University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

(USC Thesis Other)

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Social Work Faculty Practices in Writing Instruction: An Exploratory Study
by
Laura Marie Cardinal

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Laura Marie Cardinal 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Laura Marie Cardinal certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dawn Janke
Jennifer Phillips
Helena Seli, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
The writing proficiency of graduate students is an area of considerable concern among higher
education faculty, and social work faculty have been no exception in expressing their concern for
the level of writing proficiency of Master of Social Work (MSW) students. The writing
proficiency of MSW students is often centered on students needing to correct writing challenges,
rather than considering how social work faculty instructional practices can assist MSW students
in increasing their writing competency. The purpose of this study was to explore the faculty
knowledge of and motivation to utilize best practices in writing instruction in their MSW
coursework, as well as the organization-related influences that may help and hinder faculty
success. The study participants were MSW faculty from one school of social work located in the
Western United States. Survey, interviews, and document analysis were the source of data for
this mixed methods study. The results and findings demonstrated that the most significant
barriers to implementing best practices in writing instruction were related to faculty’s insufficient
knowledge of writing instruction best practices, and their mixed motivation to implement these
practices despite their strong value for helping student writers and for writing in the social work
profession. Additionally, faculty reported their perceptions on an organizational culture that did
not support faculty instructional practices through communication related to writing, and an
absence of faculty training related to instructional practices. This study provides
recommendations developed by utilizing the ADKAR organizational change model (Hiatt,
2006). Recommendations were designed to support the development of an organizational culture
that explicitly communicates and supports the needs of social work faculty to ensure that faculty
have the necessary knowledge and motivation to support MSW student writers.

v

Dedication
To Iris and Bronwyn, I could not have achieved my dream without the example of fierceness you
both provide on a daily basis. And to Dylan, your patience was everything. I love you all to the
moon and back, and then some.

vi

Acknowledgements
This dissertation is the result of a whole community of people who supported and
encouraged me throughout this journey. To my dissertation committee, I am so grateful for all of
the support, encouragement, and wisdom you provided to help me bring this study to life: Dr.
Dawn Janke, who patiently taught me about writing in postsecondary education and encouraged
me by providing reminders of the important contribution I could make to field of social work;
Dr. Jennifer Phillips who exemplified what clear guidance and kindness look like when wrapped
up together; and Dr. Helena Seli, my Chair, who saw right through some of my barriers to
success and always knew exactly what to say to right the ship and help me see my worth. I
honestly feel that I had a dream team cheering me on and I will never forget how it felt to have
your support.
I have deep gratitude for my professors who have left a lasting impression and provided
exemplary modeling of what it means to be an exceptional educator: Dr. Courtney Malloy, who
sparked my love of educational psychology, helped bring the inquiry process into full view, and
helped me through a global pandemic with her humor and compassion; Dr. Monique Datta, who
taught my first class in the EdD program and helped me develop my writing in ways that would
later be more important than she could have known; and Dr. Darlene Robles and Dr. Maria Ott,
who both inspired me to identify as a powerful female leader of change.
During my time in school, I had the most supportive co-workers cheering me on and not
allowing me to give up. Thank you, team, for lifting me up and for being patient with me
throughout this process. You all inspire me daily to be the best social work educator I can be. I
want to specifically thank Dr. Tory Cox for exemplifying the leadership qualities that I strive for,
and for always reminding me of my own strength as a leader.

vii

To my amazing cohort 12 friends, who became family, thank you for the inspiration, the
late night texts, the commiserating, the laughs, and the nudging. I am so grateful that we will
move forward in this life having been through this incredible journey together. I look forward to
having this network of talented leaders and scholars in my life.
The learning and hard work that went into my completion of this study could not have
been actualized without the support of my family and friends. To my loving daughters, who
sacrificed much in this process; I can only hope that having their mom realize her dream to earn
her doctorate will be an inspiration to them both as they pursue their own dreams. To my
amazing husband, who has always supported my passion for my career and has been all-in
despite the challenges it would create: I love you. To my dad, who showed me what hard work
and pride in a daughter can look like. My mom showed me the path, including going to school
when I was young, and exemplified that you can be both an exceptional mother and a fierce
leader at the same time. My brother, my in-laws, and close friends have stood by me while I
followed this dream, even when it felt impossible. I’m not sure you know how important your
encouragement and periodic check-ins (or sweet treats) meant to me, but I hope I can show you
as I reclaim post-school and post-pandemic life. And to my friends and mentors, Dr. Edwin
Risler and Dr. Stacey Kolomer, you always said I could do this doctoral thing—thank you for
encouraging me all these years later to get after it.
In closing, I want to extend my sincere gratitude to the faculty members who participated
in this study. The time you took to share your ideas and experiences was a generous offering and
reflects your dedication to exemplary social work education. And last, but far from least, I want
to thank the social work students whom I have had the honor of walking alongside and learning
from over the past seven years. Thank you, fighters for social justice.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 3
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 4
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 5
Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................ 6
Stakeholder Performance Goals .......................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 8
Overview of the Theoretical and Methodological Framework ........................................... 8
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Writing Proficiency of Graduate Students in Postsecondary Education .......................... 11
Postsecondary Writing Education ..................................................................................... 14
Discipline-Specific Writing in Social Work Education .................................................... 26

ix

Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Oganizational Conceptual
Framework ............................................................................................................ 32

Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization-Related Influences .......................... 32
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context ......................................................................................... 50

Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 54
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 54
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 54
Participating Stakeholder Overview ................................................................................. 56
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 56
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 73
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 77
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 77
Contextual Results and Findings of Faculty's Mixed Perception about the Problem of
Student Writing Proficiency ................................................................................. 81

Organization of Results and Findings ............................................................................... 82
What is the Faculty's Knowledge and Motivation Related to Implementing Best
Practices in Writing Instruction into Social Work Coursework? .......................... 83

How Does the Organization Facilitate and Hinder the Faculty's Ability to Support
Student Writing? ................................................................................................. 141

Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences' Data ..................... 167
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 170
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 171
Discussion of Results and Findings ................................................................................ 171
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 184
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 200

x

Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 202
Considerations for Equity ............................................................................................... 203
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 204
References ................................................................................................................................... 207
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 226
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 232
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 235

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s
Performance Goal
7

Table 2: Knowledge Influences 38

Table 3: Motivation Influences 43

Table 4: Organizational Influences 50

Table 5: Data Sources 56

Table 6: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants 79

Table 7: Characteristics of Interview Participants 80

Table 8: Summary of Faculty Role Perception of Writing Instruction 86

Table 9: Faculty Members’ Knowledge of and Use of Best Practices in Writing
Instruction
90

Table 10: Faculty Comparison of Use of Feedback 93

Table 11: Faculty Knowledge of Effective Feedback Reflected on Student Writing
Samples
102

Table 12: Comparison of Where Faculty Attributed Learning about Writing
Instruction Practices
110

Table 13: Faculty’s Perceived Importance of Writing in the Social Work Profession 118

Table 14: Faculty Task Value of Specific Writing Skills for MSW Students 120

Table 15: Faculty Task Value for Specific Writing Instruction Best Practices 124

Table 16: Faculty Cost Value of Various Responses to Student Writers 129

Table 17: Faculty Self-Efficacy to Implement Process-Oriented Writing Instruction
Practices
134

Table 18: Summary of Faculty Confidence to Help MSW Students Improve their
Writing
136

Table 19: Faculty’s Perceived Organizational Value for Student Writing Competency 149

xii

Table 20: Organizational Value for Student Writing Competency Reflected in Course
Syllabi
152

Table 21: Faculty’s Knowledge of Resources Related to Writing 156

Table 22: Faculty Reported Organizational Support and Desired Support via
Resource Allocation
165

Table 23: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Assets or Needs as
Determined by the Data
169

Table 24: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Aligned with
Recommendations
185

xiii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Assessing Stakeholder and Organizational
Goals
52

Figure 2: Faculty Task Value for Writing in the Social Work Profession 116

Figure 3: Faculty Attainment Value for Helping MSW Student Writers 122

Figure 4: Faculty Cost Value of Utilizing Writing Improvement Strategies 127

Figure 5: Faculty Self-Efficacy for Helping MSW Students Improve Their Writing 133

Figure 6: Faculty Perceived Organizational Value for Student Writing Competency 143

Figure 7: Faculty Perceived Value of Their Approach to MSW Writing Versus Other
MSW Faculty
144

Figure 8: Faculty Perceived Organizational Communication of Student Writing
Competency
154

Figure 9: Faculty Reported Training Received on Writing Instruction Practices 160

Figure 10: Faculty Reported Interest in Future Training on Writing Instruction
Practices
161

Figure 11: ADKAR Change Management Model 194

xiv

List of Abbreviations
ADKAR Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement
Organizational Change Model

APA American Psychological Association

BSW Bachelor of Social Work

COVID-19 Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019

CSWE Council on Social Work Education

CWPA Council of Writing Program Administrators

DSW Doctor of Social Work

EPAS Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards defined by the Council on
Social Work Education

IRB Institutional Review Board

KMO Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences

MSLQ Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

MSW Master of Social Work

UWSSC University of the West School of Social Work

WAC Writing Across the Curriculum

WEC Writing Enriched Curriculum

WID Writing in the Disciplines
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The writing proficiency of graduate students is an area of significant concern in higher
education. Despite the importance of strong writing, many graduate students do not write at an
adequate level of proficiency for the demands of graduate school and professional writing in
their fields of study (Nelson et al., 2012; Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2015; Sallee et al., 2011). In step
with other disciplines, student writing proficiency has been an area of concern across social work
programs in the United States dating back over four decades (Alter & Adkins, 2001; Cohen,
1986; Cormican & Cormican, 1977; Rompf, 1996; Simon & Soven, 1990; Waller et al., 1996). A
social work professional’s writing skills have the potential to affect the lives of individuals,
families, communities, organizations, as well as large-scale social policy in this writing heavy
profession.
Background of the Problem
While much of the literature on writing in higher education focuses on undergraduate
student writers, numerous studies have suggested that insufficient writing proficiency exists at
the graduate level (Nelson et al., 2012; Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2015; Sallee et al., 2011). This
research is wide ranging in its focus of graduate writing for scholarly endeavors, as well as the
importance of writing for a graduate students’ specific profession (Bair & Mader, 2013). Despite
the complexity and expansiveness of writing at a graduate level, graduate schools expect students
to arrive to their programs with a level of writing proficiency that is higher than that of
undergraduate students (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Mullen, 2006; Singleton-Jackson et al.,
2009).
With successful attainment of a bachelor’s degree as a prerequisite to acceptance in a
graduate program, there exists the assumption that graduate students were well prepared for
2

writing in their undergraduate program (Singleton-Jackson et al., 2009). To explore this
assumption, Singleton-Jackson et al. (2009) had graduate students complete part of the SAT II
writing exam and found that they did not score significantly higher than typical high school
seniors who took the SAT II, thus indicating their lack of preparedness for graduate level
writing, despite completion of a four-year bachelor’s program. Research also indicates that many
four-year college graduates in the workforce do not possess adequate writing skills for
professional practice (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Eisner, 2010). In their collaborative
study by multiple workforce organizations, Casner-Lotto and Barrington (2006) found that
93.1% of the over 400 employers surveyed felt that written communication was a critical skill for
new four-year graduates to possess for success in the 21
st
century workforce, though respondents
reported that 27.8% of their employees were deficient in written communications.
Despite these deficiencies noted for graduates of undergraduate programs, graduate
school professors have expectations about the level of writing that new students will arrive with,
though it is unlikely that students will improve their writing between graduating with their
bachelor’s degree and entering a graduate program (Nelson et al., 2012). The literature on faculty
expectations of graduate writers documents the frequent centering of faculty concern on the
individual student needing to improve their writing skills (Bair & Mader, 2013; Mullen, 2006;
Ondrusek, 2012). Gaining in quantity is research and recommendations for faculty members to
shift the focus from the individual student and begin implementing best practice strategies to
assist students in improving their writing.
As such, a barrier for faculty is the vast types of writing that are critical for graduate
student success and the specific writing needs of each profession, making generalized
instructional practices difficult to define. Much of the literature focuses on graduate writing for
3

scholarly endeavors, such as writing for publication and research (Huerta et al., 2017; Lavelle &
Bushrow, 2007; Mullen, 2006; Ondrusek, 2012). In contrast, many masters-level students are in
graduate school with the goal of working in their specific field of study, rather than writing for
publication or other scholarly pursuits beyond graduation (Bair & Mader, 2013). Thus, graduate
faculty members need to determine the goals of teaching writing that are specific to their field of
study and identify how this relates to an individual professor’s course, and its place in the
broader program curriculum (Mullen, 2006).
Within the field of social work education, concerns about substandard writing proficiency
have received scholarly attention. In their seminal study of writing proficiency, Alter and Atkins
(2001) found that of 124 new admits to their Master of Social Work (MSW) program, one third
of the students did not have adequate writing skills. Similarly, in 2006, one quarter of MSW
students lacked necessary writing skills at admission (Alter & Adkins, 2006). In light of noted
writing concerns, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the accrediting body of social
work programs in the U.S., included professional written communication as part of the required
social work competencies in the 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS),
which was again included in the most recent 2015 update (CSWE, 2008; 2015). In response,
researchers have begun to study strategies taken by social work programs to help students
improve their writing skills (Grise-Owens & Crum, 2012; Horton & Diaz, 2011; Kahn &
Holody, 2009; Woody et al., 2014).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of inadequate writing proficiency in MSW students is important to address
as social workers have an ethical obligation to express themselves in ways that exhibits critical
thinking, reflect the integration of complex theories into professional clinical documentation, and
4

utilizes self-reflection and self-regulation (Rai, 2006). In step with other professions, the varied
writing types that students engage in are categorized into two domains: academic writing and
writing for social work practice (Rai & Lillis, 2013). Academic writing may include analytical
essays and research papers, as well as reflective writing which includes first person sharing of
personal opinions on academic material (Rai, 2006; Woody et al., 2014). Social work students
must also be able to write proficiently in their internship practice settings, based in a variety of
agencies such as non-profits, school, hospitals, and government entities. According to Alter and
Adkins (2001), social workers need to be able to write in ways that honor their work with clients
in ethical ways, encourage authorities to consider a social worker’s recommendations, and write
proposals that will result in critical funding for programs. They contend, “It is not overly
dramatic to say that the lives of clients can be significantly diminished by social workers’
inability to write well, or significantly enhanced by strong writing proficiency in social workers”
(Alter & Adkins, 2001, p. 497).
Organizational Context and Mission
The University of the West School of Social Work (UWSSW, a pseudonym) is a school
of social work that is part of a large university located in the Western United States. UWSSW
provides social work education at the master’s and doctoral levels in on-campus and virtual
environments. The mission of UWSSW is to promote social justice through social work
education, scholarship, and community and global leadership
1
. The faculty at UWSSW is
comprised of just under 200 full-time and adjunct faculty members. The students at the UWSSW
represent a diverse population mainly located in the western United States, but are also located in
other parts of the nation and internationally. UWSSW’s Master of Social Work (MSW) program

1
Source is UWSSW organization website. Actual URL withheld to maintain anonymity.
5

is an accredited school of social work by CSWE and is committed to educating MSW students
based on CSWE’s nine core competencies of social work education (CSWE, 2015).
Programmatically, MSW students begin the two-year program with a focus on foundational
social work concepts and then progress to one of three curricular areas.
Organizational Goal
UWSSW’s faculty and administration have vocalized concern about the writing
proficiency of MSW students, though the prevalence of inadequate writing skills has not been
formally documented at a broad scale. Each semester, faculty complete a mid-term grade report
to indicate students who are at risk of failing a course and the reason for the concern, including
problems with writing. Based on this, UWSSW’s goal is that by 2024, faculty-reported writing-
related concerns will decrease from 12 to six per 50 students. This goal was established based on
review of 2019 mid-term grade report data indicating the high prevalence of writing concerns as
a primary cause of being at risk for failing a course. The achievement of this goal will be
measured by audits of the future mid-term grade reports. It is important to evaluate
organizational performance in relationship to reducing the incidence of writing-related concerns
because it will allow monitoring of the gap between current performance and the desired goal of
improved student writing proficiency, thus in turn benefiting the social work profession.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At UWSSW, there are multiple stakeholder groups involved in the achievement of the
school’s organizational goal of improving MSW student writing. Stakeholder groups identified at
UWSSW include faculty, administration, students, and community agencies providing internship
experiences for MSW students. Faculty members, who are experts in social work practice,
provide instruction to students in curricular areas such as social work theory, evidence-based
6

practice, social policy, research methodology, and population-specific social work practices.
Faculty members utilize in-class teaching strategies, evaluate student assignments, and aim to
help students connect classroom learning to their field-based internship experiences. UWSSW
administrators participate in national dialog on social work education trends, interface with the
larger university for accountability to university-wide goals, and steer decisions about funding
and organizational efforts. Based on the university’s faculty governance model, the school
administration works in tandem with the faculty-comprised curriculum council and faculty
council, both of whom have a stake in student writing proficiency. Students are the focal point of
the UWSSW program and are working to achieve competency in social work practice to be
professional master level social workers. Through classroom projects, presentations, writing
assignments, reflective practices, and the accumulation of over 900 hours of internship hours,
students exemplify their work toward mastery of the social work competencies. Community
agencies provide learning opportunities for UWSSW students and each student is assigned a
field instructor to guide their field-based education structured around the CSWE core
competencies (CSWE, 2015). Within the stakeholder group of community agencies, students
interface with social workers, engage in interprofessional relationships with other professionals,
and may serve clients, engage in advocacy, and operate within governmental organizations.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete analysis would have included all stakeholder groups discussed above
due to the interplay of these groups in meeting the organizational goal of decreasing writing
related concerns, this study focused on the faculty’s knowledge and motivation to increase
student writing proficiency, as well as how the organization facilitates and hinders goal
attainment. Selection of this stakeholder group is based on the importance of shifting the
7

common focus from individual students as being deficient in their skills and needing to address
them at the individual level, to considering faculty’s role in this process. The stakeholder goal is
that by 2023, 100% of faculty will integrate best practices in writing instruction into social work
coursework. Failure to meet this goal will negatively affect the organizational goal of decreasing
student writing concerns by 2024.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1 provides an overview of the UWSSW’s mission and the organization’s
performance goal for this study. The faculty stakeholder group’s goal is also included.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal
Organizational
mission
UWSSW organizational
performance goal
UWSSW faculty stakeholder
group goal
The mission of UWSSW is to
promote social justice
through social work
education, scholarship, and
community and global
leadership.
By 2024, faculty-reported
writing-related concerns
will decrease from 12 to six
per 50 students.
By 2023, 100% of faculty
will integrate best practices
in writing instruction into
social work coursework.

8

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which UWSSW is able to meet its
goal of reducing the number of student writing concerns indicated by faculty members at
midterm. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder group focused on in this analysis were full-time and part-time adjunct
faculty members teaching in the UWSSW MSW program. The analysis focused on faculty’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to providing writing instruction
based on best practices in writing instruction. The research questions that guided this study are
the following:
1. What is the faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing best practices in
writing instruction into social work coursework?
2. How does the organization facilitate and hinder the faculty’s ability to support student
writing?
Overview of the Theoretical and Methodological Framework
To understand the organizational problem of MSW student writing proficiency and
faculty involvement at a more detailed level, the Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation,
and Organizational Influences’ (KMO) conceptual framework was adapted to an exploratory
model and implemented as the conceptual framework. This systematic, analytic method focuses
on a thorough examination of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may
affect stakeholder performance, which assist to identify appropriate solutions to organizational
problems and refinement of goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The KMO theoretical framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008) clarified the organization’s current beliefs and goal(s) on student writing
improvement and its relationship to individual performance goals by the faculty. These
9

influences were explored via a mixed methodological framework. Specifically, quantitative data
was gathered via survey and qualitative data was collected via individual interviews and
document analysis.
Definitions
Below are key terms used frequently in this dissertation.
Best Practices: “those actions that surpass all others in pursuit of a goal or purpose according to
some objectively measurable standard” (Robbins, 2009).
Exemplar: A model of a strongly written paper or project that provides an example for students
to read a range of responses to an assignment and see the level of detail expected by a faculty
member (WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.c)
Faculty: Postsecondary instructors at the adjunct, lecturer, full-time non-tenure track, tenure-
track, and full tenure levels; excluded are graduate student instructors who may teach in
postsecondary education settings.
Feedback: Information given to a student by a professor, peer, or self, regarding their
performance or understanding (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Grading Contract: An evaluation tool that is created by the faculty member, or co-created with
students, in order for students to self-select the grade they wish to receive in the course; the
contract between student and instructor stipulates the responsibilities of each for the student to
achieve their grade of choice (Spidell & Thelin, 2006).
Graduate Student: Students studying at the masters or doctoral level.
Process-Oriented Approach: Embedding formative processes whereas a student works through
steps to improve their writing such as drafting, revising, and engaging in peer review (Mullen,
2006).
10

Proficient: Competency demonstrated by a learner in their knowledge of a set of skills related to
identified standards (Vermont Agency of Education, 2017).
Rubric: a guide created by faculty that communicates the standards and expectations for a given
assignment to help students understand, in advance, how their performance will be assessed
(WAC Clearinghouse, 2006a).
Organization of the Project
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided an overview of
the problem of practice, the supporting literature that highlights the problem, and key definitions
commonly associated with the topic of MSW student writing proficiency. The organization’s
mission, goal, and stakeholder groups were reviewed and the KMO theoretical model was
introduced. Chapter Two provides an in-depth review of the literature on graduate-level student
writing, writing proficiency in MSW students, and best practices in graduate writing instruction.
This chapter also reviews faculty capacity in improving student writing and is organized by the
conceptual framework areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter
Three details the methodology of assessing knowledge, motivation and organizational influences,
as well as an explanation of participant selection, data collection and analysis methods. In
Chapter Four, the data are analyzed and assessed. Chapter Five provides a discussion on study
findings and outlines recommendations for practice for closing the identified gap.
11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter examines existing literature related to student writing proficiency in
postsecondary education. The first section situates graduate writing concerns within the historical
context of writing proficiency and writing instruction practices as they have evolved in the
postsecondary education setting for undergraduate and graduate writers. The second segment
reviews the literature specific to social work education and writing proficiency. Concluding the
chapter is a discussion of the Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences’ (KMO) conceptual framework, which focuses on social work faculty knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to writing proficiency in a school of social
work graduate program.
Writing Proficiency of Graduate Students in Postsecondary Education
Over the past two decades, the number of students studying at the graduate level has
increased significantly. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), the
number of master’s degrees conferred during the 2017-18 year was 820,000, up 73% from the
474,000 degrees conferred in the 2000-01 academic year. During the same period, the number of
doctoral degrees conferred increased by 54%, from 120,000 to 184,000 degrees. With this
increase in graduate students comes the ongoing concern of the writing proficiency in graduate
education.
Graduate Level Writing
Graduate students are expected to arrive at graduate programs with a high level of
expertise in writing, though research indicates that many students are not graduating from
undergraduate programs with the skills required to be successful in graduate school (Alter &
12

Adkins, 2006; Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2012; Singleton-Jackson et al., 2009). Contrary to the
assumption of arriving at graduate school ready to write, many graduate students may not be
writing at a higher skill level than the typical high school senior, despite having completed an
undergraduate degree (Singleton-Jackson et al., 2009). In between undergraduate and graduate
programs, it is also unlikely that their writing skill has improved, based upon available data
(Nelson et al., 2012). Additionally, graduate students often have multiple competing interests
such as significant work commitments, financial independence, lack of parental support that
many undergraduate students have, and family obligations (Seurkamp, 2007). Thus, these
students may be managing time-consuming life circumstances that prevent them from deepening
their writing skills once they arrive to graduate school.
In graduate education, writing is an instrumental part of a student’s education, and basic
writing skills are required for the advanced academic and professional writing expected in
graduate school. Cooper and Bikowski (2007) investigated writing tasks assigned in graduate
courses through the review of 200 course syllabi from 20 wide ranging academic departments.
Across all programs, the most common writing assignments were research papers, article or book
reviews, and records of an experiment or project. Ondrusek (2012) completed a literature review
of nine articles on advanced writing skills needed for graduate-level scholarly writing and
identified core competencies required for successful graduate writers: organization; argument,
evidence, and logic; audience and voice; content; mechanics and grammar; conceptualization,
developing ideas, and pre-writing; process; accuracy; scholarly identity; sources; expression; and
critique (p. 179, Table 1). In contrast to undergraduate students, graduate writers are required to
synthesize perspectives and integrate theory, demanding more advanced construction skills and
more attention to accuracy, voice, and audience (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007). Without adequate
13

writing skills, graduate students face multiple obstacles in fulfilling their degree requirements
and may derail them entirely from entering their profession of study (Ondrusek, 2012).
Institutional Approaches to Graduate Level Writing
Approaches vary on how graduate schools manage graduate level writing challenges. In
1976, Struck made the first call for a graduate-specific writing course and Lemming called for
more support to graduate student writers in 1977 (as cited in Lavell & Bushrow, 2007). Despite
this early call for focused writing support, writing instruction at the graduate level is often
delivered in remedial programs designed for international students whose first language is not
English or for those identified as having significantly poor writing skills (Sallee et al., 2011).
Sallee et al. (2011) posited that few institutions have developed graduate level writing courses
for all students but rather continue to penalize students who write poorly through grade
reductions and provide little in-class instruction to help improve their writing skills. In response,
the authors provided an overview of their graduate-level qualitative research methods writing
course with the following goals: make research and writing more manageable; encourage
students to support each other; focus on all aspects of writing; role model the writing process;
and invest in the students (p. 68-70). To systematically address the quality of writing in graduate
education where scholarly style is developed, Rose and McClafferty (2001) identified six
thematic areas to focus on with students in a graduate-level writing course: (1) the interrelation
of formal and rhetorical elements of writing, (2) writing as craftwork by listening to writing and
revising for improvement, (3) writing as a method of inquiry, (4) awareness of audience, (5)
becoming a critic of other people’s writing, and (6) writing and scholarly identity formation.
Badenhorst et al. (2015) challenged the notion that individual graduate students are to
blame for writing deficiencies, and educators should instead consider the problem and solution
14

embedded in the hidden discourse practices related to academic writing. The importance of
academic language proficiency and lack of knowledge of general academic words and discipline-
specific words has been identified as a barrier to student success. As defined by Nagy and
Townsend (2012), “academic language is the specialized language, both oral and written, of
academic settings that facilitates communication and thinking about disciplinary content” (p. 92).
Based on this definition, instruction in academic writing must include a focus on the purpose of
academic language, how they differ from conversation, and provide students the arena for using
academic language (Nagy & Townsend, 2012). Students who are underprepared for the demands
of graduate-level writing may struggle to excel in graduate programs and there is a lack of
programming designed to support them. To understand these deficiencies in graduate student
preparations, an in-depth look at postsecondary writing educational practice is warranted.
Postsecondary Writing Education
The literature of writing education in postsecondary education focuses heavily on writing
at the undergraduate level. Where the literature does include graduate level writing, it is often
focused specifically on the academic discourse such as writing for publication or writing a thesis
or dissertation (Adamek, 2015; Chittum & Bryant, 2014; Delyser, 2003; Huerta et al., 2017;
Mullen, 2001; Mullen, 2006; Negretti, 2012; Ondrusek, 2012; Rose & McClafferty, 2001; Shaw,
1999; Wagenmakers, 2009). Despite this advanced scholarly writing focus, the most recent
writing class a graduate student may have had is a freshman composition course in their
undergraduate program, which leaves little guidance on the type of writing that will be required
of them in graduate school (Delyser, 2003). Some graduate students may have come from
undergraduate programs that did little to nurture their writing (Ondrusek, 2012). To understand a
15

graduate student’s preparedness for writing requires an examination of the history of their
writing education at the undergraduate level.
Background and Context of Writing Education
In 1975, the Newsweek article, “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” brought national attention to
the need for higher education institutions to increase their commitment to writing instruction
(Sheils, 1975). While this mainstream article brought the concern of postsecondary writing
education front and center in the 1970s, the focus on writing by higher education institutions
dates back to the late 1800s with the start of Harvard University’s entrance exams to assess
writing proficiency beginning in 1874 (Connors, 1997). Based on poor outcomes of this entrance
exam, Harvard began what is known to be the first remedial writing course. The course was
required of all incoming freshman, which soon became the prototype of the freshman writing
course adopted by nearly every American college by the turn of the 20th century (Connors,
1997). Writing support outside of entry-level courses was documented at Yale in the 1920s
through their Awkward Squad where students were pulled from classes by tutors for remediation
for their writing deficits (Ritter, 2008). A writing laboratory approach surfaced in the late 1920s
and in the early 1950s, the freestanding writing center was first document (Lerner, 2006). These
early indications of writing education in post-secondary institutions continued to evolve to meet
the growing needs of students, faculty, and institutions. The rich history of writing remediation
in postsecondary education has led to the diverse ways in which modern-day institutions
approach writing education.
Institutional Practices in Writing Education
There are multiple approaches to postsecondary writing instruction in higher education
institutions across the United States. Writing centers are a common fixture on postsecondary
16

campuses and often provide individual writing support (often referred to as tutoring), writing
seminars for students across campus and disciplines, and act as a hub for expertise in
composition studies (Nowacek & Hughes, 2015). Writing centers may also provide support to
second language writers. The mode of delivery often includes on-campus in-person support,
online offerings for live virtual sessions, and robust websites providing writing support (Moberg,
2010). In larger universities, some schools or departments may also house their own writing
center to support students within the academic discipline in which they are embedded. These
institutional programs provide a foundation for writing coursework at the institutional and
program-specific level. While support to second language writers and the offerings of writing
centers are an important aspect of instructional strategies offered to students, it is beyond the
scope of this study.
Institution-Wide Writing Coursework
Required first-year composition courses, often housed in English departments, are a
common approach to undergraduate writing education upon arrival to postsecondary education.
As such, the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA) in conjunction with the
National Council of Teachers of English and the National Writing Project, developed the
Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (2011), to identify required habits of mind,
specifically how to approach learning in ways that will support student’s future writing in a
variety of disciplines. They identified “eight habits of mind essential for student success in
college writing: curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity, persistence, responsibility,
flexibility, and metacognition” (p. 1). The framework also defines how instructors can foster
these habits of mind through various writing, reading, and critical analysis experiences. With this
framework as a guide, CWPA (2014) defined priorities for first-year undergraduate composition
17

courses by identifying four main research-supported outcomes to guide instruction: rhetorical
knowledge; critical thinking, reading, and composing; writing processes; and knowledge of
conventions. In addition to first-year composition courses, many postsecondary institutions
require writing intensive classes later in the coursework trajectory, often situated in the English
department (Hanstedt, 2012). Writing education scholars have expressed concern that a limited
approach by an institution’s focus on general education requirements creates a stressed
relationship between student experiences in general education writing courses and preparation
for their discipline (Basgier, 2016). Related to general education coursework, Basgier (2016)
wrote, “Often, students believe their instructors’ writing advice is nothing more than individual
whim, rather than part and parcel of disciplinary or professional expectations, leading them to
see such experiences as irrelevant to their educational goals and career aspirations” (p. 17).
Growing out of concern for the above model of English department-based writing
instruction as the location of focused writing skill development, the Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) movement emerged in the 1970s (WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.a).
Postsecondary institutions began adopting the WAC approach based on the understanding that
students needed more intentional practice, over time, and guided by faculty outside of English
departments, thus influencing the general education approach. More specifically, WAC programs
are guided by the following basic principles:
(a) that writing is the responsibility of the entire academic community,
(b) that writing must be integrated across departmental boundaries,
(c) that writing instruction must be continued during all four years of undergraduate
education,
(d) that writing promotes learning, and
18

(e) that only by practicing the conventions of an academic discipline will students begin
to communicate effectively within that discipline (WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.a, section
two).
Stemming from the WAC model, Writing in the Disciplines (WID) emerged to help
guide the development of writing assignments within discipline-specific courses. In addition to
reading course texts and learning discipline-specific material, WID centers on the premise that
students must practice the discipline-specific language through their writing as a way to develop
a thorough command of the discipline’s language and gain fluency with the genre and format
common in the discipline (WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.b). WAC and WID is often combined and
referred to as a WAC/WID approach. Like general education approaches to writing instruction,
the WAC/WID approach is most commonly situated at the institutional level and guide faculty at
the local departmental or school level on what to include in their coursework.
Program-Specific Writing Support
Other forms of writing support lie within departments or schools in the larger university
system. One such local approach is the Writing Enriched Curriculum (WEC; University of
Minnesota, n.d.). The WEC model is based on the premise that those who teach undergraduate
students in the disciplines should guide the writing instruction and the assessment of it, rather
than the larger university identifying what should be included in coursework (Anson et al.,
2012). Of additional consideration is that the infusion of discipline-specific writing will not fully
materialize until faculty members have a chance to examine assumptions about how writing and
writing instruction in their specific discipline presents itself. Through the examination of writing
assignments, student writing samples, and an online survey of faculty, students, and professional
19

stakeholders, the faculty come together over a series of meetings to develop a WEC writing plan.
This plan identifies the following:
(1) What characterizes writing in this discipline’s professional and academic writing?,
(2) With what specific writing capabilities should students in this unit’s major(s)
graduate?,
(3) Where and how in this unit’s curriculum are (or shall) these desired abilities be
developed?,
(4) How is (or should) student writing (be) assessed in this unit?, and
(5) What forms of instructional support are needed in order to implement ideas included
in this plan? (Anson et al., 2012, Figure 1).
According to Flash (2016), key to the WEC model is the role of the WEC consultant, an
external facilitator who creates a mediational reflective space for faculty to explore and examine
these questions, leading to lasting change. As an outsider to the department, this consultant can
help mediate and prevent historical debates from resurfacing and perpetuating inactivity toward
change (Flash, 2016). This and other institutional practices on general education approaches
situated at the institutional level provide context for a review of instructional practices used by
faculty to guide student writers in improving their writing proficiency.
Best Instructional Practices in Writing Education
Given the dearth of literature on widely generalizable best practices in postsecondary
writing instruction, defining best instructional practices to teach and assess writing to graduate
students is a complex task. Carol Mullen, a prolific contributor to the discussion on graduate
student writing, suggested that while existing research points to fundamental best practices for
teaching writing, a single best method does not exist (Mullen, 2006). Additionally, the ever-
20

changing nature of knowledge may alter an approach that is considered best practice today
(Adler-Kassner & Wardle, 2015). This section reviews instructional practices highlighted in the
literature, inclusive of studies focused on undergraduate and graduate writers. Meta-analysis and
systematic review are included, when available, to highlight the academic rigor of the
instructional practices put forth. Since this dissertation focused on faculty use of best
instructional practices, writing education approaches delivered outside of the classroom by non-
faculty were excluded. For the purposes of this study, included are best practices for faculty
articulation of expectations through exemplars, feedback, rubrics, and grading contracts. Of
additional focus was faculty embedding an iterative process-oriented approach in the classroom
through drafting, revision, and peer review processes.
Articulating Expectations and Assessment
Faculty articulate expectations for writing assignments so students understand the
expectations of them in their writing process, as well as how faculty will assess what students
produce. It is important for faculty to articulate the key criteria they will use in assessing student
writing, as well as the goals for the assignment and how they fit with the overall course
objectives (WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.c). Assessment in higher education often fits into two broad
categories: formative and summative assessment (Crisp, 2012). Formative assessment assists
with scaffolding learning, helps students engage with feedback, and identifies areas for their own
improvement; summative assessment measures student academic achievement (Crisp, 2012). If
students do not understand faculty expectations, both in their writing of the assignment as well as
in the assessment of it, then meeting the objectives of the writing assignment will likely suffer.
21

Faculty assessment practices should also consider the nuances of individual students and
applying assessment without a generalized approach. Inoue (2019) wrote on the topic of
assessment:
Doing grading well, either at the secondary or postsecondary level, is not simply about
finding the best practice, method, or mechanism. It is about understanding the various
ways that the nature and function of grades might be constructed in a classroom, and the
variety of consequences to learning that are possible. What I’m saying is that designing
fair and meaningful grading practices is about cultivating with our students an ecology, a
place where every student, no matter where they come from or how they speak or write,
can have access to the entire range of final course grades possible. (p. 3)
The following practices, including exemplars, faculty feedback, rubrics, and grading contracts,
are all used by faculty to convey expectations and assess student writing practices, though are not
suggested as a formula or one correct method.
Exemplars, Feedback, Rubrics, and Grading Contracts. An exemplar is a model of a
strongly written paper or project that provides an example for students to read a range of
responses to an assignment and see the level of detail expected by a faculty member (WAC
Clearinghouse, n.d.c). Some instructors express concern about using exemplars in fear that
students will use them as a template to copy though this is not a pervasive problem (WAC
Clearinghouse, n.d.c). Exemplars, specifically well-written samples written by peers, create
writing that students can relate to and can help the writing task be less intimidating and more
achievable (Mullen, 2005). Carter et al. (2018) conducted an integrative review of 10 peer-
reviewed studies on exemplar use for academic writing and identified that the use of exemplars
can be an important element of scaffolding student learning. Additional findings were that
22

students valued exemplars for increased confidence and clarity of expectations. The authors
found that mixed grade outcomes based on the use of exemplars, however, as a formative
assessment practice, students found exemplars to be widely helpful.
Faculty feedback is likely the most common form of writing support that students receive
in post-secondary education (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Stern & Solomon, 2006). Wellington
(2010) studied graduate student perception of faculty feedback and many students had a negative
association with the feedback received on their scholarly writing and stressed that students need
to have a positive experience with feedback for it to improve writing. In 1999, Hattie (as cited in
Hattie & Timperley, 2007) reported on their synthesis of over 500 meta-analyses on various
influences on student achievement and determined that 74 of the meta-analyses contained
information about feedback, which was inclusive of over 7,000 studies and over 13,000 effect
sizes. This review indicated that the most effective forms of feedback provide cues or
reinforcements to learners, relate to the goals of the assignment, and are provided via video,
audio, or computer-assisted instructional feedback. The least helpful forms of feedback in
enhancing achievement were praise, punishment, and extrinsic rewards (Hattie, 1999, as cited in
Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Faculty, particularly graduate level, may also struggle to know where
to focus their attention when providing feedback. While it is common for faculty to focus on
mechanics such as grammar and punctuation (Greasley & Cassidy, 2010; Stern & Solomon,
2006) which is low level rhetorical concern, it is suggested to focus on higher level rhetorical
concerns such as audience, purpose, and focus (WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.d). Regardless, students
require feedback that is clearly articulated and helps them apply the feedback to their future
writing.
23

