Academic Writing Supporting Faculty In A Critical Competency For Success

Running Head: ACADEMIC WRITING 1
Academic Writing:
Supporting Faculty in a Critical Competency for Success
Mary E. Dankoski, PhD
Megan M. Palmer, PhD
Julianna Banks, PhD
Randy R. Brutkiewicz, PhD
Emily Walvoord, MD
Krista Hoffmann-Longtin, MA
Stephen P. Bogdewic, PhD
Indiana University
George D. Gopen, JD, PhD
Duke University
Address correspondence to the first author at 340 W. 10th
Street, Fairbanks Hall 6th
Floor,
Indianapolis, IN 46202, phone: 317-278-3089, fax: 317-274-8439, or mdankosk@iupui.edu

Academic Writing 2
Abstract
All faculty regardless of discipline or school need to be highly competent at writing for an
academic audience. The “publish or perish” pressure is alive and well for academic advancement,
publications, and external grant funding. Yet few faculty, particularly in the health professions
and sciences, receive formal training on the craft of writing. Faculty developers have offered a
variety of programs designed to enhance the writing skills of faculty using a various formats and
with varying success. Since 2006, the Indiana University School of Medicine’s (IUSM) Office of
Faculty Affairs and Professional Development has offered an in-depth two-day workshop plus
individual tutorials designed to enhance faculty academic writing skills. This paper presents the
results of an evaluation of faculty perceptions of the impact of their participation in this program.
Key Words: academic writing, faculty, faculty development, scholarly productivity, writing

Academic Writing 3
Academic Writing:
Supporting Faculty in a Critical Competency for Success
Introduction
Scholarly publications and grant awards serve as academic currency for faculty throughout
the academy. The “publish or perish” pressure is alive and well. This includes not only publishing
frequently and consistently, but publishing in higher-impact journals. In the sciences and health
professions the pressure can be particularly intense because grant funding, the coin of the realm,
is increasingly competitive. For example, the probability of a proposal being funded through the
National Institutes of Health has dropped from 32% in 1999 to as low as 10-12% for some
institutes today (National Institutes of Health, 2008). Both success in securing external grants and
achieving the amount of peer reviewed scholarship to reach the bar for promotion and tenure
depends to a great deal on how well faculty can convey their ideas in writing.
Thus, academic writing skills are key skills for success in faculty life not only in terms of
advancement but also in terms of advancing one’s research agenda. Peer-reviewed publications
and successful grant submissions depend largely on innovative ideas; but grants can be won or
lost based on the writing clarity and overall skills of the author. Medical terminology, concepts,
and principles are often taxing to read and difficult to understand (Cameron et al., 2009). The
ability to communicate clearly “without over-simplifying academic issues” is essential (Gopen &
Swan, 2008, p.1).
The necessary skills for academic writing are not intuitive and mastering them remains a
challenge for many faculty. Few receive formal advanced training on the complex process of
scientific writing (Boice & Jones, 1984). The structure used in writing academic manuscripts,
particularly in the sciences, heavily influences the readers’ reaction to and interpretation of the

Academic Writing 4
data being presented (Gopen & Swan, 1990; Shah et al., 2009). Additionally, productivity in
academic writing is often hindered by what is described as the “cognitive burden.” This burden
of perceived obstacles to writing includes time constraints, anxiety, underconfidence, and
procrastination (Boice & Jones, 1984; Cameron et al., 2009; Rickard et al., 2009; Shah, et al.,
2009; Steinert, et al., 2008).
Given the importance of writing ability, it is not surprising that a number of efforts have
been developed to improve faculty writing skills using a variety of formats, such as brief
workshops, ongoing writing groups, mentoring arrangements, and online instruction courses
(Ambose, et al., 2009; Hekelman, et al., 1995; Phadtare, et al., 2009). However, formal
assessments of many of these interventions have been limited (Morss & Murray, 2001). A
systematic review of faculty development programs designed to improve publication rates found
only 17 studies over a 10 year period that measured publication outcomes (McGrail, 2006). When
comparing workshops versus writing support groups versus professional coaching/mentoring, all
interventions improved publication rates by at least two-fold. Unfortunately, most of these studies
were relatively small, including between 8 and 80 participants. Qualitative studies of writing
workshops have reported improvements in writing skills (Pololi, et al., 2004; Sommers, et al.,
1996), quality of the writing (Miller & Muhlenkamp, 1989; Stern, 1998) and confidence in
writing (Cameron et al., 2009; Grzybowski et al., 2003; Hekelman et al., 1995). However, these
studies were also relatively small and usually involved participants from only one department,
with a notable exception of one study with over 300 academic physicians at a single institution
who spoke English as their second language (Cameron et al., 2009). Newer paradigms for
improving scientific writing have emerged over the past few years including more specialized
instruction on focused topics such as medical education publications (Steinert et al., 2008) and

