University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 4

University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 1

Central Washington University Assessment of Student Learning Program Report

Academic Year of Report: 2009-2010 Program: University Writing Center

1. What outcomes did we assess this year, and why? All 11 Program Goals in the “Program Assessment Plan.”

2. How did we assess them?  Database created from student profiles and Session Summary Forms, showing how many consultations and which types, at which locations, and the students’ disciplines, levels, first languages, majors, etc. Ongoing.  Detailed review of individual Session Summary Reports. Ongoing.  Records of workshops and other outreach. Ongoing.  Student Feedback Forms, completed anonymously by Ellensburg, Des Moines, and Lynnwood students after consultations and workshops. Ongoing.  Unsolicited e-mail comments from faculty and students. Ongoing.  The most recent (2007-2008) Writing Centers Research Project, University of Louisville.  Staff analyses of workshops, Adobe Presenter video workshops, synchronous online consulting software, theoretical discussions, poetry readings, grammar handouts, and other aspects of our work. Ongoing.  Staff survey of January 2010, our new Service-Learning blog, and other staff comments.  Weekly logs for online consulting, new this year. Ongoing.

3. What did we learn? o We continued to serve students using the peer-consulting method of guiding them to learn how to express their ideas better and edit their own work. o Students and faculty members were largely appreciative of this. o Some faculty members have incomplete information about our services. o We continue to serve more students every year through one-on-one consultations. o A year and a half of trying to serve students and market those services at CWU-Wenatchee and CWU-Moses Lake resulted in minimal usage. o We increased our breadth of online services and also did more synchronous online consulting. o We added new workshops, and we served dramatically more students via workshops. o We expanded services, including innovative approaches, for students in basic writing courses.

Note: All of the information in this report draws from appendices which are in the University Writing Center’s 2009-2010 Assessment Binder, housed in the University Writing Center and in the Office of Undergraduate Studies.

 Goal 1: Students generally appreciate the center’s services and report that consultants help them become better writers, learning skills they will use during their time at CWU and beyond.

o Students report that they learn about the center through most often through their instructors, class orientations scheduled by their instructors, and their friends – indicating that our reputation causes both instructors and students to recommend our services. University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 2

o Satisfaction was illustrated through the anonymous Student Feedback Forms that students filled out after one-on-one consultations in Ellensburg, Des Moines, and Lynnwood. Here is the compilation for the academic year:

Was the session helpful to you as a writer?

Yes 247 100% No 0 0% NA 0 0%

Would you consider using the Writing Center again?

Yes 248 98.8% No 1 0.4% NA 2 0.8%

o The surveys include a comment box. Here is an example of student comments that illustrate we are fulfilling our mission to help students communicate their ideas better in writing:  “She was very helpful and taught me things to help me be a stronger writer.”

 “English is my second language, and the writing consultants help me a lot.”  “My CS 101 instructor asked us all to come in and I was so glad he told us about the writing center. I had no idea there was such a service on campus as I came in as a nontraditional student.”

 “The WC staff is fabulous! Kudos! I have no extra suggestions. Rock on!”  “I loved working with (consultant’s name removed)! She is such a great listener and helped me to brainstorm way better ideas than the ones I had.”

o Student satisfaction also is evident in the numerous e-mails of appreciation we receive, in response to our e-mailed Session Summary Reports.

 Goal 1: Faculty are generally pleased and appreciate the center’s services. o According to data from Student Profiles, most students learn about the center either through their instructors or orientations that are arranged via instructors – illustrating that many faculty support the center and are encouraging students to use the service.

o Writing Consultants receive a plethora of appreciation e-mails from faculty members in response to our e-mailed Session Summary Reports. In the faculty survey, some noted the benefits of this e-mail communication – they appreciate being informed about how their students are doing and what they are struggling with. Here are examples: University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 3  “Your help with student writing is much appreciated. I do not have the time, or in some instances the ability, to mentor student writing. I appreciate the notes from your session.”  “This is WONDERFUL news! I am so glad Amy sought help from the Writing Center! More students need to take advantage of this wonderful service! Thanks for letting me know about Amy's work.”

o A faculty member wrote an unsolicited letter of support.

o Some faculty members seem to not understand what their students experience during writing consultations. This was evidenced by an e-mail stream via Faculty Senate. The University Writing Center Advisory Committee responded to this with information and decided that a brochure with information for faculty would be useful.

