• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (NI)

Critical Thinking and Analytical Writing

St Mary’s University College Belfast

Interim Evaluation Report July 2007 2

Foreword by the Acting Principal

1 Executive Summary 1.0.1 The Relation of the CETL to Aims of the Institution 1.0.2 Overview of Initial Successes 1.0.3 Overview of 'Mid-Course Corrections' 1.0.4 Conclusion

2 Introduction

2.1 Structure and Audience 2.1.1 Structure 2.1.2 Audience

2.2 Connection with other Reports 2.2.1 Funding Applications 2.2.2 Internal Reports 2.2.3 External Reviews

2.3 Purpose 2.3.1 Purpose of Report 2.3.2 Purpose of CETL

2.4 Overview of the Evidential Base 2.4.1 Documentation of Peer Tutoring 2.4.2 Photographic Evidence 2.4.3 Video Evidence 2.4.4 PowerPoint Presentations 2.4.5 Publications and Publicity 2.4.6 Writing Centre Associate Evidence 2.4.7 Letters from our Partner Institutions

3 Aims and scope of the CETL

3.1 Roles and Participants 3.1.1 Management Team 3.1.2 Management Liaison 3.1.3 Team Leaders

3.2 Specific goals 3.2.1 Curriculum Development 3.2.2 Peer Tutor Programme Development 3.2.3 Internal Dissemination 3.2.4 External Dissemination 3.2.5 Business Writing Support 3.2.6 New Methods of Evaluation

3.3 Specific Activities 3.3.1 Curriculum Development 3.3.2 Peer Tutor Programme Development 3

3.3.3 Internal Dissemination 3.3.3 External Dissemination 3.3.5 Business Writing Support 3.3.6 New Methods of Evaluation

3.4 Lessons Learned from Specific Activities (with Proposed Changes) 3.4.1 Curriculum Development 3.4.2 Peer Tutor Programme Development 3.4.3 Internal Dissemination 3.4.4 External Dissemination 3.4.5 Business Writing Support 3.4.6 New Methods of Evaluation

4 Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation

4.1 Evaluation Foci

4.2 Evaluation Framework: Complex Change

4.3 Interim Self-Evaluation Objectives

4.4 The Data 4.4.1 Quantitative Data 4.4.2 Qualitative/ Narrative Data

4.5 Evaluation Priorities for the Coming Year

4.6 Reflections on the Evaluation Process 4.6.1 Three Characteristics of our Evaluation 4.6.2 Addressing the Need for Further Help/Resources for Evaluation

5 Findings Addressing Key Evaluation Foci

5.1 The Student's Experience/Perspective 5.1.1 Tutorial Feedback Forms 5.1.2 Distribution Numbers

5.2 Peer Tutor Interviews/Narratives and Focus Groups: Tutor’s Experience

5.3 Writing Centre Associate Experience: Interviews

5.4 Institutional/Curricular Changes 5.5.1 The Admissions Procedure Writing Task

5.5 Partner Institution’s Experiences/Perspectives 5.6.1 Stranmillis University College 5.6.2 London Metropolitan University 5.6.3 Queen’s University Bio-Sciences 5.6.4 Liverpool Hope University 4

5.6.5 Informal Contacts

6 Conclusion

Appendix: Information on Evidence Base

Bibliography 5

Foreword

There can be no denying that the CETL initiative, as it has manifested itself in our college, has had a positive effect on the lives of students and teaching staff in St Mary’s. This is in part a consequence of the CETL initiative generally and in part a consequence of the insights and hard work provided by our own CETL team.

More than simply providing new avenues and new options for learning and teaching, the St Mary’s CETL project has in many instances changed the way students and staff conceive of teaching and learning in the college. Not only has the idea of peer tutoring inculcated a new sense of intellectual independence and initiative among many students, but the fact that peer tutors work in partnership with lecturers in their field means that there has developed in many instances a new sense of collegiality between staff and students in the shared pursuit of learning, discovery and critical engagement. Upon reviewing this evaluation report, the conclusion seems to be that the CETL project has begun, in several key respects, to transform the academic culture of the college.

A newly-discovered sense of collegiality arises out of our CETL’s work only in part because of the relationship that has been established between Peer Tutors and those Writing Centre Associates (WCAs) who mentor them. It extends beyond that direct line of communication and becomes a circular phenomenon – in which all students can communicate with their peer tutors about their concerns in a particular module or with a particular writing assignment. Those peer tutors can then digest and pass those concerns on to the lecturers, and the lecturers can respond and adjust their work in class to better take account of student concerns.

St Mary’s, as an academic community, can heartily endorse the initiative which the CETL funding has made possible in our college. Furthermore, because of the dynamic interactions which CETL funding has made possible between our own institution and others throughout the UK and beyond (including those with and without CETL-funded projects), we would endorse the work made possible by the CETL initiative generally. It was an act of faith for DEL, HEFCE and the HEA to invest in such wide-ranging, and in some cases, untested, initiatives. That act has, from our perspective, been justified.

Peter Finn

Acting Principal, St Mary’s University College, Belfast 6

1.0 Executive Summary

1.0.1 The Relation of the CETL to Aims of the Institution. The aims of the CETL are in accord with the University College's Mission Statement. We interpret this mission statement to mean that the principal aim of the CETL is to value individuals by focussing especially upon our students and working with them towards the building of a better, more just and humane society. To engage intelligently and critically in writing is fundamental to achieving this aim, as is the ability to work collaboratively. Our CETL in Critical Thinking and Analytical Writing addresses writing both as a critical tool and as a collaborative, social process. This report will develop a further explanation of these ideas, will delineate the CETL’s strategies for achieving this aim and indicate how they have succeeded to date. Further it will set out the changes that we believe are necessary for the CETL's continued success and the methods we are putting in place to conduct a more complete and thorough assessment of the programme.

1.0.2 Overview of Initial Successes. First, in the initial two years of the CETL, we exceeded our expectations for disseminating our practice to other academic institutions. As this report will show, we have formed productive connections throughout the UK, the entire island of Ireland, Europe and America—both for purposes of collaboration and dissemination. Second, through new monitoring procedures, we have observed our peer tutors develop unexpected levels of maturity and insight in their tutoring. Third, we are developing new avenues for assisting students in secondary education with their writing in preparation for entering higher education. Finally, as a result of our work, we plan to publish a book on the training of peer tutors for the support of student writing, a text which will be targeted principally at a UK and European audience.

1.0.3 Overview of Main 'Mid-Course Corrections'. Although our report indicates just how closely we have been able to adhere to our goals, a number of significant 'mid-course' corrections are needed. Firstly, our approaches to the business community offering to support them in the development of writing skills have not been as enthusiastically received as we might have hoped, and we would propose shifting emphasis towards supporting schools as they prepare their students for university, an audience quite eager for our collaboration and assistance. Secondly, increased personnel costs are going to limit our ability to host conferences and to travel to events and meetings. Less costly activities (such as video conferences) and the potential for new sources of funding for travel and the hosting of conferences will be pursued. Thirdly, changes in the Liberal Arts degree programme will involve significant curriculum adjustment to the written communications seminars, which will have the advantage of integrating them more tightly with course modules.

1.0.4 Conclusion. As will be seen below in greater detail, we have made progress in meeting all six of the principal CETL goals set out in our initial proposal. Some of these goals are being achieved more quickly than anticipated, while others have been a bit more slow to develop and one will require proposed goal shifting. 7

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Structure and audience

2.1.1 Structure. This report follows the structure recommended by CSET (Centre for the Study of Education and Training) at the University of Lancaster and The Open University. The structure of the report aims to (1) set the context, (2) describe the work that we have done to date, (3) evaluate this work, (4) propose changes and (5) show how we will implement a more fully developed evaluation scheme.

2.1.2 Audience. When writing this report, we have in mind an audience of key stakeholders described in the following paragraphs. We foresee that the audience will be interested in: (1) the central ideas that motivate our CETL, (2) the activities in which we are engaged, (3) how we will demonstrate the success of our work, (4) how these ideas can be disseminated among HEIs in Northern Ireland and further afield. Particular audiences are listed below:

The Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland (DEL) is the principal funder for our project, providing £250,000 over five years. The Department published a set of aims for the CETL(NI) initiative which will be taken into consideration.

External Evaluators and CSET Lancaster have been contracted by DEL to perform an interim evaluation of the CETL(NI) initiative. According to Peter Knight, their principal concern is that the report be structured organically to reflect the best possible presentation of the individual CETL's work. They are also keen on receiving both photographic and video evidence. These will be made available on the Internet and referenced in the report.

The Higher Education Academy, which has been contracted by DEL to serve in an advisory capacity, will be closely following the results of our work.

St Mary's University College CETL Management Team will be using this report as the second annual report for the operation of the St Mary's CETL.

2.2 Connection with other reports.

Relevant reports fall into three categories: applications for funding, internal CETL reports and external reviews. These reports are available over the Internet at the CETL Evidence Base or at the Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB) located in the St Mary's University College Writing Centre.

2.2.1 Funding Applications

English Subject Centre Application. This application was made in November 2001, was approved in December 2001 and awarded the College's Writing Centre £5000 over three years. It allowed us to begin training and paying peer tutors and to bring in a well-known lecturer on written communications. The proposal and annual reports to the English Subject Centre are available for consultation. ESC Proposal November 2002. Report 1. Report 2. Report 3. 8

Application to DEL for CETL Funding. Written in two stages: April 2004 and October 2004. Approved in December 2004. A comparison of the proposal and this self-evaluation document will demonstrate how closely our activities have conformed to our proposal. In particular, the six stated objectives of the proposal are all being met. DEL/CETL Proposal

2.2.2 Internal Reports

Year One Annual Report to Management. This report was requested by the management team and was written by Jonathan Worley, Matthew Martin and Feidhlimidh Magennis for year ending 31 July 2006. Year One Report

Management Team Meetings Minutes. Meetings of the entire management board were held, as well as smaller meetings with Fr. Feidhlimidh Magennis (representing management) and the CETL Team Leaders, Dr. Matthew Martin and Mr. Jonathan Worley (HB).

Team Leader Meetings. Team Leaders Jonathan Worley and Matthew Martin met regularly and kept a record of their meetings (HB).

2.2.3 External Reviews

External Review of Written Communications Programme, 14 June 2004. This review was provided by Dr. Susan Dinitz of the University of Vermont at the conclusion of our English Subject Centre funding. Dinitz Evaluation

External Review of Writing Centre by Professor Kathleen Shine Cain, Merrimack College, Merrimack, MA, USA, 24 May 2004 Dr. Cain wrote a short review of our programme for the CETL application . Cain Evaluation. After lecturing with us for a year, she produced a more extended 'friendly' external evaluation, taking on board our further developments.

