Background:  Evaluating Critical and Analytical Thinking Skills across the Curriculum at Linsly

During the spring of 1998, the Headmaster at Linsly (a college prepatory school) asked me to investigate curriculum designs that promote high scores on the PSTA, SAT and other standardized assessment tests,  improve students' qualifications for National Merit status, and result in successful college placement rates.  Based on our discussion,  I framed three questions:

1. Do Linsly students have a proficient command of language?
2. Does our curriculum prepare students for analytical and critical  thinking questions?
3. Can Linsly students write well?

Thus, with the understanding that college placement, national  merit status, and critical thinking skills all are contingent upon how well our  students write, I engaged a process that would explain how we might adjust the  curriculum at Linsly in a way that encourages student writing,  meets the  expectations of the academy, and prepares students for the kind of critical  thinking abilities demanded by colleges and universities.

Literally thousands of articles describe writing assessment strategies. From psychoanalytic evaluation, to self-evaluation, to peer  evaluation, to tape-recorded evaluation, the methods available to teachers are  limited only by the imagination. With this in mind, I limited my research to  assessment, evaluation, and grading strategies that have been described in  academic journals or books during the last two to three years. Although my annotatation note whether or not I think particular strategies will work at Linsly,  my hope is that the  bibliography can also be used as a general reference for those who are dissatisfied with the  method they are currently using and would like to find literature on something  more current.

Annotated Bibliography

Adkinson, Stephen, and Stephen Tchudi. "Grading on Merit and Achievement: Where Quality Meets Quantity." Alternatives to Grading Student Writing. Ed. Stephen Tchudi. Urbana: NCTE, 1997. 192-208.

Using a well reasoned, carefully argued, and convincingly defended rhetorical style, Adkinson and Tchudi explain the advantages of achievement grading. Similar to contract grading, achievement grading "awards higher grades to the students who complete a wider range of work or who go into ideas and topics in greater depth than their peers"(194). Achievement grading resembles the integration of the pass/fail system with the traditional grading system. It is based on three guidelines: (1) All work is 'graded' credit/no credit (or pass/fail or successful/unsuccessful). (2) The requirements of credit are stated in terms of tasks or assignments to be completed. The criteria for credit usually specify both the amount of work to be done (quantity) and the kind of thoroughness and polish required for acceptance (quality). The teacher may be the sole determiner of tasks and criteria, but usually students are involved in the negotiation of both. (3) Students get points, grades, or other rewards on the basis of how much creditable work they do.(194-195).

Adkinson and Tchudi have found that a carefully constructed list of tasks eliminates the need for vague, context-based terms such as structure, voice, clarity, and specificity (196) and, consequently, students are able to spend more time working on tasks before them rather than 'figuring the teacher out'(196). They lend credibility to their achievement grading system by acknowledging that "there are elements of subjectivity in our criteria," but that "the critical point is that we have shifted grading away from the sliding scales (from F to A) and that we describe criteria in terms of completion of the job rather than abstract rhetorical traits"(200).

While I can't see a complete conversion to achievement grading at Linsly or in my classroom, I can see the value in it. Specifically, I intend to use achievement grading for somewhere around 30% of the student's final grade. Clearly, by shifting the tedium of daily journal responses to an achievement grading system, the responsibility for personal success will lie in the hands of the students.

