University Writing Center 2008-2009
Page 1
Central Washington University Assessment of Student Learning Program Report
Academic Year of Report: 2008-2009
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 students after consultations and
workshops. Ongoing.
 Anonymous survey of Des Moines students. March 2009.
 Anonymous survey of all faculty who taught writing-intensive courses during Fall quarter.
March 2009.
 Unsolicited e-mail comments from faculty and students. Ongoing.
 The 2007 National Survey of Student Engagement.
 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 and Letters of Intent for next year. May 2009.
3. What did we learn?
Overall: The big news this year is at the University Centers – we are now serving student
writers everywhere, in increasing numbers. The previous year, our usage in Ellensburg
increased dramatically, while we began laying the groundwork for better and more writing
services at the Centers. This year, we shifted staffing away from Ellensburg and expanded
services to every campus, and online. That shift has borne fruit, as evidenced by this
report.

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 The second most-checked category for how students learned about the center, following
“Instructor,” was “Friend” – this indicates that our reputation is spreading among
students.
o Satisfaction was illustrated, overwhelmingly, through the anonymous Student Feedback
Forms that students fill out after one-on-one consultations in Ellensburg:
Was the session helpful to you as writer?
Yes
Summer 08
12
Fall 08
7
Winter 09
43
Spring 09
39
No
n/a
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
Total
101 97%
0
3
3%
University Writing Center 2008-2009
Would you consider using the Writing Center again?
Summer 08
Fall 08
Winter 09 Spring 09
Yes
12
7
42
40
No
0
0
0
0
N/A
1
0
1
1
Page 2
Total
101 97%
0
3%
3
o The surveys include a comment box. Here is an example of a student comment that
illustrates we are fulfilling our mission to help students communicate their ideas better in
writing:
He was an extraordinary tutor. He was able to free my thoughts from a very
convoluted idea. We spent 2 hours theorizing and making a game plan. I can now
tackle this very difficult essay with confidence necessary to achieve my
objectives.
o Satisfaction also was illustrated, overwhelmingly, through our anonymous survey of Des
Moines students:
Would you recommend the Writing
Center to a friend or classmate?
Yes
59
93%
No
5
7%
Are Writing Consultants helpful?
Mostly or
58
87%
extremely
Somewhat
9
13%
Not at all
0
0%
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. According to data from
Student Profiles, most students learn about the center through their instructors – illustrating that many
faculty support the center and are encouraging students to use the service.
o In our Des Moines survey, most students – 87 percent – reported hearing of the Writing
Center either through their instructors’ direct reference or through a class visit by a
Writing Consultant, invited by the instructor.
o In the fall survey of all faculty, many reported having mentioned the Writing Center to
students:
University Writing Center 2008-2009
Stated in
Syllabus
Mentioned
during
Lecture
Stated in
Blackboard
Discussion
Stated to
Specific
Students
Not
Mentioned
One-on-One
Consulting
16
28
4
19
6
Writing
Center
Website
20
38
3
6
11
Question
Page 3
o In the end comment portion of this survey, a couple of faculty expressed concern, stating
that the Writing Center does not help students with grammar. Although these comments
are few, they do indicate there may be a misperception that we need to correct.
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 is one example of the many e-mails that show faculty understand our
mission:
I am most appreciative of the assistance and expertise the Center provides
students. Not only will you positively affect the writing/communication skills of
students now, but you will impact their future success as well.

Goal 2: Demand and the use of writing services continue to fluctuate, as they have in the previous three
academic years. This year’s changes largely paralleled changes in our distribution of staff and our
attempts to expand services to every campus. We experienced dramatic growth at the University
Centers.
o In Ellensburg, the number of consultations totaled 2,826. This was 7 percent fewer than
the previous year, during which the total ballooned by 19 percent. This year’s dip could
be attributed to normal fluctuations in usage and the exceptionally large increase that
preceded it. Compared with two years ago, this year’s total was 11 percent higher. Here
are other possible factors:
 We did significantly more workshops in Ellensburg, serving 1,983 students, or 25
percent more than last year’s 1,582. Workshops consume staff time; plus, the
center is closed to consultations during workshops. Similarly, this year we hosted
a regional professional conference, which consumed staff time and energy.
 Ellensburg’s staff, and therefore availability, shrunk by three Writing Consultants,
due to budgetary demands and to our decision to redistribute staff to the
University Centers.
o On the West Side, the number of one-on-one consultations increased dramatically. We
attribute this to the first full year of our new Assistant Director for the West Side (she
was hired after fall quarter the previous year), plus expansion of services.
University Writing Center 2008-2009
Page 4
One-on-one writing consultations at the University Centers:
University This year’s total Increase over
Details
Center
of consultations previous year
Westside:
Des Moines
979
15 percent
This compares winter and spring
quarters this year to the same quarters
last year (after personnel hired). This
year, usage increased even though
Des Moines had five fewer hours
available weekly because Assistant
Director spent time on other
campuses.
Lynnwood
275
15 percent
Increase despite a decrease in
staffing. Many students chose online
appointments.
Pierce
142
284 percent
Expanded outreach: Developed new
workshops and encouraged students
to use online consulting.
Kent Station/ 24
n/a
Services begun this year.
Green River
Everett
1
n/a
Services begun this year.
Eastside:
Wenatchee
Yakima
Eastside
Online

