Running Head: Prospectus

EXPLORING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE WRITING PEDAGOGY AS

SIGNIFICANT LEARNING EXPERIENCE:

A PRAGMATIC QUALITATIVE RESEARCH APPROACH

by

SARAH ELIZABETH MOREMAN EILAND

CLAIRE HOWELL MAJOR, DISSERTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR

DAVID HARDYKARRI HOLLEY

ERIN NAUGHER GILCHRISTALAN L. WEBB

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Education in the

Department of Higher Education Administration In the Graduate School of The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

31 August 2014

Dissertation Prospectus

Prospectus

ABSTRACT

This pragmatic qualitative research study explores first- year students’ perceptions on writing

pedagogy as significant learning experience to determine their readiness for writing college

papers. Over the course of Spring and Fall 2015 terms and totaling four different one-hour

Orientation 101 courses, the data collected from one instructor’s students’ writing exercises and

other faculty’s analysis of these writing exercises, along with the faculty’s concurrence to the

final cohesive analysis are sifted through an autoethnographic analysis with the instructor-

researcher’s own perceptions to serve as crystallization of data (rather than the more familiar

qualitative term: triangulation).

Keywords: writing, writing pedagogy, Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning,

orientation, first year students, first year experience, writing development, student perceptions,

faculty perceptions, writing self-efficacy, student-centered learning, pragmatism, pragmatic

qualitative research

2

Prospectus

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION

At first I couldn’t understand why I needed to take orientation, but now I do. This class

has helped me in writing papers in English class. It has showed me how to pull

information and put it on paper. I have to submit an assignment for my music

appreciation class and without the course I wouldn’t know how to do so. Writing is

necessary for anything you do in life. This is a short class, but in this short time I have

learned a lot. I appreciate you helping me. (D. Moore, personal communication, October

2, 2012)

I believe the writing exercises have helped because they require you to think on your feet.

In college you have many different papers and I believe that by doing these writing

exercises I will be able to finish papers in a timely manner. (H. Reaves, personal

communication, October 23, 2012)

I think writing is actually fun for me now, not slow torture like how I remembered in high

school. I think the writing exercises helped to summarize up what we learned a little

better, they covered the main points of the class every day, and they helped to make sure

we were paying attention. (S. Wiggins, personal communication, October 23, 2012)

Derived from the amalgamation of written responses to prompts and discussion postings

from students in my orientation classes before I started my pragmatic qualitative research study,

these three block quotes describe the benefits of incorporating writing exercises for “significant

3

Prospectus

learning” (Fink, 2013). Students’ writing development is a continual practice that supports

significant learning, and the writing exercises reveal the need for students to have opportunities

to hone their writing skills (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Creswell, 2009; Harrington, Malencyzk,

Peckham, Rhodes, & Yancey, 2001; Hudd, Smart, & Delohery, 2011; Saavedra & Saavedra,

2011; Sommers & Saltz, 2004; Todd & Hudson, 2008). At Gadsden State Community College,

Orientation 101 (ORI 101) is the one mandatory course all students are to take (ORI 101 & ORT

100: Orientation to College Student Workbook, 2014). In other words, there is no other course

offered at this institution that requires all students to take. Therefore, the orientation course is the

one foundational opportunity for students to learn how to learn before continuing in their college

education (Bain, 2004; Charlton, 2011; Downs & Wardle, 2007; Fink, 2013; Jones, 2008;

Martinez, Kock, & Cass, 2011; Sommers & Saltz, 2004; Sullivan, 2012; Williams & Takaku,

2011). The environment and purpose of the orientation class to be conducive for first year

students’ adjustment during the transitional phase of being in college help ensure student

satisfaction and success—enhancing the significant learning experience (Astin, 1993; Evans,

1996; Fink, 2013; Kuh, 2007; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 2005).

Overview

National reports indicate that the level of college and employment readiness are low

among the majority of high school graduates, specifically in areas of writing skills, reading

comprehension, and math (Kuh, 2007; Rothman, 2012; Spellings, 2006). This national trend

substantiates the need to providing provide the an optimal learning experience for first year

students by helping them hone their writing skills to write college-level papers. To know how to

motivate these students is to understand their perceptions on pedagogical methods. Writing

pedagogy is one method being used for significant learning. Whether higher education

4

Prospectus

institutions contribute to or mitigate the college readiness problem, there are some who do not

place an importance on writing instruction, which begs the following question: Why do higher

education institutions not emphasize or support the importance of writing instruction, when

writing skills are the indicator of the student’s quality education? (Bartlett, 2003). For higher

education institutions and their faculty not willing to invest the time in guiding students in their

writing development, students do not get to experience the writing-fueled benefits of learning

that include gaining critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, better communication skills,

and understanding (Bean, 2011; Jones, 2008; Sommers & Saltz, 2004; Sullivan, 2011). Some

students need guidance due to their writing anxiety. Writing anxiety can come in variable forms

such as procrastination, compulsive rewriting, or not write at all (Martinez, Kock, & Cass, 2011).

Faculty has a role in alleviating students’ writing anxiety by providing relevant writing

assignments designed to help students perceive writing as beneficial and not something to fear.

Yet there are faculty concerns about incorporating writing assignments, which include increased

grading load, decreased lecturing of content, subjective grading, and not necessary for some

academic disciplines (Bean, 2011; Libarkin & Ording, 2012; O’Connell & Dyment, 2006).

Importance of First Year Experience and Orientation Programs

The development of first- year experience/orientation programs in higher education has

begunbegan with the role of the parent disappearing when faculty acted in loco parentis by

helping students adjust transitionally to college. It was not until the first world war when the in

loco parentis role shifted again, this time student affairs personnel.

Since then, there were ups and downs regarding the relevance of orientation programs;

the purpose of these programs seesawed between catering students’ college adjustment and

formally introducing students to academic disciplines. University of South Carolina, led by John

5

Prospectus

Gardner, fostered the first year experience movement during 1970s. Debates on the length of first

year orientation programs, whether they should be one hour or a whole year, raged until 1980s

saw rampant development of semester-long courses, two-thirds of which took place at four-year

institutions by 1990.

First year experience and orientation programs, whether they are workshops, pre-college

camps, or courses, are now established to provide opportunities for freshmen,

nontraditional/returning students, and transfer students to acclimate to the institution and its

mission, traditions, campus life, and academics. Students learn college survival skills,

educational and personal development, and anything else relatable to being a college student;

based on these learning opportunities, those who participate or enroll in a first year

experience/orientation course fare better than those who do not. (Overland & Rentz, 2004)

The first year is a critical time to ensure student satisfaction and success academically

and socially. Students are feeling out of place, and they need guidance. They need to know

where to go and what to do. Consequently, advising is strongly advocated to maintain student

retention, along with the institution providing an environment welcoming and freshman-friendly.

Students need the assurance of knowing what and how they do matter to the institution. The first

year experience and orientation programs are designed to offer that assurance. (Kuh & Whitt,

1988; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Schlossberg, 1989; Spellings, 2006; Tinto, 2005).

Regarding college readiness, Kuh (2007) has cross-examined several national student

engagement statistics to determine college readiness among high school seniors. His findings

show how the levels of college readiness such as seeing the guidance counselor, study habits,

tutoring, or career exploration are significantly low. Students, if they have not taken the first year

experience/orientation course, voice their displeasure in their “academic and social expectations”

6

Prospectus

not being met by the institution (Kuh, 2007, p. 6). On the other hand, those who do take or

already have taken the introductory course are satisfied due to their learning how to get support

from the institution to fulfill their academic and campus life expectations.

In his synthesizing of the research, Conley (2008) juxtaposes among first year students

their high school performance and effort with college performance and effort. He discusses how

college readiness depends on pre-college experiences and education without need for

remediation. Students are ready for college when they are well-versed in reading comprehension

and math and also possess the ability to analyze and formulate own understanding through

writing.

Additionally, Astin (1993) simplifies the research findings of over two hundred higher

education institutions being studied by breaking down into sections to measure students’

improvement since the first year in areas of “general knowledge,” student development, and

writing development. Faculty is also observed for its role in student development. According to

Astin (1993), Conley (2008), Kuh (2007), and Rothman (2012), the amount of reading and

papers written alone necessitates any college-bound student to be proficient in reading, writing,

and critical thinking skills in order to do well in college. The previously mentioned statistics

about high school graduates not prepared for the real world, either academically, workwise, or

both, prove the need to incorporate writing activity designed to bolster student development and

learning.

Background

At Gadsden State Community College, a rural Northeastern Alabama two-year public

college enrolling approximately several thousand students, the instructions for any Orientation

101 instructor base on making sure students complete the assignments and submit them through

7

Prospectus

the Blackboard, a learning management systems used by the institution for faculty-student virtual

interaction through assignments and online communications such as email-type messages, video

lectures, chat rooms, and discussion postings. The Orientation 101 handbook, uploaded onto

Blackboard, focuses on assignments, information about the college, advice for independent

living and study skills, and career preparation. Some orientation courses are offered as face-to-

face traditional format, and others online, or even both in hybrid format.

Problem Statement

As an orientation instructor at Gadsden State Community College, I assign writing as a

means to help students help me coach them in their learning how to establish the foundation for

their collegial success. After having read these students’ writings over past several years, I find

myself questioning their preparedness in writing college-level papers. I do not see how these

students are quite ready for college when it comes to learning and writing. Therefore, I decide to

use a pragmatic qualitative research approach to explore the student perceptions on the writing

pedagogy as significant learning experience. Whatever the outcomes from this study may be,

significant learning needs to be clarified before making a correlation between first year students’

perceptions and writing pedagogy that serves to provide the learning experience. The

background of this study is described as the local community college where I teach Orientation

101. The national trends and what I have observed so far in my classroom are the focal points for

the problem statement, along with the purpose and significance of the study.

Purpose of Study

Purpose Statement. The purpose of this pragmatic qualitative study is to explore the

student perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant learning experience.

8

Prospectus

Significance of Study

One main incentive for students to attend college is to gain knowledge and skills for

whatever career path they choose. To achieve the employable knowledge and skills, the higher

education institution is to provide the education the student anticipates. One particular skill that a

graduate of any higher education institution is expected to master in order to efficiently

communicate as an employee is writing (Rothman, 2012). Students need training and

opportunities to build upon whatever writing skills they do have. Not only do they get to practice

their writing skills, the composing of ideas is a mental exercise, which in turns helps develop

critical thinking, creative thinking, and practical thinking skills (Sternberg, 1989) essential for

problem-solving and creativity that employers look for in a prospective employee.

