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.
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 2
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.
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
No
NA
0
0
100%
0%
0%
Would you consider using the Writing Center again?
Yes
No
NA
248
1
2
98.8%
0.4%
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:
 “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.”
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 3
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
Total
2008-2009
Total
Ellensburg
3,046
2,826
Percent
Change From
Previous Year
+8%
Des Moines
904
979
-2%
Everett
11
1
+91%
Kent Station/
Green River
Lynnwood
167
24
+86%
271
197
+11%
Moses Lake
1
0
na
Pierce
300
142
+49%
Wenatchee
19
5
+280%
Yakima
78
57
+37%
Total
4,797
4,231
+13%
Details
Demand fluctuates at main
campus but has been mostly
stable since January 2008,
when we opened our third
site, in the SURC.
Fewer Des Moines students
were served because of
increased demand by Pierce
and Kent students.
On-campus services were
added to this campus for the
first time in Spring 2010.
Kent students were served by
Des Moines consultants.
We increased hours and
worked with students in a new
space, near their classroom.
We spent one evening at
Moses Lake each quarter.
Many Pierce students were
served by Des Moines
consultants.
We offered regular hours,
three evenings a week, for the
first time in Wenatchee.
This was our second year of
offering regular, part-time
hours in Yakima.
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 4
Total for Ellensburg campus over time:
Academic Year
Total Consultations
Percent Change
2005-2006
na
2,482
2006-2007
2,536
2%
2007-2008
20%
3,032
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
Year
Total
Consultations
Percent
Change
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
3,811
4,231
4,797
na
11%
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
Enrolled
Ellensburg
8,671
Des Moines
668
Everett
61
Lynnwood
571
Yakima
166
Pierce County
136
Kent Station
34
Wenatchee
93
Moses Lake
45
Total:
10,452
Served by
Writing Center
1,409
274
6
92
20
70
17
15
1
1,904
Percentage of
Enrollment
16%
41%
9%
16%
12%
51%
50%
16%
2%
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.
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.
University Writing Center 2009-2010

Page 5
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
Ellensburg
Des Moines
Everett
Kent Station
Lynnwood
Mt. Vernon
Pierce County
Yakima/Selah
2009-2010 Total:

Online Consultations
58
55
6
142
39
1
179
24
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 screensharing sessions in the winter than in the fall.
 Here is the breakdown of types of online sessions throughout the entire academic year:
Skype
audio
Skype text
chat
80
Skype web
cam
80
Screenshare
11
Phone & Email
79
E-mail
only
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.
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.
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 6
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 dropin 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
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Campus
Students served
2009-2010
Students served
2008-2009
Increase/decrease Example of new workshops
over previous
year
+200%
Research Writing Workshop in
collaboration with librarians;
Small-group writing sessions with
English 100T students
+57%
Defending a Master’s project;
Writing personal statements
Ellensburg
2,226
1,109
Des Moines
583
349
Everett
Lynnwood
0
83
0
57
+31%
Pierce
80
53
+34%
0
0
0
0
2,972
25
0
0
0
1,593
na
Kent Station
Moses Lake
Wenatchee
Yakima
Total for all
campuses:
Page 7
APA format and avoiding
plagiarism
Academic grammar for Education
majors
+87%
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:
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 8
 English 100T Facilitated Peer Review student survey, Fall 2009
Essential to Discussion
1. How much did the Writing Consultant
encourage/discourage discussion among
your group members?
27
Significant Improvement
2. Overall, how much did your peer review
discussions affect you as a writer:
9
Yes
3. Are you now more comfortable talking about
writing with your peers?
4. Are you now more likely to go to the Writing Ctr?
5. Would you recommend the Writing Ctr to a friend?
54
57
63
Encouraged Discussion
36
Improved my Writing
51
No Difference
1
No Impact
4
No
12
7
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
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Campus
Ellensburg
Des
Moines
Everett
Lynnwood
Pierce
Freshmen
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors
1,321
4
637
0
553
472
256
253
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
194
298
5
66
2
Graduate or
Post Bac
212
172
Page 9
Other
Total
67
3
3,046
0
11
0
0
0
0
904
11
271
300
Kent
Station
Moses
Lake
Wenatchee
Yakima
Total for
all
campuses:
Percentage
of total:
0
0
163
4
0
0
167
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
52
12
14
4
8
1
0
2
4
1,325
689
1712
599
396
76
28%
14%
36%
12%
4%
1.5%
1
19
78
4,797

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
Ellensburg
Des
Moines
Everett
Kent
Station
Lynnwood
Pierce
Yakima
Most
Common
Major
Education
Business
2nd
3rd
4th
English as a
Second
Language
Accounting
Business
English
Education
Psychology
Administrative Interdisciplinary na
Management
Studies
Education
na
na
na
Business
Accounting
Education
Law and Justice
Education
Law and Justice
Interdisciplinary na
Studies
Business
Communication
Political
Accounting
Science
Wenatchee Information
Education
Technology
and
Administrative
Management
Chemistry
na
na
University Writing Center 2009-2010

Page 10
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
Ellensburg
Consultations
Percentage of
with Non Native all
Speakers
consultations
1,062
35%
Most common
First Language
(after English)
Chinese
2nd most
common First
Language
Spanish
3rd most
common First
Language
Japanese
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
Yakima
2
53
11%
68%
Spanish
Spanish
na
na
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
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 11
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 Reached Students Reached
2009-2010
2008-2009
841
889
Ellensburg
Increase/decrease
over previous year
-5%
Des Moines
825
659
+25%
Everett
Lynnwood
Pierce
Kent Station
Moses Lake
Wenatchee
Yakima
Total for all
campuses:
67
355
149
18
9
65
18
2,347
0
250
103
25
0
0
25
1,951
na
+42%
+30%
-28%
na
na
-28
+20%
o
Example of new styles of
orientations
Paired orientations with
librarians for University 101
students
Distance Education orientations
were done among all the
Westside campuses.
We experimented with offering orientations in Brooks Library in conjunction with the library’s traditional onehour 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
Usefulness of content: 17
Good
13
Adequate
8
Poor
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.”
University Writing Center 2009-2010
Page 12

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.

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
o
"VelociWriters: Sustainability through Evolutionary Outreach" -- Prairie Brown, Assistant DirectorWestside; 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.
"Professional Leadership: Steering the Writing Center into 2010" -- Robert Boyle, History graduate
University Writing Center 2009-2010
o
o
Page 13
student, and Breahna Edwards, sophomore Business major and Program Leader for CWU’s David Wain
Coon Center for Excellence in Leadership.
“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.
"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 ScreenSharing and Other Real-Time Technologies” – Octaviano Gutierrez, English Education student;
Teresa Joy Kramer, Director, and Andrew Willden, History graduate student.
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.
University Writing Center 2009-2010





Page 14
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.
 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