Writing Across the Disciplines by stariya


									                    Quality Enhancement Plan Proposal:
Academic Research Literacy in the Disciplines: A Bridge to a Four-Year Sequence

                               Dr. Robert T. Koch Jr.
                   Director of the Center for Writing Excellence
                          Assistant Professor of English

                               Dr. Nick Mauriello
                          Assistant Professor of English

                               Dr. Kelly Latchaw
                          Assistant Professor of English

                     Quality Enhancement Plan Proposal:
 Academic Research Literacy in the Disciplines: A Bridge to a Four-Year Sequence

                             Introduction and Justification

We propose a re-evaluation and more detailed integration of Academic Research Literacy
skills across a sequence of three courses within each discipline. By Academic Research
Literacy, we refer to the specific reading, writing, research, and critical thinking skills
required to pursue a career in any given discipline. At present, generalizeable Academic
Research Literacy skills are primarily provided in a foundational course, English 112,
while discipline-specific skills occur in “W” courses, usually taken at the end of a
student’s career. This results in a one to two year gap in writing and research instruction.

This gap adversely affects students, faculty, and the institution. At present, students take
two first year composition courses, then often do not revisit Academic Research Literacy
skills as a disciplinary requirement until their “W” course, taken in the junior or senior
year. By this time, skills learned in EN 111 and EN 112 may be lost, or, if retained, may
not be seen as applicable to the writing and reading requirements of their disciplines,
since the foundational instruction provided in the composition sequence is often vastly
different from the requirements of the discipline. As points of illustration, consider the
differences between writing an EN 111 essay and writing a Chemistry lab report or
Assessment for Nursing, or the absence of American Psychological Association (APA)
style instruction on a campus where this style is in use by three of the four colleges and
by the Social Sciences.

Frustrated by students’ inability to transfer skills, and by the lack of discipline-specific
instruction, faculty who are pressured with large class enrollments, overloads, and many
professional requirements are often compelled to teach critical Academic Research
Literacy requirements, often at the expense of displacing course content. Some of these
faculty may call upon the library or Center for Writing Excellence for assistance, while
others may simply forego necessary literacy instruction, allowing it to wait until a student
has reached the “W” course of the discipline.

Ultimately, with only one “W” course as a requirement, students may likely find
themselves underprepared and unable to compete in the job market, leading to reduced
faith in the value of their UNA degree. Even worse, when students who find employment
discover they lack specific literacy skills, they must quickly learn on the job. Depending
on how the situation plays out, both graduate and employer are likely to become skeptical
of the UNA brand. Very clearly, there is a disconnect in literacy skills and practice
between the Freshman and Senior years. Addressing and improving Academic Research
Literacy instruction now is critical to solving this disconnect and attending to the long
term well-being of the university.

This proposal directly contributes to achieving the mission of the University of North
Alabama. By improving the academic reading, writing, and research skills of graduates,

many of whom stay within the region, we will strengthen the educational, intellectual,
and creative environment, increasing the potential for the region to improve socially,
culturally, and economically as the region becomes more competitive in its effort to
attract a more highly-skilled local workforce.

In addition to directly contributing to the mission of the university, this plan can support
all of the university’s core academic competencies:
      Effective Communication
      Critical Thinking
      Use of Existing and New Technologies
      Analysis and Reasoning
      Seeking Out and Acquiring Knowledge (“Guide,” 2008)
All of these categories are part of academic literacy, which will be emphasized earlier
and built upon more steadily throughout the curriculum.