Timely feedback is also critical for development of student learning (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Arts et al., 2016; Giles et al., 2014; Mulliner & Tucker, 2017). While a specific definition
of timely feedback may vary, Arts et al. (2016) determined feedback to be provided within a
two-week period of time to be most helpful to students. Mulliner and Tucker (2017) explored
student and faculty perceptions of acceptable and realistic time frames for feedback. In their
study of 26 faculty, 42% reported 20 working days and 42% indicated 15 working days as
acceptable and realistic turn-around times for mid-semester written assignments. In the same
study, 17% of students surveyed (N = 194) reported that 20 working days was acceptable and
realistic, whereas 49% of students indicated 15 working days and 29% felt that 10 working days
was acceptable and realistic.
A grading rubric is a guide created by faculty that communicates the standards and
expectations for a given assignment to help students understand, in advance, how their
performance will be assessed (WAC Clearinghouse, 2006a). Strong rubrics provide explicit
direction and clarity of expectations, making it easier for students to use the rubric as a target for
their draft paper and to improve on future papers (WAC Clearinghouse, 2006a). Faculty can
improve grading consistency by using rubrics and when examining compiled rubrics for a group
of students, it can point to areas that require more faculty instructional attention (Ambrose et al.,
2010). Faculty should not use rubrics so rigidly that it undermines their ability to consider
individual or cultural differences in writing or other contextual cues (Oppenheimer et al., 2017).
Another evaluation method is the use of grading contracts, in attempt to reduce the focus
on a letter grade and shift to a collaborative process between faculty and students to arrive at
better outcomes. Instructors alone, or students and instructors together, develop grading contracts
at the start of the course, allowing students to choose the grade they will achieve; the contract
24

stipulates the responsibilities of students and instructors for this grade to be achieved (Spidell &
Thelin, 2006). One approach to grading contracts includes a hybrid approach whereas students
receive a grade of B for completion of course writing assignments, without assessment of their
writing; a student can earn a grade higher than B based on writing quality (Danielewicz &
Elbow, 2009). Inoue (2019) argued that any focus on writing quality should be excluded from
grading practices due to the inherent cultural bias that exists around language (affecting
primarily students of color), thus contracts should focus specifically on effort through the
formative assessment process of labor-based grading.
Embedding a Process-Oriented Approach
Many adult students benefit from having a sense of direction and a process in place to
help develop their writing (Mullen, 2006). As learning to write at the graduate level is a difficult
task, faculty’s use of a process-oriented approach to engage students with the writing process can
help deepen student writing skills (Ives et al., 2019). By faculty embedding writing processes
such as drafting, revising, and peer review throughout a course, student skills can improve
(Mullen, 2006). It is through this deconstructing of complex tasks that will allow faculty to teach
skills systematically and thus improve student performance (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Many students complete a written assignment from start to finish, often last minute, and
submit this writing as a final version. Instead, structuring writing assignments so that students
complete a series of drafts, receive feedback, and subsequently revise their draft, can improve
student writing (Mullen, 2006). Drafting in such a way can help students develop their ideas over
time and allows faculty the opportunity to help guide students through more difficult writing
tasks as they build discipline-specific knowledge (WAC Clearinghouse, 2006b). In their study of
421 graduate students in an education program, Lavelle and Bushrow (2007) found that most
25

participants were in their 30s and reported feeling too busy with the complexities of young mid-
adult life to spend time drafting and revising. Additionally, the authors concluded that “too often,
teachers assume that academic genre is familiar or are not clear about expectations, and students’
final papers can be turned in on the last night of class without having been reviewed by
instructors” (p. 817). They suggest that faculty should provide clearly defined writing tasks and
provide feedback for revisions versus setting up the one final paper approach that is familiar to
undergraduate students. Embedding drafting and revisions processes helps set the expectations
that these are commonplace practices for accomplished writers (Delyser, 2003; Mullen, 2006).
Peer review, overlapping with drafting and revision, is another best practice frequently
used in writing instruction. This process, where peer students read and comment on another
students’ writing, helps improve the writer’s work as well as the peer reviewer’s work by
considering their own strengths and weaknesses in their writing (Ambrose et al., 2010). This
practice is most successful when students receive peer feedback from multiple reviewers, the
reviewers are given structured guidelines on what to provide feedback on and how to do so, and
the writers are given ample time to implement the feedback through revision (Ambrose et al.,
2010). Huisman et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis on formative peer feedback on post-
secondary student writing by exploring 24 quantitative studies and found that student writing
improvement was higher with peer feedback than when compared with no-feedback controls and
when compared to student self-assessment of their own writing. Additionally, peer feedback and
instructor feedback yielded similar writing improvements. Engaging in the peer review process
as graduate students also places the student in the realm of professional discourse whereas
students become engaged in the professional activity of peer review of scholarly work within
their discipline (Chittum & Bryant, 2014).
26

When evaluating and selecting instructional best practices, it is also important to consider
student perspective of the worth of instructional practices used by faculty (Cilliers, 2012;
Cramarenco et al., 2015). Attending to student self-efficacy to determine writing instruction
approaches can assist with the development of student motivation and self-regulation, thus
affecting performance (Golombek et al., 2018). Gardiner and Kearns (2012) highlighted the
psychology of writing by identifying commonly held beliefs by students about their academic
writing, including worry about their writing not being good enough, seeing writing as a process
to have clear in their head before writing, not feeling ready to write, and not having enough time
to write. Thus, it is important for those considering instructional best practices to assist student
writers in the classroom to include the student perspective in evaluating the efficacy of the
practice.
Discipline-Specific Writing in Social Work Education
Enrollment and degree conferral in graduate-level social work education has grown over
the past decade. According to the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2020) report, 2019
Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States, MSW programs have seen a 34.9%
enrollment increase over the past 10 years, with over 68,000 students enrolled in 2019. Practice-
based Doctor of Social Work (DSW) programs have seen a dramatic increase in degree
conferrals in recent years, specifically between 2017-2019, with over 1,500 students enrolled in
2019. Conversely, enrollment in social work PhD programs decreased 24.5% between 2009 and
2019, with nearly 1,900 students enrolled in 2019. Indicated in the 2018 report of the same name
(CSWE, 2019a), upon graduation, DSW students primarily went into nonacademic
administrative positions (22.9%) and private clinical practice (17.7%), rather than postsecondary
education tenure-track faculty positions (15.6%) and non-tenure track positions (12.5%). The
27

2019 report indicated that programs were unable to report employment areas on over one half of
their DSW students. In the 2019 report, PhD graduates reported primarily going into tenure-track
positions (31.2%), post-doctoral fellowships (9.9%), and non-tenure track faculty positions
(5.1%) in accredited schools of social work upon graduation. According to a 2019 CSWE report
on the workforce of new social workers, 82% of MSW graduates pursued employment in a direct
practice setting working with individuals, families, or groups, whereas only 1% went into a
social work higher education setting (CSWE, 2019b). The decrease in PhD enrollment, increase
in DSWs, combined with the high rate of professional practice for MSW graduates, reflects that
the majority of social work graduates are in the professional field of practice, rather than in
academic settings beyond graduate school. The setting in which social work graduate students
are employed upon graduation is an important factor when considering how social work
education programs approach student writing and faculty writing instruction practices.
As in graduate schools of varying disciplines, social work educators also express their
concern for the deficits in student writing. While there is a dearth of research documenting the
extent of the writing deficiencies, a review of the literature on writing in social work education
highlights three main areas of focus: (1) the types of writing necessary for social work
professional practice, (2) writing interventions targeted at the individual student level, and (3) the
role of faculty in student writing proficiency. While this dissertation focuses on graduate level
writers, much of the literature on writing in social work education focuses on the undergraduate
level, therefore, this review includes both undergraduate and graduate literature.
Writing in the Social Work Profession
Since the inception of social work as a profession, three main areas have constituted the
work of professional social workers: (1) practice with individuals, groups, communities, and
28

organizations; (2) advocacy efforts on behalf of and with clients for social and economic justice;
and (3) contributing to social work knowledge to enhance professional practice (Simon, 2012).
Each of these social work arenas, often overlapping with one another, requires effective
communication in written form. Thus, a new social worker must possess effective writing skills
for general writing, but also learn specific modes of social work-specific writing to make them
effective communicators in the variety of settings to meet expected requirements of regulatory
bodies, auditors, and organizational standards of writing (Simon, 2012).
Learning the specific language of the profession is also critical due to the sensitive nature
of communications that often include confidential client information read by outside entities such
as judges, insurance companies, law enforcement, or government entities. McDonald et al.
(2015) categorized effective social work writing into areas of focus for social work educators
based on the social work professional codes of ethics from Australia, United States, Britain,
Canada, and New Zealand. The authors posited that in order for social work students to learn to
write effectively for the profession, they must understand social work values and principles as it
relates to ten areas of work centered around clients: (1) social justice; (2) respect for persons; (3)
professional integrity; (4) accountability and transparency; (5) accuracy, judiciousness and
credibility; (6) reflexivity; (7) authenticity; (8) sensitivity; (9) purpose; and (10) persuasion. This
list provides a summary of the values that social work writing must encompass, in addition to
social work students writing for the academic classroom and their field internship settings. Thus,
it is important to understand how social work educators approach writing instruction with
students.

29

Best Practices in Social Work Writing Instruction
A variety of approaches have surfaced to help Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and MSW
students improve their writing skills, also integrating information about what researchers believe
has not worked for individual students. The early work of Waller et al. (1996) pointed out that
approaches to struggling writers were haphazard, with professors often pointing out the
problematic writing after the fact through grading efforts and with little pre-preparation in
improving student writing skills. Alter and Adkins (2001) determined that the common approach
of referring students to a university writing center for assistance was unsuccessful. The authors
found that of the one third of students who entered their program with insufficient writing skills,
only 57% of these students followed up on the writing lab referral.
In light of this early work and the addition of the accreditation standards for BSW and
MSW programs, researchers are exploring how to best support individual student learning. Jani
and Mellinger (2015) conducted a qualitative study to determine perceived areas of needs for
BSW students to improve their writing. Findings included the role of clear direction and
expectations from faculty on writing assignments, the desire for external aid such as a writing
lab, acknowledgement of students’ perception of effort on writing decline due to competing life
circumstances such as family and work commitments, struggles with critical thinking on content
material, and student’s expression of low self-efficacy in writing. Woody et al. (2014) studied
the outcomes of a required writing course on 49 BSW students that focused on writing
organization, thesis statements, paragraph and sentence structure, grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and writing in American Psychological Association (APA) format. The authors
reported at the end of the course that student self-efficacy of writing increased, as did the quality
of on-demand writing samples.
30

Specific teaching strategies are also an area of exploration in the social work literature.
Grise-Owens and Crum (2012) provided an overview of their program’s approach to improving
MSW student writing through their curricular case example. The writing approaches in the
authors’ MSW program included a required professional writing course, a standard writing
rubric used across all courses, students acted as peer reviewers throughout coursework, students
were offered the writing center and a writing coach, and faculty mentored students for
professional scholarship opportunities. Ultimately, the authors reported that their program shifted
from being resistant to teaching writing skills to proactively seeing writing skills as essential to
social work practice and deserving of curricular attention. Oglensky and Davidson (2009)
presented their central approach of using rubrics in a writing course for BSW and Physician
Assistant students to teach clinical report writing skills. In their courses, the use a formative and
summative-based rubric articulated the steps in composition of a clinical record, provided
organization for teaching and learning, and served to assess student performance. The authors
reported increased self-efficacy and increased writing skills at the end of the courses. This focus
on individual student gains is critical for writing improvement, but also requires an exploration
of the specific role of faculty in increasing competency.
The Role of Social Work Faculty in Writing Proficiency
Multiple studies have highlighted the importance of faculty investment when approaching
the problem of low writing proficiency in social work students (Alter & Adkins, 2006; Kahn &
Holody, 2009; Woody et al., 2014). Common themes from the literature indicate that faculty
often report that teaching writing is not part of social work pedagogy or they do not have enough
time to teach writing (Kahn & Holody, 2009). This can manifest in some faculty spending a
significant amount of time in assisting individual students while other faculty ignore poor
31

writing, causing students to feel that standards are inconsistent and raises frustration with faculty
who have high standards (Grise-Owens & Crum, 2012). Cronley and Kilgore (2016) conducted a
study of 244 social work students (76% MSW students) and 40 faculty members and found that
faculty members had much greater concern for student writing abilities than students had of their
own writing. The authors recommended that faculty increase writing instruction and forgo the
assumption that students should already have the necessary writing skills for strong academic
and profession writing performance. They also stressed the need for additional support to faculty,
as evidenced in their finding that only 40% of their sampled faculty members received
preparation in a doctoral program in how to teach writing.
Many schools of social work have adopted a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and
Writing in the Disciplines (WID) approach to meet the needs of student writers (Horton & Diaz,
2011; Jani & Mellinger, 2015; Kahn & Holody, 2009; Kilgore et al., 2013; Kokalari et al., 2012;
Kolb, 2012; Luna et al., 2014; Moor et al., 2012). These programs are largely focused on
bachelor-level social work programs where WAC and WID programs are traditionally grounded.
These programs emphasize writing across the program’s curriculum through every course or in
targeted discipline-specific writing intensive courses, intentionally involving many faculty
members in writing instruction. Moor et al. (2012) presented an ethnographically oriented case
study focused on one BSW program’s faculty work with a WAC/WID writing consultant trained
in faculty development strategies to enhance faculty’s ability to teach writing across the
curriculum. The authors noted two main outcomes, which included improved written work from
students and faculty moving from frustration about student writing to encouragement and
excitement in their role to help students learn to write within the social work discipline. This
social work education specific literature contributes to this study, which seeks to answer two
32

questions: what are the faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing best
practices in writing instruction, and how does the UWSSW organization facilitate and hinder the
faculty’s ability to support student writers?
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Conceptual
Framework
To explore and understand faculty writing instruction practices in a comprehensive
manner, the Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’
(KMO) conceptual framework is used. Clark and Estes (2008) highlighted the need for a
systematic, analytical method to identify and clarify organizational and performance goals and
determine where gaps exist within an organization that prevent goal achievement. This method
focuses on a thorough examination of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that may affect stakeholder performance, which can assist in identifying appropriate solutions to
organizational problems and refinement of goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). By identifying the gaps,
as well as assets, in stakeholder knowledge and skills, motivation, along with organizational
processes, an organization can utilize this information to collaboratively design the most
informed and accurate recommended solution for this problem (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this
study, the KMO conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) was used to explore the
UWSSW’s faculty knowledge and skills, their motivation to achieve the stakeholder goal, and
the UWSSW’s organizational barriers to achieving the goal of improved student writing.
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization-Related Influences
The faculty stakeholder goal at UWSSW is for 100% of faculty to incorporate best
practices in writing instruction into social work coursework by 2023. This is in support of the
organizational goal of reducing the number of student writing concerns reported by faculty. To
33

be successful in achieving this goal, faculty must possess knowledge and motivation in the area
of writing instruction best practices. Importantly, organizational influences should be in
alignment to support faculty success. The following section will outline knowledge and
motivation influences as well as organizational influences on faculty success to implement best
practices in writing instruction into their coursework.
Knowledge Influences
In order to accomplish the above performance goal to assist MSW students in improving
their writing, it is important for faculty members to hold knowledge of, implement, and self-
reflect on their ability to utilize the various best practices in writing instruction. Equally
important is to understand where gaps exist in faculty knowledge and skills to utilize these best
practices. This section reviews the literature on knowledge-related influences for faculty as it
relates to achievement of the faculty stakeholder goal to incorporate writing instruction best
practices into coursework.
In order to explore faculty knowledge of best practices in writing instruction in a
comprehensive manner, Krathwohl’s (2002) framework is utilized. Krathwohl (2002)
categorized knowledge into four main types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Factual knowledge encompasses basic discrete elements such as facts, terminology, and details
that an individual must know to help solve a problem or to be acquainted with a discipline
(Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge requires the individual to understand the
interrelationships between the basic elements of factual knowledge to organize these forms of
knowledge into classifications, categories, principles, generalizations, theories, models, and
structures (Krathwohl, 2002). Combining factual and conceptual knowledge together is
declarative knowledge, defined as an individual being able to state their knowledge of facts and
34

concepts (Ambrose et al., 2010; Sternberg, 2017). Knowing how and when to do something,
including techniques, methods, and steps, is procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
Metacognitive knowledge is the ability for an individual to reflect on what they know and
through this self-reflection, adapt the ways they think and operate to carry out the task more
effectively (Krathwohl, 2002). For the purposes of this organizational analysis of the UWSSW,
with a faculty stakeholder goal of integrating best practices in writing instruction into social
work coursework, Krathwohl’s (2002) knowledge areas are explored.
Faculty Knowledge of Best Practices in Writing Instruction
Though many social work faculty may feel that teaching writing is not their role, many
writing composition experts contend that all higher education instructors, of all disciplines,
should be taking part in writing instruction (Anson, 2015; Cronley & Kilgore, 2016). Social
work faculty members may hold a graduate degree and have an appointment to teach, thus
implying that the faculty member themselves can write, but it does not mean that they possess
the knowledge to teach writing (Cronley & Kilgore, 2016). Additionally, many faculty are hired
to teach in a given discipline precisely for their disciplinary content knowledge, not for their
knowledge of how to teach this content (Major & Palmer, 2006). For social work faculty,
focusing on writing skills may also be considered outside of social work disciplinary content and
therefor add another layer of disconnect between teaching content and knowing how to teach.
Given this, faculty may lack the ability to identify “the what” of writing instruction best practices
and express difficulty discerning their writing instruction as a best practice versus simply how
they think they should engage with students around writing. It is important to gauge faculty’s
knowledge of best practices, as well as what faculty may evidence as inaccurate prior knowledge
or misconceptions about writing instruction practices.
35

Krathwohl’s (2002) framework for factual and conceptual knowledge reminds us that
social work faculty need to have a working understanding of the different approaches to teach
writing with the goal of helping students develop their skills. A uniform approach to writing
instruction does not exist, but faculty can benefit from having specific knowledge of terminology
and principles related to best practices in writing instruction. For example, faculty need to be
able to articulate their knowledge of best practices such as the use of exemplars, effective
feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and various process-oriented approaches such as drafting,
revising, and peer review. Without this declarative knowledge, faculty will not be able to
implement these practices into their coursework. This study explored what faculty members
know about best practices in writing instruction.
Implementing Writing Instruction Best Practices
Faculty knowledge of teaching practices must be considered as it helps to understand
student learning (Major & Palmer, 2002). Oleson and Hora (2014) conducted a study of 53
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty members to explore the commonly
stated ideas that “faculty teach the way there were taught” (p. 29). This qualitative study found
that some faculty do indeed model their teaching after their own past instructors’ approaches or
through their own previous experience as learners; they also draw on their experiences in their
own teaching, including a trial-and-error approach to monitor what they see leading to positive
outcomes for students, or student reactions to their teaching approaches. Shulman (1986; 1987)
identified pedagogical content knowledge, specifically knowledge of subject matter, coupled
with the knowledge about teaching practices by organizing and presenting the material to create
optimal learning comprehension for students.
36

While faculty may have expert knowledge about writing learned through repeated
practice and enculturation into their discipline, the teaching of writing and supporting student
writing development is neither intuitive nor rarely taught to faculty members (Anson, 2015).
Being able to implement best practices requires faculty to have procedural knowledge, namely
the “how to” of bringing these practices into their classrooms. Learning how to teach writing is
challenging and requires time and effort (Mullen, 2006). It also requires the knowledge of
criteria for determining when to use the appropriate writing instruction best practice. Faculty
should be able to apply their knowledge of best practices to implement practices such as the use
of exemplars, effective feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and various process-oriented
approaches such as drafting, revising, and peer review. The detriment of failing to implement
these strategies is that it may continue to center the “problem” as being owned by the student for
failing to improve their writing despite not having specific guidance from faculty (Badenhorst et
al., 2015). This study explored the degree to which social work faculty implement best practices,
including identifying which strategies, and how and when they integrate them into the classroom.
Faculty Reflecting on Their Effectiveness of Implementing Writing Instruction Best Practices
It is important for faculty to be able to reflect on the degree to which they are effective in
supporting the performance of student writers. According to Mullen (2006), “the creation of a
successful student-centered curriculum is likely to emerge from particular instructional
characteristics (notably patience, imagination, and flexibility), as well as a nonauthoritarian style
and a working knowledge of effective writing practices” (p. 3). To develop these characteristics,
faculty would benefit from thinking about what they know about writing instruction, how they
go about teaching writing, and consider how this self-reflection can assist them in further
developing their instructional practices.
37

Without self-reflection, faculty may continue to engage in unhelpful or detrimental
teaching practices, thus preventing their exploration of best practices in writing instruction. It
may be helpful for faculty to reflect on their core values on writing in social work education, as
well as in the field of social work. For example, if a faculty member does not find the possession
of strong writing skills to be of importance, this faculty member is not likely to engage in
teaching behaviors related to writing improvement for students. Faculty would also benefit from
reflecting on where they learned their approach to writing in social work practice, as well as how
they learned to teach writing. Through this metacognitive process, faculty can consider their
strengths and weaknesses so they can enhance their strengths and work to develop new skills to
addresses their weaknesses (Ambrose et al., 2010). This self-reflective practice is also important
to continually assess if what previously worked with students or for them as an instructor, may
no longer be the best approach and adjustment may be needed (Ambrose et al., 2010). Table 2
outlines three knowledge influences related to faculty knowledge of best practices in writing
instruction.

38

Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type Assumed knowledge influence
Declarative

Faculty need to be knowledgeable about best practices in
writing instruction such as use of exemplars, faculty
feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and process-oriented
approaches to improve student writing.

Procedural

Faculty members need to know how and when to implement
best practices in writing instruction such as use of
exemplars, faculty feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and
process-oriented approaches to improve student writing.

Metacognitive

Faculty need to be able to reflect on the degree to which they
are effective in supporting the performance of student
writers.

Motivation Influences
In addition to knowledge, motivation is an important influence on performance and goal
attainment. This section reviews the literature focused on motivation-related influences pertinent
to the achievement of the UWSSW faculty stakeholder goal to include writing instruction best
practices in their coursework. According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation includes three
processes: when an individual chooses to pursue a goal or fails to choose a goal (active choice),
keeps moving toward the goal or not (persistence), and their decision of how much effort to put
forth (mental effort) toward achieving the goal. When active choice, persistence, and mental
effort are engaged by an individual, combined with knowledge and skills and effective work
processes, this will lead to goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Two relevant theories of motivation are explored in this study: expectancy-value theory
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 2005). Expectancy-value theory
39

provides a framework for examining an individual’s expectations of their success in achieving a
goal or outcome, the value they place on doing a given task, how useful the task will be in
helping them meet future goals, and the costs associated with the task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
In the context of expectancy-value theory, this study examined attainment value and the cost
associated with the values held by the faculty stakeholder group. In addition, this study applied
self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy theory is a framework for understanding an
individual’s belief in their ability to behave in ways that will produce specific performance
attainments (Bandura, 1997) which lead to an individual’s choices of goals, how much effort
they invest, and how long they persevere even when met with challenges (Bandura, 2009).
Expectancy-value theory was appropriate to examine the faculty stakeholder’s capacity to meet
their goal because it frames the exploration of faculty expectations that their behavior will yield
certain outcomes and the value placed on those outcomes. The concept of self-efficacy was
selected to examine faculty members’ belief in their ability to learn and implement best practices
in writing instruction.
Faculty Attainment Value and Cost Value for Best Practices in Writing Instruction
Task values are a way for individuals to express what they believe will help them reach a
goal or task and may steer their course of action to persist even when faced with obstacles (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The importance placed on a goal is described as its subjective value and
influences an individual’s motivation to pursue this goal (Ambrose et al., 2010). According to
Eccles (1983), “the degree to which the task is able to fulfill needs, facilitate reaching goals, or
affirm personal values determines the value a person attaches to engaging in the task” (p. 89).
One element of task value is attainment value, described as the importance one places on doing
well on a given task (Eccles, 1983). This importance hinges on the individual’s view of the task
40

being central to their sense of self and in which they gain a sense of satisfaction from this
personal achievement. In relation to this study, faculty members’ success in reaching the goal of
implementing best practices in writing instruction is tied to the importance placed on this task by
faculty members. Simply, if a faculty member does not find personal value in helping students
improve their writing skills, it is unlikely that they will be motivated to learn about or implement
best practice strategies in the classroom. Faculty task value and goals may also affect student
goals and task value and therefore student motivation (Ambrose et al., 2010). For example, if a
student sees that a faculty member does not place value on the attainment of writing proficiency
in social work education, it is likely that a student will see no risk in avoiding the writing tasks
set forth.
A faculty member’s perception of the cost of achieving different goals or task activities is
an important consideration. Eccles (1983) describe three different types of costs associated with
different activities: the amount of effort required to complete a task and if it is worthwhile to the
individual (effort cost), the impact on other activities if they chose one valued task activity over
another (opportunity cost), and the psychological costs of pursuing the task (psychological cost).
The authors posited that individuals consider these questions as a cost-benefit ratio when
deciding on the value of a given task. While additional scholars have noted additional forms of
cost, for the purposes of this study, effort cost and opportunity cost will be explored. These two
forms of cost are selected for this study based on faculty having finite time with students and the
perception that teaching writing may take away from discipline specific course content (Kahn &
Holody, 2009). Faculty may also perceive the implementation of some best practices in writing
instruction to take more time than their current practices (Ambrose et al., 2010), thus indicating
an increased cost. For example, faculty members may ask themselves if the increased effort
41

required giving students more specific feedback on written assignments is worth their time and
effort. They may also ask themselves if they spend more time on writing instruction during class,
what the opportunity cost will be on other course content. This study explored the attainment
value MSW faculty members place on integrating writing improvement best practices and the
perceived costs associated with these practices.
Faculty Self-Efficacy to Implement Best Practices in Writing Instruction
A critical component of motivation research is the theory of self-efficacy, defined as
“beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce
given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). An individual’s perceived self-efficacy is in direct
alignment with active choice, persistence, and mental effort described by Clark and Estes (2008).
Individuals make decisions about which goals to work toward, how much effort to put forth, and
how long they will work toward a goal when things are difficult (Bandura, 1997). When faced
with a setback, if an individual doubts their capabilities, they will exert less effort, stop working
toward the goal, or settle for a lesser than solution (Bandura, 2009). Conversely, an individual
who strongly believes they are capable of success will continue to persevere to meet their goal
despite setbacks (Bandura, 2009). According to Bandura (1997), an individual’s self-efficacy is
developed through their consideration of four information inputs: (1) mastery experiences
whereas success boosts self-efficacy and perceived failure decreases it; (2) vicarious experiences
whereas the individual witnesses the success and failure of others therefor influencing their own
self-efficacy; (3) social persuasions are received from others; and (4) psychological and affective
states such as stress, fatigue, and mood can influence self-efficacy. These four areas are
important considerations when applying self-efficacy theory to faculty members in post-
secondary education.
42

There is a dearth of literature on self-efficacy beliefs of faculty in the postsecondary
education setting (Morris & Usher, 2011). Morris and Usher (2011) conducted a study to
investigate the sources of teaching self-efficacy of 12 associate and full professors who were
recognized for excellence in teaching. The authors utilized Bandura’s four sources of self-
efficacy for their evaluation and found the greatest influence on faculty self-efficacy to be from
mastery experiences and social persuasions. Mastery experiences included faculty feeling
successful in their teaching over time rather than being influenced by one negative or positive
teaching event. Additionally, mastery of content and mastery of pedagogical skills to teach
content were reflected. Social persuasions held significant influence as sources of increased self-
efficacy amongst the faculty, specifically teaching awards, student evaluations, student
comments, and implicit messages from students. Sadler (2013) studied the role of self-
confidence in new faculty member development and found that self-confidence was critical for
implementation of teaching strategies that actively engage students. Content knowledge and
teaching skills were also closely tied to self-confidence, with their time and experience in the
role as faculty member being key to confidence development. These studies contributed to the
structure of the current study in exploring social work faculty member’s perceived self-efficacy
to achieve the goal of integrating best practices in writing instruction into social work
coursework. Table 3 summarized the assumed influences related to the motivation of faculty
members at UWSSW.

43

Table 3
Motivation Influences
Motivation construct Motivation influence
Attainment value Faculty need to perceive implementing best practices in
writing instruction as an important aspect of their role as
faculty.

Cost value Faculty need to perceive that it is worth the effort to
implement best practices in writing instruction and that
they value implementing best practices in writing
instruction even if it takes away from other activities.

Self-efficacy Faculty need to feel confident in their ability to implement
best practices in writing instruction to improve student
writing.

Organizational Influences on Student Writing and Writing Education
While the knowledge and motivation of faculty were central to this study, faculty success
cannot be explored without an analysis of the organizational influences on the environment in
which faculty members work to achieve their goals. It is the combination of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that determine the success of an individual being able
to perform their role and meet goals within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically,
organizational influences include the organizational values and beliefs, coupled with tools,
processes, and procedures that may support or inhibit goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational influences are the integral parts of organizational culture. Schein (2017)
described organizational culture in a dynamic way:
The culture of a group can be defined as the accumulated shared learning of that group as
it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration; which has worked
44

well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, feel, and behave in relation to those problems. (p. 6)
Organizational influences within a culture can be categorized into two areas: cultural models and
cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Tied to values and beliefs, cultural models are
defined as the normative understanding of how individuals within a group perceive how things
are, or should be, and have evolved over time to create “shared ways of perceiving, thinking, and
storing possible response to adaptive challenges and changing conditions” (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). The concept of cultural models is especially significant in the higher
education setting (Kezar, 2001). Cultural settings represent the collective efforts of individuals
coming together to work toward a common goal that holds value for the group (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001) and includes the tangible tools, processes, and procedures for goal attainment
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This section examines the literature focused on organization influences
within cultural models and cultural settings as it relates to the faculty stakeholder goal of
integrating best practices in writing instruction into social work coursework.
Organizational Value of Writing Proficiency at UWSSW
In addition to faculty self-efficacy discussed above, important at the organizational level
is collective-efficacy, defined by Bandura (1997) as “a group’s shared beliefs in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainment” (p. 477). According to a study by Fives and Looney (2009), college instructors
(including graduate student instructors, lecturers, and faculty) who reported being in academic
departments with high collective-efficacy reported themselves to have higher individual self-
efficacy. This correlation reflects the interdependence of individual motivation and the cultural
model. Institutions of higher education are often compartmentalized and a common belief is that
45

if a task does not seemingly belong in one department, it must then belong to another department
(Simpson, 2012). Simpson (2012) posited that this organizational value extends to the view of
writing instruction, specifically if a department does not feel writing instruction is their
responsibility, then it must be the responsibility another part of the organizational system.
Simpson (2012) argues that graduate writing education requires a holistic approach, rather than a
compartmentalized one, to solve the problem that is affecting the entire university system.
The values and beliefs held by schools of social work may have a significant impact on
improvement of student writing, as well as faculty investment at a systemic level. Two common
schools of thought include the perception that students should arrive with strong writing skills or
conversely, believe that it is the program’s duty to develop the writing of all students (Grise-
Owens & Crum, 2012). While some social work educators have argued that applicants with
insufficient writing skills be declined for admission to social work programs, thus negating this
problem, this approach may overlook a talented and diverse pool of future social work
professionals (Dumbrigue et al., 2001). Instead, social work programs are encouraged to adopt a
systemic approach to improving social work writing as the responsibility of all within the
organization (Grise-Owens & Crum, 2012). Grise-Owens and Crum (2012) presented the
importance of engaging leadership of faculty members, socializing new faculty members into the
writing-focused culture, and the organization adopting the value that writing is part of all
instruction since it is a professional practice skill. The authors reported that this systemic
approach has promoted consistency and investment with a writing focus embedded throughout
their curriculum, leading to broad ownership within their program. Similarly, Wiener (2012)
recommended a shift in pedagogical authority from individual instructors with varying
philosophies on writing education, to a holistic approach where authority lies within the culture
46

and shared by all. This research indicated that investment at the systemic organizational level is
an important factor to effect change at the individual level. Informed by this literature, this study
explored the cultural model influence of the UWSSW’s value and prioritization of student
writing proficiency as an important aspect of social work education. This was assessed through
an exploratory examination of evidence of the school’s values relates to writing proficiency,
primarily through the faculty’s perception of such values at UWSSW.
Communicating a Commitment to Faculty
A key component of an organization’s cultural setting is communication, which can act
as a bridge to the cultural model that includes the values held by the organization. Tasked with
bringing values to the forefront through communication, organizational leaders frame values in
tangible ways that can guide the everyday work of employees (Conger, 1991). Clark and Estes
(2008) pointed out the importance of constant and candid communication from leaders to those
involved in the daily work of the organization, thus increasing trust and commitment from
employees. Further, leaders who communicate values and change efforts in an organization will
be most effective when they focus not just on the words they communicate, but also on how
employees interpret what and how it is being said (Halpern & Richards, 2012). Credible and
regular communication is necessary otherwise, “the hearts and minds of the troops are never
captured” (Kotter, 2007, p. 5).
At UWSSW, as with most institutions of higher education, faculty governance works in
tandem with school administration for visioning, change implementation, and sustaining of daily
operations. Communication may come from a variety of sources and through a diverse set of
channels. Based on the university’s shared governance model, the school administration works
with the faculty-elected curriculum council, faculty council, and research council to
47

communicate organizational operations with faculty, staff, students, and other stakeholders. Each
of these groups have a role in the communication of UWSSW’s commitment to student writing
proficiency and the support to be provided to faculty to implement best practices in writing
instruction to achieve higher proficiency. This study explored the faculty’s perception of the
frequency and clarity of communication from the school’s administration and faculty governance
bodies as it relates to faculty helping to improve student writing.
Training Needs of Faculty at UWSSW
The second cultural setting influence of focus in this study is on professional
development training. Organizations within the United States reported spending an estimated
$87.6 billion dollars on training expenditures in 2018 (Training Magazine, 2018), thus a
significant area of focus for organizational leaders. According to Clark and Estes (2008), training
is defined as “any situation where people must acquire ‘how to’ knowledge and skills, and need
practice and corrective feedback to help them achieve specific work goals” (p. 58).
Organizations should employ training methods when the organization has identified that there is
gap in knowledge and skills that cannot be rectified through other means such as providing
information or job aids that outline the steps on how to accomplish a task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Within the education setting, Elmore (2002) points out the critical element that training programs
must meet the specific needs of instructors, based on the consequences that students will suffer if
instructors do not have the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective in the classroom to
meet a higher level of performance. In turn, organizations must ensure that training that is
provided is transferable in ways that directly improves the work of the individual receiving the
training (Blume et al., 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008).
48

According to the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges
(2003), faculty should have specific training that focuses on writing as a critical tool in student
performance. This is especially important as many postsecondary faculty members do not start
out their teaching career with a firm understanding and knowledge of teaching methodology
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Morris & Usher, 2011). Further, if the organizational values of a school
do not support efforts to improve teaching, faculty may find their lack of skill demoralizing
(Ambrose et al., 2010). At the UWSSW, the faculty education level varies from those with
advanced terminal graduate degrees such as a doctorate to those hired for their practical
knowledge and experience in the field of social work who may only hold a Master of Social
Work (MSW) degree. Despite this, it cannot be assumed that faculty with a more advanced
degree are better prepared in writing instruction practice skills, value it more, or possess higher
motivation on writing instruction. Additionally, it cannot be assumed which knowledge and skill
areas that faculty at UWSSW report as areas needing further development, if any. To this end,
this study explored the faculty’s perception of the school’s commitment to assessing the training
needs and providing subsequent training to faculty in order to help improve student writing
proficiency at the UWSSW.
Allocation of Resources for Curricular Development and Implementation
The third cultural setting influence of exploration is resource allocation to fund curricular
improvements to support faculty and student writers. The act of allocating resources toward an
organizational goal is intertwined with organizational values. According to Schein (2017), the
beliefs and assumptions of a leader are revealed to those in the organization through the budgets
they create. Without the support of leadership, stakeholder goals may be unattainable, thus
impacting overall organizational goal achievement. Clark and Estes (2008) stressed that goal
49

attainment in an organization ties closely to resource allocation and a critical factor in closing the
gap between the desired state of affairs and where the organization currently resides. Similarly,
Fernandez and Rainey (2006) urged, “Failure to provide adequate resources in support of a
planned change leads to feeble implementation efforts, higher levels of interpersonal stress, and
even neglect of core organizational activities and functions” (p. 172).
Resources to increase writing proficiency in MSW students may come in the form of
purchasing existing writing program curriculum or curriculum mapping software, paying for
additional staff and faculty to implement curricular advancements, or providing course releases
for faculty to develop and teach additional curricular programming. Assessment of faculty’s gaps
in knowledge and skills and subsequent training also requires resource considerations. This study
explored the influence of resource allocation from the school to assist in faculty stakeholders
meeting the goal of implementing best practices into their coursework, and its relationship to the
organization’s goal of reducing the number of reported writing concerns. Table 4 reflects the
four organizational influences of values, communication, training, and resource allocation.

50

Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational
influence category
Organizational
influences
Cultural model influence 1 The school needs to prioritize student writing proficiency as
an important aspect of social work education.

Cultural setting influence 1 The school needs to regularly communicate a commitment to
support faculty in improving student writing.

Cultural setting influence 2 The school needs to identify the training needs of faculty
based on best practices in writing instruction and provide
training to enhance faculty knowledge and skills.

Cultural setting influence 3 The school needs to support curricular implementation via
materials and finances.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and the
Organizational Context
Guiding this study was a conceptual framework informed by the Clark and Estes (2008)
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ (KMO) framework. A conceptual
framework is a model that exemplifies what a researcher intends to study and how the key
concepts interact with one another (Maxwell, 2013). In addition, this representation forms a
tentative theory of the phenomena under study and guides the design of research questions, the
selection of research methodology, and carries through the analysis phase to lead to valid
conclusions (Maxwell, 2013).
The conceptual model for this study (Figure 1) provide a visual depiction of the
relationship between knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The organization is
represented by a large circle encompassing the key concepts within the model as the organization
51

provides the environment in which the faculty stakeholder group functions. Within this
organization environment are the cultural model and cultural setting which create the culture in
which the stakeholders operate. Faculty exists within the larger UWSSW’s environment and two
circles represent the faculty stakeholder group’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to
writing improvement within the MSW program. These circles overlap, reflecting the close
relationship between knowledge and motivation. The directional arrow directly below the large
circle indicates how the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences must converge for
achievement of the stakeholder goal of integration of best practices of writing instruction into
social work coursework. The second bottommost arrow indicates the organizational goal is
dependent upon stakeholder goal success, which stems from the larger system of the
organizational environment and faculty skills and motivation. In summary, this conceptual
framework reflects the symbiotic relationship in which the UWSSW organizational environment
influences the faculty stakeholder group in their knowledge and motivation to improve student
writing through the use of best practices in writing instruction, leading to overall student success
as proficient writers.

