Faculty Writing Program Background

Jennifer Ahern-Dodson has led a faculty writing program at a Research 1 institution for more than a decade. The initiative began as a three-day, non-residential multidisciplinary summer writing retreat with 12 faculty, and grew to a program that supports more than 100 faculty annually across career phases and disciplines. Monique Dufour (University of Virginia) designed and led the first summer writing retreat (and led or co-led the summer retreat with Ahern-Dodson thereafter), developed workshops that continue as part of the summer retreat’s core curriculum, and helped establish the program’s shared vocabulary for discussing writing processes and practices. The annual summer retreat created opportunities for reflection, connection, and goal-setting among peers. Participants explored writing practices, applied what they learned, and supported one another throughout the process. The retreat offered a framework for writers to gather, learn, experiment, and interact with each other around what they were learning—key features of a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998). Ahern-Dodson surveyed participants after each summer retreat, and their responses consistently demonstrated high satisfaction with the retreat. Retreats filled quickly, and participants recruited colleagues. Participants had such a positive experience at the summer retreat that they wanted to extend the retreat experience into the academic year.

After the summer retreat, Ahern-Dodson worked with interested participants to organize writing groups. These disciplinary and multidisciplinary communities of practice helped participants translate their understanding of effective writing processes into sustained application (Bloom, 1969). This structure extended the immersive retreat experience into small-group settings, turning individual learning into a collaborative process. Writing groups became key spaces for sharing knowledge, broadening writing strategies, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, leveraging resources, and co-creating new knowledge by problem-solving writing challenges (Krishnaveni & Sujatha, 2012; Kwan et al., 2021; McDonald et al., 2012).

Amid increasing demand for retreats and writing groups, Ahern-Dodson reached out to Jennifer Hill in the university’s assessment office to collaborate on an assessment protocol to help identify areas for strategic program growth. We collaborated on a program assessment framework that intentionally merges program assessment with authentic learner assessment to understand not only what faculty were accomplishing, but also what they were learning and how (Ajjawi et al., 2019; Wiggins, 1998). We identified learner-centered outcomes for our study, established a protocol to help us assess faculty learning, and linked assessment to faculty development. We designed the data collection measures with two key needs in mind: (1) evidence showing the program’s value to the administrators funding it and (2) evidence of faculty-participant learning.¹

We wanted to gather evidence of program effectiveness and to activate the ongoing development of writing-supportive behaviors and mindsets.

Methodology

The study focused on participants in the annual writing retreat and their experiences in the year that followed. We studied both individuals and the communities of practice they participated in (the retreat and writing groups). The evidence from scaffolded surveys and interviews includes fixed-choice categorical data, ordinal data, and open-text responses, along with archived notes from participant interviews. These instruments combine learning outcomes assessment with program evaluation, including resource adequacy, organizational sustainability, program scope, and community impact.

We used Donald Kirkpatrick’s four-stage model of learning evaluation as a framework for assessing faculty development within communities of practice (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Kirkpatrick’s phases of learning—reaction, learning, behavior, and results—explain how program participants enrich their individual goals and deepen their connections within and commitments to a community of practice. The individual’s metacognitive and process skills evolve into a recognition of and commitment to sustainable writing-supportive structures across the organization.² Reaction (level 1) is characterized by the learner’s immediate judgment of the program’s enjoyability and relevance. Is the learner satisfied with the experience? Thereafter, the program seeks learning (level 2): Does the learner cultivate the skills, habits, and dispositions that sustain effective writing processes? The behavior (level 3) stage considers whether the learner has changed their approach to the work of writing. Can the learner apply the newly formed skills, habits, and dispositions in their established faculty roles? The final level, results (level 4), examines the reciprocal relationship between learning and the learning environment.

We began by contending with a critical question: Should we measure writing support effectiveness by participant outputs, especially publications? Does a successful program prioritize product or process? Ultimately, we designed the assessment plan to emphasize learner-centered outcomes, responding to Carmen Werder’s (2013) challenge to consider faculty writing lives, not just their products (p. 291). Werder advocates for a multidimensional approach to supporting faculty writers—considering cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions (p. 281) and writer self-reflection to engender the possibility of “transformational experiences” instead of “short-term fixes” that “[leave] participants in formula-following, pat modes of thinking” (p. 291).