Through this article, Anderson and Speck attempt to explain the dilemma faced by teachers who evaluate writing, and to encourage teachers across the curriculum to "find creative ways to meet the challenge of promoting growth in the face of grading requirements"(27). Anderson and Speck suggest that writing teachers discuss the grading dilemma with one another, and use "grading techniques" that will help students learn (23). This article provided several examples of evaluation techniques that manage to be both counterproductive to the best interests of the student and demeaning to the teacher. Certainly, minimalist grading, as Anderson and Speck describe it, is the least effective grading strategy mentioned. Neither Anderson nor Speck endorsed this strategy which necessitates that the teacher use a check mark, an exclamation point, and the word NO to help students become better writers (24). To be men and women of letters, but be able to use no characters other than those three seems more like some form of cruel punishment than a grading strategy. Cassette grading offers only slightly more value, but still places too many burdens on students who most likely don't know they've made mistakes to begin with (24). Faced with similar problems, collaborative grading calls upon a self-evaluation model that becomes problematic when students are frustrated because they don't realize or understand the mistakes they are making. Yet, the independent-evaluator form of collaborative grading does offer some potential as it takes into consideration the teacher as coach vs. teacher as evaluator dualism presented by Peter Elbow in his article, "Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process." Finally, the explanation of portfolio grading offered the only useful advice on alternative grading techniques. Through an analysis of the portfolio, teachers can observe and determine "the development and growth of the writer's ability"(25). Furthermore, Anderson supports her endorsement of the portfolio technique through her reference to Brady and Thaiss' s "What Student Portfolios are Teaching Us"(25). She quotes from that source, "Students have more authority, as well as more responsibility, for judging when their work is ready for evaluation"(25). Here, students are accountable for their own growth and development, but not their own evaluation. Clearly, much of this article demonstrates the type of fad grading that could impair the development of potentially sound academic writers. Yet, Linsly's curriculum would benefit from a more concentrated effort to make portfolio assessment a part of classrooms in all disciplines.

When she began writing this article, Lynn Bloom wanted to address the question, "How can we grade writing in which the writers have laid their lives on the line?" During the first half of the essay, Bloom indicates several problems with the practice of grading as we have come to know it. She argues that grades are misleading because they serve as an administrative convenience that fills a form rather than explaining content. She explains that grades look precise and objective but are not, and that they not only label papers, but they label writers. Bloom concludes her jeremiad of grading policy by explaining that "grades are in big trouble"(364) because they undermine good teaching, inhibit student discussion and response to course material, look fixed and permanent, and are dishonest (362-366). Bloom offers an alternative to common grading policy through a student-centered approach in which the writers assign grades to themselves. Through discussion groups, peer analysis, self-reflection, and autonomous revision, students were able to validate each other's work, while not asking the professor how she would evaluate their writing. In the case of nearly every student, Bloom asserts that the student's self-evaluation was virtually identical to the evaluation that she gave. While Bloom's allegation that grading as most teachers have come to perceive it has its imperfections is accurate, I do not agree with all aspects of her remedy. Certainly, the collaborative student relationships that were generated by Bloom's model were beneficial, but allowing students to grade themselves may have negative consequences beyond those indicated by Bloom. The problems raised by time constraints, the paper load, and unmotivated students all detract from the allure of Bloom's model. But more importantly, it denies the value of authority and expertise. While questioning a grade is certainly acceptable, it should not be common practice. Indeed, we are welcome to question our bosses about our salary from time to time, but not after every paycheck. Similarly, writers must accept that the expert has a certain amount of authority that must be honored when grades are given.

A professor of English at Hunter College, CUNY, Greenberg has spent much of her life in search of the most effective way to respond to student writing. But, as she indicates, "I abruptly resigned from the 'assessment business,' ending a 20-year run of research, scholarship, and political activism focused on post-secondary writing evaluation"(275). In 1996, Karen Greenberg, by then dismayed and jaded, removed herself from the 'assessment business' for three reasons: "(1) current writing assessment practices are bereft of theory and do not reflect what we know about how writing is learned and taught; (2) too often, 'how to' information about the evaluation of writing takes precedence over the questions of 'why' and 'what are the social and political implications'; and (3) everyone involved in post-secondary writing instruction and evaluation, including students' needs to think much more carefully about how ideologies of writing assessment embody and reinforce the dominant cultural forces that many of us seek to question if not resist"(283). Greenberg also indicates that none of the authors published in the books under her review explained explicitly the fact that "grading disempowers students"(279). This inattention to the power dynamic in writing is frustrating for Greenberg who believes that, "all grades, evaluations, and assessments, no matter how naturalistic, contextualized, multidimensional, and richly descriptive, are exercises in power-grading, evaluating, and assessing always involves asymmetrical attempts to shape experiences and identities, to control others, to establish or maintain authority"(277). Greenberg's three problems with contemporary assessment strategy, coupled with her explanation of the power dynamic in composition evaluation have led me to the conclusion that as I examine assessment, evaluation, and grading strategies I must remain aware of the theoretical grounding, social implications, and power dynamics that underlie any approach towards responding to student writing.