Beyond the mission and core competencies, this proposal supports a number of elements
in the university’s Strategic Plan (2007), including, but not limited to:
     Provide a mechanism to assess, evaluate, and enhance the current general
        education program (High Quality Programs)
     …improving the intellectual climate on campus (High Quality Programs)
     Support initiatives that enhance basic competencies/skills: (a) math; (b) writing;
        (c) reading; (d) time management; (e) study; and (f) life and career planning
        (Foster a Stronger University Community) (italicized emphasis ours)

Strengthening Academic Research Literacy across the university has other benefits that
tie to the Strategic Plan as well. Increased literacy skills can lead to higher quality
research, justifying funds for more developed undergraduate research venues, such as a
university sponsored conference or journal. It will also increase the quality and skills of
students who represent the university to those beyond the campus by participating in
study abroad, internships, interdisciplinary work, or service learning. An earlier
emphasis on disciplinary knowledge may encourage students to take advantage of
discipline specific floors in their residence halls. The more developed and focused
literacy skills of graduates should be more appealing to regional prospective employers as
well. Finally, the added emphasis on the intersection of teaching, literacy, and research
provides faculty with a natural professional development and research opportunity.

For several years now, UNA faculty members have noted anecdotally that students’
academic reading, writing, and research skills are unsatisfactory. Recent university
research bears this out. The Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment
has issued two white papers that illustrate a trend of deficiency. “Grade Distribution
Report of Core Curriculum Classes, 2003-2008” (2009) shows that while UNA students’
communication skills are slightly above the median average, they fail to meet potential
employers’ expectations, supporting the earlier assertion that an institutional failure to act
in this area can result in long-term damage. A specific assessment of the current status of
writing and reading among UNA students appears in the “Synopsis of the results from the
National Survey of Student Engagement – 2008” (2009). This study reports that students

not only felt they were writing less (p.1) compared to their peer institutions, but that they
were not challenged to do their best work when they were assigned reading and writing
(p.13). Although the OIRPA looks at these results as justification for an increase in
quantity, it is equally, if not more, important that we improve the quality, timing, and
sequencing of instruction when it comes to Academic Research Literacy.

The clearest indicator of UNA students’ lack of adequate preparation for Academic
Research Literacy appears in an as-yet unpublished preliminary report on the Area I core
competency assessment. Although the Spring 2009 draft concludes that not enough
assessment has been done, the data itself reveals that students are underprepared in issues
of standard written English when taking impromptu writing exams. Problems with
reading and writing, especially because they involve critical inquiry, often lead to
deficiencies in mathematics, social and natural sciences, and research skills. In turn,
these are likely to result in dissatisfaction in job placement and career, both for the
underprepared alum and the prospective employer. The consolation in this interpretation
of the data comes from recognizing that this is the end of the first course in a two-course
sequence, and that EN 112 has the potential to serve as a much stronger launching point
for Academic Research Literacy, especially after a year of writing instruction and
practice through the first-year writing sequence, and if an Academic Research Literacy
course immediately follows it in the sophomore year.

Problems with pursuing this topic include the following:
   1. How willing is each department to collectively reexamine their disciplines’
       writing, reading, and research needs, and to re-examine and possibly change how
       those needs are addressed across their disciplinary courses?
   2. How willing are selected faculty members from each department to engage in the
       additional committee work, professional development, and course changes
       required to make this happen?
   3. How willing are faculty to work with writing and reading experts in other
       disciplines to revisit their pedagogy, and to tailor and implement a departmentally
       specific program?

                      Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment

The Goal of this QEP is to improve discipline-specific reading, writing, and critical
thinking research skills among UNA graduates. Student improvements in these
categories will be measured through a variety of instruments.

Objectives to achieve this goal may include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. Institute discipline-specific sequences of courses (sophomore through senior
       years) that emphasize the components and skills necessary to conduct quality
       research and writing in a given discipline.
           a. Create new or revise existing courses.
           b. Integrate strategic writing, reading, and research activities that drive
               towards a goal of undergraduate publication, presentation, etc.

