uniting scholarship and practice of undergraduate research · learning through research...

Learning through researchwww.cur.org @CURinAction

Uniting Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate

Research

Anne Boettcher1, James LaPlant2, Carol Geary Schneider3, Jillian Kinzie4, and Heather Haeger5

1Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2Valdosta State University, 3Lumina Foundation, 4Indiana University, and 5California State University, Monterey Bay


Uniting Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research

What is you primary role at your institution?

https://pollev.com/heatherhaege770


Uniting Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research

What is the biggest challenge in uniting scholarship and practice at your institution?

https://pollev.com/heatherhaege770


What Do Employers Want?

Hart Research Associates. Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success. 2015

Anne BoettcherDirector of Undergraduate Institute and Honors Program, Embry-Riddle

Aeronautical University and President Council On Undergraduate Research


Why Undergraduate Research, Scholarship and Creative Arts (URSCA)?


Teaching Students the Arts of Inquiry and Evidence-Based Analysis: The Core Issue at Stake in the Undergraduate Research Movement

Carol Geary SchneiderFellow, Lumina Foundation and President Emerita, AAC&U

Ø Teaching students to think through complex questions is a core purpose for quality college learning and central to the value of a liberal education. This is also a top priority for employers.

Ø Thinking through complex questions requires (among other capacities), examining and organizing evidence; engaging diverse and competing perspectives about the issue and the evidence; and building a reasoned analysis that takes account of the evidence and of competing views on the evidence.

Ø Many college seniors lack these skills. See pp. 2-3 of handout.

Ø To tackle this problem, faculty will need to work on program redesign. See p. 4 of handout.


Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research The Journal of the Council on Undergraduate Research

James T. LaPlantAssistant Vice President for Research, Valdosta State University;

Editor-in-Chief of SPUR


Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research The Journal of the Council on Undergraduate Research


Upcoming Themes of SPUR

ØUndergraduate Research and Student Success Outcomes (Spring 2018)

ØLeveraging Undergraduate Research to Foster Diversity and Achieve Equity (Summer 2018)

ØModels of Mentoring Undergraduate Research (Fall 2018)


Assessment and Research Coordinator

ØSurvey of what we know and need to know• Assessment Bibliography• Interviews and focus groups

ØAssessment resources• Webinars• Assessment Toolkit and website

Heather HaegerAssessment and Educational Research Associate at California State University,

Monterey Bay’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities Center; Assessment and Research Coordinator Fellow with CUR

ØAcademic impact of UR• Response to call from National

Academies of Science • Multi-campus study• IRB and data storage through

CSUMB• Propensity Score Matching

(post-hoc modeling of random assignment to treatments)

• Following IES What Works Clearinghouse standards

Learning through researchwww.cur.org

@CURinAction

Problems:

Ø*Practitioners and researchers have different• Spheres of Interest• Spheres of Action

ØCommunication

Ø Incentives for research

Steps to bridge the gap:

ØResearch collaborations • Find mutually interesting and

actionable questions

ØHow and where do we communicate results

ØWhat research do we value and reward• Funding• Publishing• Tenure review

What are the gaps and how do you bridge gaps/ disconnects among faculty cultures (educational theorists research and disciplinary-based mentors)?

*Considering Interest and Action: Analyzing Types of Questions Explored by Researcher-Practitioner PartnershipsKaren D. Thompson, Martha I. Martinez, Chelsea Clinton, Guadalupe Díaz. Educational Researcher November 2017 46:8, 464–473.


CUR Transformations Project

Ø Create research-rich, backward-designed, integrated, scaffolded curricula in 4 departments (Bio, Chem, Psych, Physics) at 12 institutions, and

Ø Conduct fundamental research on student, faculty, departmental and disciplinary influences on the process of integrating and scaffolding undergraduate research experiences throughout the curriculum

Acknowledgements to NSF DUE IUSE 16-25354 Grant & Credit to the CUR TP team:Mitch Malachowski, University of San Diego; Jeffrey Osborn, The College of New Jersey; Kerry Karukstis,

Harvey Mudd College; Jillian Kinzie, Indiana University; Elizabeth Ambos, Council on Undergraduate Research

Jillian KinzieAssociate Director, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research

(IUCPR), and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)


How can Colleges & Universities expand, deepen and sustain student engagement UR

opportunities?