 Goal 2: Demand and the use of writing services continue to fluctuate and increase:

One-on-one Writing Consultations

Campus 2009-2010 2008-2009 Percent Details Total Total Change From Previous Year Ellensburg 3,046 2,826 +8% Demand fluctuates at main campus but has been mostly stable since January 2008, when we opened our third site, in the SURC. Des Moines 904 979 -2% Fewer Des Moines students were served because of increased demand by Pierce and Kent students. Everett 11 1 +91% On-campus services were added to this campus for the first time in Spring 2010. Kent Station/ 167 24 +86% Kent students were served by Green River Des Moines consultants. Lynnwood 271 197 +11% We increased hours and worked with students in a new space, near their classroom. Moses Lake 1 0 na We spent one evening at Moses Lake each quarter. Pierce 300 142 +49% Many Pierce students were served by Des Moines consultants. Wenatchee 19 5 +280% We offered regular hours, three evenings a week, for the first time in Wenatchee. Yakima 78 57 +37% This was our second year of offering regular, part-time hours in Yakima. Total 4,797 4,231 +13% University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 4

Total for Ellensburg campus over time: Academic Year Total Consultations Percent Change 2005-2006 2,482 na 2006-2007 2,536 2% 2007-2008 3,032 20% 2008-2009 2,826 -7% 2009-2010 3,046 8%

Total for all campuses over time: (Data is nonexistent or unreliable for University Centers prior to 2007-2008.):

Academic Total Percent Year Consultations Change 2007-2008 3,811 na 2008-2009 4,231 11% 2009-2010 4,797 13%

 Goal 2: We exceed the national standard that writing centers should serve 10 percent of the student population. o Consider this chart, which shows a comparison of data from our Session Summary Reports and enrollment data from CWU’s Office of Institutional Research enrollment data from CWU’s Office of Institutional Research compared with the numbers of individual students served via one-on-one consultations in our writing center, based upon our Session Summary Reports:

Campus Total Students Served by Percentage of Enrolled Writing Center Enrollment Ellensburg 8,671 1,409 16% Des Moines 668 274 41% Everett 61 6 9% Lynnwood 571 92 16% Yakima 166 20 12% Pierce County 136 70 51% Kent Station 34 17 50% Wenatchee 93 15 16% Moses Lake 45 1 2% Total: 10,452 1,904 18% Previous academic year’s percentage for us: 16% National standard: 10%

 Goal 2: Demand continues to outstrip availability on the three largest campuses:

o In Ellensburg, we turned away a record 487 students. University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 5 o In Des Moines, demand is such that we typically cannot schedule every student seeking help; 11 students were turned away spring quarter. o In Lynnwood, we continued to maintain reliable hours throughout the year; staffing was increased spring quarter; however, demand increased as well, and 15 students were turned away spring quarter. The new location increased the number of drop-in students.

 Goal 3: We expanded our online offerings for students, enabling us to serve students who could not come to any of our sites. Although we do not have online data for previous years, we believe that we did far more online sessions this year than ever.

o We completed a total of 504 online consultations throughout the year, for students with these home campuses:

Students’ Home Campus Online Consultations Ellensburg 58 Des Moines 55 Everett 6 Kent Station 142 Lynnwood 39 Mt. Vernon 1 Pierce County 179 Yakima/Selah 24 2009-2010 Total: 504

 Goal 3: For the second year, we offered synchronous online consulting. Skype added screen-sharing to its software, so we streamlined our service to require only Skype, which many students seem familiar with. o Nationwide, our writing center is among the leaders in attempting a synchronous system in order to maintain the integrity of consulting and mirror in-person sessions.

o We use a technology continuum, allowing us to offer a range of online services – from e-mail or telephone-based to screen-sharing video conferencing, and every combination in between – according to the student’s comfort level and access to technology. . Most campuses now use both synchronous and asynchronous online consulting. Students from Pierce and Kent Station favor asynchronous online consulting via e-mail, while students from Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Wenatchee, and Yakima favor synchronous online consulting via Skype screen-sharing. Some students prefer a telephone dialogue over Instant Messenger when no audio is available via computer. Comfort with screen-sharing is increasing: we did twice as many synchronous screen- sharing sessions in the winter than in the fall. . Here is the breakdown of types of online sessions throughout the entire academic year:

Skype Skype text Skype web Screen- Phone & E- E-mail audio chat cam share mail only 80 80 11 79 58 353

o Two Writing Consultants and the Director presented their work with online technologies during the fall Educational Technology Center Workshop Series, and then again during the spring Conference of the Northwest Association of Teacher Educators. University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 6 o We increased marketing of online services.