Our study focused on learning outcomes shaped by the Kirkpatrick model, which allowed us to focus on faculty learning to improve the program and study faculty writer growth over time.

Program Learning Outcomes

1. The program creates a positive individual experience with writing instruction.

2. The program fosters a deep understanding of successful writing processes as well as the structures and habits that disrupt effective writing practice.

3. Participants in the program transform their writing behaviors in alignment with both best/promising practices in scholarly writing and their individual values and orientations.

4. The program expands the quantity and enriches faculty engagement with frequent and regular writing communities.

5. The program creates roles for individual faculty to convene and facilitate the writing communities that emerged from the original retreats

For Learning Outcome 1, we wanted to estimate changes in knowledge of the writing process, capacity for extension and application over time, attitudes toward writing, and connection with community. For Learning Outcome 2, we wanted to identify emerging questions, evaluate how writers fulfilled their writing goals, and reflect on their experience in the project. For Learning Outcomes 3–5, we wanted to study change in process and identify insight-in-action, as a process that happens within faculty in real time.

Our data collection sources included the following:

• Learning Outcome 1: Retreat participant surveys (distributed four times during the year), number of returning participants, and quantity of referrals by previous participants.

• Learning Outcome 2: Self-reflections collected within the retreat survey, observations collected by the retreat facilitators and writing group conveners, and writing group surveys and convener discussions.

• Learning Outcome 3: Monitoring writing group participation, self-reported writing activities, writing group surveys and convener discussions, and participant interviews.

• Learning Outcomes 4 and 5: Tracking the proliferation of writing groups at the institution, tracking the transformation of individual participants to group leaders, and collating individual testimonials for community impacts from surveys and interviews.

This study centers the human experience of writing and writing in community. In line with authentic assessment principles, we designed the assessments to urge reflection on their writing practices, remind respondents of useful skills and habits, and encourage re-engagement with the writing community. The assessment community defines authentic assessment as engaging learners in real-world tasks that draw on diverse knowledge, skills, and processes (Ajjawi et al., 2019; Wiggins, 1998). Learners demonstrate development through application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1969). Learning and assessment are interconnected through task iteration, reflection, reciprocal feedback, and teacher–learner interaction.

Unlike summative assessments that focus on end-of-experience evaluations, authentic assessment promotes learning through the task itself. It extends the learner’s critical reflection on their practice, adaptations of work strategies, and progress toward goals—key aspects of metacognitive learning (Irons & Elkington, 2021; Yorke, 2003). These principles echo writing curriculum as praxis (Freire, 1985), where both program design and assessment center on critical reflection of self and organization. Assessment becomes an invitation to ongoing learning and renewed engagement with the institution. We therefore structured the instruments to blend into the experience—non-disruptive, non-judgmental, and non-performative spaces for thoughtful reflection on writing within one’s professional life. Assessment began with the summer writing retreat and continued afterward.

We administered the summer retreat pre-retreat survey on the morning of day one, including a global consent form covering all future surveys and interviews. Participants received the post-retreat survey shortly after day four, with follow-up reminders during the following week. Due to variations in the host institution’s academic calendar because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we adjusted the timing of follow-up surveys—one conducted 2–3 months later and the second 9–10 months afterward.

The surveys align with Kirkpatrick’s four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Themes include self-reported writing outcomes, perceived skill development, and participants’ visions for their future writing selves. (See Appendix A for timeline of survey questions and Appendix B for retreat survey question examples). The community of practice model strengthens assessment efforts. Our ability to collect valid, meaningful data—aligned with the Kirkpatrick-based framework—depends on cultivating a trusted learning environment where participants willingly share insights to support the program’s growth.

As is common in survey research, we saw high response rates for the pre-program survey, followed by some attrition across the three follow-up surveys (Table 1). We aggregated the results for all three retreat cohorts—2019, 2020, and 2021.