            c. Introduce properly designed pre-, post-, rubric-based, surveys, and/or
                portfolio assessments for both single course and longitudinal evaluation.
   2.   Provide assessments and evaluations of student skills as they matriculate through
        the system in order to track progress over the course of the academic career.
   3.   Provide assessments and evaluations of programmatic needs and skills of students
        entering the sequence to the Administration, Academic and Student Affairs
        Offices, English and Mathematics Departments, and others as necessary, in order
        to support evaluations of effectiveness in freshman level courses, entry level
        standards, or future pre-enrollment preparatory activities.
   4.   Enhance academic support services across the campus.
            a. Increase or emphasize Math and Reading tutorial support in the Academic
                Resource Center
            b. Strengthen liaisons among academic support services and between support
                services and the faculty. (For example, sharing knowledge and
                information between Collier Library and the CWE in support of Nursing
                Research, etc.)
            c. Redevelop the UNA Center for Writing Excellence into a Center for the
                Advancement of Research and Teaching. The Center will continue to
                provide writing tutorial support, but will potentially expand to provide a
                tutor to assist in quantitative statistical analysis and a venue for faculty to
                meet, access resources, and discuss further ways to integrate teaching and
                research. Faculty workshops will be provided by research, writing,
                assignment and assessment design, and statistics experts from across the
   5.   Institute venues for the presentation of student research, such as a university
        publication or a conference.

Potential Internal Assessment Tools and Methods:
   1. Grade Distribution Report (Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and
       Assessment – This report will provide a longitudinal examination of courses in
       this sequence over a five-year and longer period, noting trends in grade
       improvements over time.
   2. Course Pre- and Post- Writing Prompts – These short revised essays offered at the
       beginning and ending of a course, and specifically tied to reflection on course
       content and Academic Research Literacy, may be used to analyze specific class
       skills, highlight strengths and weaknesses of students entering courses, and
       provide faculty with an overall diagnostic of their students’ knowledge and skills
       entering a course.
   3. Online Portfolios – Portfolios will be assembled from the discipline specific
       writing required in the chosen courses. It will also include a senior year reflective
       analysis of the overall work and its relationship to the discipline. This will
       provide an opportunity for longitudinal evaluation and case study analysis by
       internal and external reviewers. Assessment will be conducted by Departments,
       with the assistance of the Committee for Academic Research Literacy (CARL) as

   4. Course Evaluation Surveys – Collected on the same day as teacher evaluations,
      these questionnaires concerning Academic Research Literacy will provide a
      quantitative assessment of each course.

Potential External Assessment Tools:
   1. Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency Test (CAAP)
   2. National Survey of Student Engagement
   3. External reviewer in Writing in the Disciplines or Writing Program Assessment

This proposal is essentially a hybrid model for writing in the disciplines, one that honors
every discipline’s research traditions as it builds critical academic research literacy skills.
As such, it is informed by two strands of pedagogy: Writing in the Disciplines and
Undergraduate Research. In 2007-2008 alone, six graduate degree granting universities
in the southeast have instituted Quality Enhancement Plans that incorporate sequential
writing or research components across multiple courses. These include Baylor
University’s Engaging Undergraduate Learners, McNeese State University’s Write To
Excellence, and Southwestern Adventist University’s Improving Research Skills and
Writing Through Information Literacy (2009a), Albany State University’s Writing.
Realized.: Developing Writing Literacies in a Technological Age, Auburn University’s
Writing for Success, and Virginia State University’s Developing a Culture of Writing to
Enhance Students’ Academic and Professional Success (Commission on Colleges,
2009b). While each of these programs is nuanced in slightly different ways, such as
emphasizing the Freshman-Sophomore sequence, focusing on professional development,
or promoting information literacy, they support a general trend toward the pedagogical
reconsideration and redevelopment encouraged here.