Academic Writing 5
case reports (Sridhar et al., 2009). The use of online writing workshop groups and standardized
writing templates have been shown to improve satisfaction and quality of manuscripts when
compared to a standard/classroom instruction group (Phadtare et al., 2009). A number of studies
have reported that following completion of a writing course participants felt as if their likelihood
of submitting and/or having an article accepted for publication had substantially improved
(Bydder et al., 2006; Cameron et al., 2009; Rickard et al., 2009; Sridhar et al., 2009).
In an effort to support faculty in this critical area, since 2006 the Indiana University
School of Medicine’s (IUSM) Office of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development has
offered an in-depth two-day workshop designed and presented by one of the authors of this paper
(GDG). The Academic Writing Program (AWP) helps faculty view language not from the
perspective of rules but rather from the perspective of how readers go about the act of
interpretation. AWP includes two full day interactive seminars drawing an audience of
approximately 200, followed by one or two days of optional individualized tutorials for 12-24
participants.
The main emphasis of the workshop is to help authors view language from the perspective
of how readers interpret it. The major innovation in this approach is the discovery that readers
take the vast majority of their clues for interpretation not from the meanings of words but rather
from their structural locations.
Readers have relatively fixed expectations about where in the structure of prose they will
encounter particular items of its substance. If writers can become consciously aware of
these locations, they can better control the degrees of recognition and emphasis a reader
will give to the various pieces of information being presented” (Gopen & Swan, p. 551).

Academic Writing 6
These structural issues include for example, subject-verb separation, using the “topic position” to
establish context, and placing the most important material at the end of the sentence; what Gopen
and Swan refer to as the “stress position.” The seminars include interactive exercises where
attendees engage in rewriting prose to improve its readability and clarity. Through the AWP
faculty become more aware of these expectations and focus on the structure of their writing.
Gopen and Swan (1990) argue that the structure of writing is the structure of the scientific
argument. Therefore, improving either one will improve the other.
This paper presents the results of a survey designed to evaluate faculty perceptions of the
impact of their participation in this program.
Methods
Setting and Participants
All IUSM faculty who participated in the program from 2006 through 2009 (N=230) were
invited to participate in an online survey. Fifty percent (N=115) of workshop participants
submitted responses. Table 1 shows the demographics of the survey sample and overall dataset of
program participants. Of the 115 respondents just over half were male and on the tenure-track.
Close to two-thirds served in research roles. Most respondents were assistant professors and the
overwhelming majority were full-time faculty (96%). The average number of years on the faculty
at IUSM was 6.97 years.
[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Measures
The online survey consisted of eight demographic indicators; two subscales measuring
faculty perceptions of 1) their confidence and improvement in writing, and 2) their productivity
before and after the workshop; two questions regarding the usefulness of the small group