4
57
n/a
n/a
10
n/a
Services begun this year.
Services begun this year. Sessions
typically lasted two hours with these
nontraditional students.
Services begun this year.
Goal 2: We exceed the national standard that writing centers should serve 10 percent of the student
population. Consider this chart, which shows a comparison of data from our Session Summary Reports
and enrollment data from CWU’s Office of Institutional Research:
Campus
Total students
enrolled
Ellensburg
8,147
Des Moines
648
Lynnwood
587
Yakima
167
Pierce County 121
Kent Station/ n/a
Green River
Wenatchee
91
Moses Lake
41
Total:
9,802
Visited Writing
Center
1,284
221
62
13
36
14
Percentage of
enrollment
16%
34%
11%
8%
30%
n/a
4
1
1,635
4%
2%
17%
National standard: 10%
University Writing Center 2008-2009

Page 5
Goal 2: We roughly match the national standard that half of the students who visit the Writing Center
should return for repeat visits, at all sites except in Ellensburg, the only campus which includes
freshmen and sophomore students. Interestingly, students who came back more than once tended to
return several times.
Campus
Ellensburg
Des Moines
Lynnwood
Yakima
Pierce County
Kent Station/
Green River
Total students
who visited
1,284
221
62
13
36
14
Visited 2 or
more times
180
153
31
6
20
6
Percentage
14%
69%
50%
46%
56%
42%
Visited 4 or
more times
129
83
15
4
12
1
Percentage
10%
38%
24%
31%
34%
7%

Goal 3: We implemented synchronous online consulting, enabling us to serve students who could not
come to any of our sites. We created a separate web page for this, adding a video tutorial to guide
students; we conducted staff trainings on the technical and pedagogical aspects of live, interactive online
sessions. Technical difficulties hampered some online consultations, so we continued investigating other
software and have decided to implement AIM Pro next year. We also have designed a technology
continuum, allowing us to offer a range of online services – from telephone-based to a full, screensharing video conference, and everything in between – according to the student’s comfort level and
access to technology.
o Most campuses have experimented with both synchronous and asynchronous online consulting.
Students from Pierce and Kent Station favor asynchronous online consulting, while students
from Ellensburg, Des Moines, and Lynnwood favor synchronous online consulting. Some
students prefer a telephone dialogue over Instant Messenger, when no audio is available via
computer.
o Writing Consultants presented their innovative work with online technologies during the Pacific
Northwest Writing Centers Association Conference, sharing ideas with other writing centers.
o Nationwide, only about three other writing centers are trying screen-sharing technology, making
us among the leaders in attempting to mirror in-person sessions and maintain the integrity of
consulting.

Goal 4: We increased access, in terms of number of campuses served and where we are located on each
campus.
o
In Ellensburg, we are in the fourth year of the Library Fishbowl Sunday satellite
and the second 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, 2,107, took place in
the main center, Hertz 103, because it is open the most hours each week; another 208
consultations were in the Library; and 356 were in the SURC. During most weeks, we
turned away students who could not drop in or be scheduled.
o
In Des Moines, we experimented with working in the open study area, but
students preferred the office. We spread word to all West Side students that our staff in
Des Moines is available through online appointments. By mid-quarter, demand was such
that we typically could not schedule every student seeking help.
University Writing Center 2008-2009
Page 6
o
In Lynnwood, due to a decrease in staffing, we were open 14 hours each week
rather than 20 the year before; nevertheless, we served a comparable number of students.
We maintained reliable hours, and we marketed via professor contacts, class visits,
events, and setting up information tables in busy areas. Toward the end of the year, we
moved the Lynnwood writing center from an open study area, which was noisy and off
the beaten track, to a new room that is near CWU classrooms; students already are
stopping by this new location more frequently.
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 began visiting once a quarter during winter and spring of this
year. No consultations occurred then, but we were able to spread word about online
consulting, which one student took advantage of.
o
In Wenatchee, we began services winter and spring, twice a month and then
monthly. We did only four consultations but were able to share information about online
consulting.
o
In Yakima, we began services in the fall, opening a center two or three half-days
each week, all year long. The Writing Consultant worked mostly with nontraditional,
working student writers; it was not uncommon for his sessions to last two or more hours.
For marketing, we used 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
but found that students preferred sessions in his office.