Writing is a discipline that constantly needs sharpening, which can only be possible

through practice. One or two first year composition classes may help set the foundation, but

writing requires more in terms of content and communication (Downs & Wardle, 2007).

Accordingly, students learn how writing is not static but dynamic in its process, improving upon

content and organization impinged by experience and knowledge the writer gains between

writings. The fitting environment for students to develop and practice their writing is to have the

instructor at hand to encourage them to see how their writing helps them learn.

Thus, the significance of this study on student perceptions on writing pedagogy will

benefit administrators how significant learning is defined and also for orientation/first year

experience instructors seeking effective, productive pedagogical methods to engage their

respective students to learn how to become better prepared for college, for the workplace, and for

9

Prospectus

life. To reiterate, higher education as whole will benefit from learning about these student

perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant learning experience.

Main Research Question and Sub-questions

To create a question that centers the entire research study is difficult to think on the spot

without having some expectations or even some previous knowledge. Thankfully after several

years of teaching Orientation 101 already, I am interested to know what students are really

thinking when it comes to my using writing pedagogy to create a significant learning experience

for them in a class that has the presupposed reputation of being an “easy A” course. The

overarching question for this study is: how do students taking Orientation 101 perceive writing

pedagogy as significant to their learning experience? The following five supporting questions

serve to explore the overarching question that any first year student may ask:

1) What perceptions will first year students initially share about writing pedagogy

serving as significant learning experience in Orientation 101?

2) How will the writing help first year students with the foundational knowledge not

just in Orientation 101 but also in any other class?

3) In what ways will the writing help intrinsically and extrinsically motivate first

year students to learn how to learn?

4) In what ways will the students perceive writing as a useful learning technique to

apply and integrate in other classes, in the workplace, and in life?

5) What perceptions will first year students share about writing pedagogy serving as

significant learning experience before finishing Orientation 101?

10

Prospectus 11

Prospectus

CHAPTER II:

LITERATURE REVIEW

By adopting the pragmatic qualitative research approach to identify with first year

students, I seek to understand their perceptions on writing pedagogy as a significant learning

experience (Fink, 2013). Therefore, conducting a literature review helps provide multiple angles

of the phenomenon of the processes (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013), which is the writing

pedagogy. Beginning with discussing the establishment of first year experience and orientation

programs, the inquiry of how the paradigmatic shift in higher education to student-centered

learning helps support the quest to incorporate writing into the orientation course from assessing

students’ writing skills as college-ready or not, changing the curriculum to include intensive

writing, faculty’s role in motivating students to write to learn, student engagement, student

perceptions, and writing pedagogy.

College Readiness: First Year Experience/Orientation

Overland and Rentz (2004) provide a historical overview on how first year experience

and orientation programs have started. Beginning with the shift of parent to faculty as in loco

parentis, then to student affairs practitioners, the orientation program has undergone evolutionary

changes regarding its role, the length of its program, and services to offer. Presently, the

orientation program serves students by helping them acclimate to college life, both in academics

and campus involvement. The first year of college is a rite of passage, a transitional time, an

experimentation of autonomy (Astin, 1993; Evans, 1996; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Pascarella &

Terenzini, 2005). Students need to know what to do and where to start (Tinto, 2005). The first

year experience and orientation programs are designed to help the freshmen, transfer students,

nontraditional and returning students transition to college (ORI 101 & ORT 100: Orientation to

12

Prospectus

College Student Workbook, 2014). According to Chickering’s seven vectors of student

development, students learn to adjust through various stages of adjustment such as self-identity

and independence (Evans, 1996). Astin (1993), Moore (1989), Pascarella and Terenzini (2005),

and Tinto (2005) advocate faculty-student and peer interactions because students thrive on

relationships convenient to help them survive college in forms of feedback, conferences, and

campus involvement.

Yet when it comes to taking the orientation course, students do not understand its

significance for their college experience (Conley, 2008; Kuh, 2007; Rothman, 2012; Tinto,

2005). The statistics report that the majority of first year students are not ready for college in

areas of reading comprehension, writing ability, and math (Kuh, 2007; Rothman, 2012;

Spellings, 2006; Tinto, 2005). These authors discuss reasons for lack of college readiness being

technology and high schools’ failure in preparing students for post-graduation futures. The

purpose of the orientation program is to abide by the institution’s mission and goals in preparing

students academically and socially (Orientation Workbook, 2014).

Composition Skills

Before learning how to incorporate writing into an orientation course, it is imperative to

understand how student writing development can be fostered through writing instruction and

motivation. Composition skills are essential for students’ communication and interpersonal

skills, along with educational endeavors and employability (Bartlett, 2003; Reither, 1985). Yet

elite institutions such as Princeton are not instilling strong writing skills in their students due to

writing instruction having deteriorated from neglect (Bartlett, 2003). In response to the paradigm

shift from lecture and exams to student-centered learning, instructors cater their writing

instruction to ensure students’ composition skills are well-developed (Brownlee, Walker,

13

Prospectus

Lennox, Exley, & Pearce, 2009; Charlton, 2011; Downs & Wardle, 2007). Instructors look for

innovative ways in getting students to practice writing, putting down onto paper thoughts and

ideas. Charlton (2011) urges his students to take advantage of the first year in college by

capturing the adventurous spirit into words on paper and write in any form. Downs and Wardle

(2007) share the results from their respective case studies how developing composition skills has

led the participants to self-actualization, from which they had observed how they organized their

thoughts onto paper and then worked on revising those thoughts to flow better. Writing self-

efficacy stems from having self-confidence and certainty with one’s skill to write (Jones, 2008),

and students need to have writing self-efficacy to better develop their composition skills.

Curricular Change. After understanding how to incorporate writing in the orientation

class with writing instruction and motivation, there is the need to take the time to critically

evaluate the orientation curriculum to determine more productive writing opportunities. The

current orientation curriculum may need to be transformed to adopt these opportunities.

Therefore to embrace the paradigm shift from static, content-laden lecture format to dynamic,

student-focused learning, changes to the curriculum are necessary (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Freire,

1993; Paulsen & Feldman, 2007). Writing across the curriculum has already enforced some

curricular changes for writing to be incorporated across academic disciplines. Fishman and Reiff

(2011) have collaboratively worked with the English department at University of Tennessee at

Knoxville to revamp the English 101 and 102 courses in order to concentrate more on writing. In

English 101, students read and analyze the rhetoric, meaning that they are to investigate the

author’s intention for writing the piece they have just read. In the next English course, students

are more empowered to apply rhetoric by devising research-driven expositions to explain own

14

Prospectus

arguments. Fishman and Reiff’s (2011) efforts in revamping the English 101 and 102 courses

have proved successful due to their continuance to this day.

Other curricular efforts do not necessarily mean to overhaul the entire curriculum or even

a course. A curricular change may only occur when the instructor decides to change pedagogical

methods. Fallahi, Wood, Austad, and Fallahi (2006) have responded to the issue of psychology

students not having learned applicable writing skills. They comment how the composition

classes have not been instrumental in teaching students to write in other academic disciplines.

Consequently, Fallahi et al. (2006) incorporated writing instruction to help psychology students

do better on their writing assignments.

Landscape of Fostered Recursive Writing: Writing Centers, Writing Across the

Curriculum, Peer Assessment, and Research. By taking a step back to absorb how the

influence that the paradigmatic shift in higher education of student-centered learning has on

incorporating intensive writing assignments that the faculty is willing to assign in order to

improve student writing development, the landscape of fostered recursive writing composed of

writing across the curriculum, research, library, writing center, and peer assessment is to be

studied for various ways of getting first year students comfortable with writing. Recursive

writing, meaning writing in multiple drafts and revisions, is no longer restricted to the

composition classes. Still, writing instruction is the starting place. According to National Council

of Teachers of English (2012), the writing instruction is to be of high standard. The instructor,

whether being full-time, adjunct, or graduate assistant, is required to demonstrate both writing

excellence and competent teaching of composition. Additionally, the Council of Writing

Program Administrators (WPA) Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition, drafted with

collaborative effort, serves to outline the outcomes expected for the writing across the curriculum

15

Prospectus

discipline (Harrington, Malencyzk, Peckham, Rhodes, & Yancey, 2001). Both national formal

statements demand writing excellence, quality writing instruction, sufficient quantity of writing

practice, and utilize writing as critical thinking development.

Writing across the curriculum (WAC) has been debated for its productivity in teaching

students the discipline of writing and how it helps develop critical thinking skills. A focus group

has convened to discuss the benefits and drawbacks between traditional lecture and exam format

and WAC; the majority favors WAC for the learning outcomes (Todd & Hudson, 2008). No

longer does writing need to be viewed as an end product, but instead it is a process, a means to

learning and developing critical thinking skills (Williams & Takaku, 2011).

The writing process needs to involve research, and library is one of the first places to

begin doing research. Due to minimal effort to integrate research into writing instruction,

Birmingham, Chiwongs, Flaspohler, Hearn, Kvanvig, and Portmann (2008) collaborated to

advocate partnership between the writing instructor and the librarian to champion the role of

research in writing. Students will benefit from conducting research to gather information for their

papers rather than drawing on in-class lecture and personal knowledge.

To make the writing process more manageable, the writing center serves any individual,

either the student or the instructor, by providing counsel on any writing phase from

brainstorming to the final product before it is submitted. Although its historical role shifted

between supplementing the writing instruction and a figurative place for autonomous writing, the

writing center is not the place where students go and get their papers revised, rewritten, or even

edited. The peer tutors are trained not to offer that assistance, which assuages the stigma from

having been forced in the past to correct problems with the writing for remedial students.

16

Prospectus

Instead, the peer tutors are to offer guidance and ask questions, helping the student writers come

up with ideas on their own. (Boquet, 1999; Williams & Takaku, 2011)

While the writing center provides an environment conducive to talking about writing

ideas, peer assessment motivates students to do their best. The instructor utilizes the assessment

practice of peer editing, where students read each other’s papers and provide feedback. Having

constructive feedback helps with the revising part of the writing process. There are two online

peer assessment systems. One is Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) (Gunersel, Simpson,

Aufderheide, & Wang, 2008) and the other is Scaffold Writing and Reviewing in the Discipline

(SWoRD) (Kaufman & Schunn, 2011). Students are not leaning towards to thinking of the online

peer assessment as ideal way of being graded without instructor involvement; however, they

agree that their writing have improved due to the peer pressure of having their work being read

and evaluated by peers. More importantly, students appreciate the constructive feedback from

their peers. Overall, the recursive writing has been and still is being nurtured successfully

through the venues of writing across the curriculum, research, library, writing center, and peer

assessment.