Surveys often require interpretive caution, as they typically provide indirect evidence of learning. However, this project focuses on participants’ self-perceptions of writing practice, offering more direct insight into shifts in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Acknowledging the limitations of retrospective surveys—such as imperfect recall and bias—we administered surveys at four points: before the writing retreat, immediately after it ended, at the start of the academic year (several months later), and near the end of the academic year.

We also adopted an action research approach, which values the emergence of new scholar-practitioner insights during the research process (Adler-Kassner, 2008; Mertler, 2018). The program director (Ahern-Dodson), a trusted individual with regular contact with participants, conducted interviews that created space for deeper reflection. These conversations revealed learning outcomes that surveys might miss, surfaced new questions for the program, and invited further reflection from participants. We adapted the post-retreat survey into an interview protocol to guide broader, year-later reflections. These interviews supported both retrospective insight and real-time program improvement, including summer retreat curriculum development in collaboration with Monique Dufour. In the process, we discussed how the interviews could inform the broader assessment plan.

To analyze the data, we used narrative analysis (Cortazzi, 1994) to identify insights from participant impressions, quotes, and testimonials collected through both surveys and interviews.

Findings

Level I: Satisfaction with Program

The first level of the Kirkpatrick model explores the participant’s initial reaction to or satisfaction with the learning experience. Asking participants to consider how they feel about the experience, this stage of assessment invites self-reflection on affective reactions across four survey administrations (Figure 1). Amplification of the positive and mitigation of the negative are most pronounced immediately following the summer retreat, but as participants leave the structured writing space and return to the regular work and life responsibilities, one observes a return to pre-retreat levels of excitement, tiredness, trepidation, and stress. Curiosity remains buoyed in the year following the retreat, although hopefulness declines notably in that year. Anxiety remains at lower levels in the year following the retreat (Figure 2).³ A caveat: The researchers did not provide respondents with standardized benchmarks for each emotional state, so results are relative.

Figure 1. Faculty Write Survey results (2019–2021 cohorts): Self-reported mean ratings of positive affective states over time (1 = Not at all, 2 = Somewhat, 3 = A lot)

Figure 2. Faculty Write Survey results (2019–2021 cohorts): Self-reported mean ratings of negative affective states over time (1 = Not at all, 2 = Somewhat, 3 = A lot)

Recognizing that essential human stories circulate within and emerge from this community of practice, the pre- and post-retreat surveys invite participants to share descriptive reflections alongside ranked indicators of specific feelings (e.g., curiosity, trepidation). While a few respondents express gratitude and anticipation of a new beginning, most describe negative mindsets before the retreat. Representative excerpts from the 2019 to 2021 cohorts include:

[I am] struggling to write through fear and imposter syndrome

Not knowing where to begin

Fatigue (physical and psychological) from having to [write] at times that aren’t optimal

Resentful and angry

Perfectionism/procrastination/anxiety

Dread and shame

[I would like] more joy and less judgment

I’d like to stop doubting myself

[I’d like to] find ways to crush the fear that I have about writing

In the post-retreat survey, respondents’ sentiments toward writing shift dramatically. The following representative excerpts, also from the 2019 to 2021 cohorts, point to positive emotional states:

Inspired

Exhausted but not tired of the project

Peaceful

Determined

Encouraged

Ready

More mindful and realistic

Felt a lightness I had long forgotten

Energized and better able to think creatively

Less discouraged

New sense of community

Enthusiasm for my project

I like my work

[An] ethos of joy, forgiveness, and community

Excitement

Momentum

Consistent with Kirkpatrick’s reaction level, respondents reported that the program was effective and engaging, and provided relevant takeaways. One respondent shared, “I am THRILLED wiht [sic] my progress.” Another added, “I love this retreat and really hope that it continues!!” A third suggested, “Keep doing what you are doing. The retreats are fabulous!”

