The Ranger Online

Guest viewpoint by Jane Focht-Hansen [Click to enlarge]

Media Credit: Anthony Ramirez English writing tutor Dennis Gray helps biology sophomore Janet Turner in Rose R. Thomas Writing Center in the Norris Technical Building of St. Philip's College. Tutors in the writing lab not only have degrees in English but in other fields such as math [Click to enlarge]

[Click to enlarge]

My thinking is all wrong! I can't continue to weep, whine, and obsess indignantly about SAC not choosing the right things for the right reasons. The only alternative must be to think my way through this differently. So here goes. First, the tease.

Obviously, my friends, I'm going to connect these dots, but I'm warning you: My goal is to transfix your interest. After that, you may discover this is possible, perhaps truly appealing.

Can you tell I'm really enthusiastic? This is so unique, I bet we haven't thought about it in terms like this before. Not only will this approach work, it will also breathe new life into us, every one of us.

Can you hear my optimism? And this refreshing idea is so global, so human, so integrated, even interdisciplinary, it's ideal!

Now, I know you're thinking, "It can't be that simple." But I say it can.

The wind now ripples through my hair, causing my white silk scarf to fly aloft in the breeze, a la the Red Baron. Folks, this isn't a stiff headwind, it's the crisp, refreshing breath of idealism: I'm so certain this idea will work, that I'm writing about this epiphany borne of frustration.

What do QEP, (Quality Enhancement Plan, a plan that was developed for reaccreditation) student engagement and student success have to do with writing?

Excellence, mastery, Socratic vision, confidence. Bear with me as I present my somewhat circuitous argument.

In our culture of evidence, I submit the writing center model as a best practices approach to improving student success and retention at this college. Why? Documented results. Internationally, 30 years of success. A model program at St. Philip's that shows students can increase their outcome by half a grade if they choose to seek writing center assistance four or more times per semester.

This is a considerable result for a modest investment - students, faculty, staff, all are affected. We get the whole tomato! How do we accomplish this?

Once we open a writing center, we can begin to transform our students, our community, ourselves. We know that mastery of written and oral communication is in great demand in the workplace, and we are uniquely qualified to prescribe the solution: first the writing center, then writing across the curriculum.

Couple this approach with an ability to work with a writing professional on a regular basis, not limited to class time or enrollment in a writing class and we have identified a eureka moment. Wow!

Now I need to cite evidence, provide substantiation and corroboration. The list of colleges and universities requiring writing across the curriculum is a veritable list of who's who among American institutions of excellence.

I'm enough of a teacher that I'd like you to look up the success rates of writing centers, too. So do it; look it up right now. Type in or click on this URL: no, don't. Better yet, read the 2001 version of the English Department writing center proposal, researched and reported by representatives of the beleaguered-by-grading English department faculty, who, in the past six weeks may have already graded 240 papers each.

The data necessary to understand the importance of a writing center on our campus is there in the report, and in the works cited and appendices.

How does this idea develop into multiple layers of achievement? As we pilot and then open our college writing center, integrating with and augmenting already in-place college and departmental student support systems, we simultaneously develop a QEP innovative coursework program for the faculty.

Therein the faculty research and share approaches and assignments that fulfill the requirements of a writing-across-the-curriculum program, including discipline-specific writing assignments, among other skill-based processes, including problem-solving, critical thinking, scientific method, policy analysis, and so on.

Heck, there are enough of us here talented at these things we can do this in-house. As we help each other accomplish these two goals, we must gather the research, carefully measuring our results, using traditional and perhaps innovative "grading."

We should measure learning and initiative in traditional and diverse yet consistent ways: ability to articulate complex ideas, examine claims and evidence, support ideas with relevant reasons and examples, sustain a coherent discussion, and use standard written English.

Once our students develop more experience in ways of making meaning and conveying what they have learned, they will be familiar with the strengths and limitations of alternate hypotheses, points of view, courses of action.

But this isn't what the National Survey of Student Engagement suggests. So what? Because research asserts that there is a strong correlation between engagement and learning but does not measure real learning outcomes, we do not know what our students learned or how much they have learned. We further cannot predict how much learning will be maintained over time.

With a writing center and writing across the curriculum, we can measure learning outcomes for our students based on writing assignments from each of their classes. This data would be reliable and assess the way that students preserve what they have learned throughout their time at this college.

We can likewise ensure we measure real learning by creating grading rubrics in the QEP, which should be applied across the board.

We can dispel G.K. Chesterton's observation that cumulative learning hasn't been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

What will our results be? Confident students. Students who are happy to be challenged by weighing, organizing, synthesizing evidence from different sources, and tolerating it when it doesn't conform to one's preconceived notion. Can you imagine a faculty treated to more logical analysis, less personalization, more student success? Imagine the students.

What other results might we expect? Better student engagement, more delight in the repartee in the classroom. Student retention and success. Amazing classroom discussions. Happy faculty.

In short, opening a writing center and establishing a QEP that uses higher-level thinking skills as a basis for developing a more practical approach for everyone will fill the bill.

Is it my altruism that makes me mourn for better, or the unending chorus in my head, singing, "We can make it happen, yeah, we can make it happen."

Why don't we?

Jane Focht-Hansen is an English instructor at this college.

Article Tools