achieve 2014 - maroon & writeqep.msstate.edu/pdfs/mandw.pdflearn • discover • achieve 2014...

Learn • Discover • Achieve2014

Quality Enhancement PlanSubmitted by Mississippi State University to theSouthern Association of Colleges and SchoolsCommission on Colleges

tlb551

Typewritten Text

tlb551

Typewritten Text

tlb551

Typewritten Text

Revised September 5, 2014

Mississippi State University i

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

II. Background on Maroon and Write ............................................................................................. 3 Phase 1: Topic Selection Task Force with Broad-based Involvement .................................... 3

Dialog Sessions with Broad-Based Involvement ................................................................ 3 Topic Selection ................................................................................................................... 5 Relationship to the Institution’s Mission and Goals ........................................................... 7 Assessment Data Supporting the Topic of Writing ............................................................ 8

Phase 2: Topic Development and Design ................................................................................. 8

Broad-Based Involvement .................................................................................................. 9 Focus and Purpose of the QEP............................................................................................ 9 Literature Review and Best Practices ............................................................................... 10

Phase 3: Pilot of Maroon and Write ........................................................................................ 17 Readings ............................................................................................................................ 18 Journaling .......................................................................................................................... 18

In-Class Free-Writing and Read-Arounds ........................................................................ 19 Modeling Other Writing-to-Learn Strategies.................................................................... 19

Guest Speakers .................................................................................................................. 20 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 20

III. Implementation of Maroon and Write ................................................................................... 22

Goal ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Activities ................................................................................................................................. 22

Strategies to Improve the Quality of Writing ................................................................... 24 Writing-to-Learn Strategies .............................................................................................. 25

Faculty Development .............................................................................................................. 26 Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence (MIWE) ........................................................... 26

Training for Instructional Faculty ..................................................................................... 27 Educational Support and Resources........................................................................................ 27

Writing Coordinators ........................................................................................................ 27

Writing Center .................................................................................................................. 28 Maroon and Write Speaker Series .................................................................................... 28

Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) ......................................................................... 28 MSU Libraries .................................................................................................................. 29

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness ........................................................... 30 Promotion and Communication .............................................................................................. 30 Timeline of Events .................................................................................................................. 30

IV. Assessment and Evaluation .................................................................................................... 33 Purpose of Maroon and Write ................................................................................................. 33 Student Learning Outcomes .................................................................................................... 33 Assessment Instruments for Student Learning Outcomes ...................................................... 33

Maroon and Write Rubric ................................................................................................. 33 ETS Proficiency Profile .................................................................................................... 34 National Survey of Student Engagement .......................................................................... 34

Focus Groups .................................................................................................................... 35

ii Maroon and Write

Evaluation of Student Learning Outcomes ............................................................................. 35

Outcome 1: Improve students’ writing quality ................................................................. 35 Outcome 2: Improve students’ writing quality with respect to correctness...................... 37 Outcome 3: Students will be more engaged in writing activities ..................................... 38

Triangulation of Assessment Instruments ............................................................................... 41 Validation of the Rubric.......................................................................................................... 41 Control courses ....................................................................................................................... 42 Transfer Students .................................................................................................................... 42

V. Management and Resources.................................................................................................... 44

Goal ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Human Capital ........................................................................................................................ 44

Co-Directors ...................................................................................................................... 44 Assessment Staff ............................................................................................................... 46

Budget Staff ...................................................................................................................... 46 Writing Coordinators ........................................................................................................ 46

Graduate Assistants ........................................................................................................... 47 University Partners............................................................................................................ 47

Financial Resources and Budget ............................................................................................. 49 Physical Resources.................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix A: QEP Topic Selection Task Force ............................................................................ 51

Appendix B: QEP White Paper Rubric ......................................................................................... 52

Appendix C: QEP “Best Fit” Rubric ............................................................................................ 53

Appendix D: University Mission and Strategic Plan (excerpt) .................................................... 54

Appendix E: Carnegie Peers used as ETS Proficiency Profile Benchmark.................................. 56

Appendix F: Development Committee Members ......................................................................... 57

Appendix G: References for the Literature Review ..................................................................... 58

Appendix H: Reading List from MIWE 2013 .............................................................................. 60

Appendix I: 2013 MIWE Participants and their QEP courses ...................................................... 61

Appendix J: Maroon and Write Rubric ......................................................................................... 62

Appendix K: Brochure for the Listening Sessions to Generate the QEP Idea .............................. 63

Appendix L: Maroon and Write Marketing Materials .................................................................. 64

List of Tables

Table 1: Listening sessions from Nov 2011–Feb 2012 by number of groups and individuals ...... 4

Table 2: Breakdown of the skills-related issues identified from the listening sessions data .......... 5

Table 3: “Best fit” rubric results for the QEP topics ...................................................................... 7

Table 4: The 2009-2011 results of ETS Proficiency Profile in writing for MSU seniors .............. 8

Table 5: Logic model for Maroon and Write Goal ....................................................................... 23

Mississippi State University iii

Table 6: Formal vs. informal writing ............................................................................................ 26

Table 7: Instruments used to evaluate Goal 1 outcomes............................................................... 34

Table 8: Evaluating outcomes 1 and 2 using the Maroon and Write rubric ................................. 36

Table 9: Percentage of seniors who are proficient in three levels of writing on the ETS Exam .. 38

Table 10: Results from the NSSE to determine the success of Outcome 3 .................................. 39

Table 11: Comparison between average assignment grades for QEP versus control class .......... 40

Table 12: Three layers of assessment for Maroon and Write ....................................................... 41

Table 13: Maroon and Write assessment instrument matrix ........................................................ 41

Table 14: Comparison of QEP courses to control courses ........................................................... 42

Table 15: Writing scores comparison for senior transfer students and senior native students ..... 43

Table 16: University partners that will assist Maroon and Write ................................................. 47

Table 17: Proposed budget for Maroon and Write 2013-2019 ..................................................... 50

List of Figures

Figure 1: Listening session brochure (full-size image available in Appendix K) .......................... 3

Figure 2: Posters with QR code to invite participants to the dialog and listening sessions ............ 4

Figure 3: QEP presentation ............................................................................................................. 6

Figure 4: Students using writing-to-learn strategies to brainstorm on a group project ................ 12

Figure 5: Maroon and Write t-shirts ............................................................................................. 13

Figure 6: MIWE 2013 participants ............................................................................................... 15

Figure 7: MIWE 2013 participants ............................................................................................... 18

Figure 8: Student using writing-to-learn strategies in the classroom ........................................... 22

Figure 9: Writing-to-learn in the classroom .................................................................................. 25

Figure 10: Demonstration of MSU's broad-based participation in QEP ...................................... 44

iv Maroon and Write

This page left blank intentionally

Mississippi State University 1

I. Executive Summary

After seeking broad-based input from the entire university community in topic selection, plan

design, and a pilot phase, Mississippi State University (MSU) is prepared to implement Maroon

and Write, its initiative to improve the quality of undergraduate students’ writing. Building on a

foundation of the institution’s mission and strategic plan “…to offer excellent programs of

teaching, research, and service,” the Maroon and Write initiative will enhance the existing

academic structure, which requires writing courses at the freshman and senior levels, by

integrating writing-to-learn strategies and formal writing instruction into all academic

disciplines, focusing on sophomore and junior level non-writing courses. Ultimately, MSU’s

mission is to produce graduates who are prepared to be leaders in their professions and

communities and who are equipped with skills in communication and critical thinking.

Maroon and Write focuses on a single goal: Improve undergraduate student writing.

During the academic year 2013-2014, Maroon and Write conducted a pilot phase; this included

the design and implementation of:

Faculty Training—Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence (MIWE), a three-week

summer training program, which guides instructional faculty in writing pedagogy and

course re-design

Assessment Tools—Maroon and Write Rubric for application to both baseline writing

artifacts and pilot courses

Marketing and Communication—Maroon and Write logo design and public awareness

campaign

The pilot phase has affirmed most aspects of the plan but has also prompted some re-evaluation.

In particular, extensive faculty training through MIWE has proved to be a worthwhile and

productive approach. MIWE-trained faculty will redesign their courses to incorporate both

formal and informal writing activities, adding writing instruction and increasing writing

frequency. Additionally, Maroon and Write anticipates that MIWE faculty will become

champions of the initiative and will help foster the implementation of writing strategies in their

departments. However, MIWE can accommodate a limited number of faculty members per year,

thus limiting the potential impact on students. As a result, the institution developed faculty

training interventions, such as Brown Bag Luncheons, the Maroon and Write Speaker Series, and

other QEP-related workshops and seminars. These training sessions will encourage faculty to

include informal writing assignments in existing courses as a tool to enhance student engagement

with course content.

To assist in the implementation of Maroon and Write, the institution will utilize the knowledge

and expertise of existing programs and departments, including the Writing Center, MSU

Libraries, Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, and Center for Teaching and

Learning. In addition, Maroon and Write will hire seven writing coordinators over the next three

years; acting as liaisons between the QEP co-directors and the eight university colleges, writing

coordinators will assist MIWE faculty and their students in developing and evaluating writing

assignments and applying the Maroon and Write Rubric. Also, the QEP budget provides funds

for four graduate assistants to collect and evaluate data and writing samples.

2 Maroon and Write

Maroon and Write has developed or identified instruments for measuring the project’s impact on

student learning: the Maroon and Write Rubric, ETS Proficiency Profile, NSSE survey, and

focus groups. To evaluate progress, Maroon and Write will utilize both direct and indirect

instruments to measure the plan through three layers of assessment:

(1) MSU courses, (2) the institution, and (3) peer comparisons.

In support of Maroon and Write, MSU has established a budget of $2,644,754 for the period

2013 through 2018; this includes expenses related to salaries, faculty training, travel, marketing,

equipment, and assessment. The program utilizes existing campus facilities for faculty training,

workshops, and seminars; in addition, the university has provided dedicated space for the

Maroon and Write co-directors and staff in a central location on campus.


II. Background on Maroon and Write

Mississippi State University (MSU) began development of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP),

entitled Maroon and Write, during fall, 2011. This process involved three phases: (1) topic

selection, which included broad-based input through representation from the entire university

community, a focus on the topic’s relationship to MSU’s mission and strategic plan, and

assessment data supporting the need for the chosen topic; (2) topic development and design,

including a literature review; and (3) pilot phase to refine the plan. After a carefully conducted

topic selection process involving broad-based input from the university community, the

institution decided to focus on improving student writing. This section describes these three

phases of the plan.

PHASE 1: TOPIC SELECTION TASK FORCE WITH BROAD-BASED INVOLVEMENT

The process of identifying MSU’s QEP topic began in fall 2011 when Executive Vice President

and Provost Jerry Gilbert and SACSCOC Liaison Tim Chamblee asked faculty members Angi

Bourgeois and Connie Forde to serve as co-chairs of the Topic Selection Task Force. Working

with Dr. Chamblee, the co-chairs determined a timeline for the QEP Topic Selection Phase, the

QEP Development/Design phase, the QEP Pilot phase, and finally the Implementation Phase.

Early in fall 2011, the co-chairs, with guidance from administrative leaders, built a task force that

included representatives from each of MSU’s eight colleges, the

Meridian off-campus site, and the Office of Institutional Research

and Effectiveness (OIRE). Additional members were drawn from

such constituencies as the Student Association, University Libraries,

University Athletics, Faculty Senate, First-Year Experience,

Shackouls Honors College, The Learning Center, Career Center,

Staff Council, University Relations, and Center for Teaching and

Learning. See Appendix A for the QEP Topic Selection Task Force.

The Task Force followed a two-part approach in identifying the QEP

topic: (1) dialog sessions and (2) topic selection.

Dialog Sessions with Broad-Based Involvement

The initial focus in Phase 1, conducting dialog sessions, began with

an essential concept:

“Every great idea starts with a question. WHAT CAN WE DO

BETTER?”

The QEP Topic Selection Task Force conducted listening sessions

with faculty, students, staff and student affairs personnel, external

advisors (e.g., advisory councils and civic groups); it also held

meetings that were open to anyone. Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict

brochures and posters used to invite participants to these listening

sessions. In preparation for the listening sessions, the Task Force

Figure 1: Listening session brochure (full-size image available in Appendix K)

4 Maroon and Write

developed a series of questions to create a common entry point for all discussions. Each group

from a similar category (i.e., faculty, students, professional, or advisory bodies) used common

questions so that the data collected drew on the same questions. In addition to these real-time

sessions, the QEP website offered a virtual submission portal through which the MSU

community could share its ideas.

Figure 2: Posters with QR code to invite participants to the dialog and listening sessions

A total of 800 people participated in the listening sessions. Table 1 shows a total of 54 broad-

based group meetings with a total of 800 participants.

Table 1: Listening sessions from November 2011–February 2012 by number of groups and individuals

Constituent Type Number of Sessions Number of Individuals

Faculty 29 336

Students 12 292

Staff 4 61

External Advisory 7 60

Open 2 51

Total 54 800

Once all listening sessions were complete, Associate Professor of Sociology Nicole Rader

completed a qualitative analysis of all response data using MaxQDA. She coded 1,182 phrases.


Presenting her findings to the QEP Task Force on March 8, 2012, Dr. Rader identified six

themes among the responses to the 54 listening sessions:

1. Skills-related issues

2. Course-related issues

3. Lack of contact or access to mentors/advisors

4. Lack of service-learning and practical application of learning

5. Issues of well-roundedness

6. Issues of student responsibility and student accountability

Of these six themes, skills-related issues and course-related issues comprised the largest number

of responses, 36% and 32% respectively. Faculty, staff, and external advisory groups mentioned

skill-related issues most often (47%, 35%, and 47% respectively), while student groups most

commonly mentioned course-related issues (55%). Dr. Rader further analyzed which specific

skills were mentioned the most during the listening sessions; these skills are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of the skills-related issues identified from the listening sessions data

Skill Type Total Phrases

Concerning Skills

Written Communication Skills 20%

Oral Communication Skills 15%

Information Literacy Skills 11%

Study Skills 10%

Critical Thinking Skills 9%

Life Skills 8%

Professional Skills 7%

Career Readiness Skills 5%

Problem Solving Skills 5%

Reading Skills 5%

Math Skills 3%

Other Skills 2%

Topic Selection

Based on Dr. Rader’s analysis, the Task Force agreed to select the top three most commonly

mentioned skills that could have the greatest impact on MSU students: Written Communication,

Oral Communication, and Information Literacy. The Task Force then divided into three

subcommittees to further analyze each topic.

White Papers

Between March 8 and May 1, 2012, each subcommittee researched and compiled a white paper

on the assigned topic. In addition to researching the best practices of implementing a

programmatic form of student learning enhancement related to its topic, each subcommittee

6 Maroon and Write

evaluated university assessment data related to the potential topic. The Task Force co-chairs

developed a rubric by which to evaluate the white papers based on the following criteria: student

learning outcomes, target audience, assessment, theoretical framework from literature,

application of the QEP topic across the curriculum, connection of MSU assessment data to the

QEP topic, and comparison of each QEP topic adopted at other institutions. Appendix B

contains this rubric.

