Students’ Perception of Writing Assignments in Contrasting

Learning EnvironmentsMichel A. Wattiaux

University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison, Wisconsin.

Wattiaux@wisc.edu

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 2

Introduction

As architects of learning environments, instructors should understand how various course components contribute to students’ perception of learning.

Our objective was to determine the relative contribution of writing, reading, in-class discussion, and practical hands-on activities to students’ perception of learning.

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 3

2008 - Course DescriptionMaterials & Methods

2-cr. “Cow-side” hands-on.DS 302: Dairy Cattle Husbandry Practicum.

1-cr. Discussion of pre-assigned material.DS 375: Ag. in Emerging Economies: Dairying in Mexico.

2-cr. Lecture; Discussion of pre-assigned readings; Ration eval. project.

DS 414: Ruminant Nutrition.

2-cr. Discussion of pre-assigned video-lectures/readings; worksheets.DS 468: Environmental Management of Livestock Operations.

2-cr. Discussion of pre-assigned readings; micro-teaching; “thought papers”.DS 875: College Classroom: Teaching in Sciences & Engineering.

1-cr. Learn about capstone courses from juniors and seniors.DS 272: Pre-Capstone seminar.

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 4

Courses and Population of StudentsPercent

Undg. Grad.100

100

100

95

45

0

0

0

0

5

55

100

Crse

272

302

375

414

468

875

Sem

F-07

S-08

S-08

F-07

S-08

F-07

Materials & Methods

Total

2Included two high school teachers.3Included three guest (international) students.

4Included one assistant scientist and 15 non-dairy science PhD students.

Enrollment

Fr Gr Total

14

8

13

20

11

16

0

3

1

0

0

0

22 8228

So Jr Sr

12

1

2

0

1

0

1

0

3

0

2

0

1

4

5

16

2

0

0

0

0

1

6

15

2

3

4

4 16 6

R/E

E

E

E

R

E

E

1R=Required, E=Elective.

1

(Formative) Assessment Tool*Materials & Methods

Section 1: Motivation and interest for course topics

Section 2: Learning gains

Section 3: Learning environment(activities, assignments, grades)

*Students’ perceptions based on a modification of the “Student Assessment of Learning Gains” (SALG) http://www.salgsite.org

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 6

(Formative) Assessment ToolMaterials & Methods

D

A

W

R

Scores were collect anonymously on a modified Likert-type scale of 1 to 10. Selected Items were coded as: Reading ; Discussion ; “hands-on” activity ; or Writing .

R D A W

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 7

Writing Assignments Level of expectation was set in part by sharing:

– Detailed instructions of “what I was looking for.”

– Exemplary work of other students;

– Detailed grading rubrics.

Depending on the class, the weekly assignments were a compilation of:– Self-generated Q&As before and after the hands-on labs (302);

– Journal entries before and after class discussions (375);

– Highlights of “life” power-point lectures (272, 468);

– “Thought-papers” prior to class discussions (875). Not all assignments were graded, but they contributed a substantial

portion of the final grade.

Materials & Methods

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 8

Interpretation of Item Scores1) Mean item score was a measure of the level of agreement:

Score ≥ 9.0 Strongly agree / High satisfaction

7.0 ≤ Score ≤ 8.9 Agree / satisfied 5.0 ≤ Score ≤ 6.9 Disagree / dissatisfied

Score ≤ 4.9 Strongly disagree / strongly dissatisfied

Materials & Methods

2) The level of “contribution” of a course component to the perceived learning was measured by its mean deviation from the score of the item “I learned a lot.” Positive deviation ~ course component contributes “above average” to students’ perception of learning.

Negative deviation ~ course component contributes “below average” to students’ perception of learning.

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 9

Statistical Analysis

Item scores were analyzed with Proc Mixed of SAS (2001).

Model assumed that “course” and “type of assignment” (W, R, A, or

D) were fixed effects and “student” was a random effect:

Scoreijk = µ + Ci + WRADj + Eijk

Where: µ = Overall mean;Ci = Effect of the ith course (i = 1 to 6)WRADj = Effect of the jth type of assignment (j = 1 to 4)Eijk = Error term

Significance were declared for P <0.15, and when applicable least square means were separated by LSD (P <0.05).

Materials & Methods

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 10

Level of AgreementType of Assignment / Activity1

W P-value

5.7c

7.5b

5.2b

--a

6.5b

Course

272

302

375

414

468

Results

R D A

--a

--a

8.7a

6.2b

8.1ab

7.8b

--a

8.5a

6.6ab

8.8a

9.3a

10.0a

--a

7.3a

7.2bc

<0.01

0.01

<0.01

0.09

<0.01

abcMeans in a row without a common superscript differ (P<0.05).

n

42

16

39

60

44

6.8a875 7.2a 7.7a 6.6a 0.4764

6.1bOverall 7.9a 8.2a 8.1a <0.01265

1W = Writing assignment; R = Reading, D = in-class Discussion; A = “hands-on” activity.

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 11

Level of “Contribution” to Learning

Course

272

302

375

414

468

Results

L2

7.8±1.2

9.1±1.1

8.5±1.7

6.4±2.6

8.7±1.1

W P-value

-1.7b

-1.6b

-3.3b

--a

-2.3c

R D A

--a

--a

0.2a

-0.1b

-0.6ab

0.2a

--a

0.0a

0.3ab

0.1a

1.6a

0.9a

--a

1.0a

-1.5bc

<0.01

0.01

<0.01

0.11

<0.01

875 8.4±1.3 -1.2b -0.4b -0.7a -1.8a 0.25

Overall -2.0b -0.0a 0.10a 0.10a <0.01

Type of Assignment / Activity1

abcMeans in a row without a common superscript differ (P<0.05).1W = Writing assignment; R = Reading, D = in-class Discussion; A = “hands-on” activity.2Score for the item: “I learned a lot in this class”.

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 12

Type of Writing Assignment

Course

272

302

375

414

468

875

Results

3Weekly before and after in-class discussions.

W1

-1.7ab

-1.6ab

-3.3bb

--a

-2.3ab

-1.2ab

…Having to write (lecture) highlights2

…Having to complete weekly Q&As3

…Having to keep journal entries3

--

…Having to write (lecture) highligths2

…class assignment: the “thought-papers”4

I learned a lot in this class because of:

2Weekly after “life” lecture seminar presentations.

4Weekly after reading pre-assigned papers and before in-class discussions.

1Deviation of the writing assignment score relative to the score of the item: “I have learned a lot in this class;” The test for differences among courses had a P = 0.20.

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 13

Summary and Conclusions

Except for the PhD students, all other students enrolled in this study agreed (i.e., perceived) that the writing assignments contributed less to their learning than:– Reading pre-assigned material before class;– In-class discussions;– Hands-on activities.

The perception that writing assignments contributed “below average” to learning was true regardless of the type of writing assignment (“journal entry”, vs. “Q&A”, vs. “thought-paper” vs. “report” vs. “lecture highlights”).

ASAS-ADSA, 2009, 14

Final Thoughts The design of a “successful” writing assignment must

consider student standing, learning objectives, and other pedagogical elements of the course environment.

[Good] writing is a highly demanding creative and/or critical-thinking exercise.

“Writing is an act of discovery” (Garisson Keillor), and good writing is more difficult than we (scientists) tend to acknowledge to ourselves and to our students.