2010 - Public Relations Society of America

Patterns in the open-ended response items indicate that faculty across institutions believe
they are facing an epidemic problem created by the K-12 educational system, digital technology,
university culture, and enrollment pressures.
However, what is less clear is any trend in measures used among institutions to assess or
improve student writing, or the degree of success achieved with those measures. Based on the
data, it can be inferred that departments, colleges and schools are attempting to better assess or
improve student writing in many different ways, but without clear indications of whether they
have succeeded or failed. Respondents appear to have many more questions than answers about
how to address this complex issue.
Regarding RQ1, an overall mean writing proficiency rating of 2.70 is hardly reassuring.
The fact that most items within this question fell below 2.70 – for example, a mean rating of 2.12
for proofing and editing – is further evidence that too many students are showing up in programs
unable to perform basic college-level writing tasks.
The data provided in response to RQ2 show that at least two of the issues raised by
student writing deficiencies are impacting faculty most heavily in terms of grading workload ( x
= 3.61) and class spent reviewing basics ( x = 3.40). These findings are cautionary because they
indicate that many faculty members do not have enough class time to teach the new ideas,
theories and skills that students need to become better thinkers, writers and communication
professionals. The three to six hours per week that most faculty indicated they are spending on
basic writing issues means they have less time and energy available for the research, planning,
and reflective thinking that are so necessary to good teaching.
All of the statistically significant findings related to this question centered on hours per
week spent dealing with basic writing issues such as correcting grammar and spelling, reworking
drafts, and teaching basic skills. It is not surprising that: (a) a negative correlation was
established between hours per week spent and perceived writing proficiency, and (b) a positive
correlation was established between hours per week spent and perception of issues raised by
writing deficiencies. The negative correlation discovered between hours per week spent and
perceptions of success with a basic writing class for all students perhaps indicates that faculty
members spending more time per week dealing with basic writing issues have observed that the
basic class has not been successful for their students.
In answering RQ3, the results suggest there is no clear pattern in measures that programs
are utilizing to assess or improve student writing. Of 166 respondents, 14.5% (n = 24) indicated a
wide range of measures in the “other” category. It was notable that another 15.1% of respondents
(n = 25) indicated their programs were using no measures at all. However, the results did
establish that faculty members who teach in programs requiring a written essay spend
significantly fewer hours per week dealing with basic writing issues, and that programs requiring
a language skills exam with minimum score required for entrance report a significantly lower
level of student frustration with grades than programs not requiring the exam. Program planners
who are considering implementing or changing measures in their own programs can benefit from
this finding.
Faculty who indicated that their program requires a basic writing class for all students
also reported that time and effort spent on grading was a significantly larger issue for them. This
could be attributed to the fact that faculty who teach in programs that require a basic writing
class are simply spending more time and effort on grading for that class.
On a larger scale, results relevant to RQ3 point to a dichotomy between faculty who
desire a more rigorous approach to admissions and grading, and those who favor a more
131