wac ked a case study incorporating a writing process into an is course
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
“WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

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


  • 80 Views
  • Uploaded on

“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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' “WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course' - dobry


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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 ([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
overview
Overview
  • Background
  • Research Questions
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Quesions
background
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
background1
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).
background2
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
research questions
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?
methodology
Methodology
  • Quasi Experimental Design
    • Convenient Clustering
  • Sample
    • 11 participating classes
    • 9 instructors
    • 2 semesters
methodology1
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
methodology2
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
methodology3
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
methodology4
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
discussion
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?
discussion1
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
discussion2
Discussion
  • Future Research
    • Other Writing Models
      • Journals
      • Peer Review
      • Writing Portfolios
    • Standardized system of presentation
    • Higher Level Courses
questions
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
ad