52

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for Assessing Stakeholder and Organizational Goals

Conclusion

CULTURAL MODEL
Organizational Value of
Writing Proficiency at
UWSSW

CULTURAL SETTING
Communicating a Commitment to Faculty
Training Needs of Faculty
Allocation of Resources
MOTIVATION

Task Value: Faculty
Attainment Value and Cost
Value of Best Practices in
Writing Instruction

Self-Efficacy: Faculty Self-
Efficacy to Implement Best
Practices in Writing
Instruction
KNOWLEDGE

Declarative: Faculty
Knowledge of Best Practices
in Writing Instruction

Procedural: Faculty
Knowledge of Best Practices
in Writing Instruction

Metacognitive: Faculty
Reflecting on Their
Effectiveness

UWSSW
Organizational Goal:
By 2024, faculty-reported writing-related concerns will decrease from 12 to six per 50 students.
Stakeholder Goal:
By 2023, 100% of faculty will integrate best practices in writing instruction into social work coursework
FACULTY
53

This literature review examined the existing literature related to student writing
proficiency in postsecondary education, specifically focused on students at the graduate level.
Postsecondary writing education was explored to review the background of writing education
and the various institutional practices that make up writing education. An extensive review of
best practices in writing instruction was conducted, with a focus on faculty use of writing
instruction as part of their coursework with students. This included a review of how faculty
articulate expectations, assess student growth and performance, and how faculty embed a
process-oriented approach to help guide students to become more proficient writers. The
literature specific to social work education was presented to provide an overview of discipline
specific writing, the best practices identified in the social work education literature, as well as the
role of social work faculty in teaching writing. Also presented was a discussion of the Clark and
Estes (2008) KMO conceptual framework, focusing on social work faculty’s knowledge and
motivation, and the UWSSW’s organizational influences related to writing proficiency.
Concluding this chapter was a review of the conceptual model that guided this study.

54

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the study was to explore and understand the University of the West
School of Social Work’s (UWSSW) faculty members’ capacity to utilize best practices in writing
instruction in their Master of Social Work (MSW) coursework with students. The data collected
helped to inform recommendations to support faculty capacity and increase organizational
performance. This chapter will present data collection, instrumentation, and analysis plans for
each research method utilized to explore the faculty’s capacity. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of the ethics and role of the researcher.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What is the faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing best practices in
writing instruction into social work coursework?
2. How does the organization facilitate and hinder the faculty’s ability to support student
writing?
Overview of Methodology
The methodological design for this study was mixed methods in order to answer the
stated research questions. Mixed methods research is utilized to collect both quantitative and
qualitative data and assumes that the collection of both data types will create additional insight
beyond what could be gleaned by quantitative or qualitative methods alone (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Palinkas et al., 2011). Quantitative methods provide breadth of understanding
whereas qualitative methods aim to provide a depth of understanding (Patton, 2002).
In relation to the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences’ (KMO)
conceptual framework utilized in this study, Clark and Estes (2008) endorsed surveys and
55

interviews as an important way to assess gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences as it relates to stakeholder and organizational goals. As such, this study utilized
quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, and document analysis. These mixed methods were
organized to explore knowledge and motivation influences within the faculty stakeholder group,
as well as the organizational influences impacting faculty success. A survey was implemented to
assess faculty motivation to implement best practices in writing instruction and to inquire about
organizational influences affecting their use of best practices. Interviews were conducted to
follow up on survey results and seek to expand the understanding of faculty motivation and
organizational influences. Additionally, interviews assessed faculty knowledge of best practices
in writing instruction as qualitative methods are helpful in understanding participant knowledge.
Document analysis was conducted to explore evidence of organizational influences related to
value placed on student writing, as well as faculty procedural knowledge in implementing
feedback based on best practices. Table 5 provides an overview of the data sources that were
utilized to answer each research question that guided this study. Data collection and
instrumentation specific to each data source are explained in subsequent sections.

56

Table 5
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview
Document
analysis
1. What is the faculty’s knowledge and
motivation related to implementing
best practices in writing instruction
into social work coursework?
X
(motivation)
X
(knowledge &
motivation)
X
(knowledge)
2. How does the organization facilitate
and/or hinder the faculty’s ability to
support student writing?
X X X

Participating Stakeholder Overview
This study was conducted at UWSSW, a school of social work that is part of a large
university located in the Western United States that offers social work degrees at the master’s
and doctoral levels in both virtual and on-campus environments. The target stakeholder group of
interest in this study was all currently employed UWSSW faculty who have taught at least one
year (defined by two or more semesters) and have taught within the previous four semesters (fall
2019, spring 2020, summer 2020, and fall 2020) in the MSW program at UWSSW. This includes
multiple faculty lines including tenure-line, full-time clinical teaching faculty, full-time field
faculty, research faculty, full-time lecturers, and adjunct faculty members (teaching in field
education and non-field coursework), totaling 195 faculty members. Faculty who teach in the
virtual setting and on-campus
2
were included in the study. Based on their unique role, doctoral

2
On March 11, 2020, the Novel Coronavirus Disease, COVID-19, was declared a pandemic by
the World Health Organization (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). As such,
faculty members who typically taught on-campus were exclusively teaching in a virtual setting
during the time of their participation.
57

students who teach in the MSW program were excluded from the study. Also excluded were
faculty who teach exclusively in the doctoral program. Additional details related to participating
stakeholders are included in the sections related to specific data instrumentation and collection.
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan
For this study, data collection was obtained through mixed methodology including the
use of a survey, interviews, and document analysis. Development of each instrument was based
on the research questions and conceptual framework guiding this study. An explanatory
sequential mixed method design approach was used. An explanatory sequential approach is a
two-phase data collection method in which the researcher collects quantitative data in phase one,
analyzes the results, and utilizes the quantitative data to inform the development of the second
qualitative phase of the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This design approach allows for the
qualitative data to help explain and deepen the understanding of the quantitative data collected in
phase one, thus it is important that the phase two qualitative participants are purposefully
sampled from the larger phase one quantitative sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This
sequence can also assist in identifying the phase two qualitative participants by creating a
purposive sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, the quantitative survey was
administered, results were analyzed, and a purposive sample was identified for inclusion in the
qualitative interviews to further deepen an understanding of data gained through survey. The
interviews also sought to understand specific faculty knowledge, as knowledge is best assessed
through a qualitative process. Document review, also qualitative in nature, included examination
of MSW course syllabi and de-identified copies of graded student writing submitted by faculty
members which were reviewed concurrently with the interview process timeline. The principal
investigator for this study conducted each method of evaluation. In this section, each data
58

collection method, instrumentation, and the analysis plan for the quantitative and qualitative
methods that make up this study will be reviewed.
Survey
A survey is a data collection instrument composed of a series of questions, primarily
quantitative in nature, which seeks to capture information not already available in other data
sources (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). A quality survey will produce rich, specific, and useful
data gleaned from the thoughtful survey designed to learn more about the attributes, behaviors,
abilities, and thoughts of the survey respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). In addition,
survey is often selected for the ease of accessing multiple participants in an economic way and
with rapid turnaround in data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this specific study, a
survey was administered to obtain quantitative data related to faculty motivation to implement
best practices in writing instruction. Additionally, the faculty’s views on organizational
influences such as communication related to the organization’s commitment to improving
student writing, training provided to faculty, and resource allocation focused on student writing
improvement was explored in the survey.
Participating Stakeholders in Survey
The faculty stakeholder group defined above was utilized for recruitment in the survey
process using a nonrandom convenience sample. A convenience sample is used by researchers
when people who are available and volunteer to participate in a study are the group selected for
participation and the researcher describes the characteristics of people participating in the study
(Fink, 2013; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). While this form of sampling does not yield
generalizable data to another population, it is a frequently used sampling technique because of
practical constraints (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
59

In line with the stakeholder criteria previously discussed, a non-random convenience
sample of participants from all faculty lines, current faculty who have taught at least one year,
and faculty who have taught in the past year provided timely data that reflected the existing
school structure and environment. In order to identify the convenience sample, a list of faculty
who taught in the MSW program in the last year (fall 2019, spring 2020, summer 2020, and fall
2020) and who taught for at least one year was generated from public course and instructor
listings on the University website. Once the final list of 195 faculty members was confirmed as
meeting criteria for this sample, an email was sent to all faculty on this list with an invitation to
participate in the survey.
Survey Instrumentation
The survey questions designed for this study aimed to collect data on the faculty
perception of student writing, faculty identification of the types of writing that is important
within the social work profession, faculty use of best practices in writing instruction, and faculty
motivation to help students improve writing through faculty use of best practices. Questions were
designed to focus on identifying the faculty’s perception of student writing proficiency as well as
on assessing motivation as it relates to the KMO influences’ framework. Additionally, unique
questions were designed to capture demographics, but also to assess the faculty respondent’s
perception of the organizational influences at UWSSW. Based on the importance of questions
needing to answer the research questions (Robinson & Leonard, 2019), all questions were
reviewed for alignment to the research questions, and more specifically to the KMO influences
that were identified in the conceptual framework.
The survey design for this study reflected the research questions and conceptual
framework, however, some questions were adapted from existing external survey measures.
60

Adapting existing measures is valuable when a subject has been well studied by others, where
existing tools are available, and where past psychometrics can assist in one’s research (Robinson
& Leonard, 2019). This survey, in part, drew from questions adapted from two existing measures
based on their availability and for the expertise in the topic of post-secondary student writing and
faculty engagement in this process. The first of these was from a doctoral dissertation published
by Miner (2018) in which the author developed and utilized a survey tool to assess social work
faculty’s perception of MSW student writing, as well as their own use of best practices in
teaching and assessing student writing. The second survey, created by Flash (2019)
3
, was crafted
to survey undergraduate faculty across disciplines to assist faculty in defining the types of
writing necessary for their particular discipline, their approach to teaching and assessing their
students’ writing, and their confidence in doing so. This study is utilized as part of the adoption
of the Writing Enriched Curriculum (WEC) discussed in chapter one. Psychometrics are not
available for any of the questions utilized from the two existing surveys, the first due to specific
constructs not being measured, the second because survey results have not been published in a
peer-reviewed journal and psychometrics were not available directly from the author. Despite the
lack of psychometrics from these existing surveys, they provided a strong foundation for the
development of this survey. To assess motivation, survey questions were adapted from the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ; Pintrich et al., 1991).
This survey instrument was a 23-item survey using nominal, ordinal, and ratio scales. All
survey questions were closed-ended, with the exception of two open-ended question related to
organizational influences. The survey was solely administered in English and did not require

3
Adapted from “Writing Enriched Curriculum Program 2019 Faculty Survey” by P. Flash, 2019.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
61

translation based on the faculty sample makeup. Appendix A reflects the survey protocol for this
study.
Survey Data Collection Procedures
It is important to describe the detailed order of procedures for survey data collection
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This includes identifying the mode of administration, timeline, and
how the data will be managed (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). This approximately 15-minute self-
administered survey was delivered through the web-based survey tool, Qualtrics
(https://www.qualtrics.com). Qualtrics was also utilized as the secure data storage location and a
backup Excel document void of identifying information will be stored on electronically via
computer and on an external encrypted and password protected drive and destroyed three years
after the dissertation defense approval date.
Following University of the West Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the survey
was conducted in fall 2020 to ensure all faculty meeting sampling criteria were available as some
faculty lines having 10-month contracts and did not return until late August 2020. Identified
participants were sent an email with an invitation to participate in the confidential survey, which
included the following: the target population, the intended use of the survey results, reasons for
participation, the deadline, informed consent information, confidentiality information, and
contact information to address any questions. The initial survey invitation and link was sent mid-
week and follow up reminders were also sent mid-week, with the survey closing three weeks
from opening to maximize the response rate. For an online survey, multiple outreaches should be
made with the desired contacts in the form of the initial invitation, multiple reminders, and a
final email thanking them for their survey completion (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Upon
completion of each survey, respondents received a “thank you” message from the Qualtrics
62

system and an email was sent to all invited survey participants one day before survey closing to
thank them for participation or to serve as a reminder about the survey closing. Of note, the
survey provided the avenue for identifying qualitative interview participants, therefore, at the
conclusion of the survey, an additional link was provided to direct participants to a separate
Qualtrics survey to provide contact information for follow up. Since the contact information was
separate from the survey, the survey results remained anonymous. This procedure will be
discussed in greater detail in the interview section.
Survey Data Analysis
Data analysis is a process which allows the researcher to create meaning from the data
that was collected and as a means to answer the identified research questions (Merriam &
Tisdale, 2016). At the conclusion of this study’s survey, data analysis commenced, first focusing
on the close-ended survey items. Applying descriptive statistics helps to describe a sample by
organizing the characteristics of data and can be done by generating the measure of central
tendency including the mean, median, and mode (Salkind & Frey, 2020). As the majority of
survey questions in this study included closed-ended ordinal items, frequency and percentage
were calculated. The quantitative data elicited from the closed-ended survey questions was
analyzed through the Qualtrics software that was also used for survey administration. The data is
reported in the narrative section of this dissertation, as well as displayed in tables and figures. As
this survey also included five open-ended question that were qualitative in nature, these items
were coded and tallied using Excel software using the same coding and categories used in the
analysis of qualitative interviews, which is discussed in the upcoming interview data analysis
section.

63

Survey Reliability and Validity
Reliability for surveys focuses on if a researcher can consistently obtain the information
each time they administer the given survey questions under the same conditions, whereas validity
is concerned with the accuracy of a study instrument measuring what is intended to be measured
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). For this study, validity was maximized through a pre-test strategy
as the survey was tested through a group of peer organizational leaders who are not part of the
study. Expert review by dissertation committee members was also conducted to assure that the
questions measured what was intended to be measured. Working to increase the participation rate
through reminders was important for reliability. In addition to the recruitment strategies and
survey reminders indicated above, the survey was formatted for ease of understanding, limiting
overwhelm, mobile-friendly, and written to an appropriate level for the audience of
postsecondary education faculty. Validity and reliability were enhanced by the adaptation of
questions from the existing valid and reliable MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991). Questions adapted
from two additional different surveys related to postsecondary student writing and faculty (Flash,
2019; Miner, 2018) were used in this survey protocol, though psychometric data was not
available for the survey questions utilized to further support reliability and validity.
Interview
Qualitative research, often conducted through interviews, helped deepen the meaning that
was made from the surveys conducted in the first phase of research, as well as explored the
knowledge that faculty members possess related to best practices in writing instruction.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “qualitative researchers are interested in how people
interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to
their experiences” (p. 15). Thus, a quantitative survey alone may miss the nuances of a research
64

participant’s experience and perceptions and interviews may help develop more detailed
descriptions (Weiss, 1994). Additionally, knowledge of the subject matter can very difficult to
assess through a survey, and as Weiss (1994) posited, interviews can help increase a researcher’s
understanding through an interviewee describing their processes of how to complete a task.
Qualitative interviews may also help develop a holistic description by gaining further insight into
how a system works or fails to work (Weiss, 1994). With this in mind, the mixed methods of
survey and interview can help a researcher understand the complex organizational gaps that may
exist. This section will outline the interview participants and methodology for this study.
Participating Stakeholders in Interviews
Interview participants were recruited through the initial survey where they could
volunteer to participate in an interview by completing a second follow up Qualtrics survey,
which was separate from the anonymous survey data. Prospective interview participants already
met criteria for the stakeholder group of focus discussed earlier as interview participants were all
selected through the survey. The separate brief questionnaire asked participants to report their
contact information (name and preferred method of contact) to arrange the interview date and
time. Twenty-seven faculty volunteered to participate in the interview process, and were
identified by which faculty line each volunteer was a member. Three faculty were removed from
participation in the interviews due to holding an administrative appointment, with little
classroom teaching despite meeting the requirements for study participation. In order to meet
saturation, representation of at least four participants in three faculty lines were identified: full-
time clinical teaching, full-time field faculty, and adjunct faculty. One tenure-line faculty
member also volunteered to participate. In order to have four participants in each line, plus one
tenure-line faculty, random sampling was conducted with the adjunct faculty line, as well as field
65

faculty line, resulting in four full-time field faculty, four full-time clinical teaching faculty, four
adjunct faculty, and one tenure-line faculty. Faculty who were not included in the random sample
were notified via their preferred contact method. This purposeful sampling approach was based
on the investigator’s desire to select a sample in which diverse participant insight could be
discovered, gained, and understood (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) while also accounting for
saturation where enough data could be collected in a category where additional data no longer
sparks new insights (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Interview Instrumentation
This interview protocol used a semi-structured approach, which helped identify general
areas of exploration with all participants, where flexibility allowed for further examination of the
participant’s world view or new ideas (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) described a
general interview guide approach where questions to be explored with each participant are
outlined in advance and can be used as a checklist to make sure all topic areas are covered.
Probing questions or gestures can be utilized to seek clarification or extrapolation (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). This semi-structured approach was selected over a highly structured
one in order to gain as much in-depth information from participants as possible.
The Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences’ (KMO) conceptual model
(Clark & Estes, 2008) formed the framework for this study and guided the development of the
interview protocol. Content for this interview protocol included open-ended singular questions
that were informed by Patton’s (2015, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) six type of interview
questions, with primary focus on experience and behavior questions, opinions and values
questions, and knowledge questions. These types of questions were selected to explore the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of faculty at the UWSSW. The
66

participant’s declarative knowledge of different types of best practices in writing instruction,
their procedural knowledge of how to implement these strategies, and their metacognitive
process to reflect on their effectiveness, were explored. The motivation-related influences of task
value (including attainment value and cost value) and self-efficacy was assessed via questions
that ask the participant to describe their motivation to implement best-practice strategies and
their level of confidence to do so. Additionally, the interviewee’s perceptions of the
organization’s values (cultural model) and resources (cultural setting) toward student writing
proficiency were also assessed. Appendix B includes the interview protocol for this study.
Interview Data Collection Procedures
Interviews took place during the fall semester of 2020, following the survey. The
interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes with the review of the information sheet prior to
recording. Interviews were conducted via Zoom in a secure office, a quiet private space separate
from other offices and residence. Verbal permission to record (audio and visual) was gained and
the Zoom transcription function and use an external voice recorded as a backup recording device
were utilized. Participant names were not used to identify the Zoom meeting link and subsequent
recording name. Patton (2002) recommends the use of shorthand notes to locate important quotes
from a recording and to help formulate new questions and adaptations to questions during an
interview. Verbatim notes may also impact attentive listening and eye contact (Patton, 2002). As
such, only shorthand notes were taken during the interviews. An exception would have been
made if any participants declined to be recording, but this did not occur, therefore, verbatim
notes were not necessary.
The Zoom recording will be maintained and accessed in a university password protected
Zoom account and only the Zoom audio file were downloaded for transcription purposes.
67

Directly following interviews, the external recording was uploaded to a password protected
laptop for storage and the recording promptly deleted from the external voice recorder. The
Zoom audio recordings were sent to Rev (rev.com) transcription service and upon return, the de-
identified transcripts were saved to a password protected laptop and also saved to an external
encrypted and password protected external hard drive. Following an interview, Patton (2002)
suggests that a post-interview review be completed to record details including observations about
the interview, how the participants reacted to questions, the researcher’s personal reflections on
the process of asking questions, and notes on the rapport that was present during the interview.
This post-interview was completed, with reflection on the quality of information that was
received and observations about any problems that arose (i.e., poorly worded questions,
redundancy, rapport problems). Interview participants were emailed a $5.00 Starbucks gift card
upon completion of the interview as a token of appreciation.
Interview Data Analysis
Qualitative research is emergent, in that data analysis should be simultaneous with data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Upon completion of the first interview, a researcher can
begin rudimentary analysis of this interview by documenting reflections, potential themes, ideas,
and other information that may inform subsequent interviews. The same is done with the future
interviews, each taking into account the interview data that came before (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Using the interview transcripts and notes that emerge through the data collection and
concurrent analysis, the data were coded to identify categories whereby the coded data could be
organized. Coding using a priori coding, the development of codes based on predetermined
categories, as well as open coding where codes emerge from the data, can be utilized in tandem
(Gibbs, 2018).
68

The coding and categorization of variables for this study were guided by the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences outlined in the study’s conceptual framework. These
influences were identified as predetermined a priori codes. The knowledge influences include
declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge. Motivation related influences are task
value (including attainment value and cost value) and self-efficacy. Organizational influences
include those related to the cultural model (organizational values) and cultural setting
(communication, training, and resource allocation). Additional open codes were developed based
on emerging information that did not relate directly to the predetermined codes, but were
thematically important to this study. Document analysis, another form of qualitative research,
was also utilized in this study and is discussed in a subsequent section, along with the ways in
which the study’s quantitative and qualitative data analysis were interrelated to create this mixed
methods study.
Interview Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility, like validity discussed in quantitative research, asks if the data presented are
true and match reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Trustworthiness describes qualitative research
results that are consistent and dependable in measuring the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). While it is sometimes compared to the concept of reliability used in quantitative research,
trustworthiness acknowledges that based on the organic nature of human behavior that is
measured in qualitative research, a qualitative study that is repeated would not produce the same
results in ways that a quantitative method can (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In quantitative
research, approaches and techniques are employed through study design to maximize validity
and reliability, where qualitative research includes more room for researcher interpretation
69

threatening credibility and trustworthiness (Gibbs, 2018). Therefore, qualitative researchers have
identified critical ways to mitigate threats to credibility and trustworthiness.
In order to maximize credibility, a study can incorporate triangulation through the use of
survey, interview, and document review, thus answering to multiple methods and multiple
sources of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Researcher positionality must also be disclosed by
explaining any biases or assumptions that exist within the research process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) while also acknowledging that the researcher is not separate from the world that they study
(Maxwell, 2013). Lastly, the dissertation committee conducted peer review. Along with
triangulation, peer review, and researcher positionality, trustworthiness was further enhanced by
keeping a robust audit trail, with inclusion in the methodology section as well as appendices to
explain research processes. Rich, thick description is used to provide readers enough information
to determine if this research content matches their situation and thus allows for transferability to
their circumstances (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Seeking maximum variation in sampling is
important to help consumers of the research be able to apply the findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Document Analysis
Documents refer to a range of written, visual, digital, and other forms of materials that
are sources of data, usually already in existence, that may help deepen a research study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Document review allows a researcher to see forms of documentation that may
include the language of participants in which they may have given attention to in unobtrusive
ways (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This form of data collection can also present limitations in
that it may not represent all study participants or be an accurate representation of the stakeholder
group (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
70

This study included analysis of existing documents at the UWSSW. Course syllabi from
30 social work courses were reviewed, and 29 accepted for analysis, reflecting the majority of
UWSSW MSW coursework. Course syllabi were collected via the University website where
syllabi are provided and for four unobtainable syllabi, a program staff member tasked with
maintaining all current syllabi provided the remaining syllabi. A second type of document
analysis included de-identified copies of graded student writing which were submitted by faculty
members. These graded writing samples were requested of faculty members who participated in
the interview process.
The first type of document analysis, syllabi review, was used to triangulate data collected
from survey and interviews in an effort to determine how much of a student’s grade was
dependent on written assignments, if expectations about writing quality was indicated, if rubrics
were found on the syllabi, and to explore evidence of the use of best practices in writing
instruction into MSW coursework. Reviewing for best practices included the use of exemplars,
instructor feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and faculty using a process-oriented approach
including drafting, revising, and peer review. It is of consideration that the documents related to
each course may reflect the lead instructor’s intentions for the course execution, but may not
reflect the behavior of each faculty member teaching the course. As such, syllabi review was
completed to explore organizational influences related to writing instruction. Review of de-
identified student writing samples with faculty feedback was completed to explore faculty
procedural knowledge related to providing feedback to student writers. Specifically, this
document analysis explored the following: the frequency of written comments about student
writing, comments about content, the frequency of comments of praise and forms of criticism
71

without specific feedback, the frequency of sentence-level editing, and the use of summative
feedback with comments related to writing.
Document Data Collection Procedures
Because documents are not generally created for research purposes, it is possible that the
information contained in the documents may not lead to useful data, but conversely can be a
strong source of evidence in support of the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Syllabi were
collected or requested after conclusion of the survey and were analyzed after the interview
period. As with other forms of data, the documents are maintained on a password protected
computer and in a password protected and encrypted external hard drive. Prior to analysis, course
names and numbers and any names of faculty associated with the documents, were removed and
the document given an unidentifiable name. Writing samples from faculty members were
collected after interviews and were reviewed to ensure full de-identification of student and
faculty member name. Data analysis was conducted in Microsoft Excel and stored on a computer
and password protected and encrypted external hard drive. These documents will be destroyed
three years after the date dissertation defense approval. Appendix C includes the document
analysis protocol for this study.
Document Data Analysis
Qualitative document analysis is not drastically different than interview procedures in
that data collection is guided by research questions and emerging findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Upon collection of the syllabi, these documents were reviewed and coded based on
predetermined categories from the document analysis protocol and open coding allowed for
emergent themes related to the use of best practices in writing instruction. The use of best
practices as evidenced in the documents allowed for exploration of the research question related
72

to organizational influences that facilitate or hinder the faculty’s ability to support student
writing. Of note, the syllabus for each course was developed by a faculty lead instructor and
implemented by other faculty members, thus the syllabus may reflect the lead instructor’s
motivation more fully than all faculty using the syllabus. Additionally, all syllabi must be
approved by the School of Social Work curriculum council. As such, syllabi review was
concluded to be best evaluated as the organizational influences on faculty’s ability to support
student writing rather than assessed at the individual faculty level. The second form of document
analysis included review of de-identified student writing samples with faculty feedback. These
documents were provided by faculty interviewees who volunteered to provide a student writing
sample with their feedback. Upon collection of the writing samples, the documents were
reviewed and coded based on predetermined categories from the document analysis protocol.
In consideration of all forms of data collection and findings of this mixed methods study,
the qualitative themes from document review, interviews, and quantitative data collected from
survey were compared and contrasted for triangulation of data. Triangulation is an important
strategy for increasing the credibility of a research study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Triangulation of data can assist in confirming accuracy of the researcher’s interpretation by
providing a different viewpoint for which to view the data (Gibbs, 2018). Additionally, it can
provide the researcher the ability to assess if participants are consistent in what they say and do
(Gibbs, 2018). In this study, survey data were used to assist with organization of themes
emergent from interviews and document analysis informed interpretation of interview responses
and contextualized survey data.

73

Ethics and Role of Researcher
Ethical considerations need to be anticipated throughout all stages of the research
process: prior to, at the beginning, during data collection and analysis, and in the final stages of
reporting, sharing, and storing of the research data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In order to
ensure that no research participants are harmed as a result of a study, Rubin and Rubin (2012)
recommend the following principles to guide a study including human participants: (1) show
respect to participants and conduct the study void of deceit; (2) honor promises by the researcher
doing what they say they will do, including protecting confidentiality; (3) do not pressure
participants in any way; and (4) do no harm including not exploiting participants or causing harm
directly or indirectly and at the same time, not harming the consumer of the research findings. In
order to mitigate any harm to human beings, institutional review boards (IRBs) and professional
societies that maintain a formal code of ethics can help guide a researcher’s methodology
(Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
As human participants were engaged in this study, it was ensured that no participants
were harmed in the process of this study. No interaction with participants took place related to
the study and no data was collected prior to UW IRB approval. In an effort to ensure no negative
experiences with this research, each participant was provided with an informed consent
information sheet crafted from the UW IRB-provided template (for survey and interview)
describing the purpose of the study, the confidential and voluntary nature of their participation,
and any risks associated with participation. These informed consent information sheets were
provided to faculty prior to their participation in the survey and the interview. Specifically, the
survey information sheet provided at time of survey invitation explained that all survey data
would be collected anonymously and information gathered to volunteer for the interviews would
74

be maintained separately from the survey to protect anonymity. The interview information sheet,
provided and reviewed prior to commencement of the survey, explained that identifying
information about interview participants would not be shared or stored. Once the interview
participants were provided the information sheet and were assured of their voluntary role in the
study, the interview participants were asked for verbal yes or no consent to proceed with the
interview and if they consented to audio and video recording. Transcription of the surveys were
conducted by a third-party transcriptionist, Rev (rev.com), and any identifying information was
removed prior to sending for transcription. Interview participants received a $5 gift card as a
token of gratitude, emailed upon completion of the interview; participants did not have to answer
all questions to receive the card. For the document review portion of this study, any documents
that contained faculty or student names were de-identified prior to analysis to minimize bias or
unnecessary access to personal information. All study data is maintained on a password protected
computer and password protected and encrypted external hard drive. In the final stages of a
research study, dissemination of findings must also be conducted in an ethical manner by
assuring the confidentiality of participant identity (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
While the above ethical considerations guided my research, it is important to note that I
have a professional relationship with the organization in which this study took place. While I
have a vested interest in the results as it relates to faculty and students receiving the best possible
educational supports related to writing, I received no direct personal benefit from this study
related to employment. I hold no supervisory role over potential research participants and no
faculty members were coerced into participating in the study. Study participation by the faculty
stakeholder group did not impact future promotion or retention.
75

Because of the subjective nature of this study, primarily in the interviews and document
analysis, I accounted for assumptions and biases that are present or arose and worked to mitigate
the impacts of these. I want to first recognize that I examined the data and conducted the survey,
interviews, and document analysis through my White, middle class lens, reflecting a privilege
that not all faculty participants or future consumers of my research will share. Due to the size and
unique characteristics of the school of social work of focus, despite efforts to protect the school’s
anonymity, there is potential for organizational recognition in which information perceived to be
negative could affect the school’s reputation and enrollment. In order to protect the organization
involved in the study, a pseudonym was used throughout the study, and identifying descriptors
were excluded.
In consideration of reliability and validity, as well as credibility and trustworthiness, there
are several ethical obligations to remain mindful of. One such consideration is the relationship
between myself as researcher and the faculty stakeholder group of focus. Interviews, in
particular, should be approached with a recognition of an inherent power imbalance between
researcher and participant (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In the interview processes, faculty
participants may have felt the need to adapt their answers to fit what they believe I want to hear
or report in ways that are socially desirable. As such, pilot testing and peer review of the survey
questions can help identify areas of concern regarding positionality, power, and ethics and
adaptations based on feedback can be made to mitigate this (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
Triangulation of three data sources assisted in mitigating researcher bias. Because the survey was
a voluntary, confidential, self-administered online survey, the risk of this was lower than the
interviews. Accompanying the invitation to participate in the survey and included in the
interview consent process, a clear explanation was provided that this research was conducted as
76

part of my doctoral studies. Overall, the goal of this study was to focus on the faculty’s
experience with writing instruction in the UWSSW, not as a means to form judgements of
specific faculty members. With the focus on results and conclusions drawn from the data, it was
my aim to make recommendations that are helpful to the organization in meeting its stated
performance goal related to improving MSW student writing proficiency.

77

Chapter Four: Results and Findings

The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to the University of the West School of Social Work’s (UWSSW) ability to
meet its organizational goal of reducing the number of student writing concerns indicated by
faculty members at midterm. Specifically, it aimed to understand the UWSSW’s faculty
members’ capacities to utilize best practices in writing instruction in the Master of Social Work
(MSW) coursework with students. This study utilized the Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization Influences’ (KMO) conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) to guide the
explanatory sequential mixed methods design utilizing survey, interviews, and document
analysis. The questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What is the faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing best practices in
writing instruction into social work coursework?
2. How does the organization facilitate and hinder the faculty’s ability to support student
writing?
Participating Stakeholders

The stakeholder participants in this study were faculty members from the Master of
Social Work (MSW) program at UWSSW. Specific criteria were identified that guided the
invitation to participate in the study. Participants were all currently employed UWSSW faculty
who at the time of the study had taught at least one year (defined by two or more semesters) and
taught within the previous four semesters (fall 2019, spring 2020, summer 2020, and fall 2020)
in the MSW program at UWSSW. Multiple faculty lines were represented in the study: tenure-
line, full-time clinical teaching faculty, full-time field faculty, full-time lecturers, and adjunct
78

faculty members. Faculty who taught both in the virtual setting and on-campus
4
were represented
in the study. Based on their unique role, doctoral students who taught in the MSW program were
excluded from the study, as were faculty who taught exclusively in the doctoral program.
Though invited, research faculty who also taught in the MSW program did not choose to
participate in the study. Faculty gender, race, ethnicity and other demographics were not
collected as part of this study to ensure participant anonymity.
Survey Participants

Sixty faculty members (N = 60) participated in the survey conducted in fall 2020. The
survey was sent to 195 faculty members meeting the criteria, thus resulting in a 30.8% response
rate. Table 6 describes the demographic characteristics of survey participants. Within the
population of survey respondents, length of employment ranged from four to 20 or more years,
with the largest number of participants falling in the range of four to 11 years of employment
(76.67%) at UWSSW. Diverse faculty lines were represented: tenure-line (10%), full-time
clinical teaching faculty (13.33%), full-time lecturer (8.33%), full-time field faculty (33.33%),
adjunct teaching field courses (16.67%), and adjunct teaching non-field courses (18.33%). Of the
60 survey respondents, 43.33% of faculty held appointments to predominantly teach on the
physical campus, and 56.67% were appointed to primarily teach in the UWSSW virtual program.

4
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty members who typically teach on-campus were
exclusively teaching in a virtual setting during the time of their participation.
79

Table 6
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants, N = 60
Characteristics n % N
Length of
employment

1-3 years
4-7 years
8-11 years
12-15 years
16-19 years
20+ years

0
18
28
6
3
5
0
30
46.67
10
5
8.33
Faculty title

Predominant
teaching location
Tenure-line
Full-time clinical teaching faculty
Full-time lecturer
Full-time field faculty
Adjunct – field courses
Adjunct – non-field courses

On-campus program
a

Virtual program
6
8
5
20
10
11

26
34
10
13.33
8.33
33.33
16.67
18.33

43.33
56.67
a
At time of study, all faculty were teaching virtually due to COVID-19 pandemic, despite
teaching assignment location.

Interview Participants
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 individuals (N = 13) who volunteered to
participate following the completion of survey, thus meeting the initial selection criteria.
Fourteen additional faculty volunteered to participate, but following random sampling by faculty
line and removing three faculty with administrative appointments, these volunteers were not
included. Of the 13 interview participants, four were adjunct faculty, two teaching field courses
and two teaching non-field courses. For faculty participants teaching clinical and other non-field
coursework in the MSW program, one was tenure-line faculty, one full-time lecturer, and three
full-time clinical teaching faculty. The remaining four interview participants were full-time field
80

faculty. Table 7 identifies the interview participants with assigned gender-neutral pseudonyms
and their faculty line. Additional background information, such as the faculty member’s
professional background, length of employment, teaching location, or specific classes taught,
were excluded to protect anonymity. In total, at the time of the study, all faculty interview
participants had taught in the MSW program at UWSSW for at least five years and represent
both on-campus and virtual locations.

Table 7
Characteristics of Interviews Participants, N = 13
Participant Faculty title Notes
Jamie
Marion
Campbell
Kim

Tracy
Gray
Robin
Casey
Lee

Kelly
Noel
Finley
Jesse
Adjunct
Adjunct
Adjunct
Adjunct

Full-time lecturer
Tenure-line
Full-time clinical teaching
Full-time clinical teaching
Full-time clinical teaching

Full-time field faculty
Full-time field faculty
Full-time field faculty
Full-time field faculty

Two adjuncts teaching field
coursework, two teaching
clinical coursework

Multiple faculty lines
represented but all teaching
clinical coursework (non-field
courses)

Specific faculty line teaching
only field coursework

81

Data Analysis Overview
Quantitative analysis was conducted utilizing Qualtrics where descriptive statistics were
generated for the motivation and organization-related influences collected via the 22-item
survey. Qualitative findings were generated from three primary sources: five open-ended survey
questions, interviews, and document analysis. The open-ended survey responses were
downloaded from Qualtrics and coded in Excel based on a priori and open codes guided by the
motivation and organizational influences. Additional findings from 13 interviews, ranging
approximately 45-75 minutes in length, were analyzed in Atlas.ti 8.0 by coding transcripts using
a priori codes for knowledge, motivation, and organization-related influences, as well as open
codes for additional findings. Document analysis of 29 course syllabi was conducted using Excel
for tabulating and analyzing syllabi content per the document analysis protocol. Six de-identified
student writing samples with faculty feedback, provided by five of the interviewed faculty, were
coded by hand based on the document analysis protocol.
Contextual Results and Findings of Faculty Mixed Perceptions about the Problem of
Student Writing Proficiency
Determining the faculty’s perception of student writing proficiency at the UWSSW was
an important first step prior to exploring the faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of
the organization related to student writing proficiency and the use of best practices in writing
instruction. To gain insight into the faculty’s perception of the problem, a multiple-choice survey
question asked faculty to describe the overall quality of MSW student writing in the past one to
three years. Of the total 60 survey responses, only 30% of respondents (n = 18) reported that
overall MSW student writing performance over the past one to three years met their expectations
for students at the master’s level. Sixty percent of faculty (n = 36) reported that MSW student
82

performance does not consistently meet expectations, and 6.67% (n = 4) answered that MSW
student performance regularly fails to meet expectations (3.33% (n = 2) reported they were
unable to generalize).
Qualitative findings from interviews provided a deeper and more nuanced exploration
into the faculty’s perception of student writing proficiency. Interview participants were asked to
consider their recent experience with MSW writers and to provide an estimated percent of how
many students they felt possessed adequate writing skills for their participation in their MSW
education. Overall, respondents reported that approximately 70-90% of students’ skills were
adequate or above, with only one faculty member reporting 50% of students having adequate
writing skills. Most participants described a range of writing levels. Gray described “a bi-modal
thing going on in our school,” with some students very well-prepared writers, whereas “10 or
15% are really remedial.” Similarly, Kim and Jesse described a bell curve in their classes, with a
few outstanding writers, the majority with adequate skills, and a few students who struggle with
writing. Some faculty also noted that the level of writing proficiency varied based on where
students were in the program. Marion articulated that they see more writing concerns in the first
year of the two-year program, but also noted “student writing does get better over the semester.”
As a faculty member teaching in the first and second year of the program, Tracy discussed
students need to learn “how to be in graduate school and how to write at a graduate level” and
that their focus with second year students shifts due to improved writing proficiency.
Organization of Results and Findings
The results and findings of this study are organized by the two guiding research questions
that encompass the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that stem from the
KMO conceptual framework. Quantitative and qualitative findings are presented for each
83

influence, specifically by influence type, per the conceptual framework and in the order
presented in Chapter Two. Data analysis resulted in identifying assets or needs in each of the
influence areas and are described in detail, supported by quantitative results from surveys and
qualitative findings via survey open-ended questions, interviews, and document analysis. For the
purpose of making recommendations, each influence was categorized as generally an asset or
generally a need, though variations within an influence existed and are described in detail.
What is the Faculty’s Knowledge and Motivation Related to Implementing Best Practices
in Writing Instruction into Social Work Coursework?
In order for faculty to be successful in achieving their goal of implementing best practices
in writing instruction, faculty must hold knowledge of, implement, and self-reflect on their
ability to implement these best practices. In addition to faculty knowledge, motivation is a
critical component in the faculty’s goal attainment. This study aimed to answer the research
question related to the faculty’s knowledge of and motivation for implementing best practices
into their MSW coursework.
Knowledge Influences’ Findings
In this study, faculty knowledge was explored through qualitative interviews and
document review of de-identified student writing samples with instructor feedback. Specifically,
findings related to the UWSSW faculty’s declarative knowledge, their ability to state their
knowledge of facts and concepts related to writing instruction practices, is presented. Faculty
procedural knowledge of when and how to implement writing instruction techniques is combined
with their declarative knowledge due to the close nature of faculty discussing their knowledge of
a practice and their reported use of the practice. Where and how faculty learned to use their
writing instruction practices is also explored. Concluding this section is a report on the findings
84

of faculty’s metacognitive knowledge, reflecting on knowing and then adapting their strategies to
increase effectiveness.
Faculty Varied Beliefs about Their Role in Writing Instruction
Prior to exploring the interview participants’ declarative knowledge of specific best
practices in writing instruction, the faculty’s perception of their role in the writing instruction
process was analyzed. As seen in Table 8, analysis of the 13 interview participants’ beliefs about
their role in writing instruction revealed varied findings. The findings suggest that of the faculty
interviewed, all stated that they did not see their role as being a writing instructor, specifically.
Three faculty members, Marion, Kim, and Gray, were articulate in stating that it was not
their role to focus on writing instruction, and helping students to improve specific writing skills
should primarily be provided by outside supports. Marion discussed their desire for students to
be effective communicators, and stated their approach as identifying student writing
“vulnerabilities” and encouraging them to utilize outside resources. More specifically, Marion
added, “One of the things I stay to students is ‘you are professionals. You are training for a
professional career. If you are unable to write effectively, then you’re going to have to take
responsibility for enhancing your skills.’” Similarly, Gray discussed the strong desire for
students to be the best writers they could be, but since Grey did not see themselves as a “writing
teacher,” they strongly encouraged the use of outside resources provided by the school. Kim
presented a slightly different take on their role of writing instruction in the MSW classroom. In
Kim’s experience, students were not receptive of feedback specific to writing “so I don’t really
think that it should be the faculty’s role… I think it’s too close of a relationship for the faculty to
be giving the feedback.” They suggested that students may be more open to hearing feedback
85

from an outside writing support resource “because it’s not somebody that has any control over
their grade, it’s just simply someone trying to help them out.”
Conversely, while all agreed that they were not writing instructors, Campbell, Tracy,
Noel, and Jesse articulated that it is their role to help students when they are struggling with
writing. Campbell discussed that ideally, students would arrive to the MSW program with the
skills necessary, but feels “there’s a reality we have to face” in the need to help students become
social workers, which includes improving their writing skills. They discussed it as a shared
responsibility between faculty and support services such as writing support program staff. Tracy
felt that it would be ideal if writing instruction was not part of the faculty role, but also
recognized that there are many things that could be identified as outside the role of faculty but
still need to be addressed by faculty. Jesse, like Tracy, discussed that it becomes the faculty
member’s role to support writing improvement when students are struggling and felt it is the
ethical approach because social workers must be able to write well. They added, “they [students]
can’t all be marched off to a writing lab, and they wave a magic wand and they come out
writers” and felt that since faculty are in the moment with students and their writing, that it is the
faculty member’s role to help them and not “pass the buck.” Similarly, Noel expressed that it
becomes the role for faculty if students are struggling with their writing:
In our program, we test the depths of writing at every turn. I mean, with lengthy term
papers and reflection papers and analyses of policies and all sorts of things. And so, they
can't get around it—they can't hide from it—so they become quite exposed. And I think at
that point, what do we do with that? When they're really exposed at that point, I think
somebody has to step in and do and say something. And we are not of the power to say,
‘Well, you really aren't hacking it at this level and so, you should go.’ So, I think we kind
86

of have to work with what we've been given at that point. At least, that's the way that I've
sort of settled into it as a professional. Do I think that that's our role? I actually don't
necessarily think it's our role, but I think we have been put in a position where it becomes
our role if a student is really struggling.
While similarities about the role of faculty in writing improvement were expressed by all 13
interviewees, differences in approach also existed. When writing instruction is seen as outside
the role of MSW faculty, they may experience a disconnection between social work content
knowledge, and their knowledge of how to teach in ways that improve writing, including writing
instruction practices.