When asked what they enjoyed most about the retreat, respondents highlighted the effective structure, engagement with a supportive group, clear purpose, accountability, valuable skills and habits, humane goals, and moments of joy and levity. Many responses reflect these themes. One respondent stated, “[The facilitators] do a masterful job of giving structure and flexibility.” Another shared, “I didn’t realize how much being part of a group… would help me.” Finally, a third respondent noted, “Being taught by academics who understand the pressures and fears around writing was really helpful.”

Assessment practitioners often avoid using enjoyment or satisfaction measures because they usually do not reflect learning goals and can seem like superficial indicators of program quality. However, long-running programs survive through repeat participation and participant referrals. The faculty writing initiative supports fluid participation, mixing established members with newcomers, making newcomers’ immediate experiences important for sustaining the program. Kirkpatrick’s model validates satisfaction as a valuable initial assessment goal while emphasizing the need to study deeper participant learning.

Level II: Learning New Knowledge, Skills, and Habits of Mind

After assessing participants’ general satisfaction, Kirkpatrick’s model moves into assessments of learning. This level explores how participants extend new knowledge and skills within their communities and develop habits of mind and personal organizational frameworks that support their self-defined writing goals. We gathered most evidence of learning from the post-program survey administered on the retreat’s final day. Figure 3 shows respondents’ self-assessed skill development.

We asked respondents to estimate various challenges to their writing (Figure 4). Even during the dedicated time and space of the retreat, some distractions persist. However, respondents can better manage challenges like writing block and procrastination through targeted instruction and practice in specific writing skills.

Figure 3. Post-program: This aspect of the retreat helped me with my writing

Figure 4. Post-program: This was a challenge to my writing this week

Most respondents (83%) on the post-retreat survey indicated that they had improved their abilities to set reasonable goals, but their explanations for this progress were varied. Of the 60 written responses to the follow-up question, Why or why not?, 43% commented on a new or matured ability to break large writing initiatives into manageable parts. Forty-two percent indicated that ongoing self-reflection led to better estimates of time and labor requirements, and 37% noted that learning specific techniques was instrumental to more effective goal-setting and execution.

Examining emotional states after the retreat, we found moderate correlations between positive emotions (like excitement and curiosity) and specific learned skills (Table 2). The strongest link appears between hopefulness and learning time-management tools (r = 0.4065, p < 0.0001). Notably, we found no strong connection between support from writing professionals and participants’ emotions at the retreat’s end. The small correlations suggest that other factors also influence these outcomes.

Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients: Affective states by learned skills and skill areas (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021)

	Excited	Anxious	Stressed	Tired	Trepidatious	Curious	Hopeful
Using tools to help avoid distractions while writing	0.2876*	0.0253	–0.1358	0.0397	0.0021*	0.1687	0.3123**
Using tools to help organize time (e.g., Pomodoro technique)	0.2149*	–0.0904	–0.1836	–0.1043	–0.0590	0.2382*	0.4065***
Getting support from writing professionals	0.2132	0.1999	0.0666	0.0659	0.1037	0.1100	0.2034

• *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.0001.

Level III: Applying New Knowledge and Changing Behaviors

The Kirkpatrick framework extends our understanding of faculty learning from initial reactions (level 1) and skills development (level 2) to the investigation of changed behavior. Can participants transfer learning outcomes upon return to their faculty lives? The study evaluates behavior in two ways: self-reported progress toward writing outputs and self-projections of future applications of writing skills.

As the program lead, Ahern-Dodson acknowledges the importance of writing productivity, the development of publishable scholarship, and other forms of public communication. Indeed, the pre-retreat and post-retreat surveys tracked the self-reported status of respondents’ writing projects. The types of writing products self-reported by respondents to the retreat post-program survey (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021) include journal articles (31%), books (30%), book chapters (14%), grants (12%), research proposals (4%), dissertation or the translation of dissertation into publications (2%), blogs or other forms of public scholarship (1%), textbook chapters or entire books (1%), and other writing, such as administrative writing tasks, magazine articles, plenary talks, syllabus development, transcript editing, and/or translations (5%).