 Goal 4: We increased access, in terms of number of campuses served and where we are located on each campus. o Ellensburg: We completed our fifth year of the Library Fishbowl Sunday satellite and the third year of the SURC evening satellite, which together offer students access to our services during hours when most of the campus is quiet. Altogether, the center is open 64 hours a week. All three locations are equally popular, and both students and faculty comment on signs that direct them well. Most consultations, 2,191, took place in the main center, Hertz 103, because it is open the most hours each week; another 199 consultations were in the Library; and 576 were in the SURC. o Des Moines: Our office was crowded this year with three consultants working in space that comfortably accommodates one student and one consultant. When multiple consultants were working at the same time, we frequently had to seek out space outside the writing center in the conference room or a study lounge area. Students expressed preference for the more private areas (our office and the conference room) over the public study lounge. o Everett: We added an on-site writing consultant for the first time during spring quarter; we are working to increase visibility through a poster campaign, advertisements on flat-screen TV monitors, and marketing tables. o Kent Station: We continued to reach out to students through scheduled site visits. o Lynnwood: Our new location in a high-traffic hallway has increased visibility and led to more drop- in visits from students. o Pierce: We added a writing consultant at this campus for the first time during fall quarter; she tried several locations throughout the year, finally settling on a desk in the adjunct faculty suite with good visibility from the main office. As the year progressed, students became more comfortable with stopping by to ask her questions and schedule appointments. She used posters and marketing tables, along with class visits, to increase student use. o Wenatchee: We used a conference room near the reception area. o Yakima: The site director again provided us with a private office and a computer. We also sat out on a table in a high-traffic area. Most students preferred to do consultations in the office.

 Goal 5: We continued to offer writing workshops, designed in collaboration with professors and tailored to the needs of specific students. o The number of students we served through workshops increased again this year, but this time dramatically:

Writing Workshops

Campus Students served Students served Increase/decreas Example of new workshops 2009-2010 2008-2009 e over previous year Ellensburg 2,226 1,109 +200% Research Writing Workshop in collaboration with librarians; Small-group writing sessions with English 100T students Des Moines 583 349 +57% Defending a Master’s project; Writing personal statements Everett 0 0 Lynnwood 83 57 +31% APA format and avoiding plagiarism University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 7 Pierce 80 53 +34% Academic grammar for Education majors Kent Station 0 25 na Moses Lake 0 0 Wenatchee 0 0 Yakima 0 0 Total for all 2,972 1,593 +87% campuses:

o Professors are already requesting the same plus more workshops next year, indicating their satisfaction with these services. o The new workshops in Des Moines allowed us to reach 100% of the Master Teacher candidates in large groups; 47% of Master Teacher candidates also scheduled individual appointments. o Reference Librarians paired with Writing Consultants in Ellensburg to develop and offer a workshop that combines the library’s research database instruction with guidance on planning and writing a research paper. We collaboratively presented nine of these Research Writing Workshops to students writing papers in mostly upper-division courses. We asked students to fill out feedback forms after these workshops, and their level of satisfaction was high.

 Here are highlights of what they said they learned:

 “I learned that it’s better to do a stupid messy draft to get organizes than just jump in trying to write a final draft.”  “Reading my paper out loud.”  “It can be fun!”  “Planning – be sure to plan plenty of time in advance; drafting – always start with an outline; revising – write out your paper draft, then edit.”

 A small number of students, however, felt the instruction was unnecessary. Here is an example of one such comment:  “I knew what they were teaching from English 101, 103, and Hist 302.”

o We tried new strategies and increased services for basis writing students during fall quarter. For three sections, we loaned two Writing Consultants to work as coaches. For three other sections, we partnered with the instructor to develop weekly, small-group writing sessions; we asked students to fill out feedback forms after these workshops, and their level of expressed satisfaction was high. Here are highlights from surveys of the students who participated:

 English 100T Facilitated Peer Review student survey, Fall 2009

Essential to Discussion Encouraged Discussion No Difference 1. How much did the Writing Consultant encourage/discourage discussion among your group members? 27 36 1

Significant Improvement Improved my Writing No Impact University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 8 2. Overall, how much did your peer review discussions affect you as a writer: 9 51 4

Yes No 3. Are you now more comfortable talking about writing with your peers? 54 12 4. Are you now more likely to go to the Writing Ctr? 57 7 5. Would you recommend the Writing Ctr to a friend? 63 3

 Students also wrote mostly appreciation in the comments portions. Here are highlights:  “I found out if my paper had problems from someone who wasn’t my teacher or a student in my class.”  “They helped us see points (ideas) in our writing that we would have missed otherwise.”  “He helped us with our thesis and why we said what we said about the other member’s papers.”  “He pushed us to open up and tell what we thought.”  “Tried to get me to care about English.”