Table 8
Summary of Faculty Role Perception of Writing Instruction
Participant Role perception Example quote
Jamie

Marion

Campbell

Kim

Tracy

Not their role

Not their role

Is their role

Not their role

Is their role

“I think my role is more focused about getting them how to
practice social work day-to-day and to be a good social
worker.”

“I think my job is to identify where their [writing]
vulnerabilities are and encourage them to take advantage
of the resources.”

“I think there’s a reality we have to face—that they need
help and if we are going to help them become social
workers, that’s an important part of what you’re trying
to train them to do.”

“I don’t think students are open to hearing it [writing
feedback] from me.”

“To help them become better writers, I mean, how is in any
part of academia that not part of your job?”

87

Participant Role perception Example quote
Gray

Robin

Casey

Lee

Kelly

Noel

Finley

Jesse
Not their role

Mixed report of
their role

Is their role

Mixed report of
their role

Is their role

Is their role

Mixed report of
their role

Is their role
“I wasn’t in a position, nor do I think we should be in any
position, to teach students how to write, but we should
be critical evaluators of their writing skills.”

“It’s not my role to be an English teacher, but I still have to
give feedback on their writing…and provide referrals to
writing supports.”

“Our role is to develop their multiple skillsets and help
them become the best social worker they can possible
be. And in my opinion, writing is a part of that.”

“If I ask ‘what are we here for?,’ I don’t think that’s
[writing instruction] really part of our role,” but also see
students who struggle with writing and “it left me in a
place of not knowing exactly what to do because I feel
like they really needed that support…I feel like, well, I
need to address content and the assignment itself. I can’t
also be a writing instructor.”

“I think in order to be a good social worker, you should
have some writing skills in order to communicate… and
that’s an important skill for us social workers to have.
So, because of that, I think it’s important for us as
faculty members to at least have some baseline
expectations of writing skills.”

“Somebody has to step in and do and say something… do I
think that’s our role? I actually don’t necessarily think
it’s our role, but I think we have been put in a position
where it becomes our role if a student is really
struggling.”

“Well, I don’t like to teach writing because it takes so long
to grade a paper. It could take three hours instead of half
an hour. But I usually can’t help myself and I will
correct punctuation for maybe the first three paragraphs,
and then just stop to give the student the idea. And then I
would recommend them to the writing center.”

“It’s maybe not your responsibility, but it’s ethical,
because you can’t have people out being social workers
that can’t write… they can’t all be marched off to a
writing lab, and they wave a magic wand and they come
out writers. Somebody has to help them, and you’re in
88

Participant Role perception Example quote
the moment—you have them writing in the moment—
you have that opportunity to help them figure it out. If
you just pass the buck, then the buck’s probably just
going to be passed and no one’s going to take the buck.”

Faculty Varied Levels of Knowledge of Best Practices in Writing Instruction
During the interviews, faculty were asked to discuss their knowledge of instructional best
practices that exist to help students further develop their writing proficiency. An initial open-
ended question was asked to solicit faculty knowledge of writing instruction practices: “Tell me
about any recommended writing instruction practices you are aware of, regardless of whether
you currently implement them.” Overwhelmingly, faculty indicated that they either lacked self-
efficacy in naming best practices related to writing instruction or, if they engaged in practices
around student writing, whether the practices they engaged in would be considered best
practices. Tracy stated, “I mean, I can tell you what I do, and I don’t know whether—I’ve just
kind of stumbled into these things—I don’t know if there’s a name for these things” and later
added, “I’m kind of like the person who can play an instrument, but never took lessons. I can’t,
in a scholarly way, describe some of the things I do.” Similarly, Lee felt that they can articulate
the practices that “have helped me along the way,” but does not know that they are best practices
in writing instruction. Also supporting this finding, Jesse stated, “Instructional practices? I don’t
know that I know any formal names. I know just the process of helping someone figure out how
to write.”
Despite difficulty in naming instructional best practices when directly asked, faculty
participants were able to identify several of the instructional practices selected from the
literature: use of exemplars, faculty feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and using a process-
89

oriented approach such as drafting and revision and peer review as part of the course content.
These examples emerged when faculty discussed their own approach with students, thus
reflecting procedural knowledge, despite their inability to declare knowledge of a specific best
practice. Interview questions about knowledge of best practices were open-ended and only one
questions asked directly about a specific best practice: use of rubrics that include specific content
about writing quality. Based on these data, it appears that the lack of discussion of specific best
practices by some faculty members during the interviews does not indicate that the faculty
member does not have knowledge of the practice, rather that they did not include this
information during the interview. The following sections will review faculty’s stated knowledge
of each practice, as well as their understanding of how and when to utilize such practices. Table
9 provides an overview of the faculty’s stated knowledge of each best practice, and their use of
these best practices in writing instruction as presented in interviews. This section also presents
the findings from the document analysis of de-identified writing samples with faculty feedback.
Concluding this section are the findings of where and how faculty reported learning about
writing instruction practices.

90

Table 9
Faculty Members’ Knowledge of and Use of Best Practices in Writing Instruction, N = 13
Instructional practice
Identified
practice

% N

Reported use
of practice

% N

Use of exemplars
Providing feedback

Rubrics with inclusion of writing quality
Use of grading contracts
Drafting and revision as part of course

Peer review as part of course
7
13
a
13
0
8
b
0
53.85
100
100
0
61.54
0
5
13
a
12
0
4
b
0
38.46
100
92.31
0
30.77
0
a
Faculty’s knowledge of and use of feedback as a writing instruction method; it does not reflect
the quality of feedback provided.
b
Drafting and revision was discussed by faculty in interview as
an informal process of allowing students to optionally submit a draft; students were not required
to submit drafts as part of course requirements.

Mixed Knowledge of and Use of Exemplars. The findings on the knowledge about and
use of exemplars was mixed with just over half of faculty discussing exemplars in the interviews.
Seven of the 13 faculty members (53.85%) indicated knowledge of the use of exemplars in post-
secondary education, but only five reported that they use exemplars (38.46%). It is unclear if the
six faculty who did not discuss knowledge of or use of exemplars are aware of this specific best
practice.
Three interviewees who discussed exemplars, Jamie, Campbell, and Jesse, explained their
knowledge of and reported use of exemplars in the context of teaching field education courses.
They referenced coursework focused on writing clinical progress notes and process recordings, a
reflective writing assignment used frequently in MSW field education programs. Two of these
faculty members indicated that exemplars are provided to students by the course lead as part of
91

the available resources. Jamie and Jesse discussed selecting a “progress note of the week,” which
Jamie follows up with saying to students, “this is what it should look like—don’t copy this
verbatim, of course, but use this to give you an idea of what it’s supposed to sound like.”
Four instructors of clinical courses outside of field education, Kim, Robin, Casey, and
Lee, also discussed their knowledge of exemplars, and two reported using them with students.
Robin and Casey both reported use of exemplars with students, with Casey stating, “students
don’t know what they don’t know, right? So, I always try to give sample papers so students can
see what I think is a well-written paper.” Conversely, Kim and Lee both discussed that they are
aware of the use of exemplars in post-secondary education, but both reported not electing to use
them. Kim stated that their students sometimes ask for sample papers, but does not provide one
and instead tries to explain things without giving them the sample. Like Kim, Lee’s students also
ask for exemplars, but Lee does not use them as they recalled a previous administrator strongly
discouraging the use of exemplars for concern it would “create a potential advantage for some
students over others, if the framework seemed to fit better for some than others.” Based on these
interview findings, it is evident that only some faculty have knowledge of and utilize exemplars.
Varied Knowledge of and Use of Effective Feedback. Faculty feedback is a common
writing instruction practice. All 13 interview participants discussed, without prompting, their
knowledge of providing feedback as a writing instruction practice. This was predominantly
discussed in the context of written feedback directly on student assignments. In addition, nearly
half of faculty interviewees (n = 6) reported knowledge of the practice of providing feedback
through one-on-one conferencing with students to follow up on written feedback, at either
student or faculty request. Four faculty reported knowledge of providing group summative
feedback during class time following the grading of written assignments.
92

A key aspect of providing feedback to students is that the feedback be effective in
helping them improve their writing. During interviews, when faculty discussed their use of
feedback with students, they were asked to elaborate on how and when they used feedback to
determine knowledge of effective strategies within the best practice of feedback. The findings
related to effective use of feedback were mixed due to limited data obtained in interviews,
however reflects general knowledge of feedback practices. Table 10 provides a comparative
view of the interview participants statements about their approach to providing feedback to
students.
93

Table 10
Faculty Comparison of Reported Use of Feedback
Participant
Sentence-level
feedback
Summative
feedback
Sentence-level
Editing
Jamie

Marion

Campbell

Kim

Feedback such as
“perhaps you could
write it this way” and
provided re-written
sentence. Feedback
about missing
information and
selecting most
important details.

Discipline required to
not lose sight of
content material by
only focusing on
editing or commenting
on grammar, sentence
structure, etc. Priority
on strong
communication of
ideas.

Will comment on
grammar, syntax,
spelling, how to cite in
APA and will invite
revision for those
areas to improve
writing.

Provides comments such
as “this area could
have been developed
more.”
Summative feedback
reported of “this needs
to be edited” and
feedback on length of
the document, such as
“too long.”

“Comments at the end of
the paper are often
sort of generic like
‘excellent assessment
of the problem.’”
Encouragement of
editing their writing
“so it’s clear, simple,
straightforward.”
Avoids statements like
“this is very poor
writing”, rather writes
“please proofread
your writing because
your good ideas are
being diminished by
the lack of clarity.”

---

Uses rubric to guide
summative feedback
and gave sample
statements of “your
---

Previously spent more
time on sentence-level
editing, such as editing
out words and
shortening sentences.
Feels takes away from
spending time focused
on content of the
assignment. Does
moderate editing at
sentence level and uses
red type to highlight the
edits.

Makes written corrections
directly on their paper
and offers to meet with
students for individual
conference in follow
up.

---

94

Participant
Sentence-level
feedback
Summative
feedback
Sentence-level
Editing

Tracy

Gray

Robin

Noted importance of
specific feedback at
sentence-level so they
understand why they
lost points and to help
with future writing.
Comment examples of
“needs citation here,”
“this is a fragment or
run-on,” “this works
better as bullets,” or
“this is a page-long
paragraph so break
that out.”

---

Will provide sentence-
level feedback on
writing on first page,
but not on whole
paper. Will follow up
with comment “these
problems are evident
paper lacked a
conclusion” or
“there’s grammatical
errors in this paper, or
there’s formatting
errors, or there’s APA
errors.”

Generates summative
feedback for whole
class after grading all
papers and does “the
top 10 issues found on
papers in this class.”

---

With papers with many
writing challenges,
will state “You need
another draft. You
need to have edited
this paper.” In follow
up, requires students
to meet for one-on-

Will provide sentence-
level editing at the start
of the paper and then
will comment “these
are examples” and
states that they are seen
in other areas in the
paper.

Picks a segment of paper
if a student is struggling
with their writing and
will provide comments.
“I wouldn’t edit every
line…I would choose a
couple of paragraphs
and say ‘look, here’s
where you are
struggling. This is what
it probably ought to
look like.’”

Previously went through
line by line and
corrected errors or
would move sentences
around. No longer does
this and focuses on first
page for comments
about writing and gives
95

Participant
Sentence-level
feedback
Summative
feedback
Sentence-level
Editing

Casey

Lee

Kelly

Noel

throughout your
paper.”

“I give a lot of
feedback.” Discussed
giving positive
feedback “when they
do something really
nice and made
improvements.”

Gave example of APA
feedback such as
providing accurate
referencing format or
comment such as “be
sure to include the
page number when
you’re quoting
material” or “in
scholarly writing,
using more than a
couple of quotation is
not really considered
good scholarly
writing.”

Provides their feedback
“hoping for
improvement, rather
than being punitive.”
Discussed importance
of balancing praise
and critical feedback.

Reportedly gives
sentence-level
feedback to help the
student understand
challenges such as
punctuation or
one conference to
review the paper
together.

---

Discussed importance of
giving “really good,
detailed feedback on
what they did really
well, and where were
areas that they
might’ve done things
a little differently.”

Uses in-class summative
feedback and states
“remember to do
this,” or “these are
some things that you
did really well. These
are some things that
you can work on for
your next paper.”

Will write 2-3
summative paragraphs
that focus on content,
“pointing out certain
concepts and context
points that I felt were
summative comments
about general
challenges.

High level of sentence-
level editing via track
changes in red
throughout the paper, “I
go crazy—put in a
comma, change words
around.”

---

Uses electronic pen to
write directly on
student paper and does
not use the color red.

Described process of
printing papers and
doing significant
sentence level editing
and then transfers
feedback to electronic
96

Participant
Sentence-level
feedback
Summative
feedback
Sentence-level
Editing

Finley

Jesse
sentence meaning.
They will comment
“Here’s what you
should have used, or
not used, or I think
you meant this or not
that.” Will also
provide feedback on
what could help make
something more clear.

Reported giving a lot of
positive reinforcement
on quality of writing.
Will also provide
comments about
sentence-level
feedback such as with
run-on sentences, “I
want you to put in
periods here because
I’m getting lost” and
then gives ideas for
improvement.

Will use comments such
as “What does this
mean?” and follows up
with re-writing a
sentence and
commenting, “Is this
what you mean?”
Discussed focus on
“helping people figure
out what they’re trying
to say, what their ideas
are, and how to put
them on the piece of
paper.”
relevant and that I
really appreciated
them highlighting.”
Will also provide
feedback specific to
writing such as “next
time, please be
thoughtful about your
editing. There are
some parts here, as
you can see, that were
not as accurate as I
would like them to
be.”

Knows about using
group summative
feedback during class
time, but does not
utilize this practice
due to a shortage of
time during class.

On occasion will conduct
group summative
feedback during class
by sharing a strong
writing sample and
uses this to highlight
areas of challenge by
the group.

version of student
paper. Reports may
reduce number of
sentence-level edits on
final product.

Will correct punctuation
for the first few
paragraphs to give
students the idea and
then recommend follow
up with writing
supports.

“I correct the grammar
when I go through their
papers and I offer
suggestions…if they
have a lot of
misspellings, I just keep
correcting it.”
97

Frequent Use of Specific Feedback at the Sentence-Level. All 13 faculty discussed their
knowledge of the importance of providing specific comments to student when giving feedback,
reflecting knowledge that effective feedback must be specific enough that students can
understand how to make future improvements in their writing. Faculty discussed examples of
written feedback that they might provide to students, which exemplified their knowledge of
providing specific feedback. Predominantly, the discussion of specific feedback was focused on
feedback provided at the sentence-level.
Lee provided an example of explicit and clear feedback when discussing their input on a
student’s use of APA style, “In scholarly writing, use of more than a couple of quotations is
really not considered good scholarly writing—only quote if by changing the wording it would
lose its essence, or the message would be lost.” Also, at the sentence-level, Noel discussed the
example of doing their own research on the use of a semicolon when seen in a student paper, and
then commented to the student, “Okay, here’s what you should have used, or not used” and
provided rationale in their comment. Jesse mentioned using comments such as “What does this
mean?” when a sentence is unclear, and following up with re-writing a sentence and
commenting, “Is this what you mean?” These faculty members discussed using these types of
feedback strategy throughout the student paper.
Gray, Robin, and Finley discussed a feedback strategy of selecting a segment of the
student paper to provide detailed sentence-level edits and comments as a way to provide an
example of an area for improvement that is reflected throughout the paper. Gray discussed that
when he identified a student who was struggling with their writing, he would choose a few
paragraphs and edit their work and comment, “Look, here’s where you are struggling. This is
what it probably ought to look like.” Similarly, Robin described selecting the first page of the
98

paper, editing and giving comments at the sentence-level, and finally, summarizing with a
comment such as “these problems are evident throughout your paper.” Using a similar approach,
Finley stated, “I usually can’t help myself and I will correct punctuation for maybe the first three
paragraphs, and then just stop to give the student the idea.” The specific accompanying feedback
by Finley was not articulated.
Overall, evidence of non-specific feedback was limited, but was noted in interviews. One
participant noted that they insert a question mark in a comment box to imply that they do not
understand the meaning of a sentence because of inaccurate word use. Another indicated using
the word “great” in a comment when highlighting a strongly written sentence, but with no
explanation of why the sentence was strong. These data in isolation are difficult to determine if a
lack of knowledge around effective feedback, though may indicate an opportunity for further
knowledge and skills.
Limited Report of Specific Summative Feedback. Written feedback at the summative
level may also assist students in writing growth. The faculty’s stated knowledge of summative
feedback practices was limited, thus reflecting a potential need for knowledge in this area. Of the
interview participants, seven explicitly discussed the practice of giving written summative
feedback on student papers. These participants gave the examples of using summative feedback
to encourage a student to proofread and edit their papers, seek additional writing support outside
of class, or to encourage a revision of their written assignment. One participant, Marion,
explained using summative feedback that predominantly focuses on communication of the
student’s exemplified knowledge on the material, and if needed, will include a summative
comment such as, “Please proofread your paper—your good ideas have been diminished because
99

of lack of clarity.” Noel discussed in detail how they provide extensive summative feedback that
is specific to the nuances of the students’ writing:
The final narrative is me writing usually two, sometimes three, paragraphs worth of
written feedback about their overall completion of the assignment—if I think that they
answered the questions correctly, pointing out certain concepts and context points that I
felt were relevant that I really appreciated them highlighting. And then, I usually have a
section within there that is general feedback: ‘Next time, please be thoughtful about your
editing. There are some parts here, as you can see below, that were not as accurate as I
would like them to be.’ And generally speaking, I will deduct points for spelling,
grammar, [and] editing if they have written sentences that are so clunky in conception
that it's taken away from the comprehension and them answering, I will deduct points and
I'm very specific about why I've done this. And I'll say, ‘And for this, I have deducted X
amount of points.’
Another form of summative feedback, in-class group summative feedback, was discussed
by four participants as an effective feedback strategy, though only three participants reported
using the practice. Tracy and Kelly discussed a similar approach to group summative feedback.
Tracy discussed their process of watching for “a lot of the same issues popping up on a paper”
and creating “the top 10 issues found on papers in this class,” which they review with students
during class. Kelly reported a similar practice of starting a list of common themes seen while
grading papers and will discuss in class their feedback such as “These are some things that you
did really well. These are some things that you can work on for your next paper.” Both Tracy and
Kelly discussed their feedback as collective and not singling out one student, thus helping to
normalize writing challenges and opening up group dialog on ways to improve. Jesse’s approach,
100

similar to Tracy and Kelly, is to pick an exemplary writing sample, with the permission of the
student who wrote the paper, and then reviewing it as a class to highlight its strengths. This also
allows Jesse to point out common challenges they are noting in other student papers.
Limited Report of Feedback Related to Strengths in Student Writing. Of the 13
interview participants, only three explicitly discussed the importance of balancing critical
feedback with praise. Kelly articulated their approach to writing-specific feedback:
I need to be mindful of meeting students where they are. If they are not ready for this
feedback because just getting words on a paper—I have students that just getting the
words on the paper is traumatic enough. And the feedback can be so gentle, and
supportive, and strengths-based, and as much as I can praise them…just getting words on
the paper was hard enough for them. And sometimes that's where I need to leave it for
that time period.
Finley discussed the use of “positive reinforcement” on writing quality and balancing it with “a
bit of correcting.” Casey highlighted the importance of providing positive feedback when
students do something well and made improvements in their writing. The absence of this
discussion by the remaining 10 participants does not explicitly reflect a lack of knowledge of the
importance of balanced feedback, but may reflect an area of growth for faculty knowledge and
an area requiring further exploration.
Document Analysis Findings. To further identify effective use of feedback, interview
participants were invited to provide a de-identified writing sample from a student, inclusive of
their feedback, that was provided to the student. Five of the 13 participants provided samples,
with one participant providing two samples, thus six documents were analyzed. This document
review provided a way to identify how participants operationalized what they reported in
101

interviews related to providing effective feedback. To protect the anonymity of the five faculty
who provided writing samples, these data were summarized by category as indicated on the
document protocol, rather than identifying the specific faculty member’s use of effective
feedback. Drawing from effective feedback strategies identified in the literature, Table 11
provides a summary of the frequency of feedback related to the following: (a) written comments
at the sentence-level about writing quality, (b) written comments at the sentence-level about
course content and not writing-specific, (c) praise without specific feedback about what aspect of
the writing was especially effective, (d) criticism without specific feedback about what aspects of
the writing were particularly ineffective, (e) faculty editing student writing at the sentence-level,
and (f) summative feedback provided about writing.
The findings from the document analysis of feedback provided further data to determine
the level of effective feedback provided by five faculty. Of the six documents, all but one
included sentence-level feedback that was specific to the student’s writing. This included
comments such as the need to correct misspelled words, fragment sentences, and APA
formatting.
In line with the interview findings, there was an imbalance of criticism and praise
reflected in the feedback provided. Five of the six papers included sentence-level feedback on
writing, all of which were in the form of criticism. Of the criticism feedback comments, all but
two comments included explanation as to what was ineffective about the writing. Four of the six
papers included no praise at the sentence-level. Of the two papers that included praise at the
sentence-level, none of the comments included detailed explanation as to what aspect of the
writing was especially effective.
102

Only two faculty provided summative feedback on the paper, one of which provided
significant detail about strengths and deficits of the paper, where the second was brief and was
used to refer the student to external writing supports. One faculty member provided sentence-
level edits throughout the paper, with no specific feedback to explain the problems that were
being corrected. As this is a small sample of papers with faculty feedback, it is possible that
faculty selected papers that reflected a high amount of student writing challenges, in contrast to
papers that the faculty felt reflected strong writing. Despite this, the comparison of the document
review findings with interview findings affirms the need for further knowledge in the use of
effective feedback strategies.

Table 11
Faculty Knowledge of Effective Feedback Reflected on Student Writing Samples, N = 6
Analysis area

Frequency
of sentence-
level
feedback on
writing
Frequency
of sentence-
level
feedback on
course
content
Frequency
of praise
without
specific
feedback
Frequency
of criticism
without
specific
feedback
Frequency
of sentence-
level editing
Summative
feedback
provided
about
writing
Doc 1
Doc 2
Doc 3
Doc 4
Doc 5

Doc 6
10
0
10
8
10
16
0
3
1
6
7
7
0
a
4
0
a

5
0
a
0

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
16
24
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Note. Documents were six de-identified writing samples provided by five faculty. Writing
sample length ranged from three pages to 10 pages, including reference page(s).
a
No praise provided in faculty comments.

103

In-Depth Knowledge of and Use of Rubrics, with Varied Inclusion of Writing
Quality. A clear and detailed rubric communicates expectations to students so that they are
aware of how faculty will assess their performance. All interview participants were asked about
their use of rubrics and whether the rubrics included specific information about aspects of
student writing. Responses reflected that all interviewed faculty had knowledge of grading
rubrics as an instructional practice, and 12 of the 13 participants reported utilizing rubrics.
Predominantly, faculty referenced that they received rubrics from the lead instructor of the
course, or they create it if they are the lead instructor, and these rubrics are used by all who teach
the course. Because the rubrics were frequently identified as being provided by the course lead, it
is important to note that the faculty member’s individual knowledge of rubrics may be influenced
by being required to use a rubric that they did not create.
While all faculty reported knowledge of rubrics and 12 participants report using rubrics,
the amount of detailed information related to quality of writing expectations that was included in
rubrics was varied. Most faculty were drawing from their memory during the interview, thus
possibly influencing their description of the rubric contents. Six faculty reported the percentage
of the rubric that is related to writing quality, with four reporting rubrics typically reflecting 10%
accounted for writing quality, and two faculty reported some rubrics allotting 20% for writing
quality.
Multiple faculty members discussed the descriptions of what is written in the rubric to
define these sections about writing quality. Marion and Campbell discussed their general
impression that their rubrics reflect limited clarity on writing expectations. Marion’s experience
with rubrics was that they include a statement such as “it needs to be clear and needs to include
the answers,” but does not include discussion of sentence structure or style. Campbell’s
104

experience was that there is some reference about writing quality, but that “for the most part, I
think it’s more assumed or inferred.” Some faculty discussed more nuanced inclusion about
writing quality in their rubrics. Kim referenced a current rubric during the interview and shared
that it included reference to written expression for social work practice “including quality of
writing, APA citation, and referencing format.” Casey also referenced a rubric during the
interview and stated, “points are given to overall paper flow, which is spelling, grammar,
professionalism, and organization, as well as to format—APA format, length, and minimum
number of references.” Lee, though not looking at a rubric during the interview, reported detailed
expectations outlined in their rubrics, including “organization and flow, completeness of thought,
level of depth and insight, and extensiveness of explanations, things like that.”
Despite the majority of faculty reporting that their rubrics included a section devoted to
writing quality expectations, two faculty members discussed the difficulty of using these sections
to gauge student writing quality. Robin reported that they will not use a grading rubric, unless the
course lead requires it. Their experience is that it is difficult to use one section of a rubric to
gauge writing quality and grade based on this section:
I have my own way of figuring out those points because, first of all, when someone says
‘well, it’s 10% writing in the rubric,’ that’s hard for me to parse out, because the other
parts of the paper that have to do with conceptual thinking is not separate from the
writing.
Kelly described a similar concern about how to measure quality of writing based on a rubric and
stated “quality of writing gets blurred.” They described lead instructors writing rubrics that
include the elements of APA, grammar, and spelling, but felt this does not really measure writing
105

quality. Kelly indicated wanting to gauge writing quality based on clarity of thought exhibited by
the student, which is not reflected in the rubrics they have been asked to use in the past.
In addition to faculty’s explanation of rubric content and use during grading, some
faculty articulated how and when they use rubrics beyond a grading practice. Kim, Tracy, and
Casey discussed the rubric as a tool for providing students with early guidance, before they begin
their written assignment. Kim reported that they use the rubric as a discussion guide prior to the
assignment due date to relay their expectations to students and to minimize confusion about what
is expected. Similarly, Tracy discussed the importance of the assignment prompts being clear, in
conjunction with a clear rubric, so that students are aware of what is expected of them. When
discussing expectations and grading, Casey mentioned avoiding a “sneaker grade” and doing so
by sharing the rubric before paper writing commences. Casey stated, “I am really up front on the
first day of class” and lets students know that they pay close attention to APA and writing
quality. These findings related to the knowledge of and use of rubrics reflects faculty’s overall
general knowledge of rubrics as an instructional practice, but the contents and implementation of
rubrics is varied and may reflect a need for additional procedural knowledge for some faculty
about the best practice of rubric use in postsecondary education.
No Indicated Knowledge of Grading Contracts. Grading contracts are an evaluation
tool created by faculty, or co-created between faculty and student, to allow the student to identify
the grade they intend to achieve, and the explicit criteria for the student and faculty for the
student to achieve this grade. Grading contracts were not discussed by any participants as a
writing instruction best practice or as a practice that they engage in, thus reflecting an area of
need in faculty knowledge. As with the other best practices, with the exception of the use of
106

rubrics, interview participants were not explicitly asked about their knowledge of grading
contracts as a writing instruction practice.
Limited Knowledge of and Use of Drafting and Revision. Embedding a process-
oriented approach to writing can assist students in developing their writing skills. One such
practice is the use of drafting and revision as a part of the course expectations. In interviews, no
participants discussed drafting and revision as an embedded aspect of their course and
assignments. Despite no report of the embedded approach of drafting and revision, the findings
from the interviews reflected that seven faculty members have awareness of the practice of
reviewing drafts for students who then submit their assignment after revising based on the
faculty feedback. Two of the seven faculty members reported that they are aware of the practice,
but do not agree to review drafts if asked by students. One reason for this was concern that it
raised an equity issue if the faculty member could not offer to review drafts for all of their
students.
Five faculty members, Marion, Tracy, Casey, Noel, and Finley, discussed an informal
process of offering to review drafts or agreeing to review a draft if a student asks. Marion
discussed an informal process whereas a student may ask, “Can you give this a scan before I turn
in the final?” Noel has used the process of reviewing a draft if they are aware that a student is
struggling and may be at risk of not passing their course. In this case, Noel explained inviting the
student to provide a draft so that they can assist the student prior to submitting for a final grade.
Finley discussed inviting students to submit a draft of their writing assignment a week prior to
the due date and stated, “Nobody every takes advantage of it, because they need the whole week
to finish their paper—they’re not a week ahead.” Like Finley, Tracy and Casey also discussed
inviting students to submit drafts for their review. Tracy stated that they “offer all my students”
107

to submit a draft and they will review one draft “one time per assignment, per student.” In
Tracy’s experience, most students who elect to submit a draft already have strong writing and a
high grade, and “the students who need to do that [submit a draft], do not do this.” Casey sated,
“I think I’ve become more transparent for students that I will review a draft” and students who
have taken their class before will ask them to review a draft, even if it hasn’t been presented as
an option.
An additional finding from interviews was that seven faculty members discussed
allowing students to re-write papers after receiving a low grade. While this is not the same as
intentionally embedding a process of feedback and revision into the course and assignments, it
reflects a revision practice being utilized by some within the school. In summary, over half of the
interviewed faculty members reported knowledge of providing feedback and allowing students to
revise their writing, either prior to or after grading, though there was an absence of using drafting
and revision as a process-oriented approach that is embedded into the coursework as a
requirement for all students to engage in.
Absence of Peer Review as a Process-Oriented Approach. The embedded process-
oriented approach of utilizing peer review for classroom assignments was not discussed by any
faculty during interviews. Peer review as an instructional approach creates the expectation that
students will read and provide feedback to one another, thus assisting the writer through
feedback, and also assisting the reviewer by increasing reflection on their own writing. While
multiple faculty discussed encouraging students to have friends, family, or classmates review
their writing for proofreading purposes, none reported a formal process of including peer review
into their courses as a writing instruction practice. The absence of peer review, as well as
108

drafting and revision, as part formal coursework reflects a need for additional faculty knowledge
related to these process-oriented approaches.
Additional Finding of Faculty Referral to External Writing Support. While not
identified in this study as a writing instruction best practice, multiple faculty members discussed
referral to outside sources when asked about best practices in writing instruction. This is
important to note as it indicates faculty reliance on or encouragement to use external sources of
support to help students improve their writing. Specific external resources that were discussed
included University or within-school writing support, the school librarian, external resources
such as books, online resources, and videos, and informal supports such as peers or family to
proofread writing.
Sources of Knowledge about Writing Instruction Best Practices
The faculty’s knowledge of best practices, and how and when they use these practices,
was discussed in the previous section. This section specifically addresses the origins of where
and how faculty believe they learned their approach to using best practices in writing instruction,
which is an important aspect of faculty procedural knowledge. Overall, most faculty members
stated that they were not explicitly taught how to implement writing instruction practices. This
was exemplified in statements by interview participants, such as Casey, who reported, “I mean,
nobody every taught me how to be a college instructor, right?” Likewise, Robin stated, “I have
0.0 training in how to teach writing.”
Because of the faculty’s reports that most did not have any formal training in writing
instruction practices, interview participants were asked where they learned about and how to
implement their instructional practices related to student writing. Five key areas emerged as the
perceived sources of faculty knowledge on instructional practices related to writing: (1) learned
109

from their own past instructors (n = 8), (2) learned from faculty colleagues (n = 7), (3) influenced
by professional work experience (n = 4), (4) learned from trainings on instructional practices (n
= 2), and (5) learned from trial-and-error and student feedback (n = 7). Table 12 provides a
comparative view of the 13 interview participants perceived sources of knowledge of writing
instruction practices.
Eight faculty members expressed that they learned many of their instructional techniques
from observing and experiencing how their own previous postsecondary education instructors
modeled instructional practices. Campbell summarized this as they laughed, “I think it was the
classic ‘it was done to me, so I am going to do it to somebody else.’” Tracy remembered their
own professor’s comments in undergraduate and graduate school and utilizes some of the “same
approaches or techniques” that they recall being particularly helpful to them as a learner. Casey
and Lee explicitly defined learning from their own professors as an act of modeling, with Casey
reporting, “I model what was modeled for me, I guess.” Similarly, Lee stated, “So literally it was
like I just kind of modeled everything I had seen in my years of advanced education.”
Several faculty members discussed having learned some of their instructional practices
from their peers through faculty peer consultations groups, from the lead instructors of courses
they taught, or from co-writing scholarly papers. Lee provided a detailed example of this
learning process, “If I hear a colleague say something in a meeting about ‘I do this or that,’ and it
sounds like it’s a valuable thing, I’m like, ‘Oh, that might be a good idea to try some of.’” Some
faculty also discussed learning some approaches to writing instruction from their own experience
in the social work field, outside of their role as faculty. More specifically, four faculty discussed
their development as writers in their work settings where they gained in-depth experience in
writing document such as progress notes, clinical treatment plans, and grants. While these
110

comments were specific to their own writing, faculty also referenced learning how to be strong
writers from how supervisors worked with them to enhance writing, or by themselves being
supervisors and noting what was effective with their supervisees. Two faculty members reported
that they previously sought out specific training on instructional practices at conferences. Lastly,
another significant area of where faculty reported learning how to provide writing instruction
practices was through what many referred to as “trial-and-error” and utilizing student feedback
to gauge their effectiveness. How faculty have learned through trial-and-error and student
feedback is explored in the following section related to faculty metacognition.

