Program: Writing Center
Date: Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 10:25:27 am
1) Below are your program's student outcomes (SOs). Please add or update as needed.
Learning Outcomes for Writers
Writers coming to the Writing Center will:
- Engage in a collaborative writing process that spans invention through revision.
- Practice information literacy by 1) using resources on writing, and 2) finding, assessing, integrating, and documenting sources.
- Gain awareness of available campus resources.
Learning Outcomes for Consultants
Consultants will:
- Promote an understanding of writing as a social act that can be realized though active engagement with the writing process.
- Acquire skills and experiences that are transferable to careers both in and out of academia by working in a multi-tiered complex working environment that demands management, teamwork, and delegation.
- Develop skills for working with any writer at any stage of the writing process.
- Support and encourage diverse cultural knowledge basis.
2) Your program's SOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure. URL, if available online: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aGF3YWlpLmVkdXx3cml0aW5nY2VudGVyfGd4OjdiYTE2MGE5NDQ5ZDczODM
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Other:
Other:
3) Provide the program's activity map or other graphic that illustrates how program activities/services align with program student outcomes. Please upload it as a PDF.
- File (10/06/2015)
4) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning activities to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys, etc.)
No (skip to question 14)
5) For the period between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the student outcomes that were targeted, if applicable.
This year, our focus is on the student-writer SLOs.
Salient Assessment Question: Based on demographic data and student feedback, to what extent are WC services, specifically one-on-one tutoring sessions, addressing the three stated writer SLOs:
- Engage in a collaborative writing process that spans invention through revision.
- Practice information literacy by 1) using resources on writing, and 2) finding, assessing, integrating, and documenting sources.
- Gain awareness of available campus resources.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.
1) quantitative data on number of visits
2) quantitative data on demographics of visitors to the center
3) quantitative and qualitative data gathered from end-of session surveys on one-on-one tutoring sessions
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Demographic data was collected from 635 unique student-writer visitors and qualitative and quantitative data about sessions was collected from 1794 student-writer visitors to UHM Writing Center for the AY2014-2015.
Sampling technique used:
Demographic data referenced in the report reflects the entirity of data collected, representing 635 students (# of unique visitors). Prior to making an appointment at the writing center, each student is required to set up an account. Part of this process entails entering demographic data on items such as class standing, gender, Native language, etc.
Qualitative and quantitative data about sessions was gathered from voluntary anonymous surveys each student-writer is asked to complete following his/her session. For the 2014-15 academic year, we collected 1794 surveys. In order to get a random sampling of our surveys, we exported all the surveys into a spreadsheet and used a Random Number Generator (i.e., Random.org's Random Integer Generator (https://www.random.org/integers/) to generate 50 numbers, each corresponding to a single survey. 50 surveys represents approximately 10% of unque visitors. We compiled those 50 surveys into a new spreadsheet. We then quantitatively tallied the reason identified by the writer for the visit (options are provided via a drop down menu), and coded the actual qualitative responses, identifying key words that could be associated with each of the SLOs being assessed.
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? Check all that apply.
Faculty/staff committee
Ad hoc faculty/staff group
Director or department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean or Associate Dean
Advisory Board
Other:
9) How did he/she/they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? Check all that apply.
Used quantitative methods on student data (e.g., grades, participation rates) or other numeric data
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, or other open-ended response data
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used a rubric or scoring guide
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., Social Science Research Institute)
Other:
10) For the assessment questions/goals stated in Question #5, summarize the actual results.
Summary of Quantitative Student-Writer Demographic Data
The data captured in Table 1 demonstrates that our services remained mostly consistent from 2013-14 to 2014-15 in terms of demographics. During AY2014-2015, we facilitated over 2000 appointments to over 600 students representing more than 85 majors. We remained relatively consistent in terms of servicing undergraduate and graduate students. We did see an increase in the percentage of Non-Native English students served compared to Native English speakers, with 41% Non-Native English speakers making use of the service in AY2013-2014 compared to 62% in AY2014-2015.