Academic Writing 7
consultation with the program facilitator; and two open-ended items that allowed participants to
report the workshop’s impact on their work and the program’s overall effectiveness.
Demographic indicators were included to distinguish respondents by campus, gender, role,
rank, track, status, and years of service. The two subscales were scored on a 5-point Likert Scale
(1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Example survey questions include: “As a result of
participating in the AWP, my confidence increased in my ability to link concepts and ideas;
contextualize information; organize information; display quantitative data…; Since my
participation in the AWP, I have… submitted ‘x’ grant proposals, published ‘x’ scholarly works,
received ‘x’ R01 grants, …; Please comment on the usefulness of the consultation [with the
presenter].
Procedures
The University’s School of Education Research Center (SERC) developed the survey
instrument in collaboration with the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) Office of
Faculty Affairs and Professional Development. In February 2010, the request to participate in the
study was sent via e-mail to all full- and part-time IUSM faculty who participated in the AWP
from 2006 to 2009 (N = 230). Faculty who agreed to participate accessed the survey via a hyper-
link included in the e-mail invitation. One hundred fifteen (50%) faculty participants submitted
responses to the survey. The SERC provided data analysis and reported results.
Data Analysis
Categorical data was used to characterize respondents by demographic group (e.g.
campus, gender, rank, track); means and frequencies were reported for all other quantitative
items. An independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if there was a significant
difference between faculty who elected to participate in individual tutorials with the program

Academic Writing 8
facilitator and those who did not. Separate Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to
examine the difference between demographic groups. SERC also analyzed the responses to the
open-ended survey items and interviews. The qualitative data analysis was conducted using the
constant comparative method described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). This method of analysis
involves sorting individual units of data which are then grouped and categorized into more
general conceptual themes. The transcribed interviews and open-ended survey responses were
analyzed and coded to identify relevant categories. These categories were then compared and
integrated to construct and support major themes across cases. NVIVO qualitative data analysis
software was used.
Results
The Confidence in Academic Writing Abilities scale (see Table 2) was the first set of items
to which faculty responded. When asked to what extent they agreed that their level of confidence
had increased in five skill areas, 100 participants (86.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that their
confidence in communicating concepts in writing had increased. This item returned the highest
mean score on this scale (M = 4.26). The item measuring confidence in displaying quantitative
data in writing returned the lowest mean of 3.52, with 54 faculty (47.4%) submitting “neutral”
responses.
On the second subscale, Writing Ability and Productivity Improvement (Table 3), faculty
were asked to what extent they agreed that their abilities had improved as a result of participation
in the program. On this item, faculty most often indicated that their manuscripts and grants would
be more competitive (M = 3.95), with 82 participants (71.9%) who agreed or strongly agreed with
this statement. Over half of the respondents (54.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that their ability to

Academic Writing 9
obtain a grant improved (M = 3.66), and 52.2% agreed or strongly agreed that their ability to
publish a scholarly work improved (M = 3.66). Overall, the mean scores indicated that a majority
of the workshop participants believed that their writing skills improved following participation in
the program.
When asked to indicate the type and number of professional accomplishments (e.g., grants
received, published peer reviewed journal articles, scholarly works, etc.) they had achieved since
participating in the workshop, faculty most often reported having published peer reviewed journal
articles. As can be seen in Table 4, of participants who responded to this item, 23 (27.4%)
indicated that they had published at least one peer reviewed journal article since participating in
the AWP. The largest number of faculty who reported having submitted two or more grant
proposals was 16 (19.8%), and most faculty who received one grant (29.4%) acquired external
funding. Few respondents (8.8%) reported having acquired two or more grants after participating
in the AWP.
Participants were also asked to indicate if their achievements had increased, decreased, or
remained about the same after participating in the AWP. As shown in Table 5, faculty reported
the highest gains in grant proposal submissions (M = 2.30), with 27 (32.9%) indicating an
increase in their submission of grant proposals. Acquiring K08 grants received the lowest mean
score of M = 1.96, with 98.2% (53) of participants reporting that achievements in this area
remained about the same or were fewer.