Table 12
Comparison of Where Faculty Attributed Learning about Writing Instruction Practices
Participant
Own past
instructors
Faculty
colleagues
Work
experience
Instructional
training
Trial-and-
error
Jamie
Marion
Campbell
Kim
Tracy
Gray
Robin
Casey
Lee
Kelly
Noel
Finley
Jesse

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
Total 8 7 4 2 7

111

Frequent Practice of Reflection by Faculty on their Effectiveness in Supporting Student
Writers
In order to assist students in improving their writing, faculty need to be able to reflect on
the degree to which they are effective in supporting student through the use of writing instruction
practices. Through this reflection, faculty can determine what methods in writing instruction may
work well, identify areas they want to adjust their current approach, and where they can improve
by learning new skills. The interviews findings reflect a strong metacognitive process by faculty
as all 13 discussed their reflections on their effectiveness with writing instruction practices. It is
this reflective process that was exemplified by faculty discussing their “trial-and-error”
approach, and how they have adjusted or maintained instructional practices based on student
feedback.
Faculty were asked in interviews to specifically reflect on how effective they believe
their writing instruction practices have been. Several faculty discussed their use of written
feedback, specifically, when asked about effectiveness. For example, Jamie, Campbell, and
Tracy articulated that they feel their written feedback is effective with the majority of students,
and they will see improvement in subsequent written work based on their previous feedback.
They also noted that there are often a few students in a class who will not incorporate feedback
and will repeat the same “issue” on the subsequent assignment. Tracy reported:
Once in a while, you get a student who just ignores every bit of feedback and gives you,
again, the next assignment with all the same problems on it…and I’ll say ‘on your
previous paper, I marked you off for such and such and I pointed it out, and I see that we
have the same thing here, and so, unfortunately, I have to mark you down again.’ But,
you know, for the most part people are pretty responsive.
112

Casey described the difficulty in knowing how effective their writing instruction practice is when
they only work with students for one semester, thus limiting their ability to evaluate student
growth. They reported giving a high amount of feedback, and students telling them about this
level of feedback, but stated, “whether or not they like it, I don’t know.” Jesse also reported
difficulty in gauging the effectiveness of their feedback. Though they provide significant written
feedback, Jesse stated that sometimes they only have one written assignment in their course,
making it difficult to gauge student improvement based on feedback.
Lee and Noel described receiving positive comments from students about the level of
feedback they provide, and reported being able to integrate these comments as a way to gauge
their effectiveness. Lee has maintained aspects of their instructional practices based on student
feedback such as, “thank you for the extensive feedback on assignments.” Similarly, Noel
described students who struggled with writing telling them that the tips they provided were very
helpful, and to reinforce the effectiveness, Noel reported concurrently seeing improvement in the
student’s written work. Noel also reported that formal course evaluations they receive also reflect
student feedback that the level of feedback provided by Noel is “really appreciated,” thus
reinforcing their approach to how they provide feedback.
Another important aspect of metacognition, reflecting on ways to improve instructional
practices, was witnessed in the majority of the interviews. Casey discussed their approach to
using rubrics and how their practices have changed over time, “I have resisted using rubrics for
years...then I realized that it was just easier to grade with rubrics… it’s just more transparent. So
now I grade with rubrics.” Similarly, Kim discussed altering their approach to introducing a
specific complex assignment to students in a very detailed manner, due to students previously
struggling to include all of the expected aspects of an assignment, thus reflecting an increased
113

need for clarity from Kim. Some faculty reflected on best practices they feel would be effective,
but felt they did not have the time to integrate these specific instructional practices. Lee
discussed ways they would like to integrate additional instruction practices “in an ideal world:”
If it was really about helping with writing and we had time, I would absolutely encourage
reviewing of drafts, both from a content perspective and a writing perspective. In an ideal
world, that’s what I think would work best. It would develop their knowledge and ability
to apply the knowledge and skills around the concept, but also their writing quality and
ability to relay the information. I guess in an even more ideal world, meeting with
students, at least any student who wants the help around structuring and development of
their assignments. Or maybe once the first assignment comes in and we know who the
students are, who really need it, then meeting with those students who could really
benefit from that extra support.
Finley expressed a similar sentiment with a lack of time for a “back and forth” process of
drafting and revision, though believes this would be a very effective writing instructional
practice.
More difficult to determine in interviews was faculty’s ongoing practice of self-
reflection, when not prompted in an interview. During the interview, Gray reflected on things
they have considered doing in the past to assist students with writing, thus indicating their own
individual metacognitive process:
There was a time when I had thought about ‘well, maybe if we have three or four students
in a class, I could do some kind of remedial writing instruction,’ and then I thought, ‘you
know what man, you’re just getting way out here. You’ve got to give these students the
expectations, the resources, and if they’re not motivated to do it, that’s that.’
114

Kelly described their desire to continuously learn about instructional practices, including those
related to writing. They described seeking out journal articles and other information sources to
engaging the process of “double checking” to make sure they are on track with their instructional
practices. Kelly stated that there are always “many things more that I could be doing in the
classroom.” Examples such as Gray and Kelly’s was limited in the interviews, but does evidence
some faculty self-reflection about writing instruction practices on an ongoing basis.
Summary of Knowledge Findings
Clear assets in certain areas, such as providing feedback and the use of rubrics, emerged
in the study, but prominent needs were also identified. Analysis of the declarative and procedural
knowledge of faculty reflected a need for further knowledge and skill growth in all instructional
best practices, with the most significant need to increase knowledge of the use of exemplars and
grading contracts, and embedding a process-oriented approach of drafting and revision and peer
review. Interviews also included an exploration of faculty’s metacognition, the reflecting on
instructional practices related to writing as a way to have a more complete understanding of
faculty knowledge. Findings related to metacognition were that faculty engage in reflection
around their writing instruction practices, reflecting an asset, but when coupled with the needs in
other aspects of their knowledge, faculty may be lacking an expansive view of ways in which
they can improve or adapt instructional practices to more effectively assist student writers in the
MSW program at UWSSW.
Motivation Influences’ Results and Findings
In addition to the knowledge-related influences discussed in the preceding section, this
study also explored faculty motivation to implement best practices in writing instruction. Faculty
may have knowledge of instructional practices related to writing, but motivation is required for
115

faculty to carry out the task of implementing writing instruction best practices. This study
explored the faculty’s task value, specifically attainment and cost value, to assist MSW student
writers at UWSSW. Prior to analyzing faculty’s task value for implementing best practice
strategies in the classroom, their task value of writing in the social work profession was first
considered. Gaining an understanding of the faculty’s task value of writing in the profession was
an important element to consider as this may have influenced their reported task value for
implementing writing instruction practices. Qualitative findings related to the faculty’s
knowledge and use of specific best practices in writing instruction was reported in the previous
section about knowledge, but is expanded upon in this section through additional quantitative
results and qualitative findings related to faculty’s task value for utilizing best practices. In
addition to task value, results and findings related to faculty’s self-efficacy of integrating best
practices into social work coursework is presented.
Faculty’s High Value for Writing in the Social Work Profession
Survey Results. Faculty at UWSSW place a high value on writing in the social work
profession. Faculty survey respondents (N = 60) were asked how important they believe writing
is in the social work profession. As shown in Figure 2, 48.33% (n = 29) of faculty indicated that
it was “very important” and 43.33% (n = 26) indicated it was “extremely important.” Only
8.33% (n = 5) of respondents felt that writing was only “moderately important” or “somewhat
important.” These results indicate a high task value placed on writing in the social work
profession.

116

Figure 2
Faculty Task Value for Writing in the Social Work Profession, N = 60

Note. Scale of 1 – 4 (1 – not at all important; 5 – extremely important); M = 4.33; SD = 0.67

Interview Findings. Qualitative findings aligned with survey results as faculty indicated
a strong value for writing in the social work profession, and provided a nuanced view the reasons
for why they value writing in the profession. Faculty were asked during interviews, “tell me your
thoughts on why writing is or is not an important skill for professional social workers.” Interview
findings related to faculty’s task value of writing in the social work profession is summarized in
Table 13. All 13 interviewees stressed the importance of writing for professional social workers.
Faculty discussed the diversity of writing in the social work profession, including tasks such as
documentation of clinical interactions with clients, written treatment plans and assessments,
correspondence with insurance companies, and writing for other organizational functions such as
grant writing, creating presentations with visual aids, and policy briefs.
Multiple faculty members discussed the repercussions of substandard writing in the
profession, particularly around harm to clients or the social worker. Tracy discussed examples of
26
29
4
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Extremely important
Very important
Moderately important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Q5: How important is writing in the social work profession?
117

how harm can manifest (“CYA” in the quote refers to “cover your ass,” a term used to describe
reducing ones liability):
We [social workers] need to be able to communicate well verbally, as well as in writing.
And so everything from CYA-type stuff like documenting things with clients, unusual
incidents, how we responded doing children’s services and child welfare work, all of that.
There’s a lot of things that we do that can be subpoenaed and called into court, and I’ve
dealt with that, and where documentation has helped or hindered with those kinds of
efforts, so that piece is important. Also, we frequently do things with teams of people.
Like in foster care, there’s a dozen people involved in their [foster child or foster family]
life constantly, and you need to clearly communicate and document things so that other
people on the team don’t kind of know what you mean, but they know exactly what you
mean.
Casey presented similar sentiments about writing well to also protect oneself from liability if
“God forbid something horrible happened to the client.” Lee and Jesse also discussed
substandard writing having an impact on the team of providers who read social workers’ writing,
which can harm clients due to gaps in written information or poorly relayed information.
In addition to the concern expressed regarding client safety, substandard writing was also
discussed by faculty in the context of harm to the reputation of the individual social worker, the
organizations in which social workers are employed, as well as the overall reputation of the
social work profession. Gray, Lee, and Kim specifically discussed their concerns for reputation
damage that can occur based on substandard writing. Gray provided the example of a
presentation with grammatical errors, or a poorly written report about a new service idea. They
stated, “If you can’t do that well, it’s going to limit the degree to which you’re going to advance,
118

and it’s going to affect how people perceive you, and perceive our profession. It’s not okay.” Lee
had similar concerns as “it doesn’t look good” for the individual provider and “it doesn’t look
good for our profession.” Kim discussed the importance of strong written communication
through email and the impacts on reputation, “You are putting out an image to your clients, to
your internal partners, to the community, to potential clients, which potentially can bring in
revenue. So the way that you write in that formality, I think it’s really important.”
The findings indicate that faculty place a high value on writing in the social work profession
based on the perception that writing may have a significant impact on clients, social workers,
organizations, and the profession.

Table 13
Faculty’s Perceived Importance of Writing in the Social Work Profession
Participant Importance of writing
Jamie

Marion

Campbell

Kim

Tracy

Stated that social workers must be able to document for clinical interaction, such
as writing a lengthy mental health assessment.

Reported that effective communication is needed on behalf of clients, including
writing, in order to help clients resolve problems and to document.

Stressed that on the clinical side of social work practice, clear written
documentation is very important. Sees writing as a primary way in which a
social worker’s work is evaluated, and social workers are communicating
across multiple discipline areas. Described clinical writing as complex and
“serious decisions get based on what we write” and “not doing a good a very
good job could mean people get hurt.”

Stressed the importance of strong writing skills to communicate via email in a
professional setting and how this puts forth an image to clients, partners, and
the community, and can impact revenue.

Provided specific ways in which writing is important in the profession, including
documenting incidents with clients, child welfare work, social work writing
reviewed in courts, writing for other social workers to know what work is
being done with a client, and fundraising efforts such as grant writing.
119

Participant Importance of writing
Gray

Robin

Casey

Lee

Kelly

Noel

Finley

Jesse
Discussed importance of strong writing skills in examples such as a presentation
or report writing, and the impacts on how people will perceive the writer and
perceive social work as a profession.

Reported good clinical practice includes strong writing because of “various
people who are relying on our notes and our own reliance on our notes…and
then getting subpoenaed.”

Stated writing is critical for monitoring client progress, responding to insurance
companies and funders, to protect yourself in liability cases, and to protect the
client. When managing programs, social workers need to have skills in
managing programs, writing evaluations, grants, policy briefs, and opinion
editorials.

Noted the diverse forms of writing based on social work role, such as direct
practice with clients to proposal development and grant writing. Inaccurate or
poor writing can harm the client and can reflect poorly on the social worker
and the whole profession.

Reported writing is critical for expressing clients’ needs, clinical assessments,
treatment plans, and other professionals need to be able to read social worker’s
writing and understand the written information.

Discussed that social workers need to be able to express themselves clearly in
writing for clinical documentation, presentations, and across the various
settings that social workers are employed in.

Stated, “I think writing reflects us as social workers, writing is our tool for
communication.’ Finley also discussed being asked frequently when providing
job references, “How are their documentation skills?”

Discussed the importance of strong writing skills so that clinical documentation
can relay information to other providers, which can prevent client harm. As a
member of a team, you have to write about individual clients and groups, and
do so in a way that is clear for others to understand… if they didn’t write it
down, it didn’t happen.”

Faculty’s High Value of Specific Writing Skills
Survey Results. To gain a deeper understanding of faculty’s value on specific writing
skills, surveyed faculty were asked to identify how important they thought 17 different writing
120

skills are for MSW students to demonstrate prior to graduation. In one survey question, faculty
were asked to indicate the level of importance of these skills on a Likert-type scale of one to six
(1 = “not at all important”; 6 = “extremely important”). Table 14 summarizes the results of this
survey question. Faculty indicated a high level of value for all 17 writing skills for MSW
students to demonstrate prior to graduation. In all 17 areas, the mean score was between 4.5 and
5.53, thus reflecting a high value of writing skills for students for MSW students to demonstrate
prior to graduation.

Table 14
Faculty Task Value of Specific Writing Skills for MSW Students, N = 60
Survey item M SD n
Q6: How important are the following writing skills for MSW students to
demonstrate before they graduate?

Using social work field-specific terminology
Arguing a position using a central thesis or hypothesis
Arguing a position using evidence
Representing data using figures, drawings, charts, and/or tables
Describing processes, findings, and environments
Expressing feelings or impressions
Summarizing ideas, texts, or events
Synthesizing disparate ideas and/or perspectives
Creating multimodal presentations (slides, posters, infographics)
Analyzing, interrogating, and/or evaluating ideas, texts, or events
Using grammar effectively (spelling, punctuation, etc.)
Proposing innovative ideas or perspectives
Integrating and accurately citing information from well-chosen sources
Reporting and explaining complex data and findings
Using writing to develop and deepen thinking
Reflecting upon experience and/or assumptions
Revising their written work

5.28
5.00
5.38
4.50
5.18
4.95
5.38
5.32
4.52
5.15
5.53
4.80
5.22
4.85
5.07
5.35
5.32

0.82
0.75
0.73
1.09
0.88
1.10
0.71
0.79
1.12
0.85
0.77
0.91
1.00
0.98
0.91
0.81
0.75

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
a

60
60
60
60
60
59
b

Note. Scale of 1 – 6 (1 – not at all important; 6 – extremely important).
121

a
Reflects one respondent who answered “don’t know/no opinion.”
b
Reflects no response to this
item by one respondent.

Faculty’s Varied Level of Value on Implementing Writing Instruction Practices
Survey Results. Faculty at UWSSW reported varied levels of task value about
implementing best practices in writing instruction. Variation is seen in the faculty’s overall
desire to help MSW student writers, when compared to their reported use of instructional best
practices in their teaching approach. To initially explore the faculty’s task value of writing
instruction, survey respondents were asked how important it is for them to help MSW student
writers to improve. As seen in Figure 3, 51 of the 60 respondents (85%) indicated that it was
either “very important” (n = 28) or “extremely important” (n = 23) for them to help MSW
students improve their writing.

122

Figure 3
Faculty Attainment Value for Helping MSW Student Writers, N = 60

Note. Scale of 1 – 5 (1 – not at all important; 5 – extremely important), M = 4.22; SD = 0.73

With this high task value for helping students to improve their writing, it was important
to explore the faculty’s task value for the specific instructional practices highlighted in this
study. Since the majority of survey respondents reported that they place a high value on assisting
student writers, considering their task value for specific instructional practices helped gain a
more detailed understanding of their motivation. Survey respondents were asked how frequently
they implement 13 different instructional practices related to writing. These 13 items related to
the use of exemplars (one item), feedback practices (five items), rubric use (two items), grading
contract use (one item), drafting and revision (three items), and peer review (one item). Faculty
were asked to identify via Likert-type items how frequently they engage in these teaching
practices (1 = “not at all”; 4 = “extremely frequently”). Table 15 provides the results to this
survey item.
23
28
8
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Extremely important
Very important
Moderately important
Slightly important
Not at all important
Q9: How important is it to you to help MSW students
improve their writing?
123

Feedback practice and the use of rubrics reflected a high task value by survey
participants. Three feedback-related items were indicated as frequently utilized practices: edit
grammar and other writing mistakes in your students’ papers/written work (M = 3.35; SD =
3.35), summarize feedback to students about their writing at the end of the paper/written work
(M = 3.58; SD = 0.67), and provide feedback on student written work within a two-week period
(M = 3.83; SD = 0.41). The frequency of using class time to provide group feedback to students
was lower than the first three items (M = 2.65; SD = 0.85). Faculty reported infrequent
assignment of grades without specific feedback on student writing (M = 1.42; SD = 0.79), thus
suggesting high task value for providing feedback when assigning a grade. The use of rubrics
also indicated high task value, as faculty reported frequent use (M = 3.77; SD = 0.46), as well as
faculty’s reported high frequency of explaining grading criteria to students prior to assignment
due dates (M = 3.83; SD = 0.37).
Task value for exemplar use and grading contracts, as well as the process-oriented
approaches of feedback and revision and peer review, were lower than feedback practices and
rubric use. Exemplars were reported as infrequently used (M = 2.22; SD = 1.02), as were drafting
and revision practices measured by three items: allow students to submit a rough draft for
comments so that they may revise before the final version is due (M = 2.32; SD = 0.97), assign
papers in steps, rather than all at once (M = 2.03; SD = 1.11), and allow students to revise a paper
to improve their grade (M = 2.13; SD = 0.85). Peer review was also reported as infrequently used
(M = 2.17; SD = 0.74). Utilizing grading contracts was the least frequently reported instructional
practice (M = 1.5; SD = 0.74). Inferential statistics were not collected for this study, but there are
likely statistical differences in how these practices are valued, and therefore implemented.

124

Table 15
Faculty Task Value for Specific Writing Instruction Best Practices, N = 60
Survey item M SD n
Q7: As a social work faculty member teaching MSW students,
how often do you do the following?

Exemplar item
a
:
Provide examples of effective papers/written work to your
students

Feedback items
a
:
Edit grammar and other writing mistakes in your students’
papers/written work
Summarize feedback to students about their writing at the end
of the paper/written work
Provide feedback on student written work within a two-week
period
Spend class time talking about writing issues in your students’
papers/written work
Assign grades without comments specific to their writing

Rubric items
a
:
Provide a rubric for grading of written assignments that
includes expectations about quality of writing as an aspect of
grading
Discuss grading criteria before an assignment is due

Grading contract item
a
:
Craft and implement grading contracts collaboratively with
your students

Drafting and revision items
a
:
Allow students to submit a rough draft for comments so that
they may revise before the final version is due
Assign papers in steps, rather than all at once
Allow students to revise a paper to improve their grade

Peer review item
a
:
Integrate and encourage peer review of written work amongst
students (within or outside of class)

2.22

3.35

3.58

3.83

2.65

1.42

3.77

3.83

1.50

2.32

2.03
2.13

2.17

1.02

0.77

0.67

0.41

0.85

0.79

0.46

0.37

0.74

0.97

1.11
0.85

0.74

60

60

60

60

60

59
b

60

60

60

60

60
60

60
Note. Scale of 1 – 4 (1 – not at all, 2 – infrequently, 3 – somewhat frequently, 4 – extremely
frequently).
125

a
Survey items were not presented to survey respondents in categories of best practices as they
are presented in this table.
b
Reflects no response to this item, thus % of N was 98.33%; all other
items were 100% of N.

Interview Findings. The qualitative findings related to interview participants’ reported
use of writing instruction best practices were presented in the knowledge findings’ section as the
faculty’s procedural knowledge is closely tied to their task value for implementing best practices.
This indicates that faculty are likely to implement practices they value. Table 9 provided an
overview of the qualitative findings related to the use of best practices as reported by the 13
interviewed faculty. Qualitative findings were in alignment with the survey results on frequency
of use of various instructional practice. Specifically, interviewed faculty reported that they most
frequently engage in feedback practices and the use of rubrics, while fewer faculty discussed
their use of exemplars, grading contracts, drafting and revision, and peer review processes.
Summary. Faculty participants, in both the survey and interviews, reported that they
place significant value on strong writing in the social work profession. Faculty also reported a
high task value for assisting MSW students to improve their writing. However, the results and
findings related to faculty’s use of writing instruction best practices were varied. These results
and findings may indicate an incongruence between faculty’s high task value for writing in the
profession and the strong desire to help MSW writers improve their skills, and the faculty’s
reported mixed level of value on implementing instructional best practices. Bringing these task
values into alignment could lead to improved writing by MSW students, thus directly impacting
writing in the social work profession. Since faculty report a high task value to assist students in
improving their writing, it is possible that there are other explanations for their varied use of best
126

practices in the classroom. These may include a lack of knowledge as previously discussed, or
the perceived cost of time to implement best practices into instructional practices. As will be
discussed in a future section, the organization’s values and practices may also influence faculty
task value.
Faculty Mixed Levels of Value for Writing Instruction Practices when Faced with Time
Constraints
Survey Results. In order to help students improve their writing, faculty need to perceive
that it is worth the effort to implement best practices in writing instruction and that they value
implementing best practices in writing instruction even if it takes away from other activities.
Two survey questions aimed to measure faculty’s cost value of implementing writing instruction
practices. Faculty were first asked, based on a Likert-type item, if utilizing writing improvement
strategies was worth it to them, even if it takes away from other tasks. As shown in Figure 4,
survey results indicated that 50% (n = 30) of faculty members surveyed indicated that utilizing
writing improvement strategies is worth it to them. Nine faculty indicated that they “disagree” (n
= 7) or “strongly disagree” (n = 2) with the statement that it is worth it to them to utilize writing
improvement strategies, even if it takes away from other tasks. Of significance, 21 (35%) survey
respondents indicated that they “neither agree nor disagree” that it is worth it to them to
implement writing improvement strategies when considering taking away from other tasks. This
high number of faculty who indicated a neutral response may reflect a need for further
exploration around faculty cost value to implement best practices in writing instruction.

127

Figure 4
Faculty Cost Value of Utilizing Writing Improvement Strategies, N = 60

Faculty were also asked to report on what they do when they believe a MSW student is
struggling with their writing. This survey question, asking faculty to select all practices that
apply to them, included nine items to help distinguish how faculty use their time related to
student writers. Results are shown in Table 16. For analysis purposes, these nine items were
classified into two categories: (1) referrals to outside sources (five items), and (2) faculty-
specific practices (four items). The most frequently reported way to assist a struggling writer was
to refer them for writing support within the School of Social Work (91.67%). Closely related,
51.67% of faculty reported referring students to the University-wide writing center outside of the
School of Social Work. Fifty percent of faculty also reported referring students to outside
sources such as books, writing guides, or websites. Referrals to the outside sources of the
Academic Integrity Coordinator and indicating students on the mid-term grade report, were less
utilized practices, at 13% and 35%, respectively. The practice of referring students to outside
7
23
21
7
2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q11: Utilizing writing improvement strategies in my MSW
class(es) is worth it to me even if it takes away from other tasks.
128

resources reflects one type of response to struggling writers, though does not necessarily reflect a
low value on implementing their own faculty-specific practices to help students with writing.
However, referral to outside sources is noted as a highly valued task by a large majority of
surveyed faculty.
The time required to refer students to outside sources is presumably much less than
implementing practices that require more time by the specific faculty member. There were four
survey items related to faculty-specific responses to student writing challenges: (1) meeting with
them to discuss the writing challenges, (2) editing their work, (3) faculty’s impression about time
spent responding to students with writing challenges, and (4) not addressing writing challenges.
Meeting with students to discuss their writing was frequently reported (71.66%). In relation to
editing student writing, 56.67% of respondents reported that they edit student work as a response
to a student who is struggling with their writing. When faculty were asked about the time spent
on supporting a student who is struggling with their writing, many faculty responded that they
spend more time to respond to student writers who are struggling than students who are not
struggling (68.33%). When asked if they address writing challenges at all, two faculty (3.33%)
indicated “I don’t address it.” These survey results indicate that faculty heavily participate in
referring students to outside resources for assistance with writing. Additionally, the high number
of faculty meeting individually with students and spending more time responding to students
who are struggling with their writing than those who are not also indicates a high cost value
placed on this more time-consuming practice.

129

Table 16
Faculty Cost Value of Various Responses to Student Writers, N = 60
Survey item n % N
Q10: When you believe a MSW student is struggling with
their writing, what is your response? (Select all that
apply)

Referral to outside sources items
a
:
I refer them for writing support within the School of
Social Work.

I refer them to the University-wide writing center
outside the School of Social Work.

I refer them to the Academic Integrity Coordinator at
the School of Social Work for plagiarism concerns.

I add their name to the mid-term grade report.

I suggest they access certain materials, such as
books/guides or websites.

Faculty-specific practice items
a
:
I meet with them to talk about it.

I edit their work.

I spend more time to respond to their writing than
students who are not struggling.

I don’t address it.

55

31

8

21

30

43

34

41

2

91.67

51.67

13

35

50

71.66

56.67

68.33

3.33
a
Survey items were categorized for analysis purposes and not presented to survey respondents in
categories of responses as they are presented in this table.

Interview Findings. To further explore survey results, interviewed faculty were asked
about challenges they face in implementing writing instruction practices. While this question did
not specifically articulate cost value in the question itself, time constraint was reported as the
130

greatest challenge by all 13 faculty interviewed. This overwhelming report of time constraints is
directly tied to faculty’s cost value given to particular tasks such as utilizing writing instruction
practices.
Many faculty focused on the cost value related to focusing on the time required to
provide feedback to students on their writing. For example, Marion discussed how they
previously spent much more time on providing student feedback, specifically editing, but stated,
“then I realized I was spending too much time on writing as opposed to the content.” Similarly,
Tracy reported that they “don’t have time to do that [edit student work] anymore,” and will edit
some of the student’s paper as an example for the student. Robin also used to spend more time
on providing student feedback directly on written work:
I still have to give feedback on the writing, but I am not an English teacher, and I don’t
have time for that. So I tell them they need to go to the writing center or learning
resources or something.
In addition to referring students to other resources, Robin added that they would rather meet with
a student individually to discuss feedback than spend time giving written feedback or editing.
Robin reported requiring all students who receive a low grade to meet with them to “go through
it together” during an office hour, and finds this a better use of time. Lee raised the challenge of
having a high volume of papers to grade and stated, “We’re [faculty] already so overwhelmed
with just grading the number of papers that we have to grade. I feel like, well, I need to address
content and the assignment itself. I can’t also be a writing instructor.” Kim distinguished
between students who show motivation to improve their writing and student who do not. If a
student is motivated to improve, Kim reported spending the time to help a student who is
131

struggling with their writing, but if not, they stated “I am not going to spend a lot of energy on
it.”
Also focused on providing feedback, Casey, Kelly, and Noel discussed their commitment
to spending time to assist students with writing. Casey reported, “I do spend a lot of my time
focused on writing when I could be focused on other things, but it’s part of the bigger picture,”
and added that they see it as “part of being a professor.” Noel’s value on spending time on
extensive feedback is reinforced by the results of their efforts:
Why I continue to spend this much time and effort in this way [providing feedback] is
because I would say with a very high percentage—95 or more percent of the time—
because I give that much feedback, very rarely do students come back to me with
questions about ‘What did I expect? What did I think?’ They feel very comfortable about
the level of feedback.
Kelly provided a unique perspective in that they see the value in spending time as “worth it,” not
just for the help it provides students with their assignments, but also for the benefit of helping
students improve their writing in ways that will benefit their clients.
Only three faculty, Campbell, Jamie, and Finley, focused on the balance of managing
their time during class to implement writing instruction practices. Campbell stated that they
spend little time on writing instruction during class, “I didn’t want to take up class time—
especially because our class times tend to be a little on the short side. I try to pack a lot in. I have
to make this decision about priorities.” Jamie expressed a similar sentiment that there is “no
time” to “get into writing skills” during class time due to the need cover course content. Finley
discussed the balance of time and stated that if they had more time, they could provide group
feedback to students during class time.
132

Interview findings revealed that faculty’s discussion of the time required to implement
writing instruction best practices was mainly related to the time required to provide feedback,
whether in writing on student written work, or in individual meetings with students. These
findings suggest that some faculty find it worth their time and effort to provide robust feedback,
whereas others limit the amount of feedback in the name of not having enough time. Few faculty
discussed the use of class time to implement writing instruction practices, but when discussed,
the faculty reported that they predominately value spending time on course content over
implementing in-class writing instruction practices. Additionally, as noted in the findings related
to faculty knowledge and use of best practices, interviewed faculty also reported frequently
referring students to outside resources such as the writing center, thus lending further insight into
faculty’s value of writing instruction tasks related to time.
Summary. In both qualitative results and qualitative findings, faculty expressed varied
approaches to the use of their time, and the value they place on writing instruction practices. Half
of survey respondents reported that it is worth it to them to implement writing practices, even if
it takes away from other tasks. Qualitative findings indicated that most faculty discussed time in
relationship to providing feedback, rather than other instructional practices. Additionally, faculty
expressed a high reliance on making referrals to outside writing support services when
discussing how they use their time related to student writing. Faculty value supporting student
writers, but given the time they have, may not value strategies to help student writers through
instructional practices. These results and findings suggest a need to further explore the cost value
that faculty place on instruction practices in order to assist MSW students in improving their
writing.

133

Mixed Faculty Confidence in Implementing Writing Instruction Practices
Survey Results. In order to improve student writing, faculty need to feel confident in
their ability to implement best practices in writing instruction. To explore faculty self-efficacy,
referred to as “confidence” in the survey, faculty were asked the Likert-type question, “How
confident are you in your ability to help MSW students to improve their writing?” As seen in
Figure 5, on a scale of one (“not at all confident”) to four (“extremely confident”), 21
respondents (35%) reported that they are “extremely confident” and 30 (50%) reported they are
“moderately confident” in their ability to help MSW students to improve their writing. Seven
respondents (11.67%) reported feeling only “slightly confident”, and two (3.33%) reported
feeling “not at all confident”. The results reveal that most faculty feel at least a moderate level of
confidence (M = 3.17; SD = 0.76) in their ability to help MSW students to improve their writing.

Figure 5
Faculty Self-Efficacy for Helping MSW Students Improve Their Writing, N = 60

Note. Scale 1 – 4 (1 – not at all confident; 4 – extremely confident); M = 3.17; SD = 0.76

21
30
7
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Extremely confident
Moderately confident
Slightly confident
Not at all confident
Q12: How confident are you in your ability to help
MSW students to improve their writing?
134

A second Likert-type survey item was included to explore more nuanced elements of
faculty’s use of writing instruction strategies, specifically the process-oriented writing instruction
practices of drafting and feedback and the use of peer review processes. The results to this item
are shown in Table 17. Utilizing the scale of one (“not at all confident”) to six (“extremely
confident”), faculty (n = 57) reported that they feel highly confident (M = 5.26; SD = 1.09) in
commenting on student drafts in order to promote revision of their writing. In contrast, faculty (n
= 49) indicated less confidence (M = 3.02; SD = 1.49) in the use of peer response activities to
improve student writing.

Table 17
Faculty Self-Efficacy to Implement Process-Oriented Writing Instruction Practices, N = 60
Survey item M SD n % N
Q13: How confident are you in your ability to
do the following related to MSW student
writing:

Commenting on drafts in order to
promote revision

Organizing effective peer response
activities to improve student writing

5.26

3.02

1.09

1.49

57
a

49
a

95

81.67

Note. Scale of 1 – 6 (1 – not at all confident; 6 – extremely confident)
a
n below 60 reflects respondents who answered “don’t know/no opinion”

135

Interview Findings. Similar to the first self-efficacy question asked in the survey, faculty
were asked, “Please describe how confident you are in your ability to help MSW students
improve their writing.” Faculty were also asked to provide an example of a time when they felt
they successfully assisted a student to improve their writing. These examples provided some
insight into mastery experiences that may boost a faculty member’s self-efficacy for
implementing writing instruction practices. Table 18 provides a summary of the faculty’s
reported confidence level and an example of a time they felt they helped a student to improve
their writing.
Based on these interview questions, findings indicated mixed confidence by faculty.
Eight of thirteen faculty members reported high or moderate confidence in their ability to help
MSW students improve their writing, and four faculty indicated a lower sense of confidence.
One faculty member articulated that they do not feel it is their role to improve student writing,
thus did not report a level of confidence on this task. Many of the faculty who indicated
moderate to high confidence discussed the importance of their relationships with students, and
the motivation of students, as tied to their own sense of confidence. Campbell discussed feeling
“very confident” and related this confidence to building strong relationships with students, which
they felt creates a basis for high success in helping students improve their writing. Others
discussed the need for students to be motivated in order for the faculty to feel that they can be
effective in helping students improve. Kim stated, “I think if students really want to [improve
their writing], I have the skill set to help them do that.” Similar to Kim, Casey reported feeling
confident “given the context, given the student, and given the situation.” Casey was asked to
expand on the part the student plays in their confidence level:
136

[The student] needs to recognize that this is a skill set that they want to build, recognize
that they have an opportunity to build on that skill set with me as a supporter and a
teacher and a mentor, not be resistant to it, and to have time to do it.
Kim described their high commitment to students, and stated that they feel confident in helping
students to improve their writing because they know they “will go the extra mile” for students.
Four faculty reported lower confidence in helping students to improve their writing.
Jamie reported feeling “not very confident,” but also discussed that their confidence shifts with
the type of writing. Jamie’s confidence is higher around clinical documentation and “simple
papers,” but reported feeling low confidence to assist student writers with a research paper.
Robin described they “don’t feel super confident” and discussed that they have little empirical
evidence to know if they are effective in helping students to improve their writing. Robin also
discussed part of their low confidence is tied to having resistance to focusing on student writing,
coupled with a lack of time to do so. Finley expressed low confidence in helping students
improve their writing and wants to increase their knowledge in writing instruction practices to
better help MSW student writers.

Table 18
Summary of Faculty Confidence to Help MSW Students Improve Their Writing
Participant
Confidence
level
Reported summary of
confidence
Mastery experience
example
Jamie

Low

Reported low confidence
overall, but discussed that
they have more confidence
with some types of student
writing, such as clinical
documentation or “simple
papers,” in contrast to
research papers where Jamie
Helped a student with
progress note writing,
including “trimming them
down” and capturing the
most important information.
By the end of the semester,
“her progress notes were
beautiful.” This reinforced
137

Participant
Confidence
level
Reported summary of
confidence
Mastery experience
example

Marion

Campbell

Kim

No response

High

Moderate

reported feeling low
confidence.

Stated they do not feel it is
their role to improve student
writing, rather on helping
students with
communication skills and
getting “more of the required
information into their
assignments.” Thus, did not
describe their level of
confidence in helping
students improve their
writing.

Reported feels very confident,
though knows they are not a
“writing specialist.”
Attributed strong working
relationship with students as
foundation for high
confidence.

Reported feeling “not very
effective,” and despite
adapting their strategies over
the years, still does not feel
confident in helping
students. However, if a
student expresses interest
and motivation, reported a
higher sense of confidence to
help students.

Jamie’s confidence around
assisting students with
clinical writing tasks.

---

Discussed example of
assisting a student with
improving writing of a
clinical progress note
through feedback and a
follow up individual
meeting, then revision and
re-submission. By the end of
the semester, student writing
was stronger. This
reinforced their confidence.

Discussed example of student
who did not do well on the
first assignment of the
semester and requested their
help to improve their
writing. Because that
student was motivated, this
led to feeling confident in
being able to assist students
“but there has to be that
energy from them.”

138

Participant
Confidence
level
Reported summary of
confidence
Mastery experience
example
Tracy

Gray

Robin

Casey

Lee

High

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Expressed feeling very
confident in helping students
improve their writing.

Reported feeling confident in
the ability to help anyone
improve their writing “given
the time.”

Stated, “I don’t feel super
confident,” but also
discussed they do not feel
incompetent “since I know I
haven’t studied best
practices.”

Reported feeling confident
“given the context, given the
student, and given the
situation.” Discussed
importance of student
motivation, “[the student]
needs to recognize that this
is a skill set that they want to
build, recognize that they
have an opportunity to build
on that skill set with me as a
supporter and a teacher and a
mentor, not be resistant to it,
to have time to do it.”

Reported low confidence in
helping students improve
their writing as sees
instructor role as less about
writing improvement and
more toward mastering
content and application of
content.
Reported many examples to
choose from; focused on
example of assisting
students with grant writing
and writing in ways that are
concise and felt ‘very good
at helping students with
that.’

---

Cannot identify one example
specifically, but stated,
“when it [helping a student
improve their writing] does
happen, it makes me feel so
good.”

Provided example of helping
students with writing for
publication.

---

139

Participant
Confidence
level
Reported summary of
confidence
Mastery experience
example
Kelly

Noel

Finley

Jesse
High

Moderate

Low

High

Reported feeling confident in
assisting students, and
reported, “I think the
confidence comes in
knowing that I will go the
extra mile.” Provided the
example of seeking
consultation from peers as a
way to work hard on behalf
of students.

Described feeling confident
overall in helping students
improve. However, indicated
some situations where “I just
can’t really pull them along
to get where they need to
be.” Discussed external
factors that may impact their
confidence such as students
who are English Language
Learners or have cognitive
challenges that may impede
writing.

Reported feeling “Not very
confident.”

Stated, “I think I am pretty
good at it,” particularly if the
student is motivated to work
on their writing.
Provided example of work
with a student and they met
to review what they
observed as areas in the
student’s writing that could
be improved. Reported they
saw improvement in the
student’s next written
assignment.

Noted difficulty identifying
one example, though feels
they have helped many
students to improve their
writing.

Discussed a student example
where Finley was able to
provide feedback to the
student, and met with them
over a few office hours.

Provided example of working
with one student over the
course of the full two-year
program and seeing
progress. Also gave example
of helping a student in an
individual meeting to review
clinical progress note
writing skill and seeing
progress through the
student’s revisions.

140

Summary. Analysis of the survey results and interview findings indicate a congruence
between the two sources of data. The majority of surveyed faculty reported moderate to high
confidence in helping MSW students to improve their writing. Interview findings revealed that
many faculty relate their own confidence to the strength of their relationships with students, as
well as student motivation to improve their writing. Faculty who expressed low confidence
expressed difficulty in knowing whether they are effective in helping students, or reported low
confidence related to their low value on helping students improve their writing. One survey
question evaluated faculty’s confidence in implementing the process-oriented approaches of
integrating drafting and revision, and peer feedback and faculty indicated low confidence in the
instruction practice of peer review. Data on faculty confidence on other specific best practices in
writing instruction such as implementing exemplars, providing effective feedback, rubric use,
and grading contracts was not collected.
Summary of Motivation Results and Findings
Quantitative results and qualitative findings related to faculty motivation indicated that
faculty believe that writing in the field of social work is very important, and faculty at UWSSW
are motivated to help students improve their writing. However, discrepancy exists in the
motivation indicated by faculty to implement specific best practices in writing instruction.
Faculty predominantly focused on the best practice of providing feedback, the use of rubrics, and
expressed high value on the referral to outside sources to assist students with their writing.
Faculty also reported a shortage of time to be able to implement best practices in writing
instruction. The confidence of faculty to implement writing instruction best practices was mixed,
thus may impact faculty’s task value for implementing these practices.
141

Both knowledge and motivation of individual faculty are closely tied with organizational
values and practices. Faculty operate within an organizational environment and this environment
influences faculty’s success in performing their role and achieving their goals. The following
section explores the faculty’s perception of the organizational cultural model and cultural setting,
and the relationship to faculty’s knowledge of best practices in writing instruction, and their
motivation to implement them.
How Does the Organization Facilitate and Hinder the Faculty’s Ability to Support Student
Writing?
Faculty knowledge and motivation are central to this study, but must also be explored in
the context of the organizational environment, which may help facilitate and hinder the faculty’s
support to MSW student writers. In order to assess faculty’s ability to achieve their goal of
implementing best practices in writing instruction, an exploration of the organizational
influences that may affect faculty goal attainment was warranted. Therefore, this study aimed to
answer this research question related to how the organization facilitates and hinders faculty
success in the goal of increasing support to MSW student writers.
Organization-Related Results and Findings
In this section, results and findings related to faculty’s perception of the school’s cultural
model-related influences, specifically values and beliefs of the organization related to student
writing proficiency, is presented. Faculty’s perception of the school’s cultural setting-related
influences, including training, communication, and allocation of resources is also discussed.
Concluding this section will be an analysis of the interaction between the organizational
influences and the faculty’s knowledge and motivation.