Guthrow chronicles the intellectual transformation experienced by students from Randolph-Macon Woman's College who spent their junior year studying at the University of Reading. In general, students who experienced the Reading program "did become much more comfortable with the process; they all talked about new fluency and confidence as being the products of a year of intensive writing in a pass/fail setting. In addition, these students "developed a strong sense of ownership in their writing"(124). The students' improvement in writing occurred as a result of three significant factors: (1) Students were liberated by the pass/fail system that enabled them to focus on ideas rather than technicalities. (2) Students were evaluated primarily through their writing; no exams or quizzes were given. Students at Reading read, wrote, and discussed the assigned texts. Consequently, they needed to produce a tremendous quantity of writing over the duration of a semester. (3) Oral response through weekly conferencing was the primary means of shaping student writing. These individual sessions promoted student interest and personal accountability (125-132). While a semester abroad cannot be replicated at a private college preparatory school, Linsly can learn a great deal from the Reading model. Indeed, teachers across Linsly's curriculum should consider improving student writing through "more conferencing and oral response throughout the composing process, and less marking of drafts; more informal writing assignments, presented as a way of learning, as a starting point for discussion or for further reading; a shift in focus from mastery of forms to development of confidence and fluency through intensive writing practice; and development of close, supportive relationships among students and teachers as the basis for more shared assessment of drafts"(134).

Lynn Holaday presents an emotionally charged argument that discredits and vilifies the practice of grading, especially in the context of writing evaluation. She asserts that the primary obstacles hindering student writing are traumatic writing experiences and negative attitudes, each of which is misery caused by grading. Thus, in her thesis, Holaday explains that, "I see changing them as the only really effective means of improving my students' writing, and I see my most effective tool as minimizing judgement, otherwise known as grading"(35). Unlike many other anti-grade ideologists who ignore the opposition, Holaday strives to refute every counter-claim that could be made. But, unfortunately, she is incredibly loose with logic, and the result is rhetoric that is long on emotion and Romantic optimism, but short on real world application. Her conviction that ranking students through SAT's, GRE's, LSAT's, and other national standards tests is more reliable than grades and class rank is not only naíve, it is dangerous. Anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time researching the SAT realizes its multiple shortcomings, and that in the end it measures little more than how well the student can take the SAT. Holaday's belief that a "grade may be influenced or contaminated by everything from flattery to a teacher's personal preferences, to a desire to warn, to a fear of causing psychological harm," is no different than evaluation, reward, and promotion systems that exist throughout American society. Why should teachers nurture students in a non-evaluative, no-risk, everyone-is-exactly-the-same environment only to release them to the lions? Holaday's approach seems to have the potential to cause much more harm than giving grades does. Furthermore, the dualism that she creates between coaches and judges is preposterous. I have been an athlete all of my life, and I coach three seasons of athletics at Linsly. To suggest that "Coaches are on your side; judges are not. Coaches are friendly; judges are aloof. Coaches want you to do well; judges don't care"(41), is to completely ignore reality. Certainly coaches, and teachers who assign grades, are on the student's side, can be friendly, and want the individual to succeed, but they also judge. In fact, a coach's decision of who plays the bulk of the minutes during a game is often a more biting judgement than giving a low grade because it is completely visible. In any event, Holaday's explanation moved me closer to realizing that for the purposes of the highly competitive environment that Linsly promotes, I must discover alternative systems of grading. Ironically enough, however, after all of the spin and rhetoric, Holaday's alternative offers little more than a new way to label an 'A.'

Although this article is directed primarily toward people who use and design placement tests that measure a wide field of students, (specifically for the purposes of college scheduling, or broader national writing assessment tests) the argument that Huot presents is valuable in the context of my research for two reasons: (1) it asserts that "at present, assessment procedures which attempt to fix objectively a student's ability to write are based upon an outdated theory supported by an irrelevant epistemology"(551-552); and (2) that any truly reliable or valid assessment of writing must "recognize the importance of context, rhetoric, and other characteristics integral to a specific purpose and institution"(552). These observations indicate that writing teachers across the curriculum must focus writing assessment on "a writer's ability to communicate within a particular context and to a specific audience who needs to read this writing as part of a clearly defined communicative event"(559). Huot reiterates the central premise of his argument by explaining that, "Instead of generalizability, technical rigor, and large scale measures that minimize context and aim for a standardization of writing quality, these new products emphasize the context of the texts being read, the position of the readers, and the local, practical standards teachers and other stakeholders establish for written communication"(561). Indeed, as we redefine the manner in which we will respond to student writing across the curriculum at Linsly, we must focus less on an attempt to judge objectively a particular writer, and instead be able to "describe the promise and limitations of a writer working within a particular rhetorical and linguistic context"(564). More importantly immediately, however, is that while Huot has denounced ETS and other national testing companies throughout his article, we must remember that those testing companies maintain the integrity and validity of their writing assessment methods. As long as the holistic assessment strategy is used by ETS, Linsly teachers must continue to prepare students to produce the clearly organized, fact driven, thesis based essays that are required for that communicative event, superficial though it is. Of course, this is not to suggest that the style of writing praised by ETS readers is the only style we will teach. Rather, it is a mode of discourse that we must prepare our students to practice.