Academic Writing 10
To further understand the impact of the experience with different faculty groups, separate
Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine differences between groups by
track, rank, role, and gender. In examining differences by track, the analysis revealed a
statistically significant difference between tenured faculty and clinical faculty on self-reported
improvement in their ability to obtain grants and publish research briefs. The mean score for
tenured faculty was significantly higher on their ability to obtain grants after participating in the
program (M = 3.82) than clinical faculty (M = 3.32). However with regards to the ability to
publish research briefs, clinical faculty reported a significantly higher mean score on this item (M
=2.44) than tenured faculty (M = 2.09). Faculty who identified teaching as their primary role
reported substantive gains in multiple areas. For example, teaching faculty reported having greater
confidence in their ability to organize information in writing (M = 4.88) than did research faculty
(M = 4.17). Teaching faculty also reported higher gains in their ability to publish scholarly work
(M = 4.38), which was significantly higher than administrative (M =3.14), clinical (M = 3.69), and
research faculty (M = 3.63). A similar finding emerged when comparing teaching faculty (M =
4.00) and clinical (M = 3.24) faculty on improvement in their ability to obtain a grant. There were
no statistically significant differences based on gender. Table 6 displays all statistically significant
mean differences on items by rank, role, and track.
Individual Tutorials
On two subsequent days after the two-day workshop, participants were given the
opportunity to have an individual tutorial with the presenter. These consultations are optional and
offered on a first-come, first-served basis. Of the survey participants, twenty-seven had
participated in an individual tutorial. In order to create a meaningful comparison, the decision was

Academic Writing 11
made to group all participants into either Static Productivity (those who reported about the same
or less) or Greater Productivity (those who reported an increase in their accomplishments). A
basic 2 x 2 cross tabular comparison was conducted to determine if there were significant
differences between those who participated in the consultations and those who did not (Table 7).
Consistently, more participants who received consultation self-rated in the Greater Productivity
group. In every area but one, a larger percentage of consultation participants reported greater
impact on their scholarship as a result of the AWP than those who did not receive a consultation.
However, the only area that revealed a statistically significant difference was internal grants.
Open-Ended Survey Responses
In responses to open-ended survey items, faculty reported a number of gains associated
with participating in the workshop. These gains included improved writing skills, new
perspectives on writing, increased confidence, the ability to provide better feedback on the work
of others, and overall improved communication skills. A small number of respondents indicated
that the improved writing skills acquired from participation in the workshop had a tangible impact
on their work. A few of their accomplishments are highlighted in the following comments:
• “I am able to write more clearly. I have written a fellowship application---I got the
fellowship. I have written several recommendation letters which are more precise.”
• “I had a paper accepted with extremely minimal text changes on the first shot. I also
received a highly competitive extramural grant in a new area for the laboratory.”
• “I have two peer-reviewed publications since attending.”
Other faculty indicated that the workshop was worthwhile and suggested that the number of
publications and grants acquired since participation may not be the most suitable metric for

Academic Writing 12
evaluating the program’s usefulness. As one participant notes, “You have to accept the value of a
thing without numeric metrics to back it up.” Certainly a number of faculty found it valuable and
recommended “inviting [the presenter] back” and continuing the workshop “every other year or
so to reinforce [writing] habits.” One participant mentioned that they “would love to retake or
have a brief refresher course,” as did another who indicated that s/he “would attend the workshop
again if given the option.”
The majority of faculty who participated in a small group consultation found the
opportunity to receive individualized feedback on their writing valuable. In fact, of the 25
responses regarding the consultation, 10 respondents mentioned the word “useful” to characterize
this component of the program. According to one participant, “It was very useful in terms of
identifying particular problem areas in my own writing as well as problem-solving ways of
improving such areas.” Similarly, other faculty found applying the principles learned in the
program a valuable exercise. One participant described how the consultation “really brought
home the concepts learned in class,” while others expressed that the consultation “helped” them
be of greater assistance to others in providing constructive feedback. Two participants
characterized this part of the program as the “most” beneficial or valuable component.
While most of the feedback regarding the workshop was overwhelmingly positive, a few
participants indicated that it did not suit their particular needs. One participant suggested that
“other resources on medical writing [are] more informative at this level.” Another indicated that
it “was not a worthwhile endeavor for students or faculty,” a sentiment that was echoed by two
others. A few participants mentioned challenges related to the consultation, including difficulty
scheduling and the limited appointment times. And finally, one respondent noted that the
feedback was “hard to take.”

