17_ by Teachassess

Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, Vol. 94, No. 2, 305–315

Effects of Repeated Practice and Contextual-Writing Experiences on College Students’ Writing Skills Karla M. Johnstone, Hollis Ashbaugh, and Terry D. Warfield

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Wisconsin—Madison The authors examined the effects of both general and task-specific writing experiences on college students’ writing-skill development. On the basis of theories of expertise development and a cognitive process theory of writing-skill development, the authors predicted that repeated practice would be associated with superior writing skills and that after controlling for repeated practice, writing within a specific task domain would be associated with superior writing skills. Undergraduate students participated in a field experiment in which 279 students practiced their writing skills in a professionally relevant task domain, whereas another group of 385 students practiced their writing skills in a more general domain. The results were consistent with the predictions. The authors discuss implications for teaching writing skills and for general theories of expertise development in writing.

ing skills (e.g., Herrington, 1981; McLeod & Maimon, 2000; Parks & Goldblatt, 2000; Royster, 1992; Russell, 1992). Researchers have examined the effectiveness of these programs at a generalprogram assessment level (see, e.g., White, Lutz, & Kamusikiri, 1996; Witte & Faigley, 1983). However, there is little research on the underlying cognitive theory for these programs (i.e., testing whether repeated practice in writing within a specific task domain actually results in improved writing skills). The purpose of this study was to provide such evidence. Specifically, we investigated (a) whether repeated practice improves students’ writing skills and (b) after controlling for repeated practice, whether writing within a specific task domain improves students’ writing skills. From a curriculum-design perspective, it is important to distinguish these effects because WAC–WID programs have been implemented based on the belief that repeated, contextualized experiences are helpful in improving students’ writing skills. Our research design allowed us to separately test these effects, which contribute to our understanding of the extent to which contextual- versus general-writing experiences lead to improved writing skills. As such, through this study we contribute to the larger literature on expertise development in applied settings (e.g., Anderson, 1982; Berninger, Fuller, & Whitaker, 1996; Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1992; Glaser, 1976) and provide evidence about the educational outcomes associated with writing programs. We investigated factors underlying writing-skill improvement in the context of professional business writing in the field of accountancy. Contrary to popular belief, accountants’ jobs rely extensively on written communication skills as opposed to mathematical skills (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1988; Arthur Andersen & Co. et al., 1989). Administrators and instructors at our institution (University of Wisconsin—Madison School of Business) have established a business-school writing program, embedded within a university-wide program, to encourage the development of writing skills. The business-school writing program was implemented within a business-communications course in which students practice their writing skills using general business-oriented writing exercises. Although the businesscommunications course is required of all business-school students,

Writing skills are socially valuable, and thus educators are naturally tasked with teaching these skills. Teaching writing skills, however, is a difficult endeavor because the cognitive processes underlying writing skills are inherently difficult to measure and therefore improve (Doyle, 1983; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Olson, 1976). By viewing writing as a general problem-solving activity (e.g., articulating and establishing a position on a problem, organizing relevant information, and creating an effectively supported argument), it becomes apparent that insight about teaching writing skills can be gained from cognitive theories about learning (Frederiksen, 1984). The acquisition and integration of basic technical knowledge with knowledge gained through repeated experiences in a specific task domain is important to expertise development (e.g., Anderson, 1982; Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1992; Riesbeck & Schank, 1989; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Tulving, 1985). Teaching writing skills should therefore include repeated practice in writing within a specific task domain. Educators have adopted writing programs such as Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID), in part because they are consistent with this perspective. Instructors in these types of programs emphasize the importance of repeated, contextualized experiences for the development of writ-

Karla M. Johnstone, Hollis Ashbaugh, and Terry D. Warfield, Department of Accounting, School of Business, University of Wisconsin— Madison. We acknowledge financial support from the William J. Nasgovitz Award for Outstanding Teaching and Innovation, the University of Wisconsin School of Business, and Deloitte & Touche LLP. Terry D. Warfield acknowledges the support of the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Foundation. We are grateful to the participants in this study, and we appreciate the helpful comments of Deb Brandt, Jon Davis, Brian Mayhew, Andy Rosman, and Dan Stone. The research assistance of Katie LaBonte and Marie Nelson is also gratefully acknowledged. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karla M. Johnstone, Department of Accounting, School of Business, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 975 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. E-mail: kjohnstone@bus.wisc.edu 305

306

JOHNSTONE, ASHBAUGH, AND WARFIELD

our graduates’ employers reported dissatisfaction with accounting graduates’ writing skills. In response, we developed an Accounting Department writing initiative that requires accounting students to practice their writing skills within a very specific, contextually rich domain. Although accounting students were learning the technical details of accounting topics, we also required them to write about topics similar to those encountered by professional accountants and to use a professional form (e.g., professional reports and memoranda). Within this educational setting, we had a unique opportunity to test whether repeated writing practice in a specific task domain improves students’ writing skills. We were able to compare (a) writers with different levels of general experience, (b) writers with differential task-specific writing experiences, and (c) writers in alternative curricular structures, while holding institution-wide features constant. We used a between-subjects field experiment to test whether our Accounting Department’s writing initiative affects students’ writing skills. We compared writing skills of students with varying general-writing experience and varying taskspecific writing experience. Our participants were students from one academic institution, which helped to control for betweeninstitution variation usually associated with field-based investigations of writing skills. Inherent in our design were the strengths and weaknesses associated with a field experiment (e.g., see Kerlinger, 1986; Patel, Groen, & Norman, 1993). This is in contrast to a laboratory experiment, the method often used to investigate cognitive theories of writing-skill development (e.g., Benton, Corkill, Sharp, Downey, & Khramtsova, 1995; McCutchen, 1986). We acknowledge that our experimental design limits the specificity of our conclusions, but we think that the “real-world” insight from this study compensates for this limitation.