142

Faculty’s Mixed Perception of the School’s Values about Student Writing Proficiency
Survey Results. In order for UWSSW faculty to help MSW students grow in their
writing, the school needs to prioritize student writing proficiency as an important aspect of social
work education. To explore faculty’s perception of the school’s level of value placed on student
writing proficiency, survey respondents were asked, “How important do you believe MSW
student writing competency is to the School of Social Work as an organization?” As seen in
Figure 6, results for this Likert-type item (one indicating “not at all important” and five
indicating “extremely important”) indicated that the majority of surveyed faculty reported that
the school valued writing as either “very important” (n = 21) or “extremely important” (n = 20).
Eleven faculty reported that they perceive the school’s value to be “moderately important,” six
faculty reported it to be “slightly important,” and two faculty reported “not at all important.”
Overall, the mean score was 3.85 (SD = 1.09).

143

Figure 6
Faculty Perceived Organizational Value for Student Writing Competency, N = 60

Note. Scale 1 – 5 (1 – not at all important; 5 – extremely important), M = 3.85; SD = 1.09

An additional survey question was asked to evaluate the faculty’s perception of the way
they value MSW writing in comparison to their MSW faculty colleagues. The responses to this
question provided insight into the faculty’s perception of the faculty’s collective-efficacy, which
can impact their shared belief in attaining their goal for increased student writing proficiency.
Results for this survey item indicated that 32 faculty (53.33%) felt that they place the same
amount of value on writing than their colleagues. Sixteen faculty (26.67%) reported placing a
higher value on MSW student writing than their colleagues, and three faculty (5%) indicated that
they place less value on MSW student writing than their colleagues. Nine faculty (15%) reported
that they did not have a sense of the value their colleagues place on the task of student writing.
These results indicate that just over half of surveyed faculty believe their value for MSW student
writing is in alignment with their fellow faculty, but nearly half believe there is either a
20
21
11
6
2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Extremely important
Very important
Moderately important
Slightly important
Not at all important
Q14: How important do you believe MSW student writing
competency is to the School of Social Work as an organization?
144

misalignment of their value for writing compared to other faculty, or they do not know the value
other faculty place on student writing. Figure 7 reflects these findings.

Figure 7
Faculty Perceived Value of Their Approach to MSW Writing Versus Other MSW Faculty, N = 60

16
32
3
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
I place a higher value on the task of student writing than
my colleagues
I place the same amount of value on the task of student
writing than my colleagues
I place less value on the task of student writing than my
colleagues
I don't have a sense of the value my colleagues place on
the task of student writing
How does the value you place on the task of graduate student
writing align with the values of your School of Social Work
Colleagues in the MSW program?
145

Interview Findings. To gain additional data about faculty’s perception of the school’s
value for student writing proficiency, interviewed faculty were asked “How would you describe
the School of Social Work’s overall commitment to graduating students with strong writing
skills?” In contrast to the survey results related to the perceived organizational value on student
writing competency, interviewed faculty reported their perception of the school’s value for
graduating students with strong writing skills to be low. Faculty expressed that they believe the
school’s administration and faculty would report strong value toward student writing proficiency
if asked, but interviewees discussed varied examples of how they see the school’s value
demonstrated in practice. Table 19 presents the data related to the faculty’s perceived
organizational value for student writing competency.
Analysis of interview responses indicated that faculty perceived the school’s value of
writing proficiency falling under two categories: (1) organizational value reflected in practices
outside of the classroom setting, and (2) organizational value reflected in ways that impact
faculty instructional practices inside the classroom. In the first category, organizational value
reflected in practices outside the classroom, all 13 faculty discussed the role of admissions in
relation to student writing. Some faculty discussed the overall role of admissions’ practices in
assessing student writing proficiency at the time of application. While no faculty articulated a
hard line on declining applicants who evidence writing challenges in application materials, the
majority linked admission practices with students who are admitted with writing challenges.
More specifically, multiple faculty responses centered on a recent organizational decision to
increase admissions standards at UWSSW. Eight of the 13 faculty members reported that this
organizational decision has resulted in overall stronger writing from recently admitted students.
146

Faculty also reported that their perception of organizational value for student writing
proficiency hinged on a recent decision to decrease in-school writing support services available
to students. As discussed earlier in knowledge findings, faculty reported a strong reliance on
external resources as a way to support student writers. Additionally, cost value results reported
above also indicated this strong reliance on external resources, specifically referral to school-
based writing supports. For example, Gray and Robin discussed the closure of the school’s
writing center as a reflection of low value placed on writing by the school. Gray reported that the
school is “doing very poorly” in providing support to student writers. Similarly, Robin discussed
that cutting back on writing resources within the school impacted the ability to provide students
with the supports they need.
Interview findings in the second category, organizational value reflected in ways that
impact faculty instructional practices inside the classroom, centered on faculty’s reported
concern for recent organizational changes resulting in higher teaching load, thus decreasing time
for faculty to implement instructional practices related to writing. As presented in the above
section on cost value, all 13 faculty discussed time constraints as a significant barrier to
implementing writing instruction best practices. The reported time constraints were also
discussed by faculty interviewees in terms of organizational values, specifically how high
teaching load increases the number of students that faculty are instructing. Robin discussed the
increased teaching load, coupled with the closure of the school’s writing center, as a sign of
decreased value on student writing. Lee also discussed the high teaching load and the
overwhelming volume of papers that faculty have to grade, resulting in making choices about
how to approach writing instruction:
147

It becomes a question, which is a more philosophical thing for debate, is content and
more social work topics—are those more important? Or is developing writing skills more
important? And which do you focus on? Because I think doing both, again, would
probably be overwhelming.
Also impacting faculty’s instructional practices, Kim discussed the importance of
administrative support for faculty grading practices, which directly relate to student writing. Kim
stated:
If you were to ask anybody in the School of Social Work if strong writing skills are
important and encouraged and expected of a graduate, they would all say ‘yes.’ But if I
were to fail students over and over because their writing wasn’t that excellent, I think
there’d be questions about me as to why students keep failing my class.
Tracy reported a recent shift in support from administration, “I think that leadership is much
more supportive of us, you know, holding students accountable and scoring fairly and all of that
kind of thing.” Jesse reported a similar feeling of support from administration when a faculty
member issues a failing grade to a student, versus a previous high organizational value on
passing students despite writing or other challenges in the course.
Faculty interviewees also identified the need for clarity across all faculty regarding
expectations for student writing proficiency and a cohesive approach to instructional practices
across faculty. Eight of the 13 faculty members discussed a lack of clear expectations across the
school’s faculty, and a desire for clear collective values as a group. Gray articulated their lack of
knowledge of how other faculty members address writing:
148

I suspect everyone would say, ‘yes, we want our students to have strong writing skills.’
Who wouldn’t say that? Whether we reinforce it enough in the classroom, I don’t have an
accurate assessment of that really. I don’t know how other faculty handle this issue.
A desire for consistency was discussed by multiple faculty members. Casey shared, “I think we
[all faculty] need to be on the same page. I think we do our students a disservice when we’re not
consistent across classes.” Similarly, Campbell stated their wish for a consensus among faculty
on “how we, as a department, as a school, address that [writing] as part of the core curriculum.”
Kelly also discussed their concern regarding many faculty members centering their discussion on
student deficits in writing, instead of focusing on strong faculty practices, which can include
helping students with writing and covering course content. Kelly also expressed a lack of
cohesion on faculty practices related to writing:
I’d like to know that we all have the same expectations. We all have resources. We all
have training. We all are on the same page as instructions as to how to help students
improve. And I think if we work together, it would be better than me doing what I do,
you doing what you do. And hopefully the students get it somewhere in between.

149

Table 19
Faculty’s Perceived Organizational Value for Student Writing Competency
Participants Organizational value for student writing proficiency
Jamie

Marion

Campbell

Kim

Tracy

Gray

Robin

Reported seeing low value from school. Discussed desire for a course specific to
professional writing for social work students. Also discussed role of
admissions in assessing student writing.

Reportedly sees overall value by school as graduating effective social workers,
with communication as an important element, but not a primary goal of the
school.

Stated feels unclear on the school’s overall position on student writing
proficiency. Has clear understanding on course leads’ position on writing, but
not school as a whole. Discussed desire to reach a consensus as a whole faculty
in ways to approach student writing proficiency.

Discussed the school’s value in context of grading expectations and previously
feeling like they must pass students, even if not meeting writing competency.
Wants to have an overall faculty consensus of what is acceptable writing and
how to approach it in grading, as well as to have administration’s support in
upholding non-passing grades related to writing. Also discussed power of
student evaluations and if student is upset by faculty feedback on writing, this
may lead to school perceiving a faculty member as “poor” because of a critical
evaluation.

Reported positive recent shift in administration supporting faculty grading
practices when student may not be meeting competency to pass a course.
Previously felt value was on “everyone needs to pass.” Discussed
inconsistency in faculty grading practices and approach to writing; would like
to see “a bit more consistency” amongst faculty.

Stated everyone in the organization would say there is a high value on strong
student writing, but feels the school is not providing supports to back this
value. Discussed the difference between how individual faculty address writing
needs of students, and the need for the organization to value student writing for
it to “get the focus it needs.”

Stated sees very low value because of low operationalized commitment.
Discussed high teaching load reflecting low value from the school on student
writing proficiency, as faculty do not have the time to give students the
attention they need to improve writing. School’s closure of in-house writing
center discussed as further evidence of low value on student writing
proficiency.

150

Participants Organizational value for student writing proficiency
Casey

Lee

Kelly

Noel

Finley

Jesse
Stated is unclear on school’s value placed on student writing proficiency. Feels
writing was a higher organizational priority in the past. Sees incongruence
between faculty on the value on writing and how to approach it and would like
standard approach across faculty.

Reportedly sees some demonstrated commitment to student writing in form of
some in-house support to remedial writing concerns, but does not have a sense
of the overall value from the school on writing, rather sees school’s value
placed on social work knowledge and skills. Discussed that field education
department may have higher value on writing where direct application of
writing skills may occur.

Discussed desire to see faculty determine expectations for all faculty to adhere to
around writing expectations, and to know school leadership’s writing
expectations for students. Discussed lack of value on faculty teaching
excellence, which can increase faculty’s ability to support student writers.

Discussed a lack of standardized approach by faculty on writing expectations,
and lack of clear expectation from the school on what skill level students
should be at in their writing.

Stated there is high value from the school for giving students effective feedback
on their writing. Overall, stated does not feel the value for writing is explicit
and lacks definition of what writing expectations exist in the school.

Reported does not currently have a sense of the school’s value on student writing
proficiency. Stated recent increase in school support to faculty when a student
does not pass a course, in contrast to past high value on passing students.

Document Analysis Findings. To gain further data on the organization’s value for
student writing, document analysis of course syllabi was conducted. Syllabi at UWSSW are
maintained by course leads, who are faculty members who lead each course by supporting
faculty instructors, and overseeing any adaptations to course content. All syllabi are approved by
the UWSSW Curriculum Council, a body of elected full-time faculty members. As such, these
syllabi provided some insight into organizational value for writing in MSW coursework.
151

Specifically, analysis was conducted on 30 syllabi to determine the percentage of the total course
points that included written work, if the syllabi reference writing quality expectations, inclusion
of grading rubrics in the syllabi, and syllabi reference to best practices in writing instruction. One
syllabus did not provide enough specific information on assignments to determine inclusion of
writing or other areas for analysis, thus was excluded, resulting in total of 29 syllabi included in
the analysis findings. Table 20 provides an overview of the findings for this document analysis.
Syllabi analysis indicated that the UWSSW frequently utilized written assignments to
assess student learning. Of the 29 syllabi reviewed, the mean percentage of the total grade
dependent on written components was 69.02% (SD = 22.81%). Of note, the majority of classes
included 10% of the total 100% allotted for student participation, therefore most courses would
not exceed 90% of assignments based on written work from students. Assignments that clearly
did not include a written portion were not included, including quizzes, some group projects, and
some presentations that did not explicitly state a written component such as a required slide deck.
Of the 29 syllabi, 37.93% (n = 11) presented information that written assignments would include
grading based on writing quality. Two syllabi (6.89%) included rubrics directly in the syllabus.
Of note, three of the 27 remaining syllabus indicated that a rubric would be provided to students
by instructors outside of the syllabus.
Document analysis also included examination of syllabi for the presence of instructional
best practices; findings reflected very little reference to instructional best practices. The use of
exemplars, grading contracts, and peer review of writing were not referenced in any of the
syllabi. Rubrics were referenced in five syllabi (17.24%). Drafting and revision was indicated in
three syllabi (10.34%). One of these references was that students who scored below passing on
one paper would be allowed to revise their paper for a possible passing grade. Two of the syllabi
152

referenced the process-oriented approach of all students submitting a draft so that they may
receive faculty feedback and revise their work. The practice of faculty feedback was discussed in
three syllabi (10.34%), which were the same three that indicated a drafting and revision process.

Table 20
Organizational Value for Student Writing Competency Reflected in Course Syllabi, N = 29
Analysis area n %
Mean % of total grade dependent on written
work on all syllabi
a

% of syllabi that referenced if a written
assignment will be graded based on
quality of writing

% of syllabi that included grading rubric
that includes criteria based on quality of
writing

% of syllabi that included reference to any
of the following instructional practices:
use of exemplars
faculty feedback
use of rubrics
grading contracts
drafting/revising
peer review
29

11

2

0
3
5
0
3
0
c
69.02 (SD = 22.81%)
b

37.93

6.89

0
10.34
17.24
0
10.34
0
a
Written work was defined as research or other papers, policy briefs, process recordings in field
education, written research questions, case analysis or assessment, brochure creation,
intervention plan writing, case conceptualization with a written component, forum posts, grant
writing, organizational assessment, and proposal writing. Some assignments included multiple
forms of assessment such as live presentation with a required slide deck, in which case this was
included for analysis. If a group assignment included a written component, this was included.
Quizzes were not included for analysis.
b
The % of students’ total grade in all syllabi were
153

analyzed and M and SD were calculated.
c
Peer review was discussed on two syllabi as part of
evaluating group processes, not peer review of written work, thus were not included.

Summary. Quantitative results from surveys and qualitative findings from interviews
indicated that faculty’s perception related to organizational values toward student writing
proficiency was mixed. Faculty’s reported perception of the school’s value for student writing
proficiency was high in survey results, but when contrasted with interview findings, faculty’s
perception of the organizational value for MSW writing proficiency was varied. The interview
findings suggested that faculty believe that the school values writing, but that organizational
practices do not always support this value for writing. The qualitative document analysis added
increased depth to the analysis by exploring evidence of organizational value placed on student
writing, and writing instruction practices by faculty. Syllabi review indicated that the school
values writing as a form of student assessment, but reflected low evidence of writing instruction
best practices referenced in the syllabi. While a lack of inclusion of writing instruction best
practices in the syllabi is not an absolute indication of the organization’s cultural values, it may
reflect an area for further consideration.
Faculty’s Report of Limited Communication on MSW Writing
Survey Results. Closely tied with the cultural model of values of the organization are
communication practices, which is a key component of an organization’s cultural setting and can
help bring organizational values to the forefront for faculty stakeholders. In order for faculty to
help students improve their writing through the use of best practices in writing instruction, the
school needs to regularly communicate a commitment to supporting faculty in improving student
writing. To explore the faculty’s perception of organizational communication, faculty survey
154

participants (N = 60) were asked if they experience the school as regularly communicating a
commitment to supporting the faculty to help MSW students to improve their writing. Results of
this survey item are seen in Figure 8. Only six (6.67%) faculty reported that they “agree” (n = 4)
or “strongly agree” (n = 2) that the school communicates a commitment to faculty to help student
writers. Thirty-four faculty reported that they “disagree” (n = 22) or “strongly disagree” (n = 12)
with the statement that the school communicates a commitment to supporting faculty to help
students improve their writing. Twenty faculty “neither agree nor disagree” (33.33%) with the
statement that they believe the school regularly communicates a commitment to supporting
faculty to help improve MSW student writing. These results indicate that only a small number of
surveyed faculty believe the UWSSW regularly communicates a commitment to helping faculty
in their support to MSW student writers.

Figure 8
Faculty Perceived Organizational Communication of Student Writing Competency, N = 60

2
4
20
22
12
0 5 10 15 20 25
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q15: I believe the School of Social Work regularly
communicates a commitment to supporting faculty to help
improve MSW student writing.
155

Interview Findings. In following up to the survey results indicating low communication,
interview participants were asked about UWSSW’s communication about graduate student
writing proficiency. Three faculty stated that they did not feel there was any recent
communication about support to student writers or faculty. Ten of the 13 faculty reported that
student writing is discussed in faculty meetings, primarily in course-specific consultation
meetings that occur a few times per semester. Of these 10 faculty, the majority reported that the
discussion was mainly prompted by faculty sharing their concern about some students struggling
with writing. For example, one interviewee stated “I hear people complaining about student
writing… what I don’t hear a lot of is talk about the solution.” Only one faculty member reported
hearing about student writing in a faculty-wide meeting, which was in relation to increased
admissions standard. Two faculty discussed email communication occasionally containing
information about supports available to students about writing. Another theme was that faculty
members reported that they “used to” hear more about student writing proficiency. Some
attributed this to less need to discuss student writing in recent months due to their perception that
student writing quality has improved due to increased admissions standards. Other interviewees
reported that communication has diminished on the topic of student writing because of the lack
of resources at the school, specifically since the UWSSW writing center closed.
Related to organizational communication, interview participants reported significant
confusion about what resources were available to them as faculty to help student writers, as well
as what resources were currently available to students for writing support. Overall, faculty
reported little knowledge of resources available to them to support them in writing instruction
practices. Five of the 13 faculty reported their knowledge of the UW Center for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning as a possible resource around writing instruction practices. Related to
156

faculty’s reported knowledge of resources available to students, faculty expressed confusion
about the status of the in-house writing supports available at UWSSW. While some were aware
of the larger university writing center, most expressed very little knowledge about it or how to
access it. Two faculty members reported knowledge of a faculty member within UWSSW
appointed to provide support to students who are having writing challenges. Additionally, one
faculty member discussed not knowing what school-provided resources were available to them
as faculty, but reported using their personal Grammarly software account to run student papers
through to assist them with providing student feedback. Table 21 outlines the faculty’s reported
knowledge of resources related to writing, which reflects a need for increased communication
about available resources for faculty and students related to writing.

Table 21
Faculty’s Reported Knowledge of Resources Related to Writing
Participants
Faculty resources related to writing
instruction
Student resources that provide writing
support
Jamie

Marion

Campbell

Kim

Not aware of any faculty resources.

University writing center; don’t know
steps to access it.

“Guessing” that Center for Excellence
in Teaching & Learning could help
faculty.

Not aware of any formal resources.
Has asked lead instructors for
support.

University writing center as a
resource.

University writing center; not sure
how students access it. Formerly
writing center in UWSSW.

University writing center as a
resource.

Used to be a school writing center,
“but I think they got rid of that.”
University “has something along
those lines, primarily for
undergrads, I think, though.”

157

Participants
Faculty resources related to writing
instruction
Student resources that provide writing
support
Tracy

Gray

Robin

Casey

Lee

Kelly

Noel

Maybe Center for Excellence in
Teaching & Learning has some
resources.

Unsure of resources but would start
with looking at University website
now that school writing center is
closed.

“I am assuming Center for Excellence
in Teaching & Learning, although I
haven’t used them at all.”

“None that I know of.”

University writing center has webinars
and tutorials for faculty, but “I don’t
think they are around instructing
students [on writing],” rather on
faculty’s writing.

Center for Excellence in Teaching &
Learning. Peer support from fellow
faculty.

Not aware of faculty resources on
writing instruction.

“Not sure what is currently in place.”
Makes referrals to writing support
by using mid-term grade report and
Academic Integrity Coordinator if
plagiarism concerns.

University writing assistance. Used to
rely heavily on in-house writing
center. Also discussed referring
student to their own forms of
support to help with writing (family,
friends) or perhaps referring
students to videos or expository
writing books. .

Used to rely on UWSSW writing
center. Not clear on what University
writing center offers. Librarian may
be able to help.

“Loss of writing center is huge.”
Discussed knowledge of some in-
house writing support through one
colleague who has a “course buyout
to help with writing,” but does not
know how to access it. Aware of
University writing center, but not
sure what they offer virtual students
or if only serve on-campus students.

Aware of a writing support faculty
member at UWSSW. University
writing center, including newly
added virtual services, not just in-
person any longer.

Library resources, OWL Purdue for
APA, RefWorks and Google
Scholar for APA formatting help,
Grammarly.

“Not sure of the status of the
[UWSSW] writing center.” “Scared
to refer students to it because I
158

Participants
Faculty resources related to writing
instruction
Student resources that provide writing
support

Finley

Jesse

Not aware of resources for faculty on
writing instruction practices.
Discussed possible supports for
faculty’s own writing.

Maybe Center for Excellence in
Teaching & Learning, but unclear.
really am not sure what the level of
support is at this point.” Not sure if
there is writing support through the
larger University.

Used to hear about the UWSSW
writing center “constantly,” but
thinks it “went by the wayside.”

Thinks there may be some writing
labs, but “I don’t even know if they
still exist.”

Summary. Results and findings related to UWSSW’s communication indicate an
absence of clear communication from the school that supports faculty in assisting MSW student
writers. Faculty’s reported perception is that they do not experience the school communicating
support to faculty on writing instruction. Additionally, faculty reported that communication that
takes place is often within meetings where faculty raise concerns about writing, rather than
communication centering on writing instruction practices to assist student writers. Interview
findings also indicated that faculty report a gap in communication about resources available to
them about writing instruction supports, as well as a need for increased communication about
what resources are available to students to help them improve their writing.
Need and Desire for Training on Best Practices in Writing Instruction
Survey Results. In order for faculty to help MSW students improve their writing, the
school needs to identify the training needs of faculty based on best practices in writing
instruction, and subsequently provide the training to enhance faculty knowledge and skills. To
explore faculty training on writing instruction practices, survey respondents were asked if they
159

have receive training about writing instruction practices. As seen in Figure 9, 97% (n = 58) of
faculty reported that they have not received any training on how to integrate writing instruction
practices into their coursework. Surveyed faculty were also asked if the school offered training
on this topic, if they would be interested in participating. As seen in Figure 10, 88% of faculty (n
= 53) reported that they would be interested in this training; seven faculty stated they were not
interested. Qualitative data were collected through an open-ended question for the seven faculty
who stated they would not be interested in participating in future training. One faculty member
reported that they would be having little engagement with MSW students in the coming years,
thus would not engage in this training. Another faculty member stated “I feel capable of
providing clear guidance and feedback.” Three respondents articulated that they did not feel it
was the role of faculty to provide writing support to students as part of coursework; two of the
three articulated that it should be the role of non-faculty to support student writers. Four of the
seven respondents answered that they feel there is a lack of time, which prompted their response.
Two faculty members indicated this being related to a lack of class time to cover the course
material and adding writing instruction methods would take time away from course content. The
other two indicated that they lacked the time to attend training on this topic.

160

Figure 9
Faculty Reported Training Received on Writing Instruction Practices, N = 60

Yes, 2, 3%
No, 58, 97%
Q16: As a faculty member, have you received training on how
to integrate writing instruction practices into your MSW
coursework?
161

Figure 10
Faculty Reported Interest in Future Training on Writing Instruction Practices, N = 60

Interview Findings. Interview participants were asked, “What training, if any, have you
received from the School of Social Work on ways to help graduate student writers improve their
writing?” All 13 interview participants reported that they have not received any training from the
UWSSW on ways to help MSW student writers. Faculty interviewees were also asked, “What
training, if any, would you like to see offered to faculty on this topic?” Eight faculty members
discussed a desire for training that specifically encompassed writing instruction practices in the
classroom. Of these eight, Jamie, Robin, and Kelly discussed a desire for training on writing
instruction practices that were focused on social work-specific writing. Gray reported an interest
in training on basic expository writing instruction to learn “the things you might want to do as a
faculty member, and the things you might not want to do as a faculty member, to help students.”
Yes, 53, 88%
No, 7, 12%
Q18: If the School of Social Work offered future trainings on
integrating writing instruction practices into MSW coursework,
would you be interested in participating?
162

Finley and Jesse reported their specific desire to learn more about the writing instruction
practices of providing effective feedback. Finley described this as trying to balance teaching
course content, but also with how to approach writing elements such as grammar. Jesse reported
a desire for training on giving effective feedback on student writing. Marion and Jesse discussed
desired training related to students who are English Language Learners or those who have
disabilities, in order to provide the best support to these student writers.
When asked about what training faculty would like to see offered, four faculty members
discussed their specific desire for training about what resources are available to students. While
this does not reflect training specific to writing instruction practices, it reinforces the earlier
finding that faculty desire an understanding of resources available to students outside of the
classroom. Additionally, four faculty responded that training sessions could be utilized to reach a
consensus as a faculty on what the school’s expectations are related to student writing, as well as
faculty instructional practices.
Summary. In both survey and interviews, faculty reported that the UWSSW has
provided little training on the use of writing instruction practices in MSW coursework. Faculty
also reported a desire for additional training, and while interview findings provided some insight
into the faculty’s reported content areas for training, the exact composition of training requires
further exploration. The faculty’s reported desire for training can also be compared to knowledge
findings in this study to determine training content on best practices in writing instruction.
Limited School Support of Curricular Implementation via Allocation of Resources
Survey Results. For faculty to be successful in implementing best practices in writing
instruction, the school needs to support curricular implementation via materials and finances. To
explore survey respondent’s perception of resource allocation related supporting faculty in
163

helping MSW student writers, faculty were asked, “In what ways, if any, does the School of
Social Work as an organization support you (as faculty) in the area of graduate student writing
instruction? (Select all that apply)” As seen in Table 22, faculty were provided with five areas to
select from based on their perception of what the school has provided. Only 25 of the 60 faculty
surveyed responded to the five indicated areas (41.67% of N). Of the 25, five faculty (8.33% of
N) answered that writing instruction practices have been discussed in school meetings as a form
of support. Twenty faculty (33.33% of N) reported that they have felt supported by the school by
being encouraged to attend Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning programs related to
writing instruction. Seven faculty (11.66% of N) responded that they have been encouraged to
attend other campus-delivered professional development workshops on writing instruction
practices. No faculty reported feeling supported by the school through funding allocation for
training outside of the institution or for conferences dedicated to writing and writing education.
Not indicated on Table 22 were 16 faculty responses of “other” (33% of N). Faculty were
provided a space to report what “other” ways the UWSSW supported them in the area of MSW
student writing instruction. Fourteen of the 16 stated that they selected “other” because they do
not feel any support from the UWSSW and “no support provided” was not provided as an option
for this survey item.
Surveyed faculty were also asked, “Please share any ideas you have for ways in which
the School of Social Work as an organization can further support you (as faculty) in the area of
student writing instruction. (Select all that apply)” Faculty were given the same response options
as the previous question. Fifty three of the 60 total survey participants responded to this survey
item (88.33% of N). As seen in Table 22, 37 faculty members (61.66% of N) indicated a desire
for support in the area of MSW student writing in faculty meetings. Support through referral to
164

the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning was reported by 39 faculty (65% of N).
Thirty-three faculty (55% of N) indicated that UWSSW could support them through
encouragement to attend other campus-delivered professional development workshops on
writing instruction practices. In relation to funding allocation for training on writing instruction
practices outside of the institution, 22 faculty (38.33% of N) expressed interest, and 24 faculty
(40% of N) indicated interest in funding allocation to attend conferences dedicated to writing and
writing education. For this survey item, 14 respondents indicated “other” as a response. Thirteen
faculty wrote qualitative responses to explain why they answered “other.” Three faculty
expressed the need for time to be allocated to be able to attend trainings, one of which added, “as
an adjunct, be offered pay for the time needed to participate.” One of these respondents stated,
“reduce our course load to a manageable amount so we can participate – otherwise just offering
workshops, encouraging attendance, or discussion in faculty meetings, will never cut it.” Three
responses to “other” were about increasing resources available to students for writing support,
rather than support directly to faculty on writing instruction. Two respondents requested clear
standards for writing be set by the school. Other qualitative responses included ideas such as
creating faculty mentorship on writing instruction, having course leads present information, and
one indicated the need to “discuss this [faculty training] as a mandatory activity, not something
extra to get training on ‘if you have time.’” One faculty used the “other” location to state that
they felt the school can handle increased support “in-house” without allocation of funds. Lastly,
one faculty member used the “other” space to report they do not feel they need this support, nor
does the school need to provide it.

165

Table 22
Faculty Reported Organizational Support and Desired Support via Resource Allocation, N = 60
Survey items n % N
Q20: In what ways, if any, does the School of Social Work as an
organization support you (as faculty) in the area of graduate student
writing instruction? (Select all that apply)

Discussion of writing instruction practices during School of
Social Work meetings
Encouragement of attendance at Center for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning programs related to writing instruction
Encouragement of attendance at other campus-delivered
professional development workshops on writing instruction
practices
Funding allocation for training on writing instruction practices
outside of the institution
Funding allocated to attend conferences dedicated to writing and
writing education

Q21: Please share any ideas you have for ways in which the School
of Social Work as an organization can further support you (as
faculty) in the area of student writing instruction. (Select all that
apply)

Discuss writing instruction practices during School of Social
Work meetings
Encourage attendance at Center for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning programs related to writing instruction
Encourage attendance at other campus-delivered professional
development workshops on writing instruction practices
Funding allocation for training on writing instruction practices
outside of the institution
Funding allocation to attend conferences dedicated to writing and
writing education

5

20

7

0

0

37

39

33

23

24

8.33

33.33

11.66

0

0

61.66

65

55

38.33

40

Note. For Q20, 25 of the total 60 survey respondents answered the items listed. For Q21, 53 of
the total 60 survey respondents answered the items listed. A response of “other” and no response
to the items were not included in the table.

166

Interview Findings. To further explore faculty perceptions on resource allocation related
to writing instruction practices, faculty were asked, “If you were informed that the school would
be committing more significantly to MSW student writing than is currently communicated, what
additional supports would you need as a faculty member?” Synthesis of faculty responses to this
question indicated five categories: (1) training for faculty (n = 2), (2) need for clarity on
available student resources (n = 3), (3) need for additional resources for students to assist with
writing (n = 5), (4) allocation of time and money for faculty to attend training or increased time
allotted to student writing support by faculty (n = 3), and (5) need for clarity on writing
expectations by the program (n = 2).
Summary. Results and findings related to faculty’s perception of the allocation of
resources indicated that faculty do not report strong resource allocation by UWSSW in order to
support faculty use of best practices in writing instruction. When asked what additional supports
could be provided to support their writing instruction practices, surveyed and interviewed faculty
reported the need for additional time to communicate on writing expectations and instruction
practices, and additional training needs. Interviewed faculty also reported their desire for the
school to increase resource allocation for writing support resources for students. These results
and findings indicate an organizational need for resource allocation related to writing instruction
practices and support to MSW student writers.
Interaction between Organizational Influences and Faculty Knowledge and Motivation
The organizational influences represent the environment in which the faculty stakeholder
group operates. As such, the organization’s value and practices directly impact faculty
knowledge and motivation. In order for faculty to be successful in assisting students in
improving their writing, faculty must have the knowledge of and motivation to implement best
167

practices in writing instruction. However, without the UWSSW as an organization supporting
faculty through clear values, as well as practices such as communication, training, and resource
allocation related to MSW writing competency, faculty will continue to experience difficulties in
maximizing their support to MSW student writers.
Results and findings related to organizational influences indicate that faculty perceive the
school valuing writing in MSW students, but reported concern that organizational practices do
not always support this value for writing. Faculty reported the need for increased communication
related to writing-related resources available to students, as well as to faculty around writing
instruction practices. Study participants also indicated a need to increase communication
amongst one another as faculty to identify a collective approach to student writing expectations,
as well as a collective approach to writing instruction practices amongst faculty. Faculty also
reported an absence of past training on writing instruction practices, and their reported need for
future training. Resource allocation was also determine to be an area of need expressed by
faculty. These results and findings reinforce the interconnected nature of knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences and the strong effect that organizational values and practices have
on faculty knowledge and motivation.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences’ Data
This study revealed that knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affect the
faculty’s ability to implement best practices in writing instruction into their MSW coursework.
Table 23 presents the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences explore in the study
and their determination as an asset or a need. The data indicated that UWSSW faculty have
mixed declarative and procedural knowledge of the instructional practices of the use of
exemplars, effective feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, and the process-oriented approaches of
168

drafting and revision and peer review. Faculty metacognitive practices related to writing
instruction practices are determined as an asset in this study. In all three motivation influences,
faculty reflected mixed levels of value and self-efficacy related to implementation of writing
instruction practices, thus reflecting a need in all areas of motivation. Lastly, study results and
findings indicate needs in the area of organizational cultural model related to value, as well as
cultural setting practices of communication, training, and resource allocation.

169

Table 23
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Assets or Needs as Determined by the
Data

Influence type Assumed influence Asset or need
Knowledge influences
(declarative and procedural)
Faculty varied levels of knowledge
of best practices in writing
instruction

Need
Knowledge influence
(metacognition)
Frequent practice of reflection by
faculty on their effectiveness in
supporting student writers

Asset
Motivation influence
(attainment value)
Faculty’s varied level of value on
implementing writing instruction
practices

Need
Motivation influence
(cost value)
Faculty’s mixed levels of value for
writing instruction practices when
faced with time constraints

Need
Motivation influence
(self-efficacy)
Mixed faculty confidence in
implementing writing instruction
practices

Need
Organizational influence
(cultural model - values)
Faculty’s mixed perception of the
school’s values about student
writing proficiency

Need
Organizational influence
(cultural setting - communication)
Faculty’s report of limited
communication on MSW writing
Need

Organizational influence
(cultural setting - training)

Need and desire for training on best
practices in writing instruction

Need

Organizational influence
(cultural setting - resource
allocation)

Limited school support of curricular
implementation via allocation of
resources

Need

170

Conclusion
Chapter Four presented the results and findings related to faculty knowledge and
motivation related to their implementation of writing instruction best practices into MSW
coursework at UWSSW. Additionally, results and findings related to organizational influences
were presented. These results and findings related to the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences determined where assets or needs exist. These assets and needs are
directly related to faculty’s achievement of their goal to implement best practices in writing
instruction, thus meeting the organizational goal of reducing the number of writing concerns
indicated by faculty. Chapter Five will present recommendations to address identified needs
related to faculty’s implementation of writing instruction best practices.