Once complete, the three white papers were distributed to the entire Task Force, as well as to

President Mark Keenum, Executive Vice President and Provost Jerry Gilbert, and Vice President

for Budget and Finance Don Zant. The rubric scores for the white paper evaluation were very

close, as shown below.

Written Communication 21.13

Oral Communication 20.54

Information Literacy 19.57

Oral Presentations of Topic Selection Subcommittees

On May 15, 2012, the QEP Topic Selection Task Force hosted a luncheon for formal

presentations by the three subcommittees. Dr. Keenum, Dr. Gilbert, and Mr. Zant were invited

guests to the presentations. After the three presentations, all participants completed a “Best Fit”

rubric (included in Appendix C). A summary of the findings follow:

Oral communication and

written communication tied

with 11 votes for the #1

ranking. Note: 15 individuals

ranked oral communication as

second compared to 10 people

who ranked written

communication as second.

Written communication scored

first in three areas: having the

greatest impact, supporting

data, and rigorous learning

focus. Oral communication

scored highest in having

measurable outcomes, buy-in,

resources, and linkage to

MSU’s strategic plan.

Following the presentations, a lengthy discussion followed about the potential of each topic and

the possible ways each topic might impact student learning at MSU.

Table 3 provides the number of first, second, and third place votes for each of the rubric

categories.

Figure 3: QEP presentation


Table 3: “Best fit” rubric results for the QEP topics

Once rubrics for both the white papers and the presentations were analyzed, it was determined

that Written Communication and Oral Communication were so closely tied that a further

examination of the greatest impact and best fit should be conducted.

Data Presented to University Administration

The Task Force co-chairs developed a full report of the QEP Topic Selection Task Force results.

The report noted that, although the topic evaluations indicated Written Communication as the

first choice, Oral Communication was a close second. The administration agreed that Written

Communication was the best fit in terms of the greatest impact for our students, strongest

correlation to university assessment data, and highest potential for rigorous learning focus;

therefore, the Task Force and administration selected Written Communication as MSU’s QEP.

Relationship to the Institution’s Mission and Goals

Maroon and Write builds on the foundation of the university’s mission and strategic plan (see

Appendix D for the mission and strategic plan). MSU’s mission states that the institution intends

"...to offer excellent programs of teaching, research, and service." By initiating a plan to improve

student writing, the university will thereby enhance already excellent programs that teach

students valuable workplace skills. Additionally, effective writing is essential in communicating

research results, especially results that serve the public—as the mission describes, contributing to

"economic development of the state" and "the transfer of ideas and technology to the public."

Similarly, Maroon and Write bolsters the State of Excellence Strategic Plan through one of the

five strategic goals, which is to “foster teaching and learning.” As the plan states, "Providing a

challenging and supportive educational experience that prepares students to be leaders in their

Ranked #1 Ranked #2 Ranked #3

Information Literacy 8 5 17

Oral Communication 11 15 4

Written Communication 11 10 9

0

6

12

18

8 Maroon and Write

professions and in the state and nation remains central to Mississippi State’s mission, as it has

throughout the university’s history."

Assessment Data Supporting the Topic of Writing

Each year, the university tests incoming freshmen and graduating seniors using the ETS

Proficiency Profile exam. This 36-question exam is a direct measure of assessment for the MSU

general education curriculum. The exam assesses four core skill areas: Reading, Writing,

Critical Thinking, and Mathematics, along with context-based areas of Humanities, Social

Sciences, and Natural Sciences. The writing section of the exam measures the students’

knowledge of grammar, language organization, and figurative language. Exam results indicate

what percentage of students score at proficient, marginal, and not proficient within three levels of

understanding. The following levels demonstrate the student’s ability to do the following:

ETS Proficiency Level 1: recognize grammar and word usage

ETS Proficiency Level 2: build upon simple components of writing and incorporate those

simple components into more complex sentence structures

ETS Proficiency Level 3: recognize how complex sentences work together for

parallelism, idiomatic language, correct constructions, and reduction in redundancy

Test results from fall 2009 through spring, 2011 provide longitudinal data on how MSU students

score on this national assessment tool. The ETS Proficiency Profile results for seniors provide

more important data for MSU as an overall indication of the institution’s teaching effectiveness.

MSU performed below the average of its selected peers, which are institutions most similar to

MSU. Table 4 provides the performance data from the ETS Proficiency Profile in Writing for

MSU seniors. The list of selected peers is provided in Appendix E.

Table 4: The 2009-2011 results of ETS Proficiency Profile in writing for MSU seniors

ETS

Level

2009 Seniors

(n=236)

2010 Seniors

(n=452)

2011 Seniors

(n=482)

Peers (n=4,623)

2008-2013

P* M NP P M NP P M NP P M NP

Level 1 78% 15% 7% 74% 21% 5% 75% 19% 5% 82% 15% 3%

Level 2 30% 40% 30% 28% 38% 34% 28% 38% 34% 36% 42% 22%

Level 3 10% 39% 51% 9% 34% 57% 11% 37% 53% 18% 35% 47%

*Note: P = Proficient; M = Marginal; NP = Not Proficient

These data in Table 4 were used to inform the topic selection process. Scores from the 2011-

2012 academic year formed the baseline for Maroon and Write’s assessment plan, which is

discussed in Section IV of this document.

PHASE 2: TOPIC DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN

Following topic selection, the QEP Development Committee was formed in October 2012 and

charged with completing Phase 2 (Focus and Purpose of the QEP) and Phase 3 (Pilot of the

QEP). The Development Committee was co-chaired by Rich Raymond, Professor/Head of the

English Department, and Connie Forde, Professor/Head of the Department of Instructional


Systems and Workforce Development. To ensure continuity of the QEP project, selected

members of the Topic Selection Task Force were appointed to the Development Committee.

Broad-Based Involvement

Twenty-two members and four ex-officio members served on the QEP Development Committee.

Membership included representation from each of the eight colleges, the Meridian Campus,

University Libraries, Student Association, First-Year Experience, Center for Teaching and

Learning, University Relations, Student Affairs, Career Center, and Athletic Department. In

addition, ex-officio members from the Office for Institutional Effectiveness and a co-chair of the

QEP Topic Selection Task Force served on the committee.

Focus and Purpose of the QEP

Once MSU selected Written Communication as a broad topic, the Development Committee had

to narrow and define the purpose and approach. The committee debated whether to focus on

strengthening the existing freshman composition courses, to address senior-level writing courses

(designed for writing in the professions), or to identify some other area of emphasis that would

include students who transfer to MSU after attending community and junior colleges.

Additionally, individual committee members expressed concerns about various components of

writing, including critical thinking, organization, clarity of expression and correctness. After

months of meetings, the committee determined that the QEP would achieve its greatest impact

by focusing on sophomore and junior level courses that are not identified as writing courses.

The committee also debated whether to focus solely on writing-to-learn strategies or writing

across the curriculum, ultimately agreeing that increased frequency of writing is a core objective

of this project.

Following months of general discussion, three subcommittees were created to complete the

charge of this committee:

Design Subcommittee—identified ways to implement writing components into existing

courses. Ultimately, the Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence (MIWE) was created;

this is a summer workshop that teaches writing pedagogies and, through selected

scholarly readings, educates faculty in best practices.

Assessment Subcommittee—developed assessment tools for the MIWE, the classroom,

and overall plan assessments at the university level. This group, with the guidance of Dr.

Raymond, developed a writing rubric to assess student learning. This group also worked

to design several surveys to gather indirect assessment data from the pilot project.

Marketing and Communication—worked with students to coin the name “Maroon and

Write” and to design the QEP logo. The group researched marketing strategies and

gathered information about how best to communicate the progress of Maroon and Write.

See Appendix F for a listing of Development Committee members.

On November 1, 2013, MSU appointed co-directors of the QEP: Deborah Lee and Ann

Spurlock. Both individuals had been members of the Development Committee and each brings

10 Maroon and Write

specific skills to the plan. Their job responsibilities and qualifications are discussed in

Management and Resources. With their leadership, the co-chairs merged many of the ideas and

concerns of the committee members in order to address both communication and correctness

skills, as well as elements of both writing across the curriculum and writing-to-learn.

The purpose of Maroon and Write is to improve student writing. In pursuit of this purpose,

Maroon and Write has a goal to develop students who write with better quality (including

communication and correctness skills) and to write more frequently. The plan has a second goal

of developing faculty who implement writing pedagogies into their classes, particularly classes

that are not designated as writing classes. In addition, anticipating that writing will become more

commonplace in all academic disciplines, the co-directors are working to develop a support

system for faculty and students. Through Maroon and Write, MSU will strengthen its writing

across the curriculum program.

Literature Review and Best Practices

Writing across the curriculum (WAC) is a broad description of programs that embrace the

connection between writing and learning, but the term also refers to the pedagogical theories that

support this connection. David Russell’s (1991) history of the WAC movement examines the

cultural changes in the U.S. that made these programs possible (Appendix G includes a list of

references used in this literature review). Until the 1960s, universities were focused on

disciplinary rigor, with writing instruction the domain of the English department. However,

social change made the college classroom increasingly diverse, highlighting the need to provide

more comprehensive writing instruction to all students regardless of background or field of study

(pp. 276-279).

Despite this burgeoning shift, British secondary education research actually provided the catalyst

for formal WAC programs in the U.S. James Britton’s “Language and Learning Across the

Curriculum” (1970) provided the model for British reforms and U.S. programs of the 1970s.

Britton’s primary assertion was that “language is essential to learning because it is through

language that we organize our representations of the world” (p. 278). Educators in the U.S.

began to examine the educational value of language as well. Janet Emig’s (1977)

groundbreaking article “Writing as a Mode of Learning” advances the notion that writing is

“neurologically integrative, connective and active” and therefore “represents a unique form of

learning” (p. 125).

Transitioning from theory to implementation, small private colleges were the first to formally

move writing instruction beyond the English department. In 1974, Carleton College in

Minnesota began educating a small but diverse group of faculty in writing instruction, beginning

the WAC faculty workshop model. Beaver College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania followed this

model and sought to create a community of faculty learners who would lead the new writing

program. The creation of these writing/learning communities proved more difficult in larger

public institutions simply because of high student-faculty ratios, funding challenges, and diverse

faculty interests. However, the movement began to spread widely by the 1980s. George Mason

University in Virginia began holding state-supported summer institutes to train faculty in WAC

pedagogy in 1980. Other large research universities with successful and longstanding WAC


programs include the University of Michigan, Colorado State University, and the University of

Georgia (Fulwiler & Young, 1990, pp. 1–8).

As universities began to apply WAC pedagogy to their unique goals and needs, two different

approaches developed: writing-to-learn (WTL) and writing to communicate, now referred to as

writing in the disciplines (WID). WTL is based on the premise that students learn through the

act of writing, particularly when the writing assignments are short, informal, and designed to

promote reflection, analysis, synthesis, and deeper understanding of course material. Such

writing assignments are often ungraded and include prewriting, free-writing, journals, reading

notes, and reflections. Herrington (1981) defines the physical act of writing as a process of

“selecting and reconnecting material, digesting it, and translating it into one’s own meanings and

words” (p. 381). In “How Writing Shapes Thinking,” Langer and Applebee (1987) summarize

three pedagogical advantages of WTL:

Writing activities promote learning better than activities involving only studying or

reading.

Different kinds of writing activities lead students to focus on different kinds of

information.

In contrast to short-answer responses, which turn information into discrete small pieces,

analytic writing promotes more complex and thoughtful inquiry but on a smaller amount

of information (para. 6).

WID places more emphasis on instruction in the specific disciplinary conventions and genres of

students’ major fields. Students learn the rhetorical forms and communication styles of the

professional and academic discourse communities that they aspire to enter. Specialists in the

discipline, rather than faculty in English departments or writing specialists, are typically best

equipped for such instruction because they are fluent in the conventions of the discourse

community (McLeod, 2000, p. 154). WID encourages the recognition of disciplinary styles as

“habits of thought and communication grounded in the objectives, values, and world view of

each discipline” (Linton, Madigan, & Johnson, 1994, p. 65).

MSU had already developed English composition courses for incoming freshmen and junior- and

senior-level writing courses as a part of each program’s curriculum. The institution determined

that more writing instruction and practice was needed in other courses in students’ academic

careers. Therefore, Maroon and Write builds on the best practices of the university’s writing

program by embracing WTL practices in other areas of the curriculum. If the plan is successful

and sustained, it has the potential to reach a single student multiple times and in different

contexts over the course of his/her time in the academy. Its emphasis on increased understanding

of course concepts should also appeal to faculty in any discipline who are open to new methods

of student engagement. Perhaps most important to student success, WTL strategies improve the

vital critical thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and reflection, underscoring their relevance to

the primary mission of higher education.

To reach as many students as possible and to infuse writing instruction and practice across the

curriculum, MSU investigated best practices in WTL. The literature supports WTL a critical

12 Maroon and Write

component of mastery in all disciplines. Development and sustainment of a strong community

of writers requires embedded writing, student engagement, faculty ownership, and sound

assessment practices. MSU advocates the use of these WTL practices in all courses; however,

not all courses are able to implement all of these strategies. The institution believes that by

offering an array of WTL strategies, more instructors will be able to find strategies that will work

in their classes.

Embedded Writing

Although freshman composition can

introduce the writing skills necessary to

later college success, the notion that the

composition class is the only place for

writing instruction and the perception that

writing is separate from discipline-specific

learning “relegates English faculty

members to the role of proofreader rather

than that of a colleague who might have

substantive insights into the work of a

discipline other than writing or literary

study” (Odell, 1993, p. 87). Students then

naturally accept this view: “If we persist in

separating ways of writing from ways of

knowing, we shouldn’t be surprised if

students persist in writing well about

nothing” (p. 98).

Faculty resistance is a common vulnerability of WAC implementation, but Odell insists that the

key to success is demonstrating that “the evaluation of writing can help both students and

teachers better understand the ways of knowing that are important in a particular academic

context” ( p. 87). In this way, WAC serves a valuable purpose within the discipline, preparing

students for later professional writing. Through meaningful writing assignments, instructors

teach students the language of their field: “If we devote class time to helping students

understand…meaning-making strategies, they should be able to function more effectively as

members of a particular community” (p. 89). The idea of repeated practice is equally important

to the goal of fostering cultural change. Students must see writing as a valuable learning tool in

many contexts: “Good writing—like critical thinking—will never be a skill that students can

achieve or retain through a single course…sustained improvement will require repeated practice”

(Bok, 2006, p. 98).

Case studies show multiple benefits of adopting WTL strategies in various disciplines.

