Researchers studying technology development often examine how rhetorical activity contributes to technologies' design, implementation, and stabilization. This article offers a possible methodology for studying one role of rhetorical activity in technology development: knowledge consolidation analysis. Applying this method to an exemplar case, the author describes how explanations of Project Essay Grade (PEG), the first initiative to computerize student essay assessment, made knowledge available about this technology project. More specifically, technologist Ellis Page and his coauthors reworked a key explanatory argument, a justification of PEG's functioning, during the course of several decades, refining and clarifying its key contrasts and strengthening its presentation for generalist educators in particular. Analysis suggests that late presentations of the argument reveal that knowledge was successfully consolidated about a technical procedure Page and his coauthors called “rating simulation.” The conclusion discusses the key advantages and limitations of the method.
Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison's light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Chung, G.K., & O'Neil, H.F. (1997). Methodological approaches to online scoring of essays (Center for the Study of Evaluation Technical Report No. 461). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, and Student Testing .
3.
Coombs, D.H. (1969). Review of The Analysis of essays by computer, by Ellis B. Page and Dieter H. Paulus. Research in the Teaching of English, 2, 222-228.
4.
Daigon, A. (1966). Computer grading of English composition. English Journal, 55, 46-52.
5.
Ericsson, P. F., & Haswell, R. (Eds.). (2006). Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences. Logan: Utah State.
6.
Faber, B. (in press). Writing and social change. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of writing research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Fahnestock, J. (1986/1998). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 15, 330-350.
8.
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Fahnestock, J. (2004). Preserving the figure: Consistency in the presentation of scientific arguments. Written Communication, 21, 6-31.
10.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1985). Toward a modern version of stasis theory. In C. W. Kneupper (Ed.), Oldspeak/newspeak (pp. 217-226). Arlington, TX: Rhetoric Society of America.
11.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (2002). Rhetorical analysis. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 177-200). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
12.
Haas, C. (1996). Writing technologies: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Haswell, R.H. (2006a). Automatons and automated scoring: Drudges, black boxes, and dei ex machina. In P. F. Ericsson & R. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 57-78). Logan : Utah State.
14.
Haswell, R.H. (2006b). A bibliography of machine scoring of student writing, 1962-2005. In P. F. Ericsson & R. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 234-243). Logan: Utah State.
15.
Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (2001). What happens when machines read our students' writing? College English, 63, 480-499.
16.
Keith, W. (1997). Engineering rhetoric. In A. G. Gross & W. Keith (Eds.), Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science (pp. 225-246). Albany: State University of New York.
17.
Landauer, T.K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P.W. (2000). The Intelligent Essay Assessor. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15, 27-31.
18.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
19.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard .
20.
MacKenzie, D. (1998). Knowing machines: Essays on technical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Macrorie, K. (1969). Review of The analysis of essays by computer, by Ellis B. Page and Dieter H. Paulus. Research in the Teaching of English, 2, 228-236.
22.
McAllister, K.S., & White, E.M. (2006). Interested complicities: The dialectic of computer-assisted writing assessment. In P. F. Ericsson & R. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 8-27). Logan : Utah State.
23.
Myers, G. (1996). Out of the laboratory and down to the bay: Writing in science and technology studies. Written Communication, 13, 5-43.
24.
Page, E.B. (1966a). Grading essays by computer: Progress report. In Proceedings of the 1966 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems (pp. 87-100). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25.
Page, E.B. (1966b). The imminence of grading essays by computer. Phi Delta Kappan, 47, 238-243.
26.
Page, E.B. (1967). Statistical and linguistic strategies in the computer grading of essays. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Grenoble, France. Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Research Center. Retrieved November 11, 2005,fromhttp://lang.kyy.ac.jp/~nakano/cgi-bin/viewer/viewer.pl?download/acl.lde.upenn.edu/C/C67/C67-1032.txt
27.
Page, E.B. (1968). Analyzing student essays by computer. International Review of Education, 14, 210-225.
28.
Page, E.B. (1985). Computer scoring of essays. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 2, pp. 944-946). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
29.
Page, E.B. (2003). Project essay grade: PEG. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
30.
Page, E.B., & Paulus, D.H. (1968). The analysis of essays by computer (final report) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED028633)
31.
Page, E.B., & Petersen, N.S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561-565.
32.
Shermis, M.D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Introduction. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. xiii-xvi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
Valenti, S., Neri, S., & Cucchiarelli, A. (2003). An overview on current research on automated essay grading. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 319-330.
35.
Williamson, M. (2004). Validity of automated scoring: Prologue for a continuing discussion of machine scoring student writing. Journal of Writing Assessment, 1, 85-104.
36.
Wresch, W. (1993). The imminence of grading essays by computer—25 years later. Computers and Composition, 10, 45-58.