Use an Evidence-Based Strategy of Backward Design to Build Vertically Scaffolded, Research-Rich Curricula

Scaffolding Framework Based on a “Student as Scholar”* ModelØ Uses a discovery paradigm and places UR at the center of the

curricular experience

Ø Students move from more passive, externally motivated experience to active, internally-motivated posture of a scholar.

Ø Three stages involving:• Foundation Courses• Intermediate Learning Experiences• Capstone Experiences

*Hodge et al. (2007) “From Convocation to Capstone: Developing the Student as Scholar”, AAC&U Network for Academic Renewal Conference


CUR Transformations Template for Designing Vertically-Integrated Curriculum


Learning from the CUR Transformations Approach: Research Component

ØConduct fundamental research on student, faculty, departmental, and disciplinary influences on the process of integrating and scaffolding UGR experiences throughout the curriculum.

ØBy studying these changes we will advance the academy’s understanding of effective teaching and learning and the disciplinary and cultural factors necessary for curricular integration and transformation.


CUR Transformations Research Questions

Ø To what extent are students receptive to a research-based STEM curriculum emphasizing discovery, inquiry, and analysis? Does receptivity vary with student characteristics?

Ø How do student-learning experiences and outcomes in the scaffolded UGR curriculum vary by student characteristics?

Ø What effect do student characteristics (e.g., preexisting academic preparation) have on scaffoldedintegration of UGR into the curriculum and student learning outcomes?

Ø How do different STEM disciplines/departments effectively integrate the components and outcomes of high-quality UGR to reach more students?

Ø What aspects of STEM cultures and disciplines/departments support the integration of UGR elements into the undergraduate curriculum?

Ø What are the best approaches to research-based curricular redesign and faculty support for creating an inclusive change process?


Join Us!

Council on Undergraduate Research Reception & Recognition of AURA Recipients

Friday January 27th, 5:30-7:00PMPenn Quarter A

Teaching Students the Arts of Inquiry and Evidence-Based Analysis:

The Core Issue at Stake in the Undergraduate Research Movement

Carol Geary Schneider Fellow, Lumina Foundation and President Emerita, AAC&U

Synopsis

►Teaching students to think through complex questions is a core purpose for quality college

learning and central to the value of a liberal education. This is also a top priority for employers.

►Thinking through complex questions requires (among other capacities), examining and organizing evidence; engaging diverse and competing perspectives about the issue and the evidence; and building a reasoned analysis that takes account of the evidence and of competing views on the evidence.

►Many college seniors lack these skills. See pp. 2-3 of this handout.

►The charts on pp. 2-3 come from AAC&U’s VALUE/Multi-state Collaborative research, conducted in 12 states. Findings from 34 public community colleges and 41 public universities are included. Source: AAC&U, On Solid Ground: VALUE Report 2017, 37 and 39. The study examined students’ completed assignments, originally submitted for course grades and later selected by faculty for inclusion in this national study. Scoring for the study was done by faculty from other institutions trained in applying VALUE rubrics. (The full report, with discussions of how to interpret, can be downloaded from www.aacu.org/OnSolidGroundVALUE).

►The VALUE/Multi-state study is consistent with other national research on college seniors’ critical thinking and communication skills, using standardized tests rather than student work. See, for examine, ETS research on critical thinking. See also employers’ views that many graduates need improvement in critical thinking and communication skills.

►These studies should be taken as a wake-up call. Helping students develop proficiency in evidence-based analysis needs to become a shared priority for all postsecondary institutions, programs, and faculty. All students, not just some students, should be prepared to complete evidence-based inquiry projects as part of their college studies.

►What will it take? Minimally, program redesign—both in majors and in general education and connections between them--to ensure that students gain guided practice in the skills of analytical inquiry across their course of study and that students are well prepared to design and complete a significant inquiry project. Well-designed assignments are a critical key.

