Da Silva

From the Editor

From the Editor...
Dear Friends & Colleagues,Greetings and welcome to our 2008 Spring issue, OnCUE Journal’ssecond one. Before going through this issue’s contents, I’d like tobelatedly extend appreciation to all involved in the production ofOnCUE Journal, and to summarise my thoughts on its purpose.
The previous issue was my first as editor, and when I first saw thecompleted hard copy, I admit to feelings of pride, but this was verysoon replaced by regret for not having extended enough appreciation
to all those involved, from the reviewers and section editors who firstread the draft manuscripts, to the translator, proofreaders and layout
and design who put the finishing touches to it. On the inside coveris a list of names of all of those involved in the publication of thisjournal. I’d like to stress the importance of their work and ask for yourappreciation of their contributions to this journal.
Two major aims of this journal are first to provide academics
working in the tertiary education system in Japan with a forum inwhich to publish their research results, theoretical ideas, and practicalknowledge and experience, and second to inspire and encourage ourreaders to learn from these, and to actively participate in this forum. To
achieve these aims, the editors and reviewers have the complementary,
yet sometimes conflicting, tasks of encouraging writers to improve theirwork for publication while maintaining the high standards that thejournal has attained. This issue has been exemplary of this process andthe result is one that offers experience, knowledge, theory, researchand practice on a wide variety of topics relevant to language education
at the tertiary level in Japan.
Specifically, in the Features section, Reina Wakabayashi presents
her research results on different forms of peer response sheets and1

Da Silva, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 1-2

argues for the importance of using peer feedback with appropriate
peer response sheets. Following this, Peter Burden reports on theresults of his research on teachers’ reflections on student evaluations ofteaching that have been conducted by universities in recent years. He
concludes with practical suggestions on how evaluation can be mademore beneficial.
In the Opinion and Perspective section, Sarah Holland begins adialogue with Toru Hanaki by responding to his Feature article in theprevious issue (OnCUE Journal 1.1). She questions his ethnographicinterpretation and use of Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power todescribe his classroom practice. Toru Hanaki replies by accepting her
criticism while expanding on his interpretation. In the final essay inthis section, Andrew Woollock argues for a perspective often heard but
perhaps rarely practised in the assessment of students.
In the From the Chalkface section, Annie Menard describes her useof extensive reading in her classes, and in the Book Reviews section
Tim Newfields reviews a recent book on teaching connected speech.
On the editorial team, we welcome two additions to the team.
Terry Fellner takes over the CyberPipeline section and Coleman Souththe Professional Development section. While we do not have articles
for these sections in this issue, we look forward to receiving yoursubmissions for these and other sections of OnCUE Journal.
I hope you are stimulated by the following articles and look forward
to meeting many of you at our CUE Conference in July.

Dexter Da Silva
OnCUE Journal Editor2