Goal 5: We continued to offer writing workshops, designed in collaboration with professors and tailored
to the needs of specific students:
Campus
Ellensburg
Students served
through workshops
1,983
Increase over
previous year
25%
Des Moines
349
134%
Lynnwood
57
31%
Pierce
Kent Station/
Green River
53
25
1%
n/a
Example of new workshops
Accuplacer Writing Test Preparation;
APA Style; Essay Writing for Sociology
Feasibility Report Peer Review; Writing
a Master’s Project
APA Style; Avoiding Plagiarism;
Narrative Writing
Library Research
Technical and Reflective Writing

Professors are asking for the same plus more workshops next year, indicating their
satisfaction with these services.

Student satisfaction is high also. We surveyed students after three Ellensburg workshops.
Here are highlights:
 Facilitated Peer Review, English 102, Spring 2009
Was the session helpful to you as writer?
Yes
36
No
N/A
1
1
University Writing Center 2008-2009
Page 7
 Revising Your Own Paper, University 101, Fall 2008
Rate This Workshop, on a scale of 1 to 4:
4:
nine
3: nine
2: two
1:
Average: 3.325
zero
 Revising Your Own Paper, TRIO students, Fall 2008
Rate This Workshop, on a scale of 1 to 4:
4:
nine
3: six
2: three
Average: 3.333



zero
Goal 6: Data collected from our Session Summary Forms show that in Ellensburg, less than half of the
consultations were with freshman; at the University Centers, all students are juniors, seniors, or graduate
or post-bac students.
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
Most Common
Major
Math
Des Moines
Business
2nd
3rd
4th
Art
Communication
Health, Human
Performance &
Nutrition
Education
Yakima
Law and
Accounting
Justice
Interdisciplinary Accounting Business
Studies
Education
Business
Accounting
Pierce
Education
Lynnwood

1:
Law and
Justice
n/a
Law and
Justice
Other
n/a
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
Des Moines
Lynnwood
Consultations
with Non Native
Speakers
1,153
420
187
Percentage of
all
consultations
41%
21%
81%
Yakima
36
63%
Most common
First Language
(after English)
Chinese
Polish
Amharic (more
than English)
Spanish
2nd most
common First
Language
Japanese
Chinese
Spanish
3rd most
common First
Language
Spanish
Spanish
Vietnamese
Somali
n/a
University Writing Center 2008-2009


Page 8
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 Education, English, History,
Mental Health Counseling, Physics, Political Science, and Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages. In Ellensburg, four of the 20 Writing Consultants were born in another country; their first
languages include Arabic, Chinese, and Portuguese.
Goal 8: Regarding publicity, many students indicated they learned about the center through our
brochures, bookmarks, posters, and signs.
o In 290 session reports in Ellensburg, Advertising or Signs were checked for “How Heard
About Program?” For 287 reports, Class Visit was checked, indicating that our
Orientations – a form of publicity and service combined – are drawing in students who
might not otherwise know about the services.
o Based on our student survey in Des Moines, we know that the majority of students are
aware of the Writing Center and that most have seen an advertisement.
Des Moines Student Survey:
Have you ever seen an advertisement
for the Writing Center on campus?
63%
Yes
103
37%
No
61
o Most students surveyed indicated they were unaware of our website, so we need to
publicize that in particular.
o The fall faculty survey likewise illustrated the results of our choosing to not publicize our
online services until we felt we could handle greater demand. Few faculty responded to
this question:
Question
On-line
Consulting



Stated in
Syllabus
Mentioned during
Lecture
Stated in Blackboard
Discussion
Stated to Specific
Students
Not
Mentioned
2
8
1
3
18
Goal 8: We reach a broad spectrum of the student body by participating in major events on each
campus, by speaking and/or staffing an information table. 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 by participating in the New Fall
Faculty Orientation in Ellensburg and in the University Centers Interdivisional Committees, for all
campuses. West Side Writing Consultants participate regularly in campus events and committees,
including the New Student Orientation committee.
Goal 9: This year, the director and other faculty began a Writing Across the Curriculum Task Force.
o The 2007 National Survey of Student Engagement shows that few Central students write
significant papers – 90 percent have never written a paper of 20 pages or more, and 13 percent
have not even written a paper between 5 and 19 pages. Yet writing is a means to greater
understanding, greater learning, and greater contributions to the scholarly community.
University Writing Center 2008-2009