►See p. 4 for a model curriculum map, keyed to Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) and to AAC&U’s LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes. Both curriculum frameworks call for students to complete culminating work that shows their readiness to tackle complex questions and use evidence in approaching those questions.

For more on quality learning, please visit: www.carolgearyschneider.net

C

riti

cal

Thin

kin

g

Note

: A

ssig

nm

ents

sco

red f

or

the

VA

LU

E s

tudy c

ame

from

stu

den

ts w

ho c

om

ple

ted 7

5%

of

thei

r st

ud

ies

for

the

asso

ciat

e d

egre

e o

r fo

r

the

bac

hel

or's

deg

ree.

T

he

assi

gnm

ents

cam

e fr

om

a b

road

ran

ge

of

cours

es a

nd d

isci

pli

nes

.

2-Year Institutions

E

xp

lanat

ion

of

Issu

es

Evid

ence

Conte

xt

/

Ass

um

pti

ons

Stu

den

t’s

Po

siti

on

Co

ncl

usi

ons

/

Ou

tco

mes

Cap

stone

4

4

%

2%

2

%

2%

2

%

Mil

esto

ne

3

2

2%

18

%

12

%

1

3%

9%

Mil

esto

ne

2

3

9%

4

3%

3

4%

3

2%

42

%

Ben

chm

ark 1

2

6%

2

9%

3

9%

4

5%

36

%

Zer

o 0

10

%

8

%

12

%

8

%

10

%

4- Year Institutions

E

xp

lanat

ion

of

Issu

es

Evid

ence

Conte

xt

/

Ass

um

pti

ons

Stu

den

t’s

Po

siti

on

Co

ncl

usi

ons

/

Ou

tco

mes

Cap

stone

4

11

%

5

%

6

%

6

%

7

%

Mil

esto

ne

3

26

%

26

%

19

%

23

%

18

%

Mil

esto

ne

2

3

7%

4

1%

3

6%

32

%

4

2%

Ben

chm

ark 1

1

9%

20

%

3

0%

33

%

2

5%

Zer

o 0

7

%

8

%

9%

7

%

9%

2 2

W

ritt

en C

om

munic

atio

n

Note

: A

ssig

nm

ents

sco

red f

or

the

VA

LU

E s

tudy c

ame

from

stu

den

ts w

ho c

om

ple

ted 7

5%

of

thei

r st

ud

ies

for

the

asso

ciat

e d

egre

e o

r fo

r

the

bac

hel

or's

deg

ree.

T

he

assi

gnm

ents

cam

e fr

om

a b

road

ran

ge

of

cours

es a

nd d

isci

pli

nes

.

