Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Formal Report
Formal Report
Prepared for David Furniss English Faculty and Writing Center Faculty Advisor University of Wisconsin River Falls
581 Spruce Street River Falls, WI 54022 Dr. David Furniss Writing Center Faculty Advisor University of Wisconsin River Falls 410 S. 3rd Street River Falls, WI 54022 November 27, 2011 Dear Dr. Furniss: Here is the report on researching and adopting new policies in the Writing Center that I approached you about on October 20th. The Writing Center tutors and I agree that adopting ways to assess the students and the tutors would improve the Writing Centers quality of service. While all of the tutors are highly qualified, many feel self-confident and would benefit from student-provided feedback. Furthermore, I examined how the Writing Centers marketing and advertising is affecting the students expectations when they use the facility. This project focuses on the students who visit the Writing Center and the tutors who teach there. I used surveys and one-on-one informational interviews to gather data from tutors at the University of Wisconsin River Falls, the University of Wisconsin Stout, and the University of Wisconsin Madison. The data collected will be used to compare our policies with other Writing Centers in the University of Wisconsin system and will be used to assess how comfortable the tutors feel about their positions. I am grateful to Kathleen Hunzer, who was very candid about the ways the Writing Center could improve, and to Kaitlin Wenda, who helped remind tutors about the new policy changes that I introduced. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to work on this assignment. It has been a learning experience and it has given me the opportunity to make sure students get the best educational experience possible. A presentation on this proposal will be given to a group of peers and an English Faculty member to determine their thoughts on this project and I would be pleased if you were to there. Sincerely,
Ashley Dettloff
Enclosure
Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... II Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 Overview of Problems.................................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Methodology................................................................................................................. 1 Policies Changes..............................................................................................................................2 Results..............................................................................................................................................2 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................,................... 6 Suggestions for Further Research....................................................................................................7 Appendix......................................................................................................................................... 8 Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 10
List of Figures
Figure 1...........................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2...........................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3...........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 4...........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 5...........................................................................................................................................5 Figure 6...........................................................................................................................................5 Figure 7...........................................................................................................................................6
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Executive Summary
This report analyzes the policies in the Writing Center and also examines the relationship between the Writing Centers advertisements and students expectations.
The best way to do this would be in issuing an anonymous exit survey when the students check out at the computer kiosk. This brief, three question survey, should measure how well the student thought the session went, how comfortable the student feels with the paper he or she came in to work on, and whether the tutor can improve their skills. This survey would be placed in a comment box and sorted through at the end of each week.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
II
Introduction
The tutors in the Writing Center take great pride in helping students with the writing process. Many are English Education majors and plan to make teaching part of their career. Because of this, it is important that the Writing Center is available for both students and tutors to gain valuable skills. The purpose of this report is to analyze how the current policies in the Writing Center can be improved, to develop a new policy to help offer a higher quality of service, and to examine its effectiveness after a 30 day trial period. The report outlines the two policy changes that should be made and offers insight into the general work climate amongst the Writing Center tutors.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Policy Changes
Policy Change Addressing Problem 1:
The policy I changed addresses the tutors concerns about the lack of student-provided feedback. I created copies of the survey sheet and placed them in an easily accessible spot next to the check out computer kiosk. At the end of each session, I (or another tutor) asked the students to take one. Many filled them out in front of us. This not only ensures efficient student feedback but it also makes the student reflect on his or her session. Even though tutors cannot assess the students in a reliable and tangible way, the survey allows students the ability to assess themselves. It also encourages open dialogue between the student and the tutor so that both can learn and grow through the experience.
Results
The Online Survey for Tutors
This survey was created using the website Survey Monkey and was distributed by e-mail. All ten of the tutors who were sent this survey responded. Results for Question 1: Do you feel that the writing skills you are communicating are being understood and/or acknowledged by the students you tutor? All the tutors answered Agree for this question.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Results for Question 2: Would you like feedback from students (in the form of an anonymous survey) which assessed how well the student grasped the writing concepts you were trying to teach and offered you feedback on your own skills as a tutor?
Figure 1
30%
70%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Results for Question 3: Would attending mandatory sessions with a faculty member on common writing errors is something you would be interested in?
Figure 2
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Results for Question 4: Do you feel the Practicum class helped you as a tutor?
Figure 3
10%
Yes No
90%
Results for Question 5: Would extra observation hours as a practicum student help/have helped you in feeling confident as a tutor?
