A process oriented technical writing course was devised at the University of Alaska to counteract the "forms" approach and to include peer critiques and student participation in class grading. Modifications to the standard syllabus included (1) student analyses of their own writing processes through literacy autobiographies, (2) student interviews with practitioners in different fields to identify types and kinds of writing done in those fields, (3) discussions of paper types and textbook readings leading to student-generated critique sheets, (4) conference based reviews of peer-completed critique sheets, and (5) compilation of extensively revised, carefully self-evaluated portfolios of technical writing (graded at midterm and at semester's end). By sharing the first two assignments in peer writing groups, students learn that they have many writing experiences in common (e.g. writing block), and also find that most professionals in their fields spend over 50% of their time in writing-related activities. Students produce drafts at three levels: rough (self-critiqued outside of class), professional (submitted for class critiquing), and portfolio (turned in for a grade). This critiquing cycle ensures that each paper undergoes multiple revisions. The class-generated evaluation guides rate attributes of each paper type, and emphasize the importance of communicating to a broad audience. Portfolios include earlier drafts, a prompt-assisted student self-evaluation, and a self-grade. (Peer evaluation checklists, portfolio cycle flow chart, student writing excerpts, and assignment sheets are included.) (JG)