Preview this article: Comment and Reponse: A Comment on "The Cultures of Literature and Composition: What Could Each Learn from the Other?", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/65/4/collegeenglish1296-1.gif

s Kathleen Yancey points out in her history of writing assessment, evaluation in some form or another has been an important part of college writing courses for over fifty years (“Looking”). Yancey’s history recognizes the often conflicted nature of assessment for the teaching of writing. Although most writing teachers recognize the importance and necessity of regular assessment, they are also rightly concerned about the adverse effects assessment can have on their classrooms and students. This essay focuses on the kind of assessment (I use the words assessment and evaluation interchangeably, distinguishing both from either testing or grading) that takes place within a classroom context, and therefore looks at assessing, grading, or testing writing, since when we talk about classroom assessment we talk of grades and tests, at times using all three terms interchangeably. This slippage of assessment, grading, and testing as interchangeable provides a discourse about assessment that is often critical and unexamined. The result of these strong connections among grading, testing, and assessing writing is that any possible connection between the teaching and the evaluating of student writing is seldom questioned or discussed. This has led us as a profession to believe that assessing student writing somehow interferes with our ability to teach it. There are of course some notable exceptions. For example, Edward M. White’s germinal text is called Teaching and Assessing Writing, and he includes the ways in which formal assessments such as holistic scoring can benefit classroom practice; but even White divides assessment and teaching into separate entities that can affect each other. Certainly portfolios have been constructed by some (Elbow, “Foreword”;

ver ten years have now passed since Judith Butler's Gender Trouble began making trouble with its challenges to the systems of gender and sexuality. The book has been translated into nine languages; anniversary editions have been released, and Butler has revisited and revised its central claims in subsequent articles, interviews, and book-length works. In short, Gender Trouble, and, most particularly, the theory of performativity delineated within this book, has remained on postmodern theory's center stage since its 1990 appearance. Butler asserts that the incredible life of this text has far exceeded her original and more modest intentions for it, and she credits the continually changing context of its reception for Gender Trouble's endurance (Preface vii). While Butler's humility and attribution to audiences here are refreshing, Gender Trouble's central claims did constitute theoretical interventions of the first order, disrupting feminism as many of us knew it, and helping to found queer theory in the process. Subverting common-sense beliefs that gender and sexuality are fundamental truths of the self, Gender Trouble (in what are now statements of their own commonplace familiarity) tells us instead that both are always acts, expressions, behaviors, which, like performative speech acts, bring into existence that which they name, and, through their repetition, come to constitute the identities they are purported to be. In other

Preview this article: Comment & Response: A Comment on "'A Radical Conversion of the Mind": Fundamentalism, Hermeneutics, and the Metanoic Classroom" AND A Comment on "Storying Our Lives against the Grain", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/64/6/collegeenglish1272-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/64/6/collegeenglish1273-1.gif

Elizabeth Vander Lei, Donald R. Hettinga, A Comment on "'A Radical Conversion of the Mind': Fundamentalism, Hermeneutics, and the Metanoic Classroom", College English, Vol. 64, No. 6 (Jul., 2002), pp. 720-723

Presents a debate between traditionalist ideas from Xin Lin Gale and postmodern ideas from Cheryl Glenn and Susan Jarratt. Quotes Gale who says that you cannot have it both ways, foundational and antifoundational: using the historical evidence to champion Aspasia while at the same time "reclaiming" her from the biases of those very documents. Notes Jarratt’s response to the contrary.

Preview this article: Comment: A Comment on "Abandoning the Ruins", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/64/3/collegeenglish1256-1.gif

Preview this article: Comment & Response: A Comment on the "WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/64/3/collegeenglish1255-1.gif

Preview this article: Comment: Someone Else Can Do It Better: In Response to Richard Kostelanetz, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/64/2/collegeenglish1248-1.gif

Preview this article: COMMENT & RESPONSE: A Comment on "Reflections on an Anthology", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/63/6/collegeenglish1234-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/63/6/collegeenglish1235-1.gif

Begins with a quick history of the English profession’s response to the prospect/specter of the computer as reader of student writing. Describes two programs that are now being heavily marketed and publicized nationally. Sketches out some of the implications of these programs for members of the profession of English in America.

Preview this article: COMMENT & RESPONSE: A COMMENT ON "HISTORICAL STUDIES AND POSTMODERNISM: REREADING ASPASIA OF MILETUS", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/63/1/collegeenglish1201-1.gif

Preview this article: COMMENT & RESPONSE: A COMMENT ON "IAGO LIVES IN THE PANOPTICON", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/62/6/collegeenglish1193-1.gif

Preview this article: COMMENT & RESPONSE: A COMMENT ON "BRAVE NEW UNIVERSITY" AND "WHO KILLED SHAKESPEARE?", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/62/5/collegeenglish1187-1.gif

Preview this article: COMMENT & RESPONSE: A COMMENT ON "RESCUING THE ARCHIVES FROM FOUCAULT", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/62/4/collegeenglish1181-1.gif

Preview this article: Comment & Response: A Comment on "The Graying of Professor Erma Bombeck", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/62/3/collegeenglish1175-1.gif

Preview this article: Comment & Response: A Comment on "Rhetoric as a Course of Study", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/62/2/collegeenglish1168-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editors, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/61/6/collegeenglish1156-1.gif