The Sentence Combining Test was administered to three groups of college students (N=45) identified as learning disabled (LD), normal, and basic (underachieving) writers. Among results was that LD writers made a higher percentage of meaning errors across all subtests. (Author/JW)

A three-stage procedure for formulating and monitoring individualized objectives for learning disabled high school students includes: (1) surveying global writing successes and failures; (2) analyzing reliable patterns of selected writing features; and (3) selecting instructional priorities through ongoing negotiation between instructors and…

Investigates the ways sociologists perceive and evaluate student writing. Suggests that writing instructors need to examine closely the responses of academic readers to student texts in order to identify patterns of comprehension and evaluation that characterize disciplinary discourse communities. (MS)

Presents nonconfrontational critiquing as an alternative to traditional peer response in evaluating student writing. Provides a sample essay critiquing form. (MM)

After defining key terms, the article discusses options for the written language assessment of handicapped children in the areas of composition evaluation, and transcription evaluation. Types of evaluating include indirect measures, direct measures, process evaluation, product evaluation, holistic evaluation, and analytic evaluation. (DB)

Presents a positive, detailed scheme for evaluating students' papers. Includes an example of student writing with marks from the guide. (HTH)

Advocates the simplification of marking papers by using a list of 10 guide numbers given to students before the writing exercises begin. (DF)

Analyzes score differences for the papers of 50 students who wrote on four different writing topics, two that were on transactional and two that were on expressive topics. Results suggested that differences between scores might be very important for individuals, so to insure fairness, teachers should use additional forms of writing assessment. (DF)

Provides a rationale for and description of daily student journal writing, peer evaluation, and revision, which provide students with necessary writing practice without overloading the instructor. (HTH)

Reviews a survey of members of the College Section of the National Council of Teachers of English concerning their use of grading scales in the evaluation of freshman writing. Concludes that the theoretical interest in the scales is apparently not matched by their use by teachers. (FL)

Suggests that those who feel the need for competency testing in their program should find or construct a test that reflects the faculty's expectations, locate a coordinator to put the test into the curriculum, and find ways to bring the marginal student up to expectations. (EL)

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)

Discusses flaws in the procedures for the marking of 'A' Level papers by examiners. (DF)

Describes the WEED program, in which students write every day but not all papers receive a teacher evaluation. Discusses getting started, follow-up, collecting papers and grading, incentives, and the results of the program. (EL)

Three essay questions were administered to junior education major college students. Factor analysis of the ratings showed that content played a large role in the students' responses, yielding dominant first order factors. Generalizability theory, used to examine the reliability of students' ratings, showed the need for more raters and questions.…