Herrington (1981) describes an attempt to encourage this integration. In 1979, at Johnson State

College in Vermont, 12 instructors participated in a summer workshop and regular semester

meetings to learn how to incorporate meaningful writing assignments into their existing courses.

Disciplines included economics, physics, psychology, and U.S. history. Student and faculty

surveys given at the end of the semester assessed the strategies’ effectiveness: “ninety percent of

Figure 4: Students using writing-to-learn strategies to brainstorm on a group project


the students reported that the writing added at least in some degree to their understanding of the

material. The faculty participants agreed that the writing definitively enhanced the courses” (p.

381).

While many accept writing as a natural fit for a psychology or history class, math does not seem

as obvious a choice for WTL strategies. However, Delcham and Sezer (2010) added low-stakes

writing assignments to an introductory statistics course. The other course assignments stayed the

same, including the final project, which was an analysis of formulas and graphics. Before

writing assignments were added, students tended to struggle with the final project, unable to

introduce and explain concepts adequately. In the reconstructed course, however, students

“provided detailed introductions, discussion of formulas, and drew conclusions based on

computations” (p. 614). The writing assignments also increased the instruction’s effectiveness:

“With timely intervention, difficult concepts can be clarified before misconceptions proliferate”

(p. 614). Delcham and Sezer concluded that WTL complements math instruction because

“writing in mathematics especially requires deep understanding of the subject matter and also

strengthens students’ conceptual understanding. Having students explain their reasoning engages

them in the learning process” (p. 614).

Maroon and Write is based on the idea of embedding WTL strategies into all disciplines. In June

2013, a pilot session of the Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence (MIWE) was held, which

included instructors from diverse fields. The session was designed to "teach the teachers" how to

incorporate writing pedagogies and WTL strategies into their existing courses in a way that

would allow them the freedom to focus on what would work best for their students. More

information about the pilot program’s results is described in Section IV of this document.

Student Engagement

Student engagement is vital to college retention efforts, as

evidenced by the broad use of the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE). Since 2000, more than 1,500 four-year

colleges in the U.S. and Canada have used the NSSE to

understand “the quality of students’ educational experiences”

(Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt 2008, p. 185). Kuh, the

developer of the NSSE, sees a direct relationship between

WAC and student engagement: “Writing across the

curriculum encourages interdisciplinary efforts and

challenges students to think critically and holistically about

their assignments” (p. 185). In fact, most researchers in the

field of engagement support writing as a means of ensuring

that students participate actively in their learning. Students

themselves support this view: “Of all skills students say they

want to strengthen, writing is mentioned three times more

than any other” (Light, 1990, p. 54). Light asserts that the

more writing is required for a course, the more engaged

students become: “The simple correlation between the amount of writing required in a course

and students’ overall commitment to it tells a lot about the importance of writing” (pp. 55–56).

Figure 5: Maroon and Write t-shirts

14 Maroon and Write

Beyond building better writing skills, WTL strategies also allow students to assert more control

over the way they learn. Emig (1977) underscores the value of writing to individualized

learning: “One writes best as one learns best, at one’s own pace. Or to connect the two

processes, writing can sponsor learning because it can match its pace” (p. 126). Butler and

Winne (1995) assert that individualized learning is critical to individual success: “the most

effective learners are self-regulating” (p. 145). They define self-regulation as “ a suite of

powerful skills: setting goals for upgrading knowledge; deliberating about strategies to select

those that balance progress toward goals against unwanted tasks; and, as steps are taken and the

task evolves, monitoring the accumulating effects of their engagement” (p. 145). WTL

strategies, then, support each of these skills and ensure that students are active participants in

their education rather than passive subjects absorbing a relentless series of readings and lectures.

For these benefits to be realized, instructors who implement WTL strategies must see them as a

vehicle for active learning and collaboration. According to Herrington (1981), instructors should

stress writing as a process of discovery, which “begins by defining what the task requires, moves

through formulating one’s ideas and shaping these ideas by writing successive drafts, and ends

with stating them coherently in the final written product” (p. 386). Furthermore, students are

more successful when instructors intervene early in the process, asking questions that foster in-

depth analysis. Instructors should encourage collaboration by inviting students to share writing

in class, thus inviting discussion. Ideally, these strategies also support the instructor, functioning

“as a feedback loop…as to the progress of student learning, allowing him or her to adjust the

teaching accordingly” (McLeod, 2000, p. 153). Therefore, the instructor can move from critic to

mentor. Implemented properly, WTL strategies can create a community of learners that includes

both instructors and students.

The MIWE pilot session focused on engagement, with participating instructors using WTL

activities themselves, sharing readings, and discussing their own learning successes and

challenges. In this way, they can appreciate the engagement benefits of WTL activities and

promote them when they return to the role of instructor.

Faculty Development and Support

Because the instructor plays such an important role in student engagement and the nature of

embedded writing requires the leadership of enthusiastic instruction, faculty development is

critical to the success of a WAC program. The literature supports a combination of initial faculty

workshops and long-term faculty support as best practices for WAC implementation. According

to Herrington (1981), instructors must be properly introduced to the program and guided through

the implementation process: “We as teachers must first believe in the value of writing as a

discovery process” (p. 387). The literature also specifies the most effective workshop formats.

Instructors must write their course objectives, along with expected learning outcomes, creating

realistic and clear goals for their assignments. McLeod (2000) emphasizes the need to allow

instructors the freedom to choose techniques that will work for their students (p. 159). Most

importantly, workshops must be structured as writing-to-learn opportunities: “There are two

rules of thumb: faculty themselves should themselves write, and faculty should have

opportunities to talk to each other about writing. Participants act as students, engaging in WTL

activities that support the workshop’s goals, sharing their writing, providing feedback, and


reflecting on their progress as learners” (McLeod, p. 159). Only through active participation can

faculty understand the benefits and challenges their students will face.

Faculty ownership is essential to

the program’s ability to foster

any broad change and for that

change to be sustained. In

“WAC Program Vulnerability

and What to Do about It,”

Townsend (2008) cites lack of

faculty support as a primary

reason for failed WAC

implementation (p. 50).

Specifically, continuing faculty

development is critical to a

healthy program: “Faculty

change institutions or drop away

from their WAC involvement;

new ones arrive; previously

uninvolved faculty become interested; committed WAC faculty want new ideas or a more

sophisticated understanding of how writing and learning intersect. The need for faculty

development never goes away” (Townsend, p. 53).

The literature also supports the writing center as a way to lessen faculty intimidation about

adding WTL strategies and to support both faculty and students throughout implementation.

Unequivocal benefits stem from collaboration between writing centers and WAC programs. In

her chapter “Writing Centers and WAC,” Mullin (2001) notes, “We know that one-on-one

interaction of writing centers and the student-focused classroom provided by WAC programs

change the teaching and learning culture” (p. 195). Mullin further points out the value of

partnerships between writing centers and WAC programs by emphasizing the broader

ramifications for such collaboration: “The same opportunity that WAC and writing centers

offers students and faculty is offered to the surrounding communities: education in how we have

come to understand the linked processes of writing and thinking within contexts” (p. 196).

The MSU Writing Center is a collaborative learning environment that offers writing assistance to

students, faculty, and staff. Writers may talk face-to-face with trained writing consultants about

academic papers, cover letters, personal statements, research practices, and other related writing

projects. Each writing consultant has been trained in the theories and practices of effective one-

on-one teaching, and the Writing Center emphasizes the importance of rhetorical choices in

writing and the consequences of those choices. Currently, the Writing Center collaborates with

students and faculty members in all disciplines, and its staff members provide in-class writing

workshops, in-class Writing Center information sessions, and one-on-one writing center sessions

for students. The Writing Center fully supports the mission of Maroon and Write, and its goals

are to offer support for student writers, to provide writing and instructional resources for faculty

members, and to foster a culture of writing to learn across academic disciplines. The Center’s

support for the QEP includes helping student writers to understand the link between writing and

Figure 6: MIWE 2013 participants

16 Maroon and Write

critical thought and to meet the expectations for academic achievement at the department,

college, and university levels.

The MIWE workshop, the first step in the implementation of Maroon and Write, is its

foundation. In its pilot, this workshop required faculty to practice all the WTL strategies they

will expect of their students. They acted as a community of writers and learners with the

common goal of strengthening their own teaching through implementing WAC. As faculty

implement the program during the 2013-2014 academic year, they continue to meet, write, share

responses, and reflect. Prospective participants for the 2014 MIWE will be invited to these

regularly scheduled meetings so they can learn about the pilot members’ experiences. The

conversation will continue between old and new participants to strengthen the program. This

type of faculty engagement is as essential to program growth as student engagement.

Portfolios

If students are to be active participants in their learning, writing must be a process of self-

analysis and reflection. Emig (1977) describes the simple act of reading one’s own writing as a

unique learning moment in which “information from the process is immediately and visibly

available as that portion of the product already written” (p. 125). Reviewing a set of writings

collected over time, then, creates an opportunity to extend the learning process. Both instructors

and students benefit from the act of collecting artifacts, whether polished or unfinished, because

they represent the changes and growth that accompany learning. Therefore, portfolios are central

to the goals of WAC and are widely used as both an assessment tool and to support the student’s

growth as a learner. Yancey (1993) defines the portfolio as a process of collection, selection,

reflection, and communication. In this way, the portfolio mirrors the thinking process that

students practice through WTL. Yancey also emphasizes the collaborative nature of portfolios;

the process invites discussion and sharing among student, instructor, and peers (pp. 12–16).

Murphy (1997) supports this view: “Portfolios encourage conversation and decision making”

because writers review old ideas through the lens of new information (p. 15). The student’s

reflection is equally valuable to the instructor: “Reflections help teachers understand what their

students have learned, what views they have about effective writing, and how they assess

themselves as writers” (p. 16).

The MIWE participants were instructed in the portfolio process. As they wrote, discussed, and

reflected on their own writings as related to reshaping their courses, they were able to understand

how their attitudes and knowledge had changed over the session. They also learned how to

guide students through the process of collection, selection, reflection, and communication. Due

to faculty time constraints, in terms of both classroom instruction and evaluation of student work,

MIWE participants are not required to assign portfolios in their own classes; however, they are

encouraged to consider doing so as one of varied instructional tools.


Rubrics

An effective conversation between instructor and student requires clear expectations. When

students begin any task, they need to understand the assignment’s goals. This understanding

allows students to trust themselves and the process. Likewise, instructors must understand the

desired learning outcomes of a writing assignment if they are to provide constructive, fair

feedback. A rubric provides this clarity through a list of criteria that define the goals of a

particular assignment. Huba and Freed (2000) characterize the rubric’s primary function as

“[making] public the key criteria that students use in developing, revising, and judging their own

work” (p. 155). In this way, the rubric can be used to help students self-monitor. Much of the

literature supports making the rubric available to students early in the course and then revisiting

it regularly so that it becomes a part of the “dialogue between teachers and students” (Knipper &

Duggan, 2011, p. 464).

Rubrics can also make the grading process less time consuming and intimidating for instructors,

particularly those unaccustomed to evaluating writing. Mansilla, Duraisingh, Wolfe, and Haynes

(2009) support the rubric as a tool to improve the fairness and consistency of grading, even

among different instructors sharing the same rubric (p. 336). Arter and McTighe (2001) caution

that this benefit results only from rubrics that are both practical and clear “so that different

teachers would give the same rating to the same performance or product [and] a single

teacher…could provide consistent ratings to many different students” (para. 1). Further, Popham

(1997) defines the practical rubric as one that embraces simplicity: “It is tempting to lay out all

of the possible criteria that could be used to judge students’ responses; but rubric developers

should remember that their efforts should guide teachers, not overwhelm them. In rubrics, less is

more” (p. 73).

During the MIWE session, participants used simple, clear rubrics for their own writings. Acting

as students, they saw the criteria applied to their selections and those of their peers. They will

later use similar rubrics in their own courses with an understanding of the proper application of

each criterion. This should give them more confidence in their ability to evaluate student writing

consistently and constructively.

PHASE 3: PILOT OF MAROON AND WRITE

During 2013-2014, MSU piloted several aspects of Maroon and Write. In June 2013, MSU

launched its first MIWE program to provide training to an initial group of faculty members who

would implement writing-to-learn strategies in their classes (refer to Appendix I for a list of

participants). Drawing on his experience with the National Writing Project (NWP) and directing

the Little Rock Writing Project Summer Institute (1997-2003), Rich Raymond offered to direct

the institute based on the NWP model, one that calls for reading scholarship on learning theory

and composition theory and for engaging in writing-to-learn strategies as the only legitimate

means to developing a writing-centered pedagogy.

MIWE consisted of a 13-day schedule with 2.5-hour class periods. This schedule allowed

sufficient time to learn interactively and to host six guest speakers. When class was not in

session, faculty participants had both reading and writing assignments to prepare them for the

18 Maroon and Write

next class session. MIWE

participants also completed

revised syllabi for their courses,

as well as a reflective essay that

provided theoretical justification

for the writing-to-learn strategies

they chose to implement.

Readings

In designing the syllabus for

MIWE, Director Rich Raymond

followed the NWP model, which

grounds faculty development in

deep reading on theoretical

approaches to teaching writing to

enrich learning. To introduce faculty to seminal thinking on teaching prewriting strategies to

improve learning, Raymond first assigned Donald Murray’s essay “Teach Writing as a Process,

Not Product” (1972) and Janet Emig’s “Writing as a Mode of Learning” (1977) as well as Paulo

Freire’s “The Banking Concept of Education” (1985), which eschews ex cathedra lecturing and

calls for writing-centered interactive learning as the best way to liberate thinkers and to inspire

civic engagement in social problems.

Then, to explore writing-to-learn strategies as acts of critical thinking, faculty read Erika

Lindemann’s “What Do Teachers Need to Know about Cognition?” (2001). They also read

Sandra Murphy’s “Assessing Portfolios” (1999) and Peter Elbow’s “Writing Assessment: Do It

Better; Do It Less” (1996) to understand portfolio-building and attendant reflective essays as acts

of metacognition. These activities require students to write about their writing so that they learn

the connection between their growth as writers and their varied prewriting processes, which

include journaling, free-writing, problem-solving groups, peer response groups, and multiple

revisions.

To learn more about how students acquire language and use language to solve problems, faculty

next read Erika Lindemann’s “What Teachers Need to Know about Linguistics” (2001), Kenneth

Bruffee’s “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’” (1984), and an excerpt

from Rich Raymond’s Readings in Writing Courses (2011).

Finally, to explore “habits of mind” essential to sustaining students’ growth as writers, faculty

read Lee-Ann Breuch’s “Post-Process Pedagogy: A Philosophical Exercise” (2002) and Peggy

O’Neill’s “On the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing” (2012). The reference list

for the MIWE readings is provided in Appendix H.

Journaling

To apply what the faculty read about writing to learn, Raymond assigned daily journaling

prompts to be completed before the next class session. For example, in connection with the

readings on cognition, Raymond assigned these prompts:

Figure 7: MIWE 2013 participants


1. Describe the key heroes in your personal literacy history. Who positively shaped your

attitudes toward reading and writing? How?

2. Describe the key villains in your personal literacy history. Who negatively influenced

your attitudes toward reading and writing? How?

Similarly, concurrent with the readings on portfolios, Raymond assigned this journaling prompt:

If you decided to require portfolios in your QEP class, what guidance would you give

students concerning selections for their portfolios, and what criteria would you use to rate

their portfolios and reflective essays?

Then in conjunction with Bruffee’s essay on collaborative writing, Raymond provided this

journaling prompt:

Reflect on how you might use interpretive groups during a class session to help students

to learn inductively material you have been teaching via lecture. What guidance will you

provide to help students become “communities of knowledgeable peers” (Bruffee)?

In-Class Free-Writing and Read-Arounds

To model the idea of building a “community of knowledgeable peers” in every class, Raymond

began each MIWE class with a free-writing prompt related to the previous night’s reading. For

instance, after faculty read and journaled on the subject of using writing-to-learn strategies to

prepare students for one of their formal assignments, Raymond asked faculty to free-write for ten

minutes in response to this question: “Did your journaling last night on revising one of your

existing course assignments increase or decrease your confidence that these writing-to-learn

strategies will enrich your students’ learning?”

After faculty completed their free-writing, Raymond sponsored a “read-around,” inviting faculty

to read aloud from their journaling and from the free-writing. This strategy modeled writing-to-

learn strategies; it also engaged faculty in rich conversation, teacher-talk that built a community

of professors from across the curriculum, all eager to laugh about the messy business of teaching

and to share their pedagogical successes and failures as well as their enthusiasms and fears

concerning the QEP. Indeed, the faculty reported that they became versatile players of Peter

Elbow’s “believing and doubting” games, explaining their doubts about faculty and student buy-

in to writing across the curriculum, and explaining their convictions that they could sustain this

project and, over time, effect a change of culture.

Modeling Other Writing-to-Learn Strategies

To help participants develop the writing-to-learn strategies that they had already read and

journaled about, Raymond shared some of the strategies that have worked well for him in

composition courses. In doing so, he always challenged faculty to think about how they could

adapt the strategies to their content-area courses.

Near the beginning of MIWE, for example, Raymond distributed a learning module on Frederick

Douglass’ Narrative of an American Slave. He then asked the faculty to read an excerpt from

20 Maroon and Write

Douglass for the next class; he also asked each participant to respond to two of the journaling

prompts. The next class, after opening free-writing activities, Raymond divided the participants

into groups of two or three and asked them to adjourn to nearby break-out areas to share their

journaling. He then asked them to return to class after their 15-minute exchange, prepared to

share their collaborative response to their respective questions.

On other days, Raymond engaged faculty in similar interactive exchanges on works by Frank

McCourt, Barack Obama, and Zora Neale Hurston. In doing so, he gave participants further

practice with the journaling and collaborative analysis they would ask of their students.

Raymond also modeled rubrics for rating reflective essays and portfolios, the products that

would grow from these interactive processes.

Additionally, over the last two weeks of MIWE, Raymond used the workshop format, asking

collaborative groups of two or three to share their drafts of writing-centered syllabi and

assignments. To provide guidance for responding to their respective drafts, Raymond conferred

individually with participants; he also distributed and discussed a rubric for rating and

commenting on syllabi and reflective essays.

Guest Speakers

To complement the readings and to stimulate more ideas for building writing-to-learn pedagogy

into assignments and courses, Raymond also invited six faculty members to MIWE sessions.

These hour-long sessions featured the following faculty and topics:

June 11: Dr. Linda Morse on Cognition and Learning Theory

June 11: Dr. Deborah Lee on Information Literacy and Library Support for Teachers

June 13: Dr. Tom Carskadon on “Things that Work”

June 17: Dr. Lyn Fogle on Using Wikis as a Writing-to-Learn Strategy

June 19: Amy Barton on Using the Case-Study Approach to Teaching Technical Writing

June 25: Dr. Devon Brenner on How Writing Improves Reading

In preparing their reflective essays on their revised syllabi, most MIWE participants quoted from

their colleagues’ presentations as well as from their readings.

Evaluation

The MIWE participants all responded favorably to the summer institute. Results from the

satisfaction survey were all very positive, but did include a few suggestions for improvement,

which will be taken into account for the 2014 MIWE schedule. Additionally, the MIWE

participants met for two follow-up sessions in the fall 2013 semester to discuss their experiences

with using writing-to-learn activities in their classes.

Eight of the MIWE participants developed QEP courses for either fall 2013 or spring 2014 to

utilize the writing pedagogies from the MIWE program (refer to Appendix I for a list of

participants and their QEP courses). One participant, Deborah Lee, became the co-director of

the QEP during fall 2013. Several MIWE participants designed a companion non-QEP course


that did not utilize any of the writing pedagogies discussed during the MIWE program to serve as

control groups. Control groups were only a part of the pilot and will not be a part of the full

Maroon and Write program. MSU intends on reaching as many students as possible rather than

forming cohorts with one group benefiting from the writing pedagogies and one group denied the

benefit.

Data from the pilot year provided much of the baseline data for the evaluation of Maroon and

Write. More details about the activities and results of the activities are discussed in Section IV.

These results provide initial evidence that Maroon and Write has the potential to impact student

learning by improving writing skills. Based on these results, several adjustments were made to

Maroon and Write. The revised plan is discussed in Section III.

22 Maroon and Write

III. Implementation of Maroon and Write

Mississippi State University’s (MSU) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Maroon and Write,

seeks to improve undergraduate student writing by implementing a writing across the curriculum

model. To accomplish this, the institution will focus on improving students’ writing skills and

grammar skills in sophomore and junior classes as a bridge between the freshman composition

courses and the junior and senior-level writing courses. The intent is to encourage students to

practice writing throughout their academic careers. Maroon and Write will target undergraduate

students at the university to improve student writing, primarily measured at the senior level.

This section of the plan document discusses Maroon and Write’s goal, its activities, its

implementation, and a brief description of the resources in place to achieve its goal. Table 5

provides a logic model for its goal, which represents an overview of the entire plan. A brief

mention of the assessment strategies for the plan is provided; however, a full description of the

evaluation objectives and instruments is discussed in Section IV Assessment and Evaluation.

Section V provides details about the budget and the resources provided for full implementation

of Maroon and Write.

GOAL

Maroon and Write’s goal is to improve student writing. Maroon and Write will not transform all

courses into writing courses nor all faculty into writing instructors. Rather, it will encourage

faculty to adopt some of the writing pedagogies not only to improve students’ writing skills, but

also to strengthen the institution’s writing across the curriculum program and writing-to-learn

strategies.

ACTIVITIES

The goal to improve students’ writing is intended to

be generic enough to apply to all disciplines at the

university but include primary elements that all

written documents must contain. Maroon and Write

supports writing across the curriculum, rather than

writing in the disciplines.

Maroon and Write endorses many different writing

techniques and activities in the classroom to help

students improve their writing. The two primary

strategies for improving student writing include (1)

implementing formal writing instruction and activities

to enhance the quality of writing and (2) utilizing

writing-to-learn strategies and informal writing

assignments to increase students’ writing frequency. Figure 8: Student using writing-to-learn strategies in the classroom


Table 5: Logic model for Maroon and Write Goal

Goal: Improve student writing

Outcomes Activities

Resources/

Tools Objectives

1. Students will

write documents

that are

appropriately

organized, well

developed, and

clearly worded.

Instruction and

modeling in

document

composition

Instruction in

drafting and

editing

Feedback at

various stages of

the writing

process: idea

development,

organization,

revision

Completion of at

least one formal

writing

assignment as part

of the course

requirement

Peer Evaluation

Resources:

Writing

Coordinators

Writing Center

MSU Libraries

Library

Instruction

Program

Tools:

Maroon and

Write Rubric

for Writing

Assignments

By the end of the project:

75% of students in QEP courses will

score a 4 or higher in Skill

Components 1-4 on the Maroon and

Write Rubric.

Senior students’ will improve the

mean scores by 10% over the 2013-14

baseline on Skill Components 1-4 of

the Maroon and Write Rubric.

2. Students will

use Standard

English correctly,

avoiding errors in

syntax, grammar,

and usage.

Instruction in

grammar and

mechanics in the

context of each

student’s writing

Feedback from

faculty

Feedback from

instructional

support staff

Resources:

Writing

Coordinators

Writing Center

Tools:

Maroon and

Write Rubric

for Writing

ETS

Proficiency

Profile


75% of students in QEP courses will

score a 4 or higher in Skill Component

5 on the Maroon and Write Rubric.

Senior students’ will improve the

mean scores by 10% over the 2013-14

baseline on Skill Components 5 of the

Maroon and Write Rubric.

MSU seniors will perform at the same

proficiency levels as our peer

institutions on the ETS Proficiency

Profile.

24 Maroon and Write

Goal: Improve student writing

Outcomes Activities

Resources/

Tools Objectives

3. Students will

be more engaged

in writing

activities.

Frequent low-stakes

writing assignments:

Journaling

Free-writing

Small Group

Writing

Peer Review

Tools:

NSSE

MIWE faculty

focus group

Instructional

faculty focus

group


75% of senior students will report on

the NSSE survey that they prepared

two or more drafts of a paper often or

very often.

75% of seniors will report on the

NSSE survey that their faculty

provided feedback on their drafts

often or very often.

95% of seniors will report on the

NSSE survey that MSU contributed

quite a bit or very much to their

abilities to write clearly and

effectively.

50% of instructional faculty who have

participated in a QEP faculty

development activity will report

increased student engagement in

writing.

Strategies to Improve the Quality of Writing

Maroon and Write identifies a quality document as having the following five components:

1. Explanation of the problem or introduction of the issue to be addressed, which situates

the writing artifact into a context to which the audience can relate

2. A clear thesis to describe the purpose of the document

3. Content that supports and provides credible evidence in defense of the thesis

4. Word choice and sentence structure that are logical and demonstrate an appropriate tone

and formality for the intended audience

5. Correctness in syntax, grammar, and usage

The institution recognizes that specific disciplines will have additional requirements and style

manuals relevant to their professions; however, the intent of the MSU’s Maroon and Write is to

improve students’ writing quality in these five areas that are similar across all disciplines and

fields. Formal writing strategies will demonstrate students’ mastery in these five areas.

Examples of these formal strategies include:

Requiring students to write multiple drafts of a writing assignment

Providing feedback on those drafts and on the final document

Providing a rubric of expectations for quality writing

Conducting peer evaluations using the rubric


Providing writing samples as models of quality writing. These examples can be

professional or prior student artifacts

Requiring students to develop portfolios of their writing artifacts

Assigning reflective essays

Although a final paper or a research design is a common formal writing assignment that faculty

use, Maroon and Write believes many other types of writing artifacts exist and can be used to

train students to write better. Furthermore, these writing artifacts can be as brief as two pages or

as long as a 20-page research report. One of the criteria of the formal writing assignment is that

it is graded.

Writing-to-Learn Strategies

Not all classes can be redesigned to become writing classes; however, virtually any class can

embed writing-to-learn (WTL) strategies that help students practice writing skills without the

time and instruction required in composing a formal writing assignment. WTL is based on the

premise that students learn through the act of writing, particularly when the writing assignments

are short, informal, and designed to promote reflection, analysis, synthesis, and deeper

understanding of course material. Furthermore, these strategies can be utilized even in classes

with large enrollments.

Examples of writing-to-learn strategies include the following:

Journaling

Free-writing, particularly in relationship to a specified writing prompt

Responding to discussion boards or blogs

Figure 9: Writing-to-learn in the classroom

26 Maroon and Write

Table 6: Formal vs. informal writing

Formal Writing Informal Writing

Formal writing assignments focus on the quality

of student writing. Characteristics of formal

writing include

Classroom instruction on composition

techniques, including evaluation of writing

models from professional and student

writers

Development of the document through pre-

writing activities and multiple drafts

Feedback on each draft through peer review

and/or instructor evaluation

A final draft that is a minimum of two pages

of content

A final draft that emphasizes format and

correctness in addition to content

A final draft that is graded

Informal writing assignments reinforce course

content and help students practice writing.

Characteristics of informal writing include

Frequent, short writing assignments such as

free-writing, journaling, summarizing class

notes or content, and discussion posts

Single-draft documents that focus

exclusively on content, not format or

correctness

Low-stakes writing assignments that may or

may not be graded

Documents that may serve as scaffolding for

formal writing assignments

Documents that may serve as preparation

for class discussion and examinations

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

To accomplish its goal, Maroon and Write must develop faculty who adopt writing instruction

and WTL strategies in their classes. One approach, Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence

(MIWE) includes an intensive faculty training program that occurs during the summer. In

addition, Maroon and Write will sponsor ongoing training, workshops, seminars, and other

events to educate faculty on incorporating writing pedagogies into the classroom.

Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence (MIWE)

Intensive faculty development for Maroon and Write includes the training of 10-15 faculty

members each summer through a program called the Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence

(MIWE). The MIWE is designed to provide faculty with an intensive introduction to the use of

writing as a pedagogical tool in their classes and to strengthen writing across the curriculum at

Mississippi State University. The workshop brings faculty from different disciplines together in

a summer workshop that meets approximately 33 hours in the month of June. Participation is

open to all faculty with a preference given to those teaching sophomore and junior level courses

that have not traditionally had a writing component. Participants will be designated as MIWE

faculty and will be expected to teach one QEP course in the following academic year that

incorporates some of the WTL techniques and a formal writing component into their designated

QEP courses. In addition, MIWE faculty will meet two to three times in the academic year

following the summer workshop. These follow-up sessions allow for additional networking

among MIWE faculty and provide feedback on the implementation of Maroon and Write.


Participants read core selections from the literature in learning theory, composition theory,

cognitive theory, and WTL pedagogical theory. Participants also engage in many of the

activities they will incorporate into their classes: journaling, free-writing, peer-evaluation, and

the development of reflective essays. The workshop is designed to engage faculty in numerous

individual and group activities. Each faculty participant is expected to revise a syllabus for an

existing course. The revised syllabus will reflect WTL strategies that support the course learning

objectives and incorporate appropriate support and scaffolding for the writing assignment.

Participation in the MIWE will, over time, build a cadre of faculty trained in the use of writing-

to-learn strategies. MIWE faculty will continue to contribute to the Maroon and Write program

through participation in faculty development activities that allow them to share their experiences

and knowledge with their peers and contribute to an ongoing learning community in support of

writing across the curriculum at Mississippi State University.

Training for Instructional Faculty

Not all classes are suited to having a formal writing assignment, and not all faculty members will

be able to attend the MIWE summer program. For this reason, the QEP will also sponsor writing

workshops, Brown Bag luncheons, seminars, and forums through the Center for Teaching and

Learning (CTL). These programs will be available to all faculty, including MIWE faculty

members. The CTL will sponsor at least one Brown Bag and one seminar related to writing

activities each semester. Maroon and Write will offer one speaker forum at least once every

academic year. Access to training for all instructional faculty expands faculty development

beyond the MIWE participants and strengthens writing pedagogies in all curricula.

EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT AND RESOURCES

To assist in the implementation of Maroon and Write, the institution will utilize the knowledge

and expertise of writing coordinators, the Writing Center, the Center for Teaching and Learning,

the MSU Libraries, and the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. More discussion

about the resources allocated to Maroon and Write is provided in Section V of this document.

Writing Coordinators

MSU will encourage all instructional faculty to participate in MIWE and in Maroon and Write

faculty development opportunities; however, the university recognizes that faculty members

cannot be expected to redesign their courses to become writing classes, nor are they trained to

teach writing. Furthermore, course content must take precedence over writing instruction.

Therefore, the university will employ writing coordinators to assist faculty members with writing

instruction, assignment creation, grading, and feedback to students. The institution’s intention is

to hire one writing coordinator for each college (with the exception of Forest Resources and

Veterinary Medicine, both of which have small undergraduate student populations and will share

a single writing coordinator). Although these coordinators will be available to assist non-MIWE

faculty, their priority will be current MIWE participants. Writing coordinators will report to the

QEP directors; their job responsibilities will include:

28 Maroon and Write

Working with faculty members to develop both writing-to-learn activities and formal

writing assignments

Visiting MIWE classrooms to instruct students in writing components and/or grammar

Educating faculty and students in the application of the Maroon and Write rubric

Assisting faculty in evaluating student writing

Holding writing conferences with students in MIWE classes

Assisting with other Maroon and Write projects as needed

Writing coordinators must have a master’s degree or higher and at least two years of experience

in teaching and/or tutoring writing. Maroon and Write has budgeted for seven positions: two

coordinators will be twelve-month employees and will assist with the MIWE and any writing

evaluation opportunities that arise during the summer in addition to working with faculty during

fall and spring semesters; the other five coordinators will be employed on a nine-month basis

during the regular academic year.

Writing Center

MSU’s Writing Center supports the writing efforts of all students at all levels and in all colleges

within the university. Trained writing consultants provide assistance to students at any stage of

the writing process. The Writing Center is part of MSU’s Department of English and is staffed

by the department’s graduate students, adjunct lecturers, and instructors. It is anticipated that, as

Maroon and Write fosters increased frequency of writing in all colleges, the Writing Center will

experience a significant increase in demand for writing appointments. Because demand is

already high, the Maroon and Write project will need to support the Writing Center’s need for

additional staff; therefore, the QEP proposed budget includes financial support over the project’s

duration.

Maroon and Write Speaker Series

Working with the Center for Teaching and Learning, the Office of Institutional Research and

Effectiveness, and the Provost’s Office, the Maroon and Write QEP will sponsor the Maroon and

Write Speaker Series. The speaker series will bring at least one external expert in the use of

writing pedagogies to the Mississippi State University campus each year. The series will draw

on experts from a variety of disciplines and provide an opportunity for faculty unable to attend a

writing conference to be exposed to some of the leading experts in the use of writing in the

classroom. The inaugural speaker was Kathleen Blake Yancey, Kellogg W. Hunt Professor of

English from Florida State University. Dr. Yancey presented a public lecture in fall 2013 that

was attended by more than 100 faculty from across the academic disciplines, and she interacted

with the MIWE faculty in a separate session. Her presentation was recorded and made available

as a resource to faculty unable to attend the lecture. Future speakers in the series will follow a

similar format.

Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL)

Founded in 2006, the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) is charged with coordinating

faculty development and promoting a culture of teaching on the Mississippi State University

campus. The Maroon and Write office will work closely with the CTL in the development and


implementation of faculty development opportunities related to the use of writing pedagogies in

the classroom. While the Maroon and Write Speaker Series will raise awareness of the QEP and

writing pedagogies, more focused training will be made available through the CTL that will

reinforce the use of writing pedagogies and provide the opportunity for faculty to showcase how

they have used these strategies in their classes.

Each semester, the Maroon and Write staff will work with the CTL in the development of at least

one CTL Brown Bag devoted to the QEP. These sessions typically focus on a particular

pedagogical topic with speakers drawn from the MSU faculty. These 90-minute sessions are

open to all faculty and staff members. The Maroon and Write staff will also work with the CTL

in the development of at least one QEP-related CTL seminar per semester. CTL seminars are

one-hour sessions that focus on some in-depth pedagogical topic and allow for greater interaction

than a typical brown bag. The CTL Brown Bag, seminar sessions, and the Maroon and Write

Speaker Series will be video recorded and made available through the CTL website, allowing

those unable to attend in person to view the sessions.

In the fall 2014 semester, the Maroon and Write project will partner with the CTL to host a

teaching circle dedicated to the use of writing-to-learn strategies in the classroom. Teaching

circles are informal faculty group discussions that meet once a semester and focus on a single

topic for the entire semester.

The Maroon and Write project will work with the CTL and the MSU Libraries to purchase

faculty materials in support of the scholarship of writing-across-the curriculum and other writing

pedagogies. These materials will be purchased through the Maroon and Write office, cataloged

through the MSU Libraries online catalog, and housed in the CTL’s faculty reading shelf. The

materials will be included in bibliographies and resource guides supported through both the

Maroon and Write and CTL websites.

MSU Libraries

Mississippi State University Libraries maintain extensive research resources and services that

will support the Maroon and Write QEP. The library instruction program offers customized

instruction sessions in either the professor’s classroom or in one of the library’s instructional

labs. These instruction sessions are designed in accordance with the Association of College and

Research Libraries information literacy standards and are provided by professional librarians

trained in instruction and research strategies. In addition, information professionals in the

Instructional Media Center offer workshops and classes on the use of technology and social

media applications. The Research Services Department offers a consultation service that

provides students with individualized research assistance.

MSU Libraries use the web publishing platform LibGuides by Springshare. This web-based

program allows the MSU Libraries’ professionals to create specialized research guides on topics

related to research (including existing guides on writing and citation styles.) Faculty members

have the option of requesting guides designed specifically for their courses. In support of

Maroon and Write, library professionals will develop a LibGuide to serve as a portal for both

faculty and students looking for resources related to the QEP.

30 Maroon and Write

A library representative participated in the first Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence and

presented a session on library resources, services, and information literacy to the first group of

MIWE faculty. All MIWE participants will be encouraged to use the library’s resources in their

classes, and the Maroon and Write website will refer faculty to relevant resources.

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness (OIRE) provides guidance and support for

Maroon and Write. Under the direction of Timothy Chamblee, MSU’s SACSCOC Liaison,

OIRE administers surveys to MSU students and faculty, tracks QEP-related data, and provides

trend analysis. Several OIRE office members serve as ex-officio members of QEP committees.

PROMOTION AND COMMUNICATION

Maroon and Write established a Marketing and Communications subcommittee to promote

awareness of the QEP. These marketing efforts will target undergraduate students, graduate

students, and faculty. In spring 2013, the committee formed a QEP Student Marketing Advisory

Board, comprised of 10 students and chaired by Kyle Hennington, International Business major

with an emphasis on Marketing. This group of students has been instrumental in selecting a

logo, slogans, and advertising strategies.

Because the university intends to invest its resources in enhancing student learning, limited

marketing funds were allocated to generate interest and awareness. During 2013-2014, Maroon

and Write purchased pens and advertising materials to post on shuttle buses and on napkin

holders in the cafeteria and food court. Examples of marketing materials can be found in

Appendix L.

Each year, MSU offers orientation sessions to all of its new students (including transfers and

those enrolled at Meridian and in distance education programs) and new faculty; Maroon and

Write is already active and will continue to work with orientation coordinators to promote

awareness. For example, information about the QEP was included in presentations during the

summer 2013 orientation, and students received promotional fans and pens. In addition, during

the spring 2014 Graduate Student Orientation, Deborah Lee, co-director of Maroon and Write,

spoke to students about the QEP. Although graduate students are not the target audience for

writing instruction, they may be the graduate teaching assistants for many of the undergraduate

classes that the QEP targets.

Additionally, starting in summer 2014, all new student orientations included a writing session:

participants had 20 minutes to complete a brief writing sample in response to a prompt. This

writing component both promoted Maroon and Write, and also demonstrated the importance of

writing at Mississippi State University.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

The charts on the next two pages indicate the completed and planned activities for Maroon and

Write. These charts include the pilot year activities as well as activities that will be ongoing at

the time the Impact Report will be submitted in March 2019.


Activities Year 0 Year 1 Year 2

Summer 2013

Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Summer 2014

Fall 2014

Spring 2015

Summer 2015

Fall 2015

Spring 2016

QEP courses writing analysis Control courses writing analysis Senior capstones writing analysis ETS NSSE Student focus groups Presentations during new student orientations Community updates about Maroon and Write

MIWE Summer Institute MIWE follow-up sessions Undergraduate Faculty Teaching Survey CTL Brown Bag CTL Seminar Maroon and Write Speaker Series Faculty focus groups Evaluation of progress

Completed activities Planned activities Activities that are planned for either

fall or spring

32 Maroon and Write

Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Activities Summer

2016 Fall

2016 Spring 2017

Summer 2017

Fall 2017

Spring 2018

Summer 2018

Fall 2018

Spring 2019

QEP courses writing analysis Control courses writing analysis Senior capstones writing analysis ETS NSSE Student focus groups Presentations during new student orientations Community updates about Maroon and Write

MIWE Summer Institute MIWE follow-up sessions Undergraduate Faculty Teaching Survey CTL Brown Bag CTL Seminar Maroon and Write Speaker Series Faculty focus groups Evaluation of progress

Completed activities Planned activities Activities that are planned for

either fall or spring


IV. Assessment and Evaluation

Mississippi State University’s (MSU) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Maroon and Write,

seeks to improve undergraduate student writing by implementing a writing across the curriculum

model, including writing-to-learn strategies and formal writing components. Maroon and Write

will utilize both direct and indirect measures to evaluate the success of the initiative for both

students and faculty. To measure the improvement in student learning, Maroon and Write will

consider both internal and external instruments. Additionally, the assessment plan will track

student learning in the designated QEP classes and at the university level through senior capstone

classes.

PURPOSE OF MAROON AND WRITE

The purpose of Maroon and Write is to improve student writing. Maroon and Write has

established three outcomes for this goal, and each outcome has objectives for measuring the

success toward achieving the outcomes.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

The following outcomes and objectives have been identified for Maroon and Write.

Outcome 1: Students will write documents that are appropriately organized, well developed, and

clearly worded.

Outcome 2: Students will use Standard English correctly, avoiding errors in syntax, grammar,

and usage.

Outcome 3: Students will be more engaged in writing activities.

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Maroon and Write has developed or identified four instruments for measuring the impact on

student learning related to Goal 1: Maroon and Write Rubric, ETS Proficiency Profile exam,

NSSE survey, and focus groups. Each of these instruments is discussed in this section. Table 7

provides a matrix that identifies which instruments will be used to evaluate each of the Goal 1

outcomes.

Maroon and Write Rubric

MSU faculty developed Maroon and Write Rubric as a direct, internal measure of student

learning. The rubric is provided in Appendix J of this document. The rubric contains five

components to represent: (1) Background, context, or problem, (2) thesis, (3) support for the

thesis, (4) word choice and sentence structure, and (5) correctness. Five levels of proficiency

(1=Poor, 2=Acceptable, 3=Good, 4=Excellent, 5=Superior) measure the students’ performance

in each of the five components.

34 Maroon and Write

ETS Proficiency Profile

The ETS Proficiency Profile is a standardized, external instrument that directly measures

students’ performance in writing, mathematics, critical thinking, and reading skills. The

abbreviated version of the test contains 36 questions, with nine questions for each of the skill-set

areas. Students have 40 minutes to complete the exam. The writing section of the exam

measures students’ knowledge of grammar, language organization, and figurative language. The

results of the exam indicate what percentage of students score at proficient, marginal, and not

proficient within three levels of understanding. The following levels demonstrate a student’s

ability to do the following:

ETS Level 1: recognize grammar and word usage

ETS Level 2: build upon simple components of writing and incorporate those simple

components into more complex sentence structures

ETS Level 3: recognize how complex sentences work together for parallelism, idiomatic

language, correct constructions, and reduction in redundancy

Each year, the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness administers a paper and pencil

exam to freshmen and seniors to track the institution’s progress in these skill sets. The

institution then compares its results to a group of 10 peer institutions to establish a peer-level

benchmark. MSU has performed and continues to perform below its peers in writing.

National Survey of Student Engagement

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) represents an indirect, external measure

that has been standardized with hundreds of four-year colleges and universities. The NSSE

measures students’ engagement with coursework and studies and how the university motivates

students to participate in activities that enhance student learning. This survey is used to identify

practices that institutions can adopt or reform to improve the learning environment for students.

Each year, the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness deploys the online survey to

freshmen and seniors. The institution then compares its results to a group of peers from the same

Carnegie classification, from a peer group determined by the NSSE examiners, and from a group

of peers that MSU has identified.

Table 7: Instruments used to evaluate Goal 1 outcomes

Maroon and

Write Rubric

ETS Proficiency

Profile NSSE Focus Groups

Outcome 1: Improve student

writing quality X X

Outcome 2: Improve student

writing correctness X X X

Outcome 3: Increase student

engagement in writing

activities

X X


Focus Groups

Maroon and Write will create focus groups for students and faculty. Discussion will pertain to

their experiences with writing in their classes. The co-directors will assemble these groups and

coordinate the discussions each spring.

EVALUATION OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

To evaluate progress toward its goal, Maroon and Write will assess student learning at the course

level (with students in the QEP classes) and at the university-level (using senior students). By

the end of five years, MSU anticipates a 10% improvement in senior writing. Although Maroon

and Write will work to improve writing skills and increase writing opportunities throughout a

student’s college career, an analysis of the senior year should represent a composite of all

academic training. This section provides the research design, an analysis of the pilot project, and

baseline data for each objective related to improving student writing quality and frequency.

Outcome 1: Improve students’ writing quality

To measure Outcome 1, the Maroon and Write rubric will be used to evaluate the writing quality

of students in QEP classes and at the senior level. After 2013-2014, all QEP-designated courses

will contain a formal writing assignment to which the rubric will be applied. The writing

coordinators will apply the rubric to the writing artifacts to measure the student writing.

Objective 1: 75% of students in these QEP courses will score a 4 in components 1-4 on

the rubric.

Baseline data: In 2013-2014, MSU conducted a pilot project of Maroon and Write.

During summer 2013, nine faculty members participated in the MIWE. Eight of those

faculty members taught during the 2013-2014 year, and the other member, Dr. Deborah

Lee, became co-director of the Maroon and Write initiative. Appendix I has a list of the

2013 MIWE participants. For 2013-2014 only, several MIWE faculty members offered

two sections of the same course and comparable sizes so that one served as the QEP

course to include the writing pedagogies taught during the MIWE and the other served as

the control group. The intent of having a control group as part of the pilot was to

determine whether the MIWE would have the intended impact on student learning.

During the fall 2013 semester, four QEP courses were offered; however, one of the

courses did not require a formal writing assignment to which the rubric could be applied.

Therefore, the baseline data includes the three courses that did require a formal writing

assignment. The three QEP courses enrolled 105 students, who comprised 0.6% of the

total undergraduate student population. One writing coordinator used the QEP rubric to

assess the writing proficiency of these students. The results are provided in Table 8.

Of the four QEP courses from the fall 2013, two had control-group counterparts, totaling

30 students. A writing coordinator applied the rubric to the writing artifacts from the

control group. The results indicate a higher level of writing quality for students in the

QEP courses over students in the control group.

36 Maroon and Write

Table 8: Evaluating outcomes 1 and 2 using the Maroon and Write rubric

Relationship to

Outcomes and

Objectives

Measures Baseline

Students in

QEP courses

Target

Students in

QEP courses

Baseline

University

Seniors 2013-

14

Target

University

Seniors in

2017-18

Outcome 1:

Improve student

writing quality

Component 1:

Context/ Problem

43.6% of

students

scored

4 or 5

75% of

students

score

4 or 5

3.36 3.70

Component 2:

Clarity of thesis

55.1% of

students

scored

4 or 5

75% of

students

score

4 or 5

3.77 4.15

Component 3:

Support for thesis

41% of

students

scored

4 or 5

75% of

students

score

4 or 5

3.28 3.61

Component 4:

Structure and

word choice

67.9% of

students

scored

4 or 5

75% of

students

score

4 or 5

3.99 4.39

Outcome 2:

Improve student

writing quality

with respect to

correctness

Component 5:

Correctness

82.1% of

students

scored

4 or 5

75% of

students

score

4 or 5

3.82 4.20

Note: A copy of the Maroon and Write Rubric is provided in Appendix J.

To measure the overall achievement at the university level for Outcome 1, Maroon and Write

will gather student writing artifacts from the senior-level courses during the fall and spring

semesters. The writing coordinators will then use the Maroon and Write rubric to evaluate a

random sample of artifacts from each college.

Objective 2: Senior students will improve the mean scores by 10% over the 2013-14

baseline on Skill Components 1-4 of the Maroon and Write Rubric.

Baseline data: During fall 2013, the co-directors of Maroon and Write collected senior-

level writing artifacts from courses representing social sciences, humanities, education,

agriculture, and engineering, thus involving five of the institution’s eight colleges. Two

writing coordinators analyzed a sample of 45 artifacts to determine the rubric scores for

this level. At the time of the on-site review, the majority of the senior writing artifacts

were not available. The co-directors continued collecting writing samples throughout the

spring semester. In total, 323 writing artifacts comprised the baseline data that informed

the assessment of the QEP. In fall 2013, the University enrolled 5,279 senior students;

therefore, the sample evaluated for the baseline included 6.1% of the senior students. The


artifacts came from all eight of the institution’s colleges. The results of this analysis are

provided in Table 8. The QEP staff continues to build relationships with senior-level

professors to collect additional writing samples throughout the 2014-15 academic year

for evaluating progress of Maroon and Write. The assessment staff will monitor the

progress of rubric evaluations to determine whether the targets require adjustment as

additional writing coordinators are hired and the rubric has been standardized.

The Maroon and Write assessment staff will track these data and provide an analysis of the

results annually. The co-directors, in consultation with Maroon and Write advisors, such as the

Provost and Executive Vice President and the SACSCOC Liaison, will then determine whether

and what changes need to be made in faculty development. Table 8 provides a scorecard for

tracking the impact of Maroon and Write on student learning.

Outcome 2: Improve students’ writing quality with respect to correctness

Maroon and Write will measure the quality of students’ writing with respect to correctness by

using the rubric and by using the ETS Proficiency Exam. As in Outcome 1, the rubric will be

applied to student writing in both QEP classes and in senior classes. MSU anticipates

improvement in student writing in both QEP courses and in senior courses. The ETS Proficiency

Exam is administered only to senior students and will not be administered to QEP courses

separately. With the ETS Proficiency Exam, the university strives to improve the overall scores

for the seniors, assuming that increasingly more seniors will have been exposed to Maroon and

Write interventions by 2017-2018.

Objective 1: 75% of students in these QEP courses will score a 4 or higher on Skill

Component 5 of the rubric.

Baseline data: In 2013-2014, MSU conducted a pilot project of Maroon and Write.

During summer 2013, nine faculty members participated in the MIWE. For 2013-2014

only, several MIWE faculty members offered a QEP course with the writing pedagogies

taught during MIWE and a control course of comparable size that did not incorporate any

of the writing pedagogies from MIWE.

During fall 2013, a writing coordinator used the rubric to evaluate writing artifacts from

three QEP courses and two control courses. The results of the QEP courses are included

in Table 8 to provide baseline data to inform the MIWE for 2014-2015.

To gather information about the overall success of the QEP toward improving students’

correctness in writing, Maroon and Write will use the rubric to evaluate writing artifacts from

senior courses.

Objective 2: Senior students will improve the mean scores by 10% over the 2013-14

baseline on Skill Components 5 of the Maroon and Write Rubric.

Baseline data: During 2013-14, the QEP staff collected 323 writing artifacts from all

eight of MSU’s colleges. These writing samples comprised the baseline data that

informed the assessment of the QEP. In fall 2013, the University enrolled 5,279 senior

38 Maroon and Write

students; therefore, the sample evaluated for the baseline included 6.1% of the senior

students. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 8.

Table 8 provides the data for tracking the success of the QEP as measured by the Maroon and

Write Rubric. The Maroon and Write Rubric serves as an instrument for both Outcomes 1 and 2.

Maroon and Write will also utilize scores from the ETS Proficiency Profile to track the

improvement in student writing at the senior level. The Office of Institutional Research and

Effectiveness administers the exam to seniors during the spring of each academic year as a part

of its general education assessment. By 2017-2018, MSU intends for the majority of seniors to

have been affected by the QEP; therefore, the intent of the QEP is to increase the entire

institution’s proficiency in the area of writing.

Objective 3: MSU seniors will perform at the same proficiency levels as our peer

institutions on the ETS Proficiency Profile.

Baseline data: During spring 2013, MSU seniors completed the ETS Proficiency Profile.

These results are reported in terms of the percentage of seniors who are proficient in

writing. This percentage of proficiency is reported for three levels of writing. In fall

2013, MSU identified a cohort of 10 peer institutions to serve as the target for this

objective. By the end of 2017-2018, MSU expects to reach the same proficiency levels

as our peers. Table 9 indicates the results of the spring 2013 administration of the ETS

Proficiency Profile. The target scores represent the average proficiency level for the

group of 10 peer institutions, which are listed in Appendix E.

Table 9: Percentage of seniors who are proficient in three levels of writing on the ETS Exam

ETS Proficiency Level

MSU Seniors

Baseline

Peer Institutions

Target

ETS Level 1 74% 82%

ETS Level 2 27% 36%

ETS Level 3 16% 18%

Outcome 3: Students will be more engaged in writing activities

Outcome 3 reinforces student writing quality by having students write more frequently in their

classes and be more engaged in writing activities. To measure the success of this outcome,

Maroon and Write will utilize the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and several

annual focus groups during the spring semester.

Each year, the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness coordinates the online survey in

the fall for freshman students and spring for senior students in support of the institution’s

ongoing assessment and planning practices. Like the ETS Proficiency Profile, Maroon and

Write anticipates improvement in the overall university scores by the end of 2017-2018. The

results of the NSSE are reported in frequency scales to detail what percentage of respondents

choose each answer.


Objective 1: 75% of senior students will report on the NSSE survey that they prepared

two or more drafts of a paper often or very often.

Objective 2: 75% of seniors will report on the NSSE survey that their faculty provided

feedback on their drafts often or very often.

Objective 3: 95% of seniors will report on the NSSE survey that MSU contributed quite

a bit or very much to their abilities to write clearly and effectively.

Baseline data: During Spring 2013, MSU seniors completed the NSSE with results

presented in Table 10. These results serve as baseline data for Outcome 3.

Table 10: Results from the NSSE to determine the success of Outcome 3

NSSE Question

Percentage of seniors responding as “often” or “very often”

Baseline Target

1b. How often did you write

two or more drafts of a paper? 43.4% 75.0%

5d. How often did faculty

provide feedback on drafts? 61.5% 75.0%

17a. To what extent did the

institution teach you to write

clearly and effectively?

75.8% 95.0%

In addition to the NSSE results, Maroon and Write will convene student and faculty focus groups

to obtain feedback about the success or impact of the institution’s QEP. These small focus

groups will occur in the spring of each academic year and will target senior students, MIWE

faculty, and instructional faculty who attended QEP events. The questions will focus on how

frequently writing pedagogies were implemented in the classroom and how often students were

asked to write in their classes.

Objective 4: 50% of instructional faculty who participated in a QEP faculty development

activity will report increased student engagement in writing.

Baseline data: The intent of Maroon and Write is to conduct focus groups in the spring

semesters; however, some baseline information was considered from responses at the

MIWE follow-up session near the end of the fall 2013 semester. Although four

instructors offered QEP courses, eight instructors began implementing elements of

writing-to-learn in their other classes. All of the MIWE instructors reported greater

engagement in student writing that led to more in-depth class discussions and improved

writing quality. One MIWE instructor whose QEP course is offered in the spring 2014

semester mentioned that he implemented a writing-to-learn exercise in one of his fall

semester courses and discovered that something he had always assumed to be common

knowledge was actually a point of confusion for many students, thereby gauging his

students’ comprehension of course material.

Another MIWE instructor compiled the following summary about students’ writing

performance when comparing the QEP course to the control course:

40 Maroon and Write

The overall quality of students’ writing improved in the QEP section, while

the same was not true of the non-QEP section as a whole (despite individual

exceptions).The average grade on the first essay in the QEP section was 2.56,

and the final average of grades for the three analytical essays in that section

was 2.74. The average grade on the first essay in the non-QEP section was

2.65, and the final average of grades for the three analytical essays in that

section was 2.48. Especially interesting was the difference between average

grades on the second papers: in the non-QEP section, the average on the

second paper was 2.65, exactly the same as on the first, while in the QEP

section the average was 2.95, up from 2.56 on the first. [Please note that this

faculty member’s grading scale ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest.]

The same MIWE faculty member also mentioned the following observation:

In so far as the evaluations by students are valid indicators, during the last

week of classes the students in the two sections appear to have been equally

satisfied; but students in the QEP section were more committed to verbalizing

their views.... students in the QEP section wrote more than two-and-a-half

times as many words, per student, as did the students in the non-QEP section.

Another MIWE participant also noted a similar trend in improved writing scores over the

course of the semester for the QEP class. This instructor provided the following chart

(depicted in Table 11) for comparison in average scores on course assignments for the

QEP class and the control class.

Table 11: Comparison between average assignment grades for QEP versus control class

QEP Control

Paper 1 80 80

Paper 2 84 80

Paper 3 85 80

Exam 1 81 79

Exam 2 90 80

Exam 3 89 87

This participant further explained: "I think this speaks more to the effectiveness of the

QEP than the final grades....Just a little FYI from the person who actually saw growth!"

The Center for Teaching and Learning also reported positive responses from faculty who

attended the workshop featuring Kathleen Yancey, who came to MSU as part of the

Maroon and Write Speaker Series. Dr. Yancey’s visit seemed to ignite a curiosity and

willingness to learn more about implementing writing-to-learn strategies in the

classroom. One non-MIWE faculty member mentioned that she had a few extra minutes

in class and decided to ask students to free-write in response to a specific prompt for five

minutes. She then reported that students remained after class to discuss what they wrote.

Going forward, Maroon and Write will conduct more structured, planned focus groups

that will answer specific questions related to the QEP. However, initial, anecdotal


evidence suggests that Maroon and Write has the capacity to improve both the quality of

student writing and student engagement in the writing process.

TRIANGULATION OF ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

Maroon and Write utilizes multiple instruments and assessment approaches to ensure that all

areas of the plan are evaluated, because no one instrument can measure all aspects. These

instruments measure the plan through three layers: (1) QEP courses, (2) the institution through

senior writing artifacts, and (3) benchmark comparisons with peers. Table 12 depicts the layers

of assessment and the instrument that will evaluate within that layer.

Table 12: Three layers of assessment for Maroon and Write

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3

QEP Course Institution-wide Benchmark

Rubric X X

Focus Groups X X

ETS X

NSSE X

Finally, Maroon and Write uses a combination of internal and external instruments, as well as

direct and indirect measures, to evaluate the impact of the QEP. Table 13 provides a matrix that

depicts this relationship.

Table 13: Maroon and Write assessment instrument matrix

Direct Indirect

Internal Rubric Focus Groups

External ETS NSSE

VALIDATION OF THE RUBRIC

It is important to note that all three MIWE faculty members who taught QEP courses in fall 2013

graded their students’ papers separately from the individual who was serving as a writing

coordinator for the pilot year. These faculty members indicated that their grades and the writing

coordinator’s rubric scores were very similar. This alignment in grading results for both the

faculty member and the writing coordinator supports the validity of the rubric.

At the suggestion of the SACSCOC On-site Committee, moving forward, writing coordinators

will evaluate all writing samples using the rubric. The QEP co-directors will work to normalize

the rubric and ensure that all graders follow similar evaluation patterns.

42 Maroon and Write

CONTROL COURSES

During the pilot 2013-14 year, Maroon and Write used three control courses to measure whether

the QEP course would have an effect on the students. Three professors taught two sections of the

same class: one section would use the MIWE-inspired writing strategies and the other section

would follow the original course structure without the writing strategies. Table 13 shows the

mean scores of students’ writing samples from the control courses and the QEP courses. A one-

tailed independent samples t-test indicates that the mean difference between the two types of

classes is significant at less than .05 for Problem, Support, and Thesis. Even though the

difference between the mean scores of the QEP and control classes were not significant for Word

Choice and Correctness, the QEP classes still had higher scores on average than the control

classes.

Because Maroon and Write seeks to improve student writing for the entire university, it will not

continue withholding writing strategies from a controlled sample. Furthermore, having control

classes limits the potential QEP courses to only those that offer multiple sections. Without

control classes, all undergraduate students will have the opportunity to participate in the QEP.

MSU will know that it has achieved its goal by tracking the mean scores of the senior students’

writing samples as indicated in Table 8.

Table 14: Comparison of QEP courses to control courses

Problem Support Thesis Word Choice Correctness

Control (n=78) 2.962 3.462 2.885 3.718 3.526

QEP (n=73) 3.397 3.836 3.384 3.945 3.726

Mean difference .435* .374* .499** .227 .200

* p < .05

** p < .01

TRANSFER STUDENTS

MSU enrolls a large number of transfer students in the junior and senior year of college as a

result of articulation agreements with two-year institutions. Because Maroon and Write will

target all undergraduate students, transfer students will have opportunities to participate in the

QEP. Transfer students were included in the baseline data, and Table 15 provides the analysis

comparing senior transfer students to senior native students. The results indicate that writing

scores for transfer students were not significantly different than those of native students.

Although transfer students on average had lower scores than native students, the gaps were less

between transfer and native students who participated in the QEP. Maroon and Write will

continue to track transfer student data and monitor whether different interventions are needed for

this population of students.


Table 15: Writing scores comparison for senior transfer students and senior native students

Problem Support Thesis

Word

Choice Correctness

Transfer (n=105) 3.25 3.88 3.13 3.93 3.84

Native (n=123) 3.42 3.85 3.43 4.09 4.00

Mean difference .17 .03 .30 .16 .16

44 Maroon and Write

V. Management and Resources

In support of Maroon and Write, MSU has hired staff members and utilized existing personnel

for the QEP’s human capital. Additionally, the university will fund elements of Maroon and

Write with new money and will devote existing resources and tools for the benefit of Maroon

and Write. This section provides a brief overview of the implementation and the evaluation of

Maroon and Write and then discusses the resources that the institution will devote to this five-

year project.

GOAL

Maroon and Write’s goal is to improve student writing. Maroon and Write will not transform all

courses into writing courses nor all faculty into writing instructors. Rather, it will encourage

faculty to adopt some of the writing pedagogies not only to improve students’ writing skills, but

also to strengthen the institution’s writing across the curriculum program and writing-to-learn

strategies. Each year, 15 faculty members will receive intensive training in writing pedagogies

to implement in the classroom. Additionally, Maroon and Write will offer frequent workshops,

seminars, and trainings to all faculty to introduce writing-to-learn strategies.

HUMAN CAPITAL

Maroon and Write has had broad-

based participation in its

development since its onset in

2011. This broad participation will

continue throughout its

implementation for the next five

years. Figure 10 demonstrates the

level of involvement from multiple

constituents through the plan’s

development and implementation.

MSU has appointed two co-

directors, identified existing staff

members to assist with the plan’s

assessment and budget, and has

allotted funding to secure

additional staff to serve as writing

coordinators and graduate

assistants.

Co-Directors

The Maroon and Write co-directors

are responsible for the

implementation of the MSU

Quality Enhancement Plan. These

Listening Sessions

Topic Selection Task Force

Development Committee

QEP Co-Directors

Students

University Partners (see Table 17)

Instructional Faculty

MIWE

Pilot

Broad-based Participation

Design Phase

Implementation Phase

Figure 10: Demonstration of MSU's broad-based participation in QEP


positions report to the Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President. Responsibilities for

the co-directors include:

Lead and collaborate with QEP committees.

Manage the QEP budget and maintain all records and files.

Collaborate with the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness in the collection

and evaluation of assessment data.

Conduct focus groups of faculty and students in support of the QEP assessment.

Collaborate with the Center for Teaching and Learning in the development and

implementation of faculty training seminars and workshops in support of the Maroon and

Write.

Recruit, hire, and train writing personnel as required by the Maroon and Write.

Work with the Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence (MIWE) Director in the

implementation of the annual faculty summer workshop.

Provide annual reports and updates as needed; prepare and submit the QEP Impact

Report in consultation with the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness as part

of the institution’s Fifth-Year Interim Report, which will be submitted in March 2019.

Regularly disseminate Maroon and Write information and related research through

internal and external communications.

Effective November 1, 2013, MSU’s Provost and Executive Vice President appointed Deborah

Lee and Ann Spurlock to serve as co-directors of Maroon and Write. Based on their professional

backgrounds, which are described in more detail below, Dr. Lee will lead faculty development

activities, and Ms. Spurlock will direct writing strategies and assessment.

Deborah Lee

Deborah Lee has been part of the QEP initiative since its inception. As a member of the Topic

Selection Committee, she co-chaired a sub group tasked with exploring one of the three primary

topics under consideration at the time. She continued her involvement as a member of the QEP

Development Committee, where she served as co-chair of the Marketing and Communications

Subcommittee. She has attended two of the SACSCOC Summer Institute Conferences (2012 and

2013), which focused on assessment and the QEP. She has also completed the inaugural Maroon

Institute for Writing Excellence, which trains faculty on how to incorporate writing into the

classroom.

Dr. Lee has completed a Ph.D. in Business Administration with an emphasis on Economics and a

M.S. in Business Administration from Mississippi State University and a M.S. in Library and

Information Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She holds the rank of

Professor and serves as the Coordinator of Graduate Student Services in the MSU Libraries.

Prior to her appointment as QEP Co-chair, she served as the Associate Director of the Center for

Teaching and Learning and as Coordinator of Library Instructional Services in the MSU

Libraries. Dr. Lee has taught courses in the Department of Finance and Economics and worked

with faculty in the Department of Biochemistry in the development and teaching of BCH

4503/6503, Science Communication Skills.

46 Maroon and Write

Ann Spurlock

Ann Spurlock joined the QEP initiative as a member of the Development Committee. She has

attended two of the SACSCOC Summer Institute Conferences (2012 and 2013), which focus on

assessment and QEPs, and the SACS Annual Meeting in 2013.

Ms. Spurlock has an M.A. in English from Mississippi State University. She has extensive

experience in teaching and assessing writing. She has served as an Instructor in the Department

of English since 1988 and has taught numerous undergraduate English classes. She currently

serves as the Director of Composition and is charged with supervising and directing graduate

teaching assistants; in addition, she designs and supervises the administration of assessment tools

in freshman composition classes as well as reporting results to the Office of Institutional

Research and Effectiveness.

Assessment Staff

The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness (OIRE), led by the institution’s

SACSCOC liaison, will work closely with the Maroon and Write co-directors to collect

assessment data to monitor the progress of the QEP and to evaluate its success. Staff members in

this office have a combined 30 years of experience related to assessment of student learning.

Budget Staff

Maroon and Write has utilized the skills and resources of a budget coordinator, who will work

part-time with the QEP and full-time with the OIRE. This person will not only help maintain the

Maroon and Write finances, but will also work with the invoices for external speakers, contracts

for meals and other expenses, and maintain the payroll schedule for writing coordinators and

graduate assistants.

Writing Coordinators

MSU will encourage all instructional faculty to participate in MIWE and in Maroon and Write

faculty development opportunities; however, the university recognizes that faculty members

cannot be expected to redesign their courses to become writing classes, nor are they trained to

teach writing. Furthermore, course content must take precedence over writing instruction.

Therefore, the institution will employ writing coordinators to assist faculty members with writing

instruction, assignment creation, grading, and feedback to students. The institution’s intention is

to hire one writing coordinator for each college (with the exception of Arts and Sciences, which

will have two writing coordinators and the exception of Forest Resources and Veterinary

Medicine, both of which have small undergraduate student populations and will share a single

writing coordinator). Although these coordinators will be available to assist non-MIWE faculty,

their priority will be current MIWE participants. Writing coordinators will report to the QEP

directors; their job responsibilities will include:

working with faculty members to develop both writing-to-learn activities and formal

writing assignments,


visiting MIWE classrooms to instruct students in the components of writing and/or

grammar,

educating faculty and students in the application of the Maroon and Write rubric,

assisting faculty in evaluating student writing,

holding writing conferences with students in MIWE classes, and

assisting with other Maroon and Write projects as needed.

Writing coordinators must have a master’s degree or higher and at least two years of experience

in teaching and/or tutoring writing. Maroon and Write has budgeted for seven positions: two

coordinators will be twelve-month employees and will assist with the MIWE and any writing

evaluation opportunities that arise during the summer in addition to working with faculty during

fall and spring semesters; the other five coordinators will be employed on a nine-month basis

during the regular academic year.

Graduate Assistants

Maroon and Write will need one graduate assistant to attend to some of the program’s

administrative needs, such as scheduling meetings, collecting documentation related to the QEP,

keeping minutes at meetings, updating the Maroon and Write website, and helping to proctor

ETS exams as part of the Maroon and Write assessment initiative. The Maroon and Write

budget allots funds for additional graduate assistants; however, until the full plan has been

implemented and more writing coordinators have been hired, the co-directors have the authority

to determine whether graduate assistants are needed to support writing coordinators or faculty

members in the college. Furthermore, the budget allows for flexibility in case the Maroon and

Write needs to supply graduate assistants to support the Writing Center.

University Partners

MSU is a cohesive institution that enjoys support among all of its departments. These

departments will also support the Maroon and Write, including student support as well as faculty

support. Table 16 provides a list of some of the primary departments that will assist Maroon and

Write. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely an overview of the types of

departments and office that are have committed to participating in Maroon and Write.

Table 16: University partners that will assist Maroon and Write

Partners Roles

Career Center Advises faculty and staff about the skills that employers are

looking for, and counsels students on how to compose materials

needed for job applications

Center for Teaching and Learning Sponsors Maroon and Write faculty development workshops and

seminars

48 Maroon and Write

Partners Roles

Institutional Research and

Effectiveness

Provides support for Maroon and Write assessment, testing (ETS

and NSSE), and surveys

Information Technology Services Supports student and faculty technology needs related to

instruction, faculty development, and computer labs

Maroon Edition Engages students, particularly freshman, with a common book and

an essay contest

Maroon and Write Advisory

Committee

Faculty and staff serve as an advisory group

MIWE faculty Serves as a networking community and as Maroon and Write

champions who then encourage their peers to participate in

training activities

MSU Athletics Raise awareness among students and, through athletics academics,

work to improve student writing

Office of Admissions and

Scholarships

Promotes the Maroon and Write in the admissions process and

student orientation sessions

Office of Parent Services Garners support from parents who can encourage their children to

appreciate and take seriously the Maroon and Write efforts

Office of the Provost and Executive

Vice President

Advises the leaders of the Maroon and Write, promotes faculty

participation in the plan, and raises awareness during new faculty

orientation

Office of Public Affairs Supports the marketing efforts of Maroon and Write with news

media, photography, logo design, and other publicity

Student Association Promotes awareness of the Maroon and Write and serves as a

conduit for feedback to the Maroon and Write about the progress

and impact of the writing strategies


Partners Roles

Student Honor Code Office Promotes student academic integrity, particularly in student

writing, and provides education on preventing and remediating

integrity violations

The Learning Center Helps students improve their academic performance

University Libraries Provides customized instruction sessions either in the classroom or

in the instructional lab about the Libraries’ extensive research

resources and services

Writing Center Helps students develop as writers and improve their writing skills

Writing Coordinators Consults with faculty on how to incorporate writing strategies in

the classroom and by applying the Maroon and Write rubric to

writing artifacts

FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND BUDGET

MSU has designated $2,644,754 in new money for Maroon and Write between 2013 and 2018.

Table 17 provides a line-item budget for this new money. This budget allows for flexibility in

directing resources toward staff members as the need arises. For example, during the fall 2013

semester, MSU hired only one Writing Coordinator but found the need to hire an additional

Writing Coordinator for the spring 2014 semester. The salary lines consider potential raises over

the five years of the plan. The budget accounts for the Maroon Institute for Writing Excellence

(MIWE) summer training program, the Maroon and Write Speaker Series, and other related

assessment practices, such as the MIWE follow-up sessions, faculty and student focus group

sessions, and marketing and reporting initiatives.

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Maroon and Write will have a number of facility spaces available to it during the course of the

plan. In addition to the existing classroom and computer lab spaces for students, Maroon and

Write will utilize meeting spaces in the Mitchell Memorial Library for MIWE sessions, focus

groups, Brown Bag luncheons, and other small-group faculty development activities. The large

ballrooms in the Colvard Student Union will provide adequate space to accommodate a hundred

or more faculty for the Maroon and Write speaker series. These meeting spaces include

appropriate audio-visual technology for presentations.

50 Maroon and Write

Dedicated office space for Maroon and Write has been allocated in a central location on campus

in Allen Hall. This office will house the co-directors, writing coordinators, some of the graduate

assistants, and a consultation space for meetings with faculty members and assessment staff.

Table 17: Proposed budget for Maroon and Write 2013-2019

FY 14

Year 0 FY 15

Year 1 FY 16

Year 2 FY 17

Year 3 FY 18

Year 4 FY 19

Year 5

SALARIES Co-directors $78,963 $105,284 $106,863 $108,466 $110,093 $111,745

Budget coordinator

(part-time) $4,860 $6,480 $6,674 $6,875 $7,081 $7,293

Writing coordinator I $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 $120,000 $150,000 $150,000

Writing coordinator II

$73,400 $74,501 $75,619 $76,753 $77,904

Faculty stipends

summer institute $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

Faculty stipends for

first year $0 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

QEP graduate assistant $14,400 $57,600 $57,600 $57,600 $57,600 $57,600

Total Salaries $168,223 $332,764 $365,638 $428,560 $461,527 $464,542

OTHER EXPENSES Office supplies $3,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000

Marketing $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000

MIWE materials $1,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500

Equipment $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000

QEP assessment

$6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000

Writing Center support $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Annual QEP

programming $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Travel $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Total Other Expenses $73,000 $82,500 $68,500 $67,500 $66,500 $65,500

TOTAL $241,223 $415,264 $434,138 $496,060 $528,027 $530,042


Appendix A: QEP Topic Selection Task Force

Named October 31, 2011

Co-Chairs:

Angi Bourgeois (College of Architecture, Art, and Design)

Connie Forde (College of Education)

College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences

Jacquelyn Deeds

Sadik Artunc

College of Architecture, Art, and

Design

Alex Bostic

Greg Watson

College of Arts and Sciences

John Forde

Lara Dodds

College of Business

Melissa Moore

Jon Rezek

College of Engineering

Bill Elmore

Stan Bullington

College of Education

Stephanie King

Missy Hopper

College of Forest Resources

Steve Grado

Steve Demarais

College of Veterinary Medicine

Allison Gardner

Sharon Grace

Meridian

Jarrod Fogarty

Julia Porter

University Libraries

Deborah Lee

Pat Matthes

Athletic Academics

Ray Berryhill

Center for Teaching & Learning

Linda Morse

Faculty Senate

Randy Follett

First Year Experience

Tom Carskadon

Office of Institutional Research

and Effectiveness

Tim Chamblee

Mitzy Johnson

Shackouls Honors College

Chris Snyder

Staff Council

Penny French

Student Association

Shelby Balius

The Learning Center

Anna Dill

University Relations

Maridith Geuder

52 Maroon and Write

Appendix B: QEP White Paper Rubric

3 Strong 2 Acceptable 1 Weak Score

Student Learning

Outcomes

Clearly describes broad range of student learning outcomes across disciplines.

Suggests that learning outcomes could be developed with further study.

Does not identify the broad range of student learning outcomes that could be taught across disciplines.

Target Audience

Clearly identifies the target market of the proposed QEP topic.

Explanation is not clear on how students will be targeted for the QEP.

Little information is provided on the target audience for the QEP.

Assessment

Multiple means of assessing student learning outcomes are options for documenting impact, including a baseline measurement of students’ skill level.

At least one acceptable assessment tool is identified to document impact. A baseline measurement of students’ skill level is possible.

Does not address assessment tools to use as measurement of impact on student learning.

Theoretical Framework

from Literature

Identifies a number of strongly accepted underlying learning theories and practices that would result in student learning

Identifies some accepted learning theories and practices that could result in student learning.

Identifies very few underlying learning theories and practices that could result in student learning.

Application of QEP Topic

Across the Curriculum

Provides a logical explanation of how the QEP topic could be integrated across the undergraduate curriculum.

Provides limited explanation of how the QEP topic could be integrated across the undergraduate curriculum.

Provides an unclear vision of how the QEP topic could be integrated across the undergraduate curriculum.

Tying MSU Assessment

Data with QEP Topic

Clearly shows the use of existing MSU assessment data that provides a rationale for selecting this QEP topic and clearly documents the need for the topic.

Limited evidence of MSU data to support the selection of this topic for the QEP and shows little documentation of the need for the topic.

Weak evidence of other MSU data to support this topic for the QEP and shows no documentation for the need for the topic.

Comparison of QEPs at Other Peer Institutions

Excellent discussion of other QEPs on same topic.

Limited discussion of other QEPs on the same topic.

Little or no discussion of other QEPs on the same topic.

Executive Summary of QEP White

Paper

Clearly presents a rationale for selecting the topic for the QEP.

Provides limited rationale for selecting the topic for the QEP.

Lacks a clear rationale for selecting the topic for the QEP.

Total Points

Comments:


Appendix C: QEP “Best Fit” Rubric

Use the seven criteria listed below to evaluate the three QEP topics on the “best fit” for the MSU QEP. Use the following scale to rank each criterion area:

1=Best, 2=Better, 3=Good

Information Literacy

Oral Communication

Written Communication

Sample criterion 2 3 1

Greatest impact

Supporting data reveal need for the QEP

Rigorous academic/learning focus

Measurable student learning outcomes

Target audience and other stakeholders’ buy in to the QEP topic

Within institutional capacity to deliver the QEP (resources)

Linked to institutional planning (strategic plan)

1. Please rank the QEP topics in order of “best fit” for the MSU QEP. (1=First Choice, 2=the Second Choice, and 3=Third Choice). _____ Information Literacy _____ Oral Communication _____ Written Communication

2. To assist the QEP Design Team, please share your compelling reasons for selecting your #1

choice as the MSU QEP.

54 Maroon and Write

Appendix D: University Mission and Strategic Plan (excerpt)

MISSION

Mississippi State University is a public, land-grant university whose mission is to provide access

and opportunity to students from all sectors of the state’s diverse population, as well as from

other states and countries, and to offer excellent programs of teaching, research, and service.

Enhancing its historic strengths in agriculture, natural resources, engineering, mathematics, and

natural and physical sciences, Mississippi State offers a comprehensive range of undergraduate

and graduate programs; these include architecture, the fine arts, business, education, the

humanities, the social and behavioral sciences, and veterinary medicine.

The university embraces its role as a major contributor to the economic development of the state

through targeted research and the transfer of ideas and technology to the public, supported by

faculty and staff relationships with industry, community organizations, and government entities.

Building on its land-grant tradition, Mississippi State strategically extends its resources and

expertise throughout the entire state for the benefit of Mississippi’s citizens, offering access for

working and place-bound adult learners through its Meridian Campus, Extension, and distance

learning programs.

Mississippi State is committed to its tradition of instilling among its students and alumni ideals

of diversity, citizenship, leadership, and service.

STATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2012-2017 (EXCERPT)

Values

Access and Opportunity

Excellence and Innovation

Communication and Collaboration

Integrity and Accountability

Citizenship and Leadership

Respect

Overarching Goal

To be consistently ranked among America’s top public universities

Strategic Goals

Foster Teaching and Learning

Promote Research and Creativity

Expand Outreach and Engagement


Encourage Globalization

Enhance Institutional Culture and Environment

MSU’s State of Excellence strategic plan is published at

http://www.msstate.edu/web/excellence/fullplan.pdf.

56 Maroon and Write

Appendix E: Carnegie Peers used as ETS Proficiency Profile Benchmark

Clemson University, SC

North Carolina State University, NC

Oklahoma State University, OK

Purdue University, IN

University of Cincinnati, OH

University of Colorado, Denver, CO

University of Georgia, GA

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN


Appendix F: Development Committee Members

Co-Chairs of the Development Committee:

Connie Forde – College of Education

Rich Raymond – College of Arts and Sciences

QEP Communications and Marketing Subcommittee

Deborah Lee (co-chair) - University Libraries

Melissa Moore (co-chair) - College of Business

Tom Carskadon - First-Year Experience

Denise Cosper - College of Business

Hudson Frey - Student Association

Allison Gardner - College of Veterinary Medicine

Kimberly Hall - College of Education

Scott Maynard - The Career Center

Sid Salter - University Relations

Scott Stricklin - Athletic Department

Assessment Committee

Ned Browning (chair) - School of Human Sciences

Steve Grado (chair) - College of Forest Resources

Matt Little - College of Arts and Sciences

Janet McCarra - Meridian Campus

James Orr - Student Affairs

Design Subcommittee

Rich Raymond (chair) - College of Arts and Sciences

Amy Barton - College of Engineering

Hudson Frey - Student Association

Rachel McCann - College of Architecture, Art, and Design

Linda Morse - Center for Teaching and Learning

Sarah Sneed - The Writing Center

Ann Spurlock - College of Arts and Sciences

58 Maroon and Write

Appendix G: References for the Literature Review

Arter, J. & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring Rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria

for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and

why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Britton, J. (1983). Language and learning across the curriculum. In P. Linton (Ed.), Essays on

Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing (34–47). Upper Mountclair, NJ:

Bonyton.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College

English, 46, 635–652.

Butler, D. & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.

Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

Delcham, H. & Sezer, R. (2010). Write skewed: Writing in an introductory statistics course.

Education, 130, 603–615.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28,

122–128.

Fulwiler, T. & Young, A. (Eds.). (1990). Programs that work: Models and methods for

writing across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton.

Herrington, A. (1981). Writing to learn: Writing across the disciplines. College English, 43,

379–387).

Huba, M. & Freed, J. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the

focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Knipper, K.J. & Duggan, T.J. (2011). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for

comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59, 462–470.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E. Student success in college: Creating conditions that

matter. Washington, D.C.: Wiley.

Langer, J.A. & Applebee, A.N. (2007). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and

Learning [digital reprint of 1987, NCTE] . Urbana, IL. WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved

from: http://wac.colostate.edu/books.langer_applebee/.

http://wac.colostate.edu/books.langer_applebee/


Light, R.J. (1990). The Harvard Assessment Seminars; Explorations with students and faculty

about teaching, learning, and student life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Linton, P., Madigan, R., & Johnson, S. Introducing students to disciplinary genres: The role of

the general composition course. (1994). Language and Learning across the Disciplines,

1(2), 62–78.

Mainsilla, V.B., Duraisingh, E.D., Wolfe, C.R., & Haynes, C. (2009). Targeted assessment

rubric: An empirically grounded rubric for interdisciplinary writing. Journal of Higher

Education, 80, 334–353.

McLeod, S.H.; Margot Soven (Eds.). (2000). Writing across the curriculum: A guide to

developing programs [digital reprint of 1992, Sage]. Fort Collins, CO. WAC

Clearinghouse. Retrieved from: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/mcleod_soven/.

Mullin, J. A. (2001). Writing Centers and WAC. In S. H. Mcleod et al. (Eds.), Wac for the

New Millennium: Strategies for Continuing Writing-Across-The-Curriculum-Programs

(177–199). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Murphy, S. (1997). Teachers and students: Reclaiming assessment via portfolios. In Yancey,

K.B. & Weiser, I. (Eds.), Situating Portfolios: Four Perspectives (72–88). Logan, UT:

Utah State UP.

Odell, Lee. (Ed.). (1993). Theory and practice in the teaching of writing: Rethinking the

Discipline. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.

Popham, W.J. (1997). What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educational

Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.

Russell, D.R. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870–1990: A curricular history.

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Townsend, M. (2008). WAC program vulnerability and what to do about it: An update and brief

bibliographic essay. WAC Journal, 19, 46–62.

Yancey, K.B. (Ed.). (1993). Portfolios in the writing classroom: An introduction. Urbana, IL:

NCTE.

http://wac.colostate.edu/books/mcleod_soven/

60 Maroon and Write

Appendix H: Reading List from MIWE 2013

Breuch, Lee-Ann M. “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise.” Cross-Talk in Comp

Theory. 3rd ed. Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. Urbana, IL: National

Council of Teachers of English, 2011. 97-125.

Bruffee, Kenneth. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Cross-Talk in

Comp Theory. 3rd ed. Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English, 2011. 395-416.

Elbow, Peter. “Writing Assessment: Do It Better; Do It Less.” Assessment of Writing: Politics,

Policies, Practices. Ed. Edward M. White. New York: Modern Language Association,

1996. 120-34.

Emig, Janet. “Writng as a Mode of Learning.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. 3rd ed. Eds. Victor

Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English,

2011. 7-15.

Freire, Paulo. “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education.” Ways of Reading. 4th ed. Eds. David

Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. Boston: St. Martin’s P, 1996. 212-26.

Lindemann, Erika. “What Do Teachers Need to Know about Cognition?” A Rhetoric for

Writing Teachers. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 86-108.

Lindemann, Erika. “What Do Teachers Need to Know about Linguistics?” A Rhetoric for

Writing Teachers. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 60-85.

Murphy, Sandra. “Assessing Portfolios.” Evaluating Writing: The Role of Teachers’ Knowledge

about Text, Learning, and Culture. Eds. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. 1999. 114-

35.

Murray, Donald. “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. 3rd

ed. Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English, 2011. 3-6.

O’Neill, Peggy. “On the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing.” College English

74.6 (July 2012): 525-33.

Raymond, Richard C. Readings in Writing Courses: Re-Placing Literature in Composition.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2011. 72-78.


Appendix I: 2013 MIWE Participants and their QEP courses

LaToya Bogard, Instructor of English: EN 2203, Introduction to Literature

Michael Brown, Head, Department of Music: MU 1113, History and Appreciation of

Music

Steven Grado, Professor of Forestry: FP 1101, Forest Resources Survey

Jamie Larson, Assistant Professor of Veterinary Science: ADS 4613/6613, Physiology of

Reproduction

Deborah Lee, Professor of Library Science: co-director of Maroon and Write

Matthew Little, Professor of English: EN 2243, American Literature before 1865

Robert Moore, Professor of Marketing: MKT 4213, Internet Marketing

Rick Noffsinger, Instructor of Technical Writing: AIS 3203, Professional Writing in

Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Human Sciences

Donald Shaffer, Assistant Professor of English/African Studies

62 Maroon and Write

Appendix J: Maroon and Write Rubric

Skill

Component

Superior

5

Excellent

4

Good

3

Acceptable

2

Poor

1

Score

1 Clarity in

Describing the

Problem to be

Addressed or in

Answering the

Question Posed

□ Features an introduction

that contextualizes the

problem/issue addressed,

succinctly defines that

problem, and states the

purpose in a solution to

the problem.

□ Introduction nearly

meets the criteria for

“superior” but lacks

some precision

concerning context,

problem, or purpose.

□ Introduction clearly

describes the problem

but lacks specificity

concerning context

and purpose.

□ Introduction describes

the problem but lacks

specificity concerning

context and purpose.

□ Introduction fails

to describe the

problem at hand

or the purpose of

seeking a

solution.

Score: _____

2 Clarity of Thesis

□ Makes an emphatic,

explicit claim about the

feasibility of solving the

problem and forecasts the

organization for analyzing

the solution.

□ Meets the criteria for

“superior” but lacks

some precision

concerning the

direction of the

analysis.

□ Clearly states the

thesis but lacks

precision in

forecasting the

organization of the

analysis.

□ States the thesis but fails

to forecast the

organization of the

analysis.

□ Offers a vague

claim or no claim

at all. Score: _____

3 Specificity of

Support for

Thesis

□ Consistently provides

ample support for the

thesis, using appropriate

examples, case histories,

statistics, graphics, and

expert testimony as

appropriate.

□ Nearly achieves the

distinction of the

“superior” essay but

lacks some

consistency in

providing a rich range

of evidence to support

the thesis.

□ Provides support for

the thesis but

sometimes lacks

specificity in

explaining key points.

□ Provides support for the

thesis but consistently

lacks specificity in

explaining key points.

□ Consistently fails

to provide

concrete support

for the thesis. Score: _____

4 Suitability of

Word Choice and

Sentence

Structure

□ Features emphatic

sentence structures,

precise diction, courteous

tone, and the degree of

formality or informality

that suits the situation and

the expectations of the

readers.

□ Manifests emphatic

sentences and careful

word choice that

reflects awareness of

audience, but word

choices occasionally

lack precision.

□ Nearly matches the

“excellent” essay but

lapses more frequently

into imprecision.

□ Contains some effective

sentences and achieves

occasional precision in

word choice but often

contains errors in tone or

level of formality that

demonstrate lack of

awareness of the reader.

□ Features broken

syntax and words

chosen with little

regard to

precision or

courtesy.

Score: _____

5 Correctness □ Uses Standard English

correctly and avoids all

errors in syntax, grammar,

and usage.

□ Usually employs

Standard English

correctly but includes

minor lapses in

syntax, grammar, or

usage.

□ Usually employs

Standard English

correctly but includes

occasional errors in

syntax, grammar, or

usage.

□ Shows some facility

with Standard English

but includes several

major errors that distract

the reader and undercut

credibility.

□ Contains

numerous

distracting

violations of

Standard English.


Appendix K: Brochure for the Listening Sessions to Generate the QEP Idea

64 Maroon and Write

Appendix L: Maroon and Write Marketing Materials

MSU mascot, “Bully,” dons a Maroon and Write t-shirt


CTL Fall Events 2013 brochure featuring Maroon and Write-related activities

Learn • Discover • Achieve2014

Quality Enhancement Plan Submitted by Mississippi State University to the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges