ABSTRACT
As a technique, distributive evaluation involves seeking multiple perspectives and responses to student compositions. For instance, works in students’ electronic portfolios at Alverno College can be read by multiple audiences—various course instructors, advisors, and other administrators (Diagnostic Digital Portfolio, 2000; “Finding Proof,” 1997; Iannozzi, 1997; Hutchings, 1996). Each of these audiences brings its own expertise and perspective to readings. If individuals are encouraged to record their responses, and these responses are then associated with the compositions in a database that is available to the instructor and other evaluators, it is possible to build a situated evaluation of a student's composition. This evaluation acknowledges that writing, composing, and communicating are localized social activities by incorporating disparate responses from teachers, student-authors, peers, and outside audiences. Unlike the commonly used 1- to 6-point holistic reading or the more detailed rubric-based multitrait scoring systems, a distributive assessment system does not insist that all readers read alike. Research (Elbow, 1997; Hirsch, 2003) has shown that different readers read differently in nonconstrained settings. The objective of a writing assessment system that values validity—that values an accurate evaluation of how well a student writes—should be to include multiple, and potentially different, responses to a composition.