171

Chapter Five: Discussion
Writing is a critical component of social work professional practice and how schools of
social work approach writing has the ability to increase the writing skills of Master of Social
Work (MSW) students across the nation. Given the high importance of writing in the social work
profession (Adler & Adkins, 2001; CSWE, 2015; Simon, 2012), it is of critical importance that
the University of the West School of Social Work (UWSSW) examine how well it is supporting
MSW faculty to implement writing instruction best practices. This chapter presents a discussion
of the key results and findings in the context of the reviewed literature related to faculty
knowledge and motivation to utilize best practices in writing instruction, as well as the
organizational influences that may facilitate and hinder faculty’s ability to support student
writers. Additionally, it articulates three recommendations that UWSSW can implement to
support faculty inclusion of writing instruction best practices into their coursework, thus
contributing to the reduction of MSW student writing-related concerns. Limitations and
delimitations for this study, as well as recommendations for future research, are also discussed.
Lastly, this chapter presents considerations for more equitable instructional practices in social
work education.
Discussion of Results and Findings
The purpose of this research study was to explore UWSSW’s MSW faculty practices
related to implementing best practices in writing instruction, and to explore their perception of
the organizational influences impacting their ability to support student writers. In order to
understand how the UWSSW faculty position their own instructional practices in student writing
proficiency, this study utilized the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’
(KMO) conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). This framework allowed for exploration of
172

the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences-related assets and needs for the
faculty’s successful implementation of writing instruction best practices to help MSW student
writers. By identifying assets and needs, the information can be utilized to make informed and
accurate recommendations to solve a problem (Clark & Estes, 2008). Framed by the KMO
conceptual model, this study was grounded in the literature related to writing instructional
practices in the postsecondary education setting, and was inclusive of available social work
education-specific literature. The results and findings from this study aligned closely with the
literature and are presented in the following areas: faculty’s perceptions of the importance of
writing in the social work profession and their role in writing instruction, faculty knowledge of
writing instruction best practices, faculty’s motivation to implement best practices, and the
organization-related influences related to writing instruction at UWSSW.
Faculty Perception of the Importance of Writing in the Social Work Profession and Their
Role in Writing Instruction
Faculty at the UWSSW place a high value on writing in the social work profession.
Survey results of MSW faculty (N = 60) indicated that 91.67% of faculty reported that writing in
the social work profession is either “very important” (48.33%) or “extremely important”
(43.33%). Faculty were also asked how important they believed 17 different writing skills were
for students to demonstrate before graduation from the MSW program; all 17 writing skills were
indicated as important skills for students to possess before entering the MSW workforce.
Interview findings endorsed the survey results as all interviewed faculty provided
nuanced examples of why writing in the profession is of high importance. These examples
included the impacts of writing on client safety in a variety of settings, the many of types of
writing in social work, liability to social workers related to writing, and the reputation impacts
173

for social workers, organizations, and the profession when written communication is
substandard. These results and findings were congruent with the literature that articulated the
importance of writing in a variety of social work settings and for a variety of purposes (Simon,
2012).
Despite the high value on written communication in the social work profession by
UWSSW MSW faculty, many faculty reported not seeing it as their role to incorporate writing
instruction practices into their classroom. Postsecondary faculty members in graduate programs
frequently indicate that it is the graduate student’s responsibility to improve their writing skills,
rather than the role of faculty (Bair & Mader, 2013; Mullen, 2006; Ondrusek, 2012). In social
work education specifically, research reveals that many faculty report writing instruction as not
part of social work education (Kahn & Holody, 2009) and some faculty provide much more
writing-specific support than others, leading students to feel that standards are inconsistent or
increase frustration with faculty who have high standards (Grise-Owens & Crum, 2012). The
findings from this study were in line with the literature on faculty’s perception of their role in
writing instruction as a way to improve student writing proficiency. The findings amongst the 13
faculty interviewed were mixed, with some faculty indicating that it should not be the role of
MSW faculty to include writing instruction practices, rather the role of an outside entity such as
a writing center or other external resources. Other faculty indicated that while they do not
perceive their role to be a writing instructor, specifically, they do see the incorporation of writing
instruction practices to be part of their role in helping students to improve and prepare for
professional social work practice. This mixed role perception related to writing, coupled with
faculty’s perception of the importance of writing in the profession, is important to understand
when considering the faculty’s reported knowledge of and motivation for implementing writing
174

instruction best practices into their MSW coursework, and their perception of organizational
influences that impact their instruction.
Need for Increased Faculty Knowledge of Writing Instruction Practices
In order for MSW faculty to be able to implement best practices in writing instruction
into their MSW coursework, faculty must be able to identify these instructional practices and
understand the steps to implement them. It is additionally important that faculty reflect on what
they know as a way to continually assess their effectiveness and make changes to their practices.
Utilizing Krathwohl’s (2002) framework, this study explored faculty’s ability to identify their
factual and conceptual knowledge (combined as declarative knowledge), procedural knowledge,
and metacognitive knowledge of best practices in writing instruction. These knowledge areas are
important to explore in faculty, as many do not possess the knowledge to teach writing (Cronley
& Kilgore, 2016) and many are hired for their discipline-specific content knowledge, not for
their ability to teach in their discipline (Major & Palmer, 2006). The risk in faculty not having
knowledge in writing instruction practices is that it may continue to focus the problem on
students not being able to write well, versus faculty not having the appropriate knowledge to help
students to improve their writing (Badenhorst et al., 2015).
Declarative and Procedural Knowledge
Based on a comprehensive literature review of writing instruction practices, this study
identified several best practices in which to center this study. Instructional best practices that
articulate expectations and provide assessment of students’ work were identified, including the
use of exemplars, feedback, rubrics, and grading contracts. Also identified were the process-
oriented approaches of drafting and revision, and peer review to help students engage with their
writing as a process. UWSSW’s faculty declarative and procedural knowledge was explored via
175

interviews, as well as document analysis of student writing samples with instructor feedback. In
interviews, faculty were asked to identify writing instruction practices they were aware of, and if
they utilized these practices. With the exception of rubrics, faculty were not asked about any
specific writing instruction practice, allowing faculty to identify their own knowledge areas.
Nearly all faculty reported difficulty in naming recommended writing instruction practices, or
stated that they were not sure if the practices they employed with students would be considered
best practice. Many faculty stated they were not taught about writing instruction practices, which
is a commonly reported faculty experience in the literature (Anson, 2015). Findings indicated
that UWSSW faculty often model their teaching after their own previous professors, trial-and-
error based on how their students respond to their approaches, and some reported learning
instructional techniques from peers. These findings tied closely to the study conducted by Oleson
and Hora (2014) whose qualitative study of 53 faculty members indicated that faculty model
their own teaching after past professors and their own learning experiences, as well as through
adapting their instruction based on trial-and-error with their own students.
Of the use of exemplars, feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, drafting and revision, and
peer review, the most widely reported instructional practices that faculty were aware of and use
were providing feedback on written work and the use of rubrics. All 13 faculty reported they
know about and provide feedback to students, and 12 of 13 reported utilizing rubrics that include
some criteria of writing expectations. The high reported frequency of rubric use may have been
influenced by the explicit interview question related to the use of rubrics. Just over half of
faculty reported exemplars as an instructional approach, but only five indicated using exemplars.
Over half of faculty also discussed some form of drafting and revision, but only four reported
using this practice. Of significance, none of the faculty who reported using drafting and revision
176

did so as a practice that all students in the course engage in, rather they reported that they offer to
review drafts prior to final submission, with only some students electing to participate. Others
indicated their practice of allowing students to revise a paper after receiving a low grade due to
writing concerns, in which case students may apply the faculty’s feedback and resubmit their
paper after revision. No faculty discussed their knowledge of or use of grading contracts or peer
review as part of a course expectation. Results and findings from this study aligned with Anson’s
(2015) assertion that writing instruction practices are neither intuitive, nor rarely taught to faculty
members.
As written feedback from faculty is one of the most common forms of writing instruction
practices (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Stern & Solomon, 2006), this study also examined six de-
identified student writing samples with faculty feedback that were provided by five faculty
members. This helped identify faculty knowledge of specific practices related to providing
effective feedback. For feedback to be effective, it should give students information about their
current performance, as well as the steps necessary to attain higher levels of performance (Arts et
al., 2016). As such, findings from this document analysis indicated that faculty would benefit
from further knowledge acquisition in providing effective feedback in order to maximize writing
support to students. It is also important to recognize that the six submitted papers do not
represent the whole faculty population, and the chosen papers for review may have not been
representative of the faculty feedback practices of these five faculty members.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Related to metacognition, interviewed faculty were highly self-reflective during the
interview process. They articulated where they learned about writing instruction practices, what
they perceive to work well in how they approach writing instruction, as well as gaps in their
177

knowledge related to best practices in writing instruction. More difficult to identify was faculty’s
ongoing metacognitive processes of self-reflection when not explicitly asked in interviews. The
metacognitive process is of critical importance for faculty to identify strengths and weaknesses
in order to make adaptations to address their weaknesses, or adapt when things that previously
worked with students may no longer be effective (Ambrose et al., 2010). Faculty’s reported trial-
and-error approach to instructional practices related to writing provided evidence of this ongoing
self-reflective practice. While a trial-and-error approach was reported by some faculty, further
exploration is required to determine if faculty are frequently reflecting on the strengths and
weakness of their instructional approaches to continue effective practices, and to adjust or cease
instructional practices that are not helpful to student writers. It is also important to note that if
faculty do not have robust knowledge and skills related to writing instruction best practices, their
reflective practice may be limited to practices within their awareness.
Faculty’s High Motivation for Student Writing Outcomes, but Mixed Motivation on
Implementing the Processes Required to Help Students Meet Writing Outcomes
In order to explore the motivation of UWSSW faculty to implement writing instruction
best practices, two theories of motivation were incorporated. Expectancy-value theory (Wigfield
& Eccles, 2000) provided a framework for exploring individual faculty’s value for incorporating
best practices in writing instruction, as well as their perceptions around the cost of doing so. Self-
efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) also guided this study when exploring faculty self-efficacy, or
belief in their ability to learn and implement best practices in writing instruction.
Results and findings from this study indicated that UWSSW faculty reported a high value
for helping MSW students to improve their writing. Survey results indicated that 85% of faculty
(N = 60) indicated that helping students to improve their writing was either “very important” or
178

“extremely important” to them. Another survey item asked faculty to identify their task value for
the use of exemplars, feedback, rubrics, grading contracts, drafting and revision, and peer
review. In line with the interview findings indicated above regarding faculty reported knowledge
of and use in their practices, surveyed faculty indicated feedback and rubric use as the most
commonly used writing instruction practices. While faculty reported a high task value for
helping MSW student to improve their writing and place a high task value on writing in the
profession, there were mixed results and findings on the value faculty place on inclusion of
writing instruction practices into their coursework. It may be that the above misalignment of
value between helping students and what faculty actually do in practice is related to the faculty’s
perceived cost value for writing instruction practices.
According to Kahn and Holody (2009), faculty have a finite amount of time in the
classroom, as well as outside the classroom to participate in writing instruction practices, and
faculty may feel that writing takes away from discipline-specific content. In this study, survey
results indicated that 50% of respondents reported that incorporating writing improvement
strategies in their MSW class(es) was worth it to them even if it took time away from completing
other tasks. Another survey item probed for what faculty do when they identify a student who is
struggling with their writing. The most frequent response was to refer students to external
writing supports, such as within the School of Social Work, or to the University-wide writing
center. Faculty also reported meeting with students individually and editing their work as two
other ways they commit time to assist student writers.
Interview findings provided an in-depth look into faculty’s reported cost value for
implementing writing instruction practices. All 13 faculty interviewees indicated that lack of
time was the greatest challenge they faced in implementing writing instruction practices to assist
179

MSW student writers. More specifically, faculty reported concern about the time it takes to
provide effective written feedback and in individual meetings to review feedback, as well as the
cost of bringing in writing instruction practices into class time, thus impacting the time they have
for content-specific instruction. Some interviewees discussed the time constraints, but reported
they continue to spend a significant amount of time on providing feedback that will help students
to improve their writing. Faculty have many demands on their time and devoting time and energy
on writing practices is a challenged faced by faculty across many schools of social work (Alter &
Adkins, 2006), and many faculty are hesitant to address writing deficits due to the time it
requires (Desrosiers et al., 2015). This examination of cost value during interviews was directly
related to faculty’s perception of the organization’s values related to writing instruction, which is
explored in the following section.
This study explored faculty self-efficacy, referred to as “confidence” in survey and
interviews. Self-efficacy is an important component of motivation and relates to a belief in one’s
ability to carry out certain goals, and one’s belief impacts their perseverance to carry out these
goals when met with setbacks (Bandura, 2009). Survey results indicated that most faculty feel at
least “moderately confident” (50%) or “highly confident” (35%) in helping MSW students to
improve their writing. Interview findings related to self-efficacy were mixed, but were similar to
survey results. Eight interviewed faculty reported moderate to high confidence in helping
students to improve their writing and four faculty indicated lower confidence in this area. When
asked to provide an example of a time when they helped a student improve their writing, most
faculty were able to articulate mastery experiences that influenced their self-efficacy, as well as
how students felt about the writing instruction help they provided. These results and findings
were in line with the study conducted by Morris and Usher (2011) who found that faculty tied
180

their self-efficacy to mastery experiences of helping students over time, as well as through
feedback from students that indicated that their approach to teaching was helpful. While the
majority of faculty in this study reported moderate to high self-efficacy in helping MSW students
to improve their writing, the need for increased knowledge in implementing best practices in
writing instruction may reflect a misalignment if faculty feel self-efficacious overall in helping
students, but lack knowledge of instructional practices.
Faculty Perceived Organizational Influence-Related Needs
It is the combination of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences working
together that determine how successful an individual will be in meeting their goals within an
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational influences include the values and beliefs of
an organization, as well as the tools, processes, and procedures that may support or hinder goal
attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Data from this study indicates that the faculty’s perception of
the organizational influences related to faculty writing instruction and support to MSW student
writers is a significant area for improvement.
Faculty Perceived Organizational Values and Beliefs
Over two thirds of surveyed faculty in this study reported that they felt the UWSSW as a
school places a high value on MSW student writing competency. However, interview findings
indicated that faculty perceived the school’s overall value for graduating students with strong
writing skills to be low. Several interviewed faculty made the distinction that if faculty or
administrators were asked about the school’s values related to writing proficiency, many would
report a high value. However, faculty reported their belief that some organizational practices do
not align with a high value for writing proficiency, thus leading some faculty to report that the
school does not value strong writing proficiency from MSW students.
181

Two examples arose in interviews related to these actions impacting faculty’s perception
of the school’s values. The first was the recent closure of the school’s in-house writing center,
thus reducing resources for students and limiting faculty’s ability to refer students to external
writing supports. The second was increased faculty teaching load leading to decreased time for
faculty to engage in writing-specific instructional practices such as written feedback. Some
faculty discussed feeling more supported by administration around writing-related grading
practices in recent years, and also discussed a recent change in admissions standards that has led
to increased writing proficiency of MSW students. These examples were ways in which faculty
saw evidence of organizational values related to student writing proficiency. Simpson (2012)
posited that the often-compartmentalized nature of higher education can lead to organizational
values that suggests that if one group does not feel that writing instruction is their responsibility,
than it must be the responsibility of another part of the organizational system. Thus, data from
this study related to faculty’s perception of the closure of the writing center, as well as
admissions being a part of increasing student writing proficiency, may suggest that the
organization’s values encourage the faculty to perceive writing to be outside of their purview.
Interview findings indicated that the majority of interviewed faculty desire to collectively
determine the writing standards expected of MSW students at the UWSSW and to determine a
standardized approach of how faculty support student writers through coursework and
instructional practices. Faculty’s reported desire for a unified approach across the school relates
to Bandura’s (1997) concept of collective efficacy where a group holds a shared belief that they
can be successful in collective goal attainment. Grise-Owen and Crum (2012) stressed the
importance of a systemic approach to improving social work writing that is the responsibility of
the entire organization, thus leading to broad ownership and investment in supporting MSW
182

student writers. Wiener (2012) also suggested a shift away from individual instruction practices
determining how faculty approach MSW writing, and instead embedding a holistic approach
within the school’s culture.
Organizational Processes of Communication, Training, and Resource Allocation
This study also explored the organization-related influences of communication, training,
and resource allocation. UWSSW faculty’s perception was that there is an overwhelming need
for increased communication. Communication of values in tangible ways from organizational
leaders can help guide the work of employees (Conger, 1991) and credible and regular
communication helps bring employees into alignment with organizational values (Kotter, 2007).
Clark and Estes (2008) stressed the value of constant and candid communication as a way to
increase the trust felt by employees. Survey results indicated that only 10% of surveyed faculty
reported that they believe the school of social work regularly communicates a commitment to
supporting faculty to help MSW student writers. Interview findings were in line with survey
results and reflected that faculty perceive there to be little communication related to supporting
them in writing instruction practices. The majority discussed that writing-related topics do arise
in course-specific consultation meetings, but most of the communication centered on student
writing concerns, with little focus on writing instruction practices. Additionally, faculty
expressed significant concern that there was a lack of communication about resources available
to them as faculty, as well as resources available to students to help them improve their writing
outside of MSW coursework.
The data from this study indicates that faculty have received very little training on writing
instruction practices, and faculty desire this training. Survey results indicated that 97% of survey
responded reported that they have not received any training to integrate writing instruction
183

practices into MSW coursework, and 88% indicated that if offered by UWSSW, they would
participate in this training. These data align with the knowledge-related influences section of this
chapter indicating that faculty need to build their knowledge in writing instruction best practices.
Since faculty do no generally start their postsecondary teaching career with knowledge of
teaching methodology (Ambrose et al., 2010; Morris & Usher, 2011) and a lack of skill may be
demoralizing for faculty (Ambrose et al., 2010), it is of high importance that UWSSW faculty be
provided the training necessary to increase their knowledge, and in turn, motivation.
Allocation of resources was the last organization-related influence explored in this study.
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that goal attainment is closely tied with resource allocation, and
Schein (2017) stressed how resource allocation toward a goal relates directly to organizational
values. Survey results from this study indicated that faculty perceive little resource allocation
related to faculty’s success for implementing writing instruction practices at UWSSW.
Qualitative data suggested that faculty desire resource allocation through increased time for
faculty training, time to engage in writing instruction practices with students, and time to
communicate as a faculty about MSW writing expectations and instructional practices. Faculty
also indicated a desire for additional resources be allocated for support to MSW students outside
the classroom setting. Without adequate resource allocation to implement changes in an
organization, implementation efforts will suffer, and employees will have higher levels of stress
and may neglect critical organizational functions (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).
In summary, the data presented in this study is strongly aligned with previous research
conducted on writing instruction practices in postsecondary education, as well as within the
available literature on social work education and writing proficiency. The alignment with the
literature was seen in faculty participants’ views on writing in the social work profession and
184

their role in writing instruction, their knowledge of best practices, faculty motivation to
implement best practices, and how faculty perceive the organizational-related influences in their
success. The study data, coupled with past research indicated in the literature, supported the
creation of recommendations to increase successful goal attainment of MSW faculty to
incorporate writing instruction best practices into the coursework.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the literature and analysis of results and findings in this study, there are three
recommendations identified below to address key results and findings. Guided by the KMO
conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), recommendations were crafted to address the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational-related influence needs within the UWSSW, while
also capitalizing on the faculty and organizational strengths identified in this study. The
alignment of the KMO influences, assumed influences, and recommendations are outlined in
Table 24. These recommendations address the need for organizational support for a sense of
collective-efficacy amongst faculty, increased faculty knowledge on writing instruction
practices, and increased communication related to writing-related resources available to students
and faculty. Each of these recommendations are articulated in the following sections, including
how they address the key results and findings from this study. Concluding this section will be a
discussion of integrated recommendations to provide a clear path for implementation of these
three recommendations.

185

Table 24
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Aligned with Recommendations

Influence type Assumed influence
Asset
or need
Recommendation
(R) alignment
Knowledge influences
(declarative and
procedural)

Faculty varied levels of knowledge
of best practices in writing
instruction
Need R 2
Knowledge influence
(metacognition)

Frequent practice of reflection by
faculty on their effectiveness in
supporting student writers

Asset Asset supports
R 1 & 2
Motivation influence
(attainment value)
Faculty’s varied level of value on
implementing writing instruction
practices

Need R 1 & 2
Motivation influence
(cost value)
Faculty’s mixed levels of value for
writing instruction practices
when faced with time constraints

Need R 1 & 2
Motivation influence
(self-efficacy)
Mixed faculty confidence in
implementing writing instruction
practices

Need R 1 & 2
Organizational
influence
(cultural model -
values)

Faculty’s mixed perception of the
school’s values about student
writing proficiency
Need R 1, 2, & 3
Organizational
influence
(cultural setting -
communication)

Faculty’s report of limited
communication on MSW writing
Need R 1, 2, & 3
Organizational
influence
(cultural setting -
training)

Need and desire for training on
best practices in writing
instruction
Need R 2
Organizational
influence
(cultural setting -
resource allocation)
Limited school support of
curricular implementation via
allocation of resources
Need R 1, 2, & 3
186

Recommendation 1: Support the Collective-Efficacy of Faculty Related to Writing
Instruction Practices to Support MSW Student Writers
Individuals make up organizations and their knowledge and motivation have a profound
effect on organizational processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals within organizations also
bring different knowledge and skills, and varied motivations that drive what they see as worth
their time and energy (Clark & Estes, 2008). While organizations are comprised of individuals,
these individuals also make up a group that exists in the organizational environment. When
unified, a group’s collective agency may allow for a pooling of knowledge, skills, and resources
that can lead to goal attainment through a common purpose (Bandura, 2018). Research findings
indicate that specifically in higher education, instructors who reported high collective-efficacy
also report themselves to experience higher individual self-efficacy (Fives & Looney, 2009).
UWSSW faculty study participants reported their strong desire to approach MSW student
writing, and writing instruction practices, as a collective unit rather than through their perceived
individualistic approach. Many faculty reported that they are unsure how other faculty approach
writing instruction practices. Some reported that they are not clear on what aspects of writing
they should focus on to help students to improve their writing. Based on the results and findings,
coupled with the literature, it is recommended that UWSSW institute collaborative
organizational practices that support the collective-efficacy of faculty related to writing
instructional practices to support MSW student writers.
Grise-Owen and Crum (2012) summarized their MSW program’s organizational shift,
“this critical adjustment moved from the problem-saturated, ‘Why can’t these students write?’ to
a solution-focused, ‘How can our curriculum improve writing skills?’” (p. 521). At UWSSW,
this recommendation encompasses the need for intentional time to be arranged to bring faculty
187

together to identify what is expected of students related to writing proficiency, and to discuss
how faculty plan to integrate writing instruction practices into their specific coursework and
across the MSW curriculum. Recommendation 1 also requires the allocation of resources by
identifying a faculty member who, perhaps through a course release to lower their required
teaching load, can act as a lead for this collective process. It is recommended that this faculty
leader adapt an existing model, such as the Writing Enriched Curriculum (WEC) approach
(University of Minnesota, n.d.) to guide the implementation in tandem with school leadership.
As outlined in Chapter Two, the WEC model is grounded in discipline-specific faculty
collectively determining the approach to how writing instruction will be implemented and
evaluated (Anson et al., 2012; Flash, 2016). While this recommendation identifies one lead
faculty, this recommendation will require large-scale engagement by faculty and school
leadership. As indicated in the literature, immediate supervisor and higher-level leadership’s
expressed commitment to employees and change efforts directly influences employee collective-
efficacy (Borgogni et al., 2011).
It is possible this recommendation will be met with resistance at UWSSW due to some
faculty believing that it is not their role to provide writing instruction to MSW students. Study
participants also expressed feeling overextended in the number of courses they teach, the volume
of papers to grade, as well as other faculty commitments. In order to work through any resistance
as a faculty and to increase faculty buy-in, it will require high level of commitment by leaders to
support the organizational value of the importance of writing as a fundamental skill in the social
work profession and one that is deserving of curricular attention and faculty development. While
organizational concern for faculty buy-in may lead to avoiding this needed change, this
recommendation is based on the understanding that resistance can be harnessed as energy toward
188

positive change (Burke, 2018). As stated by Bandura (2018), “many of the things people seek are
achievable only by working together through group effort” (p. 131).
Recommendation 2: Support the Development of Faculty Knowledge and Skills through
Effective Training on Writing Instruction Practices
Study results and findings reflected that an overwhelming majority of UWSSW faculty
have not had any training on effective writing instruction practices, and 88% of survey
respondents reported interest in training in this area if offered by the school. This expressed
desire, coupled with the identified opportunities to increase faculty knowledge of and motivation
to implement best practices in writing instruction, led to the creation of the second
recommendation centered on effective training. Training offers people “how to” knowledge and
skills and provides opportunities to practice and receive feedback in order to achieve specific
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 58). Effective training focuses on “producing permanent cognitive
and behavioral changes, and on developing critical competencies for job performance”
(Grossman & Salas, 2011, p. 104). In educational settings, it is important for training programs
to meet specific needs related to instructor knowledge; otherwise, students will experience the
negative consequences of ill-prepared instructors (Elmore, 2002).
Effective training is conducted in ways that directly improves the work of the individual
receiving training (Clark & Estes, 2008). As UWSSW faculty reported a need for training in the
area of best practices in writing instruction, this lays the foundation for the creation of a training
program based on faculty’s identified need for increase knowledge and skills. This study’s
qualitative findings suggest that the majority of faculty attributed how they implement writing
instruction practices is based on how they were taught by their past instructors, by trial-and-error
of what has worked with students in the past, and through discussion with their peers. While
189

these knowledge acquisition areas may be beneficial, UWSSW faculty have largely not have
formal training to endorse their current practices as effective in helping students deepen their
writing skills. It is recommended that training at the UWSSW focus on the identified best
practices in this study, as well as allowing the faculty to explore other best practices that may
arise through the processes outlined in Recommendation 1. An additional identified area of
training, stemming from this study, is the expressed need for faculty to increase their knowledge
of how best to support diverse student writers, such as those who are English language learners
or may have disabilities that affect writing. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that approximately 70
to 90 percent of employee knowledge and skills are unconscious. Training provided by UWSSW
to faculty could allow a shift from the unconscious into the conscious through the strong
metacognitive practices of faculty reflected in the qualitative findings.
Faculty study participants also reported mixed motivation to implement best practices in
writing instruction. While the faculty overwhelmingly indicated the importance of writing in the
social work profession, and a strong desire to help student to improve their writing, data
indicated opportunities for growth in implementing best practices in writing instruction. Analysis
of quantitative and qualitative data found that faculty motivation, and perceived barriers to
successful implementation of best practices in writing instruction, is related to a perceived lack
of time by faculty. Faculty reported having limited time inside and outside the classroom to
contribute to writing instruction practices that help students improve their writing. However,
with increased knowledge about writing instruction practices, including how some practices
reduce time spent on high cost value practices such as giving written feedback (Ambrose et al.,
2010), faculty may experience a shift in motivation to implement best practices in writing
instruction.
190

The important interplay of knowledge and motivation can be addressed through effective
training that focuses on the transfer of training. Transfer, the ability of a person to acquire new
knowledge and skills learned in one context and apply it to a new context (Ambrose et al., 2010),
is a critical component of effective training programs. Grossman and Salas’ (2011) study, based
on the seminal work of Baldwin and Ford (1988), stressed the overlap of knowledge acquisition
in training and the trainee’s motivation, including self-efficacy and perceived utility of training.
The authors also stressed the importance of the organizational environment to help support
transfer of learning through application, supervisor and peer support, and follow up to formal
training.
While training programs are centered on the individuals who make up an organization,
these programs are also shifting the culture of an organization and the training helps bring
employee behaviors into alignment with this new culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of
UWSSW, this culture shift relates to increasing faculty’s use of best practices in writing
instruction, supported by organizational values and practices related to student writing
competency as an important aspect of social work education. As such, it is recommended that
training be offered to current UWSSW faculty in a way that does not increase faculty’s workload
on top of their many other responsibilities, rather faculty are allocated the appropriate amount of
time to attend trainings and transfer their new knowledge in a supportive environment.
Additionally, it is recommended that training be part of the onboarding of all new faculty,
resulting in 100% of faculty at UWSSW being trained in best practices in writing instruction,
thus increasing successful implementation of all faculty integrating best practices into MSW
coursework.
191

Recommendation 3: Support Faculty through Increased Organizational Communication
Related to Available Writing-Related Resources for Faculty and Students
This study reflected that UWSSW faculty rely heavily on referring students to internal
UWSSW writing supports, as well as the University-wide writing center. UWSSW faculty
participants reported confusion about what resources are available to them as faculty on writing
instruction practices, but were most focused on a lack of clarity of the resources that exist for
student writers outside of the MSW classroom setting. For example, since the closure of the
UWSSW writing center, faculty reported feeling unclear on how to link students with
appropriate resources to support their writing, or if there are any resources available. Since this
study focused on the faculty stakeholder group and their implementation of writing instruction
practices, increasing external resources specifically focused on students are not addressed in
these recommendations. However, faculty knowledge and motivation to implement best practices
in writing instruction is intertwined with the resources available to students outside of the
classroom setting, therefore, faculty stakeholders cannot be fully isolated given the complex
environment in which they function.
Employees may have adequate knowledge, skills, and motivation, but will fail to succeed
in reaching their goals if there are inefficient work processes within the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Qualitative findings in this study indicated that many faculty reported the need for
training on available resources for students, and that this lack of information has affected their
ability to carry out their work. Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the importance of defining what
gaps in knowledge and skills require training, and which gaps can be addressed thorough
practices such as information sharing or the creation of job aids that can articulate how to
accomplish a given task. Job aids act as a guide, or recipe, to help stakeholders achieve
192

performance goals and are useful when simply telling someone something is not quite enough to
help increase knowledge and transfer it into practice (Clark & Estes, 2008). Based on the results
and findings of this study, it is determined that the creation of a job aid, specifically for faculty at
the School of Social Work, is an appropriate method of faculty knowledge enhancement. In order
to create a job aid for the purposes of communicating the information that faculty need to
understand available resources for student writers, it is recommended that UWSSW identify and
catalog already available writing-related resources for faculty and students, both inside and
outside of the school. This includes indicating the steps necessary for faculty to take in order to
refer students for writing support within the school, the university-wide programs such as the
writing center, disability services, or other departments that provide learning support, and how to
report academic integrity concerns related to writing.
It is the goal of this recommendation to decrease faculty’s confusion about available
student resources and processes to refer student writers for additional support outside the
classroom. In contrast, it is not the goal of this recommendation to shift writing support to those
outside of the MSW classroom and away from effective instructional practices implemented by
faculty. Simply put, the goal is not to create what Simpson (2012) referred to as the “hot potato”
(p. 97) that is passed to other departments on campus that support student writing efforts.
Therefore, ongoing communication from school leaders related to the organizational
commitment to MSW student writing proficiency is central to this recommendation and further
supports Recommendations 1 and 2 previously articulated.
Integrated Recommendations
Planned change is created through purposeful efforts to adapt an aspect of an
organization’s operations (Lewis, 2011). The above recommendations, based on the results and
193

findings of this study, are opportunities for planned change within the UWSSW organization. In
order to maximize the success of a change initiative, organizations should adopt the use of a
change management plan to guide their processes. To frame the recommended changes that arose
from this study, the Prosci’s ADKAR
®
model developed by Hiatt (2006), was selected. ADKAR,
an acronym, represents the five sequential stages of awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and
reinforcement (Prosci, n.d.). This popular change model was selected based on its ease of use
and the effectiveness of understanding and motivating change at the individual level, a key factor
in organizational change (Prosci, n.d.). Based on this study’s focus on the stakeholder group of
faculty at UWSSW, the ADKAR model’s focus on the individual’s change process, including
resistance to change, was of high consideration in selecting this model. While this highly
individualist approach to change may seem narrow, it is imperative that leaders recognize that
organization change starts with individuals; it is change within a group of individuals that leads
to successful change at the organizational level (Prosci, n.d.). It is important to note that this
model was not chosen as a way to focus the challenges faced by MSW student writers solely on
the shoulders of faculty, rather to be utilized as a framework for addressing the recommendations
as a collective organization. The ADKAR model is shown in Figure 11 and guides the following
discussion describing UWSSW’s potential to respond to the recommendations that arose from
this study.

194

Figure 11
ADKAR Change Management Model

Note. Adapted from Prosci ADKAR
®
model, n.d.

Awareness
Awareness is the first phase of the ADKAR model and focuses on building awareness
around the need for change within the organization (Hiatt, 2006; Prosci, n.d.). The awareness
phase encompasses the need for clear and trusted communication about the nature of the change
and communicating why change is necessary, including the risk in not changing. Two-way
communication is a critical component to allow stakeholders to explore their perceptions of the
problem, and the pros and cons of how they currently operate versus the proposed change in
operations (Hiatt, 2006). If employees question the reason for change, or the credibility of those
delivering the message, employees are more likely to resist any change efforts (Prosci, n.d.).
A
•Awareness of the need for change
D
•Desire to support the change
K
•Knowledge of how to change
A
•Ability to demonstrate skills and behaviors
R
•Reinforcement to make the change stick
195

The recommendations outlined in this chapter tie closely with the awareness phase of the
ADKAR change model. The first recommendation will lay the groundwork for awareness
building, as it is the recommendation that encompasses bringing the faculty together around
determining a collective approach to MSW student writing proficiency and how faculty will
integrate writing best practices into their coursework. While study participants reported a strong
desire for a collective approach, it does not mean that all faculty within the UWSSW will feel
that a change is necessary or possible. Based on this study, it is likely that a high amount of
leadership effort will be required to help bring individual faculty into alignment around the
proposed recommendation to create a collective approach to writing instruction. For example, it
will require clear two-way communication through multiple channels to address faculty’s
concerns related to their perceived time constraints due to high course loads and other job
requirements. In order to move to the next phase of change, faculty need to understand what a
change in their teaching approach will mean for them personally and a change in their teaching
approach requires a high amount of trustworthy communication.
Desire
Desire, the second element of the change model, revolves around employee motivation to
support change efforts and a desire to participate in the change (Hiatt, 2006). Where awareness
building can be led by concrete approaches, leaders cannot easily control employee desire since
it must come from the individuals within the organization to express that they want to be a part
of the change (Prosci, n.d.). The desire to change is influenced by how employees perceive the
personal effects of change and the organization context of change such as how past change
efforts are perceived and how they view the environment where the change will occur (Prosci,
n.d.). An employee’s personal circumstances such as health, family relationships, or personal
196

stressors, as well as their personal values and motivators, may influence their desire to change
(Prosci, n.d.). This phase of change requires organizational leaders, from top leadership to
managers and supervisors, to be strong sponsors of change efforts to build buy-in and to actively
listen to any concerns expressed by employees around the change (Prosci, n.d.).
In order to build the UWSSW faculty’s desire to change, recommendations were crafted
based on the organization’s commitment to support the change efforts required for MSW faculty
to integrate best practices in writing instruction into their teaching approach. This phase of the
ADKAR framework requires that UWSSW organizational leaders at all levels commit time and
resources into supporting faculty in their exploration of what it means to implement changes in
teaching practices, while also considering the impacts that previous organizational changes have
had on their motivation for change. Faculty in this study expressed a motivation to help MSW
students grow in their writing and believe that the school values writing proficiency, however,
faculty reported a lack of organizational behaviors that support this high value for writing
proficiency in MSW students. As such, this phase of the change process will require patience and
trust that the school as an organization will support faculty efforts to make changes to their
instructional approach.
Knowledge
Individual knowledge, the third element in the ADKAR model, can lead to successful
change and includes the necessary information, training, and education to help implement
changes (Prosci, n.d.). Knowledge-building will only be effective if employees have the
prerequisite awareness and desire to participate in change (Prosci, n.d.). Understanding employee
current level of knowledge, their capability to learn, and the organization’s available resources
for supporting increased knowledge and skills are all important aspects of this stage (Prosci,
197

n.d.). The ADKAR model also stresses the critical importance of designing knowledge-building
efforts on what is truly effective in increasing employee knowledge. For example, training
efforts must encompass assessment of gaps in employee knowledge that will prevent goal
attainment so that effective training can be designed and delivered (Prosci, n.d.). Training must
also include hands-on application in order to maximize transfer of learning (Prosci, n.d.).
This study provides insight into UWSSW faculty’s current knowledge and skill related to
the implementation of best practices in writing instruction. This stage of the model provides an
opportunity to offer knowledge-building support to the faculty within the school. As outlined in
the ADKAR model, faculty must have moved through the stage of awareness and desire to be
ready to engage in knowledge-building efforts. Recommendations 2 and 3 center on the creation
and implementation of training for faculty on the use of best practices to enhance student writing,
as well as the creation of job aids to improve faculty knowledge in the resources available to
MSW student writers at UWSSW. Faculty participants in this study expressed a strong desire for
training on instructional best practices, as well as more information about what is available to
students so that they feel confident in helping students access the full range of supportive
services. Organizational resource allocation to support knowledge-building efforts will be
required in order for effective training and job aids to be created and implemented.
Ability
The fourth stage of the ADKAR model is ability. With the previous focus on knowledge,
this stage moves knowledge into action (Prosci, n.d.). An employee may procedurally know how
to do something, but they may lack the ability to carry out the task. As such, employees need
adequate time and tools to develop their abilities in supportive environments where they can
practice their skills (Prosci, n.d.). Increased ability can be achieved through supportive managers
198

acting as coaches and advocates for change, employees having access to subject matter experts,
and training efforts being inclusive of hands-on exercises to test their new knowledge.
Additionally, adoption and performance monitoring is an important aspect of this stage as it is
important to provide employees with feedback on their successes and areas for improvement, and
for the organization to know if the change efforts are effective or if adaptations need to be made
(Prosci, n.d.). The ability stage of the ADKAR model requires adequate time for employees to
move their knowledge into measurable abilities and organizational leaders must stress the
importance of change by removing time barriers and allocating the necessary resources to help
individuals increase their ability to perform (Prosci, n.d.).
In order for change efforts at the UWSSW to be effective, faculty must be able to apply
their knowledge acquired in the recommended training and use of job aids by having
appropriately structured and supported implementation efforts. For example, lead instructors can
provide support to faculty by allocating meeting time to discuss faculty’s application of newly
acquired instructional practices. Additionally, faculty can access the University’s Center for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning and the University writing center in order to access subject
matter experts. As indicated in Recommendation 1, an appointed faculty member can also
provide support and feedback to faculty as they apply their knowledge. In the ability stage,
UWSSW can also evaluate the effectiveness of training efforts by examining faculty adoption of
instructional methods, as well as their proficiency in doing so. An evaluation process will also
assist leaders in learning where change efforts have been successful, and what may require a shift
in approach. As is true with training efforts, the ability stage will require adequate resource
allocation by UWSSW in the way of time, mentorship by leaders, and evaluation measures.

