| This study was designed to evaluate the writing of upper division criminal justice and electrical engineering students at the University of Nevada. Because writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) is based in the disciplines on the University of Nevada campus, the evaluation of student writing for this project was based in the disciplines as well. Using an approach closely aligned with participatory action research, the WAC consultants used inquiry to assist criminal justice and electrical engineering faculty in evaluating writing collected from students majoring in those two disciplines.; The consultants created a program that used a variation of portfolios for student papers. Committee members read small batches of papers written from the same assignment, and using practices similar to norming, faculty discussed the successes and failures of the writing. The faculty did not necessarily come to a consensus, but while discussing student texts in relation to what their discipline values in writing, they also developed a better understanding of what their colleagues valued in particular. They learned to recognize the situations in which their students wrote well and where they wrote poorly. In addition, they determined that assignments with clear goals, audiences, and contexts produce the best writing. From their newly articulated knowledge, faculty began changing their approaches to teaching and assigning writing to help improve student development and increase consistency in regard to writing within the department.; Near the end of the study the faculty examined student portfolios to determine whether they believed students wrote at an acceptable level for a graduate. After two years of reading assignments, student papers, and student portfolios, both committees concluded that their graduating students wrote at an acceptable level, and in many cases, the faculty members found the writing above their expectations. |
