The introduction section of Gottsehalk and Hjortshoj , and the chapter three handout entitled “How Our Informants teach  students write” uncover a brief history on the evolution of collegiate writing and possible explanations for inadequacies.  In academia, there is an unnerving sense that students are less inept to handle basic writing assignments.  Students may find themselves in the cross fires of begin improperly trained, being uncertain of instructors exact expectations, and unable to critically dissect the scenarios they are ask to react to.  In interim, professors of varied discipline may request a wide range of different types of writing assignments, and may also be undertrained on developing individual students writing skills.  Both the above mentioned readings suggest these inconsistencies may be the source of demise for writing at the undergraduate level.

The inconsistencies and dilemmas indentified in the student and professor populations may create a false conception of reality.  This false sense of reality is magnified via weakness of professors and students ability to express their expectations.   As such, Gottsehalk and Hjortshoj , outline the ground rules of implementing meaningful writing in the classroom.  This chapter should resonate mostly for the entry level college educator whom may not feel confident with coaching students to become better writers.  As a teacher in that category, I find myself relating to Rose, Gottschalk and Hjortshoj.  Perhaps I’m guilty of assignment writing assignments to students, just to assign them.  Or maybe I assign writing assignments to see if I can capture the non-test taker type; allowing student to demonstrate their intellectual ability through different portals.   As such, the take-home message for me from these three readings is that I need to set up an outline on my expectations as an evaluator, my expectations of students, and my students’ expectations of my feedback as a tool for growth and development.