 Goal 6: Data collected from our Session Summary Forms show that in Ellensburg, less than half of the consultations were with freshman and 7 percent were with graduate students; at the University Centers, nearly all students are juniors, seniors, or graduate or post-bac students.

 Goal 6: This chart shows the breakdown by campus and class standing. Note: This chart’s data is mostly accurate. Student profiles are created when the students begin using the Center and are not always updated as they progress through their academic careers; for instance, a student might still be listed as a freshman in our records even though s/he has become a sophomore, etc. We try to remember to periodically ask students if their profiles are up to date.

Number of Consultations by Class Standing Campus Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Graduate Other Total or Post Bac Ellensburg 1,321 637 553 256 212 67 3,046 Des 4 0 472 253 172 3 Moines 904 Everett 0 0 6 5 0 0 11 Lynnwood 0 0 194 66 11 0 271 Pierce 0 0 298 2 0 0 300 Kent 0 0 163 4 0 0 Station 167 Moses 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lake 1 Wenatchee 0 0 12 4 1 2 19 Yakima 0 52 14 8 0 4 78 Total for 1,325 689 1712 599 396 76 4,797 all University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 9 campuses: Percentage 28% 14% 36% 12% 4% 1.5% of total:

 Goal 6: In Ellensburg, most students seek help for English courses. At the University Centers, however, the primary departments for which students seek help are Accounting, Business, Education, Law and Justice, and Psychology.

 Goal 6: We serve students from a wide variety of majors:

Campus Most 2nd 3rd 4th Common Major Ellensburg Education English as a Business English Second Language Des Business Accounting Education Psychology Moines Everett Administrative Interdisciplinar na na Management y Studies Kent Education na na na Station Lynnwood Business Accounting Education Law and Justice Pierce Education Law and Justice Interdisciplinar na y Studies Yakima Political Accounting Business Communicati Science on Wenatche Information Education Chemistry na e Technology and Administrative Management

 Goal 6: The students we serve represent greater diversity than the overall CWU population. The university keeps data by ethnicity and race, not languages spoken, as we do. However, comparable categories in the university-wide data could be “International” – 2 percent – and “Hispanic” – 7 percent. Here is our data, showing that a large proportion of consultations are with students who do not list English as their first language:

Campus Consultations Percentage of Most common 2nd most 3rd most with Non all First Language common First common First Native Speakers consultations (after English) Language Language Ellensburg 1,062 35% Chinese Spanish Japanese University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 10 Des Moines 522 585 Vietnamese Japanese Spanish

Lynnwood 189 70% Vietnamese Spanish Japanese

Kent Station 87 52% Ukrainian na na

Everett 6 55% Thai Ukrainian na

Moses Lake 0

Pierce County 0

Wenatchee 2 11% Spanish na na Yakima 53 68% Spanish na na

 Goal 7: The student Writing Consultants represent a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. About half are undergraduates and half are graduate students. Their majors include Art, Creative Writing, Education, History, Japanese, Law and Justice, Literature, Mental Health Counseling, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.

 Goal 8: Regarding publicity, many students indicated they learned about the center through our brochures, bookmarks, posters, and signs.

o In Pierce, Everett, and Kent Station/Green River, we reached out through scheduled visits and by sharing information with staff, faculty, and students. o In Moses Lake, we visited once a quarter during winter and spring. We did orientations and one consultation, and we talked with students about the possibility of online consulting. o In Wenatchee, we contacted professors and students individually and collectively. We shared information about online consulting. We did a faculty survey of all Eastside instructors to try to determine need; only five responded to the survey, and none of them expressed a need for in-person writing consultations for their students. We did a student survey as well, and 16 students in Wenatchee responded; they noted a variety of ways in which they had heard about the writing center, and many of them said they needed the service. o In Yakima, we marketed via a large sandwich board sign, wall signs, and a standup sign at the administration desk. The Writing Consultant sometimes worked out in an open hallway, for visibility.