2-Year Institutions

C

on

text

/ P

urp

ose

s C

onte

nt

Dev

elopm

ent

Gen

re /

Conven

tions

So

urc

es /

Evid

ence

S

yn

tax

/ M

echan

ics

Cap

stone

4

10

%

6%

4

%

5

%

4

%

Mil

esto

ne

3

37

%

2

7%

26

%

22

%

36

%

Mil

esto

ne

2

3

9%

4

6%

4

6%

3

8%

4

3%

Ben

chm

ark 1

1

4%

2

0%

22

%

2

0%

1

7%

Zer

o 0

1%

1%

2

%

16

%

1

%

4- Year Institutions

C

on

text

/ P

urp

ose

s C

onte

nt

Dev

elopm

ent

Gen

re /

Conven

tions

So

urc

es /

Evid

ence

S

yn

tax

/ M

echan

ics

Cap

stone

4

2

0%

1

4%

11

%

1

3%

9%

Mil

esto

ne

3

41

%

38

%

3

6%

29

%

4

6%

Mil

esto

ne

2

29

%

3

6%

38

%

3

1%

3

5%

Ben

chm

ark 1

9%

11

%

1

4%

1

4%

10

%

Zer

o 0

0%

1%

1%

12

%

1

%

3

3

Cu

rric

ulu

m M

app

ing

for

Cro

ss-C

utt

ing

Lear

nin

g O

utc

om

es

and

Stu

den

t In

qu

iry

Pro

ject

s

In

tro

du

cto

ry

Co

urs

e R

esea

rch

M

eth

od

s

Ad

van

ced

C

on

ten

t C

ou

rse

A

Lab

ora

tory

/Pra

ctic

um

A

dva

nce

d

Co

nte

nt

Co

urs

e B

Ad

van

ced

C

on

ten

t C

ou

rse

C

Ad

van

ced

C

on

ten

t C

ou

rse

D

Cap

sto

ne

Wo

rk

Co

nte

nt

SLO

1: D

isci

plin

ary

kno

wle

dge

bas

e (m

od

els

and

th

eori

es)

Intr

od

uce

d

R

ein

forc

ed

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

R

ein

forc

ed

Mas

tery

/Ass

esse

d

SLO

2: D

isci

plin

ary

met

ho

ds

In

tro

du

ced

Rei

nfo

rced

Rei

nfo

rced

Mas

tery

/Ass

esse

d

SLO

3: D

isci

plin

ary

app

licat

ion

s In

tro

du

ced

Rei

nfo

rced

Rei

nfo

rced

Rei

nfo

rced

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

Cri

tica

l Th

inki

ng

SLO

4: A

nal

ysis

, ev

alu

atio

n a

nd

use

of

evid

ence

Intr

od

uce

d

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

Rei

nfo

rced

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

SLO

5: E

nga

gin

g an

d

app

lyin

g d

iver

se

per

spec

tive

s In

tro

du

ced

R

ein

forc

ed

R

ein

forc

ed

R

ein

forc

ed

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

SL

O 6

: W

ritt

en

com

mu

nic

atio

n s

kills

In

tro

du

ced

R

ein

forc

ed

R

ein

forc

ed

R

ein

forc

ed

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

SLO

7:

Ora

l co

mm

un

icat

ion

ski

lls

In

tro

du

ced

R

ein

forc

ed

R

ein

forc

ed

Mas

tery

/ A

sses

sed

Inte

grit

y/V

alu

es

SLO

8: A

cad

em

ic a

nd

D

isci

plin

ary

eth

ical

st

and

ard

s

In

tro

du

ced

Rei

nfo

rced

R

ein

forc

ed

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

SLO

9:

R

esp

on

sib

iliti

es t

o

soci

ety

Intr

od

uce

d

Rei

nfo

rced

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

Rei

nfo

rced

Mas

tery

/Ass

esse

d

Sign

atu

re P

roje

ct

SLO

10

: Pro

ble

m-

cen

tere

d in

qu

iry

and

p

roje

ct d

evel

op

men

t

Intr

od

uce

d

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

SLO

11

: W

ork

ing

wit

h

div

erse

par

tner

s In

tro

du

ced

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

Rei

nfo

rced

M

aste

ry/A

sses

sed

SLO

12

: Se

lf-r

egu

lati

on

an

d m

etac

ogn

itiv

e sk

ills

Intr

od

uce

d

Rei

nfo

rced

R

ein

forc

ed

Rei

nfo

rced

Mas

tery

/Ass

esse

d

This

map

is b

ased

on

a m

od

el p

rovi

ded

by

the

Cen

ter

for

Un

iver

sity

Te

ach

ing,

Lea

rnin

g, a

nd

Ass

essm

ent

at t

he

Un

iver

sity

of

Wes

t Fl

ori

da

(htt

p:/

/uw

f.ed

u/c

utl

a).

It w

as a

dap

ted

to

alig

n b

oth

wit

h L

um

ina

Fou

nd

atio

n’s

Deg

ree

Qu

alif

icat

ion

s P

rofi

le (

DQ

P)

and

wit

h A

AC

&U

’s L

EAP

Ch

alle

nge

on

Sig

nat

ure

Pro

ject

s

http://uwf.edu/cutla

uniting scholarship and practice of undergraduate research · learning through research...

Documents