2.3 Purpose

2.3.1 Purpose of Report. Primarily, the purpose of this report is to inform our stakeholders of the work that has been done in the first two years of the five-year CETL funding period and to assure these stakeholders that work is producing significant and desirable results, particularly with respect to the improvement of students' academic writing and the demonstration of the effectiveness of peer tutoring in the teaching of writing.

In particular, we hope this report will make clear the extent to which this CETL has become a base for the dissemination of the practice of peer tutoring in writing, far beyond our initial expectations and far beyond the walls of our own institution. The report therefore focuses upon how we may build upon this success and how our other goals have been adjusted to enhance the goal of dissemination to other institutions.

We also hope to show that a great deal can be accomplished on a limited budget. Under the terms of the CETL(NI) initiative, as outlined by DEL in the spring of 2004, successful bids by the two university colleges in Northern Ireland were capped at £50,000 p.a. in recurrent 9 funding over the five years of the initiative. This funding excluded any allocation for capital expense.

2.3.2 Purpose of CETL. Broadly, the purpose of this CETL is to improve the quality of students’ academic writing in higher education. This purpose will be achieved by means of improving students’ ability to think actively and critically through writing, a method inextricably intertwined with the ability to read challenging academic texts. This purpose also involves a commitment to collaborative learning, particularly through the use of peer tutors and peer review. We have aimed to improve the quality of writing both within our own institution and in the wider university community. We have established links with other universities in Ireland, England, Europe and America, with the goal of dissemination of writing pedgagogy and for forming an international network of scholars informed about best practices in the teaching of writing. In the second year of our CETL, we began to recognise that it was feasible for our scope to include secondary schools as they prepared their students for university.

2.4 Overview of the Evidence Base.

Our Evidence Base, by design, contains a wide variety of types of evidence. In addition to the usual hardcopies of documentation stored in the Evidence Base at the Writing Centre (HB), a great deal of our evidence is computer-based. This evidence includes (1) electronic documents — including Word documents and PowerPoint Presentations, (2) scanned documents, (3) a computer database, (4) video material and (5) photographs.

The preponderance of our evidence will be found at http://www.stmarys- belfast.ac.uk/writingcentre/cetl.asp with links to particular documents provided in this report. Hardcopy materials too large and extensive for scanning will be kept at the Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB) of the CETL at St Mary’s University College, as mentioned above. However, whenever possible, samples of these hardcopy documents will be scanned and posted on the website. Therefore, the evidence base on the web site should be considered dynamic and under constant development. A database recording the contents of peer tutor sessions along with student feedback has been established on the St Mary's Intranet to be used for future analysis and evaluation Computer Services Writing Centre Database. (However, at the moment this database may be accessed only onsite by the CETL team leaders through the Writing Centre web pages and contains limited information.)

2.4.1 Documentation of Peer Tutoring. The principal piece of documentation for recording our tutoring sessions is the Tutor Request Form. This has been in use for five years now, and each form contains a record of one tutoring session. It provides space for a student to describe their concerns about their writing and space for a detailed write-up by the peer tutor of the contents of each session. For an example of this triplicate form, see Tutor Request Form (TRF). The forms also record individual details about the student, such as course, year, degree and course tutor. These forms are currently under revision to allow us to standardise the capture of information with our partner CETL, the ‘Write Now CETL’. These forms are currently being entered into a database to allow for better evaluation of their contents. Additionally, the College’s IT department has created software that will allow for the online completion of these forms. Release Forms approved by our research ethics committee are also completed at the time of tutorials that allow us to make use of the contents of the request forms for research and development purposes. 10

The primary evidence that we have of the success of a tutorial is from the Tutor Feedback Form (TFF) distributed to every student after a peer tutoring session, and the student is invited to complete it on the spot or return it later. Forms exist from 2002 to the present.

2.4.2 Photographic Evidence. We have attempted to document all major events, especially conferences that we have attended or hosted. Additionally, we attempt to get as many photos as possible of our peer tutors in action in order to make the peer tutoring programme more visible to our students. We have sorted through these photos to present our best and most representative photos. These are available on our web site: Evidential Base - Photos

2.4.3 Video Evidence. We have videotaped interviews with selected peer tutors about their experience of peer tutoring. We have also held videoed focus group sessions with our staff of peer tutors. We plan to make a composite of existing video footage, along with video material yet to be acquired, into a DVD video. At the moment, short, evidentiary clips of the power of this form of evidence are on our website. Videos.

2.4.4 PowerPoint Presentations. A great deal of the curricula that we have developed to teach writing are exemplified on PowerPoint presentations. These may divided into the following categories: (1) peer tutor training presentations, (2) written communications module presentations and (3) conference presentations. These are published on our St Mary’s Writing Centre Pages.

2.4.5 Publications and Publicity. Evidence of our work appearing in local newspapers, in- house pamphlets, and our CETL web pages are covered in this section. Some of this publicity is available in electronic form on our web site and the remainder of it exists in hardcopy at our evidence base (HB). Publicity 2, Publicity 3.

2.4.6 Writing Centre Associate Evidence. Evidence of the input from our team of Writing Centre Associates, which includes members from every department at St Mary’s involved with our project, is presented here. This evidence includes team leader interviews with WCAs and peer tutor interviews with WCAs (HB).

2.4.7 Letters from our Partner Institutions. Descriptive evidence of our work with other educational institutions is found on our documents web page: Letters. 11

3.0 Brief description of the aims and scope of the CETL.

The aims of our CETL are subsumed under the Mission Statement of St Mary’s University College. The College is committed to the education of well-rounded, highly-motivated and socially aware graduates who will be able to meet the challenges of tomorrow’s world, whether as teachers graduating from our BEd programmes or, more widely, as citizens and entrepreneurs graduating from our Liberal Arts programme. We view the teaching of written communications as an important pedagogical component of our educational provision to meet the aims of the College's mission. The various strands of our CETL initiative attempt to develop personal and interpersonal criticality through writing. We seek to have writing deployed with these higher purposes in mind.

While concentrating primarily upon the development of critical and analytical writing within St Mary’s, our goal, and the goal of CETLs in general, has been to disseminate good practice more widely. We propose to do this in several ways: first, by hiring and training new lecturers who will be able to move on to other institutions having the skills to establish writing centres; secondly, through presentations at conferences and other venues; and thirdly, through the establishment of links with other academic institutions so that we can provide training to them, particularly in the establishment of their own writing centres and peer tutoring programmes. Finally, many of our peer tutors go on to become teachers and are able to disseminate good writing practice into the schools. We aim to provide both practical information on how to set up programmes and the theoretical background needed to sustain these initiatives.

3.1 Roles and participants

Management Team

The Management Team has the remit to oversee the activities of the CETL and to insure that these activities comply with College policy and administrative procedures. The Management Team consists of the following members: (1) Peter Finn, Director of the Liberal Arts Faculty, (2) Brian McFall, College Bursar, (3) Feidhlimidh Magennis, management liaison, (4) Leo D’Agostino, HOD English Department, (5) Donna Murray, Education Department and a currently vacant post for a representative of the Liberal Arts degree. The Management Team has a schedule to meet bi-annually. Minutes of these meetings are available in the Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB). CETL team leaders, Jonathan Worley and Matthew Martin, attend these meetings.

Management Team Liaison

Fr. Feidhlimidh Magennis serves as liaison between the CETL team leaders and the Management Team of the CETL and also with other senior members of staff when appropriate, e.g., Personnel Manager. He has oversight responsibility for the two CETL team leaders and assists them on matters of finance and administration.

CETL Team Leaders

Matthew Martin and Jonathan Worley divide the work of the six stated goals of the CETL between them. These goals do not include management or financial oversight of the CETL, 12

which are handled by the Management Team. The principal goals for which each team leader is responsible are briefly noted below. Fuller descriptions of these objectives may be found in section 3.3 (Specific Goals).

Jonathan Worley Matthew Martin Development of Written Internal Dissemination of Good Practice Communications Curriculum (Goal 1) within St Mary’s (Goal 3) Development and Administration of Peer External Dissemination of Good Practice Tutoring Programme (Goal 2) to Other Institutions (Goal 4) Development of Written Development of New Methods of Communications Support to the Business Evaluation (Goal 6) Community (Goal 5)

Minutes of meetings between the two team leaders may be found in the Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB).

CETL-Hired Lecturer

The team leaders for the CETL, Dr. Matthew Martin and Mr. Jonathan Worley, have been granted 50% teaching relief, and this teaching is supplied by the hiring of a CETL–funded lecturer in English. The post was filled in the first year by Dr. Kathleen Shine Cain, a senior lecturer in English from Merrimack College, who provided both teaching and expert advice on the development of our CETL. In the second year of the CETL, a recent PhD graduate from the Queen’s University Belfast School of English was hired with the purpose that such a lecturer would receive training in the teaching of written communications.

Peer Tutors

The Writing Centre is staffed by twenty peer tutors who are available to provide forty hours of tutoring weekly. These students are selected by application and interview and are given a bursary of £300 per year for their work. Tutors must successfully complete ten hours of initial training. Tutors are also required to attend a weekly one-hour staff meeting/training session. Tutors acknowledge their work by completing their portion of the Tutor Request Form (TRF) and by signing a log in the Peer Tutor Office of the Writing Centre (HB ).

Other Institutions

As mentioned above, one of our principal goals is the dissemination of good practice to other institutions while at the same time collaborating and learning from them. We have developed links concentrating on four geographical areas: (1) Northern Ireland (Stranmillis University College and Queen's University Belfast), (2) the UK (the 'Write Now' CETL) and the University of Leicester, (3) the United States (Christian Brothers University, Memphis TN and Merrimack College, Merrimack MA) and (4) Europe (European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing). Formal arrangements exist with these institutions and are described in greater detail in section 3.3.4 below. Links to these institutions may be found on our Home Page. 13

3.2 Specific goals (as outlined in the original proposal)

The six specific goals established in October 2005 in our initial DEL Proposal have proved to be useful organisational categories for our work. What follows is a condensed summary of proposal goals and related targets for the first two years of the CETL initiative. These six goals will be referred to again, by name and number, in the next two sections on Specific Activities (3.3) and Lessons Learned (3.4).

3.2.1 Written Communications Pedagogy and Curriculum Development.

This goal encompasses curriculum development in several areas: (1) modules in written communications in the first and second years of the Liberal Arts degree programme, (2) the training for the peer tutors in the Peer Tutor Programme (3) staff development sessions, (4) business curriculum development, (5) development (or tailoring) of training for other academic institutions. Attendance at conferences on academic writing pedagogy and the maintenance of a current bibliography on academic writing are essential to this task. The target set for the first two years was the revision of the modules contributing to the Liberal Arts degree programme.

