This is an issue of contrasts, an issue that probes questions we have asked from the beginning: Does the use of computers improve our students' writing? What sorts of strategies are available to those of us teaching with computers and can invisible writing encourage fluency in some students? How do computers affect our own writing habits? But it is also an issue that introduces questions that have been largely unexplored: How can we use computers innovatively and effectively in writing assessment? What problems (as well as advantages) does distant networking present to us and our students? How do the writing disabled respond to computer-supported composition classes? As the field of computers and composition studies continues to expand, its diversity becomes increasingly apparent. And Computers and Composition tries hard to reflect that diversity.

In the opening article, Web Newbold explores the historical context of computers in writing assessment, a subject that has received little attention in professional journals. Although Newbold's analysis demonstrates a long history of computers and assessment, he suggests that electronic networking offers us new approaches that have largely been ignored. Michael Marx continues the emphasis on networking by describing the way he and a colleague linked peer-critique groups across colleges. Marx argues that these electronic "critique letters" became important pieces of writing for both senders and recipients. Furthermore, the imposed distance between writer and reader seemed to encourage students to attend more seriously to the requirements of written discourse. For classes with stand-alone computers, Stephen Marcus then offers us several strategies for using "invisible writing" and provides an extended list of readings covering the topic.

Turning from our section on "Computers & Pedagogy" to "Computers & Research," we are pleased to bring you Terry Collins's three-year study on the use of computers with the learning disabled. Although computer offer great benefits to this particular population, Collins's article is the first we've featured on this important subject. Alexander Friedlander and Mike Markel then report on research they have carried out at Drexel University, one of the first colleges to require the Macintosh computer for all entering students. Friedlander and Markel's study on revision confirms much that we learned from earlier studies in MS-DOS environments. Although students seem to write longer pieces, the use of a computer--be it Mac or IBM--does not in itself ensure more effective writing.

In our "Computers & Controversy" section, we feature Edward P. J. Corbett and his reflections on his own experiences with computers. With humor and wit, Corbett tells us how computers have changed his writing habits along with those of some of his colleagues. In relating his story, he reminds us of the tremendous impact computers have had on our own professional lives, as well as those of our literature colleagues.

Finally, our November issue brings you reviews of Cindy's and my book, Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition Instruction (Louie Crew was the kind editor who worked with Elizabeth Sommers on this piece), and we also bring you software reviews. Bob Boston offers a critical analysis of COLLABORATIVE WRITER, networking software for facilitating collaborative efforts in the classroom, and Richard Larsen and C. M. Wallia review two hypertext packages for us.

In presenting an eclectic series of articles, this issue of Computers and Composition demonstrates the multiple ways in which the profession uses and studies computers in different writing contexts. We hope you find the articles stimulating as well as useful. We invite you to contribute your responses to the articles, and we sincerely welcome comments to the editors.