Academic Writing 13
Discussion
Similar to previously published assessments of writing development programs, our
evaluation shows that participant confidence significantly improved after completing the AWP. In
our study, close to 87% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that their confidence in
communicating concepts in writing had increased. We can infer that greater confidence may lead
to increased submissions of scholarly works. Also, similar to other published assessments of
writing development programs, many of our respondents believed that, after completing the
program, they had a greater likelihood of having their work published with high overall mean
scores on the Writing Ability and Productivity Improvement Scale. Specifically, almost three-
quarters (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that their manuscripts and grants would be more
competitive. More than half of the sample agreed or strongly agreed that their ability to obtain a
grant improved (54%) and 52% agreed or strongly agreed that their ability to publish a scholarly
work improved.
Additionally, we sought to assess whether productivity and success in writing was the
same, less, or greater after participating in the program. According to Kirkpatrick (1994), best
practices in program evaluation include assessments across multiple levels: 1) participant
reaction, 2) learning, 3) change in behavior or application, and 4) institutional results. The
comparison of achievements before and after participation is at Kirkpatrick’s (1994) level three,
and distinguishes this study from others that primarily assessed participant confidence and self-
reported learning. An impressive one-third (33%) of respondents reported an increase in the
submission of grant proposals. One-quarter (25%) reported an increase in writing research briefs,
23% reported an increase in publishing peer-reviewed journal articles, and 22% reported an
increase in other external grant funding. Those who participated in the individualized

Academic Writing 14
consultations seemed to reap the greatest gains. The faculty and the institution will benefit greatly
from this increased scholarly productivity.
Moreover, our comparisons between groups of faculty are notable. Given the importance
of funding for achieving tenure at our institution, we were not surprised that the mean for tenured
faculty was significantly higher than clinical faculty on their ability to obtain grants after
participating in the program. This may be due to a difference in career focus. However, there may
be an alternative scenario; clinical faculty often report lack of time to focus on academic work
(Kelly et al., 2007; Thomas et. al., 2004). As such, the results indicating that clinical faculty
reported a significantly higher score on writing research briefs indicates that this program may be
reaching an audience in great need of support to advance academically. Similarly, given
challenges related to the scholarship of teaching (Weimer, 2006), the results showing gains
among teaching faculty are encouraging and indicate that a need is being met. Teaching-focused
faculty reported higher confidence in organizing information in writing than research faculty, and
more substantial gains in their ability to publish scholarly work than any other group of faculty.
When compared with clinical faculty, teaching faculty also reported significantly greater
improvement in their ability to obtain a grant.
Limitations
While the survey was useful in gathering data on the effectiveness of the AWP, there were
notable limitations. First, the instrument may not have addressed all of the specific learning
objectives, content, or topics that were introduced over the course of the two-day workshop.
Secondly, the instrument did not allow participants to indicate reasons why they accomplished
few or no achievements since their participation in the program. These outcomes would be best
addressed in a matched cohort study, where the effects of the intervention of an AWP could be

Academic Writing 15
more closely examined. Also, this analysis does not account for language differences. Such an
analysis could highlight contextual differences in the English language writing skills of non-
native English speakers. Lastly, the sample was a convenience sample and as can be seen in Table
1, there are notable differences between the sample and the overall dataset of program
participants. Associate rank faculty represented approximately 38% of the sample but 24% of the
overall dataset. We also had far more “other” category participants (lecturers, fellows, staff
members) in the overall dataset (14.8%) than survey respondents (2.6%). Tenure track faculty
were overrepresented in the survey sample compared to the overall dataset of participants (52.2%
versus 36.5%); similarly, research non-tenure track faculty were also overrepresented in the
survey sample (22.6% versus 17%). Clinical non-tenure track were underrepresented in the
survey sample (22.6% versus 32%).
Conclusions
Collectively, the survey findings indicate that the AWP increases confidence and
motivation among faculty to engage more fully in their writing tasks. The AWP curriculum and
consultations provide relevant tools, principles, techniques, and new approaches that facilitate and
enhance faculty communication and writing development. Additionally, the majority of faculty
indicated that they found significant value in the program and consistently reported that the
workshop, in effect, reduced the level of anxiety associated with academic writing. Our findings
support others’ conclusion (Bydder et al.006; Cameron et al., 2009; Rickard et al., 2009; Sridhar
et al., 2009) that a writing course improves both confidence and the likelihood of submitting
and/or having an article accepted for publication.
Given that scholarly productivity and success in external funding hinges to a large extent
on the quality of faculty writing skills, these results have important implications not only for

