1. “WAC”ked: A Case Study Incorporating a Writing Process into an IS Course Hirotoshi Takeda (htakeda1@cis.gsu.edu)(htakeda1@cis.gsu.edu 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 (slcrabtr@garlandisd.net)(slcrabtr@garlandisd.net Literature and Languages, Texas A&M University - Commerce Commerce, Texas 75429, USA Roy D. Johnson (Roy@UP.ac.za) Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria Pretoria, 0001, Republic of South Africa

2. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson Overview l Background l Research Questions l Methods l Results l Discussion l Quesions

3. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson Background l 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

4. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson Background l 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).

5. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 5 Writing Across the Curriculum Process Writing

6. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson Background l 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

7. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 7 Research Questions l RQ#1: Did the students who used the writing process produce better products than those who did not use the process? l RQ#2: Was there more variability in the grading of a submission with the grading rubric compared to grading without the rubric? l RQ#3: Did the WAC initiative help students become better writers?

8. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 8 Methodology l Quasi Experimental Design –Convenient Clustering l Sample –11 participating classes –9 instructors –2 semesters

9. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 9 Methodology l Targeted Course: Introductory IS Class –Target: All Majors in Business School –Urban SE US Public University –No differences between groups –2 nd Group Project –Teams of three –Research on IS Topic 4 page minimum –Additional Presentation Portion –Required participation in Presentation by all members

10. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 10 Methodology l 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

11. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 11 Methodology l Grading –Rough Draft General Revision Guidelines –Final Paper Individual, blind assessment by 3 coders Use of rubric for consistent results Inter-rater reliability –2 nd Revision (optional) ½ of Lost points

12. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 12 Methodology l 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 2 nd Revision due

13. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 13 Results

14. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 14 Discussion l 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 l 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 l RQ#3: Did the WAC initiative help students become better writers?

15. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 15 Discussion l Possible weakness –Treatment differences 95% to 85% difference in Treatment Group –Little control over assigned grades 2 nd Revision l Improvement of teaching –One professor in nine

16. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 16 Discussion l Future Research –Other Writing Models Journals Peer Review Writing Portfolios –Standardized system of presentation –Higher Level Courses

17. ISECON 2006 Takeda, Crabtree and Johnson 17 Questions l 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