3.2.2 Peer Tutor Programme Development.

Our goal is to expand the original Peer Tutor Project sponsored by the English Subject Centre, principally by training subject-specific tutors and linking them to an interested member of staff in each subject department (designated as a Writing Centre Associate), but also by enhancing and extending the training curriculum (described above, 3.2.1) and by improving our methods of evaluating this component of our programme (as below 3.2.6). We will strive to put our peer tutors into conversation with peer tutors at other institutions and encourage our peer tutors to continue the practice, begun under the ESC project, of making presentations at conferences (see 3.2.4. below). The specific targets were to train 12 subject- specific peer tutors by the end of 2005-06, and secondly, to respond to sixty requests for tuition per semester by end of 2006-07.

3.2.3 Internal Dissemination of Practice within St Mary’s.

The goal is to increase the visibility of our CETL practices within our own institution. The principal strategy is to recruit a member of the lecturing staff from every subject department at St Mary’s and to link them more closely to the CETL’s activities. Writing Centre Associates will meet regularly with their assigned peer tutor to discuss writing requirements and invite the peer tutor to particular lectures relevant to the teaching of writing within the course. Writing Centre Associates will also be asked to attend twice-yearly training and development sessions and will be especially invited to all special confererence events at St Mary’s and elsewhere. The target for the first two years was to train a small, pilot cohort of WCAs and ultimately, to have fifteen WCAs by the end of 2010.

Internal dissemination will also take place through a series of meetings: presentations to Academic Board, attendance at Human Development Studies course team meetings (the particular area of the Liberal Arts degree programme within which Written Communications is located) and presentations at student orientation. The CETL itself will develop visibility through redecorating and improvement of facilities, by raising our profile on the St Mary’s University College web site and by the design of posters and bulletin boards. 14

3.2.4 External Dissemination of Practice to other Academic Institutions.

In our initial proposal we had set a target of forming links with one partner institution in the first two years of the initiative.

3.2.5 Development of Written Communications Support for the Business Community.

The goal is to visit several types of businesses in the Belfast area to assess the need in the business community for the teaching of writing. The aim is to develop a two-day business writing seminar, hosted at St Mary’s, for members of the business community and St Mary's students. To this end, our target was to deliver a new teaching unit for Liberal Arts students by the end of 2007.

3.2.6 Development of New Methods of Evaluation of Student Writing.

The goal is to research, develop and deploy methods of analysis for evaluating the improvement of student writing as influenced by two central elements of our programme: written communications modules and peer tutoring. We hope to achieve a good balance between qualitative and quantitative analysis. We will seek expertise from the Higher Education Academy. The work in this area will be used to demonstrate to our stakeholders the effectiveness of our work. Our target in this area was to establish the outcomes for such evaluation by the end of the first two years of the project.

3.3 Activities

3.3.1 Written Communications Pedagogy and Curriculum Development.

As mentioned in section 3.2.1 above, there are five areas of development for pedagogy and curriculum: (1) written communications modules, (2) peer tutor training, (3) staff training, (4) business writing support, (5) training for other institutions.

(1) The written communications modules first assumed their location within the Liberal Arts curriculum in the autumn of 2000, and have now been taught under CETL auspices for the last two years. The curriculum for the modules, offered in the first and second years of the Liberal Arts programme, have been modified over the course of the two years in response to student and lecturer input. Before the CETL, these modules were taught by current Team Leader, Jonathan Worley. Because the CETL provides him with teaching relief, the first-year course is now taught by the CETL-hired lecturer. In the first year of the CETL, we hired Dr. Kathleen Shine Cain of Merrimack College, MA, whose credentials in the teaching of writing and the running of writing centres are extensive, on a one-year contract. Dr. Cain introduced innovations into the curriculum of the first year Liberal Arts programme, both in terms of writing assignments and the way of marking them, that have now been incorporated into both first- and second-year modules. She has also been able to examine the CETL’s work from a US perspective and is writing a review, in her capacity as a ‘critical friend’, that should prove helpful in further revising the curriculum with particular emphasis on these modules. When complete, her report may be found here: Cain External Evaluation.

Examples of the kinds of assignments given to students in the written communications modules may also be found at Evidence Base - Documents by clicking on links labelled ‘Sample Written Communications Assignments’. Since the implementation of the CETL, 15 student essays for the written communications module, along with tutors’ comments upon them, have been submitted and may be viewed online via TurnitinUK upon being given the appropriate instructor password and ID. This practice has been instituted in conjunction with appropriate teaching about plagiarism. Online marking is also being evaluated for desirability and efficiency.

We consider that we have met our target for the first two years under this goal, and have achieved much else in addition, as the following paragraphs will outline:

(2) The curriculum for the training of peer tutors continues to be developed and refined and has taken into account our own tutors’ experiences as well as experience gleaned from more established writing centres in the USA. The training emphasises five areas: (1) Writing Process, (2) Models of Tutoring, (3) Paragraphs as Building Blocks (4) Revision and (5) Grammar in the Context of Meaning and Form. The training sessions themselves emphasise a great deal of practice in tutoring, critical reflection on sample student essays and discussions of critical readings about writings The most recent Course Outline describes the training in greater detail and shows the sequence of Peer Tutor Critical Readings. The curriculum that has been in place for two years for our own tutors is being expanded to jointly train our own tutors and a new cohort of tutors at the to-be-established writing centre at Stranmillis University College.

(3) Materials were developed for the first Staff Development Training session at Saint Mary’s held in the spring of 2006 and used to orient Writing Centre Associates to procedures and our approach to the teaching of writing. In January of 2007, we developed a presentation to the combined Academic Board to orient all lecturers to what we offered and what we were trying to achieve. Since then, we have begun a process of interviewing Writing Centre Associates individually to more fully develop and direct staff training. These Writing Associate Interviews are to be published on our web site.

(4) Business Writing Support: Research on the writing needs of the business community has been conducted by Team Leader, Jonathan Worley, through a series of visits to local businesses. To date, the development of a curriculum that would meet the needs of a wide range of businesses has been difficult to establish. This difficulty will be discussed further under section 3.4.3. At the request of Queen’s University Belfast Staff Training and Development Unit, two courses in business writing were taught for their administrative staff. The Business Writing Presentation may be found on the web, and student feedback forms are available at our Harcopy Evidence Base (HB).

(5) Training for other HEIs proved to be an interesting and thought-provoking challenge. In the instances of Liverpool Hope University training (HB) and London Metropolitan University training (HB), we were being integrated into their training programmes, which were being run for the first time. It was a challenge to think of tutor training in a different context, but we developed some new strategies. The most important strategy was to involve our own peer tutors in the training. Our tutors participated in ‘mock’ tutorial sessions, spoke about their experiences and one tutor gave a more formal PowerPoint presentation. You may view a London Metropolitan Collage of Images and a photo of the Liverpool Training Group. 16

3.3.2 Peer Tutor Programme Development.

At the end of the second year of the project, we have trained twenty subject-specific peer tutors, well in excess of our target. These peer tutors are currently deployed within the CETL. Tutors now meet regularly with their assigned Writing Centre Associates (Peer Tutor-Writing Centre Associate Pairings). A regular schedule of 40 hours per week of scheduled and drop- in hours has been instituted. IT Support has put in place a system for computerised bookings and feedbacks. Since the implementation of the CETL, the number of visitors to the Writing Centre has risen fivefold to over 250 visits per year. The contents and results of all sessions have been duly recorded and are in the process of being entered onto a newly-constructed database. Peer tutors successfully moved into the new writing centre in the autumn of 2006 and occupied an office and classroom especially designated for them. Evidence of the busy nature of the centre when populated by peer tutors and their students may be seen in this very short PowerPoint set of slides: Peer Tutoring in Progress.

3.3.3 Internal Dissemination of Practice within Saint Mary’s.

Dissemination of our programme within St Mary's has taken place in line with the targets set. The recruitment of Writing Centre Associates from every subject department at St Mary's has created a network of staff members directly associated with the CETL. These staff members have received some initial staff development training and are visited regularly by their assigned peer tutors. This network continues to develop and positive working relationships have been established (WCA Interviews).

In January 2006, at the College Academic Board, team leaders made a presentation to all academic staff and student representatives about the work of our CETL (Our Six Goals). We now feel confident that the academic staff at St Mary's are aware of the particulars of our work and how we might assist them.

We have begun a programme of working with individual lecturers, inviting them to make some particular assignments more directly involved with the Writing Centre. Peer tutors are briefed on a particular assignment by the lecturer (HB), and then his or her students must visit the Writing Centre as a required part of the mark for that assignment. After the assignment has been completed and marked, the lecturer attends a peer tutor staff meeting to discuss the results.

The attainment of more suitable space for the Writing Centre has done a great deal to enhance our visibility. As the Writing Centre Location PowerPoint slide shows, we now have a suite of three rooms connected by a small entranceway. There is a central classroom for teaching written communication seminars, holding meetings and conducting peer tutor sessions. To one side of the classroom is the office for Jonathan Worley, team leader for internal dissemination. On the other side of the classroom is the peer tutors' office. There is space in this office for tutoring sessions as well as for peer tutors to gather, to prepare for and await sessions. We have found this space has generated a great deal of Peer Tutor interaction, resulting in spontaneous collaborations in tutorial sessions in which they draw on one another’s strengths. The amount of activity in the Writing Centre has drawn students, who might have been otherwise shy about approaching us, to the Writing Centre, and so the Writing Centre has been an active force in internal dissemination. 17

The work of the CETL has been integrated into the activities of the College in other ways. For example, the Centre now plays a significant role in recruitment and induction. As of the spring of 2006, we have taken over responsibility for the writing sample that the BEd students write on the day of their interview. We have designed a suitable assignment, set marking criteria and formed a committee of markers, annually. (See HB for evidence of this work and further discussion in 5.5.1.) This work is part of our plan to interact more with the schools from whom future BEd students will be drawn. Additionally, one of the CETL team leaders and one peer tutor visit each orientation session for students at the beginning of the academic year to update them on our services and to invite them to come to the centre.

3.3.4 External Dissemination of Practice to other Academic Institutions.

External Dissemination may be divided into three categories: (1) partnership links with other academic institutions for the purposes of dissemination of ideas, provision of training and collaboration, (2) conferences hosted by the St Mary’s CETL, (3) and presentations given at conferences. As mentioned in the introduction, the number of institutions with which we have formed links (detailed below) exceeded our initial expectations. Our target for the first two years was to establish links one other institution and to make presentations at a HEA conference. Given the centrality of the CETL remit to be a centre for the dissemination of good practice, this has been a very welcome outcome. Despite this unexpected opportunity and the work that it has involved, we still have managed significant implementation of our other goals.