A Cognitive Perspective on Writing-Skill Development Anderson (1982) developed a theory of the acquisition of cognitive skills, providing insight on the process by which writing skills can be improved using repeated practice. According to Anderson, individuals begin developing a cognitive skill by receiving instruction and practicing the skill. In the developmental stage, the focus is on learning about the skill. Through repeated practice, a process called knowledge compilation occurs, which enables the individual to transfer knowledge about the skill into knowledge about how to successfully complete a task involving the skill. Essentially, Anderson stressed the “learning-from-doing” aspect of skill acquisition. Schneider and Shiffrin (1977) and Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) provided further insight on learning from doing, illustrating that the process of performing a cognitive skill becomes more automatic (i.e., less effortful) after repeated practice. Other researchers have used these types of fundamental theories to explore various instructional interventions that might be beneficial in fostering skill development (e.g., Bonner & Walker, 1994; Davis & Solomon, 1989; Doyle, 1983; Frederiksen, 1984; Johnstone & Biggs, 1998; Stone & Shelley, 1997). In addition to repeated practice, researchers studying a variety of applied contexts have demonstrated that experience in contextually rich, professionally relevant task environments is important to the development of expertise in performing cognitive skills (Bedard & Chi, 1993; Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1992; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Doyle, 1983; Patel

et al., 1993). For example, Boshuizen and Schmidt (1992) characterized expertise development in physicians as a process of acquiring and integrating basic technical knowledge with experience-based knowledge. They demonstrated that experienced physicians remember their basic technical knowledge within the context of particular experiences. Thus, it seems important to provide students with meaningful task-specific writing experiences. In a business-writing context, task-specific writing (e.g., a business memorandum summarizing a technical analysis) can be more relevant and engaging to students than general writing (e.g., a term paper). Furthermore, aligning educational writing experiences with professional writing demands may facilitate subsequent recall and application of writing skills. Repeated, contextualized experiences in the development of expertise are important across a wide variety of complex tasks. Flower and Hayes (1981) proposed a cognitive process theory of writing that is consistent with the research described previously; they linked expertise development specifically to the process of writing-skill improvement. Flower and Hayes characterized a writing experience as an iterative process involving the writer’s longterm memory, the task environment, and the actual writing processes. The writer’s long-term memory includes knowledge of topic and audience and writing plans developed through prior writing experience. The task environment involves the specific rhetorical problem that a writer encounters (e.g., topic and audience). Writing processes involve planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring subprocesses. As a writer repeatedly proceeds through this iterative process, his or her writing skills are predicted to improve. Furthermore, the interaction between the writer’s long-term memory and the task environment is also likely to be important to the improvement of his or her writing skills. For example, writers whose long-term memory is activated and updated in a rich, meaningful task environment should achieve greater gains in writing skills than writers who practice their skills in a sparse task environment. On the basis of the evidence we just reviewed, we predicted that (a) repeated practice would be associated with superior writing skills and that (b) after controlling for repeated practice, writing within a specific task domain would be associated with superior writing skills.

Method Educational setting and field experiment treatment. As part of a larger curriculum revision, instructors in the Accounting Department at our university (University of Wisconsin—Madison School of Business) implemented a writing initiative within the department’s courses. The writing initiative was of particular interest to our graduates’ employers because the employers felt that accounting students’ writing skills were not adequate. The authors of the study were the “champions” of the writing initiative. We directly participated in and supervised the writing initiative because we teach the courses containing the writing initiative. Therefore, we had the ability to closely monitor the experimental treatment. As instructors in the writing initiative, we required students to practice writing in contextually relevant settings. In proceeding through the writinginitiative courses, accounting students completed eight writing assignments over a series of four courses. The authors developed the assignments and specifically tailored them to the writing initiative (see Appendix A for examples). Students gathered information related to the course topic, identified the relevant accounting literature for the topic, and developed a critical analysis of the issue based on their research when they completed

EFFECTS OF REPEATED PRACTICE the writing assignments. For each assignment, students prepared a written report containing their analysis (e.g., a memorandum or a professional report). The courses containing the writing initiative began during the first semester of the students’ junior year of college and ended after students completed a 3-month professional internship during the last semester of their senior year. Students were required to assume the role of accounting professionals in each writing assignment and were required to write as professionals for a professional audience (for additional discussion of this type of approach, see Mansfield, 1993). For example, in one assignment, students assumed the role of accounting consultants writing a report for a client. Writing in a professional context was an integral part of our department’s writing initiative. In addition to supervising the coordinated series of courses that contained the writing initiative, we also implemented three other important “logistical” elements of the writing initiative. First, at the beginning of each course in the writing-initiative sequence, we provided a brief lecture to students emphasizing the importance of writing in the accounting profession, describing the writing initiative, and detailing the specifics of the writing assignments and available resources. We believed that this logistic element was important because it gave students a sense of perspective and purpose regarding the writing initiative. Second, we ensured that the feedback that students received on the eight writing assignments was the result of a consistent assessment process. Two “graders” evaluated a particular component of each writing-initiative assignment. One grader was an English or Journalism Department PhD student, and the other was either the course instructor or an Accounting Department PhD student. Grades on the written component of each assignment reflected students’ appropriate use of grammatical conventions, organization, and professionalism of presentation. Grades on the accounting component of each assignment reflected students’ technical accuracy and the quality of analysis. Third, we provided students with reference materials that specifically addressed writing in the accounting profession. These materials included an accounting writing reference guide (May & May, 1995) and an Internet Web page tailored to the writing initiative. The Web page contained

Figure 1.

