Blog 6

​The Writing Center and Writing Cultures

​Upon performing my research for potential topics I might be able to discuss within this essay on the writing culture at Kean, there was an extended period of time in which I was hard-pressed to find that elusive focus. My main concern was the fact that there had been no empirical study conducted, that I could find at any rate, which sought out to examine and document said culture within the University. Therefore, there was no concrete data from which I could glean any sort of insight into this matter and felt as though I would be then forced to delve into hypothetical scenarios whose foundations would be built from unsupported assumptions and speculation. I visited the Office of Institutional Research’s website, hoping I might be able to find some sort of glaring statistic that would grab my attention and present a starting point from which to launch, but all I found were what appeared to me to be random numbers that I could not make any sense of. While being able to look up the approximate figure of Latin students who attended the University full-time, or female students who were studying to receive their bachelor’s degree are interesting examples of the information provided, it did not suit my needs very much at all.

​I was determined to find tangible evidence of an issue concerning writing culture that specifically pertained to Kean University and so decided to peruse the Office of Assessment’s website. They presented a complete list of academic majors that were offered at Kean and, for each one, made available the assessment plan for that major, which included a specified mission statement and student learning outcomes (SLO’s). The site also published the assessment report for the 2012 spring semester in which the success or shortcomings of the program level SLO’s were reviewed, documented, and where a plan of action for improvement would also be created for the following semester. Once I began reading through the various reports for different majors, their student learning outcomes and their findings once the semester was over, I was left with a plethora of data and a definite pattern, or culture concerning writing, which was pretty apparent and thus my focus had been discovered.

​I started with the department that I had devoted several years of my life to already, English, and read through their mission statement. Amongst other things, one recurring topic that seemed fairly prevalent was that of writing. In the statement, it affirms that, “…the department’s mission is to educate our diverse student community in the processes of critical reading, analytic thinking, and effective writing through the study of literature and writing.” To me, the idea of learning how to write through the act of writing itself makes total and complete sense. It connotes a connection between effective writing instruction and the implementation of a writing process, insofar as it would not be very efficient tutelage if only the final product was to be the sole criteria for grading. The mission statement also expresses its commitment to, “…develop…effective writers” through (as expressed within the SLO’s) “Thesis-driven essays.” As if the implications were not articulated clearly enough, towards the bottom of the assessment plan, the student learning outcomes are more fully developed and explained. The first of which reads, “Students will produce essays through a series of drafts that include exploratory writing or talk, as well as revisions that include addition, deletion, substitution and rearrangement.” By this point, it was obvious that effective writing instruction was a cornerstone of the English department’s mission, which probably should have gone without saying, but in order to contextualize the remainder of this essay, it was important to start off with this baseline.

​From there on, I continued reading through other various majors in order to get a sense of what their objectives were for their particular students and found there to be stark differences between them and that of the English department. While this was to be expected, I was not particularly prepared to learn of the commonalities many of them seemed to posses. It started when I was reading the documentation for the School of Management, Marketing, and International Business and the School of Accounting and Finance’s assessment process. Within it, it is stated that, “students’ graded papers revealed that writing skills fell below expectations.” in order so that I might be able to receive more insight into this statement, which was almost hidden within the paragraphs, I decided to view the assessment report for the 2012 spring semester. Under the SLO of “effective communication,” there was the following statement, “The business capstone findings showed two weaknesses related to effective ‘Focus’ and effective ‘Development of ideas and information.’” Near to this evaluation, it also explained what method was implemented to measure this particular SLO’s effectiveness, in which it read, “Case paper with rubric.” I was caught by that last word and soon found it in over abundance as I continued my exploration of different majors.

As I continued to read, it all very much started sounding the same when it came to the topic of writing within the different disciplines. In Psychology, for example, anytime an SLO required there be a written paper for assessment, it was always described exactly the same way: “Individual research review paper…scored via faculty-developed rubrics.” Every single time, for every single written assignment, this description remained the same. When I looked at the report for the past semester, the evaluation read, “Results suggest that students did not have sufficient time to generate drafts of the work prior to their being due.” The History department followed nearly the exact pattern. Assessment plan: “Research paper scored with rubric to demonstrate achievement of program.” And the report: “Analysis of written communication rubric indicated need for further instruction in writing mechanics…” This mold continued to reveal itself amongst several other departments, such as Biology, Sociology, and Political Science, to name a few. It quickly became apparent to me that, while many other programs seemed to find it necessary to have a writing component, the English department was amongst the only ones who emphasize the actual writing process as apposed to simply having a paper turned in and graded based on a rubric.

While rubrics most certainly have their place in academia when used correctly, this does not mean they can be expected to take the place of traditional writing processes. Meaning, having a set standard from which you will be grading a paper based off of, as rubrics are, cannot replace the act of turning in a draft of a paper and then revising it. Rubrics are not shortcuts. Saying, “This is what it should look like at the end to get a good grade and that’s all you need to know” is not the same as actually taking the time to go through the steps of any conventional process for writing or at least allowing the possibility of revision. Scoring rubrics can be adapted or created for a variety of purposes, according to Robin Tierney and Marielle Simon. From large-scale or high-stakes assessment to personal self-assessment, each has its own design features. However, they are inherently only interested in the final product. While this might not be the case for every department who used rubrics, the data that I surveyed seemed to attest to the fact that there was a link between these methods for assessing a piece of writing, and the fact that students within those departments were not acquiring the proper skill set for writing.

Thus, a culture of more writing with less instruction has become prevalent amongst Kean University students. They are expected to write but with little to no extra emphasis on how to actual do it, and do it properly. This is where the Writing Center would become involved. Within the Center, focus, clarity, and organization are among the highest priorities, which align perfectly with what the aforementioned assessment reports indicated students needed the most help on. The issue many students now face within their classes is that they are given an assignment, and then a sheet of paper explaining what the assignment needs to include in order to get a passing grade. The problem comes in when the students, who might never have had to focus on writing before, are unclear as to how to actually achieve the goals that have been set out for them.

As of right now, it seems that there are many students within the University who are struggling with the addition of all these papers they are being given and perhaps the standard one-on-one session will not be enough to compensate for the influx. Maybe in the near future, the Writing Center can begin implementing workshops that students of any department can participate in where a coach assists in explaining to these students what a writing process is and the many variations that can be applied to it. Hopefully, if such workshops were to be put into place, students can begin to grow more confident in their writing abilities while the professor does not have to deviate too much from their subject matter.