(1) Partnerships with Other Institutions.The following is a list of institutions with which we have developed a significant relationship for the dissemination of good practice:

Stranmillis University College Belfast. On the basis of the support that we can provide, two lecturers at Stranmillis have obtained the funds to pilot their own writing centre with peer tutors beginning in the autumn of 2007. We have been acting in a consultant role, and in October 2007, their new cohort of peer tutors will join our new cohort for joint training sessions to be conducted by our CETL. After completion of training, we will continue to act in an advisory capacity to their tutors and writing centre staff and offer seminars to develop all academic staff in the best practices for the teaching of writing.

The 'Write Now' CETL. Three English universities—London Metropolitan University, Liverpool Hope University, and Aston University-- have joined forces to obtain CETL funding for their 'Write Now' CETL. We have been acting in a collaborative and advisory capacity at both London Met and Liverpool Hope and in September 2006 conducted two days of training at London Met for their new cohort of peer tutors. Then, in October we provided a day-long training event for new peer tutors at Liverpool Hope. (Our own peer tutors made presentations and participated in this training.) Further, we have become partners with the ‘Write Now’ CETL in evaluative research. At a research away-day held at St Mary's on 24 May 2007, a plan of action was agreed (see 3.3.6).

Queen’s University Belfast. We have developed several links with Queen’s: • We have assisted the Biological Sciences department with the development of a curriculum for teaching science writing skills to their students and have trained staff 18 and graduate student markers in how to evaluate writing. (See Letter from Bio- Sciences.) • We have held several meetings with the QUB School of English and put forward a proposal for the development of a written communications programme within their school and are awaiting their response. • We have joined a liaison group with their CETLs. • We have offered to support the School of Nursing in the teaching of writing (support which we had provided in the past before we were designated as a CETL). (See Nursing Letter) • We are working with their educational research team on the evaluation of marking software • We provided two seminars on business writing for the University’s secretarial staff through the auspices of the Staff Training and Development Unit and are scheduled to do this again in the coming academic year.

Christian Brothers University, Memphis, TN, USA. We have established a link with the Christian Brothers University Writing Centre, its director and cohort of peer tutors. We have held two sets of joint training sessions for peer tutors of both institutions: at St Mary’s in June 2006 and at Christian Brothers in April 2007. This link has proved vital in three ways: (1) it has enabled us to link in with current American scholarship on the teaching of writing, (2) it has enabled our tutors to learn from their more experienced American counterparts and (3) it has become foundational in comparative research on the teaching of writing in America and in the UK and Europe.

Merrimack College, Merrimack, MA, USA. Institutional links with Merrimack go back to 1999 and were established during the development of the College’s Liberal Arts provision. The partnership was instrumental for the establishment of the Writing Centre at St Mary’s in September 2000. This link has proven essential because Merrimack College has one of the most innovative peer tutoring programmes in the United States and are particularly noted for their development of peer tutoring in the disciplines. We have continued develop comparative research on the teaching of writing on both sides of the Atlantic and have presented several joint papers on this topic on both sides of the Atlantic.

St Rose’s Secondary School. At the request of the St Mary’s widening participation officer, we have established a link with a nearby secondary school. We have developed a two-part initiative with them: (1) we visit the school and provide their English students with lecture/discussions on A-level literature topics and (2) their students visit our Writing Centre to be trained in the peer review of each other’s writing (see 3.4.5).

University of Leicester. In December 2005, we visited the lecturers and staff of their ‘problem based learning’ degree in the sciences, giving a presentation on writing and problem-based learning and holding discussions about how we might support the writing side of their degree. Subsequently, we were invited to give a presentation on teaching writing in the sciences, given at a conference on pedagogy in physics. We were also invited to provide a review of their their current teaching of writing provision. In part due to staff changes in their institution, this plan has lost momentum 19

at present and it is not yet clear to what degree both institutions will be following through on our plans.

Other Institutions. Several other institutions have approached us for support, but in these cases, we have either been overstretched or nothing significant emerged from the conversation. As just two examples, the Chemistry Department at the University of Birmingham and the Biology Department at the University of Leicester asked us to contribute to changes they were hoping to make to their courses, but we had to decline the opportunity for the time being. Unexpectedly, as a result of our work with Stranmillis University College, a member of their English Department has asked for materials on our peer tutoring programme to take to on his upcoming seven-week visit to two Indonesian universities. This marks a new development, in which dissemination is taking on a life of its own without our providing the driving force.

(2) Conferences hosted by the CETL

In our initial proposal, we aimed to be ready to host a major conference in the fifth year of our CETL. We therefore decided to begin early with a series of small conferences. We called each of these gatherings a ‘Written Communications Forum’ (WCF). They were similar in structure to conferences, but the emphasis was placed on sharing practical concerns rather than upon scholarly presentations.

Written Communications Forum: Supporting Student Writing. 25 May 2005. (Programme, List of Participants) The first of our forums involved participants from England and Ireland. In particular we had Robert Richardson, from the Academic Support Centre from De Montfort University, Leicester and Ursula Healey from the Writing Centre at Liverpool Hope. The conference also featured a workshop run by our Royal Literary Fund Fellow, Anne Rouse.

Second Annual Written Communications Forum: Supporting Student Writing. 26 May 2006. (Programe-List of Participants). This forum concentrated upon the forming of links between institutions. Three proposals were presented: (1) a proposal for peer tutor training, (2) a proposal for self-evaluation of writing programmes and (3) a proposal for supporting the teaching of writing in the biological sciences at Queen's.

CETL Research Away-Day Conference. Partner institutions of the ‘Write Now’ CETL (Aston University, London Metropolitan University and Liverpool Hope University) attended this event hosted by St Mary’s. Dr. Lin Norton, director of pedagogic research at Liverpool Hope, facilitated the event. The results will be discussed more fully in section 3.3.6. See Away Day Plenary, Away Day Breakout.

Third Annual Written Communications Forum: Improving and Evaluating Support for Student Writing. 25 May 2007. (Programme, List of Participants) This year's forum included participants from secondary level, as well as university-level teachers and lecturers. It included representatives from existing writing centres and representatives from groups in the process of establishing writing centres. Participants came from England and Ireland. Dr. Mary Deane from the Coventry University Centre for Academic Writing was a featured speaker. Jonathan Worley presented two talks: Plagiarism: The Dark Side of the Force? and Alternatives to Marking Student 20

Essays. Dr. Matthew Martin presented on Ethos and Evaluation: Negotiating Writing Pedagogies. The day divided itself into several pragmatic areas: (1) the pragmatics of establishing writing centres, (2) the pragmatics of evaluating student academic writing, (3) establishing links between secondary and tertiary education.

(3) Conference Presentations.

These materials are presented in chronological order:

“Enhancing the Study of English” (English Subject Centre, 9 September 2005) Jonathan Worley presented “Out of the English Department and into the Liberal Arts: Designing a Writing Skills Course for Students Writing in Multiple Disciplines” This talk explains how the different elements of the St Mary's written communication modules teach ‘generic’ or ‘transferable’ skills and how these elements of the course are put into practice by particular kinds of written assignments and particular kinds of feedback. Matthew Martin presented “Teaching Writing and Assessing Writing: The Discourse of Conversation versus the Discourse of Quality Control”. This talk explains some of the cultural background informing differences between American and British approaches to student writing, and the influence of industrial and corporate discourse on Higher Education.

International Writing Centers Association / National Conference on Peer Tutoring Conference (Minneapolis MN, USA, October 2005) Jonathan Worley and Kathleen Shine Cain, “Transatlantic Boundaries: Transforming the Writing Center into the Writing Centre (Northern Ireland)”. Discussing the challenges in adapting American written communications pedagogies to Northern Ireland.

University of Leicester (15 December 2005) Agenda. Matthew Martin, “ Problem-Based Writing: Addressing the needs of particular disciplines in the teaching of writing” Dr. Martin then led a workshop: ‘Discover How you Evaluate Student Writing.’ See Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB).

HEA Physical Sciences Subject Centre Conference on Pedagogic Research in Higher Education Physics (University of Bristol, 7 April 2006) Presentation by Dr. Matthew Martin on Teaching Writing in the Sciences. This talk was filmed. An excerpt appears on our web site and a DVD of the presentation is in our Evidence Base (HB). iPed Conference (University of Coventry, 10-13 September 2006) Jonathan Worley, “Piloting Peer Tutoring in Academic Writing in the UK” The iPed conference was an excellent venue for discussing our piloting of peer tutoring, as this conference is one of two UK conferences that are essential to remaining in touch with current UK practice. The other conference is the bi-annual Writing Development in Higher Education Conference (WDHE), which we hope to host in 2010.

National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing (Ann Arbor, Michigan; 10-12 November 2006) Matthew Martin, Kathleen Shine Cain, Christopher Callaghan and Sheila Rooney (two St Mary;’s peer tutors), “TransAtlantic Boundaries Part II: Negotiating Authority in Writing Centers/Writing Centres Across National Borders”. The tutors’ presentation was subsequently requested for publication by the Writing Lab Newsletter. Photo. 21

United Kingdom Literacy Association (Belfast, 4 December 2006) Jonathan Worley and Matthew Martin presented a writing workshop on distinguishing form and content.

European Association of Teachers in Academic Writing (Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, Germany, 2-4 July) Matthew Martin and Kathleen Shine Cain, “Negotiating Writing Center/Centre Identity Across Cultures”.

European Writing Centre Association Conference (Freiburg, Germany, 19-22 June, 2008) Jonathan Worley and Matthew Martin to give keynote presentation entitled “Initiating Writing Center Work - Connecting Secondary, Higher, and Professional Education”.

3.3.5 Development of Written Communications Support for the Business Community

To better understand the written communications needs of the business community and to attempt to form a network within that community, Jonathan Worley participated in the Proteus Project at St Mary’s: ‘Enabling Lecturers to Learn from Business’. He secured a placement with First Trust Bank for two weeks in June 2005, and at that placement attempted to assess written communications needs through visits to several departments. After that placement, he also visited several representative business organisations. For-profit businesses that were visited included Morrow Communications (one of the two largest PR firms in Northern Ireland), The Irish Times Newsgroup and the Law Society. In the non-profit sector, he visited Business in the Community, The Laganside Trust and Trocaire. Finally he visited the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in the civil service sector. Materials collected from these visits may be found in the Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB).

In a separate development, the Staff Development and Training Unit at Queen’s University Belfast asked our CETL if we would be interested in teaching two courses in business writing for their unit. General course descriptions were sent to us, and we developed a basic and an advanced course in business writing for their secretarial staff. One of the presentations for those sessions may be found on our web site. We also obtained copies of the evaluations for these sessions, which were positive, and these may be found in our Evidence Base (HB). We have been asked to teach these courses again next year.

