Assessing L2 writing: Alternative constructs and ethical dilemmas

Different ethical issues arise according to how the construct of writing is defined for assessment purposes. Most formal assessments assume a pragmatic, functional definition of second-language (L2) writing in which an examinee’s text production is judged norma-tively in respect to conventions for a discourse type or domain (Santos, 1992). This raises ethical concerns that have conventionally been addressed in high stakes language tests such as confidentiality, prior orientation, fairness, or equality of opportunity. But other, alterna-tive definitions of writing are prominent in the pedagogical literature and in educational practices, particularly for users of second languages, for example, defining writing as a mode of learning, the expression of identity, or a medium for political action (e.g., reviewed in Cumming, 2001a; Hamp-Lyons & Kroll, 1997). Such constructs are rarely assessed in formal tests, seemingly because they raise moral issues, for example, concerning definitions of personal development, inter-cultural negotiation, knowledge, and emancipation, which necessarily have to be denied to fulfill the ethical criteria (e.g., confidentiality, prior orien-tation, fairness, and equality of opportunity) associated with the assessment of functional definitions of writing. I discuss these issues in respect to efforts to develop new task types for a new TOEFL, particularly in distinguishing between the constructs of writing tasks that solicit either independent expression or responses to substantive reading or listenin