In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

AP P ENDIX Annotated Bibliography for Writing Center Assessment William J. Macauley, Jr. Included here are sources that we have found useful in understanding writing center assessment and in developing this book. These sources come from our own research and reading, from selected bibliographies, and from references made in scholarship we have found pertinent to writing center assessment. Many of these sources are discussed further in chapter 1. Although the majority of these sources are focused specifically on writing center assessment, many are included here because of their relevance to contextualizing writing center assessment theory or methods within the larger bodies of scholarship focused on writing program assessment and writing assessment. In addition, the line between writing center research and assessment is often blurred; in our opinion, this is acceptable because all good assessment is also good research—though oftentimes localized inquiry rather than research writ large. Overall, our goal is to provide the widest possible range of resources that might be of use to those who are developing writing center assessments. Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Susanmarie Harrington. 2010. “Responsibility and Composition’s Future in the Twenty-first Century: Reframing ‘Accountability.’” College Composition and Communication 62 (1): 73–99. This article provides a useful context for current practices in writing assessment. It then goes on to argue for a reframing of writing assessment as responsibility rather than accountability because it shifts the emphasis from justification to others to our own responsibilities. Good ideological piece for writing centers and their agency in writing center assessment. 180    BUILDING WRITING CENTER ASSESSMENTS THAT MATTER Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Peggy O’Neill. 2010. Reframing Writing Assessment to Improve Teaching and Learning. Logan: Utah State University Press. This book provides detailed discussion of the larger implications and ramifications of writing assessment. Although this might be daunting for neophytes to writing center assessment, for those who are looking for larger arguments for writing and writing center assessment, AdlerKassner and O’Neill make a compelling case for recontextualizing writing assessment as a social responsibility. Ady, Paul. 1988. “Fear and Trembling at the Center.” Writing Lab Newsletter 12 (8): 11–12. This article is a good, early example of pre- and post-testing as a means of assessing the impact of writing centers. Current readers may notice the localized nature of assumptions and the strong presence of the author in the results and interpretation. Nonetheless, the piece is an example of what is (and could) be done with pre-/post-testing. Barnett, Robert W. 1997. “Redefining our Existence: An Argument for Short- and Long-term Goals and Objectives.” Writing Center Journal 17 (2): 123–33. This article argues that goals/objectives statements can work reflexively to both demonstrate commonality with the rest of the campus and develop shared missions/objectives. Beal, Phillip E., and Lee Noel. 1980. What Works In Student Retention: The Report of a Joint Project of the American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Iowa City: American College Testing Program and National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. This study could be very useful in helping a writing center to assess its relation to retention or to the design assessments of retention-related issues. Beebe, James. 1995. “Basic Concepts and Techniques of Rapid Appraisal.” Human Organization 54 (1): 42–51. This article is a nice complement to the work cited elsewhere in the book and bibliography by James Bell, Johanek, and Donelli and Garrison. It provides specifics on how to do a rapid appraisal, which calls for multiple small-scale research tools, complementary data, and appraisal team interaction. Appendix    181 Bell, Elizabeth. 1982. “A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Writing.” Writing Lab Newsletter 7 (2): 7–9. This study will seem very familiar, and it does a nice job of comparing tutor and first-year composition (FYC) student writer attitudes/perceptions of writing and of themselves as writers. There is a nice turnaround later that reveals the tutors seeing themselves as continuing to improve while the FYC students tended to see themselves more often as lacking or unsuccessful. The study reports positive change over the semester. Bell, James H. 2000. “When Hard Questions Are Asked: Evaluating Writing Centers.” Writing Center Journal 21 (1): 7–28. This is one of the most frequently cited pieces in recent writing center assessment literature. The article connects writing center assessment with educational program assessment and provides six broad categories of assessment. The article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each category of assessment for...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.