The first pedagogical strand informing this QEP, Writing in the Disciplines (WID), is
often confused with Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC). While the two have
common roots, and are often considered together, there is a substantive distinction
between them. WAC attends closely to Emig’s (1977) argument that writing is a mode of
learning. It seeks to integrate the sound practices of writing process as strategy for
developing content knowledge in any discipline. Monroe (2003) offers a concise contrast
between the two, noting that while WAC emphasizes process and practice, the emphasis
of WID is placed on the context of writing, including its discipline specific characteristics
and requirements. This is not to say that writing across the curriculum has no place in
this QEP, within departments, or within overall learning. However, for the purposes of
this plan, an emphasis on WID, which clearly links specific assignments to post
graduation, real world writing and research, is preferred because it demonstrates why
students need to develop specific Academic Research Literacy skills.

Definitions and purposes of undergraduate research, the second pedagogical strand in this
QEP, have been discussed at length. The Council on Undergraduate Research (2009) has
provided a concise definition of undergraduate research as “An inquiry or investigation
conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative
contribution to the discipline.” While this definition is concise in its description of
action, Hu, Scheuch, Schwartz, Gayles, & Li (2008) have organized the literature by

purpose: to forward the knowledge of a discipline, to learn research skills and processes,
to develop an interest in a career or major, or to achieve some combination of these goals.
Like Writing in the Disciplines, undergraduate research provides students with a clear
demonstration of what may be required from them when they pursue employment or
graduate school.

Because research nearly always involves some form of writing, either for publication,
presentation, decision making, or record keeping, these two strands form a natural
connection. Furthermore, both WID and undergraduate research have built their
foundations on common learning theories, most notably constructivist theories. Writing
in the Disciplines calls upon Emig (1977) and Vygotsky (1986), while under graduate
research incorporates a variety of educational theories, including constructivist,
experiential, problem-based, and inquiry based learning (Hu, Scheuch, Schwartz, Gayles,
& Li, 2008). These common foundations make them natural pedagogical partners with
plenty of room in which to design a variety of discipline-specific activities.

Incorporating an Academic Research Literacy sequence following EN 112 solves
Larson’s (1982) problem with the research paper in composition: although it may be used
to teach basic, generic fundamentals, it often does not prepare students for research
activities within their disciplines. This is one of several benefits offered by integrating
these pedagogical strands. They both assist in the development of problem-solving and
collaborative skills (Falconer & Holcomb, 2009; Waite & Davis, 2006a; Waite & Davis,
2006b), writing skills (Fulwiler, 1984), critical thinking (Lampert, 2007; Wayment &
Dickson, 2008), and research skills (Willison & O’Regan, 2007). In this QEP, Writing in
the Disciplines and Undergraduate Research are not the ends, but are the means to help
students achieve these benefits as determined and designed by faculty in each discipline.

Both of these pedagogical strands have precedents for their implementation across the
undergraduate career. The Quality Enhancement Plans listed above are only the most
recent arguments and instances where these programs have been implemented. Kinneavy
(1983) argues for a specific sequence of WAC/WID courses spanning the undergraduate
career, while Haynes (1996) draws on WAC, social writing process theory, and in fact,
earlier theories of composition to support a sequenced set of interdisciplinary writing
courses. Indeed, she argues that various sets of skills, including research skills, are
learned all along the sequence, and fully practiced at the end. This type of integration of
assignments and skills prevents those Academic Research Literacy skills described at the
outset of this proposal from becoming last minute additions to an undergraduate career.
In the field of undergraduate research, Brown and Yurekli (2007) describe a two course
sequence of mathematics courses taken in the junior year that integrate research into the
curriculum, strengthening students’ critical thinking and reasoning skills. Finally, Hu,
Scheuch, Schwartz, Gayles, & Li (2008) explain that programs and sequences may vary,
from preparatory seminars that lead to upper level research to summer programs, to co-
sponsored programs with other colleges, universities, businesses, and communities.