 Goal 8: We go into classrooms, at the invitation of professors, to give orientations about our writing services and how they relate to particular course outcomes.

Course-specific Orientations

Campus Students Students Reached Increase/decrease Example of new styles of Reached 2009- 2008-2009 over previous year orientations University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 11 2010 Ellensburg 841 889 -5% Paired orientations with librarians for University 101 students Des Moines 825 659 +25% Distance Education orientations were done among all the Westside campuses. Everett 67 0 na Lynnwood 355 250 +42% Pierce 149 103 +30% Kent Station 18 25 -28% Moses Lake 9 0 na Wenatchee 65 0 na Yakima 18 25 -28 Total for all 2,347 1,951 +20% campuses:

o We experimented with offering orientations in Brooks Library in conjunction with the library’s traditional one- hour tour, since we have a satellite in the library.

 We surveyed one such group of University 101 students, and here are highlights of what they said:

Excellent Good Adequate Poor

Usefulness of content: 17 13 8 0

Sampling of individual student comments:  “Writing center was helpful and I now know that I have a place to go with my poor writing skills.”  “This was helpful and it showcased the opportunities we have to get help with papers or just the library in general.”  “This gave me a good understanding of the library and I know now how to get help on my papers.”  “It was very useful to learn about the programs that writing center offers and where everything is located in the library.”

 Goal 8: We reach a broad spectrum of the student body by participating in major events – on every campus – by staffing an information table, by contributing PowerPoint slides, and sometimes by giving presentations. This allows us to not only spread information about writing services but also help advance goodwill and collaboration across campus programs and emphasize CWU’s welcoming spirit: o All the New Student Welcomes o All the Discover! Orientations o The recruitment Open Houses o The quarterly Academic Recovery Warning Program o The Majors Fair.

 Goal 8: We reach out to faculty and administrators individually and collectively. We offer information as part of the New Fall Faculty Orientation in Ellensburg. We are members of the University Centers Interdivisional Committees, for all campuses. We participate regularly in campus events and committees, including the New Student Orientation committee. University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 12

 Goal 9: The Director and Assistant Director meet individually with professors to collaboratively develop course-specific workshops and to help them incorporate writing into their curriculum. In Des Moines, Writing Consultants also meet regularly with graduate faculty to ensure that information provided for master’s candidates is accurate and up-to-date.

 Goal 10: Staff members feel they belong to a community of writers. This was evident in the annual staff survey. They truly enjoy working with students and with each other. They feel comfortable asking each other for help, and they feel generally appreciated and respected, as evidenced by comments such as these: o I feel my contributions are valued because I am always thanked for them – they are noticed! o I always receive thanks or compliments after my contributions, no matter how small they are. o I always feel encouraged to use my strengths and creativity; I never feel left out or unnoticed. I always feel that my thoughts and opinions are heard and valued. When I’m having trouble, we brainstorm and I’m encouraged!

 Goal 10: Writing Consultants understand the University Writing Center’s mission, as evidenced by staff survey comments such as these: o Consulting is enjoyable when I feel I’m helping a student make significant changes or empower him/herself. o Working with a wide variety of students is enjoyable and strengthens my cultural awareness and teaching skills/pedagogy. Staff is pleasant. o It helps that people are open to answer questions others have and share their experiences. Communication also helps foster community. o The sense of community is strong, I think, mainly because we all have a common purpose. This purpose is clearly communicated and discussed and everyone shares a common goal: helping students.

 Goal 10: At this year’s Pacific Northwest Writing Centers Association, staff members presented research and creative work during a total of four presentations. We took a contingent of 12 to the conference in Oregon. Three representatives from other CWU departments joined in our writing center presentations. Here are the titles and presenters: o "VelociWriters: Sustainability through Evolutionary Outreach" -- Prairie Brown, Assistant Director- Westside; Faith Blanchard, Writing Consultant at CWU-Wenatchee; Sandra Gruberg, Writing Consultant at CWU-Pierce County; Michael Hanscom, senior Law and Justice major; Mariam Merrin, Writing Consultant at CWU-Lynnwood; and Annie Scanlon, senior Psychology major. o "Professional Leadership: Steering the Writing Center into 2010" -- Robert Boyle, History graduate student, and Breahna Edwards, sophomore Business major and Program Leader for CWU’s David Wain Coon Center for Excellence in Leadership. o “The Butterfly Effect: The Power of Community and Collaboration in the Writing Center and Beyond” -- Feliciti Fredsti, senior physics major and astronomy and business minor; Faith Blanchard, Writing Consultant at CWU-Wenatchee; Teresa Joy Kramer, Director; and Lorinda J. Anderson, Director of CWU’s Don and Verna Duncan Civic Engagement Center. Also collaborating but unable to attend were Jason Milne, senior physics and math major and Math Center Tutor; and Donna Kramer, CWU’s Ombudsperson. o "From Chore to Choice: Empowering Student Writing Through Engagement" -- Sean O'Mera, senior English Education major.