While progress has been made in this area, it has not developed exactly as originally planned and so the target set for the first two years was not achieved. However, we consider that much else has been achieved in this area that has enabled us to refocus our goals.

3.3.6 Development of New Methods of Evaluation of Student Writing

To the best of our knowledge, no clear and widely accepted practice for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching of student writing exists. In our recent attendance at the College Conference on College Composition and Communication in America, it appeared clear a wide variety of approaches to evaluating student writing continue to be practised and explored and that many different kinds of evaluation criteria are deployed at the local level. 22

It was therefore decided to hold a Research Away-Day (see 3.3.4) in collaboration with the 'Write Now' CETL group of universities and attempt to develop a common approach to evaluation among our group. We all had been collecting data during the first two years of our respective CETLs, but this information now needs to be better placed within a theoretical framework, and decisions need to be made about the kind of data that will continue to be collected. By the end of the day, five ways forward were agreed upon:

(1) The standardisation of the collection of data. The CETLs need to consult to determine what particular data is being captured and then decide what data the CETLs should collect in common (see discussion in 5.1).

(2) The production of a literature review.

(3) Development of Methods for Evaluating Individual Tutorial Sessions. At the moment all CETLs are collecting some data about tutorial sessions. At Saint Mary's the Tutor Request Form and the Tutor Feedback Form capture the following information: some data on the student (e.g. year, subject), the student's initial concerns, the tutors write-up of the session and student feedback on the session. We have run videoed interviews and videoed focus group sessions with peer tutors, and excerpts from these sessions are posted on our Video Page. These were of interest to all CETLs and the use of video will continue to be explored jointly. At St Mary's, we are also keen to have our students perform more extensive written evaluations of particular tutorial sessions that would be read by a team leader and discussed with the tutor.

(4) Development of Longitudinal Studies. Group members will be working to produce a viable scheme, taking into consideration ideas which are already under discussion in St Mary’s about the possible use of writing portfolios in conjunction with professional development portfolios (see 5.5.3).

(5) Survey of Stakeholder Perceptions. Liverpool Hope University, in particular, expressed concerns about stakeholders' perceptions of what needed to be achieved and whether the CETLs were capable of addressing those concerns. They have begun a process of surveying the academic staff at their university and will report on the results.

Several working groups were formed to investigate these areas over the summer. Necessary modifications to data collection will begin in the autumn of 2007.

3.4 Lessons Learned and Future Adjustments to Activities

The categories below mirror the categories in sections 3.3 and 3.4, each one devoted to a discussion of one of the seven goals.

3.4.1 Written Communications Pedagogy and Curriculum Development

A great deal has been learned about the pedagogy of teaching writing in the first two years of the CETL. Firstly, CETL funds have enabled greater participation in relevant conferences (3.3.4) on both sides of the Atlantic, greatly increasing our interaction with other scholars. Secondly, the reduction in teaching load has increased the amount of time available for reflective practice about teaching. Thirdly, the increased level of evaluation of our peer tutors has enabled us to learn from them. These lessons are readily apparent in our video recordings 23 of them. Fourthly, in our first year, we were able to hire a lecturer with a great deal of expertise on the teaching of writing. Fifthly, our experiences of tutor training at other institutions have increased the breadth of our teaching experience. Thus CETL funds have enabled a good balance between research on pedagogy and actual teaching.

At the end of two years, we find the following assumptions are foundational: (1) that writing is a process that needs to be practiced in its constituent stages, (2) that reading is an important constituent part of writing, (3) that every academic discipline makes different epistemological and formal assumptions about writing, (4) that writing is a collaborative and social enterprise.

The pedagogy for the teaching of writing in the written communications modules is constantly evolving, as is our own experience of the students in the classroom. Further, upcoming changes to the St Mary’s Liberal Arts degree programme will require corresponding changes in the writing curriculum. In particular, we are looking to become more closely linked with the courses that the written communications modules serve. Recent scholarship suggests that the more embedded written communications teaching is in taught modules, the better the learning.

The pedagogy for peer tutor training, likewise, remains faithful to our foundational principles. Our own experience suggests that the more students get to practice reading student essays and the more experience that they get in tutoring, the better they become, and that these experiences outweigh other aspects of training. However, powerful ideas and concepts presented to the students have a way of leaving their mark and shaping their learning. The emphasis on practice is one that we have brought with us to other institutions when training their tutors.

We are still learning a great deal about the best ways to provide staff training. The experiences of writing centres in America are that workshop training proves to be the most satisfactory in convincing lectures to change their pedagogical approaches. In our first staff training event, for example, we had lecturers review a sample of student writing and then discuss it with the group. We have found that individual meetings with lecturers can also be quite effective.

Finally, a comment upon the teaching of grammar. The debate continues in academic circles about the importance of teaching grammar. The approach that we are most comfortable with after two years of the CETL is to emphasise the importance of error checking at the proofreading stage and the importance of making a good impression on readers. We have developed two lists of types of grammatical errors that we regularly encounter: Sixteen Common Grammatical Errors and Eight Common Grammatical Errors. These we review with students. Scholarship, and our own experience, has been fairly convincing on two points: (1) that the learning of grammar alone does not generally improve the quality of the thinking in the writing, and (2) that muddled argumentation and unclear reasoning has a tendency to give rise to mechanical and surface errors in student writing. For a collection of insightful readings on the issue of teaching grammar, see our Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB).

3.4.2 Peer Tutor Programme Development

The peer tutor programme has been deployed without encountering any significant obstacles, although we continue to learn daily how to improve the programme. Tutors have been generally conscientious in the performance of their responsibilities and have responded in a 24 mature and adult fashion to the demands of the position. Some tutors have been so positively encouraged by the results of their tutoring that they have contributed additional voluntary hours. Generally, if a tutor has been remiss in keeping office hours, it has been for pressing personal reasons, and the tutoring hours have been taken at another time.

Feedback from the students tutored has been almost universally positive, as the data collected from Tutor Feedback Forms (TFF) indicates (see 5.1). There have been occasional misunderstandings between tutors and students, but these generally have been quickly rectified. An advantage of having the Writing Centre Director's office in the same location as the peer tutoring classroom and offices is that any misunderstandings many generally be handled quickly by the director. The Coventry University Centre for Academic Writing keeps a 'problem' file. Tutors are encouraged to fill out a 'problem' form if they feel for any reason there has been a difficulty with a tutorial session. These are then kept on open record in the Writing Centre Director's Office so that all members of the CETL staff may be apprised of this information. We plan to adopt this procedure.

The sharp rise in the number of students tutored last year put a strain, administratively, on Team Leader, Jonathan Worley, in terms of keeping up with paperwork. Our initial funding proposal deliberately did not include funding for administration, but it may become necessary to ask the college for some support in this area.. Two other solutions have been devised to handle administration: (1) peer tutors staffing the drop-in centre will attempt to handle all initial requests for tutoring and (2) a computerised booking system, developed by our IT staff, is now being tested.

3.4.3 Internal Dissemination of Practice within St Mary’s University College

The CETL has received unqualified support from all members of the Senior Management Team. Acting Principal, Peter Finn, has been unstinting in his support for the CETL and its role in developing the mission of the university college. He has given us frequent opportunities to make presentations about our work to staff. In addition to the support from SMT, Fr. Feidhlimidh Magennis has also been unstinting in his assistance to the CETL, and Pamela Byrne, our widening access coordinator, has also proved invaluable in helping us to establish links with the schools. These factors have all contributed to the receptivity of the academic staff to our CETL.

We have also learned the importance of developing and maintaining good relations with all members of the academic staff. The relationships that we have personally developed with academic members of the staff have been very good, in particular through the development of the programme of Writing Centre Associates. (See Interviews.) Development meetings with this group of twenty lecturers, as well as informal contacts, have kept the CETL in lecturers’ minds. Furthermore, beginning in September 2007 an increased degree of integration between the CETL and the Liberal Arts degree will facilitate relationships.

Finally, we are gradually learning the best methods for encouraging student participation on the peer tutoring programme. The lesson is, in short, the more closely integrated our peer tutors are with taught modules, the better the results. 25

3.4.4 External Dissemination of Practice to other Academic Institutions

We have exceeded our proposed goal of developing a partner link with one other institution for the dissemination of peer tutoring (see 3.3.4) and believe that, at this point, we should maintain our partnerships at current levels to allow for greater time and attention to our other goals. We believe we have established an appropriate ratio of partnerships with institutions in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the United States, given our current financial and staffing limits. We believe we took the appropriate action in emphasising work on this goal so heavily in the early stages of our CETL and that our success here has, in turn, been a catalyst for the achievement of our other goals.

3.4.5 Development of Written Communications Support for the Business Community

No clear pattern of need emerged from our visits to the business community. The writing needs of the business community appear to be quite varied, from business to business and from department to department within each business. This suggests a difficulty that has long been part of the challenge of teaching business writing courses. We did fulfil a request from the Queen's University Belfast to run two business writing courses for them according to a general course description. These courses were run and favourably received. Although everyone appeared satisfied, we did not think that it was at all clear that these courses were of much utility. While general courses can teach general concepts and styles for business writing, e.g. how to write a business letter, how to construct a CV, this instruction is generally of little practical use in particular business situations. If we do pursue support for the business community, we would recommend setting up a link with one particular business as a trial.

It seems to us that it might be more promising to turn this goal in another direction, towards secondary-level education. Teachers at this level have made frequent requests for assistance with writing tuition, much more frequently than any requests from the business community. Our initial work with St Rose's Secondary School has proved quite promising, and other teachers in secondary-level education have expressed a keen desire for more extensive relations with us on this matter. We would therefore like to suggest that we simply discontinue plans to work with the business community and shift our focus to secondary education.

3.4.6 Development of New Methods for Evaluation of Student Writing

This section will be handled in much greater detail in sections 4-6 of this report. We are in the early stages of formalising our approach to evaluating peer tutoring and student writing. We are working with other institutions and taking advice from experts in educational research. We realised from the start that while we may have expertise in teaching writing, we are not experts in educational research. We are pleased to have developed a way forward to achieving this goal by dividing our evaluation efforts among four institutions and into five categories (listed in 3.3.6). 26

4.0 Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation

This section outlines the foci, the theoretical framework and the procedures used in our evaluation, as well as directing the reader to the quantitative and qualitative data under discussion.