Faculty Perceptions

Not only does the paradigmatic shift in higher education of student-centered learning

need to be embraced, but the faculty teaching orientation needs to be informed of the benefits for

incorporating more intensive writing opportunities into their classes. Faculty perceptions for first

year student writing development vary depending on their own writing instruction. Bean (2011)

recommends that the instructor gives writing a meaningful experience to students by assigning

productive writing assignments. The faculty has the responsibility to ensure that students are

17

Prospectus

developing applicable writing skills. Yet some share the view that students are not cooperative

and disinclined to write.

Collier and Morgan (2007) determine how to provide writing instruction by either

“targeting the individual or representative group” or “tailoring the instruction for the class” (p.

444). For instance, the first-generation college students are not certain what the instructor asks in

terms of writing. Therefore, they are “targeted” for more specific writing instruction such as

using literal words “type” rather than “write” to indicate how to complete the writing assignment

(Collier & Morgan, 2007, p. 440). Actually, faculty seems to think they are at no fault while

some students on the other hand experience frustration with the unclear instructions to complete

writing assignments (Collier & Morgan, 2007; Gambell, 1987). What the faculty wants to see in

students’ writing are creative responses to the research conducted and information given to

demonstrate individual progress in critical thinking. Libarkin and Ording (2012) and Pausch

(2008) state that lucid instructions and feedback are instrumental in order to receive the desired

results from students’ writing.

On the flip side, the faculty has its own reservations about assigning writing. Faculty

reluctance and lack of incentive are the common barriers due to the dichotomy of teachers’

desire for students to learn and yet not changing their pedagogical practice including the ever-

dominant practice of lecturing (Fink, 2013). Still, their concerns include extra amount of paper

grading, fairness in grading/evaluating, time limitations to read, grade, and return with feedback,

appropriateness to the course, and credibility in giving writing instruction (Bean, 2011; Libarkin

& Ording, 2012; O’Connell & Dyment, 2006). O’Connell and Dyment (2006), after having

conducted a focus group of faculty members, receive suggestions about how to grade writing.

18

Prospectus

Informal or expressive writing can be graded as part of the participation grade or as pass/fail;

whereas formal writing requires more careful grading, perhaps with use of rubrics.

Student-Centered Learning

The faculty needs to acknowledge how the paradigm shift from static lecture-based

teaching to dynamic student-centered learning helps redefine the college experience (Barr &

Tagg, 1995; Fink, 2013; Freire, 1993; Paulsen & Feldman, 2005; Spence, 2001). The landscape

of fostered recursive writing embraces student-centered learning, where students are empowered

in improving their writing development by being offered different options in getting assistance.

Significant learning needs to take place in order to make changes to the learning process of

higher education (Fink; Spence). Thus, instructors are no longer teachers but architects who

design the learning environment for students to participate and learn (Schwartz, Chase, &

Bransford, 2012).

Students do not always retain all information from lectures; they learn better when they

do hands-on learning such as writing, which will create a tangible effect on the memory (Fink,

2013). With the growing volume of textbooks filled with more and more information compiled

over years of research, history, and knowledge, students need teachers to teach them not

necessarily the content, but the means to learn how to learn (Fink, 2013).

Schwartz, Chase, and Bransford (2012) collaborated to address the issue of “overzealous

transferring” understanding and skills to other classes. The main argument in this study is to

encourage students to be more willing to embrace change, by letting go of the old, well-grooved

mentality of learning and grabbing hold of the mind-bending newness. The recurring theme

throughout their study is how to determine ways to discourage students from frequently using old

routine methods of learning and instead encourage them to try innovative methods to understand

19

Prospectus

and/or apply new concepts. The authors concede that there are times when previous techniques

to learn something new do work; however, they interject that students need to realize and also

acknowledge there are other ways to comprehend phenomena and solving problems. By forcing

themselves to think beyond the usual approach of learning, students will remember for a longer

period of time what they have learned. Also, students need to question what they have been

learning rather than just accepting the material being taught to them.

The faculty will choose different approaches to empower students in their learning

process such as peer teaching (Tessier, 2004) and debate (Tessier, 2009). To examine how

learning happens, Levine, Fallahi, Nicoll-Senft, Tessier, Watson, and Wood (2008) refer to

Fink’s (2013) taxonomy of significant learning. The six elements focus on application and

connection of the material or experience being learned and also developing interpersonal and

communication skills. The transferability of learning to other academic disciplines can be done

through writing as the vessel. Students are to learn to adapt to change and whatever they do

learn, they can still adjust by transfering the learning (Schwartz et al., 2012) through writing.

Student Engagement. Students need to be engaged; the faculty now can see how writing

helps contribute to engaging students to learn. Student engagement is when a student is willing to

participate and learn, which is different from student-centered learning where the environment is

set up to provide optimal learning experience for the students regardless they want it or not.

Faculty plays an important role in facilitating student engagement with interacting with students,

keeping office hours, and providing timely feedback as examples (AlKandari, 2011; Kuh, 2008).

Saavedra and Saavedra (2012) comment on how student engagement will help students

academically, which, in turn, will improve their communication skills as desired by potential

employers. Sullivan (2012) centers his theory about engaging students by espousing “intrinsic

20

Prospectus

motivation.” To engage students to overcome their aversion to writing requires inspiration and

self-efficacy, and Sullivan (2012) has come up with three strategies to keep students interested

with writing. “Variety, choice, and disguised repetition” provide students different opportunities

to write expressively and in variable formats, which are examples of successful student

engagement (Sullivan, 2012).

Student Perceptions. How to exactly explore student perceptions call for creative

measures, and having students write is one of the effective measures to gain insight of their

thoughts and feelings. One article from Journal of Palliative Medicine uses grounded theory

approach to figure out student perceptions with the application of Kolb’s Theory of Experiential

Learning. These six authors share how the curriculum has undergone some changes and that they

use the method of evaluating reflective writing to determine the effectiveness of these new

curricular changes. Conducting a program evaluation through the medium of analyzing students’

reflective writing solidifies the standpoint on how and why writing exercises exemplify

significant learning experience. “The reflective writing analysis validated progress toward

student mastery of the objectives” (Head, Earnshaw, Greensburg, Morehead, Pfeifer, & Shaw,

2012, p. 540). These students had shared how through writing, they were “more prepared and

also how the writing helps them never to forget what they learned” (p. 539-541). Specifically ,

the fact that this study has been conducted in a medical school field to foster students’ deeper,

more meaningful understanding through reflective writing emphasizes the need for bringing

awareness about first year students being inadequately prepared in the area of writing (Spellings,

2006; Kuh, 2007).

On the other hand, there are students, as the research reveals, who perceive their own

writing skills as good enough for college or employable enough for the workplace (Simkin,

21

Prospectus

Crews, & Groves, 2012). Yet these same students value the importance of good writing skills,

refuting the presuppositions that they did not care about or think of writing skills as important for

college and also for the workplace (Simkin et al). Such contrasting evidence leads to

necessitating constructive feedback, to provide outside perspective of the students’ writing skills

as college-ready and employable.

By providing feedback will contribute to engaging students in their own learning process,

which then will enable the exploring of student perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant

learning experience. There would be moments where students need constructive criticism on

their learning process, through tangible forms of completing assignments, written/typed work,

and verbal responses (Aguis & Wilkinson, 2014; Busse, 2013; Harran, 2011; Hyland, 2013).

Students need to hear from the teacher about their learning process, and that is feedback.

Feedback is loosely defined as written or verbal acknowledgement, positive or negative, of the

individual’s efforts and may include advice or suggestion for improvement.

Not all feedback is productive or helpful. Students do not welcome generic, platitudinal,

summarized, or vague feedback and would even prefer to not receive feedback at all (Agius &

Wilkinson, 2014; Harran, 2011). Even more so, Elbow (1998) disagreed with feedback on free

writing exercises; therefore, he stated how it takes away the purpose of careless, freethinking

writing that he aimed for learners to adopt in order to get over their writing anxiety. Two more

drawbacks about feedback include: if or when the teacher overcompensates by giving false

praise; and, gives only positive feedback when negative constructive feedback needs to be also

given. How would students know what needs correcting or improving if they do not receive the

negative constructive feedback, if all they receive is positive feedback? They would be falsely

led into perceiving that they are doing good work (Simkin, Crews, & Groves, 2012).

22

Prospectus

After such argument about not all feedback is productive or helpful, the teacher needs to

make the effort to provide feedback that would foster strong teacher-learner interaction as partly

defined by Moore’s (1989) three-part interaction. Specifically more so, students need to perceive

feedback as integral to their writing process for learning, not as “an end product of interaction”

(Harran, 2011, p. 420). The interactional relationship between the teacher and students through

feedback allows the students to feel they are being listened through their writing, which will then

result in students having the motivation to keep writing, to improve their writing (Hyland, 2013).

Students perceive the invested time and effort in the feedback given by the teacher when

the feedback exhibits the following characteristics: balanced (both positive and constructive

negative), timely/immediate, specific, detailed/explanatory, individualized, attentive, focused,

forward-looking (future improvement), transferability, addressing grammatical errors, and

suggestive rather than imperative making the corrections or revisions (Agius & Wilkerson, 2014;

Busse, 2013; Harran, 2011; Hyland, 2013; Simkin, Crews, & Groves, 2012). Feedback needs to

be given like a coach will give an athlete during practice to provide an opportunity to correct and

improve before participating in a competitive event to prevent possible injury or disqualification.

Students make the effort to work on their writing; thus, the teacher needs to make the

effort to provide productive, constructive, timely feedback to confirm students’ learning in order

to encourage them to continue in their writing efforts. Yet what if the students do not know how

to receive feedback? How do they perceive feedback as means to improve their performance?

Students may need some training to learn how to utilize feedback as means for improvement,

including revising their writing (Agius & Wilkinson, 2014). Students need to learn “how writing

is of learning ways to create specific meanings” (Hyland, 2013, p. 184).