While writing in the disciplines is by nature a pedagogical concept that reaches across the
college and university community, undergraduate research has also found support across

a range of disciplines including extensive use in the natural sciences and mathematics
(Brown and Yurekli, 2007; Caccavo, 2009; Henderson, Buising, & Wall, 2008;
Karukstis, 2006; Karukstis, 2008; Kinkel & Henke, 2006; Lopatto, 2007; Mabrouk,
McIntyre,Virrankoski, & Jeliffe, 2007; Quitadamo, Faiola, & Johnson, 2008), as well as
support in English composition (Grobman, 2009), psychology (Wayment & Dickson,
2008), political science (Marfleet & Dille, 2005), and social work (Moore & Avant,
2008). At UNA, many individual courses already tend toward undergraduate research,
and some divisions, such as the College of Nursing and the Department of Social Work,
already have taken the first steps toward the implementation of this hybrid
WID/Undergraduate Research strategy on their own.

As faculty, we know that research demands inquiry, which itself demands investment
(Willison & O’Regan, 2007). We also know that students who are challenged to write
about issues that matter to them will invest more heavily (Shaughnessy, 1994). When
students invest in their own research, or invest in assignments that have a clear goal in
professional development or future opportunity, they will be less likely to plagiarize
(Nuss, 1984), and this investment may in fact encourage their dedication to the writing
and research that we ask of them in the first place. Academic inquiry is fueled by the
meaningfulness built in to individual students’ research and professional development,
which in turn is fueled by the students’ individual academic inquiry. In the process of
building this cycle, faculty in each discipline have the opportunity to teach and encourage
the development not only of content knowledge, but of the critical skills students will
need as future researchers and as employees in the workplace.

                                  Implementation Plan

Proposal development will begin with the appointment of a Committee for Academic
Research Literacy (CARL) and a Committee Administrator (CARLA). This committee
should tentatively be composed of the following members, although it may initially
include a representative from every department:
     2 Faculty representatives from each of the four colleges (8)
     The Committee for Academic Research Literacy Administrator (CARLA)
     1 Collier Library representative
     1 Student Affairs representative
     1 Technology Services representative
     The Center for Writing Excellence Director
     The Academic Resource Center Director
     Other members as required or requested by the SACS/QEP Committee
Although this 14-member committee is sizeable, it includes enough members to first,
provide regular updates and solicit input from across the university, and second, to break
the effort of researching and writing the proposal into small pieces, thereby having each
person contribute a small portion of the draft while leaving the primary revision and
editing effort to a smaller subset of the whole committee.

As the proposal effort progresses, the committee will provide regular updates to the
university community and solicit input and feedback, thereby giving everyone a voice

and an opportunity to be heard. The largest obstacles to this proposal thus far have been
reticence and territoriality. There is always resistance to change of this magnitude,
almost entirely because it is fundamental human nature to form and maintain habits, and
ingrained teaching habits are hard to break. In addition, some faculty members may
construe this proposal as an encroachment on departmental decision-making because it
requests departments to reconsider courses that sometimes have long and established
histories. While we can recognize that change is hard, the logistical hurdles of this
proposal are not insurmountable; furthermore, we need to remind ourselves of the
problem this institution faces by not acting.

Proposed Timeline

Academic Year 2012-2013 (Year 1)
    Appoint a Faculty Administrator to oversee the Academic Research Literacy
      Program. This will be a half-time position involving a 2 course load reduction.
    Convene Committee on Academic Research Literacy (CARL). For the first year
      of program implementation, the committee could have a representative from
      every department who can communicate knowledge directly to and from
      departmental peers.
    CARL members will work with specific departments across the university to
      determine the following:
          o What literacy does our discipline require? What do we read? What do we
              write? How do we research?
          o What are the steps or processes in our reading, writing, and research?
          o When in the curriculum do we want each of the steps described in 2b to be
              taught? What preexisting courses are good matches for these reading,
              writing, and research skills? (Consider 400, 300, and 200 levels).
    Departments will collect writing samples, lists of journals available in the library,
      web links, and other documents that may be valuable to advocating disciplinary
      academic literacy.
    CARL, Collier Library, the Center for Writing Excellence, the Academic
      Resource Center, the Learning Resource Center, Technology Services, University
      Publications, and/or designated faculty will assist in the collection of professional
      development and teaching materials and their preparation for online availability
      through Angel and/or the university website.
    CARL, working with the Library, Center for Writing Excellence, and designated
      faculty, will begin offering departmental professional development seminars on
      subjects such as Talking about Research Literacy, Finding Program Needs,
      Identifying Courses for Program Development, Assignment Design, Rubric and
      Assessment Design, and Responding to Research Literacy
    Redesign the Center for Writing Excellence into a Center for the Advancement of
      Research and Teaching