Table 1: Quantitative Data on usage, representing all 635 unique visitors to the center for the AY2014-2015)
|
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
Weeks Open
|
Total: 28 weeks Fall 2013: 14 weeks Spring 2014: 14 weeks |
Total: 28 weeks Fall 2014: 14 weeks Spring 2015: 14 weeks |
Hours/Days per Week |
Fall 2013: 5 days/wk, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm
Spring 2014: 5 days/wk, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm |
Fall 2014: 5 days/wk, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm
Spring 2015: 5 days/wk, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm |
Online Tutoring |
No |
No |
# of Tutors |
Fall 2013: 23 Spring 2014: 27 |
Fall 2014: 19 Spring 2015: 29 |
Total Usage vs. Availability
|
52% |
49% |
# of Unique Visitors |
Total: 611 Fall 2013: 380 Spring 2014: 324
|
Total: 635 Fall 2014: 368 Spring 2015: 354
|
# of Appointments |
Total: 2283 Fall 2013: 1214 Spring 2014: 1069
|
Total: 2205 Fall 2014: 1175 Spring 2015: 1030
|
# of Disciplines Represented (by major)
|
87 |
88 |
Client Class Standing by Total Appointments |
Undergraduate: 49% Graduate: 48% Other: 3%
|
Undergraduate: 54% Graduate: 44% Other: 2%
|
Non-Native English Speakers
|
41%
|
62%
|
Summary of Qualitative and Quantitative Data on Session Content
As indicated in choice of drop-down menu items provided on the exit survey, 62% of students came to the center to work on “Revising a draft.”. Students more specifically identified the focus of sessions as follows: 26% “Organizing ideas”; 22% “Generating ideas”; and 20% “Help understanding the assignment.”
Analysis of qualitative responses similarly indicate that students worked with tutors at varying stages in the writing process, with students specifically using the following words with the frequency indicated by the percentage in their qualitative responses: 6% “revision”/“revise”; 18% “organize”/“organization”; 4% “assignment”; 14% “grammar”; 10% “structure”; “APA”; 2% “citation.” The words “helpful” “helped” and “help” were collectively referenced 100% of the time in the qualitative responses.
Discussion:
In terms of the first student-writer SLO, Engage in a collaborative writing process that spans invention through revision, the qualitative responses ranging from understanding assignment, to generating ideas, organization, structure, and finally grammar, indicate that sessions cover the full range of the writing process. Further analysis of the written survey responses indicates that student-writers felt the sessions were helpful no matter the stage in the process they worked on, suggesting that they understand these different stages and the importance of going through them during revision. The survey results thus strongly support that SLO #1 is being met.
In terms of the second SLO, Practice information literacy by 1) using resources on writing, and 2) finding, assessing, integrating, and documenting sources, few students specifically mentioned words that could be identified with this outcome. Anecdotal evidence from tutors does suggest that information literacy is a significant element being addressed in sessions. The lack of evidence to support this in the student-writer exit surveys indicates that clear references to this outcome need to be incorporated in the exit survey prompt to better measure this outcome.
In terms of the third SLO, Gain awareness of available campus resources, the results are mixed. The high number (2205) of visits to the center along with the number of majors represented (88), strongly suggests that students are aware of the services provided by the UHM Writing Center; however, there is room for improvement in terms of generating awareness amongst the student body. Moreover, this SLO was designed to encompass both Writing Center services as well as other campus services. Although we provide information on numerous campus services in the center, it is unclear at this point how to measure the extent to which students become aware of these other services by visiting the center.
11) What was learned from the results?
1. Data strongly suggests that SLO#1 is being met.
2. We need to increase our outreach efforts to ensure Native English speaking students are aware of the service as well as feel welcome to make use of it.
3. We need to modify prompts on exit surveys to better capture the extent to which SLO#2 is being achieved.
4. We need to re-assess SLO#3 to determine if the intended scope is too broad to be accurately assessed.
5. We should increase the size of our random sample of qualitative data sets.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
In general, the results will be used to determine the level of effectiveness of our services in terms of our center's mission statement and SLOs for writers. Results will then be used to inform consultant training, modifying training and delivery of services as necessary. Results from this year will also be used to modify data-gathering tools so as to produce data that better captures the extent to which SLOs are being met (SLO#2). We will also use these findings to guide a re-assessment of SLO#3.
13) Reflect on the assessment process. Is there anything related to assessment procedures your program would do differently next time? What went well?
Considering our current services and the staffing resources available, the overall design of assessment practices in place continues to provide the information necessary to effectively evaluate our services in terms of our SLOs and inform both training and expansion of services to meet the UHM community needs. Except for relatively minor modifcations of prompts (addressed in previous sections of this report), I do not at present anticipate changing the assessment process next year.
14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.
Our long range assessment plan: next year, we plan to address the modifications indicated in this report. The following year, AY2017-18, we will begin to assess our second set of SLOs for tutors working in the center.