“How do you know that works?”: a mixed methods approach to writing program assessment

Amy Lannin, Jonathan Cisco, Jes Philbrook, Maxwell Philbrook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Writing Program Administrators consistently witness the importance and effectiveness of interdisciplinary writing instruction, but convincing others that such a pursuit is worthy of campus-wide investment is a challenge. University stakeholders come from a variety of disciplines and are thus convinced by different forms of arguments and data. This paper shows how one large university writing program approached its own program assessment in an effort to convince multiple stakeholders of the program’s effectiveness to improve critical thinking and writing across the disciplines. The authors conducted a mixed-methods case study of two writing intensive (WI) courses in order to explore student writing and student/faculty perceptions of their WI experiences. The authors found that students significantly improved across written drafts and held highly positive feelings toward their courses and their WI experiences. Furthermore, students identified the benefits of WI courses, such as the value of authentic writing assignments, the critical thinking required of their assignments, and the improvement of their conceptual thinking. The authors argue that such a mixed-methods approach is a powerful means through which writing program administrators can show the effectiveness of their university writing programs.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)52-76
JournalWPA: Writing Program Administration
Volume40
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

student
stakeholder
writing instruction
university
witness
experience
Values

Cite this

@article{a9b5037bc456423ea92d4a13a575ae10,
title = "“How do you know that works?”: a mixed methods approach to writing program assessment",
abstract = "Writing Program Administrators consistently witness the importance and effectiveness of interdisciplinary writing instruction, but convincing others that such a pursuit is worthy of campus-wide investment is a challenge. University stakeholders come from a variety of disciplines and are thus convinced by different forms of arguments and data. This paper shows how one large university writing program approached its own program assessment in an effort to convince multiple stakeholders of the program’s effectiveness to improve critical thinking and writing across the disciplines. The authors conducted a mixed-methods case study of two writing intensive (WI) courses in order to explore student writing and student/faculty perceptions of their WI experiences. The authors found that students significantly improved across written drafts and held highly positive feelings toward their courses and their WI experiences. Furthermore, students identified the benefits of WI courses, such as the value of authentic writing assignments, the critical thinking required of their assignments, and the improvement of their conceptual thinking. The authors argue that such a mixed-methods approach is a powerful means through which writing program administrators can show the effectiveness of their university writing programs.",
author = "Amy Lannin and Jonathan Cisco and Jes Philbrook and Maxwell Philbrook",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "52--76",
journal = "WPA: Writing Program Administration",
issn = "0196-4682",
publisher = "Council of Writing Program Administrators",
number = "2",

}

“How do you know that works?” : a mixed methods approach to writing program assessment. / Lannin, Amy; Cisco, Jonathan; Philbrook, Jes; Philbrook, Maxwell.

In: WPA: Writing Program Administration, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2017, p. 52-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - “How do you know that works?”

T2 - a mixed methods approach to writing program assessment

AU - Lannin, Amy

AU - Cisco, Jonathan

AU - Philbrook, Jes

AU - Philbrook, Maxwell

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Writing Program Administrators consistently witness the importance and effectiveness of interdisciplinary writing instruction, but convincing others that such a pursuit is worthy of campus-wide investment is a challenge. University stakeholders come from a variety of disciplines and are thus convinced by different forms of arguments and data. This paper shows how one large university writing program approached its own program assessment in an effort to convince multiple stakeholders of the program’s effectiveness to improve critical thinking and writing across the disciplines. The authors conducted a mixed-methods case study of two writing intensive (WI) courses in order to explore student writing and student/faculty perceptions of their WI experiences. The authors found that students significantly improved across written drafts and held highly positive feelings toward their courses and their WI experiences. Furthermore, students identified the benefits of WI courses, such as the value of authentic writing assignments, the critical thinking required of their assignments, and the improvement of their conceptual thinking. The authors argue that such a mixed-methods approach is a powerful means through which writing program administrators can show the effectiveness of their university writing programs.

AB - Writing Program Administrators consistently witness the importance and effectiveness of interdisciplinary writing instruction, but convincing others that such a pursuit is worthy of campus-wide investment is a challenge. University stakeholders come from a variety of disciplines and are thus convinced by different forms of arguments and data. This paper shows how one large university writing program approached its own program assessment in an effort to convince multiple stakeholders of the program’s effectiveness to improve critical thinking and writing across the disciplines. The authors conducted a mixed-methods case study of two writing intensive (WI) courses in order to explore student writing and student/faculty perceptions of their WI experiences. The authors found that students significantly improved across written drafts and held highly positive feelings toward their courses and their WI experiences. Furthermore, students identified the benefits of WI courses, such as the value of authentic writing assignments, the critical thinking required of their assignments, and the improvement of their conceptual thinking. The authors argue that such a mixed-methods approach is a powerful means through which writing program administrators can show the effectiveness of their university writing programs.

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 52

EP - 76

JO - WPA: Writing Program Administration

JF - WPA: Writing Program Administration

SN - 0196-4682

IS - 2

ER -