1 / 17

“WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course

“WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course. Hirotoshi Takeda (htakeda1@cis.gsu.edu ) Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30302-4015, USA CREPA, Centre de Recherche en Management & Organisation Université Paris Dauphine

dobry
Download Presentation

“WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course • Hirotoshi Takeda (htakeda1@cis.gsu.edu) • 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(slcrabtr@garlandisd.net) • Literature and Languages, Texas A&M University - Commerce • Commerce, Texas 75429, USA • Roy D. Johnson (Roy@UP.ac.za) • Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria • Pretoria, 0001, Republic of South Africa

  2. Overview • Background • Research Questions • Methods • Results • Discussion • Quesions

  3. Background • 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

  4. Background • 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).

  5. Writing Across the Curriculum Process Writing

  6. Background • 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

  7. Research Questions • RQ#1: Did the students who used the writing process produce better products than those who did not use the process? • RQ#2: Was there more variability in the grading of a submission with the grading rubric compared to grading without the rubric? • RQ#3: Did the WAC initiative help students become better writers?

  8. Methodology • Quasi Experimental Design • Convenient Clustering • Sample • 11 participating classes • 9 instructors • 2 semesters

  9. 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 Methodology

  10. Methodology • 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. Methodology • 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. Methodology • 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. Results

  14. Discussion • 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 • 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 • RQ#3: Did the WAC initiative help students become better writers?

  15. Discussion • Possible weakness • Treatment differences • 95% to 85% difference in Treatment Group • Little control over assigned grades • 2nd Revision • Improvement of teaching • One professor in nine

  16. Discussion • Future Research • Other Writing Models • Journals • Peer Review • Writing Portfolios • Standardized system of presentation • Higher Level Courses

  17. Questions • 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

More Related