New Collaborations for Writing Program Assessment

2011 ◽  
pp. 348-367
Author(s):  
John Wittman
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Program Assessment ◽  
Pedagogical Practices ◽  
Writing Program ◽  
Developmental Program ◽  
Good Writing ◽  
Assessment Research

This chapter argues that as primary stakeholders in writing program assessment, students and instructors need to be included proactively in assessment research. However, little research has been done to determine how to accomplish this methodologically even though assessment affects pedagogical practices, student populations, and public opinion about what constitutes good writing. Instead of traditional quantitative, psychometric research, the author argues assessment practitioners need to utilize local opportunities to discover native needs. He presents a program assessment project as an example of assessment research that focuses on local, contingent populations. Focus groups of students and teachers were used to create a dialogic conversation between stakeholders, and the results were used to design a new course in an existing developmental program—one that consciously and methodologically responded to both students’ and instructors’ needs.

Focus Groups and Exit Interviews Are Components of Chemistry Department Program Assessment

1998 ◽  
Vol 75 (10) ◽  
pp. 1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph H. Dreisbach ◽  
Thomas P. Hogan ◽  
Anne Marie Stamford ◽  
John W. Greggo
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Program Assessment ◽  
Chemistry Department ◽  
Exit Interviews

Placing data in the hands of discipline-specific decision makers: Campus-wide writing program assessment

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Good ◽  
Kevin Osborne ◽  
Kelly Birchfield
Keyword(s):  
Program Assessment ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Writing Program

scholarly journals Reflecting on Assessment: Strategies and Tools for Measuring the Impact of a Canadian WAC Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 107-132
Author(s):  
Michael Kaler ◽  
Tyler Evans-Tokaryk
Keyword(s):  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
Writing Studies ◽  
Program Assessment ◽  
Development Project ◽  
First Year ◽  
Writing Program ◽  
Assessment Strategies ◽  
The Impact

This paper provides an overview of the process and tools we have developed for assessing the impact of writing development projects carried out in a wide variety of courses at our university. It begins with an overview of writing studies in Canada to provide context for our approach to writing instruction and writing program assessment. It then offers a case study of a specific writing development project in a large first-year humanities course, a detailed explanation of the methods we used to measure the efficacy of that project, and an exposition of the way in which this assessment was used to drive reflection on the project and enhancement of it. The paper concludes with summary of the lessons we have learned regarding writing program assessment that navigates between creating a standardized process and responding to the unique needs of multiple projects, as well as a discussion of the benefits of such assessment for writing pedagogy research.

O CURRÍCULO PÓS-CRÍTICO: UMA EXPERIÊNCIA NA ESCOLA DE ENSINO FUNDAMENTAL EM VITÓRIA/ES

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-165
Author(s):  
Rosângela Maria de Nazaré Barbosa e Silva ◽  
Marcela Leal Reis Nader ◽  
Nayara Augusto Moratti
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
School Context ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Pedagogical Practices ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
The Social

This study aims to analyze the understanding of the curriculum in a post-critical perspective by students of the Elementary School of the Municipality of Vitória-ES, emphasizing the challenge of the school, in its constitution process in relation to the social construction and valorization of culture, capable of guide pedagogical practices to recognize the differences present in the school context. It was intended, by means of an exploratory study with a qualitative approach, to discuss thematic content of the post-critical curriculum, using focus groups data collection and analysis of official school documents. We conclude that the reproduction of differences happens implicitly, distancing what is proposed in school documents and what is performed inside the classrooms by teachers.

THE PHENOMENON OF POLITICAL CONFLICT AS A THREAT TO INTERETHNIC CONCORD IN THE MUNICIPALITY

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-39
Author(s):  
A. S. Kim ◽  
P. K. Purik
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Analytical Description ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
Khabarovsk Krai ◽  
Expert Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
Protest Activity

The article provides an analytical description of the assessments of the state of ethno-confessional and ethno-political relations in the Khabarovsk Territory, obtained during an expert survey within The article provides a brief analysis of interethnic and interconfessional interaction in Khabarovsk Krai. Based on the data of the sociological monitoring conducted in 2019-2020, the authors assess the public opinion and the possible risks of conflicts in the considered environment. The authors also analyze the increase in protest activity in large municipalities of the region and give recommendations for regulating the interethnic situation, based on the data obtained from the focus groups’ results.

The 2012 study ‘Public Perceptions of Threat in Britain’

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stevens ◽  
Nick Vaughan-Williams
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Second Wave

Chapter Two outlines the 2012 study ‘Public Perceptions of Threat in Britain’ designed in order to address the gaps in the literature identified in Chapter One, along with the approach to analysis of the data. The study combined representative macro-level insights into public opinion with non-representative micro-level thick descriptive accounts of individuals’ everyday stories, experiences, and (de)constructions. The chapter sets out how an initial tranche of ten mini-focus groups, or ‘triads’, of three people, was conducted to explore questions such as how participants conceptualise ‘security’ and ‘security threat’ and whether they agree or disagree with and/or are affected by a range of government messages about security. Observations of the mini-focus groups and analysis of the transcripts were used to reflexively inform the development of an online survey that was administered to 2004 respondents in June 2012. The chapter outlines the questions asked, and why. A second wave of ten mini-focus groups was then conducted in September 2012, which concentrated on more specific areas of concern in the light of the first two stages of research. The last part of the chapter discusses the approach to analysis.

Deliberative public opinion

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 124-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran C. O’Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Theoretical Foundation ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Ontological Status ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
The Social ◽  
Survey Instruments ◽  
Individual Opinion

Generally, public opinion is measured via polls or survey instruments, with a majority of responses in a particular direction taken to indicate the presence of a given ‘public opinion’. However, discursive psychological and related scholarship has shown that the ontological status of both individual opinion and public opinion is highly suspect. In the first part of this article I draw on this body of work to demonstrate that there is currently no meaningful theoretical foundation for the construct of public opinion as it is typically measured in surveys, polls, or focus groups. I then argue that there is a particular sense in which the construct of public opinion does make sense. In deliberative democratic forums participants engage in dialogue with the aim of coming to collective positions on particular issues. Here I draw on examples of deliberative democratic forums conducted on the social and ethical implications of science and technology. Conversation between participants in deliberative democratic forums is ideally characterized by individuals becoming informed about the issues being discussed, respectful interactions between participants, individuals being open to changing their positions, and a convergence towards collective positions in the interest of formulating civic solutions. The end-product of deliberation on a given issue might thus be termed a deliberative public opinion. ‘Deliberative public opinion’ is neither a cognitive nor an aggregate construct, but rather a socio-historical product. Criteria for its legitimacy rely on the inclusiveness of diversity of perspectives and the degree to which collective positions are defensible to a larger society.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document