Academic Writing 16
faculty success, but for institutional success. Academic medical centers rely upon their faculty to
advance their research mission through funded basic and clinical research, and the overall
reputation of the institution is enhanced through highly productive and published faculty. Clearly,
our study indicates that the returns on investing in a writing development program are well worth
the time and expense devoted to it.

Academic Writing 17
References
Ambose, E., Wiley, M., & Allen, T. H. (2009) Romancing the muse: Faculty writing institutes as
professional development. To Improve the Academy 27, 135-149.
Boice, R., & Jones, F. (1984). Why Academicians Don't Write. The Journal of Higher Education,
55(5), 567-582.
Bydder, S., Packer, D., & Semmens, J. (2006). The value of a scientific writing training workshop
for radiologists and radiation oncologists. Australasian Radiology, 50(1), 29-32.
Cameron, C., Deming, S., Notzon, S., Cantor, S., Broglio, K., & Patel, (2009). Academic writing
training for academic physicians of diverse language backgrounds. Academic Writing, 84
(4), 505-510.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
Gopen, G., & Swan, J. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78, 550-8.
Gopen, G. & Swan, J. (2008). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 1-12.
Grzybowski, S. C., Bates, J., Calam, B., Alred, J., Martin, R. E., Andrew, R. et al. (2003). A
physician peer support writing group. Family Medicine, 35(3), 195-201.
Hekelman, F. P., Gilchrist, V., Zyzanski, S. J., Glover, P., & Olness, K. (1995). An educational
intervention to increase faculty publication productivity. Family Medicine, 27(4), 255-259.
Kelly, A. M., Cronin, P., & Dunnick, N. R. (2007). Junior faculty satisfaction in a large academic
radiology department. Academic Radiology, 14(4), 445-454.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.

Academic Writing 18
McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C.M., Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: a systemic review of
interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and
Development, 25(1), 19-35.
Miller, B. K., & Muhlenkamp, A. (1989). Teaching students how to publish in nursing journals: a
group approach. Journal of Nursing Education, 28(8), 379-381.
Morss, K., & Murray, R. (2001). Researching academic writing within a structured programme:
Insights and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 35-42.
National Institutes of Health (2008b). Research project success rates by type and activity for
2008. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
Phadtare, A., Bahmani, A., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R. (2009). Scientific writing: a randomized
controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction. BMC Medical Education, 9,
27.
Pololi, L., Knight, S., & Dunn, K. (2004). Facilitating scholarly writing in academic medicine. J
General Internal Medicine, 19(1), 64-68.
Rickard, C. M., McGrail, M. R., Jones, R., O'Meara, P., Robinson, A., Burley, M., & Ray-
Barruel, G. (2009). Supporting academic publication: Evaluation of a writing course
combined with writers' support group. Nurse Education Today, 29(5), 516-521.
Shah, J., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R. (2009). Scientific writing of novice researchers: What
difficulties and encouragements do they encounter? Academic Medicine, 84(5), 511-516.
Thomas, P. A., Diener-West, M., Canto, M. I., Martin, D. R., Post, W. S., & Streiff, M. B. (2004).
Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 79(3), 258-264.