23

Prospectus

Writing Pedagogy

After encompassing how changing the orientation course to incorporate more intensive

writing that faculty is willing to assign to encourage student-centered learning and student

engagement, and also improve student writing development, the faculty needs to be aware of

various ways of using writing as a pedagogical method and how to effectively encourage

students to write. Considerably, “the cognitive role of writing” helps students realize the

evolutionary growth in their thinking process that stem from reading and writing (Hudd, Smart,

& Delohery, 2011, p. 180). When the instructor utilizes writing as a pedagogical tool, students

completing these writing assignments will learn more than just composition and critical thinking

skills; they will see the interconnectedness between what they learn and practice and how they

live their lives. The research attests how writing enhances the learning experience by which the

following two studies will help support.

Interestingly how a Taiwanese quantitative study reveals that writing contributes to

critical thinking skills, which are crucial for problem solving and creativity. The statistics show

that even individuals with mathematical and scientific reasoning do not possess the high level of

creative thinking as those who write often (Wang, 2012). For that reason, writing is essential for

critical thinking development.

Sommers and Saltz’s (2004) study, which is longitudinal, that took place at Harvard

University has inquired if there is a relationship between writing ability and first year experience.

Therefore, the class of 2001 participated by completing online surveys; a random sampling of

sixty-five from this class of over two hundred have been invited to get more involved in the

study, to bring writing samples and also be interviewed every term. A case study has been

conducted on each of the sixty-five participants. Their comments on the writing-intensive

24

Prospectus

courses are favorable, with some saying how much they have learned from all the research and

writing they had to do. When asked about taking a course with no writing assigned, they reply

that they would not feel autonomous in their learning process but instead as one participant

eloquently explained: “I would have felt as I was just being fed a lot of information. My papers

are my opportunity to think and say something for myself, a chance to disagree” (Sommers &

Saltz, 2004, p. 128).

Although with both studies acclaiming the benefits of writing, Martinez, Kock, and Cass

(2011) argue in their study that there are students who deal with writing anxiety. Writing anxiety

can be in any form such as procrastination, aggression, compulsive rewriting, or refusal to write.

Therefore, Martinez et al. (2011) suggest for faculty to provide coping strategies if they suspect

any student struggling with writing anxiety. The coping strategies include feedback, assistance

with the writing process, leisure reading, or writing for extra credit. Creswell (2009) seconds the

advice of leisure reading not just to address writing anxiety, but also for getting ready mentally

to write. Other ways to prepare for writing, Creswell (2009) suggests, include “leisurely writing

activity, such as writing a letter to a friend, brainstorming on the computer, reading some good

writing, or studying a favorite poem” (p. 81).

Bain (2004) has written a whole book on what he has learned from studying

approximately fifteen years what constitutes good teaching and what makes one a best teacher.

He states how best teachers are learners themselves and they constantly search for ways to

improve the learning experience for students. Bain (2004) refers to the writing pedagogy that

best teachers use, that they ponder what profound questions or writing assignments that will

inspire students to analytically and creatively write (p. 52-53). Writing assignments may be like

Angelo and Cross’ (1993) one-minute paper and reflective writing similar to Hudd, Smart, and

25

Prospectus

Delohery’s (2011) PTA model—priorization, translation, analogy. In short, writing pedagogy is

effective when the instructor designs the writing assignments to encourage students to improve

their writing development and also develop critical thinking skills; and, that students understand

the purpose of and complete these writing assignments.

Conclusion

To establish the need to incorporate writing pedagogy to enhance the significant learning

experience, the purpose of the first year experience and orientation programs has been explored

to portray the understanding how this particular course is more than just an introductory class

with rudimentary assignments designed to get to know the institution and its mission. With

different academic pursuits, there is a need for at least one particular course that all students can

be taught the foundation of surviving and succeeding in college through writing. No matter the

level of college readiness, students still need a course where they can focus on developing and

honing writing skills or at least simply practice writing.

The composition classes, as the studies suggest, are not enough when it comes to

instilling writing self-efficacy and promoting student engagement and student-centered learning;

whereas, the orientation course is in a position to step up from simply welcoming first year

students to college to providing a thought-provoking, skill-building learning environment. The

writing assignments are to be designed for students to get past writing anxiety, develop writing

self-efficacy by perceiving writing as a means to learn, analyze, and communicate, and practice

writing college-level papers.

The orientation course, which is also first year experience, exposes students to what the

institution has to offer in providing assistance with recursive writing such as writing centers and

libraries. The ideal curriculum change for the orientation course is to have students learn about

26

Prospectus

and experience peer assessment and instructor feedback on writing. There are faculty who are

reluctant about assigning writing in their classes, regardless of what academic discipline, due to

grading load, grading subjectivity, time, decreased content-based lecture, and questionable

qualification to provide writing instruction. These concerns are addressed with reasons to

incorporate writing in classrooms such as improving student engagement, advocating student-

centered learning, developing critical thinking skills, and improving composition skills in

specific disciplines.

Overall, this literature review records in detail the areas that serve to support my thesis of

empowering orientation students to perceive writing pedagogy as significant learning experience

to gain potentially successful educational endeavors. Following, Fink’s (2013) taxonomy on

significant learning will be explained as the theoretical framework to explore first year students’

perceptions on writing pedagogy providing significant learning experience.

Fink’s Taxonomy on Significant Learning as Theoretical Framework

College students frequently report that learning about themselves and about others is among the most significant experiences they have during college.

–Fink (2013)

After these multiple angles of discussing the phenomenon of the writing pedagogy

serving as significant learning experience and exploring student perceptions, I will be using a

theoretical lens to narrow down to seeking how toencourage students in my orientation class to

perceive the feasibility of the writing pedagogy that can and will provide significant learning

experience. After browsing through literature for that “just right” theoretical framework to

pragmatically connect the theory to the practice of writing, I was advised at first to look into

student engagement. After rejecting theory after theory based on student engagement, I was not

satisfied. From what I had unearthed so far did not fit what I had in mind in exploring student

27

Prospectus

perceptions on writing pedagogy. I wanted to see how first year students perceive writing as

beneficial to further their education, to embrace life, and also to prepare for the workplace. After

another meeting with my dissertation chair to recant the idea of student engagement and focus on

something else, I did bring up Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning. Dr. Major reminded me

that I had to change the research topic, and I realized then it was about learning experience with

which I wanted to connect the writing pedagogy.

By having chosen the theoretical framework based on the six-component taxonomy

constructed by Dee Fink, who had extracted from the earlier taxonomy of Benjamin Bloom’s

(1956) to delve deeper by including more cognition and also metacognition, I can then develop

learning goals for my students while exploring their perceptions at the same time. The definition

for taxonomy is “a language and set of concepts” (Fink, 2013, p. 67). By creating a particular

language with its own concepts to provide structure, Fink has built his taxonomy upon the

foundation of Bloom’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy that had sorely lacked the humanness part of

learning. Having determined from his own research the “descriptions of quality teaching and

learning,” Fink also constructed the taxonomy to be applicable to higher education (p. 34).

Specifically, Fink’s taxonomy focuses on significant learning through foundational knowledge,

application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. When all six

components of Fink’s taxonomy are used, students will experience significant learning.

Learning goals

I understand that students need to know how to use new knowledge they learn in

Orientation 101 such as using the Blackboard and career exploration and preparation. Rather

than just learning new information, they need to understand how to apply this foundational

knowledge with “triarchic thinking of critical, creative, and practical thinking skills” (Sternberg,

28

Prospectus

1989). Not only do the students need to learn how to apply the foundational knowledge, they also

need to know how to integrate the knowledge, to be able to connect the knowledge to other

classes, to the workplace, and also life in general. By learning the interconnectedness of what

they are learning, students will then realize their own self and also others, which helps alleviate

the sense of isolation that Kuh (2007), Tinto (1993), and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) advise

against in terms of student retention and engagement.

Figure 1: An illustration of Fink’s Taxonomy on Significant Learning

www.vaniercollege.qc.ca

With the students learning about themselves and relating to others, they will then care

more about what they are learning. While I can define learning goals from each type of the

significant learning from Fink’s taxonomy, I must also create a learning experience for students;

in doing so would be called an integrated course design where I determine how learning goals

will be implemented into action, along with educative assessment and feedback (Fink, 2013).

Therefore, my advocating the pedagogical method of writing as tangible means for significant

learning is my way of creating a learning experience for students. I will also need to involve

29

Prospectus

students in their own learning process, to help them see how writing actually benefits them.

Writing is a significant learning tool that students can keep using long after finishing my

Orientation class; I want my students to see how writing helps them handle the ever-growing

knowledge out there to learn. Phil Candy (1991) perfectly captures what I am trying to say at this

point with this word: autodidaxy, which he defined as “knowing how to learn what needs to be

learned in life” (cited in Fink, 2013, p. 60).

Other theoretical influences

Marginality vs. mattering. While Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning centralizes

my exploring first year students’ perceptions on writing pedagogy, there are other theoretical

influences that shape my research philosophy. Referring to the caring component of Fink’s

taxonomy, I will bring in Schlossberg’s (1989) theory of marginality vs. mattering. Students

need to feel they matter, and writing pedagogy should serve to fill that need because I will read

what they write and provide feedback. That I do read what they write proves the theory of

marginality vs. mattering. If I do not reach out to my students, it will be because I do not adopt

the use of writing pedagogy. Writing pedagogy is my main method, the heart of my teaching

philosophy, of reaching out to the students.

Banking concept of education vs. problem-posing education. Paulo Freire (1993) has

written books including Pedagogy of the Oppressed to advocate getting rid of the banking

concept of education due to its fruitless, static teacher-lecture based method of the instructor

depositing information into students’ memory banks. Students then do not exactly process the

information because they are not taught to apply and integrate the information. Therefore, they

do not retain the deposited information. Freire, on the other hand, advocates problem-posing

education by teaching learners in concepts they can learn and actually apply in their own

30

Prospectus

realities. According to Freire, problem-posing education paves the way for students to think for

themselves and be responsive that I want to see in my own classroom. For instance, I try to

create writing exercises to prompt students into learning how to develop critical, creative, and

practical thinking skills (Sternberg, 1989) that can be transferable to subsequent classes, in the

workplace, and as productive citizens of the community (Fink, 2013). Another Freirean approach

is that I help students see, comprehend, and apply with real-life examples through writing.