307

accounting-specific writing techniques, tutorials on using relevant financial databases, and links to other writing resources on campus. All business students at our institution completed a business communications course during their junior or senior year of college. Nonaccounting business students at our institution also completed various writing assignments in other nonaccounting courses. However, these assignments were not part of an integrated writing initiative. Thus, the “package” of experiences that accounting students received (i.e., the eight realistic writing assignments, a coordinated writing initiative, lectures on the purpose and operation of the writing initiative, high-quality general and technical feedback on writing assignments, and extensive reference materials) represented a treatment intended to improve accounting students’ writing skills. Quasi-experimental design. We used a between-subjects quasi-experimental design to assess whether students’ repeated writing practice was associated with superior writing skills and whether, after controlling for repeated practice, students’ writing within a specific task domain was associated with superior writing skills. In a between-subjects experimental design, two groups of participants (a treatment group and a comparison group) complete the experiment at a single point in time, and the researcher compares their performances (e.g., Cook & Campbell, 1979). The research design is illustrated in Figure 1. Three groups of students who were at different points within the accounting curriculum completed a writing-assessment instrument. The first accounting group completed the instrument at the beginning of their junior year before receiving any writing-initiative treatment (the sophomore treatment group). The second accounting group completed the instrument at the end of their junior year, after they had completed the writing assignments in Intermediate Financial Accounting I and II (the junior treatment group). The third accounting group completed the instrument at the end of their senior year, after they had completed the writing assignments in Financial Accounting I and II, Advanced Accounting, and the Accounting Internship course (the senior treatment group). The three comparison groups were composed of other business majors (e.g., finance, marketing, management, or actuarial science) who completed the writing-assessment instrument at similar points in their respective curricula. The first comparison group completed the instrument at the beginning of their junior year when they were enrolled in a business law or

Between-subjects quasi-experimental design.

308

JOHNSTONE, ASHBAUGH, AND WARFIELD

marketing course (the sophomore comparison group). The second comparison group completed the instrument at the end of their junior year when they were enrolled in a business law or marketing course (the junior comparison group). The third comparison group completed the instrument at the end of their senior year when they were enrolled in a business law or marketing course (the senior comparison group). Thus, there were three pairings of student groups for which comparisons were made. The first pairing included the sophomore treatment group and the sophomore comparison group (notreatment ⫽ 1 if the student is enrolled in Intermediate Accounting; 0 otherwise). We expected no differences in the writing-assessment scores for this pair because no treatment occurred for either group. The second pairing included the junior treatment group and the junior comparison group. The students classified as the junior treatment group completed two of the four courses in the writing initiative, so we expected to observe significantly higher writingassessment scores for the junior treatment group versus the junior comparison group (Treatment 1 ⫽ 1 if the student completed the experimental treatment 1; 0 otherwise). The third pairing included the senior treatment group and the senior comparison group. The students classified as the senior treatment group (Treatment 2) completed all four courses in the writing initiative, so we expected to observe significantly higher writingassessment scores for the senior treatment group versus the senior comparison group (Treatment 2 ⫽ 1 if the student completed the Experimental treatment 2; 0 otherwise). In the analysis following, we use the notreatment, Treatment 1, and Treatment 2 variables to capture the writing-in-context objective of our writing initiative. To separate the effects of general-writing practice from writing-in-context practice, we asked students to report the number of prior writing assignments that they had completed within the business school (buswrite) and in all other university classes (otherwrite). Materials and writing skills measure. The authors administered the writing-assessment instrument to students during special sessions that lasted approximately 60 min. Students were given extra credit, equal to 2% of students’ grades across all participating courses and student groups, as an incentive for participating in the study. We developed the writingassessment instrument so that it contained both direct and indirect tests of students’ writing skills and ensured that it incorporated important contextual features of the business environment (see Yancey & Huot, 1997). We required students to write a memorandum describing what it means to be a “business professional” for the direct test of writing skills. We tailored the structure and topical content of the direct test to professional writing in a general business context, which was the most appropriate way to conduct a direct test of contextual-writing proficiency (Haswell & Wyche-Smith, 1994; Huot, 1990; Quellmalz, 1984). Two instructors who teach Developmental Writing in the English Department scored each memorandum, which was devoid of any student-identifying information. The instructors used an analytic scoring technique to evaluate each memo on a 90-point scale and used examples from a pilot test to synchronize their scoring technique. The instructors identified traits important to highquality writing in a given context and evaluated the extent to which a given piece of writing contained the identified traits. See Appendix B for the analytic scoring categories used in this study. We used the average of the two instructors’ scores as the direct measure of students’ writing skills. We required students to complete 20 multiple-choice questions testing grammar, punctuation, and organization skills for the indirect test of writing skills. We designed the context of the questions in the indirect test to be familiar to all business students like we did for the direct test (a three-paragraph passage concerning the economic effects of a consumerproduct shortage). We designed the indirect test so that 55% of the questions concerned grammatical skills, 25% concerned punctuation skills, and 20% concerned organization skills. We scored the indirect assessment on a 100-point scale. We used the combined scores of the direct and indirect tests (writeskill; i.e., a total possible score of 190 points) as the dependent variable in this study. Using a combination of direct and indirect