Academic Year 2013-2014 (Year 2)
    Implement revised courses at the 200 level in Fall; 300 level in Spring.

      Collect and evaluate data. At the 200 level, evaluate the reading, writing, and
       research skills and knowledge of students entering the sequence from EN 112 and
       provide a report to the English Department Chair, Composition Committee,
       and/or other appropriate parties.

Academic Year 2014-2015 (Year 3)
    Implement revised courses at the 400 level in Fall.
    In fall, identify sequence faculty who would like to pilot a Writing Fellows
      Program and identify majors students who have completed the courses and who
      can function as writing fellows. Train Fellows.
    Implement Fellows Program in Spring.
    Continue to collect and evaluate data at the 200, 300, and 400 level.
    Implement undergraduate research publication and conference options.

Academic Year 2015-2016 (Year 4)
    Continue to collect and evaluate data at the 200, 300, and 400 level.
    Evaluate impact of Fellows Program and expand if possible.

Academic Year 2016-2017 (Year 5)
    Continue to collect and evaluate data at the 200, 300, and 400 level.
    Evaluate impact of Fellows Program and expand if possible.
    Impact report to SACS


All budgets are preliminary and tentative. The primary difference between the $400,000
budget and the $200,000 budget is the absence of a writing fellows program and a
reduction in faculty honoraria.

Budget Item                                           $400,000 Total   $80,000 / year
Program Administration
2 course release for CARLA (Committee for             $36,000          $7,200/year)
Academic Research Literacy Administrator)
Printing Budget                                       $5,000           $1,000/year
Data Storage for Online Portfolios                    $1,800           (First year only)
2 External Reviewers (Each receiving $1,500           $20,000          $5,000/year
Stipend for 2 days, $1,000 for expenses)
Professional Development
Honoraria for Faculty Training & Course               $87,500          $17,500/year
Development Participation (33 faculty, 7
workshops, $50/workshop – this number will
decrease over time as more faculty are trained, and
faculty are eligible one time for this sequence)
Honoraria for Workshop Leaders (7                     $7,000           $1,400/year
workshops/year @ $200/workshop
Academic Support Expenses
Statistics / Quantitative Research Tutor              $13,050          $2,610/year
($7.25/hour x 10 hrs/week x 36 wks/year – 14 fall /
14 spring / 8 summer)
Mathematics Tutor ($7.25/hour x 10 hrs/week x 36      $13,050          $2,610/year
wks/year – 14 fall / 14 spring / 8 summer)
Reading Tutor ($7.25/hour x 10 hrs/week x 36          $13,050          $2,610/year
wks/year – 14 fall / 14 spring / 8 summer)
Book Budget (CART)                                    $6,000           $2,000 first,
                                                                       year; $1,000
20 Writing Fellows (Strategically placed tutors     $208,800 (4        $52,200/year
who attend and assist in specific courses, selected years)
by the faculty in each department. ($7.25/hour x 10
hrs/week x 36 wks/year – 14 fall / 14 spring / 8
Research Publication / Presentation Options
2-day Conference                                    $20,000 (4         $5,000/year
Journal                                             $20,000 (4         $5,000/year
Total Estimated                                     $451,250