Kathleen Jones asserts that "the writing portfolio is a structure that will help simplify assessment and grading and at the same time help make learning meaningful in our classrooms"(255). Jones' description of the portfolio is appealing because of the potential it has to allow teachers to track all phases of the students' writing process, "I want students to follow through on any writing they undertake, so every piece of writing, including the various drafts, self-assessments, peer responses, and teacher response is included in the portfolio. Revisions, rewrites, and false starts are also evident. This collection becomes a living, almost breathing, record of a student's thinking as well as his or her growth, through self-assessment, as a writer and learner"(255). While I agree with many of Jones's points regarding the subtleties of portfolio assessment, I do take exception to her idea that portfolio writing should not be assessed in any way until the final conference. While refraining from comment is noble in theory, it is far too often misinterpreted as teacher apathy. A student commented recently that one of my colleagues was lazy because "he doesn't even look at our stuff--it doesn't even seem like he cares what we write or if we get any better." I believe that summative grades can wait, but I think that students, especially high school students, require feedback to keep them motivated. Finally, Jones' s emphasis on the portfolio conference as a way to shift "the evaluation and assigning of grades from something done by the teacher to the student to the perspective of a shared responsibility in assessing what has been accomplished"(262) will certainly have a positive effect when applied to writing instruction at Linsly.

Originally published in 1982, Lindemann's text is now in its third edition. Its staying power can be attributed to the pragmatic approach that it uses as it introduces new teachers to all aspects of composition/rhetoric instruction. Lindemann describes several methodologies for evaluating writing in the same chapter that she describes methodologies for creating writing assignments (chapter 13, pages 191-223). Her decision to combine these separate components of writing instruction stems from her belief that "problems in many papers may be the fault, not of the writer, but of the assignment"(191). Lindemann explains further that, "Effective writing assignments encourage students to define progressively more complex rhetorical problems. Since students learn to write by writing, our responsibility is to control and vary the rhetorical demands of writing tasks to give students practice in adjusting relationships among writer, reader, and subject, manipulating more and more complex variables"(193). She finalizes her explanation of effective writing assignments by suggesting that all assignments must account for: "(1) The students' interest in and understanding of the subject; (2) The purpose or aim of the composition; (3) The audience (which needn't always be the teacher); (4) A role for the student to take with respect to the subject and audience: (5) The form of discourse (which needn't always be an essay)"(194). Lindemann also recommends that teachers should consider this heuristic for designing writing assignments, "(1) What do I want the students to do? (2) How do I want them to do the assignment? (3) For whom are the students writing? (4) When will students do the assignment? (5) What will I do with the assignment?"(196). After establishing the components of a satisfactory writing assignment, Lindemann explains the merit of both atomistic and holistic evaluation. She then describes a detailed, eleven-step approach to "Teaching Through Comments on Student Papers"(216-219). Writing teachers at Linsly can learn, or be reminded of, two very important techniques described by Lindemann. First, writing assignments must be carefully crafted and articulated to ensure student understanding. And second, we must respond to papers in a way that enhances learning. Specifically, in our comments to students we must use leading questions to help them solve problems, provide solutions for labeled problems, praise all positive aspects of the writing, avoid rewriting the paper for them, and we must create a careful endnote to summarize our comments and to establish a goal for the next draft of the paper.