Addressivity. Referring to Mikhail Bakhtin, how I use the writing exercises and

assignments to encourage students to be free in their expressive writing allows for dialogue to

take place, not actually verbally but written. Throughout teaching the short ten-week Orientation

class, I would share my own personal anecdotes with students to spark some interest. This is

addressivity that I use with the students to show how much I value their learning experience to

be productive (Clark & Holquist, 1984; Dimitriadis & Kamberlis, 2006; Shields, 2007). When it

comes to completing the writing assignments, I instruct students to be expressive and not worry

about grammar, punctuation, and other rigid rules of writing imposed upon us. I look for

students’ addressivity to change once they realize they no longer need to be formal in their

writing.

Interconnectedness of writing. Appealing to the application and integration components

of Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning, I would like to touch on this theorist, Lev

Semenovich Vygotsky, for the interconnectedness of life and learning (Dimitriadis & Kamberlis,

2006). Through the writing exercises I create, I want students to learn how to apply and integrate

what they are learning through their writing to other classes, in the workplace, and in life. I hope

that the students will see the purpose of the writing assignments as being trained to experience,

31

Prospectus

learn, understand, and apply into words about life around them, which will deepen their

awareness, to improve their perception about how writing helps them think and learn better.

Expectations for writing pedagogy as significant learning experience. Having taught

Orientation 101 since 2008, I have been developing this tendency of not believing in my own

first impressions of students when they first walked into my classroom, when they first wrote in

such a manner that revealed their dislike for writing. Because my first impressions sometimes

turned out different. Therefore, Jacques Lacan having this theory of how one individual has

expectations for another by judging that other person’s potential and achievement based on

character and ability (Dimitriadis & Kamberlis, 2006). Also I need to be sure to provide frequent,

timely feedback in order to help students learn and also feel good about their writing activity.

On a side note, I do not know about other Orientation instructors at the same institution

where I teach, but I quickly change the first year students’ minds about the Orientation class, my

own Orientation class, not being an easy A largely due to the writing exercises in class.

Therefore, I push my students to work for that A.

32

Prospectus

CHAPTER III:

METHODOLOGY

Why Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research differs from quantitative research in terms of characteristics.

Quantitative research uses instruments to objectively calculate the data, for instance. Whereas the

characteristics that make up qualitative research include the following: natural setting, key

instrument being the researcher with his or her own background and reflections, use of variable

complex methods, inductive and perhaps deductive reasonings emerging from the research

process, and holistic account. (Creswell, 2013)

Natural setting consists of a place that is already set such as a classroom, lab, or

workplace. There are at least few or no adjustments when conducting the study in the natural

setting, which serves as part of the research process to gather data. The researcher as the key

instrument is part of the qualitative research; the researcher’s intent for the research conducted

provides the background, why, and how the data is being collected. In addition, the researcher’s

positioning him/herself in the research process enhances the purpose of study. Not only does the

researcher uses the natural setting, but also uses variable other methods including interviews,

observations, recordkeeping, and journals. The researcher interacts with the persons either

witnessing or actively involved in the situation being studied. In order to validate the purpose of

the qualitative research, the researcher needs to be flexible during the research process; because

due to after the use of different methods and interacting with different individuals, the researcher

will discover affirmative, new, or even contrary ideas and developing theories. By embracing the

emergent design of the research process, the researcher will easily welcome diverse perceptions

and still look for thematic connections that tie together to support the purpose of the research and

provide theorized answers to questions. (Creswell, 2013)

33

Prospectus

Therefore, I find qualitative research more attractive after I have briefly interpreted using

Creswell’s (2013) worded explanations these characteristics of qualitative research. The methods

used for qualitative research appeals greatly to me due to my own professional passion for

writing to be executed well as a communicative means, for students under my instruction to

understand the importance and power of writing as significant learning experience. The methods

I intend to apply are observation (which I watch students write without stopping to allow their

thoughts flow un-obstructively onto paper), their handwritten and also typed writings, and the

final career exploration essay—all which will take place in the natural setting of a computer lab-

style classroom.

My research focus is more than just a backyard research within my own classroom. There

is the potential, thanks to the encouragement of having emergent design as part of the qualitative

research, for any new cropping up of ways of getting more than the limited data in my own

classroom. Depending on my relationships with other Orientation 101 instructors, instructors in

other academic fields, and students, I can expand on validating the data I have collected.

Whatever methods I actually do capitalize, I am more focused on ensuring how students’

responsive writing helps support Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning of being beneficial for

instilling stronger critical thinking skills and better writing dynamics.

The point of any Orientation 101 class is to help first year students get adjusted in a

collegiate environment in areas of time management, study skills, academic work, independent

living, campus life, and career exploration and preparation (Orientation Workbook, 2014).

Writing, in my own reflection, is an essential all-encompassing tool that brings all areas together

onto paper, to help the first year student see in his own words how he is experiencing the

collegiate environment and also how he is practicing to be a better student. Writing is also a

34

Prospectus

communicative means to do well in any type of workplace and/or profession from a mechanic

and cosmetologist to a doctor and lawyer. In a Bakhtinian way, reading distinctive voices

through written/typed words provides the holistic account for my pragmatic qualitative research

study (Clark & Holquist, 1984; Dimitriadis & Kamberlis, 2006; Shields, 2007). The more

diverse students take on the writing exercises, the more validity for the writing pedagogy as

significant learning experience will be through such diverse perceptions. Communication needs

to be clear and understood by different publics; and writing, although done in many formats and

perspectives, need to be able to get the message across to any reader.

Having discussed how the characteristics of qualitative research correspond with my own

research goals, I am expounding on how attractive the qualitative research due to its tangibility. I

can actually have in my hands the physical evidence for the research (the students’ writing both

on paper and on screen, along with my own observation reflections), to read for information and

determine how the information serves to support the purpose of research. I enjoy the diligence it

will take to conduct a qualitative research, the heavy time commitment to gather data which will

definitely embrace the emergent design, changing the tentative structure I had originally planned.

Glesne (2011) says it best:

Learning to do qualitative research is like learning to paint. Study the masters, learn

techniques and methods, practice them faithfully, and then revise and adapt them to your

own persuasions when you know enough to describe the work of those who have

influenced you and the ways in which your modifications create new possibilities. (p. 3)

The way Glesne portrays qualitative research helps me see my own capability of conducting an

extensive research project. Specifically, it is the emergent design is what calms my fears about

35

Prospectus

research, that there is no static and definite conclusion. The qualitative research in my own

viewpoint is a philosophical way of determining the why such situation is happening.

Best of all how attractive qualitative research is to me is the reciprocity, as Creswell

(2013) aptly puts it. The main reason I have decided to continue my doctoral studies is not for

career purposes, but rather for reciprocity. I will keep teaching at Gadsden State Community

College, and I desire to see students benefit from practice writing. To reiterate, writing helps

students be better students and better potential employees and citizens of the community.

Therefore, my deciding to continue my studies and to do the dissertation on the topic of

exploring first year students’ perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant learning experience

is my way of giving back to the community, back to Gadsden State Community College and

colleagues, back to the workforce and professions, and last but not the least, the students. I want

each and every student under my instruction to learn what I have learned from writing.

Introducing pragmatism

Stemming from the “European metaphysical tradition and established in early 1800s,” the

Americanized version of pragmatism “focused on the subjective experience of the social world”

(Savin-Baden & Major, 2013, p. 24). Well understood for its “flexible” approach to qualitative

research in terms of choosing “eclectic and circumstantial” methods, the main objective of

pragmatism is to connect theory and practice within a natural setting (Creswell, 2013; Savin-

Baden & Major). A pragmatist focuses on what does work, which is the truth, the reality, by

showing the interactivity between the theory and practice.

Interactionism and the Chicago School are a specific type of the pragmatic approach I

seek in my study that “emphasizes the social and interactional nature of reality” (Savin-Baden &

Major, p. 25). Seeing how Thomas and Znaniecki (1919) conducted their pragmatic study

36

Prospectus

analyzing perspectives of those “living the immigrant life in the ghettos of Chicago” cemented

my decision to adopt the pragmatic approach to my own study—because their methods including

reading letters are similar to what I intend to do, using my students’ writing to explore their

perspectives on writing pedagogy as significant learning experience.

As a pragmatist, I intend to show that writing pedagogy does work; and my chosen

theoretical framework of Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning serves to prove my truth, my

reality—the writing pedagogy. The intended circumstances focus on exploring whether or not

my students’ perceptions reflect my axiological belief about writing pedagogy as significant

learning experience (Creswell, 2013).

Pragmatism as interpretive framework

In determining on which interpretive framework to base my impending qualitative

research, I am learning how pragmatism fits what I have in mind. Pragmatism focuses on what

works (Creswell, 2013; Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). By being actively involved in whatever

problematic situation, the perceptions of these persons reveal individualistic opinions;

furthermore, these opinions will help substantiate an evaluative need for a study, a research, to

determine the pragmatism of the situation. With many different persons’ individualistic

perspectives solidifying the need to seek answers to the purpose and/or problem of the study, the

chosen interpretive framework of pragmatism provides the fitting structure for organizing and

inductively theorizing the information gleaned from different perspectives. However different

the individualistic perspectives may be, pragmatism pulls from the data of documents,

interviews, and other items to determine the effectiveness of theory being put into practice based

on the phenomenon.

37

Prospectus

The ontological beliefs, adhering to pragmatism, discern variable perspectives of persons

who all are experiencing or have experienced this particular situation. The situation is what it is,

a reality experienced by many different persons. Since many persons experiencing the same

situation are studied for their own grasp of things, their interactions with each other will be noted

during the process of study. Moving forward, the epistemological beliefs sharpen the focus on

how I will conduct the study, with the assistance of the persons experiencing the situation. I

determine how each and every person’s perspective is constructed by the communal experience

(that is, writing pedagogy for significant learning), which may be or may not be replicated for

research purposes. I have the ethical responsibility based on axiological beliefs to ensure that

each person’s perspective and also own character are respectfully represented, which in turn will

validate the research overall.