4.1 Evaluation Foci

These are the five specific foci for evaluation under discussion in Section 4, to be elaborated upon in the discussion that follows the list:

Student’s Experience/Perspective Peer Tutor’s Experience/Perspective Lecturer’s and Writing Centre Associate’s Experience/Perspective Institutional/Curricular Changes Partner Institution’s Experiences/Perspectives

Some of these foci overlap on occasion with others; the lecturer’s experience is, at times, a function of the curricular changes they are motivated to make, for example. Thus, in the course of Section Four, we will relate the different bodies of data – both quantitative and qualitative – to the evaluation foci listed above.

4.2 Evaluation Framework

Before entering into the detailed discussion of these five foci, it is important to highlight two conceptual points about our theoretical framework for analysis.

We consider that what we are evaluating in this CETL is a variety of 'complex change', as defined by Murray Saunders (Saunders, ‘Emerging’: Bibliography). A point-by-point discussion of this definition in relation to the St Mary’s CETL appears here.

The particular complex change we are evaluating (a unique variety of writing centre and peer tutoring work) is best evaluated, as Bell (2000) argues in 'When Hard Questions Are Asked: Evaluating Writing Centres', by “conduct[ing] a series of carefully limited evaluations which, when pieced together after a few years, create a fairly comprehensive picture”.

Saunders’ definition of complex change fits nearly the full range of changes which our CETL is attempting to cultivate and sustain in our own institution and in others. We are trying to prompt changes in staff behaviour and attitude to working with student writing, as well as changing the general culture of the institution in such a way as to have an impact even on those students and lecturers who never engage with the writing centre or partake of the peer tutoring/associate programme. The number of variables open to evaluation, then, is daunting. Thus, Bell’s point is apt: the potential impact of a Writing Centre can be too wide-ranging to measure comprehensively in a short time span and should be approached in small, discrete units over several years. 27

4.3 Interim Self-Evaluation Objectives

This section of the interim self-evaluation report will, then, do three things in relation to our five selected foci:

• We will provide and analyse evidence for those areas about which we have generated quantitative data to date. • We will provide narrative samples for those areas of activity for which quantitative data is not deemed suitable. • We will outline our priorities for the coming year for gathering further data (both quantitative and qualitative) and argue coherently for those priorities.

This interim self-evaluation report is, then, but a first step in creating that more comprehensive picture at which Bell says we should aim.

4.4 The Data

The data we have gathered to date falls into two categories:

4.4.1 Quantitative Data Quantitative data falls into the following sub-categories:

Session / Distribution Numbers These data are used to track (a) the number of students coming to Peer Tutoring sessions over different academic years, (b) the departments and disciplines from which they are coming and (c) the lecturers who have referred or taught the students who are coming. These data provides one measurement of the degree to which we have extended our reach throughout the college and highlights those areas where we have yet to make an impact.

Student Feedback Forms These data (and on occasion, qualitative commentary) are used to track student satisfaction or concerns with their experience of peer tutoring.

4.4.2 Qualitative/Narrative Data Qualitative/Narrative data for our work to date falls under the following categories:

Peer Tutor Interviews/Narratives and Focus Groups These are provided in evidence of the impact Peer Tutoring has on the tutors themselves. Evidence to date suggests that this is an area of immense interest, as the impact seems to be profound.

Writing Centre Associate Interviews These are provided in evidence of the impact the CETL has had both on student performance across different departments, and on lecturers’ practices and perceptions with regard to student writing. 28

Letters/Comments from Partner Institutions These are provided in evidence of the impact our CETL has had on students and staff alike in the institutions to which we have disseminated our practices.

Photos of CETL Activities These are provided as important evidence of the vibrancy of the activities which contribute to the complex change of an institution’s academic culture. Most noteworthy here, amid all the photos of training sessions and conference talks, would be the photos of quiet, self-directed activity taken in the Writing Centre. Students booked appointments, met with drop-in visitors and discussed essays all day without any hands-on supervision. No quantitative data could capture the significance of moments like that, which are now, thankfully, frequent – and they have changed the atmosphere of the college. (See photos)

4.5 Evaluation Priorities for the Coming Year

Based on the evidence and feedback gathered to date, we have chosen the following two areas to be highlighted as key evaluative foci in the coming year:

• Tracking students’ writing in a longitudinal fashion. • Evaluating the content of individual tutorial sessions and tracking performance of individual peer tutors.

These priorities have been chosen based on the data and feedback discussed below, as will become clear during the review of that material below.

4.6 Reflections on the Evaluation Process

4.6.1 Three Characteristics of our Evaluation. Feedback and data gathered from students, peer tutors, Writing Centre Associates, and our partners in other institutions has been (a) essential, (b) eye-opening and (c) catalytic at every step of the CETL development process.

Essential While running the CETL project, conducting outreach and dissemination, training both tutors and associates and developing curriculum changes, the team leaders have found discussion with peer tutors and students about particular writing tasks extremely helpful. Maintaining a consistent flow of feedback from peer tutors, students and associates about what is actually happening on a day-to-day basis has proved crucial as a guide to supervising the work and developing further training. Through focus groups and interviews with peer tutors, for example, we have learned about the degree to which tutorial sessions need, on occasion, to address issues beyond merely the writing on the page. Peer tutors need, on occasion, to take students to the library and orient them [see Janine Black’s video interview]. On other occasions they need to listen sympathetically to stories of personal misfortune and guide students to the appropriate counselling services. Peer tutor training has had to take account of these unexpected necessities.

Eye-Opening Working with Peer Tutors in the Writing Centre, the team leaders have made a sufficient number of new discoveries to have learned that they must always remain alert to changing 29 institutional and personal dynamics. Every department, lecturer, student, peer tutor and essay is different. One key example of this kind of insight came about as a result of the regular staff meetings held with peer tutors. The team leaders had assumed that in setting up a new writing centre space one priority would have to be a sufficient number of ‘cubicles’ in which tutoring could take place with a degree of privacy. The team leaders' experience in the United States suggested that this was the norm. Peer Tutors, however, made it clear that students coming in for tutoring – especially for the first time – found the ‘buzz’ of a large group, all in one room discussing essays, comforting. In retrospect, it seems obvious to us now that sitting one-on- one with a peer tutor in an isolated cubicle would be quite daunting for a first-time visitor. Furthermore, we discovered that the group setting also promoted discussion among Peer Tutors during sessions – something which peer tutors themselves have found invaluable. For example, refer to peer tutor session sheets which have been signed by three tutors – all of whom joined together to discuss a case, or who decided among themselves to meet as a group with a group of students – as they felt this would be more conducive to discussion and a more efficient use of time. This is an excellent example of the kind of collaborative learning that we hope our CETL would foster—and has done so in ways we did not expect.

Catalytic Through feedback from peer tutors and WCAs, we have discovered the potential for new activities related to the CETL's work. The following are just two examples:

(1) When the College's English Society made arrangements to bring in two poets (Michael Longley and Dennis O’Driscoll), peer tutors felt they benefited enormously from meeting and hearing professional writers talk about their work. As a result, discussions are underway to make visiting professional and academic writers a feature of on-going peer tutor training, most likely as a part of weekly staff meetings.

(2) Our feedback from WCAs has encouraged us to consider providing some resources for supporting staff in their own capacity as writers. Inspired in part by a talk given at a St Mary’s Written Communications Forum by Mary Deane of the University of Coventry Centre for Academic Writing, in which she discussed the work they do with staff, our staff have expressed an interest in having some support with their own writing tasks. One possiblity for the coming year will be to bring staff in to speak to peer tutors about their own writing projects as a way of enriching the conversation which associates have with the peer tutors.

4.6.2 Addressing the Need for Further Help/Resources for Evaluation. St Mary’s CETL staff may be recognised as having expertise in writing pedagogy – but need support in the area of educational programme evaluation. We believe that to transform our evaluative work into results which have been sufficiently critically analysed for wider publication, we will need to draw on relevant expertise. Our current approach is four-fold: • We are currently having discussions with our College’s research officer to see what spare research capacity he has, or he can identify, within the college which we might use. • Dr Glynis Cousin of HEA has agreed to assist in reviewing our needs. • Matthew Martin has become a committee member of the HEA-endorsed CETL Internal Pedagogic Research and Evaluation Network (IPREN) to gain experience. • We have begun an evaluation and research-based collaboration with the 'Write Now' CETL in England (at London Metropolitan, Liverpool Hope and Aston University) in order to share expertise, cross-institutional data and the work load of producing useable, meaningful evaluations. 30

5.0 Findings Addressing Key Evaluation Foci

The following provides a discussion of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered to date.

5.1 The Student’s Experience and Perspective

5.1.1 Tutorial Feedback Forms

Tutorial Feedback Forms have been used in the Writing Centre since 2002. Because of the very small number of feedback forms, no quantitative analysis could be performed for these early years. Further, the small number of tutorial meetings meant that the feedback forms were not used with great proficiency to report on their experiences. Students made only positive comments, although they were encouraged to submit them anonymously.

In the two years since the CETL project began, we have improved the reliability with which the feedback forms are completed and submitted. The high percentage of positive comments suggests that we are succeeding, but we need to develop the feedback system to gather more detailed and enlightening data about what could be improved in the tutoring sessions. We are currently considering new, redesigned forms for obtaining this feedback, including greater use of on-line feedback forms.

Feedback 2006 - 2007 Of 122 Tutorial Feedback Forms, 120 (98%) were highly positive in their comments about the tutorial session. See Representative positive comments 2006-07. The remaining two Tutorial Feedback Forms were also positive but made the following additional comments:

1. With reference to whether they learned anything in the session, one student responded: ‘Yep, it was however, more correction than improvement, but I did learn from it.’ 2. In relation to whether or not the student would like to meet with the same tutor (and also in connection with the duration of the session), another student responded: ‘Yes, but longer.’

Feedback 2005 - 2006 This was the first year in which we emphasised the significance of Tutorial Feedback Forms. They were not, however, being distributed with as much consistency as we would have wished for. The data here is less comprehensive than in 2006-07.

Of 21 Tutorial Feedback Forms, 17 (81%) were unreservedly positive. See Representative positive comments 2005-06. The remaining 4 were overwhelmingly positive, although some interesting points were made (note -- original spelling/grammar/errors have been retained):

1. When asked if the session helped to improve the student’s writing, one student responded - ‘Because there wasn’t any corrections to be made, I don’t my writing in general improved following the session on my essay.’ The student went on to write: ‘I don’t think I would have another tutorial session for a religion essay because, understandably, it is difficult for the tutor to pick out correction because of the subject. However, it would be useful for structure and I would be interested in maybe bringing an English assignment to a tutor.’ 31

2. When asked if the session helped to improve the student’s writing, one responded - ‘To an extent, yes! It was pointed out to me that I use comas too much. Therefore, it helped me to become more aware of punctuation mistakes in my writing.’ 3. When asked if the session helped to improve the student’s writing, one responded - ‘It was excellent. Unfortunately I only found out about it this year! As a result I achieved top grades in all of my assignment. I very much appreciate all the help that I obtained. I would encourage anyone to seek help.’