Massa explains that there "is a need to redefine the objectives of writing assessment, moving it from a punitive, gatekeeping tool that measures deficits, to a facilitative tool that informs novice academic writers of the characteristics of clear expression of thought, informs teachers of students' potential, and informs the classroom curriculum"(87). She elaborates further that the "ultimate goal of the developmental writing assessment model presented here is to prepare students to meet the rigors of academic language and thought"(87). The model that Massa presents is of particular interest to all teachers at Linsly. Indeed, Linsly has a significant number of ESL Korean students, and many teachers at Linsly have a difficult time deciding how to evaluate their writing. Massa suggests that teachers should instruct writing by building on the success of students. In the example she provides, Massa demonstrates how one of her students demonstrated multiple levels of critical thinking in one piece of writing, "She recognized her initial insights while at the same time moving from personal to abstract thought. She ends by connecting the issues found in the literature to issues found in her personal lifeóand accomplishes all of this in English"(85). Most importantly, Massa urges teachers of ESL students to move beyond a quantified evaluation model that evaluates surface errors (87). Certainly, the Developmental Model works in coordination with the techniques used by most of us who have had success with the ESL students. Valuing content over presentation, paying attention to the thought process rather than the mechanics, and emphasizing successes are strategies that many of us already use. Janis Massa's model helps to confirm our approach.

From Joseph Harris' "Person, Position, Style," to Jacqueline Jones Royster's "When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own," the conversation based on subject position has been fueled by several of the most prominent contemporary composition theorists. Patrick McGann joins that conversation in "Well, Think Again!" His premise is "that any teacher of writing is no less conflicted than any student of writing, and that conflicting subject positions come into play when a student writes and a teacher evaluates and grades her paper"(19). He argues further that common practice in teaching composition seems to interest itself more in who teachers want their students to be rather than what they want their students to write (19). While McGann's examination of the interpolated writing instructor (liberatory composition teacher and conservative composition instructor) is valuable in the sense that it demonstrates the political implications of teaching and evaluating composition, his argument failed to convince me of anything because he never indicates what the function of teaching writing is in the first place. Thus, while he chides high school teachers who are still "trapped in the modes of 'teacherly' pedagogy renounced by those of us at the universities years ago" (22) and commends teachers who recognize that, "students are a mix of selves and subject positions, their papers will, of course, be a mix of voices, which presents an opportunity to discuss the issue of voice, rather than an opportunity to penalize the transgression of social science discourse" he never suggests what the result of either approach will be. In fact, all that we know for certain from the article is that Patrick McGann endured an extremely rigid high school English program that demanded "proper grammar and mechanics" (20) and now he is a published scholar in the field of composition studies. The value of McGann's presentation in relation to composition evaluation at Linsly is that while we must adhere to our conviction that genre, purpose, audience, organization, grammar, mechanics, and etc. are fundamental to sound composition, the respect for interpolated selves and multiple subject positions must also be maintained.

O'Hagan indicates that "studies as early as 1912 questioned the validity of grading, suggesting that in writing instruction, in particular, grades were far too subjective"(4). She bases her study on the thesis that, "despite extensive research, educators are no more successful at grading in the current system of education than they were a century and a half ago"(5). Most distressing, perhaps, is her assertion that grades do little more than teach failure (5). She insists that by giving grades teachers are labeling students at varying degrees of inadequacy. O'Hagan supports her thesis by using current research to indicate six reasons why grading is problematic: (1) Scientific Invalidity; (2) False Motivation; (3) False Indicators of Worth; (4) Superficial Learning; (5) Student/Teacher Barriers; and (6) Limits on Teaching and Teachers (6-12). While this essay serves as a fine introduction to a larger group of essays that promote alternative means of writing assessment, it is problematic in its own assertion. O'Hagan does nothing to answer her critics who believe that there is value in assigning grades; a significant problem considering that Linsly derives a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that its teachers, in all subjects, give accurate grades that have not suffered from inflation. She does not acknowledge the fact that most of the working men and women in American society are given various levels of compensation for the work that they do, and that while such circumstances may lead to false motivation and barriers, it is the way capitalist economies work. Again, whether we like grades in theory or not, educators must have a clear objective, and part of that objective (at least at American college preparatory schools) must be to prepare students for the rigors of higher education and life in American society. To this end, grades are meaningful.