Figure 4
60%
40%
Yes No
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Figure 5
Exit Survey Responses Very Good Question 1 Question 2 15 17 Fair 7 5 Ok 5 5 Bad 2 3 Horrible 1 0
As the statistics show, the majority of students found the Writing Center helpful and found the service they received satisfactory. Granted, this was a small sample size but it is still interesting to know that over one fourth of the students who visit the Writing Center do not feel the service was Very Good or even Fair. While this may be due to a variety of factors and should be examined if this assessment policy continues, it also means there is some disconnect in the dialogue between student and tutor. (See Suggestions for Further Research for a more elaborate analysis of this data)
Discussion
I looked at two of other Writing Centers, one at University of Wisconsin Madison and one at the University of Wisconsin Stout, to compare how they operate and what services they offer to how the University of Wisconsin River Falls Writing Center operates. To make the comparing easier, I have created two tables (Figure 6and Figure 7) to illustrate the services offered at the other Writing Centers. I have chosen UW-Madison and UW-Stout because they both have reputable Writing Centers and thought it would be valuable to take two schools that are completely different in their size, the demographic of their population, and the majors offered so I would have a wider variety of data.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
* This does not mean that tutors will refuse to help ESL students. Instead, tutors cannot devote their time to students in a Communications, Creative Writing, or ESL class because it is assumed that the professors of these classes will cover the mechanics of writing.
Both Writing Centers use online surveys to collect feedback on whether students learned what was needed from the session and all of the Writing Centers have a website which explains in detail what a student can expect by coming to the Writing Center.
Conclusions
The new policy that was enacted earlier this semester seemed to be beneficial to the students and the tutors. The students valued the fact that we cared about their feedback and the tutors appreciated receiving feedback from students. The time allotted to this project prevented any comparisons between the Online Writing Lab run by Dr. Kathleen Hunzer and the University of Wisconsin River Falls Writing Center. By comparing what demographic of students these centers provide service for, we could possibly research into whether combining both centers into one organization would benefit the student body at the University of Wisconsin River Falls.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Appendix A
This is the survey sheet that was used to collect data from the students who visited the writing center to determine the overall satisfaction of their tutor and the Writing Center services. Tutors Name:______________________________ Please take the time to fill out this anonymous brief exit survey. Doing so will ensure that the Writing Center tutors improve as educators. (1 = Very good, 2 = Fair, 3 = OK, 4 = Bad, 5 = Horrible)
Works Cited 1. How well do you think the session went today?
Bell, James H. "Research Report: Better Writers: Writing Center Tutoring and the Revision of Rough Drafts." Journal of College Reading and Learning33.1 (2002): 5-20. 1 Education 2 Full Text.3Web. 20 Oct. 4 2011. 5 Drennen, Angela. Personal Interview. 19 Oct. 2011.
2. How confident you feelInterview. about starting/working on your paper? Hunzer, Kathleen.do Personal 19 Oct. 2011. 1 Center Practice." 2 3 House 71.2 4 (1997): 106. 5 Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Clearing
Law, Joe, and Christina Murphy. "Formative Assessment and the Paradigms of Writing Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
Ley, Jared. Personal Interview. 19 Oct. 2011. Is there anything your tutor could improve upon? This survey is anonymous.
______________________________________________________________________________ Parisi, Hope, and Janine Graziano-King. "Integrating Best Practices: Learning ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
the Writing Center." Community College Enterprise 17.1 (2011): 23Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
Thonus, Terese. "What Are the Differences?: Tutor Interactions with First and Secondlanguage Writers." Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 Sep 2004. 227-42. ______________________________________________________________________________ ScienceDirect. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Trenholm, Shiloh. Personal Interview. 17 Oct. 2011. Wenda, Kaitlin. Personal Interview. 18 Oct. 2011.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Appendix B
This survey was used to collect data from the Writing Center tutors regarding the overall feelings about working in the Writing Center and whether the policies I planned to enact would be received favorably.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
Works Cited Chow, Heip and Whitney Orth. Standards in Writing Center Assessment: Reliability and Validity of a Consultant Observation Instrument." Michigan State University. Writing Center, East Lansing MI, 448824. April 2010. Drennen, Angela. Personal Interview. 19 Oct. 2011. Hunzer, Kathleen. Personal Interview. 19 Oct. 2011. Ley, Jared. Personal Interview. 19 Oct. 2011. NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts. <www.ncte.org/standards.> Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. Trenholm, Shiloh. Personal Interview. 17 Oct. 2011. Wenda, Kaitlin. Personal Interview. 18 Oct. 2011.
Ashley Dettloff
5 December 2011
10