Assessing Writing 11 (2006) 42–65 Classroom assessment tools and uses: Canadian English teachers’ practices for writing Darryl Hunter a,∗ , Charles Mayenga b , Trevor Gambell b a Faculty of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada b Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Available online 28 February 2006 Abstract Classroom assessment of writing is considered from an anthropological perspective as practitioners’ tool use. Pan Canadian data from a 2002 English teacher questionnaire (N = 4070) about self-reported assessment practices were analyzed in terms of tool choice and use by secondary teachers of different experience and qualification levels. Four underlying variables were identified in their choice of assessment tools: whether affective traits such as attendance, effort, motivation or participation were factors; whether self-assessment and peer evaluation were considered; whether portfolios or examples of student work were variables in grading practices; and whether multiple choice or short response tasks were chosen. In terms of tool use, the three salient variables were: the nature of the feedback cycle with students; whether homework contributed to grades; and whether homework served in large group instruction. A number of significant differences by career stage and credential level were revealed in assessment instrument choice and use. Implications for teacher pre-service and in-service professional development are outlined. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Classroom assessment; Writing; Assessment tools; Assessment uses; Canadian teachers; Assessment practices 1. Introduction The linguistic anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1966) has argued that tools, as physical implements used to effect changes in human surroundings, can also include “objects to think with” to accomplish intellectual work. Whether used to support physical or cognitive activity, all tools share several properties: they extend the reach or amplify the faculties of the user; they render more complex tasks tractable; they are material or can materialize and hence ren- der objects susceptible to intervention or manipulation. Other anthropologists (Baber, 2003) ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 326 9670; fax: +1 416 325 0831. E-mail address: Darrylinvic@hotmail.com (D. Hunter). 1075-2935/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2005.12.002