5.1.2 Distribution Numbers: Tracking Students and Disciplines/Lecturers across the College Coming into Contact with our Work

Two significant targets in the first phase of the CETL were to increase the number of students we have contact with, and to increase the range of departments and disciplines from which those students originate. The academic year 2005-06, the first year of the CETL, was a watershed for us in terms of the number and diversity of visitors the project attracted. As the years before the CETL began saw a fairly consistent, low level of peer tutoring, we have averaged these early numbers to serve as a baseline figure.

Academic Year Number of % increase on % of total student visits previous year body 03-04/04-05 (avg.) 50 -- 4% 05-06 216 332% 19% 06-07 247 14% 22%

Perhaps more significant in terms of making an impact across the student body as a whole are the figures which reveal from what department those students are coming drawn. (There are twenty departmental units in the College.)

Academic Year Departments % increase on previous Represented year 03-04/04-05 (avg.) 11 -- 05-06 19 73% 06-07 20 5%

Academic Year Lecturers Represented % increase on previous year 03-04/04-05 (avg.) 15 -- 05-06 32 113% 06-07 38 19%

In the academic years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the peer tutoring process met with, on average, a total of less than 50 students per year. These students came to the Writing Centre from an average of eleven different departments resulting from referrals by an average of fifteen different lecturers. This disciplinary spread and network of engaged lecturers was the consequence of informal contacts and pre-established lines of sympathetic, like-minded discussion which had taken place in the preceding few years. It is also fair to say that, had the CETL funding not caused our operation to change its approach to internal dissemination, the disciplinary spread and network of engaged lecturers was likely to remain much as it was in these early years. 32

During the academic year 2005-06, the peer-tutoring programme saw the arrival of 216 visitors through our door for help with writing. This marks a 332% increase in traffic over the previous two years. In addition, the number of different departments represented by the students coming for help increased from an average of 11 up to 19 – a marked increase of 73%. The number of lecturers referring students (or from whose modules students referred themselves) increased from an average of 15 in the preceding two years, to 32 in 2005-06, an increase of 113%.

During the academic year 2006-07, the peer tutoring programme welcomed 247 students through our doors, an increase of 14% over the previous year. The number of different departments represented by those students increased from 19 to 21, an increase of 5%. The number of lecturers referring students (or from whose modules students referred themselves) increased from 32 to 38, an increase of 19%. (That figure, 38, represents roughly 63% of active teaching staff in the college.) After the momentous increase in 2005-06, we are entering a period of consolidation for our internal dissemination.

The training of subject-specific peer tutors gives us a presence in nearly all academic areas of the College and has prompted referrals or visits from ten new departments or disciplines within two years. Combined with targeted training for Writing Centre Associates, these developments would explain the massive increase in the number and variety of tutorial meetings in 2005-06. These figures provide quantitative evidence for the successful dissemination of the CETL's peer tutoring programme. It is still the case, however, that some areas remain more engaged with the Writing Centre than others. In 2006-07, the Religious Studies department provided 23% of all referrals, English provided 15%, while other departments provided much fewer referrals. Partly these disparities are a function of numbers of students studying in that area in the first place (English and Religion are relatively large departments). More significantly, however, are the number of times lecturers in those areas made visiting the Writing Centre a requirement for a particular assignment. Reaching out to areas of the college which have provided us with fewer students is, therefore, partly a task of making contact with students and partly a task of working with staff to find out more clearly what we can do to support their particular modules.

St Mary’s employs approximately 60 active teaching and/or student support staff, so our current roster of 20 Writing Centre Associates represents a third of academic staff in total. Our original proposal set out to “to engage 25% of College lecturers as associates of the Writing Centre within a 5-year period through provision of staff development and training in the rationale and methods of teaching written communications.” We exceeded that goal in the very first year and have maintained that level of engagement up to the present, with a consistent roster of 20 Writing Centre Associates. Because we achieved this level so quickly, it raises the question whether we want to set new goals, or reconceptualise the way we think about staff engagement.

5.2 Peer Tutor Interviews, Narratives and Focus Groups: The Peer Tutor’s Experience and Perspective

The narratives told by peer tutors have been the most useful feedback produced by the CETL project. Peer Tutors have spoken of a transformation of their academic life: from the moment they were invited to be a peer tutor (or in some cases, even from the moment they were encouraged to apply), they felt a pride prompted by this confidence in their ability to write 33 and think critically. That pride did not, however, overcome an initial nervousness that they were, in fact, 'not really cut out' for the job. That nervousness, the tutors have told us, was overcome after their first tutoring session was completed. It was then that they felt a new sense of themselves as capable of tutoring their peers. As their tutoring experience grew, they spoke of a change in their own attitude toward their own writing and toward their own degree of engagement with their studies. They developed a new-found investment in ideas, in learning and in helping other students learn. The old adage is often heard in these conversations, that one doesn’t really understand a topic until required to teach it to others. Interviews and focus group discussions with those particular tutors who travelled to other institutions to help train others revealed, yet again, another level of confidence.

Although students clearly feel they have benefitted from receiving peer tutoring, the peer tutors themselves speak with remarkable passion and in surprising detail about the impact of tutoring on them. We would like to explore ways of passing on that degree of transformation in attitude and self-perception from the tutors to their students. For a representative selection of tutors' narratives see our Video Evidence Base.

5.3 Writing Centre Associate Interviews

Initial findings of our WCA feedback interviews (WCA Interviews), suggest that the lecturers involved are pleased with the impact peer tutoring is having on both the process and the outcome of student writing. ‘Informal feedback from students is positive – that is, positive if they attend [their appointment for tutoring]’, says one lecturer. Says another, ‘Things are moving in the right direction at the minute. A culture is developing positively, especially for tutors and tutees. And that culture is beginning to touch those who don’t attend for tutoring.’ And a third comments that ‘we’ve lost that tail of under achievement [in our department] – the completely unrevised essay is something that is just no longer submitted’.Interview questions.

Overwhelmingly, the feedback from WCAs has reinforced our notion that keeping this relationship on a relatively informal footing suits them best. They are not looking for any more formal commitments in their working year, and yet they are happy and enthusiastic about keeping up the informal discussion and partnership which makes the Writing Centre Associate system work well. They also say that the level of support and assistance they receive from the CETL staff is good. A number of ideas were raised in these interviews:

New ‘certification’ procedure for first year liberal arts students. Under this new arrangement, first year Liberal Art students will have to produce a document showing that they have taken either their first or second essay of the year to the Writing Centre for help with revision. This idea would mark a new level of ‘institutionalisation’ of the Writing Centre ethos in the College.

Discussion of new portfolio system for tracking of student writing. Another proposal is the possibility of integrating the idea of a Writing Portfolio with already-existing personal and professional development portfolios which are in use in the College. The idea would be to encourage students to take the lead in reflecting on their own writing performance in a sustained manner over the course of their three-year or four-year degree. 34

5.4 Institutional/Curricular Changes

The internal, structural changes which the CETL project have produced in the College’s approach to the teaching, assessment and general understanding of the significance of student writing have been heartening. As a small institution members of College frequently work closely with senior management in the development of curricular projects. The collaboration that occurred on that proposal boded well for institutional support for the CETL and its aims. In the two years since the project began, the college has accepted a number of institutional and curricular changes. A case study is detailed below.

5.5.1 The Admissions Procedure Writing Task

In the first year of the CETL, we took a look at the life of a St Mary’s student as a writer, and discovered that they first face the challenge of writing in an HE environment as part of the admissions procedure. We examined the ‘writing task’ which BEd students were expected to complete on the day they came for interview. We found the task to be limited as an instrument for testing the full range of their writing ability. We negotiated with management and admissions staff to lengthen the period of time candidates were given to write; we redesigned the task itself so as to prompt a more complex, analytical piece of writing (see HB); and we re-organised the way the task was to be marked.

We drew together a team of five members of academic staff who were willing to be trained and moderated throughout the process of evaluating the responses to the new writing task. We discussed how we would balance our concerns with grammar, spelling, argumentation and facility with language. As a result, the message has begun to make its way out into the schools from which these candidates come that there is a new approach to writing in the college. The Writing Centre now figures prominently in Open Days and in recruitment visits to schools.

5.6 Partner Institution’s Experiences and Perspectives

The following are samples of some of the feedback we have received from the institutions to which we have disseminated our practices.

5.6.1 Stranmillis University College. 'When we heard of the pioneering work of the St Mary's CETL(NI) during a staff development presentation, Irene and I were inspired and challenged to establish a Writing/Communications Centre in Stranmillis University College. We have found Jonathan's and Matthew's enthusiasm and passion for this work infectious; their credibility and professionalism in tems of guidance invaluable; and their generosity in terms of time and other practical support unlimited! They truly are ambassadors for the work that they do. We believe that the success we have had to date in securing internal funding and support has been largely due to the 'learning conversations' we have had with them. Finally, the national conference hosted by St Mary's allowed 5 members of our team to establish networks which will prove invaluable as we move forward.'

5.6.2 London Metropolitan University. Peter O’Neill, Writing Specialist with the London Metropolitan University Writing Centre (“Write Now” CETL), said of our work helping to train their students to become Peer Tutors (or ‘Mentors’ as they call them): 35

Here at London Met, we were delighted to have Matthew and Jonathan come over to carry out our initial training and to bring two of their mentors with them. The training was a memorable occasion and a great success. Our own writing mentors really enjoyed meeting the students from Belfast and it was a terrific start to our operations here in London. Matthew and Jonathan are generous colleagues and it has been a real pleasure to work with them.

Katherine Harrington, Director of the “Write Now” CETL at London Metropolitan, writes of that same collaboration: Working with Matthew and Jonathan over the past year has been an unreservedly positive and rewarding experience for the Write Now CETL, based at London Metropolitan and Liverpool Hope Universities. We have benefited immensely from their expertise and guidance in helping us set up our own Writing Mentor Schemes, and we are now continuing our collaboration through developing joint research projects to evaluate the effectiveness of student-led writing support. Write Now's work with the St Mary's CETL has been our most fruitful collaboration with colleagues outside our own CETL, and I very much look forward to the development of this collaboration over the next years of CETL activity.

5.6.3 Queen’s University Bio-Sciences.. Dr Gerry Brennan, Co-ordinator of the Introductory Skills Module in Bio-Sciences at Queen’s and a lecturer in Molecular Biology, wrote the following about the assistance the St Mary’s CETL gave his department in developing their teaching and assessing of writing.

