Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Implementation of This Legislation Stresses
Overall, passage and implementation of this legislation stresses the increasing need to educate future public administrators to write more concisely while remain- ing focused on the document’s audience(s). The combination of public policy and workforce demands support the recommendation to require administrative or technical writing courses in undergraduate public administration curriculum.
UNIVERSITY APPROACHES The challenge of improving undergraduate student writing skills is not unique
to the public administration discipline; undergraduate programs across the United States struggle to incorporate writing assignments in their courses (Glenn, 2011). Some public administration, public affairs, and public policy programs have institutionalized solutions. The following section discusses results from a survey completed by NASPAA-accredited U.S. undergraduate public affairs program directors and coordinators.
Undergraduate Program Survey A five-question e-mail survey was sent to academic coordinators in 72 under-
graduate programs associated with member schools listed on NASPAA’s website (National Association, n.d.; see Appendix A of this article). The survey asked the undergraduate program coordinators to provide information about any admini- strative or technical writing course offered within or outside their department. Following Dillman’s (2007) approach, non-responsive programs received a reminder e-mail 1 week later and a phone call 3 weeks after the initial e-mail. Of the 72 programs, 53 responded, for a response rate of 74%.
Twelve undergraduate programs are no longer active, are suspended, or are listed incorrectly on the NASPAA website. Of the remaining 41 programs, 32% (13 out of 41) required an administrative and/or technical writing course in the program; two programs have a designated writing course in the department, while 11 programs recommend technical writing courses in the English, Communications, or Business departments (Table 2). Ten programs (24%) have modified existing core courses as writing-intensive courses (Table 3).
Eighteen programs (44%) did not require an administrative and/or technical writing course. These results alignwith Raphael and Nesbary’s (2005) study of communication courses in MPA programs. Should a public administration program offer an administrative writing course, or should the program refer students to technical writing courses in a Business, English, or Communications department? Concerns include evaluating the level of technical writing skills of public administration faculty and their ability to teach a writing course, as well as adopting a newly required writing course in an estab- lished program curriculum. Although 85% of responding programs require technical writing courses outside the program (primarily in the English department), there are benefits to creating a discipline-specific administrative writing course and potentially hiring an adjunct instructor with a technical writing background. Grammar is constructed; it depends on the discourse community that you belong
Journal of Public Affairs Education 519
Teaching Grammar and Editing
to and what the community considers acceptable usage (Northedge, 2003). Each discipline and field has its own discourse community (i.e., engineering, law, journalism, medicine, government, etc.).
Although this type of course reviews different genres of professional writing (e.g., memos, reports, executive summaries, website evaluation), it also focuses on genres (e.g., grant proposals, press releases, federal rule evaluation) and characteristics unique to the public and nonprofit sector discourse community.
Table 2. Required Writing Courses in Undergraduate Public Administration, Public Affairs, or Public Policy Programs
University Writing Course in Public Administration Department
Writing Course in Other Department
Arizona State University ENG 216: Persuasive Writing on Public Issues
Auburn University at Montgomery
ENG 3050: Advanced Exposi- tory Writing
California State University, Bakersfield
COMM 304: Technical and Report Writing
California State University, San Bernardino
MGMT 306: Expository Writing
Indiana University, Bloomington
ENG-W 231: Professional Writ- ing Skills; BUS-X 204: Business Communications
Indiana University–Purdue University, Ft. Wayne
ENG W232: Introduction to Business Writing; ENG W233: Intermediate Expository Writing
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
ENG-W 231: Professional Writing Skills; BUS-X 204: Business Communications
University of Central Florida
PAD 3733: Administrative Writing in the Public Sector
University of Maine PAA 390: Technical Writing and Communication for Public Service
University of Maine at Augusta
ENG 317w: Advanced Technical Communication
University of North Dakota ENG 125: Technical and Business Writing
University of North Texas TECM 2700: Technical Writing
University of San Francisco INTD 307: Experience and Critical Writing; INTD 308: Advanced Expository Writing
520 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 3. Writing Intensive Courses in Undergraduate Public Administration, Public Affairs, or Public Policy Programs
University Writing Intensive Course in Public Administration
Department
Writing Intensive Course in Other Department
College of William and Mary Major Writing Requirement in an Economics course
Duke University PUBPOL 114: Political Analysis for Public Policy Making
Florida Atlantic University PAD 4935: Senior Seminar (writing intensive); PAD 4933: Capstone Seminar in Public Management
Georgia State University PMAP 3311: Critical Policy Issues; PMAP 4051: Evaluating Public Policy
James Madison University PPA 420: Public Management
Michigan State University Tier II Writing Course
Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg
PUBPL 304W: Public Policy Analysis
Rutgers University–Newark PAD 302: Global Urban Experi- ence
Stephen F. Austin State University
PBA 305: American Public Policy; PBA 405: Policy Analysis
University of Albany, SUNY RPUB 499: Senior Seminar
Additionally, the course reinforces grammar, editing, and APA style rules and techniques, all of which aligns with best practices from the communications liter- ature (e.g., Hines & Basso, 2008). The next section provides an overview of pedagogical theories that informed and grounded the development of the admin- istrative writing course.
DESIGNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE WRITING COURSE The School of Public Administration at a large university located in a south-
eastern, metropolitan city created a mandatory, undergraduate administrative writing course within the program curriculum. Faculty members, advisory board members, and local public sector leaders and employers identified writing deficiencies among current and former students: grammar (specifically incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, incorrect use of punctuation), wordiness, formatting and structure, plagiarism and improper use of APA style, and passive voice. To address many of
Journal of Public Affairs Education 521
Teaching Grammar and Editing
these writing deficiencies, the course design used a blended pedagogy with multiple grading mechanisms (i.e., exams, online modules, peer editing, group work, and individual writing assignments). The course also incorporated professional technical writers as guest speakers (e.g., the county’s communication director, the city’s public information officer, a local government website designer, and a federal grant writer/ reviewer) who provided students with writing examples from their organizations.
Stanford (1992) provides some best writing practices for MPA programs: incorporating many short writing assignments instead of one lengthy research paper; writing for multiple audiences; setting clear writing goals and competencies for students in the course; evaluating students’ writing and providing feedback; and handling students’ writing workload, which can overwhelm writing instructors. The next sections discuss these best practices, as well as some pedagogical theories for grammar and writing, in more detail as they relate to the undergraduate admin- istrative writing course design.
Grammar Review Although not discussed by Stanford (1992), the course began with a brief
grammar review. Hines and Basso’s case study stresses the need for grammar review in communication/writing courses: “At the heart of all written communication remains the proper use of the rules of English Grammar. … Incoherent sentences and ambiguous thoughts doom writing to fail at its most fundamental and im- portant level, communicating ideas” (2008, pp. 294, 297). The grammar review incorporated a mix of the rules-based and content-based approaches. The rules- based approach to teaching grammar (also known as deductive approach and traditional school grammar approach) is a teacher-centered approach focusing on grammar definitions and rules, and then requiring students to apply those rules to specific isolated exercises (Weaver, 1996). Examples of this approach include diagramming sentences and memorizing definitions (e.g., predicates, fragments, subordinate clauses).
The content-based, or inductive, approach gained popularity in the 1960s and applies grammar definitions and rules to students’ writing (Quible & Griffin, 2007). Through this student-centered approach, students discover grammar rules, concepts, and exceptions while writing or editing their assignments. Weaver (1996) advocated for the content-based approach for teaching grammar and citied many studies (i.e., Calkins, 1980; DiStefano & Killion, 1984; Harris & Rowan, 1989; Noguchi, 1991) conducted on elementary through college-aged students. Specifically applicable to the design of the administrative writing course is Harris and Rowan’s (1989) study of undergraduate students’ understanding of grammar concepts. The authors concluded that students needed the application of grammar concepts in their writing, in addition to knowing grammar rules and definitions. Specifically, students in the study could define a sentence, but failed to differentiate between a fragment or run-on sentence and a grammatically correct sentence (Weaver, 1996).
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Implementation of This Legislation Stresses |
Implementation of This Legislation Stresses