After having established the individualistic perspectives and values, I being the

pragmatist heed the methodological beliefs by allowing any potential changes when seeking

conclusive theories to address the situation. While it is imperative to stick to the problem and

also the purpose of the study, I need to acknowledge the twists and turns after interviews, written

responses, observations, and any other phenomena of the situation have taken place in order to

have a flexible approach to inquiry. By being flexible in seeking conclusive theories, I will learn

and benefit from emergent ideas that may enhance the purpose of study. (Creswell, 2013)

Pragmatism, with its philosophical assumptions, is the best foundation for my seeking my

own conclusive, inductive theories to explore first year students’ perceptions on writing

pedagogy as significant learning experience. Ever since Fall 2008 when I started teaching

Orientation 101 at Gadsden State Community College as an adjunct instructor, I implemented

(and still implement) writing exercises as part of my pedagogical method to reach out to

38

Prospectus

students. These writing exercises serve to help both the students and me, mostly because of my

hearing impairment. When they write, they are helping me to help them prepare for rest of their

college experience. Over time, the writing exercises disclose the need for first year students to

have more writing practice in order to do well (or simply survive) in other classes, especially

English. The only writing assignment that Orientation 101 curriculum requires is a one- or two-

page career exploration essay, which serves as a final for the course. I, however, assign my

students to write at minimum three pages for the career exploration essay final, encouraging

them to write more than three pages for their own learning experience.

The majority of students under my tutelage at first were apprehensive about writing; then

close to the end of each course, many students wrote or typed in a discussion posting on

Blackboard their appreciation for the writing exercises. Few of the most common end-of-class

responses have included how writing in my class helped them get over their fear of writing,

increased their thinking skills, and prepared them for other classes where writing is more

extensive.

To tie in the interpretive framework of pragmatism, I will share how I position myself in

the research as the Orientation instructor assigning approximately twenty students per class to

write responsively to prompts displayed on the PowerPoint or given verbally. Depending on how

I do an official pilot study, albeit I have been unofficially conducting a pilot study with each

class I have ever taught in the past, I will draw necessary data from observation when I walk

around the computer lab classroom to make sure each student keeps writing. The other methods

will certainly include their handwritten responses, typed responses from Blackboard discussion

postings, and the final—which is the career exploration essay, that I assign to be typed up at

minimum of three pages rather than the Orientation 101 program’s standard requirement of one

39

Prospectus

to two pages. The ontological belief is how these students perceive writing, which I explain that

they are to practice writing to communicate in order to be better prepared for other classes and

for the workplace.

With the average number of twenty students in each Orientation class I teach, there are

multiple handwritten (and also typed) viewpoints that will help emphasize the effectiveness of

writing pedagogy as significant learning experience. Their handwritten and typed responses will

serve as “interactions with others,” when it comes to discerning the ontological outlook of this

study. As for epistemological beliefs, I construct the research in form of having students being

the research participants. With their participation, they do responsive, stream-of-conscious

writing. The ten-week Orientation course is the restricted time period for the study, and yet the

majority of students from previous Orientation classes have shared in their responses how they

have improved in their writing dynamics in ten short weeks, with only one course hour each

week. Yet, to conduct this study I am compiling all data from all Orientation classes that I teach,

since it is a repeated experience with different students.

The axiological beliefs, which center on values, are when I honor my students’

handwritten and typed responses as their individual beliefs. My own values permeate the purpose

of this study; but they do add to the need of conducting this study to inquire why some, if not all,

first year students in a community college setting are not on college level when it comes to

writing. By applying methodological beliefs in forms of observation, handwritten and typed

responses, career exploration essay final, and any other relevant phenomena, I will be alert for

any emergent interpretations throughout the course of this study. I understand after having had

previous students write, that there will be some unexpected results. Writing may be influenced

40

Prospectus

not mostly from educational means, but from other external means such as technology and

culture.

To assume such beliefs, I would like to conclude my research by relating how writing

pedagogy serves to provide significant learning experience and also how I am able to explore my

students’ perceptions on this phenomenon. Additionally, I am looking to see how the research

process will help me inductively theorize why the college readiness of first year students do not

at first care for writing and then later embrace writing as means to continue their learning. Will

the research divulge reasons technologically, historically, culturally, socioeconomically, or any

other phenomenally way regarding first year students’ perceptions on writing pedagogy as

significant learning experience? I do not know yet, but I am interested to find out.

Pragmatic Qualitative Research Approach

The pragmatic qualitative research approach helps the purpose and organization of data

collection and analysis, explaining in detail the research methods designed to explore and

understand first year students’ perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant learning

experience. By connecting theory to practice, Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning serves as

the theoretical framework to help prepare first year students for rest of their collegiate experience

through writing pedagogy. Similar to how O’Connell and Dyment (2006) have conducted their

study, my pragmatic qualitative research study will be a naturalistic approach in fostering the

significant learning experience assimilating writing-intensive assignments—to study student

perceptions of how these writing-intensive assignments help or not help improve their learning.

Thus, the naturalistic approach is to conduct the study in a natural setting, where I teach

the orientation class in a most typical manner and not adjust anything to collect the anticipated

data. Students need to perceive writing more than just a means of communication, that writing is

41

Prospectus

also a “process and product of critical thought” (Bean, 2011, p. 2). Thus when not informed the

purpose for each of and/or all the writing assignments, students may not be motivated to view

writing as a way to enhance their learning and also to help their writing skills.

Therefore, the purpose of each writing assignment or exercise to nurture learning will be

thoroughly considered. And with each assignment, its purpose will be communicated to

orientation students with the assumption that they, in turn, will register that the writing

assignment is not “busy work,” but actually a learning task.

Figure 2: Unique research lenses with guidance from Savin-Baden & Major (2013)

42

Prospectus

The research lenses

I chose pragmatism for its flexibility in approaching research inquiry, meaning that I can

choose any combination of methods whether they are eclectic or not. Pragmatism fits my

intentions for the research including declaring how writing pedagogy should be viewed as

significant learning experience. I would like to conduct the data analysis in a phenomenological

approach in order to present my autobiographic interpretations of purposeful sampling of

students’ writing to determine the connection between writing pedagogy and the theoretical

framework of Fink’s taxonomy on significant learning. By explicitly constructing the prompts,

weekly reflection postings, and the career exploration essay to fit the learning goals as structured

by Fink’s taxonomy, the participating first year students’ perceptions may acknowledge and

embrace the effectiveness of writing pedagogy as significant learning experience.

Autoethnography

Glesne (2011) explains that autoethnography “begins with the self, the personal

biography” (p. 247). In this genre of autoethnographical writing, there are variable ways to

autobiographically write about directly experiencing the phenomenon. Obviously, I find the

alternative method of autoethnography appealing due to my tendency to write oh so personally. I

already wrote plenty in previous papers my personal and professional background of being an

Orientation 101 instructor, along with my role as the researcher. Yet I will view this method as a

challenge where I am to portray the setting and environment from my own perspective in

somewhat an objective way, to allow the reader to develop own thought, opinion, and/or feeling

rather than my telling them what to think and/or feel. Similar to leading questions during an

interview process, I do not want to tell, to lead, the reader to think and feel in a certain way. To

43

Prospectus

autoethnographically write is to provide the reader a more developed viewpoint of the

researcher’s position within the environment being studied.

Main Research Question and Sub-questions

To create a question that centers the entire research study is difficult to think on the spot

without having some expectations or even some previous knowledge. Thankfully after several

years of teaching Orientation 101 already, I am interested to know what students are really

thinking when it comes to my using writing pedagogy to create a significant learning experience

for them in a class that has the presupposed reputation of being an “easy A” course. The

overarching question for this study is: how do students taking Orientation 101 perceive writing

pedagogy as significant learning experience? The following five supporting questions serve to

explore the overarching question that any first year student may ask:

1) What perceptions will first year students initially share about writing pedagogy

serving as significant learning experience in Orientation 101?

2) How will the writing help first year students with the foundational knowledge not

just in Orientation 101 but also in any other class?

3) In what ways will the writing help intrinsically and extrinsically motivate first

year students to learn how to learn?

4) In what ways will the students perceive writing as a useful learning technique to

apply and integrate in other classes, in the workplace, and in life?

5) What perceptions will first year students share about writing pedagogy serving as

significant learning experience before finishing Orientation 101?

44

Prospectus

Site selection and rationale

The rationale to select as the site for my study a northeastern Alabama rural two-year

public community college bases on its strong student-centered culture. The mission of a

community college, being a bureaucratic institution as defined by Birnbaum (1988) and Carnegie

Classification of Higher Education Institutions, focuses on workforce development, career

preparation, access, low-cost, and community service—open to all individuals with different

backgrounds in race, gender, beliefs, values, education, and knowledge. Conducting a study

within a two-year college fits with reaching out to students who are welcome by open-enrollment

invitation, because of their needs and perceptions shaped by diverse backgrounds.

The rationale for choosing this particular institution, emphasized by the open-enrollment

invitation, provides a more diverse student participation for the research, gaining more diverse

perceptions on writing pedagogy as significant learning experience.

Subject selection and rationale

The rationale to select the students enrolled in my orientation courses bases on the

potentially wide variety of student demographics ranging from traditionally-aged college

students to international and returning adult students. While the demographics of the student

body at a two-year public community college are diverse, I am centering the study on student

perceptions regardless of their backgrounds. With student perceptions on writing pedagogy as a

student engagement tool being diverse may or may not help support the study.

Each orientation class taught at Gadsden State Community College averages twenty first

year students. The demographics of these subjects make up of: traditional college students

(recently graduated from high school and under the age of 25), returning adult students (either

45

Prospectus

not attending college soon after high school graduation or returning to complete college degree/

program after a period of absence from college studies), and international students.

The other participants of this study will be three to six (maybe more if possible) faculty

members that compose a focus group to read and analyze the data that will be collected from the

writing assignments (Fishman & Reiff, 2011; Gambell, 1987; Levine, Fallahi, Nicoll-Senft,

Tessier, Watson, & Wood, 2008; O’Connell & Dyment, 2006; Todd & Hudson, 2008). This

focus group will represent the longitudinal part of the study, since they will read from both terms

of Spring and Fall 2015.

Data Collection Procedures and Rationale

The pragmatic qualitative research framework, along with Fink’s taxonomy on

significant learning and also my own phenomenological observations, will be implemented to

observe the phenomenon of first year students’ writing in my orientation classes. A computer lab

is the classroom setting for the orientation classes being observed for this study, where students

experience writing both with a pen and paper and also on the keyboard. The blackboard virtually

provides students another way of practicing their writing. The students’ writing exercises,

writing assignments, discussion postings, and career exploration essays will be collected and

organized for a focus group of participating faculty to read and analyze.