The program itself is pedagogically neutral about which writing outputs define success. Instead, it focuses on documenting changes in writing behaviors to explore participants’ self-identified goals and their progress, regardless of the specific product. In fact, the two most frequently selected status markers on the post-retreat survey did not relate to any particular writing product. (Table 3).

Table 3. Stages of writing self-reported by respondents to the retreat post-program survey (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021)

	Number of times this writing stage was indicated by respondents	Percent of all responses
Reconnected with my writing	58	29%
Made some progress (cannot be specified) on a project	30	15%
Revised a writing project	29	14%
Made a plan for my summer writing	27	13%
Completed a first or early draft of a project	17	8%
Completed a writing project to be ready to submit	15	7%
Developed an outline for a project	15	7%
Other (please specify)	12	6%

When we examined the relationship between affective states and self-reported writing behaviors (Table 4), we found some explanations for positive emotional outcomes. Although the correlation coefficients are low to moderate, the data suggest that the ability to manage time, have family support, and receive feedback are clearly associated with positive affect. Surprisingly, being in a writing group does not produce strong evidence of relationships with any of the affective states besides fatigue. The writing group may not be a singular influence on participants’ affect, and there are likely interactions with other attitudes and behaviors.

Table 4. Spearman correlation coefficients: Affective states by writing behaviors, as reported on the post-retreat survey (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021)

	Excited	Anxious	Stressed	Tired	Trepidatious	Curious	Hopeful
Sticking to a schedule and/or organizing my time	0.4446****	0.0808	–0.0568	–0.0535	–0.1057	0.3062**	0.4306***
Dedicating time to writing and being a writer	0.2498*	0.2311*	–0.0482	–0.0529	0.0107	0.1551	0.2885*
Having the support of my family and friends to write	0.2244	–0.0625	–0.1107	–0.1219	–0.0332	0.3280**	0.2598*
Getting feedback from others	0.3026**	–0.1095	–0.2013	–0.2414*	–0.0429	0.2987**	0.1705
Being in a writing group or in the company of other writers	–0.0832	0.1286	0.0483	-0.2399*	0.1421	0.0622	0.1130

• *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001

The post-program survey asks participants to anticipate how they will apply, adapt, and extend the retreat experience in their faculty roles. Respondents report high levels of expected writing productivity and engagement with writing following the retreat (Tables 5 and 6). In the 2019 survey, we also asked whether they met their personal objectives for the retreat (yes/no/other). Seventy-three percent answered “yes,” 17% said “no,” and 10% selected “other.” Those who chose “other” typically described making progress toward, but not fully completing, their intended writing task.

Table 5. Post-program survey: Do you think you will be more productive, equally productive, or less productive in your writing this summer because of participating in this writing retreat? (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021)

	N respondents	Percent of respondents
Less productive after the retreat	0	0%
Equally productive after the retreat	4	5.1%
More productive after the retreat	72	92.3%
Hard to say at this point	2	2.6%

Table 6. Post-program survey: Do you think you will be more engaged, equally engaged, or less engaged in your writing this summer because of participating in this writing retreat? (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021)

	N respondents	Percent of respondents
Less engaged after the retreat	0	0%
About the same as before	3	3.8%
More engaged after the retreat	72	92.3%
Hard to say at this point	3	3.8%

The strongest factors associated with overcoming writing obstacles were: (1) support from family and friends, (2) participation in a writing group or writing alongside others, and (3) receiving feedback (Table 7). These elements of a writing community show stronger associations with managing writing challenges than either skill development or support from professional writers. The highest correlation coefficients appear in relation to personal distractions, work-related interruptions, and perfectionism.