Budget Item                                           $200,000 Total   $40,000 / year
Program Administration
2 course release for CARLA (Committee for             $36,000          $7,200/year)
Academic Research Literacy Administrator)
Printing Budget                                       $5,000           $1,000/year
Data Storage for Online Portfolios                    $1,800           (First year only)
2 External Reviewers (Each receiving $1,500           $20,000          $5,000/year
Stipend for 2 days, $1,000 for expenses)
Professional Development
Honoraria for Faculty Training & Course               $43,750          $8,750/year
Development Participation (33 faculty, 7
workshops, $25/workshop – this number will
decrease over time as more faculty are trained, and
faculty are eligible one time for this sequence)
Honoraria for Workshop Leaders (7                     $7,000           $1,400/year
workshops/year @ $200/workshop
Academic Support Expenses
Statistics / Quantitative Research Tutor              $13,050          $2,610/year
($7.25/hour x 10 hrs/week x 36 wks/year – 14 fall /
14 spring / 8 summer)
Mathematics Tutor ($7.25/hour x 10 hrs/week x 36      $13,050          $2,610/year
wks/year – 14 fall / 14 spring / 8 summer)
Reading Tutor ($7.25/hour x 10 hrs/week x 36          $13,050          $2,610/year
wks/year – 14 fall / 14 spring / 8 summer)
Book Budget (CART)                                    $6,000           $2,000 first,
                                                                       year; $1,000
Research Publication / Presentation Options
2-day Conference                                      $20,000 (4       $5,000/year
Journal                                               $20,000 (4       $5,000/year
Total Estimated                                       $198,700

Most of the relevant resources are already available across campus. UNA already
employs experts in English composition, research methods, statistical analysis, and
assignment and rubric design and assessment. The venues for professional development
already exist or can be easily adapted as well, and liaisons between support offices
already exist.


Brown, D. & Yurekli, O. (2007). Undergraduate research in mathematics as a curricular
      option. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
      Technology, 38(5), 571–580.

Caccavo, Jr., F. (2009). Teaching undergraduates to think like scientists. College
      Teaching 57(1), 9-14.

Commission on Colleges. (2009a). Executive summaries of Quality Enhancement Plans
     developed by the 2007 Reaffirmation Class, Track B, graduate institutions.
     Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Retrieved November 11, 2009
     from http://www.sacscoc.org/2007TrackBQEPSummaries.asp

Commission on Colleges. (2009b). Executive summaries of Quality Enhancement Plans
     developed by the 2008 Reaffirmation Class, Track B, graduate institutions.
     Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Retrieved November 11, 2009
     from http://www.sacscoc.org/2008TrackBQEPSummaries.asp

Council on Undergraduate Research. (2009). About CUR. Retrieved November 10, 2009,
      from http://www.cur.org/about.html

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and
       Communication, 28(2), 122-28.

Falconer, J., & Holcomb, D. (2008). Understanding undergraduate research experiences
       from the student perspective: A phenomenological study of a summer student
       research program. College Student Journal 42(3), 869-78.

Fulwiler, T. (1984). How well does writing across the curriculum work? College English,
       46(2), 113-25

Grobman, L. (2009). The student scholar: (Re)negotiating authorship and authority.
     College Composition and Communication, 61(1), 175-96.

Haynes, C. (1996). Interdisciplinary writing and the undergraduate experience: A four-
      year writing plan proposal. Issues in Integrative Studies, 14, 29-57.

Henderson, L., Buising, C., & Wall, P. (2008). Teaching undergraduate research: The
      one-room schoolhouse model. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education,
      36(1), 28-33.

Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J. G., & Li, S., (Eds). (2008). Reinventing
        undergraduate education: Engaging college students in research and creative
        activities. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(4), 1-103.

Karukstis, K. K. (2006). A Council on Undergraduate Research workshop initiative to
      establish, enhance, and institutionalize undergraduate research. Journal of
      Chemical Education, 83(12), 1744-5.

