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.