testing methods balanced the differences between the two methods in terms of validity, reliability, and cost considerations (Veal & Hudson, 1983). The authors specifically designed the writing-assessment instrument for this study (as suggested by the CCCC Committee on Assessment, 1995). We developed the experimental instrument with the assistance of English Department personnel and extensively pilot tested it using 50 students in an upper level accounting course. On the basis of pilot testing, we revised four of the original indirect test questions to improve our ability to discriminate between levels of student performance. Following data collection, we again measured the reliability of the indirect questions and detected no problems. Statistically controlled variables. To make valid comparisons between the treatment and comparison groups, we added variables to statistically control for the impact of various exogenous factors on students’ writing skills. Variables that we used to control for general cognitive ability and prior writing experiences included cumulative grade-point average, (GPA) university credits (credits), and whether students had taken the businesscommunications course (buscomm ⫽ 1 if the student took Business Communications; 0 otherwise). We also controlled for the fact that our sample was comprised of students from special populations that could have differential writing skills. Specifically, we included variables for non-U.S. citizens (UScitizen ⫽ 1 if the student is a U.S. citizen; 0 otherwise) and students who transferred from other post-secondary institutions (transfer ⫽ 1 if the student transferred from another institution; 0 otherwise). We also controlled for student gender (gender ⫽ 1 if the student is female; 0 if the student is male) and age (age), because these types of individual differences have been shown to affect writing skills (Berninger et al., 1996; Berninger & Swanson, 1993). Finally, we controlled for student effort, measured as the number of minutes spent completing the writingassessment instrument (time).

Results Descriptive results. The mean writing-skill assessment score (writeskill) was higher for accounting students than for other students (120.46 vs. 111.59, overall; see Table 1). This effect was particularly striking when comparing senior accounting students with other students (130.03 vs. 108.75). Importantly, accounting students’ writing scores increased at progressive points in their curricula (115.12 as sophomores, 126.51 as juniors, and 130.03 as seniors), whereas other students’ scores remained approximately equal (114.16 as sophomores, 109.76 as juniors, and 108.75 as seniors). Overall, the accounting students completed more businesswriting assignments (buswrite) than other students (8.56 vs. 6.83) because of the writing assignments inherent in the quasiexperimental treatment. Particularly striking was the increasing difference in business-writing assignments between the two groups as they progressed through their respective curricula (5.68 vs. 4.27 at the sophomore level and 17.35 vs. 11.56 at the senior level, for accounting students and other students, respectively). It is also important to note that accounting students completed significantly fewer nonbusiness-writing assignments (otherwrite) than other students (17.02 vs. 22.75, overall) and significantly fewer writing assignments in total than other students (25.58 vs. 29.59, overall). Thus, the difference between accounting students and other students was in the relative percentage of contextually relevant writing experiences that they completed. The mean grade-point average was higher for accounting students (3.38 vs. 3.20, overall). Accounting students had a greater number of college credits relative to other students (78.77 credits vs. 74.48 credits, overall) and accounting students took the business-communications course earlier in their college career

120.46** 0.58** 0.24** 0.18** 8.56** 17.02** 25.58** 3.38** 78.77** 0.37** 0.88* 0.03** 0.44 21.54* 41.17**

Writeskill Notreatment Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Buswrite Otherwrite Totalwrite GPA Credits Buscomm UScitizen Transfer Gender Age Time

24.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.94 10.78 15.30 0.36 20.34 0.48 0.33 0.17 0.49 3.04 8.31

SD 111.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.83 22.75 29.59 3.20 74.48 0.15 0.94 0.21 0.41 21.11 34.80

M 19.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.93 19.50 21.26 0.38 18.13 0.36 0.25 0.41 0.49 1.58 6.48

SD 24.58 0.00 7.36 10.99 14.89 0.38 15.66 0.35 0.36 0.13 0.49 2.94 8.24

5.68* 17.54 23.25 3.30* 71.49** 0.14** 0.85 0.02** 0.41 21.16 40.46**

115.12 1.00**

Acct (N ⫽ 163)

4.27 19.96 24.23 3.19 59.68 0.03 0.89 0.17 0.42 20.82 35.28

114.16 0.00 5.54 17.91 19.03 0.41 4.43 0.18 0.32 0.38 0.49 1.93 6.97

19.66 0.00

Other (N ⫽ 180) M

Sophomores

6.09 8.66 10.52 0.32 14.96 0.50 0.35 0.23 0.50 3.83 6.82

0.00

1.00** 9.27* 15.85** 25.11** 3.42** 74.11 0.54** 0.86* 0.05** 0.48 22.21* 46.86**

23.02

126.51**

Acct (N ⫽ 68)

Juniors

7.31 25.24 32.54 3.19 75.96 0.12 0.97 0.24 0.39 21.03 34.01

0.00

109.76

7.76 20.33 21.84 0.35 5.27 0.33 0.16 0.43 0.49 1.13 5.49

0.00

20.52

Other (N ⫽ 119)

1.00** 17.35** 16.80** 34.16 3.58** 110.10** 0.89** 1.00† 0.02** 0.50 21.87 35.54

130.03**

0.00 11.27 12.87 19.37 0.19 8.31 0.31 0.00 0.14 0.50 1.51 4.94

20.32

Acct (N ⫽ 48)

0.00 11.56 25.17 36.73 3.24 103.38 0.41 0.97 0.26 0.41 21.84 34.87

0.00 9.97 20.93 22.18 0.36 9.73 0.50 0.18 0.44 0.49 0.89 6.63

18.76

Other (N ⫽ 86)

108.75

Seniors

Note. Acct ⫽ accounting students; Other ⫽ comparison group students; Writeskill ⫽ the sum of the direct and indirect writing skills assessment score; Notreatment ⫽ 1 if the student is enrolled in Intermediate Accounting, 0 otherwise; Treatment 1 ⫽ 1 if the student has completed Experimental treatment 1, 0 otherwise; Treatment 2 ⫽ 1 if the student has completed Experimental treatment 2, 0 otherwise; Buswrite ⫽ the number of self-reported writing assignments completed within the business school; Otherwrite ⫽ the number of self-reported writing assignments completed outside the business school; Totalwrite ⫽ Buswrite ⫹ Othewrite; GPA ⫽ the student’s cumulative grade-point average at the start of the semester; Credits ⫽ the student’s cumulative number of college course credits at the start of the semester; Buscomm ⫽ 1 if the student had taken the business-communications course, 0 otherwise; UScitizen ⫽ 1 if the student is a U.S. citizen, 0 otherwise; Transfer ⫽ 1 if the student transferred to the university from another institution, 0 otherwise; Gender ⫽ 1 if the student is female, 0 if the student is male; Age ⫽ the student’s age (in years) at the start of the semester; Time ⫽ the number of minutes that it took the student to complete the writing experiment. †p ⬍ .10 (marginally significant). *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.

