Procedures are outlined for teaching writing as a step-by-step process. (MJL)

Laments the unnecessarily ponderous and difficult language and syntax that characterizes much technical writing. (HTH)

Describes a system for grading student compositions that evaluates the central idea, support material, organization, expression, and literacy, as a supplement to written comments from the teacher. Contains a copy of the grade and comment sheet. (HTH)

Proposes a general theory of writing evaluation that attends to communication intention, as well as formal semantics. Suggests practical ways of implementing such a theory. (RL)

Examines how assessment is constructed and understood, i.e., some of the conflicting subject positions writing instructors occupy when in the throes of grading. Suggests that "teacher selves" affect the act of grading, but so too do the subject positions of "student selves," namely, unconscious and/or superficial factors. (PA)

Describes and evaluates the exit assessment for writing at Simpson College. Provides background, reflection, results, a numbers analysis, and thoughts about the next steps. Argues that portfolios are a feasible means of large-scale and high-stakes writing assessment. (TB)

Proposes a hybrid grading system for composition papers which combines numbers and letters (thus providing some objectivity while preserving flexibility) that awards points on a sliding scale (with substantial rewards for content and readability and more limited rewards for mechanics and format) and that helps students see how their papers were…

The average response method (ARM) of scaling nonbinary data was developed to scale data from the assessments of writing conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The method is described and illustrated with data from the 1983-84 NAEP. (SLD)

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)

The article describes a student peer-evaluation activity in writing which not only saves the teacher's grading time and energy but also increases students' creativity and style while they learn to edit their work. (CB)

Reprints a 1979 article from this journal in which the author recounts his impressions as a reader for the College Board's English Achievement Test, an experience that left him asking questions about this type of assessment. Updates the article with an Afterword commenting on the earlier piece. (SR)

Describes and illustrates a six-stage process which consultant readers to academic journals can reliably use to reject papers submitted for publication. (SR)

Provides some time-saving and purposeful evaluation strategies that can be used with various writing projects and reports. Explains 10 hints directed toward what to do while the student is still writing and 5 hints for grading writing. (11 references) (MLF)

Presents a selected bibliography of scholarship in the assessment of writing. Offers 125 items that have appeared in major scholarly publications from 1979-91, organized in 7 categories: large-scale assessment; classroom writing assessment; theory; politics and issues; methods and procedures; program assessment; and networking resources. (SR)

Asserts that audiotape commentary on student papers should not be considered a panacea for composition teachers. Argues that, although its effectiveness always depends on a greater dialogic context, it can be a collaborative, enabling method for reader and writer to exchange information about intention and effect that exceeds the limitations of…