Learning-teaching-assessment paradigms and the on-line classroom

New Directions for Teaching and Learning

Volumn 2002, Issue 91, 2002, Pages 5-18

  Speck, Bruce W ^a  

^a AUSTIN PEAY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008765602     PISSN: 02710633     EISSN: 15360768     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tl.61     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anderson, R. S. “Why Talk About Different Ways to Grade? The Shift from Traditional Assessment to Alternative Assessment.” In R. S. Anderson and B. W. Speck (eds.), Changing the Way We Grade Student Performance: Classroom Assessment and the New Learning Paradigm. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
2. Beidler, P. G. (ed.). Distinguished Teachers on Effective Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 28. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
3. Biggs, J. “Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment.” Higher Education, 1996, 32, 347–364.
4. Bok, D. The Importance of Teaching. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1991.
5. Breland, H. M. “Computer-Assisted Writing Assessment: The Politics of Sciences Versus the Humanities. In E. M. White, W. D. Lutz, and S. Kamusikiri (eds.), Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1996.
6. Carnevale, D. “University of Vermont Considers Intellectual-Property Policy to Foster Distance Education.” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 8, 2001, p. A34.
7. Carrotte, P. “Turning Academics into Teachers.” Teaching in Higher Education, 1999, 4, 411–413.
8. Chmielewski, C. M. “Protecting Your Intellectual Property Rights On-Line.” NEA Today, 2000, 19(2), 20.
9. Cross, K. P. (1977). “Not Can But Will College Teaching Be Improved?” In J. A. Centra (ed.), Renewing and Evaluating Teaching. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Daniel, J. S. “Why Universities Need Technology Strategies.” Change, 1997, 29(4), 11–17.
11. Dixon, E. A. (1972). “Syntactic Indexes and Student Writing Performance.” Elementary English, 49(5), 714–716.
12. Elbow, P. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
13. Elbow, P. Embracing Contraries: Explorations in Teaching and Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
14. Ellin, A. “The Battle in Cyberspace: Universities and Professors Debate Ownership of Materials on the Web.” New York Times, Aug. 6, 2000, p. ED15.
15. Elsbree, L. “Learning to Write Through Mutual Coaching.” In J. Katz (ed.), Teaching as Though Students Mattered. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 21. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
16. Epstein, J. (ed.). Masters: Portraits of Great Teachers. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
17. Feenberg, A. “Distance Learning: Promise or Threat?” [http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/TELE3.htm]. 1999.
18. Finney, J. E. (1996). “An Interview: Michael A. Leavitt.” Crosstalk, 4(2), 2–3.
19. Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32, 365–387.
20. Fosnot, C. T. Enquiring Teachers, Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach for Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.
21. Green, K. C. “When Wishes Come True: Colleges and the Convergence of Access, Lifelong Learning, and Technology.” Change, 1999, 31(2), 11–15.
22. Hirsch, E. D., and Harrington, D. P. “Measuring the Communicative Effectiveness of Prose.” In C. H. Frederiksen, and J. F. Dominic (eds.), Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981.
23. Marchese, T. J. “The New Conversations About Learning: Insights from Neuroscience and Anthropology, Cognitive Science and Work-Place Studies.” In B. Cambridge (ed.), Assessing Impact: Evidence and Action. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1997.
24. McKeachie, W. J. Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. (10th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.
25. Murray, D. M. (1991). The Craft of Revision. Forth Worth, Tex.: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1991.
26. Noble, D. F. “Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education.” First Monday. [http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/]. 1998a.
27. Noble, D. F. “Digital Diploma Mills: Part II: The Coming Battle over On-Line Instruction.” [http://www.uwo.ca/uwofa/articles/di_dip_2.html]. 1998b.
28. O'Donnell, A. M., and Dansereau, D. F. “Scripted Cooperation in Student Dyads: A Method for Analyzing and Enhancing Academic Learning and Performance.” In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, and N. Miller (eds.), Instruction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
29. O'Donnell, A., and Dansereau, D. F. “Learning from Lectures: Effects of Cooperative Review.” Journal of Experimental Education, 1994, 61(2), 116–125.
30. Speck, B. W. “Editorial Authority in the Author-Editor Relationship.” Technical Communication, 1991, 38(3), 300–315.
31. Speck, B. W. “The Professional Writing Teacher as Author's Editor.” Technical Communication Quarterly, 1992, 1(3), 37–57.
32. Speck, B. W. Grading Students' Writing: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998a.
33. Speck, B. W. “Unveiling Some of the Mystery of Professional Judgment in Classroom Assessment.” In R. S. Anderson, and B. W. Speck (eds.), Changing the Way We Grade Student Performance: Classroom Assessment and the New Learning Paradigm. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998b.
34. Speck, B. W. Grading Students' Classroom Writing: Issues and Strategies. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 2000.
35. Speck, B. W., and Jones, T. R. “Direction in the Grading of Writing? What the Literature on the Grading of Writing Does and Doesn't Tell Us.” In F. Zak and C. C. Weaver (eds.), The Theory and Practice of Grading: Problems and Possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
36. Taylor, K. S. “Higher Education: From Craft-Production to Capitalist Enterprise?” First Monday. [http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_9/taylor/index.html]. 1998.
37. Terenzini, P. T. “Assessment with Open Eyes: Pitfalls in Studying Student Outcomes.” Journal of Higher Education, 1989, 60(6), 644–664.
38. Thompson, T. H. “Three Futures of the Electronic University: To Dream the Possible Dream.” Educom Review, 1998, 33(2), 1–9. [http://www.educause./edu/pub/er.review.reviewArticles.33234.html].
39. White, E. M. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
40. White, E. M. “Response: Assessment as a Site of Contention.” In E. M. White, W. D. Lutz, and S. Kamusikiri (eds.), Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1996.
41. White, E. M., Lutz, W. D., and Kamusikiri, S. (eds.). Assessment of Writing: Politics, Policies, Practices. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1996.
42. Witte, S. P. “Topical Structure and Writing Quality: Some Possible Text-Based Explanations for Readers' Judgments of Student Writing.” Visible Language, 1983, 12(2), 177–205.
43. Zak, F., and Weaver, C. C. (eds.). The Theory and Practice of Grading Writing: Problems and Possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
44. Zinsser, W. Writing to Learn. New York: HarperCollins, 1988.