Variable

Other (N ⫽ 385)

All participants

Acct (N ⫽ 279)

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

EFFECTS OF REPEATED PRACTICE

309

310

JOHNSTONE, ASHBAUGH, AND WARFIELD

than other students. For example, 54% of accounting students had taken the course by the end of their junior year, whereas only 12% of other students had done so. Fewer accounting students were U.S. citizens as compared with other students (88% vs. 94%, overall), and fewer accounting students transferred to our university as compared with other students (3% vs. 21%, overall). Gender mix was similar for groups of both accounting and other students (44% female in accounting vs. 41% female in other majors). Accounting students were slightly older than other students (21.54 years vs. 21.11 years, overall). Finally, accounting students spent more time completing the writing-assessment experiment than other students (41.17 min vs. 34.8 min, overall). However, more advanced students in either category spent an approximately equal time on the experiment (35.54 min vs. 34.87 min for senior accounting and other students, respectively). In analyzing the correlation statistics, we found that writing skills were positively associated with the following: writinginitiative treatments, students’ GPA, number of course credits, completion of the business-communications course, U.S. citizenship status, female gender, and time to complete the experiment (see Table 2). On the basis of regressors’ variance inflation factors (Belsley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980), we found no evidence of multicollinearity in any of our regression analyses. Regression analysis. We conducted ordinary least squares regression analysis to test the predictions that (a) repeated practice would be associated with superior writing skills and that (b) after controlling for repeated practice, writing within a specific task domain would be associated with superior writing skills (see Table 3). We reported analyses for the full sample as well as by the treatment and related comparison groups as depicted in Figure 1. We assessed model specification, the assumption of normal errors, and the assumption of error variance homogeneity for the regression model and detected no problems (Myers, 1990). We found that the number of nonbusiness-writing assignments (otherwrite) was positively associated with writing skills (t ⫽ 1.92, p ⬍ .10), although only at the sophomore level. The coefficient on otherwrite in the junior group regression and senior group regression was not significant. Thus, consistent with our prediction, repeating writing experiences for students with relatively little contextually relevant writing experience appeared to facilitate students’ writing skills. After controlling for repeated writing in a nonbusiness context, the effect of writing within a specific task domain (i.e., the writing initiative) was positively associated with writing skills. Prior to the quasi-experimental treatment, the writing skills of accounting students and nonaccounting students (e.g., sophomore treatment vs. sophomore comparison groups) were approximately equal. After Treatment 1 (junior treatment vs. junior comparison) and Treatment 2 (senior treatment vs. senior comparison) in both the full sample (t ⫽ 3.77, p ⬍ .01, and t ⫽ 5.07, p ⬍ .01, respectively), and in the junior (t ⫽ 2.57, p ⬍ .05) and senior (t ⫽ 5.45, p ⬍ .01) subsamples, accounting students demonstrated improved writing skills relative to other students. We calculated the strength of our experimental effects using the omega-squared calculation. We found that the experimental treatment accounted for about 3% of the variance in writeskill for the junior treatment group and about 18% of the variance in writeskill for the senior treatment group. Sophomore students with higher GPAs had superior writing skills (t ⫽ 3.40, p ⬍ .01), although this effect disappeared for

junior and senior students. As students matured, it appeared that specific writing experiences were better predictors of writing skills than general cognitive ability. There was a similar pattern for citizenship status (UScitizen), although we interpreted the results for this subpopulation of our students with caution because the number of non-U.S. citizens in our sample was quite low. Female students had superior writing skills during their sophomore year (t ⫽ 2.03, p ⬍ .05), although this effect disappeared at the junior and senior levels. Older students had weaker writing skills at the sophomore level (t ⫽ – 3.31, p ⬍ .01), but this effect did not occur with more advanced students. Effort, as measured by time spent on the writing experiment (time), consistently was associated with the writing-skills assessment score (t ⫽ 4.33, p ⬍ .01, overall), although the effect was weaker with more advanced students. To gain a better understanding of the effect of our writing initiative on students’ writing skills and to assess the robustness of our results, we reestimated the regressions, decomposing writeskill into the direct and indirect measures (not tabled). Using direct as the dependent variable, we found that the sign and significance of the coefficients on notreatment, Treatment 1, and Treatment 2 were similar to the regression analyses in which writeskill was the dependent variable. When using indirect as the dependent variable, we found similar results, with one exception. In the sophomore group regression, we found a negative and significant ( p ⫽ .06) coefficient on notreatment. Thus, the accounting students commencing our program had weaker grammar, punctuation, and organization skills than students majoring in other business disciplines, which biased against finding significant results for our writing-initiative treatment. Our writing initiative was an important curriculum innovation because it addressed this weakness in the writing skills of our accounting students.

Discussion We had a unique opportunity to assess the effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students’ writing skills because of several features of our quasi-experiment. First, we had access to a large number of students with differing levels of general-writing experience. Because of the size and composition of our student population, we were able to conduct a large-scale test of our predictions on subsamples of sophomore, junior, and senior business students. Second, we were able to ensure that participants in our study had differing contextualwriting experiences because we controlled the operation of the writing initiative within our department and because no other department within our business school was conducting such an initiative. Third, we were able to capitalize on several unique institutionspecific controls. All of our participants were from the same academic institution but varied regarding participation in the writing-improvement program. Often writing-improvement programs are adopted at an institution-wide level, which requires that comparisons be made with students attending other institutions with uniquely different writing programs. In addition, we were able to control for other institutional factors, such as consistency of the teaching styles used, grading and feedback mechanisms of the writing assignments, and general similarity of student population. These features are often not present in other studies of students’ writing-skill development.

Writeskill Notreatment Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Buswrite Otherwrite GPA Credits Buscomm UScitizen Transfer Gender Age Time

— .00 .17** .19** .04 .05 .23** .08** .12** .22** .01 .06† ⫺.04 .18**

— ⫺.19** ⫺.16** ⫺.13** ⫺.10* .03 ⫺.14* ⫺.13** ⫺.12** ⫺.19** ⫺.02 ⫺.03 .21**

— ⫺.09** .07* ⫺.09* .14** ⫺.04 .24** ⫺.05 ⫺.07* .04 .13** .40**

— .32** ⫺.05 .23** .49** .43** .09* ⫺.09* .04 .07* ⫺.07†

— .06 .09** .41** .49** .07† .00 .00 .18** .02

— ⫺.07† .07* ⫺.11** .08* .13** ⫺.02 .00 ⫺.08*

— .10** .21** .05 ⫺.15** .07† ⫺.08* .13**

— .49** .18** .02 ⫺.01 .14** ⫺.08*

— .09* ⫺.03 .04 .13** .10*

— .07* ⫺.06 ⫺.03 ⫺.21**

— ⫺.33** .27** ⫺.10*

— ⫺.08† .07†

— .20**

—

Note. Writeskill ⫽ the sum of the direct and indirect writing skills assessment score; Notreatment ⫽ 1 if the student is enrolled in Intermediate Accounting, 0 otherwise; Treatment 1 ⫽ 1 if the student has completed Experimental treatment 1, 0 otherwise; Treatment 2 ⫽ 1 if the student has completed Experimental treatment 2, 0 otherwise; Buswrite ⫽ the number of self-reported writing assignments completed within the business school; Otherwrite ⫽ the number of self-reported writing assignments completed outside the business school; GPA ⫽ the student’s cumulative grade-point average at the start of the semester; Credits ⫽ the student’s cumulative number of college course credits at the start of the semester; Buscomm ⫽ 1 if the student had taken the business-communications course, 0 otherwise; UScitizen ⫽ 1 if the student is a U.S. citizen, 0 otherwise; Transfer ⫽ 1 if the student transferred to the university from another institution, 0 otherwise; Gender ⫽ 1 if the student is female, 0 if the student is male; Age ⫽ the student’s age (in years) at the start of the semester; Time ⫽ the number of minutes that it took the student to complete the writing experiment. †p ⬍ .10 (marginally significant). *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Variable

Table 2 Correlations Among Dependent and Independent Variables

EFFECTS OF REPEATED PRACTICE

311

JOHNSTONE, ASHBAUGH, AND WARFIELD

312

Table 3 Multivariate Regression: Tests of Predictions

Grade-level treatment group and comparison group Variable

All participants (N ⫽ 664; R2 ⫽ 17.87)

Sophomore (N ⫽ 343; R2 ⫽ 16.75)

Junior (N ⫽ 187; R2 ⫽ 21.71)

Intercept ␤1: Notreatment ␤2: Treatment 1 ␤3: Treatment 2 ␤4: Otherwrite ␤5: GPA ␤6: Credits ␤7: Buscomm ␤8: UScitizen ␤9: Transfer ␤10: Gender ␤11: Age ␤12: Time

70.97** (5.98) 3.35 (1.63) 11.83** (3.77) 19.09** (5.07) 0.09† (1.92) 8.07** (3.63) ⫺0.04 (⫺0.69) ⫺2.06 (⫺0.90) 19.12** (6.66) 7.74** (2.93) 3.37* (2.01) ⫺1.09** (⫺2.95) 0.51** (4.33)

66.51** (3.95) ⫺2.07 (⫺0.77)

37.10 (1.53)

Senior (N ⫽ 134; R2 ⫽ 24.38) 101.85* (2.24)

12.60* (2.57) 0.16* (2.22) 9.73** (3.40) 0.13 (1.21) 2.28 (0.54) 18.99** (5.58) 5.80 (1.39) 4.64* (2.03) ⫺1.64** (⫺3.31) 0.57** (3.74)

0.05 (0.61) 4.93 (1.08) 0.16 (1.02) 0.94 (0.24) 24.23** (3.81) 10.11* (2.20) 3.94 (1.21) ⫺0.22 (⫺0.35) 0.60* (2.36)

25.02** (5.45) 0.05 (0.54) 9.14 (1.56) ⫺0.15 (⫺0.75) ⫺7.77† (⫺1.91) ⫺14.40 (⫺1.22) 7.29 (1.31) 0.47 (0.12) ⫺0.56 (⫺0.32) 0.54† (1.76)

Note. Values reported are the coefficients (and t statistics). Notreatment ⫽ 1 if the student is enrolled in Intermediate Accounting, 0 otherwise; Treatment 1 ⫽ 1 if the student has completed Experimental treatment 1, 0 otherwise; Treatment 2 ⫽ 1 if the student has completed Experimental treatment 2, 0 otherwise; Otherwrite ⫽ the number of self-reported writing assignments completed outside the business school; GPA ⫽ the student’s cumulative grade-point average at the start of the semester; Credits ⫽ the student’s cumulative number of college course credits at the start of the semester; Buscomm ⫽ 1 if the student had taken the business-communications course, 0 otherwise; UScitizen ⫽ 1 if the student is a U.S. citizen, 0 otherwise; Transfer ⫽ 1 if the student transferred to the university from another institution, 0 otherwise; Gender ⫽ 1 if the student is female, 0 if the student is male; Age ⫽ the student’s age (in years) at the start of the semester; Time ⫽ the number of minutes that it took the student to complete the writing experiment. †p ⬍ .10 (marginally significant). *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01. All reported results are two-tailed.

At the same time, the design of this quasi-experiment results in some limits to the generalizability of the results. First, our experimental treatment consisted of a package of experiences (i.e., a large number of task-specific writing assignments, a coordinated writing initiative, lectures on the purpose and operation of the writing initiative, high-quality general and technical feedback, and extensive reference materials). Although the results were consistent with the conclusion that increased task-specific writing assignments led to improved student writing skills, other elements of the writing-experience package may also have contributed to the treatment effects that we found. Second, some students who could have participated in our experiment chose not to do so. We analyzed the characteristics of nonparticipants. Nonparticipants had lower GPAs, were more likely to be non-U.S. citizens, and were slightly older. Nonparticipants also had slightly lower ACT scores. However, SAT scores and our university’s English courseplacement scores were similar across participant and nonparticipant groups. From a curriculum-design perspective, we found that general, repeated-writing experience (e.g., writing in college English classes) was still important as late as the sophomore year of college. In addition, we found that after controlling for repeated writing experience, writing within a specific task domain incrementally improved students’ writing skills.

References American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1988). Education requirements for entry into the accounting profession. New York: Author. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369 – 406. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse, Touche Rosse. (1989). Perspectives on education: Capabilities for success in the accounting profession. New York: Author. Ashbaugh, H., & Johnstone, K. M. (2000). Developing students’ technical knowledge and professional skills: A sequence of short cases in intermediate financial accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 15, 67– 88. Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1993). Expertise in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 12(Suppl.), 21– 45. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley. Benton, S. L., Corkill, A. J., Sharp, J. M., Downey, R. G., & Khramtsova, I. (1995). Knowledge, interest, and narrative writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 66 –79. Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 193–218. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1993). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57– 81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

EFFECTS OF REPEATED PRACTICE Bonner, S. E., & Walker, P. L. (1994, January). The effects of instruction and experience on the acquisition of auditing knowledge. The Accounting Review, 157–178. Boshuizen, H., & Schmidt, H. (1992). On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts. Cognitive Science, 16, 153–184. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, Jan/Feb). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 32– 42. CCCC Committee on Assessment. (1995, October). Writing assessment: A position statement. College Composition and Communication, 430 – 437. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowledge, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Davis, J. S., & Solomon, I. (1989). Experience, expertise, and expert-performance research in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 8, 150 –164. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159 –199. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387. Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54, 363– 407. Frischmann, P. J., & Warfield, T. D. (1999). Multiple motivations and effects: The case of trust preferred stock. Issues in Accounting Education, 14, 269 –284. Glaser, R. (1976). Cognitive psychology and instructional design. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 303–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Haswell, R., & Wyche-Smith, S. (1994). Adventuring into writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 45, 220 –235. Herrington, A. J. (1981). Writing to learn: Writing across the disciplines. College English, 43, 379 –387. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237– 263. Johnstone, K. M., & Biggs, S. F. (1998). Problem-based learning: Introduction, analysis, and accounting curricula implications. Journal of Accounting Education, 16, 407– 427. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Mansfield, M. A. (1993). Real world writing and the English curriculum. College Composition and Communication, 44, 69 – 83. May, C. B., & May, G. S. (1995). Effective writing: A handbook for accountants (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431– 444.

313

McLeod, S., & Maimon, E. (2000). Clearing the air: WAC myths and realities. College English, 62, 573–583. Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent. Olson, D. R. (1976). Notes on a cognitive theory of instruction. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 117–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Parks, S., & Goldblatt, E. (2000). Writing beyond the curriculum: Fostering new collaborations in literacy. College English, 62, 584 – 606. Patel, V. L., Groen, G. J., & Norman, G. R. (1993). Reasoning and instruction in medial curricula. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 335–378. Quellmalz, E. S. (1984). Designing writing assessments: Balancing fairness, utility, and cost. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6, 63–72. Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989). Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Royster, J. J. (1992). From practice to theory: Writing across the disciplines at Spelman College. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 119 –131). New York: Modern Language Association of America. Russell, D. R. (1992). American origins of the writing-across-thecurriculum movement. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 22– 46). New York: Modern Language Association of America. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts plans goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1– 60. Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. Stone, D. N., & Shelley, M. K. (1997). Educating for accounting expertise: A field study. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(Suppl.), 35– 61. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist, 40, 385–398. Veal, L. R., & Hudson, S. A. (1984). Direct and indirect measures for large-scale evaluation of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 285–296. White, E. M., Lutz, W. D., & Kamusikiri, S. (1996). Assessment of writing: Politics, policies, and practices. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1983). Evaluating college writing programs. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Yancey, K. B., & Huot, B. (1997). Assumptions about assessing WAC programs: Some axioms, some observations, some context. In K. B. Yancey & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (Vol. 1, pp. 1–18). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

(Appendixes follow)