Table 7. Spearman correlation coefficients: Reports of overcoming writing challenges by writing behaviors, as reported on the post-retreat survey (cohorts 2019, 2020, 2021)

	Writer’s block	Personal distractions	Internet distractions	Other work distractions	Perfectionism	Procrastination
Using tools to help avoid distractions while writing	–0.0627	0.2156	0.1289	0.2082	0.2466	0.0054
Using tools to help organize time (e.g., Pomodoro technique)	–0.1211	0.1533	0.1150	0.1656	0.2086	–0.0320
Getting support from writing professionals	–0.1699	–0.0188	–0.0226	0.0270	0.0354	–0.0976
Sticking to a schedule and/or organizing my time	–0.1913	–0.0965	–0.0686	–0.0244	–0.0382	–0.1114
Dedicating time to writing and being a writer	–0.1984	–0.0710	–0.0545	–0.0097	–0.0108	–0.1173
Having the support of my family and friends to write	0.2009	0.5591****	0.4537****	0.5319****	0.5658****	0.2607*
Getting feedback from others	0.0508	0.3153**	0.2347*	0.3064**	0.3434**	0.1202
Being in a writing group or in the company of other writers	0.2119	0.4557****	0.4179***	0.4934****	0.5009****	0.2838*

• *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001

To estimate the retreat’s long-term impact, we conducted follow-up surveys in the fall and spring. These surveys asked participants to reflect on how they sustained writing skills, habits, and practices over time. Common themes included maintaining writing goals, focusing time effectively, preserving momentum, managing discomfort, and joining writing groups. Many responses supported these themes. One participant shared, “I have focused on smaller steps that are moving me closer to completing the larger project.” Another wrote, “I focus on writing down the ‘why’ at the beginning of a writing session.” A third reflected, “There’s no such thing as writer’s block. For 30 days in a row, I practiced sitting down and writing when it’s time to write.”

When asked about perceived productivity in the year after the retreat, 68% of respondents in the fall follow-up reported a slight or substantial increase (Figure 5). By the spring follow-up—nearly a year post-retreat—56% still reported greater productivity, while 23% reported no change.

Figure 5. Follow-up surveys: Compared to previous years, were you more productive, equally productive, or less productive in your writing this year?

Among respondents who reported improved productivity or goal-setting ability at follow-up points 1 and 2 (Figure 6), their written explanations fell into several themes: learning to divide writing time effectively, making room for writing in their schedules, maintaining a growth mindset, setting and adjusting goals, and connecting with a supportive community. Survey responses included examples such as: “The primary lessons I took away from the retreat were how to break writing into discrete tasks (using action verbs to describe them) and to recognize, particularly in viewing how MANY tasks it would take to get from start to finish.” Another respondent revealed, “The sustained work time and serious attention to the process of writing helped me better understand not only why it takes so long but also why it’s important to allow for that time.” Another respondent shared, “I need to keep working at this. Setting realistic expectations of myself will be a lifelong journey for me.”

Figure 6. Follow-up surveys: Do you think your experience at the retreat helped you set reasonable, manageable goals for your writing?

When we asked participants to recall and visualize a recent time when their writing went well, 24 out of 76 responses emphasized the importance of writing immersion (e.g., “I was in the zone and undisturbed”). One respondent shared that “My writing goes well when I have few distractions… and I can get into the ‘flow.’ I do know that I have to carry bits of the flow into each semester so I can remain productive, but it is hard.” Many respondents also emphasized the challenge of creating time and space for focused writing, reinforcing the importance of immersion. In response to the question, What would you still like to change or improve about your writing experience?, a common theme was the struggle to manage competing professional obligations. One respondent mentioned, “I’m a bit nervous about maintaining a good writing practice now that the academic year is starting.” Another shared, “[I need] less teaching load, less anxious students, so I have less stress and more protected time for scholarly work.” A third respondent added, “I want the incentive from my institution (and academia) to write, but not the pressure nor the obligation.” The faculty writing program participants are conscious of the systems and structures in which their practice evolves.

Limitations

This study explored an inquiry process grounded in action research and acknowledged the trade-offs inherent in authentic, situated assessment. In learning spaces that require vulnerability, reflection, and self-assessment, comfort and perceived safety are critical. Recognizing the importance of integrating reflection meaningfully (Werder, 2013), the program director (Ahern-Dodson) selected assessment tools and timing that minimized the sense of intrusive oversight. While additional methods—such as observations or document analysis—might have provided further insight, they could have compromised the retreat and writing groups’ supportive ethos.