Karukstis, K. K. (2008). Broadening participation in undergraduate research. Journal of
      Chemical Education, 85(11), 1474-6.

Kinkel, D. H., & Henke, S. E. (2006). Impact of undergraduate research on academic
       performance, educational planning, and career development. Journal of Natural
       Resources and Life Sciences Education, 35, 194-202.

Kinneavy, J. L. (1983). Writing Across the Curriculum. ADE Bulletin, 76, 14-21.

Lampert, N. (2007). Critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of undergraduate
      education. The Journal of General Education, 56(1), 17-33.

Larson, R. L. (1982). The “research paper” in the writing course: A non-form of writing.
       College English 44, 811-16.

Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions
       and active learning CBE - Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297-306.

Mabrouk, P., McIntyre, R., Virrankoski, M., & Jeliffe, K. (2007). WebGURU: The web-
      based guide to research for undergraduates. Journal of College Science Teaching
      36(7), 18-23.

Marfleet, B. G., & Dille, B. J. (2005). Information literacy and the undergraduate
       research methods. Curriculum Journal of Political Science Education, 1(2), 175-

Moore, L. S., & Avant, F. (2008). Strengthening undergraduate social work research:
      Models and strategies. Social Work Research, 32(4), 231-5.

Monroe, J. (2003). Writing and the disciplines. Peer Review, 6(1),4-78

Nuss, E. M. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes.
       Improving College and University Teaching, 32(3), 140-4.

Office of Institutional Research Planning, and Assessment. (2009). Grade Distribution
       Report of Core Curriculum Classes, 2003-2008. University of North Alabama:
       Florence, AL. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from http://www.una.edu/research/

Office of Institutional Research Planning, and Assessment. (2008). Guide for Planning
       and Assessing Institutional Effectiveness. University of North Alabama: Florence,
       AL. Retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://www.una.edu/research/

       Insitutional%20 Effectiveness/ GuideForPlanningandAssessingIEFinal.pdf

Office of Institutional Research Planning, and Assessment. (2009). Synopsis of the
       results from the National Survey of Student Engagement – 2008. University of
       North Alabama: Florence, AL. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from

Office of the President. (2007). University of North Alabama Strategic Plan, 2007-2012.
       Florence, AL: University of North Alabama.

Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E. (2008). Community-based inquiry improves
       critical thinking in general education biology. CBE - Life Sciences Education,
       7(3), 327-37.

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1994). Some new approaches toward teaching. Journal of Basic
      Writing, 13(1), 103-16.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Waite, S., & Davis, B. (2006a). Collaboration as a catalyst for critical thinking in
       undergraduate research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(4), 405–

Waite, S., & Davis, B. (2006b). Developing undergraduate research skills in a faculty of
       education: motivation through collaboration. Higher Education Research &
       Development, 25(4), 403-19.

Wayment, H. A. & Dickson, K. L. (2008). Increasing student participation in
     undergraduate research benefits students, faculty, and department. Teaching of
     Psychology, 35, 194–7.

Willison, J. & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally
       unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education
       Research & Development, 26(4), 393–409.

                            Suggested Additional Reading

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice,
     theory, and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Huot, B., & O’Neill, P. (2009). Assessing writing: A critical sourcebook. Urbana, IL:

Kerry K. Karukstis and Timothy E. Elgren (2007). Developing and Sustaining a
       Research-Supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Successful Practices.
       Washington D. C.: CUR

Kight, S., Gaynor, J. J., & Adams, S. D. (2006). Undergraduate research communities.
       Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(7), 34.
Pittendrigh, A. (2007). Reinventing the CORE: Community, dialogue, and change. The
       Journal of General Education, 56(1), 34-56.

Thomas, E., & Gillespie, D. (2008). Weaving together undergraduate research, mentoring
     of junior faculty, and assessment: The case of an interdisciplinary program.
     Innovations in Higher Education, 33, 29–38.


To top