JOHNSTONE, ASHBAUGH, AND WARFIELD

314

Appendix A Examples of Writing Assignments

Case I—Accounts Receivable Valuation Lonnie Corporation develops and markets sophisticated automation software. Its fiscal year ends on December 31. On December 31, 1998, Lonnie Corporation has an accounts receivable balance of $615,000 in its general ledger. The accounts receivable balance includes a $26,000 balance owed by a customer, Kugel Corporation, whose business has gone bankrupt. Lonnie Corporation has been informed by the bankruptcy court that it will receive approximately $8,000 in settlement of the Kugel account. Since starting business in 1994, Lonnie Corporation has valued its accounts receivable at the end of the year using an allowance account (see Table A1). The ending-allowance account balance always has been determined using the percentage of accounts receivable method (sometimes called the aging of accounts receivable method) where 10% of ending accounts receivable are assumed to be uncollectible. Mr. Red, as the president of Lonnie Corporation, is concerned about the 1998 earnings of Lonnie Corporation. The 1998 net income totals $31,000 before any adjustment for bad debt expense. In addition, Lonnie Corporation’s current ratio, before any adjustment for bad debts expense, is 2.05 to 1 ($723,000 in current assets and $352,600 in current liabilities). Mr. Red is considering an alternative way to estimate bad debt expense, the percentage of sales method. Mr. Red has told you, as the controller of Lonnie Corporation, to estimate bad debt expense using 0.5% of credit sales (net credit sales total $3,000,000 for 1998). In prior conversations, Mr. Red indicated that $32,350 of accounts receivable had already been written off in 1998, and he expects the magnitude of bad debts written off in 1999, pertaining to 1998 sales, to follow prior years’ trends.

Required: 1. Draft a memo to Mr. Red explaining how you think accounts receivable should be valued on December 31, 1998. Specifically, make a recommendation regarding whether Lonnie Corporation should change its method of valuing accounts receivable. Cite appropriate authoritative pronouncement(s) where applicable. 2. Include in the memo a discussion of the alternative methods of estimating bad expenses and their impact on Lonnie Corporation’s net income and current ratio. 3. Also include an evaluation of the reasonableness of a 0.5% rate on credit sales as an estimate of bad debt expense. If you think 0.5% is an unreasonable rate, state what rate you would recommend.

Case II—Environmental Liabilities A large number of utility companies in the United States use nuclear power plants to generate electricity. Ultimately, it becomes necessary to “decommission” these plants. Decommissioning involves dismantling the plant and dis-

posing of the nuclear waste products. The Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station, owned by Wisconsin Public Service Resources Corporation (WPS Resources), is a nuclear power plant that will be decommissioned beginning in 2002. The cost of decommissioning the Kewaunee plant is estimated at $182.2 million. Nuclear decommissioning costs are estimated to be approximately $30 billion for the entire electric utility industry in the United States. The financial accounting standards board (FASB) has yet to issue an authoritative pronouncement on how companies should account for decommissioning costs. However, in 1996 the FASB issued an exposure draft addressing the issue. Despite the exposure draft, several different approaches are being used in the industry to account for nuclear decommissioning costs. You are to assume the role of the independent auditor for WPS Resources. In that role, you are to evaluate the accounting method that WPS Resources uses to account for their nuclear decommissioning costs. You are to write a short report for the chief financial officer (CFO; Daniel Bittner) of WPS Resources discussing the following points: 1. Theoretically, what is the most appropriate method of accounting for nuclear decommissioning costs? Consider in your discussion the FASB’s conceptual framework and its recent exposure draft on the issue. 2. Locate the 1997 annual report of WPS Resources and determine how they account for nuclear decommissioning costs. In order to substantiate your discussion of WPS Resource’s method of accounting, identify two additional companies in the utility industry that operate nuclear reactors. For the three companies (i.e., WPS Resources and the two companies you identified), do the following: • Summarize the method that the company uses to account for nuclear decommissioning costs. • Comment on the theoretical appeal of the company’s method of accounting. Provide sample journal entries to clarify and organize your discussion. • Describe the effects on the income statement and balance sheet of the accounting method choice made by each company. 3. Provide a recommendation to the CFO of WPS Resources about how to account for nuclear decommissioning costs in the future. State the rationale for your recommendation.

Note. From “Developing Students’ Technical Knowledge and Professional Skills: A Sequence of Short Cases in Intermediate Financial Accounting” by H. Ashbaugh and K. M. Johnstone, 2000, Issues in Accounting Education, 15, p. 67. Copyright 2000. Reprinted with permission. Additional cases used in the writing initiative can be found in Frischmann and Warfield (1999).

Table A1 Lonnie Corporation’s Sales, Accounts Receivable, Allowance for Doubtful Accounts, and Bad Debt Write-Offs From 1994 to 1997

Year

Total sales

Credit sales

Ending accounts receivable

1994 1995 1996 1997

$1,250,000 $1,894,000 $2,477,000 $3,202,000

$1,100,000 $1,612,000 $2,386,000 $2,870,000

$256,000 $338,520 $501,060 $588,350

Ending allowance for doubtful accounts

Write-offs of uncollectible accountsa

$25,600 $33,852 $50,106 $58,835

$0 $25,300 $34,700 $50,678

Generally, the write-off of an uncollectible account occurs in the year subsequent to the sale.

EFFECTS OF REPEATED PRACTICE

315

Appendix B Analytic Scoring Assessment—Summary Sheet

Scoring Categories 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

A solid, specific definition of “business professional” is provided. Paragraphs are each organized around a main point. Paragraphs contain effective examples. Transitions move reader smoothly from one point to the next. The writing is logically organized. Grammar is correct throughout. Overall, the writing is clear and persuasive. Overall, the writing avoids vague language or undefined terms. Introduction and conclusion adequately frame the writing sample.

Point Allocation Guidelines: 0------1------2------3------4------5------6------7------8------9------10, where 0 ⫽ Writer wholly lacks these skills 5 ⫽ Writer needs some improvement in these skills 10 ⫽ Writer needs no improvement in these skills

Received February 22, 2001 Revision received August 14, 2001 Accepted August 14, 2001 䡲