By focusing on writing processes rather than writing products, the study limited the analytic utility of fixed-choice survey data and instead appeals to a pseudo-ethnographic orientation to impact analyses. The project has proposed longer-term outcomes for individuals and organizations (department, institution) alike, which complicated efforts to track process-oriented changes over time. Furthermore, some outcomes—such as the spread of learning documented in the discussion of Kirkpatrick’s fourth level—can be difficult to operationalize. Assessing individual and group processes requires a commitment to narrative storytelling, which can conflict with the traditional emphasis on quantifying writing outputs.

Additionally, because the project deprioritized metrics like publication counts, it was more difficult to present outcomes in clear numerical terms. Instead, the study relied on self-reports and informal venues—such as celebratory notes in quarterly newsletters—that fall outside conventional assessment format.

Conclusion

Our mixed-methods approach allowed us to collect data that reflect the rich range of learning outcomes in the faculty writing program. The Kirkpatrick model integrates quantitative data (e.g., satisfaction, participation, publication counts) with qualitative evidence of faculty learning and development, “evidencing value” (Groen et al., 2023) in faculty lived experiences as writers in the institution.

Each decision point we made in our study reflects methodological and analytical choices that prioritize faculty experiences and faculty learning over institutional outcomes. While not mutually exclusive, this study maintains that supporting the faculty writing experience ultimately strengthens institutional results.

The authors acknowledge the institution’s investment in faculty research productivity. Institutional leaders and funders understandably seek measurable outcomes: attendee demographics (e.g., rank, discipline), the volume of written artifacts, and their publication outlets. Rosters and surveys were designed to capture this data. At the same time, faculty know their careers often hinge on the quantity of these outputs. By shifting focus to instruction in, practice of, and self-reflection on writing, the program helps faculty reframe this work so that they can identify, calibrate, and study their own journey toward writing goals and do so in supportive company (Ahern-Dodson & Dufour, 2023).

Assessment can guide and enhance program development while also fostering a sense of community. When faculty are involved in assessing their own learning, they become active participants in shaping the programs they engage with. This positions them as “co-equal creators of the types of programs from which they will benefit, as peer facilitators, mentors, and evaluators of the success of those initiatives” (Blair, 2025, p. 280). Drawing on the Kirkpatrick model, advanced learning outcomes support faculty in taking on leadership roles within both the program and the broader institution, thereby expanding the program’s reach and impact. As a result, faculty writing communities expand across the institution, with faculty increasingly initiating and leading writing groups and remaining engaged in these communities beyond the initial retreat.

Whether assessing an individual faculty writing program (such as a writing group or a retreat) or multiple programs offered by a unit (Hurney et al., 2016), an assessment approach that centers faculty learning can help program administrators and educational developers support faculty along a continuum as their writing needs, knowledge, and contexts change. With a range of learning outcomes and faculty engagement that spans the Kirkpatrick model, program leaders also can make a compelling case for the program to diverse institutional audiences. These outcomes strengthen the case for faculty writing programs and position faculty writing as a vital area of scholarly inquiry.

Biographies

Jennifer Ahern-Dodson is an Associate Professor of the Practice in the Thompson Writing Program at Duke University. She has worked with and conducted research about faculty writers for over 15 years, engaging hundreds of writers across career stages, disciplines, institution types, and motivations. She is the founding director of the Duke Faculty Write Program.

Jennifer Hill is the Director of the Office of Assessment at Duke University. She has worked in learning outcomes assessment for over 20 years. Her major responsibilities include assessment planning in undergraduate general education and assessment support for academic departments and programs.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the writers who participated in this project for their honesty and generosity. Thanks also to Robert Lang in the Office of University Assessment for early analyses, the Office for Faculty Advancement and the Office of the Dean of Trinity College at Duke University for their support and funding of writing retreats. Special thanks to Monique Dufour for her generous and insightful contributions to the development of the Faculty Write Program, and for leading writing retreats that inspire faculty learning, creativity, connection, and well-being.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Appendix A

Appendix B