Academic Writing 19
Weimer, M. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature
that makes a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Academic Writing 20
Tables
Table 1. Demographic Information
Category
Study Sample Overall Participant Dataset
(n) % (N) %
Gender
Female 53 46.0% 111 48.3%
Male 62 53.9% 118 51.3%
Rank
Assistant 53 46.1% 100 43.5%
Associate 44 38.3% 56 24.3%
Professor 15 13% 40 17.4%
Other 3 2.6% 34* 14.8%
Track
Tenure 60 52.2% 84 36.5%
Clinical 26 22.6% 73 32%
Research 26 22.6% 39 17%
Other 3 2.6% 34* 14.8%
Status
Full-time 110 96.0% 226 99.1%
Part-time 4 3.5% 4 1.7%
Primary Role
Administration 8 7.0% unknown
Clinical 29 25.2% unknown
Research 69 60.0% unknown
Teaching 8 7.0% unknown
Note: Study sample n = 115; Overall participant dataset N = 230
*Includes fellows, lecturers, staff members

Academic Writing 21
Table 2. Confidence in Academic Writing Abilities Scale
Item (n)
Disagree or
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree or
Strongly
Agree
Mean (SD)
Communicating concepts in writing 115 3 (.2.6%) 12 (10.4%) 100 (86.9%) 4.26 (.79)
Linking concepts and ideas in writing 113 4 (3.6%) 14 (12.4%) 95 (84.1%) 4.22 (.86)
Contextualizing information in writing 113 3 (2.7%) 20 (17.7%) 90 (79.7%) 4.12 (.85)
Displaying quantitative data in writing 114 8 (7.1%) 54 (47.4%) 52 (45.6%) 3.52 (.88)
Organizing information in writing 115 3(2.6%) 16 (13.9%) 96 (83.5%) 4.25 (.86)

Academic Writing 22
Table 3. Writing Ability and Productivity Improvement Scale
Item (n)
Disagree or
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree or
Strongly
Agree
Mean (SD)
Ability to obtain a grant improved 114 6 (5.3%) 46 (40.4%) 62 (54.4%) 3.66 (.88)
Ability to publish a research brief improved 111 4 (3.6%) 37 (33.3%) 70 (63.0%) 3.77 (.84)
Ability to publish peer-reviewed article improved 113 3 (2.7%) 35 (31.0%) 75 (66.4%) 3.87 (.86)
Ability to publish scholarly work improved 113 4 (3.6%) 50 (44.2%) 59 (52.2%) 3.66 (.87)
Manuscripts /grants will be more competitive 114 3 (2.7%) 29 (25.4%) 82 (71.9%) 3.95 (.85)
Overall productivity improved 115 7 (6.1%) 45 (39.1%) 63 (54.8%) 3.68 (.97)

Academic Writing 23
Table 4. Professional Accomplishments since Participation in the AWP
Number of Each Achieved
Item N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Written research brief/s 69
37
(53.6%)
10
(14.5%)
13
(18.8%)
2
(2.9%)
2
(2.9%)
4
(5.8%)
1
(1.4%)
Submitted grant
proposal/s
81
15
(18.5%)
18
(22.2%)
16
(19.8%)
16
(19.8%)
4
(4.9%)
4
(4.9%)
4
(4.9%)
2
(2.5%)
2
2.5%)
Published peer-reviewed
journal article(s)
84
19
(22.6%)
23
(27.4%)
13
(15.5%)
10
(11.9%)
6
(7.1%)
3
(3.6%)
3
(3.6%)
2
(2.4%)
2
(2.4%)
1
(1.2%)
2
(2.4%)
Published scholarly
work(s)
81
44
(66.7%)
15
(22.7%)
5
(7.6%)
2
(3.0%)
Invited publications 66
44
(66.7%)
11
(16.7%)
8
(12.1%)
3
(4.5%)
Received internal grant(s) 66
45
(68.2%)
16
(24.2%)
5
(7.6%)
Received R01 grant(s) 63
57
(90.5%)
5
(7.9%)
1
(1.6%)
Received K08 grant(s) 61
59
(96.7%)
2
(3.3%)
Received other external
grant(s)
68
40
(58.8%)
20
(29.4%)
6
(8.8%)
1
(1.5%)
1
(1.5%)
Note: Percentages in this table are in reference to the number of participants who responded to these items, which may be different from the total
number of survey respondents.

