Preview this article: In Memoriam: James L. Kinneavy, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/51/3/collegecompositionandcommunication1388-1.gif

Preview this article: Literacy After the Revolution, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/1/collegecompositionandcommunication3129-1.gif

Preview this article: Judging Writing, Judging Selves, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/40/4/collegecompositionandcommunication11110-1.gif

Preview this article: Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/48/6/collegeenglish11585-1.gif

To establish the issues that must be considered by evaluators of college writing programs, Witte and Faigley review major evaluation studies conducted at the University of Northern Iowa, the University of California San Diego, Miami University, and the University of Texas.For each study the authors devise a series of questions that probe every aspect of theory, pedagogy, and research: What do we presently know? What assumptions are we making and how do those assumptions limit our knowledge? Are those limitations necessary or desirable? What do we still need to know?Such questions demand much of program evaluators, who also must face additional difficult questions as they evaluate a writing program. Do the instructors conducting the writing classes share common assumptions that are reflected in their assignments, evaluative procedures, teaching procedures, and course content? How stable will the program prove to be over time? Will the writing program have a lasting effect? Do students leave the program with increased confidence in their ability to write?As Witte and Faigley urge program evaluators to pose these questions, they also bring to the problem a new comprehensive conceptual framework that both necessitates such queries and provides an opportunity to answer them.