Academics are increasingly expected to be research productive. An impressive research output requires the ability to communicate in sophisticated written English in order to ensure that a publication is of an acceptable standard. In response to the demands for advanced writing skills to maintain high standards in research publications, a pilot online writing network of information (OWN) has been developed to provide academics in the School of Nursing at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with research writing support in English. In this paper the OWN database is introduced with an explanation of the theoretical foundations and the needs analysis that shaped each link. Then, with data from two questionnaires completed by the users and interview of four users, I present a user evaluation of OWN. The questionnaires suggest that users see certain links as more useful in providing individualised writing support, while the interviewees most appreciate the complete privacy in which support could be sought. Through this description and user evaluation, I argue that academics could benefit from English language support when writing for publication, and computer technology may offer both flexibility and privacy.
[Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930301679]

Where courses have as an aim the promotion of reflective practice, it will enhance the achievement of the goal if the level of reflective thinking is assessed. To do this in a satisfactory way requires a reliable protocol for assessing the level of reflection in written work. This article presents a protocol that can be used to guide the allocation of work to four categories, namely: habitual action/non-reflection, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Intermediate categories can also be used. Detailed descriptors of each category to guide the process are provided. The protocol was tested by four assessors independently using it to grade a set of written work, and very good agreement was obtained.
[Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293355]

*The author reports that the use of cohesive conjunctions by Hong Kong student writers is contrasted with the use by native speakers and that the impact of teaching, textbooks and transfer on Hong Kong students, and the level of misuse and unnecessary use by Hong Kong students are studied.

*It is reported that the attitudes towards employing process writing of Hong Kong secondary English teachers were studied and that teachers are found to be assisted by being provided with suitable materials and support.

*In examining a process-oriented approach in the teaching of composition in English as a Second Language classes, both students' and teachers' responses were recorded by the author. Further, factors that may lead to the successful implementation of curricular innovation are discussed.

The author investigates the impacts of mediating tasks on summary writing activities for tertiary-level students who are taught through English as a medium of instruction. A group discussion or a reading comprehension exercise, with immediate access to the text and summary instruction with no mediating activity, was involved.

The author examines the essays written by 40 S.6 students in order to compare how argumentative composition expressed in Chinese as the first langauge differs that in English as the second language, and finds that students express more effectively in their first language.

The approach taken by eight Hong Kong Secondary schools teachers and their students in a process-oriented writing in English is examined by the author.

The paper discusses the marking of written assignment and reports the results of the first step of an action research project conducted at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
[Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240103 ]