The focus group of three to six faculty members may be cogent to determining how

functional the pedagogical methods of writing are in helping first year students to become better

college writers (Collier & Morgan, 2007; Gambell, 1987; Levine, Fallahi, Nicoll-Senft, Tessier,

Watson, & Wood, 2008; O’Connell & Dyment, 2006; Todd & Hudson 2008); their consultative

responses will be analyzed to consider assimilating writing-intensive exercises to better prepare

students in seeing the interconnectedness of their learning in other classes and the rest of their

46

Prospectus

college experience (Fishman & Reiff, 2011; Hudd, Smart, & Delohery, 2011; Jones, 2008; Kuh,

2008; Levine, et al., 2008; Martinez, Kock, & Cass, 2011; Pausch, 2008; Reither, 1985; Saavedra

& Saavedra, 2011; Schwartz, Chase, & Bransford, 2012; Sommers & Saltz, 2004; Sullivan,

2012; Todd & Hudson, 2008; Wang, 2012; Williams & Takaku, 2011). Rather than using all the

writing from twenty students per class, an appropriate number of different handwritten writing

samples will be randomly selected for the focus group to read and analyze within one meeting or

even two meetings if necessary. And also another set of randomly selected typed writing samples

will be sent electronically to each participating faculty member to read within a time frame for

more thorough reading and analysis. The two different analyses from each participating faculty

member will focus on the following areas: student perceptions, student engagement, student-

centered learning, overall college readiness for writing college-level papers, writing pedagogy

effectiveness, and the meeting of learning goals fostered by use of Fink’s taxonomy on

significant learning.

Variable ways of collecting data

Variable ways of collecting data is the norm for qualitative research. Observations,

interviews, documents, and audiovisual materials are the types of data collection as noted by

Creswell (2013), Glesne (2011), and Kvale and Brinkman (2009). Observations, in short, range

from full participation and participant as observer to full observation; whereas, interviews in any

form and/or number are conducted structured, semi-structured, or unstructured/conversational.

Documents and audiovisual materials are more tangible, with documents consisting of

paperwork either private or public and audiovisual materials including videotapes/films, emails,

journals, and digital storage such as compact discs (CDs) and flashdrives.

47

Prospectus

To really get down to the detailed account of collecting data, I must consider the location

of gathering relevant information—which is my computer lab of a classroom. Since I require my

students in Orientation 101 to write both on paper and (type) on keyboard, the data consisting of

my subjects’ participation in my study is self-transcribed. In order for me to have access to

morally and ethically use my students’ writing exercises for my research, I must go through the

channels of submitting the IRB (institutional review board) approval form. Additionally, I would

also need to get the homogenous group of subjects, which are students enrolled in my

Orientation 101 course, to individually sign a consent form before participating in the research.

Ethical considerations

I am to make assurance that there will be no intention on my part to do any harm,

ridicule, exploit, or impose upon these student-research participants and the rest of those who

may be affected by the findings of the research. I will state that names, demographics,

background information, and any other discriminating identifying information will not be shared

or included in my study, even though students’ names are on the writing pieces. The purpose of

this pragmatic qualitative research study is to seek understanding about first year students’

perceptions on writing pedagogy as a student engagement tool, which may or may not help

determine their writing skills not being college ready.

Regarding my study on first year students’ writing skills not being on par as college

ready, there may be several ethical issues, which will be further discussed in a summarily way. It

is one thing to collect and keep the data, which are students’ writing exercises. I have never

returned the handwritten prompt responses, not even to provide feedback for them. And it is

another thing to expose some of these writing exercises in a published manuscript. Nevertheless,

it will be different once I receive the IRB approval, where I will have to begin formal

48

Prospectus

proceedings in collecting the data. For instance, I will draft up an informed consent form to give

out to my students and probably the director of Orientation 101 program before I can formally

collect data, which are the handwritten responses to the prompts displayed on the PowerPoint,

typed Blackboard discussion postings, and career exploration essay drafts.

Submitting the IRB Approval Request. When I submit the IRB request to begin my

formal data collection, I must consider how collecting such data will affect the student, the

Orientation 101 curriculum, and Gadsden State Community College as whole, not to mention

Alabama College System and K-12 school systems from where these students, who are research

participants for my study, have graduated. Hence, I am to make assurance that there will be no

intention on my part to do any harm, ridicule, exploit, or impose upon these student-research

participants and the rest of those who may be affected by the findings of the research. I will state

that names, demographics, background information, and any other discriminating identifying

information will not be shared or included in my research report, even though students’ names

are on the writing pieces. The purpose of this pragmatic qualitative research study is to seek

understanding about first year students’ writing skills not being college ready and also explore

their perceptions on the effectiveness of writing pedagogy as significant learning experience as

defined by Fink’s taxonomy.

Explaining Ethics. Ethics in any qualitative study requires careful attention to detail

from asking and receiving approval from the institutional review board (IRB) and recruiting

assistance from gatekeepers to defending the research by determining the validation criteria set

forth for the specific interpretive qualitative framework. The role of researcher will be critically

looked at closely since the researcher is the main instrument of the research. And, there are

informed consent, confidentiality, safety, well-being, dignity, and comfort for the research

49

Prospectus

participants to be considered. The researcher must contemplate any possible consequences of

taking each step of the research process. Ethics does not stop with receiving the approval from

IRB to conduct the study; ethics is an ongoing process throughout the research. (Creswell, 2013;

Glesne, 2011; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009)

Ethics protect both the researcher and the researched. The researcher cannot impose or

force upon the researched with beliefs or demand participation for the study. Instead, the

researcher is to observe and respect the differences of the researched, such as culture, language,

beliefs, and traditions. In turn, the researched must respect the researcher’s attempts to

understand the phenomenon by asking questions, getting involved, or any other way in collecting

data for the study. Both the researcher and the researched need to acknowledge that the inquiry

process is “dynamic” as noted by Glesne (2011), where any step of the inquiry process may

change as events and/or time turn.

Quality Assurance

The validity, trustworthiness, and reliability of this case study will be checked by several

qualitative techniques including member checking, triangulation of data, rich description, peer

debriefing, and prolonged time in conducting the study. To prolong this pragmatic qualitative

research study, a focus group will be conducted. The results in the next chapter will provide a

lengthy rich description on how this pragmatic qualitative research study has been conducted,

along with one or two colleagues perusing through the progress of the data collection and

analysis for peer debriefing.

Validity

Validity can be perceived differently among qualitative researchers, according to

Creswell (2013), in terms of definition and application. Words including trustworthiness,

50

Prospectus

credibility, dependability, reliability, verification, soundness, legitimacy, efficacy, authenticity,

and transferability have been utilized, whereas Creswell states how he sees validity as

“emphasizing the process” (p. 250). This author, therefore, explains how the research process has

been strengthened by the lengthy commitment working and studying in the field, being deeply

involved with the subjects for construction of knowledge, along with profusely articulated

depictions illustrating the environment in where the study is being conducted. Having such

details in the study alone validate the inquiry process.

Communicative and pragmatic validity. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), on the other

hand, view validity in the same light as trustworthiness and transferability, along with Creswell’s

(2009) strength. While sharing how to validate the constructed knowledge from interviewing,

Kvale and Brinkmann imperatively indicate how validation is not a one-time step during the

research process; “verification is built into the entire research process with continual checks on

the credibility, plausibility, and trustworthiness of the findings” (p. 250). Rather than saving all

the validity for the concluding section or even confining to any one section of the study,

conducting validation techniques each and every step of the research process enhances the

soundness and appeal of the study. Two types of validity mentioned in Kvale and Brinkmann’s

text, which are communicative and pragmatic, determine the constructed knowledge gleaned

from conversations and observations respectively. Communicative validity employs the

researcher and subjects in discourse about issues relating to the research, with the subjects’

responses confirming the purpose of research. Pragmatic validity focuses more on action rather

than talk, conferring with Kvale and Brinkmann’s having brought up the proverbial saying:

“Actions speak louder than words.” The researcher, during the discourse, notes the respondent’s

reaction and body language; thus, the researcher uses this observation to interpret what the

51

Prospectus

respondent means beyond verbalizing words. For instance, the respondent scratches her nose

when answering a question—is she lying or embarrassed?

For my study, I will probably lean more on pragmatic validity due to heavy focus on

students writing in my computer lab of a classroom. During these writing exercises, including

responding to prompts in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, typing up discussion postings on

Blackboard, and progressive recursive work on writing and typing career exploration essays, I

will observe their body language and also their writing style and habits. I can form

interpretations from these observations. The interviews I conduct with colleagues who will have

read selected writing samples will substantiate the need for communicative validity. If I do

decide to select few certain students to interview, I will use both communicative and pragmatic

validity—after all, discussing one’s writing skills may be a sensitive topic.

Other validity techniques. Other than communicative and pragmatic validity, there are

more types of validation such as Lather’s (1991) “triangulation, construct, face, and catalytic” (as

cited in Creswell, 2013). Triangulation comprises of multiple resources, theories, and techniques;

construct validation recognizes the existing theories rather than developing new ones; face

validation reminds the reader, individual, and/or research participant what they already know;

and, catalytic validation empowers/stimulates research participants in making changes to

embrace the theoretical proposition. Both triangulation and catalytic validation both serve the

purpose of my study well, exploring first year students’ perceptions on writing pedagogy as

significant learning experience.

Why bother validating the research? There are indeed authors such as Wolcott

(1990a), according to Creswell (2013), who question the need to validate. Why bother validating

the research? The main reason being is that Wolcott and other qualitative researchers prefer to

52

Prospectus

concentrate on understanding the phenomena in their respective studies, to spend quality time

studying, collecting and analyzing data, interpreting, formulating theories rather than spend time

worrying over how to validate each research technique and also how to persuade any reader to

see and perhaps acknowledge the purpose of the study. Referring to Kvale and Brinkmann’s

(2009) words “the more one validates, the greater the need for further validation,” it makes sense

why any qualitative researcher, including myself, needs to be cautious and not over-validate.

Less is more. Still, the research needs to be trustworthy. As a qualitative researcher, I am to

balance out the validation measures to increase the soundness of my study, the research process.

