Concludes that the rhetorical specification approach to developing essay examination topics (giving writers information about the purpose of a composition, its audience, speaker, and subject) may not be the best way to elicit good writing. (JL)

Contributors discuss the following topics: (1) holistic reading in the composition class, (2) the teaching assistant as apprentice, and (3) the status and functions of college faculty adjuncts. (HTH)

Examines the modes of self-evaluation of writing quality as reported by professional writers, college students, writing instructors, and publishers. Suggests that writer resistance to self-evaluation may be healthy and that such evaluation should not come prematurely. However, without such evaluation, writers gain little from having written. (HTH)

Argues that peer review is a necessary prelude to teaching students how to revise their own writing. Outlines a peer review procedure and provides a copy of an assignment sheet used by students in evaluating each other's compositions. (FL)

Examines the types of problems identified for students using the services of a writing laboratory. (HOD)

A college freshman level sentence-combining treatment consisting of one paragraph rewriting exercise for 12 consecutive weeks resulted in significant gains in average words per clause and words per T-unit. (HOD)

Describes a correction system that supplements and visually reinforces teacher responses to student papers by utilizing examples from those papers and emphasizing the positive aspects of the assignments. (HOD)

Strategies for strengthening the writing skills of accounting students include the following: beginning with critical thinking as a prerequisite to effective writing; teaching the elements of composing and editing; and using "microthemes" assignments. (SK)

Investigates how students in an upper-level sociology course wrote critiques and how their texts were evaluated by four professors in the discipline. Finds that students received higher scores if they found weaknesses in the source article, basing their judgments on disciplinary knowledge; and neither major nor educational level was a strong…

Examined the relationship between students' composition scores and the writers' and raters' perceptions of a given topic: does a student receive a higher score if the rater agrees with the student's thesis? Findings indicated that there are other factors, such as students' attitude and cognitive ability that may affect raters' judgments of student…

Proposes an approach that emphasizes negative, "what did we do wrong?" questions so that technical communicators can obtain useful feedback on documents. Notes that this approach focuses limited resources on areas that need improvement, rather than areas that already work well and that do not require immediate improvement. (RS)

Draws upon a longitudinal study of four undergraduate student writers and focuses on the progress of one of them. Questions assumptions that confuse skills assessment with the measurement of academic and personal development. Argues for a broader view of writing development and a teaching approach that fosters it. (SG)

Shares instructional practices based on narrative and expository texts that will build students' literacy skills and meet many writing assessment demands in the United States. Presents guiding principles for best writing practice, pertinent standards in the English language arts, strategy-based lesson plans, and practical implications for teachers…

Focuses on the kind of assessment that takes place within a classroom context, and therefore looks at assessing, grading, or testing writing, since when educators talk about classroom assessment they talk of grades and tests, at times using all three terms interchangeably. Hopes to draw educators into new conversations about assessment and the…

Outlines the series of decisions involved in selecting and then using sample papers in holistic evaluation. Attempts to make test-developers aware that they have choices to make and that their choices will have serious consequences for student and evaluator alike. (RS)