199

Reinforcement
Reinforcement is the final stage of the ADKAR model. In order for change efforts to
sustain, organizations must work to reinforce the new changes that have been put in place as it is
not uncommon to revert to previous ways of operating (Prosci, n.d.). To reinforce the new
change, this stage includes creating intentional actions such as recognition, rewards, and
celebrations, though this model also encourages the celebration of small successes throughout
the entire change process to build momentum (Prosci, n.d.). This stage also encompasses seeking
feedback from employees to gauge if the change efforts are now accomplishing the intended
goals, as well as incorporating ongoing assessment methods to audit performance and making
sure the change is sustained. The ADKAR model recommends the incorporation of
accountability methods, such as tying the change efforts to employee performance evaluations
and compensation (Prosci, n.d.).
UWSSW faculty reported a strong desire to support MSW student writers. In order for
the recommended change efforts to be successful, UWSSW can build in reinforcements to help
ensure sustained change. Without reinforcement efforts, faculty may relapse into previous
patterns of less effective instruction methods when faced with challenges or time constraints. As
part of reinforcement efforts, UWSSW can implement the recognition of lead faculty members
who exemplify meaningful contributions, as well as the individual faculty who dedicate
themselves to the change efforts. This recognition can be done in private through one-on-one
discussions, or in public forums. Throughout the change process, early successes should be
recognized as this helps reinforce desired actions by faculty and to celebrate key milestones.
During this stage, the UWSSW can seek faculty feedback on how they are doing in sustaining
the change efforts and to communicate any needs they have from the organization to be
200

successful in continuing to sustain their efforts. UWSSW may also consider tying faculty’s
integration of best practices in writing instruction into evaluation processes such as faculty
annual performance reviews and in evaluations completed by students as a form of
accountability measures. Most importantly, this stage should not be dismissed, even though the
change seems to have been effectively achieved. Ongoing monitoring and reinforcement is
required to ensure that the new instructional approaches to improve MSW student writing
proficiency are sustained by faculty at UWSSW.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was limited by multiple factors. The term “limitation” is used to describe what
a researcher cannot control for within the research design and may threaten the internal validity
of a study (Ellis & Levy, 2009). Limitations represent weaknesses in the study that are
communicated so that future studies can be improved based on the current study’s limitations
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study, a limitation was the number of volunteers who
agreed to participate in the survey. Of the pool of 195 faculty, 60 completed the survey
(30.77%), thus representing a small sample size. This study took place in fall of 2020 and may
have been influenced by significant societal factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a
contentious presidential election, and social unrest related to racial justice. Additionally, while
the study reflected faculty across different faculty lines, thus representing one form of diversity
amongst faculty, the study may have drawn faculty who had a specific strong opinion about the
subject of student writing. Social desirability was also of consideration as a possible limitation as
survey or interview participants may have reported what they believe I or the organization
wanted to hear versus a response that is reflective of their true experience. Another limitation in
this study was the willingness for interview participants to share de-identified student writing
201

samples with instructor feedback as less than 50% of interviewed faculty elected to provide a
document for analysis.
Delimitations in a study exist when the researcher makes decisions to define the
boundaries of a study, therefor consciously deciding what is included or excluded in the study’s
design (Ellis & Levy, 2009). This study had three primarily delimitations. The first of these was
the selection of one school of social work of focus versus inclusion of multiple schools, which
could have increased generalizability of the study. While a complete analysis would have
focused on all stakeholder groups within this school of social work, including students,
administrators, and internship field instructors, for the purposes of this study, only the MSW
faculty stakeholder group was considered. Limiting the participant group to only faculty who
teach in the MSW program, versus all programs within the school, was also another delimiting
decision made.
The second delimitation related to study design. Neither the survey or interview protocol
addressed the potential for cultural differences in responses nor specifically sought information
on how student writing or faculty instruction practices may vary between diverse populations
such as those from different racial and ethnic groups, those who have a first language other than
English, or those with disabilities that may impact student writing. It was also decided to not
explore the faculty member’s own writing proficiency and if their first language is English, both
important considerations of a faculty member’s experience. Related to document analysis, this
study did not include analysis of faculty position descriptions, which may include explicit roles
and responsibilities related to supporting student writers through classroom instruction. Analysis
of position descriptions may have added additional context to the exploration of faculty’s
motivation to implement writing instructional practices, as well as the organization’s values
202

related to student writing proficiency, including which writing skills are deemed most important
for faculty to address as social work educators.
Lastly, an important delimitation was the need to identify what writing instruction
strategies were to be included in this study as identified best practices. No one specific set of best
practices exists, therefore the literature was utilized on writing instruction practices to define and
bound which forms of writing instruction practices would be included in the study. As such,
additional best practices may have existed at this time of this study, or may arise after
completion of this study.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on the stakeholder group of faculty at the UWSSW and their
knowledge and motivation to implement best practices in writing instruction, as well as their
perceptions of organizational influences that facilitate and hinder the faculty’s ability to support
MSW student writers. While this study generated a wealth of data related to the UWSSW faculty
and faculty’s perception of organizational practices, recommendations for future research arose
out of data analysis. These three recommendations are outlined in this section.
First, there is a dearth of literature on faculty writing instruction practices across the
nation, making it difficult to compare the results and findings from this study to the faculty
practices of other schools of social work. Additionally, as stated in the limitations, this study
lacks generalizability to other MSW programs. As such, the first recommendation for future
research is to apply aspects of this study to a robust sample of social work educators from
multiple schools of social work in the United States.
Second, this study focused on the sole stakeholder group of faculty. Future research is
recommended to encompass the perception of other stakeholders such as MSW students, school
203

administrators, and agency-based field instructors who support student writers in their
internships. This expansion to other stakeholder groups would allow for gaining greater insight
into how others perceive faculty instructional practices and their effectiveness. Specifically, it
would be advantageous to solicit student perceptions of what faculty-implemented instructional
practices they find effective, or ineffective, in increasing their writing proficiency.
Finally, a delimitation of this study was the lack of focus on diversity as it relates to
student writing proficiency and faculty practices. For example, faculty and student race,
ethnicity, first language, socioeconomic status, and disabilities may impacts faculty perceptions
of MSW student writing, as well as how faculty carry out writing instruction practices.
Therefore, a recommendation for future research is to explore faculty knowledge of and
motivation to implement best practices in ways that take into account the diverse student body,
as well as their own positionality based on their diverse intersections of identify that may
influence their instructional practices.
Considerations for Equity
Writing, as a form of communication in MSW classrooms and in social work professional
settings, is expected to be carried out using White English vernacular. Despite social work’s
focus on social justice as a core component of the profession, the way in which writing is viewed
in institutions of higher education often fails to include the rich linguistic diversity that students
bring to the classroom. When linguistic diversity is considered, it is often to point out
shortcomings in student writing based on narrow writing assessments that center White English
in a higher position of power and prestige than Black English Vernacular or combined Spanish
and English (Inoue, 2015). This approach to writing assessment will inherently influence how
204

faculty view student writers, as well as how they approach writing instruction practices that they
employ in the classroom setting.
Equity must not just encompass consideration of race and ethnicity, but also the many
other intertwined intersections of identity (Mitchell, 2014). Faculty who evaluate student writing
and implement writing instructional practices can do so in ways that respect the dignity and
worth of all people, including racial and ethnic diversity, students with disabilities, those of
different ages, socioeconomic status, gender, and sexual orientation. Additionally, faculty can
use instructional practices that reinforce bias-free language (American Psychological
Association, 2020) in their own writing as well in the guidance they provide student writers.
Conclusion
The writing proficiency of students in Master of Social Work (MSW) programs is of
significant concern in higher education and concern noted by faculty and administrators in
schools of social work dates back over four decades (Alter & Adkins, 2001; Cohen, 1986;
Cormican & Cormican, 1977; Rompf, 1996; Simon & Soven, 1990; Waller et al., 1996). In the
field of social work, strong writing proficiency is viewed as a critical component of professional
practice (Alter & Adkins, 2001; CSWE, 2008; 2015). Previous literature on graduate-level
writing proficiency posited that faculty often center their concern on individual students needing
to improve their writing instead of the faculty’s role in assisting student writers to improve (Bair
& Mader, 2013; Mullen, 2006; Ondrusek, 2012).
The purpose of this research was to explore the University of the West School of Social
Work (UWSSW) faculty’s capacity to utilize best practices in writing instruction into their MSW
coursework. The Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’
(KMO) conceptual model provided a framework for this study. The design of this mixed method
205

study allowed for an exploration of faculty knowledge of best practices in writing instruction, as
well as their motivation to implement such practices. Because faculty do not operate in isolation
and are part of the rich environment of the school, the study also asked faculty to report on their
perceptions of the organization-related influences’ that facilitate and hinder their ability to
support MSW student writers. These results and findings were used to articulate
recommendations for the UWSSW organization to address areas of need identified in the study.
The exploratory study conducted at UWSSW related to faculty’s use of best practices in
writing instruction provides additional insight into how one school of social work’s faculty
approached writing instruction practices. It is my intention that this study will contribute to the
UWSSW’s understanding of their faculty’s knowledge of and motivation to implement writing
instruction practices, as well as the ways the faculty perceive contextual organizational
influences that support and hinder faculty’s goal attainment to support MSW student writers.
While this study is specific to one school’s faculty and thus limits generalizability to all schools
of social work and their faculty, this study adds to the literature on faculty instructional practices
in graduate education, and specifically in social work education because of its focus on the role
of faculty instructional practices, where there is a death of available literature.
MSW student writing is a critical aspect of their education at UWSSW and a social
worker’s professional writing skills has the potential to affect the lives of individuals, families,
communities, organizations and can impact large-scale social policy. Despite the level of writing
that UWSSW MSW students arrive with to begin their graduate education, faculty members play
a part in helping students increase their proficiency in writing across the course of their MSW
education. There exists an opportunity for the school to shift from considering how ready student
are for writing at the UWSSW when they arrive, and instead consider how ready the school is for
206

student writers who come with a variety of writing ability levels. Looking to the future, the
recommendations outlined in this dissertation serve as a potential path forward for UWSSW to
increase the use of effective instructional practices by faculty, and in turn, reflect to MSW
students that how they write is as important as what they write.

207

References
Adamek, M. E. (2015). Building scholarly writers: Student perspectives on peer review in a
doctoral writing seminar. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1-2), 213-225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.995333
Adler-Kassner, L., & Wardle, E. (2015). Naming what we know: The project of this book. In L.
Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.) Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing
studies (pp. 1-11). Utah State University Press.
Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2001). Improving the writing skills of social work students. Journal of
Social Work Education, 37(3), 493-505.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2001.10779070
Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2006). Assessing student writing proficiency in graduate schools of
social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 337-354. https://doi.org/
10.5175/JSWE.2006.200404109
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (7
th
ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Anson, C. M. (2015). Crossing thresholds: What’s to know about writing across the curriculum.
In L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.) Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of
writing studies (pp. 203-219). Utah State University Press.
Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Flash, P., & Housely Gaffney, A. L. (2012). Big rubrics and weird
genres: The futility of using generic assessment tools across diverse instructional
contexts. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1). 1-9.
208

Arts, J. G., Jaspers, M., & Joosten-ten Brinke, D. (2016). A case study on written comments as a
form of feedback in teacher education: So much to gain. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 39(2), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2015.1116513
Badenhorst, C., Moloney, C., Rosales, J., Dyer, J., & Ru, L. (2015). Beyond deficit: Graduate
student research-writing pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945160
Bair, M. A., & Mader, C. E. (2013). Academic writing at the graduate level: Improving the
curriculum through faculty collaboration. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 10(1), 1-13.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9-35). Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (2009). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.A.
Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (2
nd
ed., pp. 179-200).
Wiley.
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections.
Perspectives on Psychology Science, 13(2), 130-136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Basgier, C. (2016). Engaging the skeptics: Threshold concepts, metadisciplinary writing, and the
aspirations of general education. The WAC Journal, 27, 17-35.
https://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol27/basgier.pdf
209

Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880
Borgogni, L., Russo, S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Burke, W. (2018). Chapter 15: Leading organization change. In Organization Change: Theory
and Practice. Sage Publications.
Carter, R., Salamonson, Y., Ramjan, L. M., & Halcomb, E. (2018). Students use of exemplars to
support academic writing in higher education: An integrative review. Nurse Education
Today, 65, 87-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.038
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington. (2006). Are they really ready to work?: Employers' perspectives
on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S.
workforce. The Conference Board, The Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, Corporate
Voices for Working Families, & Society for Human Resource Management.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010009473
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020, March 18). New ICD-10-CM code for the
2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), April 1, 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Announcement-New-ICD-code-for-coronavirus-3-18-
2020.pdf
210

Chittum, J. R., & Bryant, L. H. (2014). Reviewing to learn: Graduate student participation in the
professional peer-review process to improve academic writing skills. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 473-484.
Cilliers, C. B. (2012). Student perception of academic writing skills activities in a traditional
programming course. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1028-1041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.001
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cohen, B. (1986). Written communication in social work: The report. Child Welfare, 65(4), 399-
407.
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management
Executive, 5(1), 31-45.
Connors, R. (1997). Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Cooper, A., & Bikowski, D. (2007). Writing at the graduate level: What tasks do professors
actually require? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 206-221.
Cormican, E. J., & Cormican, J. D. (1977). The necessity of linguistic sophistication for social
workers. Journal of Education for Social Work, 13(2), 18-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220612.1977.10671430
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards.
https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2008-
EPAS/2008EDUCATIONALPOLICYANDACCREDITATIONS TANDARDS(EPAS)-
08-24-2012.pdf.aspx
211

Council on Social Work Education (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards for
baccalaureate and master’s social work programs.
https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2015-
EPAS/2015EPAS andGlossary.pdf.aspx
Council on Social Work Education. (2019a). 2018 statistics on social work education in the
United States. Author.
https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Research-Statistics/2018-Statistics-on-Social-Work-
Education-in-the-United-States-ver-2.pdf.aspx
Council on Social Work Education (2019b, April). From social work education to social work
practice: Results of the survey of 2018 social work graduates. Author.
https://cswe.org/CSWE/media/Workforce-Study/2018-Social-Work-Workforce-Report-
Final.pdf
Council on Social Work Education (2020). 2019 statistics on social work education in the United
States. Author.
https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Research-Statistics/2019-Annual-Statistics-on-
Social-Work-Education-in-the-United-States-Final-(1).pdf.aspx
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2014). WPA outcomes statement for first-year
composition (v3.0) (adopted 17 July 2014).
http://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/243055/_PARENT/layout_details/f
alse
Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, &
National Writing Project. (2011). Framework for success in postsecondary writing.
212

http://wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/242845/_PARENT/layout_details/f
alse
Cramarenco, R. E., Moraru, C., Balazsi, R., & Aluas, M. (2015). Meta-analysis versus systematic
review in studies regarding specific interventions in academic writing in
English. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 19(1), 55.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5
th
ed.). Sage.
Crisp, G. T. (2012) Integrative assessment: Reframing assessment practice for current and future
learning, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33-43.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.494234
Cronley, C., & Kilgore, C. D. (2016). Social work students and faculty: Testing the convergence
of perspectives on student writing abilities. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(2),
214-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1151275
Danielewicz, J., & Elbow, P. (2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and
teaching. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 244-268.
Delyser, D. (2003). Teaching graduate students to write: A seminar for thesis and dissertation
writers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 169-181.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260305676
Desrosiers, P., Gabbard, W. J., & Funk, E. (2015). Best practices for teaching effective social
work writing skills online. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning,
3(4), 10-20.
213

Dumbrigue, C. Y., Najor-Durack, A., & Moxley, D. P. (2001). Advocacy and support for MSW
applications who do not meet admissions requirements. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 21(1-2), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v21n01_08
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp.
75-146). Freeman.
Eisner, S. (2010). Grave new world? Workplace skills for today's college graduates. American
Journal of Business Education, 3(9), 27-50.
Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research methodology:
Review and proposed methods. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology
Education, 6, 323-337. https://doi.org/10.28945/1062
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.
Fink, A. (2013.). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5
th
ed.). Sage.
Fives, H. & Looney, L. (2009). College instructors’ sense of teaching and collective efficacy.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 182-191.
Flash, P. (2016). From apprised to revised: Faculty in the disciplines change what they never
knew they knew. In K. Yancey (Ed.), A rhetoric of reflection (pp. 228-249). Utah State
University Press.
214

Flash, P. (2019). Writing enriched curriculum program 2019 faculty survey. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gardiner, M., & Kearns, H. (2012). The ABCD of writing: Coaching high-quality high-quantity
writing. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(2), 247-259.
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2
nd
ed.). Sage.
Giles, T. M., Gilbert, S., & McNeill, L. Nursing students’ perception regarding the amount and type
of written feedback required to enhance their learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(1),
23-30. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20131209-02
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162–183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Golombek, C., Klingsieck, K. B., & Scharlau, I. (2019). Assessing self-efficacy for self-
regulation of academic writing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(5),
751-761. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000452
Greasley, P., & Cassidy, A. (2010). When it comes round to marking assignments: how to
impress and how to 'distress' lecturers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
35(2), 173-189.
Grise-Owens, E., & Crum, K. (2012). Teaching writing as a professional practice skill: A
curricular case example. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(3), 517-536.
https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2012.201000030
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
215

Halpern, B. L., & Richards, R. (2012). Mastering the art of leadership: An experiential approach
from the performing arts. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds), The handbook for
teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, and being (pp.135-149). SAGE Publications.
Hanstedt, P. (2012). Reforming general education: three reasons to make writing across the
curriculum part of the conversation. Liberal Education, 98(4), 48-51.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our
community. Prosci Learning Publications.
Horton, E. G., & Diaz, N. (2011). Learning to write and writing to learn social work concepts:
Application of writing across the curriculum strategies and techniques to a course for
undergraduate social work students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(1), 53-64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2010.539141
Huerta, M., Goodson, P., Beigi, M., & Chlup, D. (2017). Graduate students as academic writers:
Writing anxiety, self-efficacy and emotional intelligence. Higher Education Research &
Development, 36(4), 716-729. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238881
Huisman, B. A., Saab, N., Van, den Broek P. W, & Van, e. J. H. (2019). The impact of formative
peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-
analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880.
Inoue, A. B. (2016). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for
a socially just future. The WAC Clearinghouse; Parlor Press.
https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/inoue/
216

Inoue, A. B. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the
compassionate writing classroom. Perspectives on Writing. The WAC Clearinghouse;
University Press of Colorado. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/labor/
Ives, L., Gokhale, J. S., Barrot, W. C., & Perez, M. V. (2019). Sprinting toward genre
knowledge: Scaffolding graduate student communication through “sprints” in finance and
engineering courses. Across the Disciplines, 16(2), 16-33.
https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/articles/ivesetal2019.pdf
Jani, J. S., & Mellinger, M. S. (2015). Beyond “writing to learn”: Factors influencing students’
writing outcomes. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(1), 136-152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10437797.2015.977177
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5
th
ed.). Sage.
Kahn, J. M., & Holody, R. (2009). WAC: A strengths-based approach to student learning. The
Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 14(1), 83-94.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21
st
century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4),
113-123.
Kilgore, C. D., Cronley, C., & Amey, B. (2013). Developing grass roots writing resources: A
novel approach to writing within the social work discipline. Teaching in Higher
Education, 18(8), 920-932. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827647
Kokaliari, E. D., Brainerd, M., & Roy, A. (2012). A longitudinal study of assessing APA writing
competence at a BSW program. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(5), 566-577.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.725706
217

Kolb, P. (2013). Implementation of writing across the curriculum (WAC) learning approaches in
social work and sociology gerontology courses. Gerontology & Geriatrics
Education, 34(2), 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2012.718011
Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1), 96–103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207.s15430421tip4104_2
Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Writing approaches of graduate students. Educational
Psychology, 27(6), 807-822. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701366001
Lerner, N. (2006). Time warp: Historical representations of writing center directors. In C.
Murphy, B. L. Stay, & K. Abels (Eds.), The writing center director’s resource book (1
st

ed., pp. 3-11). Taylor & Francis Group.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Luna, N., Horton, E. G., & Galin, J. R. (2014). The effectiveness of writing across the
curriculum in a baccalaureate social work program: Students’ perceptions. Advances in
Social Work, 15(2), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.18060/15692
Major, C., & Palmer, B. (2002). Faculty knowledge of influences on student learning. Peabody
Journal of Education, 77(3), 138-162. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7703_8
Major, C. H., & Palmer, B. (2006). Reshaping teaching and learning: The transformation of
faculty pedagogical content knowledge. Higher Education, 51, 619-647.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-1391-2
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2
nd
ed.). Sage.
218

McDonald, D., Boddy, J., O’Callaghan, K., & Chester, P. (2015). Ethical professional writing in
social work and human services. Ethics and Social Welfare, 9(4), 359-374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2015.1009481
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miner, J. (2018). Writing skills and related behaviors of MSW students, faculty, & field
instructors (Publication No. 10808909) [Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Mitchell, D., Jr. (2014). Introduction. In D. Mitchell, Jr., C. Simmons, & L. A. Greyerbiehl
(Eds.), Intersectionality & higher education: Theory, research, & praxis (pp. 1-5). Peter
Lang AG International Academic Publishers.
Moberg, E. (2010). The college writing center: Best practices, best technologies (ED508644).
ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508644.pdf
Moor, K. S., Jensen-Hart, S., & Hooper, R. I. (2012). Small changes, big differences:
Heightening BSW faculty awareness to elicit more effective student writing. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 32(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.640601
Morris, D. B., & Usher, E. L. (2011). Developing teaching self-efficacy in research institutions:
A study of award-winning professors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 232-
245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.005
Mullen, C. A. (2001). The need for a curricular writing model for graduate students. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 25(1), 117-126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770020030551
219

Mullen, C. A. (2005). Fire and ice: Igniting and channeling passion in new qualitative
researchers. Peter Lang.
Mullen, C. A. (2006). Best writing practices for graduate students: Reducing the discomfort of
the blank screen. Kappa Delta Pi Record (International Honor Society in Education),
43(1), 30-35.
Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and
academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108.
https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
National Center for Education Statistics (2019). The Condition of Education 2019 (NCES
2019144). National Center for Education, Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctb.asp
National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges (2003). The neglected “r”:
The need for a writing revolution. College Entrance Examination Board.
https://archive.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2523
Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of
metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and
evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142-179.
Nelson, J. S., Range, L. M., & Ross, M. B. (2012) A checklist to guide graduate students'
writing. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3),
376-382.
220

Nowacek, R. S., & Hughes, B. (2015). Threshold concepts in the writing center: Scaffolding the
development of tutor expertise. In L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.). Naming what we
know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 171-185). Utah State University Press.
Oglensky, B. D., & Davidson, E. J. (2009). Teaching and learning through clinical report-writing
genres. The International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 16(9), 139-152.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i09/46557
Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of
teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices.
Higher Education, 68, 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1007.s10734-013-9678-9
Ondrusek, A. L. (2012). What the research reveals about graduate students' writing skills: A
literature review. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(3), 176-
188.
Oppenheimer, D., Zaromb, F., Pomerantz, J. R., Williams, J. C., & Park, Y. S. (2017).
Improvement of writing skills during college: A multi-year cross-sectional and
longitudinal study of undergraduate writing performance. Assessing Writing, 32, 12-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.11.001
Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Horwitz, S. M., Chamberlain, P., Hurlburt, M., & Landsverk, J.
(2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in
Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 44–53.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Sage.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National
221

Center 5 for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf
Plakhotnik, M. S., & Rocco, T. S. (2016, Nov). Increasing writing self-efficacy of adult
learners. Adult Learning, 27, 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159515611879
Prosci. (n.d.). The Prosci ADKAR
®
Model. https://empower.prosci.com/the-prosci-adkar-model-
ebook-bundle
Rai, L. (2006). Owning (up to) reflective writing in social work education. Social Work
Education, 25(8), 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470600915845
Rai, L., & Lillis, T. (2013). ‘Getting it write’ in social work: Exploring the value of writing in
academia to writing for professional practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 352-
364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719157
Ritter K. (2008). Before Mina Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale, 1920-1960. College
Composition and Communication, 60(1), 12–45.
Robbins, I. P. (2009). Best practices on “best practices”: Legal education and beyond. Clinical
Law Review, 16(1), 269-305.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rompf, E. L. (1996). Student writing in social work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 12(1-
2), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v12n01_09
Rose, M., & McClafferty, K. A. (2001). A call for the teaching of writing in graduate
education. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 27-33.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030002027
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3
rd
ed.).
Sage.
222

Sadler, I. (2013). The role of self-confidence in learning to teach in higher
education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 157-166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.760777
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7
th
ed.).
Sage.
Sallee, M., Hallett, R., & Tierney, W. (2011). Teaching writing in graduate school. College
Teaching, 59(2), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.511315
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5
th
ed.). Wiley.
Seurkamp, M. P. (2007). Changing student demographics. University Business, 10(10), 47-48.
Shaw, V. N. (1999). Reading, presentation, and writing skills in content courses. College
Teaching, 47(4), 153-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559909595808
Sheils, M. (1975, December 8). Why Johnny can’t write. Newsweek, 58-65.
Shulman, L. S. (1967). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Simon, B. L. (2012). Writing in social work in the United States: 1880s to the present. In W.
Green & B. L. Simon (Eds.), The Columbia guide to social work writing (pp. 3-24).
Columbia University Press.
Simon, B. L., & Soven, M. (1990). The teaching of writing in social work education. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 3(2), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v03n02_05
Simpson, S. (2012). The problem of graduate-level writing support: Building a cross-campus
graduate writing initiative. Writing Program Administration, 36(1), 95-118.
223

Singleton- Jackson, J. A., Lumsden, D. B., & Newsom, R. (2009). Johnny still can't write, even
if he goes to college: A study of writing proficiency in higher education graduate
students. Current Issues in Education, 12.
Spidell, C., & Thelin, W. H. (2006). Not ready to let go: A study of resistance to grading
contracts. Composition Studies, 34(1), 35-68.
Stern, L.A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing
Writing, 11(1), 22-41.
Sternberg, R. J. (2017). Intelligence and competence in theory and practice. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2
nd
ed., pp. 9-
24). The Guilford Press.
Training Magazine. (2018). 2018 training industry report.
https://trainingmag.com/sites/default/files/trn-2018-industry-report.pdf
University of Minnesota. (n.d.) Writing-enriched curriculum. https://wec.umn.edu/
Vermont Agency of Education. (2017, May 9). What is proficiency-based learning? [Brief].
https://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/files/documents/edu-proficiency-based-
education-what-is-proficiency-based-learning.pdf
WAC Clearinghouse (n.d.a). Why include writing in my courses. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from
https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/include/
WAC Clearinghouse (n.d.b). What is writing in the disciplines? Retrieved June 27, 2020, from
https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/wid/
WAC Clearinghouse (n.d.c). How can I avoid getting lousy student writing? Retrieved June 27,
2020, from https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/quality/
224

WAC Clearinghouse (n.d.d). How can I handle responding to student writing? Retrieved March
22, 2021, from https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/response/
WAC Clearinghouse (2006a, April). Tips on grading: Using rubrics.
https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/tipsheets/rubricsSB.pdf
WAC Clearinghouse (2006b, April). Sequencing writing assignments.
https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/tipsheets/sequencingSB.pdf
Wagenmakers, E. (2009). Teaching graduate students how to write clearly. APS Observer, 22(4).
Waller, M. A., Carroll, M. M., & Roemer, M. (1996). Teaching writing in social work
education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 13(1-2), 43-56.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v13n01_05
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon & Schuster.
Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing
problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher
Education, 15(2), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003619961
Wiener, D. R. (2012). Enhancing critical reflection and writing skills in the HBSE classroom and
beyond. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(5), 550-565.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.722183
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1015
225

Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S.
Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2
nd
ed., pp. 116-134). The
Guilford Press.
Woody, J. D., Zeleny, M. G., D'Souza, H. J., Harder, J., Reiser, J., & Szto, P. (2014). Student
progress in a social work writing course: Self-efficacy, course objectives, and
skills. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(3), 507-524.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2014.917895

226

Appendix A: Survey Protocol

Question
Open or
Closed?
Level of
Measure-
ment
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval,
ratio) Response options (if close-ended) RQ
Concept being
measured
(from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
1. What is your title at
the UW School of
Social Work?
Closed Nominal o Tenure-line
o Full-time clinical teaching faculty
o Full-time field faculty
o Full-time lecturer
o Adjunct faculty (non-field
courses primarily)
o Adjunct faculty (field courses
primarily)
o Other:
--- Demographics
2. Is your teaching
appointment
predominantly in
the On-Campus
Program (OCP) or
Virtual Program
(VP)?
“predominantly” is
defined as over
50% of your
teaching.
Closed Nominal o On-Campus Program (OCP)
o Virtual Program (VP)

--- Demographics
3. How long have you
taught social work
for Master of Social
Work (MSW)
students at UW
School of Social
Work? (please
indicate whole
number only).
Closed Nominal o 1-3 years
o 4-7 years
o 8-11 years
o 12-15 years
o 16-19 years
o 20+ years
--- Demographics
From this point on, please confine your answer to your experiences teaching courses for MSW students at
University of the West School of Social Work.
For the purposes of this survey, writing is broadly defined as communication in which visual marks convey
meaning (including words, sentences, tables, figures, images, etc.).
4. In the past 1-3
years, which of the
following best
represents the
overall quality of
student writing in
the MSW courses
you teach?
Closed Ordinal o MSW student performance
regularly exceeds expectations for
students at this level
o MSW student performance meets
expectations for students at this
level
o MSW student performance does
not consistently meet expectations
for students at this level
o MSW student performance
regularly fails to meet
expectations for students at this
level
RQ1 Contextual
variable
227

o Unable to generalize
5. How important is
writing in the social
work profession?
Closed Ordinal o Not at all important
o Somewhat important
o Moderately important
o Very important
o Extremely important

RQ1 Task value

6. How important are
the following
writing skills for
MSW students to
demonstrate before
they graduate?
Closed Ordinal Scale of 1-6 (1-not at all important;
6-extremely important; “don’t
know/no opinion option given after
6 on scale)

o Using social work field-specific
terminology
o Arguing a position using a central
thesis or hypothesis
o Arguing a position using evidence
o Representing data using figures,
drawings, charts, and/or tables
o Describing processes, findings,
and environments
o Expressing feelings or
impressions
o Summarizing ideas, texts, or
events
o Synthesizing disparate ideas
and/or perspectives
o Creating multimodal presentations
(slides, posters, infographics)
o Analyzing, interrogating, and/or
evaluating ideas, texts, or events
o Using grammar effectively
(spelling, punctuation, etc.)
o Proposing innovative ideas or
perspectives
o Integrating and accurately citing
information from well-chosen
sources
o Reporting and explaining
complex data or findings
o Using writing to develop and
deepen thinking
o Reflecting upon experiences
and/or assumptions
o Revising their written work

RQ1 Task value

7. As a social work
faculty member
teaching MSW
students, how often
do you do the
following:
Closed Ordinal All used the following scale
choices: not at all, infrequently,
somewhat frequently, very
frequently

o Edit grammar and other writing
mistakes in your students’
papers/written work
RQ1 Task value

228

o Provide a rubric for grading of
written assignments that includes
expectations about quality of
writing as an aspect of grading
o Discuss grading criteria before an
assignment is due
o Summarize feedback to students
about their writing at the end of
the paper/written work
o Provide feedback on student
written work within a two-week
period
o Spend class time talking about
writing issues in your students’
papers/written work
o Allow students to submit a rough
draft for comments so that they
may revise before the final
version is due
o Assign papers in steps, rather than
all at once
o Allow students to revise a paper
to improve their grade
o Provide examples of effective
papers/written work to your
students
o Integrate and encourage peer
review of written work amongst
students (within or outside of
class)
o Craft and implement grading
contracts collaboratively with
your students
o Assign grades without comments
specific to their writing
8. How does the value
you place on the
task of graduate
student writing
align with the
values of your
School of Social
Work colleagues in
the MSW program?
Closed Ordinal o I place a higher value on the task
of student writing than my
colleagues
o I place the same amount of value
on the task of student writing than
my colleagues
o I place less value on the task of
student writing than my
colleagues
o I don’t have a sense of the value
my colleagues place on the task of
student writing
RQ,
RQ2
Task Value
(Attainment
value) &
Cultural
Model (value)
9. How important is it
to you to help
MSW students
improve their
writing?
Closed Ordinal o Not at all important
o Somewhat important
o Moderately important
o Very important
o Extremely important
RQ1 Task Value
(Attainment
value)
10. When you believe a
MSW student is
struggling with
their writing, what
Closed Nominal o I refer them for writing support
within the School of Social Work.
RQ1,
RQ2
Task Value
(Cost Value)
229

is your response?
(select all that
apply)
o I refer them to the University-
wide writing center outside the
School of Social Work.
o I refer them to the Academic
Integrity Coordinator at the
School of Social Work for
plagiarism concerns.
o I add their name to the mid-term
grade report.
o I suggest they access certain
materials, such as books/guides or
websites.
o I meet with them to talk about it.
o I edit their work.
o I spend more time to respond to
their writing than students who
are not struggling.
o I don’t address it.
o Other: ______________
11. Utilizing writing
improvement
strategies in my
MSW class(es) is
worth it to me even
if it takes away
from other tasks.
Closed Ordinal o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

Task Value
(Cost Value)
12. How confident are
you in your ability
to help MSW
students to improve
their writing?
Closed Ordinal o Not at all confident
o Slightly confident
o Moderately confident
o Extremely confident

RQ1 Self-efficacy
13. How confident are
you in your ability
to do the following
related to MSW
student writing?
Closed Ordinal Scale of 1-6 (1-not at all
confident; 6-extremely
confident; “don’t know/no
opinion option given after 6 on
scale)

o Commenting on drafts in order
to promote revision
o Communicating expectations
about the qualities and features
of writing in the field of social
work
o Designing effective, course-
relevant writing assignments
o Grading writing in ways that
are fair
o Grading writing in ways that
are efficient
o Organizing effective peer
response activities to improve
student writing
o Using social work discipline-
specific writing criteria to
assess student writing
RQ1 Self-efficacy

230

14. How important do
you believe MSW
student writing
competency is to
the School of
Social Work as an
organization?
Closed Ordinal o Not at all important
o Slightly important
o Moderately important
o Important
o Extremely important

RQ2 Cultural model
(value)
15. I believe the School
of Social Work
regularly
communicates a
commitment to
supporting faculty
to help improve
MSW student
writing.
Closed Ordinal o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

Cultural
setting
16. As a faculty
member, have you
received training on
how to integrate
writing instruction
practices into your
MSW coursework?

Closed Nominal o Yes
o No

Cultural
setting
17. If you answered yes
to the above
question, where did
you receive this
training? (select all
that apply)
Closed Nominal o Institutionally sponsored training
from within the School of Social
Work
o Institutionally sponsored training
from outside the School of Social
Work, but within the UW system
o Outside of the UW system, but
funded by the School of Social
Work
o Outside of the UW system, but
unfunded by the School of Social
Work
o I don’t recall where I received the
training from
o Other:
RQ2 Cultural
setting
18. If the School of
Social Work
offered future
training on
integrating writing
instruction
practices into MSW
coursework, would
you be interested in
participating?
Closed Nominal o Yes
o No

RQ2 Cultural
Setting
231

19. If you answered no
to the above
question, please
explain.
Open Qual Open: ______________ RQ1,
RQ2
Task Value &
Cultural
Setting
20. In what ways, if
any, does the
School of Social
Work as an
organization
support you (as
faculty) in the area
of graduate student
writing instruction?
(select all that
apply)
Closed Nominal o Discussions of writing instruction
practices during School of Social
Work meetings
o Encouragement of attendance at
Center for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning (CETL) programs
related to writing instruction
o Encouragement of attendance at
other campus-delivered
professional development
workshops on writing instruction
practices
o Funding allocated for training on
writing instruction practices
outside of the institution
o Funding allocated to attend
conferences dedicated to writing
and writing education
o Other: _____________
RQ2 Cultural
setting
21. Please share any
ideas you have for
ways in which the
UW School of
Social Work as an
organization can
further support you
(as faculty) in the
area of graduate
student writing
instruction.
Closed Nominal o Discuss writing instruction
practices during School of Social
Work meetings
o Encourage attendance at Center
for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning (CETL) programs
related to writing instruction
o Encourage attendance at other
campus-delivered professional
development workshops on
writing instruction practices
o Funding allocated for training on
writing instruction practices
outside of the institution
o Funding allocated to attend
conferences dedicated to writing
and writing education
Other: _____________
RQ2 Cultural model
and cultural
setting
22. What other
comments would
you like to share
about the topic of
student writing in
the MSW program
at UWSSW?
Open Qual Open ________________ RQ1,
RQ2
K, M, and/or
O

232

Appendix B: Interview Protocol

1. Tell me about your path to becoming a faculty member at the UW School of Social
Work.
 Probe: How long have you been teaching at UWSSW?

2. What is your experience with learning to write within the profession of social work? (RQ
1; K & M overview)
 Probe: Do you think your experience with learning to write has influenced how
you teach your students about writing in the profession of social work?

3. Tell me your thoughts on why writing is or is not an important skill for professional
social workers. (RQ 1; task value)
 Probe: What specifically do you think are important writing skills for MSWs to
have?
 Probe: When do they need to use quality writing in context of social work?

4. How would you describe the quality of writing of your MSW students here at the School
of Social Work? (RQ 1; K & M overview)
 Probe: Where do you see students excelling?
 Probe: Where do you see students struggling?
 Probe: How have you seen the quality of student writing change over time?
 Probe: What percentage of your students would you say have what you consider
to have adequate writing skills for the MSW program?
 Probe: If you have students who struggle with writing, do you have a sense of
where this may stem from? If so, please explain.

5. Some might say that it is not the role of a MSW faculty member to teach writing. What
are your thoughts? (RQ 1; task value – attainment value)
 Probe: Whose role do you think it is?

6. There are many instructional practices that help improve student writing. Tell me about
any recommended writing instruction practices you are aware of, regardless of whether
you currently implement them. (RQ 1; declarative knowledge)

7. Of those you are aware of, tell me about writing instruction practices you do implement
to help students improve their writing. (RQ 1; procedural knowledge)
 Probe: How effective are they when you use them?

8. Where or from whom did you learn these strategies? (RQ 1; procedural knowledge)

9. Do you use a grading rubric for written student work? If so, does the grading rubric
include criteria based on quality of writing?
 Probe: If they are included, what aspects of writing are included? Are these
aspects weighted equally, or are some valued more than others on the rubric?
Does the rubric include space for instructor comments to contextualize the score?
233

10. On a scale of 1-10, how effective do you feel your writing instruction practices are and
why? (RQ1; metacognitive knowledge)

11. Please describe how confident you are in your ability to help MSW students improve
their writing. (RQ 1; self-efficacy)

12. Please provide an example of a time when you felt you successfully helped a student
improve their writing. (RQ 1; self-efficacy)
 Probe: How did this success influence your confidence in implementing writing
improvement strategies, if at all?

13. If you were to explain to a new faculty member how you go about helping graduate
students to improve their writing, what would you say? (RQ 1; procedural knowledge)
 Probe: What are the steps you take? Take me through it.

14. What are the challenges, if any, in implementing writing instruction into your teaching
practices? (RQ 1; task value – cost value, but possibly RQ 2 if challenges are related to
“O”)
 Probe: How does this influence your confidence in implementing strategies?
 Probe: How does this influence your implementation?

15. How would you describe the School of Social Work’s overall commitment to graduating
students with advanced writing skills? (RQ 2; cultural model)

16. Where do you hear, if at all, the school communicating a commitment to graduate student
writing proficiency? (RQ 2; cultural setting)
 Probe: Do you hear student writing proficiency discussed in faculty meetings,
emails, policy, and/or syllabi.

17. How frequently, if at all, do you hear this communicated? (RQ 2; Cultural Setting)

18. If you were informed that the school would be committing more significantly to MSW
student writing than currently communicated, what additional supports would you need
as a faculty member? (RQ 2; Cultural Setting)

19. What resources are in place, if any, at the School of Social Work to support MSW
students to improve their writing? (RQ 2; Cultural Setting)

20. What resources are in place, if any, at the school of social work to support MSW faculty
in writing instruction? (RQ 2; Cultural Setting)

21. What training, if any, have you received from the School of Social Work on ways to help
graduate students improve their writing? (RQ 2; Cultural Setting)
 Probe: Was the training provided internally from the School? External from
School of Social Work but still within USC?
234

 Probe: Was it required?
 Probe: Did you seek it out yourself?
 Probe: Did you have a personal cost to receive this training?

22. What training, if any, would you like to see offered to faculty on this topic? (RQ 2;
Cultural Setting)
 Probe: If none, why?

23. What else would you like to share about the topic of the faculty’s role in graduate student
writing? (RQ 1 and RQ 2)

235

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol

The documents that will be analyzed for this study include the following:
1. Course syllabi for all MSW courses at the UWSSW, excluding electives
2. De-identified copies of graded student writing submitted by faculty members

Course Syllabi:
1. What % of the total grade is dependent on written work by students? (RQ2: Cultural model)
2. Does the syllabus reference if a written assignment will be graded based on quality of
writing? If so, how is it described? (RQ2: Cultural model)
3. Does the syllabus provide a grading rubric that includes criteria based on quality of writing?
(RQ2: Cultural model)
4. Does the syllabus include reference to any of the following instructional practices: use of
exemplars; formative or summative feedback on writing projects; rubrics; grading contracts;
and/or faculty using a process-oriented approach to writing including drafting, revising,
and/or peer review? If so, which ones? (RQ2: Cultural model)

Copies of Graded Student Writing:
1. What is the frequency, if at all, of written comments on student writing samples related to
writing quality? (RQ1; Procedural knowledge)
2. How many comments were not about writing quality, but, instead, focus on content? (RQ1;
Procedural knowledge)
3. How many points of feedback, if any, were forms of praise without specific feedback about
what aspect of the writing was especially effective? (RQ1; Procedural knowledge)
236

4. How many points of feedback, if any, were forms of criticism without specific feedback
about what aspects of the writing were particularly ineffective? (RQ1; Procedural
knowledge)
5. How frequently was their evidence of faculty editing student writing at the sentence-level?
(RQ1; Procedural knowledge)
6. How many faculty provided summative feedback that was inclusive of comments on writing?
(RQ1; Procedural knowledge)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership competencies in healthcare administration graduate degree programs: an evaluative study

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Child welfare turnover: an evaluation study of work-life balance practices

PDF

Educational resiliency factors contributing to college success for adolescent mothers

PDF

Implementing a digital information management system for advising adult students in professional education programs

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

Asset Metadata

Creator Cardinal, Laura Marie (author)

Core Title Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/29/2021

Defense Date 04/15/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag best practices,faculty,graduate student writing,Knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,social work education,Writing,writing instruction,writing proficiency

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Janke, Dawn (committee member), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member)

Creator Email lcardina@usc.edu,lmcardin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-457900

Unique identifier UC11668438

Identifier etd-CardinalLa-9572.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-457900 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CardinalLa-9572.pdf

Dmrecord 457900

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cardinal, Laura Marie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA