Critical language awareness offers one approach to communal "justicing," an iterative and collective process that can address inequities in the disciplinary infrastructure of Writing Studies. We demonstrate justicing in the field's pasts, policies, and publications; offer a model of communal revision; and invite readers to become agents…

This article argues for and models an approach to writing program assessment that relies on study of the writing practices of program graduates as a way to inform revisions in curriculum and teaching practices. The article also examines how conducting such assessments can help nondisciplinary publics understand the nature of composition …

In a FIPSE-funded assessment project, a group of diverse institutions collaborated on developing a common, course-embedded approach to assessing student writing in our first-year writing programs. The results of this assessment project, the processes we developed to assess authentic student writing, and individual institutional perspectives are…

This article describes how readers from a graduate program in anthropology evaluated student writing in a general education course. Readers voiced the concerns of their discipline when they focused on the stance writers assumed and how they made value judgments.

Suggests alternatives to marginal comments on students' papers as a way to encourage them to think more about the revision process. Recommends that teachers make no marks on the student's paper (only on a separate sheet), and ask leading questions in conference to guide the student to a focus. (RAE)

Describes the rationale and procedure for using student writing portfolios in lieu of proficiency writing exams to determine student placement at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. (HTH)

Discusses and tries to define the basic differences between high school and college-level writing. Examines key assumptions of the Summer Writing Program at Carleton College along with the criteria used for determining whether students should receive writing course credit. Reveals contradictions in stated criteria and praxis. (HB)

Examines the four-category model developed by Andrew Wilkinson at the University of Essex (England) to assess growth in writing maturity. The four measures of development are stylistic, affective, cognitive, and moral. Each has several subcategories. Includes college student essays to illustrate the model. (HTH)

Identifies four areas concerning writing across the curriculum programs in which consensus across the campus should be sought: dealing with errors, common terminology, a process or routine for response, and enthusiasm for the effort. Includes response checklists. (HTH)

Focuses on the nature and problems presented by grading student essays. Offers some solutions to those problems and reasons why it makes sense to put the burden of proof for grading on students so that a constructive dialog can develop between students and teacher. (TB)

Recounts the story of how the writing faculty at Washington State University successfully reclaimed their university's writing assessment program. Argues that writing teachers should be leery of assessment programs made by others, and should create their own assessment tools. (HB)

Discusses the design and scoring of the writing proficiency exam conducted at San Francisco State University. Explains the program's counseling system for those students who do not pass the proficiency exam. (HTH)

Presents an evaluation method designed to help students at each stage of the writing process. The process includes a student self-evaluation scale for the prewriting stage, an analytic scale for descriptive writing used by peer evaluators and the instructor, and an outline of the evaluation strategy. (HTH)