Academic Writing 24
Table 5. Comparison of Achievements Before and After Participation in the AWP
Item N It is Less
It is About
the Same
It is
Greater
Mean (SD)
Written research brief/s. 64 2 (3.1%) 46 (71.9%) 16 (25.0%) 2.22 (.49)
Submitted grant proposal/s. 82 2 (2.4%) 53 (64.6%) 27 (32.9%) 2.30 (.51)
Published peer-reviewed journal article(s). 83 6 (7.2%) 58 (69.9%) 19 (22.9%) 2.16 (.53)
Published scholarly work(s). 60 2 (3.3%) 54 (90.0%) 4 (6.7%) 2.03 (.32)
Invited publications. 58 2 (3.4%) 47 (81.0%) 9 (15.5%) 2.12 (.42)
Received internal grant(s). 62 6 (9.7%) 47 (75.8%) 9 (14.5%) 2.05 (.49)
Received R01 grant(s). 56 2 (3.6%) 50 (89.3%) 4 (7.1%) 2.04 (.33)
Received K08 grant(s). 54 3 (5.6%) 50 (92.6%) 1 (1.9%) 1.96 (.27)
Received other external grant(s) 65 4 (6.2%) 47 (72.3%) 14 (21.5%) 2.15 (.51)
Note: Percentages in this table are in reference to the number of participants who responded to these
items, which may be different from the total number of survey respondents.

Academic Writing 25
Table 6. Statistically Significant Mean Differences by Faculty Track, Rank, and Role
Group Mean (SD) Group Mean (SD)
Track (Tenure, Clinical, Research)
Ability to obtain grant improved. Tenure 3.82 (.93) Clinical 3.32 (.80)*
Ability to publish a research brief improved. Clinical 2.44 (.51) Tenure 2.09 (.46)*
Rank (Assistant, Associate, Full)
Ability to publish peer-reviewed article improved. Professor 2.45 (.52) Assoc. Prof. 2.09 (.46)*
Role (Teaching, Research, Clinical Administrative)
Confidence in organizing information in writing increased. Teaching 4.88 (.35) Research 4.17 (.86)*
Ability to obtain a grant improved.
Research 3.81 (.88)**
Clinical 3.24 (.79)
Teaching 4.00 (.93)*
Ability to publish scholarly work improved. Teaching 4.38 (.74)
Admin. 3.14 (.69)**
Clinical 3.69 (.89)*
Research 3.63 (.86)*
Overall productivity improved. Admin. 4.25 (.89) Clinical 3.45 (.99)*
Publication of scholarly works were greater after SWP Teaching 2.25 (.50) Admin. 1.75 (.50)*
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Academic Writing 26
Table 7. Self-Reported Impact of Individual Tutorials
Item
No Tutorial Tutorial Group
N Static Greater N Static Greater
Writing research brief 53 41 (77.4%) 12 (22.6%) 11 7 (63.6%) 4 (36.4%)
Submitted external grants 63 43 (68.3%) 20 (31.7%) 19 12 (63.2%) 7 (36.8%)
Published in peer review 64 51 (79.7%) 13 (20.3%) 19 13 (68.4%) 6 (31.6%)
Published scholarly work 53 49 (92.5%) 4 (7.5%) 7 7 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Invited publications 50 43 (86.0%) 7 (14.0%) 8 6 (75.0%) 2 (25.0%)
Internal grants 49 45 (91.8%) 4 (8.2%) 13 8 (61.5%) 5 (38.5%)*
Awarded RO1 48 45 (93.8%) 3 (6.3%) 8 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%)
Awarded K08 47 46 (97.9%) 1 (2.1%) 7 7 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Awarded other external funding 53 44 (83.0%) 9 (17.0%) 12 7 (58.3%) 5 (41.7%)
*p<.05 Note: Percentages in this table are in reference to the number of participants who responded to
these items, which may be different from the total number of survey respondents.
View publication stats
View publication stats

Academic Writing Supporting Faculty In A Critical Competency For Success

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Academic Writing Supporting Faculty In A Critical Competency For Success

Similar to Academic Writing Supporting Faculty In A Critical Competency For Success (20)

More from Sarah Marie

More from Sarah Marie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Academic Writing Supporting Faculty In A Critical Competency For Success