christine (2009). “Training for Writing or Training for Reality? Challenges Facing EFL Writing Teachers and Students in Language Teacher Education Programs”. In: Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 256-277. Powers, Donald E. & Mary E. Fowles (1997). “Effects of Applying Different Time Limits to a Proposed GRE Writing Test“. Journal of Educational Measurement 33/ 4. 433-452. Raimes, Ann (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ratcliffe, Rebecca (2012). “Exams make our hands sore, say students”. The Guardian, January 25. http: / / www.theguardian.com/ education/ mortarboard/ 2012/ jan/ 25/ examsmake-our-hands-sore (accessed June 16, 2014). Roemer, Marjorie, Lucille M. Schultz & Russel K. Durst (1991). “Portfolios and the Process of Change”. College Composition and Communication, 42/ 4. 455-469. Schoonen, Rob, Patrik Snellings, Marie Stevenson & Amos van Gelderen (2009). “Towards a Blueprint of the Foreign Language Writer: The Lingustic and Cognitive Demands of Foreign Language Writing”. In: Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 77-101. Shaw, Stuard D. & Cyril J. Weir (2007). Examining Writing: Research and practice in assessing second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sokolov, Cvetka (1999). Pisni sestavek pri študentih angleščine. (Written Composition with Students of English.) Unpublished MA Thesis. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta (The Faculty of Arts), Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko (Department of English). Sokolov, Cvetka (2005). “Essay Titles - Getting the Best out of Students? ” ELOPE 2/ 1-2. 231-241. The Writing Process nder Exam Conditions u Cvetka Sokolov 154 Spandel, Vicki & Richard J. Stiggins (1990). Creating Writers: Linking Assessment and Writing Instruction. New York and London: Longman. Swales, John M. (2011). “Coda: Reflections on the future of genre and L2 writing” (Editorial). Journal of Second Language Writing 20. 83-850. Tardy, Christine M. (2011). “The history and future of genre in second language writing” (Editorial). Journal of Second Language Writing 20. 1-5. University of Washington, School of Law (2003). “Exam & Papers: Use of computers on Exams”. http: / / www.law.washington.edu/ students/ academics/ Exams.aspx (accessed June 16, 2014). Weir, Cyril J. (1990). Communicative Language Testing. New York: Prentice Hall. Weir, Cyril J. (2005). Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. White, Ronald (1988). “Academic writing: Process and product”. In: Pauline Christina Robinson (Ed.) Academic Writing: Process and Product ELT Documents 129. Oxford: Modern English Publications and The British Council. 35-46. Woodford, Chris (2013). “How to Write a Brilliant Essay”. Explain that Stuff! http: / / www.explainthatstuff.com/ howtowriteanessay.html (accessed March 5, 2014, last updated December 11). Yan, Guo (2005). “A Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing”. English Teaching Forum 43/ 3. 18-26. Yasuda, Sachiko (2011). “Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence”. Journal of Second Language Writing 20. 111-133. Yayli. Demet (2011). “From genre awareness to cross-genre awareness: A study in an EFL context”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10. 121-129. Cvetka Sokolov Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana