WID Course Enhancements in STEM: The Impact of Adding "Writing Circles" and Writing Process Pedagogy

This study reports on a quantitative assessment of enhancements to a Writing in the Disciplines course in Kinesiology. The assessment coded student writing produced in semesters before and after a Kinesiology course was enhanced with both iterated peer review groups and writing-process scaffolding. These enhancements were developed through a sustained partnership between WAC and disciplinary faculty. Analysis of the results revealed significantly higher scores in five Learning Outcomes developed to align with the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (2011). These findings offer quantitative evidence that adding writing-process pedagogy and iterated peer review improves student outcomes in both writing and critical thinking. Writing in the Disciplines (WID) courses are intended to teach the discursive conventions of a particular genre and to enrich learning through the metacognition spurred by writing. These courses can be complex to teach, as they demand expertise in both disciplinary knowledge and writing pedagogy; therefore, the addition of Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) initiatives provides support for incorporating writing best practices into courses in ways that reinforce, clarify, and enhance learning. However, as Thomas Deans (2017) notes, while curricular models of WID/WAC initiatives are generally considered helpful, their pedagogical impacts are obscured by a dearth of data. Proceeding from the premise that such initiatives lead to improved student outcomes, it remains to be seen just how and to what extent those improvements manifest in student writing. Data on the impacts of these supports could inform a host of curricular and pedagogical decisions – including which models are most effective, at what point in the cognitive development of the writer, and what they should cover; how to pace and scaffold assignments in a semester; and even how to apportion time in a given class. Accordingly, Deans’ study compares the undergraduate capstone papers produced by students in partialcredit writing courses to those produced in full-credit courses in a variety of disciplines. Joan Graham’s (1992) taxonomy of integrated writing instruction delineates three types: writing components, writing adjuncts, and writing links. Components are parts of full-credit core courses or programs, whereas adjuncts and links are separate writing courses connected to core courses or programs. Thus, components are non-credit-bearing in and of themselves, unlike adjunct and linked courses. Partial-credit adjuncts meet less frequently and/or for shorter duration than full-credit links, which WID Course Enhancements in STEM 27 ATD, VOL16(4) mirror components in terms of both credit weight and meeting frequency/duration (Graham, 1992). Deans (2017), using Graham’s taxonomy, found that adjunct writing courses were broadly consistent with linked writing courses in terms of their impacts on various aspects of student writing measured in the study, specifically, aim/objective, structure/organization, source selection/integration, editing/mechanics, style, citations, and holistic genre fit. This suggests that the adjunct writing courses were more efficient means to the same ends, as they led to outcomes consistent with those observed in the links, but in less time. While Deans’ (2017) study provides empirical support for optimism with regard to the potential, efficacy, and efficiency of adjunct writing courses and sets the stage for subsequent investigation, it also sounds distinct notes of caution. For example, Deans’ data indicate that adjunct courses were no better than linked courses in terms of improving “[h]igher order concerns (analysis, argument, source integration, etc.)” in student writing (p. 17). So, while adjunct courses were more efficient overall, they were not more effective means to improvement in higher order aspects of student writing. Further, the efficacy of the adjunct courses in Deans’ study was directly correlated to their alignment with companion courses in the same discipline, i.e., the closer and more explicit the connection to the companion course, the better the outcomes. Freestanding adjunct courses less clearly aligned or integrated with companion courses in the discipline were less effective (p. 18). Finally, the adjunct courses entailed “substantial out-of-class grading and conferencing responsibilities” (p. 18) for instructors that were incommensurate with their partialcredit weight (2017). This suggests that the efficiency gains of the adjunct writing courses were asymmetric, e.g., greater for in-class time than for out-of-class time. Our research confirms some aspects of Deans’ (2017) study and builds on others by assessing the impact of adjunct writing courses focused on a particular pedagogy: iterated, facilitated peer review. We assessed student writing in a lower-division Kinesiology course with a writing component – before and after the course was enhanced with WID curricular changes and adjuncts we named “Writing Circles.” So, whereas Deans compares adjunct courses to linked courses, we compare the combination of adjuncts and components to components alone. Using a rubric developed through a sustained partnership between WAC program and Kinesiology faculty, we coded blinded copies of the final research proposals in both sections of the Kinesiology component course. Each artifact was assessed in terms of five learning outcomes (LOs): intellectual discovery; synthesis and analysis of evidence; organization; theoretical framework; and format, tone, and style. Analysis of the coding revealed significantly higher scores in each of the five LOs for the WID-enhanced artifacts compared with the pre-WID artifacts. Our results not only reflect but also reframe Deans’ cautions about the efficacy of adjunct courses with regard to higher order aspects of student writing, the alignment of adjuncts with companion courses, and their asymmetric efficiency. Our results also suggest that a strong partnership between WAC and disciplinary faculty – integrating WID best practices with iterated, facilitated peer review – significantly contributes to students’ growth as writers and critical thinkers in their disciplines.