[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: In Defense of North
Judy, that's an excellent example of what I'm trying to say. Thank you
for sharing that with us.
Stephen
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Hatcher, Judy wrote:
> I agree, Stephen. I worked with a student yesterday on a paper she came in
> "to have the grammar looked at." It was supposed to be a character
> analysis, but it was a summary of "A Rose for Emily." She made no progress
> on what she thought she had come in for, but she did understand the
> difference in plot summary and character analysis before she left. I'm
> looking forward to seeing her next week and seeing how she does with her new
> information. The paper is due on Monday, so the grammar may not show any
> improvement over her earlier essays. But now she does know how to write an
> introduction and a thesis that will let her analyze a character. I think
> that is a vast improvement, and she left feeling like she had overcome a
> major hurdle.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: snewmann@sfasu.edu [mailto:snewmann@sfasu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 9:38 AM
> To: wcenter@ttacs6.ttu.edu
> Subject: Re: In Defense of North
>
> Bear with me one more time on North's point please.
>
> I meant to say in my last note that when we hear from a
> prof. that his
> student's essay was not any better after she'd visited the
> W.C. that does
> not mean that we did not help that student. I think that
> often a writer
> begins to "improve" as a writer--begins to comprehend the
> process
> better--while the effects of that clearer vision might not
> show up for
> another essay or two. If we try to make each essay better
> rather than
> focusing on the writer in our tutorials I believe we do our
> clients a
> dis-service. but when we focus on helping the client to
> become a better
> writer her writing will ultimately become better, too, if
> we've been
> successful at that. Probably still clear as mud, huh?
>
> stephen
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 snewmann@sfasu.edu wrote:
>
> > Katie, What Beth has said below in response to your
> questions is true for
> > us, too.
> >
> > RE: item "c" about the emphasis on grades. That goes back
> to what I'd
> > tried to say earlier in defense of North. When we help
> students become
> > better writers we also help them to produce better writing
> which
> > ultimately affects their grades (not just in their Comp
> courses). There
> > are times for us, too, when the grades are not
> consistently better for the
> > W.C. clients and, like Beth, we then focus on what does
> look good in our
> > assessments. Very few of our clients are "required" to
> come to us. Just
> > the fact that our clients are motivated to seek our help
> makes me think
> > they are more likely to be successful students than might
> those who do not
> > seek our help. One last thing about grades. In the
> courses we track
> > often a higher percentage of non-clients earn "A's" than
> do clients. We
> > attribute this to our suspicion that "A" students are less
> likely to seek
> > writing help from the W.C.
> >
> > As is the case with Beth, having access to this
> information has been a
> > tremendous help to us in securing funding for our tutoring
> programs here.
> >
> > stephen
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Dr. Beth Rapp Young wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not Stephen, but since we have also compared grades
> of uwc clients vs
> > > nonclients (in w-i courses where students come to the
> uwc in large numbers, such
> > > as fyc), I can offer my answers to these questions.
> > >
> > > a) obliterating confidentiality? As a university
> support service, we have access
> > > to the student records database, and can obtain SAT
> scores, grades, and other
> > > info for purposes of program assessment--a fairly
> standard procedure which other
> > > support services also follow. The person who obtains
> this data signs a
> > > confidentiality agreement in advance (actually, we ask
> all staff to sign
> > > confidentiality agreements) and works on a secure
> computer.
> > >
> > > We follow the usual procedures for analyzing
> confidential records; we collect all
> > > the data, then remove identifying info (such as student
> id numbers) from the file
> > > before we begin to work with the data. When we report
> results, we do so for the
> > > entire group of students, not for one student at a time.
> When working with
> > > records for hundreds of students, it is pretty difficult
> to notice individual
> > > grades anyway.
> > >
> > > b) trusting the grades? Since we get the grades from the
> student records
> > > database, we don't have to ask students to self-report.
> > >
> > > c) sending the message that a wctr is supposed to raise
> grades? This one is
> > > trickier. Of course, I put disclaimers in every report
> that mentions
> > > grades--it's pretty easy to explain that grades usually
> depend on more than
> > > writing (tests, attendance, etc.), so good writing alone
> does not an "A" make.
> > > My annual report always highlights other measures too
> (e.g., student satisfaction
> > > measures, client comments, increases in #s of clients,
> etc.) And, frankly, we've
> > > found that grades are not always higher for wctr clients
> . . . in which case, I
> > > find something else to brag about. (There's always
> something!)
> > >
> > > But it's clear that administrators like to see concrete
> evidence that the uwc has
> > > some effect on student writing, or, at the very least,
> that we're looking for
> > > that concrete evidence. This year, our writing center
> was awarded a 56% budget
> > > increase to expand services--currently one-time money,
> but I've been given reason
> > > to hope that the increase will be continued in future
> years. I credit the fact
> > > that we are carrying out these sorts of assessments with
> helping us obtain that
> > > increase.
> > >
> > > As we are a relatively new writing center, it may be
> more necessary for us than
> > > for established centers to demonstrate that we're
> helping students.
> > >
> > > kfischer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stephen, offlist here, how in heaven's name do you
> track their grades and SAT
> > > > scores without a) obliterating confidentialitiy; b)
> trusting credibility (if
> > > > the grades are reported by students, themselves); c)
> paying credence to the
> > > > abhorrant notion that a w.c. is supposed to raise
> grades (as opposed to
> > > > assisting with writing)?
> > >
> > > Beth Young
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Dr. Beth Rapp Young Building: LS-616, +1347
> > > Director, University Writing Center Office: 407-823-2853
> > > Assistant Professor, English Fax: 407-823-3007
> > > University of Central Florida, Orlando Email:
> byoung@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
> > > http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~byoung
> > >
> > > "Nulla dies sine linea."
> > > -Pliny
> > >
> > > "Writers are people who write."
> > > -Donald Murray
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>