“wac”ked: a case study incorporating a writing process into an is course hirotoshi takeda...
TRANSCRIPT
“WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a
Writing Process into an IS Course Hirotoshi Takeda ([email protected])
Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30302-4015, USA
CREPA, Centre de Recherche en Management & Organisation
Université Paris Dauphine
Paris, 75775, France
Sara Crabtree ([email protected])
Literature and Languages, Texas A&M University - Commerce
Commerce, Texas 75429, USA
Roy D. Johnson ([email protected])
Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria
Pretoria, 0001, Republic of South Africa
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Overview
l Backgroundl Research Questionsl Methodsl Resultsl Discussionl Quesions
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Background
l Why Writing Across the Curriculum? – Need from the businesses that hire graduates
• Good writing skills invites professional success (Forsyth, 2004; Stowers & Barker, 2003 )
• Businesses require high level of writing from IS graduates (Canavor & Meirwitz, 2005; Dumaine, 2004; Forsyth, 2004; Gruber et al. 1999; Owen & Young, 2005; Stowers & Barker, 2003; Wahlstrom, 2002).
– Gap between instructors expectation and student ability
– Incorporate process writing into written components already included in the curriculum
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Background
l Writing Across the Cirriculum–Incorporate process writing into written
components already included in the curriculum–Process writing (Gillespie & Lerner, 2000; Flower
& Hayes, 1991; Bizzell, 1986; Owen & Young, 2005; Perl, 1979; Sommers, 1980).
5ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Writing Across the Curriculum
Process Writing
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Background
l Process Writing–Feedback between revisions is important (Anson,
Graham, Joliffe, Shapiro, & Smith, 1993; Connors & Glenn, 1999).
–Grading rubric (Conners & Glenn, 1999; Anson et al., 1993)
•Consistency•Student Awareness
7ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Research Questions
l RQ#1: Did the students who used the writing process produce better products than those who did not use the process?
l RQ#2: Was there more variability in the grading of a submission with the grading rubric compared to grading without the rubric?
l RQ#3: Did the WAC initiative help students become better writers?
8ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Methodology
l Quasi Experimental Design– Convenient Clustering
l Sample– 11 participating classes– 9 instructors– 2 semesters
9ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Methodology
l Targeted Course: Introductory IS Class– Target: All Majors in Business School– Urban SE US Public University– No differences between groups– 2nd Group Project– Teams of three– Research on IS Topic
• 4 page minimum– Additional Presentation Portion– Required participation in Presentation by all
members
10
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Methodology
l Treatment • Materials
• Grading Rubric• Paper Format Guidelines• Writer Review • Writing Rules• Writing Example
• Rough Draft/Draft Review• Post-grade revision (student choice)• N=137
• Control 63• Full Treatment 45• Partial Treatment 29
11
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Methodology
l Grading– Rough Draft
• General Revision Guidelines
– Final Paper• Individual, blind assessment by 3 coders• Use of rubric for consistent results• Inter-rater reliability
– 2nd Revision (optional)• ½ of Lost points
12
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Methodology
l Timeline • Materials Presentation• 2-3 weeks: Rough Draft Due• 2 days: Guidelines on Rough Draft• 12 days: Final Paper due• 2 days: Final Paper grade• 12 days: Optional 2nd Revision due
13
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Results
Sem
est
er
Team
s (N
)
Avera
ge S
core
Control 1 Spring 16 86.6
Control 2 Spring 15 81.5
Control 3 Fall 10 80.4
Control 4, 5 Fall 22 82.5
Control Total - 63 83.0
Full Treatment 1 Spring 16 84.7
Full Treatment 2 Spring 14 95.1
Full Treatment 3 Fall 5 89.4
Full Treatment 4 Fall 10 88.2
Full Treatment Total - 45 89.2
Draft Only Fall 15 82.8
Materials Only Fall 14 84.4
Overall - 137 85.2
14
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Discussion
l RQ#1: Did the students who used the writing process produce better products than those who did not use the process?– ½ grade (6.2%) improvement
l RQ#2: Was there more variability in the grading of a submission with the grading rubric compared to grading without the rubric?– Coders vs. Instructors of class
l RQ#3: Did the WAC initiative help students become better writers?
15
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Discussion
l Possible weakness– Treatment differences
• 95% to 85% difference in Treatment Group
– Little control over assigned grades• 2nd Revision
l Improvement of teaching – One professor in nine
16
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Discussion
l Future Research– Other Writing Models
• Journals• Peer Review• Writing Portfolios
– Standardized system of presentation– Higher Level Courses
17
ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson
Questions
l The researchers would like to thank the U.S. Department of Education for partially supporting this project as well as Mike Cuellar, Nanette Napier, Ricardo Checchi, Stacie Petter, Steve Du, Therese Viscelli, and Xinlin Tang for their help on data collection and analysis