 Goal 10: We gave presentations in these two additional forums: o CWU Educational Technology Center Workshop Series: “Connecting Students via Screen- Sharing and Other Real-Time Technologies” – Octaviano Gutierrez, English Education student; Teresa Joy Kramer, Director, and Andrew Willden, History graduate student. University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 13 o Conference of the Northwest Association of Teacher Educators: “Dividing Digital Distance: Bridging the Gaps using Screen-Sharing and Real Time Web Technologies” -- Teresa Joy Kramer, Director; Breanna Powell, Creative Writing major; and Andrew Willden, History graduate student.

 Goal 11: We held leadership roles and participated in professional organizations, at both the international and regional levels. o The Assistant Director and director participate in the quarterly meetings of writing center directors in the area. At each University Center, Writing Consultants are involved in additional outreach to our community college counterparts. o The director is a board member of the International Writing Centers Association, representing the PNWCA region in IWCA board activities and meetings throughout the year and during the fall IWCA/NCPT Conference. o The Director finished the second year of her term as vice president of the PNWCA. o The Assistant Director was elected to secretary of the PNWCA next year. o The Assistant Director was a member of the IWCA proposal screening committee.

4. What will we do as a result of this information?  Planning for future: with the help of the Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Studies, we will begin providing online drop-in hours in summer 2010 and continue throughout the year.  We will discontinue our on-campuses services in Wenatchee.  We will make sure all students are well aware of our range of online services and how to access them.  We will continue to add writing resources and announcements to our web site.  We will publicize our online resources and online consulting.  We will develop innovative ways to explain writing services to faculty and students across campus, including new brochures for each audience.  Depending upon the needs of each campus, we will continue or increase our efforts to reach certain populations of students, including these: o graduate students o basic writing students o students taking program exams o international students o students in majors underrepresented in our data.  We will continue to develop new workshops in collaboration with faculty and program administrators.  We will again share this assessment information with the staff and use it to help determine the content of staff trainings.  As a staff, we will collaboratively develop materials for evaluating Writing Consultants.  We will try to develop a systematic way of gathering and documenting student feedback about our online services.  We will continue to investigate software innovations for screen-sharing and other forms of live online collaboration.

5. What did we do in response to last year’s assessment information?  We created an Advisory Committee for the University Writing Center, inviting faculty from across the university to help us review, plan, and publicize services.  We expanded our services to every University Center. University Writing Center 2009-2010 Page 14  We created YouTube videos, more grammar handouts, and other resources and linked these to our web site.  We marketed and increased usage of synchronous online consulting.  We continued to increase – dramatically, this year – our workshop offerings and to solicit student feedback after workshops.  We increased the collection of anonymous student feedback after one-on-one consultations in Ellensburg. We began using these feedback forms in Des Moines and Lynnwood as well.  This assessment information was shared with the staff and used to help determine the content of staff trainings.  The Director and Assistant Director participated in Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing Assessment meetings on campus.  We made several efforts to improve publicity at all of our sites, and both faculty and student comments indicated they were generally aware of our services.  We gave presentations at the Pacific Northwest Writing Centers Association conference, the CWU Educational Technology Center Workshop Series, and the Conference of the Northwest Association of Teacher Educators.

6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Outcomes at Central Washington University: How can we track students who use the center and compare their success – especially their retention rates – and also compare that to the performance of the general CWU student population? Can we make use of the new Retain software?

Note: All of the information in this report draws from appendices which are in the University Writing Center’s 2009-2010 Assessment Binder, housed in the University Writing Center and in the Office of Undergraduate Studies.

-- July 2010 by Director Teresa Joy Kramer, Assistant Director Prairie Brown, and several other staff members