Introductory Skills for Biosciences is a first year module for all Stage 1 students enrolled on BSc degree pathways in the Schools of Biological Sciences and Biomedical Sciences. Through this module, which has been designed to provide a foundation in, and development of, personal transferable skills, Dr Martin and Mr Worley introduced a scientific writing component. This challenged the students to define good writing and, in particular, to think about scientific writing. They were given an overview on how to evaluate and criticise their own scientific writing and that of their peers and asked to write a short essay to compare two pieces of writing in a critically focused way.

This scientific writing component has been a very successful addition to the Skills module. It’s too early to know if it has helped improve the students’ scientific writing skills but it has allowed the students to appreciate different types of scientific writing aimed at specific audiences.

Through the considerable experience, enthusiasm and drive of Dr Martin and Mr Worley this component is now an essential element of the Skills Module.

5.6.5 Liverpool Hope University. Chris Beaumont, Deputy Director of the Write Now CETL at Liverpool Hope University, wrote to us expressing his gratitude for the training session which St Mary’s Peer Tutors helped to run for the new batch of Peer Tutors who were just being hired at Liverpool Hope. He indicated that the St Mary’s contribution had a significant impact on the Liverpool Hope CETL’s timetable: 'I am just delighted you came over - you helped us get the programme moving probably a year earlier than otherwise. I wish we had more time to talk and collaborate more closely.' 36

5.6.6 Informal Contacts. It is important to note that, in addition to our collaborative work and dissemination, the St Mary’s CETL has become a bit of a clearing house for exchanging information on writing pedagogy across a wide range of institutions. To pick one recent day as an example, the team leaders' phones rang with inquiries from two people, a research assistant at Aston University looking for help with a literature review on writing pedagogy in higher education and an art historian at The Arts Institute at Bournemouth looking for information on teaching writing to Fine Arts students. We then had a visit from Careers Officers with the Department of Employment and Learning who were visiting the college and were interested in how our work might impact on high school students looking to make the transition to vocational training or university. (They were impressed and are recommending that other officers come for a visit.) These sorts of queries come in on not quite a daily basis, but frequently enough to register as one of our substantial functions as an active, disseminating CETL. 37

6.0 Conclusion

St Mary’s University College and the other Northern Ireland HEIs were provided the opportunity to bid for CETL(NI) funding through the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL), The local arrangements varied in several significant details from the regime overseen by the HEA – in particular, the levels of funding (the conditions for application stipulated that a successful bid by St Mary’s or Stranmillis University Colleges would be capped at £250,000 over five years) and the activities for which funding could be used (e.g. no capital expenditure). The aims and rationale of the CETL(NI) programme were substantially the same. St Mary’s University College made a successful bid for its Writing Centre to be recognised as a CETL.

St Mary’s University College is a small institution focusing primarily on teacher education. It also has a dynamic and innovative diversification in Liberal Arts. The establishment of its Writing Centre is part of that diversification. The Centre had been established four years earlier (in September 2000) to support and develop student writing within the context of the College’s new Liberal Arts degree programme. Given the institution’s size and commitment to innovative diversification, the CETL programme provided an excellent opportunity to embed this new provision throughout the institution and to demonstrate externally the successes and benefits of our innovative teaching and learning.

We believe that the activities outlined in this report demonstrate that our CETL has made good progress in meeting the aims of the CETL(NI) initiative as outlined by DEL:

• The current and developing practice of our Writing Centre provide excellent learning outcomes for our students. The CETL funding has enabled us to enhance those learning outcomes and to ensure deeper and more sustained delivery across the full institution.

• The CETL funding has enabled our dedicated staff to lead and embed change by implementing approaches that address the diversity of learners’ needs, the requirements of different learning contexts and the possibilities for innovation. The training of students and lecturers, as peer tutors and Writing Centre Associates respectively, have been central to embedding change while ensuring a personalised support service for individual student learning needs. The continuing curricular review also demonstrated the commitment of the institution to build on the innovations developed within the Writing Centre. Our outreach to local business and local secondary schools has also ensured that innovation and quality learning is made known to the various stakeholders, both those providing our students and potential employers.

• We have been more successful in the first two years of the initiative in our efforts to disseminate across the sector our innovative approach to addressing support of student learning needs. This dissemination has taken place in a positive and collaborative manner which will, in time, enhance standards of teaching and effective learning.

We are very positive about the aims and rationale of the CETL programme as they coincided well with our own institutional strategic goals. Our experience of managing a CELT has been positive. We would support the CELT programme fully as a means of recognising and promoting excellence in learning and teaching. We are very keen to share our developments 38 and so have moved quickly to external dissemination, which has been progressing well in the first two years of the programme.

Our success is the result of a number of key factors. Firstly, the College has a strong commitment to curriculum development. Secondly, the ethos of the College is such that it encourages innovation that will enhance the development of the whole person, in this case, the student. The development of writing skills is seen as a significant enhancement of the student, not just academically but also enabling the student to participate more fully in society through life-long learning. Thirdly, the small size of the institution enables good practice to be quickly and enthusiastically disseminated. Fourthly, the particular nature of the CETL agreement made between the institution and DEL focused attention on teaching activities and dissemination from the outset so that issues such as capital spending have not slowed down the move to dissemination.

We recognise the constraints placed upon our CETL by the special circumstances of the CETL(NI) programme. We have established a good working relationship with DEL officials and have sought at all points to engage with HEA activities and networking. However, the limits on funding mean that we must be very realistic and acknowledge that we have already had to turn down opportunities for expansion within the institution and for dissemination to other institutions. These constraints will become more obvious in the later years of the programme.

Looking at the six goals that we set in the initial proposal, we are satisfied that good progress has been made in each area. As the review of our goals and activities shows (Section 3), we have met the targets set for the first two years of the project in all areas but one. In fact, we have achieved much more than outlined in the targets. In retrospect, our targets were modest. Our success may be fortuitous – but we believe that our experience may provide a useful case study showing how best to promote good practice and its dissemination. We believe that the small size of the institution, the shared vision and commitment to the goals of this CETL by management, the team members, academic staff and students, the opportunity to build on existing practice and the favourable climate created by the CETL initiative have all contributed to our success.

We look forward to the outcome of the interim evaluation of the CETL(NI) programme as we review our targets for the next three years. Our one concern is that the limitations of our particular funding arrangement will perhaps hamper further expansion on our early successes. Instead we may be facing a period of consolidation in our activities. We would be strongly in favour of the expansion of the CETL(NI) programme and ready to avail of the opportunities such development would offer us. 39

Report Resources: Evidence Base

The Online Evidence Base is found at http://www.smucb.ac.uk/writingcentre/cetl.asp and contains material normally provided in appendices. This evidence has been divided into four categories listed on four separate, linked web pages: (1) documents, (2) photographs, (3) videos, (4) PowerPoint presentations. These pages may be browsed independently. Hyperlinks in this document will immediately open the requested document.

The Hardcopy Evidence Base (HB) is contained in labelled boxes and folders at the St Mary's University College Writing Centre. This supporting evidence is available upon request and may be of interest to visiting external reviewers. Folders and boxes are referenced by the numbers listed below. This material is divided into the following categories:

Report Guidelines 1. Official Guidelines For Construction of Report from CSET Lancaster and Open University Evidence of Peer Tutor Programme 2. Tutor Request Forms and Tutor Feedback Forms 3. Peer Tutor — Writing Centre Associate Pairings 2005-02007 4. Peer Tutor Training Readings 5. Peer Tutor Training Course Outlines and Handouts 6. Peer Tutor Application Process Letters and Forms 7. Peer Tutor Evaluation Focus Group Questions 8. Examples of Constructed Knowledge 9. Peer Tutor Staff Meeting Agendas Evidence of Conference Presentations 10. iPED Conference Programme - J. Worley Presentation 11. UK Literacy Association Conference — Workshop by J. Worley and M. Martin, December 2006 Evidence of Hosted Conferences 12. Supporting Student Writing Forum 2005 Materials 13. Supporting Student Writing Forum 2006 Materials 14. Supporting Student Writing Forum 2007 Materials Evidence of Participation in CETL-Sponsored Events 15. CETL Internal Pedagogic Meeting, 28 February 2007 16. CETL Network Meeting 17 November 2005 Evidence of Peer Tutor Training Events 17. Liverpool Hope Peer Tutor Training Event, 2 October 2006 18. London Metropolitan Tutor Training Event, 28-29 September 2006 19. PowerPoint Presentation on Peer Tutoring by a Peer Tutor 20. Peer Tutor Evaluations of the Peer Tutor Programme 2004-05, 2006-07 21. Proteus Project Published Report Detailing Jonathan Worley's placement with Belfast Buisinesses. Evidence of Taught Courses in Written Communications 22. Written Communications 2 Evaluations 2005-2006, 2006-2007 23. QUB Student Evaluations of Business Writing Course, January 2007 Other Documents 24. Approval From Saint Mary's Research Ethics Committee 25. Documents Publicising CETL 40

Bibliography

Bell, James (2000) ‘When Hard Questions Are Asked: Evaluating Writing Centers’, The Writing Centre Journal Vol 21, no. 1.

Donnelli, Emily and Kristen Garrison (2003) ‘Tapping Multiple Voices in Writing Centre Assessment’, Academic Exchange Quarterly Volume 7, Issue 4.

Falchikov, Nancy (2001) Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education (London: Routledge)

Lerner, Neil (1997) ‘Counting Beans and Making Beans Count’ Writing Lab Newsletter 22(1); 8-9.

Lerner, Neil (2000, February 15) ‘The Dreaded o-word’ Message posted to Wcenter electronic mailing list: http://lyris.acs.ttu/cgibin/lyris.pl?sub=6453&id=169262330

McCrimmon, James (1984) ‘Writing as a Way of Knowing’ in Richard L Graves (ed), Rhetoric and Composition (Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook)

North, Stephen (1984) ‘The Idea of a Writing Centre’, College English 46(5), 433-446.

Saunders, Murray. (n.d.) ‘Emerging Themes in Evaluation’ http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/quality/CA024D_Saunders_EmergingThemesInEvaluation.ppt# 294,4,Evaluating complex changes Last accessed 5 June 2007

Saunders, Murray (2006) ‘The Presence of Evaluation Theory and Practice in Educational and Social Development: Toward an Inclusive Approach.’ London Review of Education Vol 4, no 2, pp. 197-215

Saunders, Murray, Paul Trowler, Paul Ashwin, Joan Machell, Sadie Williams and Peter Knight. (2006) ‘The National Evaluation of the CETL Programme 2005-2010: The First Formative Phase.’ Produced by CSET in the Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University.

Shaughnessy, Mina (1977) Errors and Expectations (Oxford: OUP)

Load more

  40

Copy Link