Page 9
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 their Letters of
Intent for returning next year and in the staff satisfaction survey. On the West Side, the small size of the
staff necessitates a close working relationship; the collaborative staff survey indicates strong cooperation
and support for one another. 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 If I have something I want to contribute I know it is valued, as my suggestion will be thought on
seriously before a decision is made.
o I really like being able to ask my peers for help within a consultation.
o There is an ongoing professional dialogue that makes us all feel like colleagues and peers.
Goal 10: Writing Consultants understand the University Writing Center’s mission, as evidenced by staff
survey comments such as these:
o I enjoy being pushed to my limits in interpreting and providing in-depth criticism to students.
o Seeing the “lights go on” and realizing you’ve helped the student.
o Seeing student improvement over time.
Goal 10: At this year’s Pacific Northwest Writing Centers Association, hosted by CWU, staff members
presented research and creative work:
o Two Writing Consultants collaborated with a CWU professor to lead the Friday Night PreConference Event, “Constructing Meaning Through Play.”
o A total of 11 CWU Writing Consultants collaborated on these presentations:
 “Bridging the Digital Gap: From Synchronous to Asynchronous and Everything Inbetween.”
 “Illuminating the Effects of Gender in the Writing Center: A New Perspective.”
 “The Britney Spears Effect: Maintaining a Peer Relationship in a Celebrity-Crazed
Society.”
 “Identifying, Understanding, and Helping Students with Learning Disabilities.”
 “Writing Center Advertising: Targeting Students for a Significant University Service.”
Goal 10: The director presented her research and co-facilitated a daylong workshop, “Mapping Routes
to Writing Center/Community Partnerships,” during the fall Joint Conference of the International
Writing Centers Association and National Conference on Peer Tutoring, in Las Vegas.
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 is vice president of the PNWCA.
o We hosted this year’s PNWCA Conference.
 The Director and a Writing Consultant were Site Co-Chairs.
 The Assistant Director was Program Co-Chair, collaborating with a Community College
writing center director.
University Writing Center 2008-2009
Page 10
4. What will we do as a result of this information?
 We will continue to create streaming-video workshops through Adobe Presenter and add other
resources 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.
 We will create an Advisory Committee for the Writing Center, inviting faculty from across the
university to help us review, plan, and publicize services.
 Depending upon the needs of each campus, we will increase our efforts to reach certain
populations of students, including these:
o graduate students
o remedial English 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 work with technology experts on campus to try to incorporate online feedback forms for
faculty and students, both with the online Session Summary Forms that are e-mailed after every
session and as a follow-up to online sessions.
 We will try to develop a systematic way of documenting student reaction to online consultations
of all types, and we will continue to investigate software for screen-sharing.
 We will work with the web designer to try to revise the Session Summary Forms, in order to
produce more detailed reports and to track data from online sessions. We will maintain the
general nature and integrity of the forms, since faculty expressed appreciation for them.
5. What did we do in response to last year’s assessment information?
 We expanded our services to every University Center.
 We created streaming-video workshops through Adobe Presenter and linked them to our web
site.
 We implemented synchronous online consulting; we wrote instructions for students and posted
these to the web.
 We solicited student feedback after workshops.
 We substantially increased the amount of anonymous student feedback by reformatting our paper
Student Feedback Form into a smaller size; we placed these throughout the Ellensburg center for
easy access.
 We will share this assessment information with the staff and use it to help determine the content
of staff trainings. For instance, the high number of international student visits indicates a need
for continued emphasis on training in linguistic issues and the complexities of writing for
American academic audiences.
 The director served with other faculty on a new Writing Across the Curriculum Task Force.
 We made several efforts to improve publicity at all of our sites, and both faculty and student
surveys indicated these new signs were visible. Ellensburg Writing Consultants wrote a radio ad,
which aired on the campus radio station. Other new publicity included sandwich board signs on
the Yakima campus.
University Writing Center 2008-2009





Page 11
In Ellensburg, we moved our Monday evening Ellensburg satellite from the Library to the more
popular SURC. In Lynnwood, we moved from a noisy area to a better-located, quieter space.
We revised the online Session Summary Forms, adding the narrative to the cover e-mail and
allowing people to click “reply” and send comments to us. These changes came out of our
analysis of last year’s faculty survey.
We formed a Graduate Student Committee and began planning services for graduate student
writers; this effort was led by a Writing Consultant who listened to a conference presentation on
this subject.
We hosted the Pacific Northwest Writing Centers Association conference, bringing to CWU
writing center directors, faculty, and student consultants from across Washington, Oregon, and
British Columbia.
The campus TV station videotaped and aired the Keynote Address of the PNWCA Conference.
We and CWU as a whole received many direct and indirect opportunities for positive publicity
as a result of the conference.
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: Detailed information and complete data are available for all aspects of this Report, in the annual
Assessment binder in the University Writing Center.
--prepared June 2009
by Director Teresa Joy Kramer, Assistant Director Prairie Brown,
and Senior Secretary Margo Bedell-Parker