In this article, Rick Pribyl describes the "Accept/Revise Evaluation" strategy. Similar to other innovative grading methods, Pribyl's "Accept/Revise" method originated in his dissatisfaction with the ambiguity inherent in borderline grades (what separates an B+ from an A- for example). The Accept/Revise method developed further because of Pribyl's interest in "Outcome-Based Education"(244). After the student has completed the writing process (prewriting, several drafts, and a final copy), he/she turns in all of the applicable work. The teacher then reads all of the material from the writing process, making comments, suggesting corrections, and then at the end of the paper he/she writes one of three words: (1) Accepted: the paper is the best product possible for that particular student. The student is finished with the assignment and receives 100/100 points. (2) Revise: the student is capable of better writing. Recurring problems exist, and mistakes are evident. The paper is returned and a certain number of points are deducted. Using this system it is possible to make mistakes, be held accountable for them, but still have the opportunity to earn a respectable grade. Pribyl suggests deducting ten points for each revision, but if I were to use this method I would deduct only five. (3) Reject: If the student has failed to follow, or has not completed the assignment, he/she must begin again. Pribyl indicates that this status is given quite infrequently (247). I like this method of grading and can see it working across the curriculum at Linsly for two reasons: (1) "due to all the constant writing in the class, some students find themselves working on several writing projects simultaneously. It does not take very long for many of the writers to learn to produce a good product on the first final draft, so as not to be overly burdened with work"(248). Clearly, the accept/revise method rewards quality work, and it maintains hope for those who are struggling through a project. (2) The accept/revise method reflects "the real world." "In the workplace, if an employee writes a bad report for any reason, it will usually be sent back to him to redo or else he'll be fired"(249). While this is rather harsh, and has certain unstated implications involving voice and growth (I'm thinking of Joseph Harris here), it does demand a disciplined, systematic, means to an end that it valuable in its own respect.

In this very brief endorsement of formative assessment, Bob Reising illustrates six key points that will empower teachers to help their students improve their writing. He argues that the "writing process works"(71) and that a teacher's call for multiple drafts of a paper provides several opportunities for teaching and learning. He explains that "intensive evaluation is seldom desirable"(71) and that a "few well-selected reactions usually advance a piece, and a writer, far faster than does a torrent of questions"(71). He suggests further that students should look for alternative readers of their work, recognizing that composition can be shaped effectively by people other than the teacher who assigned the work. He asserts that writing should be taught in every classroom because, "writing is a way of knowing and of coming to know"(71); a judgement that sounds very similar to this one made by James Berlin in his article, "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories": "We are teaching a way of experiencing the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it"(The Writing Teachers Sourcebook 20). Finally, Reising maintains that students should be aware of resources available to them, and that they should understand the purpose of the writing task, "A writing teacher, every teacher, has no more important task than to prove that communication and education 'work,' that they are the avenues leading to success and fulfillment in the contemporary world"(72). Reising's analysis works as a Cliff's Notes version of formative assessment. But, all of his points demand much more careful attention. For my purposes, this two-page article serves as a comforting explanation of formative assessment for colleagues who seldom assign writing tasks to their students. Such an article values their expertise as educators, while giving them some guidelines for helpful assessment.

Gail Young's "Multidimensional Scoring Guide" is simply a rubric. Yet, it is reassuring that after thirty years in the 'assessment business' she values the rubric for the same reasons that I do. Young endorses the rubric because it motivates students toward top performance, provides guidance in the plan for improvement, and it validates grades (226-230). Specifically, Young adapted the traditional composition evaluation rubric for the assessment of poetry declamation. As Young explains, "The grade for the project was a combination of a student's self-assessment, peer assessments, and my assessment. An average of all assessments (mine weighted equally) produced the score or grade"(226). The rubric method is similar to the achievement grading technique as explained by Adkinson and Tchudi, except that more specific (and perhaps subjective) values are assigned for the completion of each prescribed task under the rubric. Young's success with the multidimensional scoring guide is similar to mine in that both of our students openly praise the rubric because as one of her students indicated, "I really like the idea of having the concrete expectations for an assignment and to know exactly what I needed to do to get the grade I wanted"(228). Aside from the ongoing portfolio-based writing assignments which are perhaps graded best by the Adkinson and Tchudi achievement grading method, the evaluation of content-based, summative writing assignments should be based on a rubric that students understand before the writing process begins. This is true in English as well as other disciplines across the curriculum.