Learning From Our Stakeholders:
Using Research to Redesign a Business
Writing Course
Barbara J. D’Angelo, Ph.D.
Otis White
Association for Business Communication
November 1, 2008
Background
 TWC447 Business Reports



Required course for Morrison School of
Management and Agribusiness majors,
Arizona State University Polytechnic
Housed in Multimedia Writing & Technical
Communication Program,
Spring 2007 request to revise course from
Morrison School
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Why revise: Growth
 Spring 2001



2 sections
On campus only
46 students
 Fall 2008



8 sections
On campus, hybrid, online
172 students
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Why revise: Concerns
 Content inconsistent across sections
 Inappropriate(?) assignments


Non-business writing genres
Duplication with Morrison School courses
 Problems(?) with textbook
 Misleading course title
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Why Revise: Opportunity
 Improve course design and delivery
 Ensure consistency across sections
 Enhance visibility in Morrison School

Student engagement through writing
 Assessment


Data for cross-section course review
Data for Morrison School accreditation
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Why Use Research to Revise?
 Meet stakeholder needs





MWTC administration & instructors
Morrison School Director of Student
Engagement
Morrison School faculty
Students
Industry constituents
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Summer 2007: Research Methods
 Wiki for faculty feedback
 Review of course syllabi 2004-2007
 Review course requirements for other
business administration/management
programs nationally
 Review of current and potential textbooks
 Focus groups with industry representatives
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Wiki Results
 Skills/abilities needed



Grammar
Formatting and style conventions
Morrison School faculty: need more rigor in
own courses
 Collaboration wanted


Linked courses
Focus groups, brown bags, more wikis
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Syllabi Review
 11 syllabi and assignments Fall 2004 to
Spring 2007
 Lack of assignment consistency


22 different genres taught
Some sections very little business writing
 Inconsistent communication on syllabi
 Course description and policies inconsistent
 Grading criteria not always clear
 One did not include instructor contact
information
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Review of AACSB Programs
 54 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business-accredited institutions reviewed




41 require at least one upper level course
3 others require upper level writing intensive
course
10 do not require writing/communication
beyond first year composition
Several offer other services


Business writing peer tutors
Workshops, style guides
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Textbook Review
 Current text: Business and Administrative
Communication
 14 potential texts reviewed
 4 texts selected for further review

Fit for the redesigned course
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Industry Focus Groups
 13 participants in 2 groups


Morrison School advisory board members
Insurance, city/county government, banking,
real estate, consultant, law
 2 directed questions


Rank skills/abilities needed of new graduates
What types of writing (genres) do new hires do
most often?
 Open-ended questions
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Trends From Focus Groups
 Most important for students to learn:
 Professionalism and style
 Content (research and communicate information)
 Audience awareness
 Grammar discussed as credibility issue
 Learning formats not critical
 Most train in company-specific formats, templates, or
conventions
 When and why use genres more important than
formatting
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Course Redesign Part 1
Spring 2008
 TWC347 Written Communication for Managers
 Emphasis on management communication
 Standardized syllabus and assignments
 Enforce consistency across sections
 Role play: students as CEO of own business
 Engage the students
 5 core units: most identified by focus groups
 Correspondence
 Meeting documents
 Policies/procedures
 Proposal
 Short report
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Course Redesign Part 1
Spring 2008, cont.
 Manager Round Tables

Student led discussions
 Audience analysis, drafts and peer review for
each unit
 New texts


Customized edition Business Communication
Today (Bovee & Thill)
Business Writers’ Handbook (Alred)
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Ongoing Data Gathering
Spring 2008
 Faculty forum


Discussion board for sharing information
Feedback on how course is going
 Student feedback

Last Manager Roundtable
 Portfolios

Tested in one section
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
First Semester Results
 Some success




Role playing
Manager round tables
Core units, in general
Business Writers’ Handbook
 Some negatives



Some instructors felt limited
Student reception of peer reviews was mixed
Not enough “models”
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Using the Data
Fall 2008
 Keep core units but re-organize


More time for first-week orientation
Shuffle order of the units
 Provide additional help


Additional instructions for assignments
Standard Blackboard shell for all sections
 Add portfolios to all sections for assessment
 Instructors more familiar with course structure
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Using research
 Brought cross-section consistency
 Identified employer needs and perspectives

Balanced instructor perspectives
 Enhanced visibility with constituents


Internal: Morrison School faculty
External: industry constituents
 Established assessment strategy
 Increased student engagement?
 Improved student writing?
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008
Questions?
Contact information:
bdangelo@asu.edu
Barbara J. D'Angelo, November 1, 2008