2010 - Public Relations Society of America

To measure the number of hours per week respondents spent dealing with basic student
writing issues (e.g., correcting grammar and spelling, reworking drafts, explaining basic skills to
students), a barometer scale question was developed with the following choices: (a) 0-3 hours,
(b) 3-6 hours, (c) 6-9 hours, and (d) more than 9 hours.
To determine which measures were being used to assess or improve writing, and their
degree of success, respondents were provided with check-off and barometer scale items for: (a)
minimum GPA, (b) language skills exam with minimum score required for entrance, (c)
language skills exam with basic writing class required for low-scoring students, (d) written
essay, (e) basic writing class required for all incoming students, (f) other and (g) none. Here, 1 =
complete failure and 5 = complete success.
Finally, through two open-ended questions, respondents were asked: (1) to briefly explain
why they believed any of their measures had succeeded or failed, and (2) to list any measures
they would like to see implemented, as well as any barriers they had encountered.
Data Analysis
To investigate RQ1-4, responses were compared using descriptive statistics. T-tests, the
Mann-Whitney U –test, and Spearman correlations were used to test for significant differences.
To investigate RQ5, responses were compared using descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation, t-
tests and chi-square were used to test for significant differences. An alpha level of .05 was used
for all statistical tests.
Results
RQ1: What are respondents’ perceptions of the writing proficiency of students entering
their academic unit?
Across institutions, respondents (n = 166) indicated that they perceive overall student
writing skills as slightly below average ( x = 2.70, sd = .672). Within the item, respondents gave
the highest mean scores to paragraph and sentence structure ( x = 2.72, sd = .808), the secondhighest
mean scores to critical thinking, and grammar and punctuation ( x = 2.44, sd = .885;
.865), followed by proofing and editing ( x = 2.12, sd = .760) and Associated Press style ( x =
1.74, sd = .870)
Notably, none of the scores for the above responses varied by more than one standard
deviation. This tight cluster around the mean indicated fairly consistent agreement among
respondents. Mean scores for respondents’ perceptions of student writing proficiency are
displayed in Table 1.
RQ2: What are respondents’ perceptions of the issues, if any, that have been raised by
writing deficiencies of students entering their academic unit?
Across institutions, respondents indicated that too much time and effort spent on grading
was the biggest issue ( x = 3.61, sd = 1.16). Too much class time spent reviewing basic writing
conventions was the second-biggest issue ( x = 3.40, sd = 1.13). Student frustration with grades
and lack of quality work in student media was the next-biggest issue ( x = 3.21, sd = 1.10),
followed by inability to pass required courses ( x = 2.61, sd = .973).
Mean scores for respondents’ perceptions of issues raised by student writing deficiencies
are displayed in Table 2.
Within the “other” category, respondents indicated scores of “4” and “5” on a number of
related issues. These included: lack of intellectual curiosity, student boredom, leaving the major,
plagiarism, and lack of challenge for more capable students.
Regardless of institutional attributes, all faculty indicated that they spent between 3 and 6
hours per week dealing with basic student writing issues that could have been resolved before the
126