This program evaluation was undertaken to assess the broad, measurable effects of using computers to teach introductory college composition. In total, 24 classes were studied—12 control classes and 12 experimental—with the experimental computer classes meeting in the lab for half of their instructional time. Data on the success of the program were collected from a range of sources: pre- and posttests of student writing under both impromptu and take-home conditions; pre- and posttests of writing anxiety; records on attendance, tardiness, withdrawals, and homework and essay assignment completion; end-of-term course evaluation by both teachers and students; and self-report data collected from teacher meetings and teacher logs. Results favored the use of computers, with computer students revising and improving their posttest essays (especially discourse-level features) at levels significantly better than those of regular students. Those students in experimental sections who chose to compose on computers at the end of the term outperformed the group as a whole and performed significantly better than those experimental students who chose to compose with pen and paper. Attitudinal data from both students and teachers also favored the use of computers.

Incoming freshmen are typically required to write essays which are then holistically rated to determine composition course placement. These placement essays vary not only in topic, but also in the way the topic is structured. Two topic structures are most commonly used: Open (students draw on their own knowledge) and Response (students read a given text and respond to it). It has been established that students perform differently on topic structure itself. To investigate this effect, one topic was used but presented as (1) an Open topic structure, (2) a Response topic structure with one reading passage, and (3) a Response topic structure with three reading passages. The essays, written by college freshmen, were holistically rated for quality and analyzed for fluency, total error, and error ratios. The results indicated that the structure of the topic made a difference in quality, fluency, and total error, but not in any error ratio. These results suggest that, for placement testing, one should first decide which types of students one wishes to identify because each topic structure distinguishes low, average, and high ability students differently.

Sixty subjects, 40 of them blockers, provided over 5000 examples of self-talk accompanying the initiation and completion of writing sessions. An inductive procedure of sorting those thought-list cards into reliable and discrete categories produced 7 cognitive components of blocking (listed in descending order of importance): (1) work apprehension, (2) procrastination, (3) dysphoria, (4) impatience, (5) perfectionism, (6) evaluation anxiety, and (7) rules. Blockers were more likely than nonblockers to list negative thoughts and less likely to evidence “psych-up” thoughts during writing sessions.

This study concerns two related issues pertaining to the evaluation of students' written compositions: the relative effects of content versus mechanics on judgments of quality, and the extent to which raters are able to follow instructions directing them to attend more to one aspect of writing than to another. A college-level expository essay was made weaker in content (by reducing the number of underlying propositions) and in mechanics. The original and altered versions were rated analytically and holistically according to different sets of rating instructions. Analysis of variance indicated that mechanics had a greater influence on raters' judgments than either content or rating instructions. Thus the results suggest that evaluators may not be able to focus on individual criteria of writing quality.

A writer's evaluation of text plays critical, but little examined, roles in the writer's production of text and development as writer. Twenty students, grades 2-6, ranked unevaluated sets of compositions that they or anonymous peers had written; they then were prompted to discuss the factors upon which their rankings were based. Analysis of their evaluations suggests that bases for evaluations can be described in four categories: feelings aroused by text; responses to surface features; responses to text as understood; responses to craftsmanship.

Questionaire responses from faculty members in 190 academic departments at 34 universities were analyzed to determine the writing tasks faced by beginning undergraduate and graduate students. In addition to undergraduate English departments, six fields were surveyed: electrical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, chemistry, psychology, and master of business administration programs. Results indicated considerable variability across fields in the kinds of writing required and in preferred assessment topics.