VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 16 POSTED ON: 9/29/2011
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 email@example.com 256-765-4131 Dr. Nick Mauriello Assistant Professor of English firstname.lastname@example.org 256-765-4499 Dr. Kelly Latchaw Assistant Professor of English email@example.com 256-765-4492 1 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, 2 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 3 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. 4 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 university. 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 requested. 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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. 9 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 10 Resources 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 thereafter 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 summer) Research Publication / Presentation Options 2-day Conference $20,000 (4 $5,000/year years) Journal $20,000 (4 $5,000/year years) Total Estimated $451,250 11 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 thereafter Research Publication / Presentation Options 2-day Conference $20,000 (4 $5,000/year years) Journal $20,000 (4 $5,000/year years) 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. 12 References 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. 13 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- 190. 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/ White%20Pages%20Files/White%20Paper%20Grade%20Distribution.pdf 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/ 14 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 http://www.una.edu/research/White%20Pages%20Files/WhitePaperNSSE2008 .pdf 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– 419. 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: NCTE. 15 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. 16
"Writing Across the Disciplines"