How I will validate. The validation measures I will use or may contemplate using to

enhance validity in my study are triangulation, peer review with a bit of member checking, rich,

thick description for transferability, and clarifying bias of my position as the researcher. The

multiple data sources for triangulation consist of writing both on paper and on computer: 1)

stream-of-consciousness handwritten responses to prompts given on PowerPoints; 2) typed

weekly reflection discussion postings on Blackboard; 3) career exploration essays in first and

subsequent second and third/final drafts; 4) email correspondence as form of interview process

with several colleagues, few of which are teaching Orientation 101 also, regarding samples of

my students’ writing for peer review; 5) one cohesive analysis of all contributed feedback on

writing samples to be checked and approved by the same colleagues; 6) evaluation from

discussion postings and follow-up e-interviews (or even in-person interviews) with my students

who do respond to the “bonus” discussion postings; and 7) my own observations.

Conclusion

This chapter encompasses how an orientation class can be more than a collegiate

introductory course by being constructed as a productive learning environment in which first

53

Prospectus

year students are “intrinsically motivated” to write to learn (Sullivan, 2012). The validity,

trustworthiness, and reliability of this case study will be checked by several qualitative

techniques including member checking, triangulation of data, rich description, peer debriefing,

and prolonged time in conducting the study. To prolong this pragmatic qualitative research

study, a focus group of three to six colleagues (other Orientation instructors or other faculty) will

be conducted for each term of Spring and Fall 2015.

54

Prospectus

REFERENCES

Agius, N. M., & Wilkinson, A. (2014). Students’ and teachers’ views of written feedback at

undergraduate level: A literature review. Nurse Education Today, 34, 552-559.

AlKandari, N. (2011). Students’ communication and positive outcomes in college classrooms.

Education, 133(1), 19-30.

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for

College Teachers, (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-13.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate

education. Change, 27(6), 12-25.

Bartlett, T. (2003). Why Johnny can’t write, even though he went to Princeton: Many top

colleges fear that their students lack basic composition skills. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, 49, A39.

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical

Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Birmingham, E., Chinwongs, L., Flaspohler, M. R., Hearn, C., Kvanvig, D., & Portmann, R.

(2008). First-year writing teachers, perceptions of students’ information literacy

competencies, and a call for a collaborative approach. Communications in Information

Literacy, 2(1), 6-25.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York:

McKay.

Boquet, E. (1999). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre- to post-open admissions.

College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 463-482.

55

Prospectus

Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B., & Pearce, S. (2009). The first year university

experience: Using personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching in

higher education. Higher Education, 58(5), 599-618. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9212-2

Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A

motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 406-424.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory

and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Charlton, C. (2011). The complexity of simplicity: Invention potentials for writing students.

Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, 2, 102-121. San Francisco: Parlor Press.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven

principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New directions for teaching and

learning, 1999(80), 75-81.

Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2007). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-

generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations.

Springer Science+Business Media B.V, 55, 425-446. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5

Conley, D. T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 144,

33-13. doi: 10.1002/he321

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Writing strategies and ethical considerations. Research Design:

Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (pp. 73-94). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage publications.

56

Prospectus

Dimitriadis, G., & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for education (4th ed.). New York: Taylor &

Francis Group.

Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions:

(Re)envisioning “first-year composition” as “introduction to writing studies.” College

Composition and Communication, 58(4), 552-584.

Elbow, P. (1998). Writing without teachers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans, N. J. (1996). Theories of student development. In S. R. Komives, & D. B. Woodard

(Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession, (pp. 164-187). San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Fallahi, C. R., Wood, R. M., Austad, C. S., & Fallahi, H. (2006). A program for improving

undergraduate psychology students’ basic writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 33(3),

171-175.

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to

designing college courses.(Revised and updated). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fishman, J., & Reiff, M. J. (2011). Taking it on the road: Transferring knowledge about rhetoric

and writing across curricula and campuses. Composition Studies, 39(2), 121-144.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Penguin Books.

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (2000). The Paulo Freire reader. Freire, A. M., & Macedo, D. (Eds.). New York:

Continuum.

Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Cambridge,

MA: Westview Press.

Freire, P. (2013). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

57

Prospectus

Gambell, T. J. (1987). Colloquium on student writing: Education professors’ perceptions

of and attitudes toward student writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 12(4), 494-510.

Gambell, T. J. (1987). Colloquium on student writing: Education professors’ perceptions

of and attitudes toward student writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 12(4), 494-510.

Gilchrist, E. (2012). Juan of many [electronic resource] : an interpretive biography of an

English learner and his journey through literacy / by Erin Naugher Gilchrist.

[Tuscaloosa, Ala.] : [University of Alabama Libraries], 2012.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th Ed.). New York:

Pearson.

Gunersel, A. B., Simpson, N. J., Aufderheide, K. J., & Wang, L. Effectiveness of calibrated peer

review for improving writing and critical thinking skills for biology undergraduate

students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 25-37.

Harran, M. (2011). What higher education students do with teacher feedback: Feedback-practice

implications. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29(4), 419-

434.

Harrington, S., Malencyzk, R., Peckham, I., Rhodes, K., and Yancey, K. B. (2001). WPA

outcomes statement for first-year composition. College English, 63(3), 321-325.

Head, B. A., Earnshaw, L. A., Greenberg, R. B., Morehead, R. C., Pfeifer, M. P., & Shaw, M. A.

(2012). “I will never forget”: What we learned from medical student reflections on a

palliative care experience. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 15(5), 535-541. Doi:

10.1089/jpm.2011.0391

Hudd, S. S., Smart, R. A., & Delohery, A. W. (2011). “My understanding has grown, my

58

Prospectus

perspective has switched”: Linking informal writing to learning goals. Teaching

Sociology, 39(2), 179-189. doi: 10.1177/0092055X11401563

Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies

in Educational Evaluation, 39, 180-187.

Jones, E. (2008). Predicting performance in first-semester college basic writers: Revisiting the

role of self-beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 209-238.

Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for

writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406.

Kuh, G. D. (2007). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness. peerReview,

9(1), 4-8. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi07/pr-

wi07_analysis1.cfm

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,

and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from

/tt/file_convert/5a787d7f7f8b9ab8768bcc20/document.docx

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The Invisible Tapestry. Culture in American Colleges and

Universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education, Report No. 1, 1988. Association for the

Study of Higher Education, Dept. E, One Depont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC

20036-1183.

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing. (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Levine, L. E., Fallahi, C. R., Nicoll-Senft, J. M., Tessier, J. T., Watson, C. L., & Wood, R. M.

(2008). Creating significant learning experiences across disciplines. College Teaching,

56(4), 247-254.

59

Prospectus

Libarkin, J., & Ording, G. (2012). The utility of writing assignments in undergraduate

bioscience. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 39-46.

Martinez, C. T., Kock, N., & Cass, J. (2011). Pain and pleasure in short essay writing: Factors

predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 351-360. doi: 10.1598/JAAI.54.5.5

National Council of Teachers of English. (2012). Statement of principles and standards for the

postsecondary teaching of writing. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/cccc/resources/positions/postsecondarywriting

O’Connell, T., & Dyment, J. (2006). Reflections on using journals in higher education: A focus

group discussion with faculty. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 671-

691.

ORI 101 & ORT 100: Orientation to College Student Workbook (6th ed.). (2014). Gadsden, AL:

Gadsden State Community College.

Overland, W. I., & Rentz, A. L. (2004). Orientation. In F. J. D. MacKinnon & Associates (Eds.),

Rentz’s Student Affairs Practice in Higher Education, (pp. 239-267). Springfield,

IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). K. A. Feldman

(Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2007). The Conditional and Interaction Effects of

Epistemological Beliefs on the Self-Regulated Learning of College Students: Cognitive

and Behavioral Strategies. Research In Higher Education, 48(3), 353-401.

Pausch, R. (2008). The last lecture. New York: Hyperion.

Reither, J. A. (1985). Writing and knowing: Toward redefining the writing process. College

60

Prospectus

English, 47(6), 620-628.

Rothman, R. (2012). A common core of readiness. College, Careers, Citizenship, 69(7), 10-15.

Saavedra, A. R., & Saavedra, J. E. (2011). Do colleges cultivate critical thinking, problem

solving, writing and interpersonal skills? Economics of Education Review, 30(6), 1516-

1526.

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and

practice. London: Routledge.

Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New

Directions for Student Services, 48, 1-7.

Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., & Bransford, J. D. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer:

Coordinating previously successful routines with needs for new learning. Educational

Psychologist, 47(3), 204-214.

Shields, C. M. (2007). Bakhtin. New York: Peter Lang.

Simkin, M. G., Crews, J. M., & Groves, M. J. (2012). Student perceptions of their writing skills:

Myth and reality. Journal of Business and Management, 18(1), 81-95.

Sommers, N., & Saltz, L. (2004). The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year.

College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 124-149.

Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. A Report

of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf

Sternberg, R. J. (1989). The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York:

Penguin.

Sullivan, P. (2012). “A lifelong aversion to writing”: What if writing courses emphasized

61

Prospectus

motivation? Teaching English in the Two Year College, 39(2), 118-140.

Tessier, J. (2004). Using peer teaching to promote learning in biology. Journal of College

Science Teaching, 33(6), 16-19.

Tessier, J. T. (2009). Classroom debate format: Effect on student learning and revelations

about student tendencies. College Teaching, 57(3), 144-152.

Thomas, W., & Znaniecki, F. (1919). The Polish peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of

an immigrant group, (3).Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Knopf.

Tinto, V. (2005). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.

Retrieved from http://fdc.fullerton.edu/events/archives/2005/05-

01/acadforum/Taking%20Success%20Seriously.pdf

Todd, V., & Hudson, J. C. (2008). Using student opinions regarding traditional vs. writing across

curriculum teaching techniques: A qualitative pilot study. College Teaching Methods &

Styles Journal, 4(1), 19-24.

Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first-

year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The

University of Chicago Press.

Wang, A. Y. (2012). Exploring the relationship of creative thinking to reading and writing.

Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 38-47.

Williams, J. D., & Takaku, S. (2011). Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance

among college students. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 1-18.

62

Prospectus

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching.

Strengthening Student Engagement, 53(1), 17-21.

Zumeta, W., Breneman, D.W., Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (2012). Finance and policy: A

historical perspective. Financing American Higher Education in the Era of Globalization,

59-70. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

63