Action Project - Improve Undergraduate Students' Writing Abilities

1. Description

FHSU has been keenly focused on student writing for a number of years. Analysis of recent NSSE data has necessitated a strategic response by the university in the area of undergraduate writing. Based on reflection from our Systems Appraisal and Strategy Forum, FHSU considered this goal to be one of the five strategic priorities for the next three to five years.

2. Related AQIP Categories

Primary 1-Helping Students Learn

3. Rationale for Action

FHSU has taken on this project for the following reasons: 1) Analysis of NSSE data has shown that we are deficient, compared to our peers, in this area. A focus on increasing the number of required writing intensive courses is timely; 2) Local data continues to show that our students are not as challenged in the area of writing; 3) Of all the workplace competencies, the ability to write is among the most highly rated by employers; and 4) Departments are now engaging in an intensive academic audit, and a focus on enhancing the number of required writing intensive courses into the curriculum is timely.

4. Areas Affected

The following areas are most likely to be affected: 1) most academic departments (Chairs and faculty); 2) university assessment and institutional effectiveness committees; 3) academic administrators (Deans, Asst Provost, Provost); 4) university library and Writing Center

5. Processes Affected

The following processes (referenced by AQIP category) will be impacted through this action project: 1P6, 1P7, 1P8, 1P9, 1P10, 1P11, 1P12, 1P13

6. Process Measures

Monitoring will be ongoing. Monthly Council meetings provide a launch point to discuss problems. Close monitoring by a project champion will provide necessary oversight. Annual monitoring is assured due to the convergence between this project and our KBOR Performance Agreement reporting process.

7. Outcome Measures

The following gross measures of effectiveness should be realized upon project completion: 1) increased direct and embedded assessment results at the program level; 2) improved results in department capstone courses; 3) increased scores on national exams/assessments (NSSE, CLA); 4) improved performance on certification exams (GRE, NCLEX, CPA); 5) direct feedback from employers; 6) student enrollment in writing intensive courses

8. Keeping Focus

A four-year timeframe seems appropriate given the need to plan, implement, and influence student learning beginning in the freshman year. Implementing lag measures like NSSE and CLA will be valuable for documenting results, but changing results in these measures takes years. In addition, this project aligns with our four-year Performance Agreement through the Kansas Board of Regents.