IntroductionThe concept of quality enhancement is central to the accreditation principles of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Core Requirement 2.12 specifies that an institution must develop “a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined issue or issues directly related to improving student learning.” The plan must be based on a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the learning environment. Based on more than eight years of assessment results (see the discussion of the College’s compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1), we have decided to focus on a goal articulated in the Final Report, (April 15, 1993: p.6) on our current curriculum: independent inquiry.
The Final Report (p.26) makes clear an important set of educational objectives:
The approved curriculum imagines two primary opportunities for developing these skills: the freshman seminar and a “junior or senior individual or small group learning experience.” The College has fully implemented the freshman seminar and has incorporated it into graduation requirements. The report offers the following description of the second of the opportunities:
Although the College has not made this junior or senior level experience a requirement, in part because of an absence of research on how it might best be implemented, the opportunity for independent inquiry during the last two years remains an aspiration. Our Quality Enhancement Plan focuses on that opportunity. We know anecdotally that many of our students have experiences like those envisioned in the report on the curriculum. Many students are engaged in undergraduate research in courses that earn credit for independent research. Others are engaged in independent research outside of the classroom and on projects that do not result in the assignment of credit. Some undergraduate projects, for credit or not, involve active participation in original research, and significant student independence. Other projects involve less independence, more exploratory work, or both. The Final Report suggests that the skills of independent inquiry can be fostered through disciplinary or through inter- or cross-disciplinary efforts, mentioning the Wilson Cross-Disciplinary Scholarship as an instance of the latter. The report points to arrangements as diverse as tutorials, seminars, Departmental Honors, and supervised research projects. Ultimately, the report leaves unclear the precise nature of appropriate formats, referring to “individual and small group learning experiences.” The primary aim of the Quality Enhancement Plan is to promote independent inquiry and to enhance the culture of discovery, creativity, and scholarship. While we intend to refine, elaborate, and specify the definition of the desired experiences through an experimental approach to the QEP, for now we define independent inquiry as follows:
In summary, independent inquiry is guided investigation, research, scholarship, or creative activity undertaken (in this instance) by upper-level undergraduates to develop and demonstrate the skills, habits, and attitudes of scholarly and creative work.
Consistent with the vision in the curriculum, we will focus specifically on upper-division experiences. We will begin with a systematic examination of current arrangements that seem to be responsive to the curricular goal. In order to describe the kinds of work that students do relative to the goals articulated in the Final Report , we have begun an inventory of arrangements offered by each academic department and program. The survey asks department chairs and program directors to describe student work in three categories of primary interest. These include: (1) projects in which students are collaborating with faculty on research; (2) projects in which students are working on their own significant research studies; and (3) other opportunities provided by departments and programs for students to develop their own ideas, through research and research-related experiences **. Throughout, the focus is on the process of inquiry. Data from the inventory will inform the first two goals of the project: increased and improved opportunities for independent inquiry. We will support both new efforts that increase the number of opportunities and efforts to improve existing arrangements. In pursuit of the third goal, we will explore how best to foster student inquiry within diverse disciplines and fields, recognizing the diversity of practices in the departments and programs that comprise the contemporary arts and sciences. We intend to promote a culture of inquiry, creativity, and discovery by providing more and better opportunities for student investigation and creative work through funded projects, internships, outreach activities, study abroad, and civic engagement. In addition, we will create more opportunities for students to present their work orally and in writing. As we explore the connections between independent inquiry and other aspects of our curricula, we will encourage departments and programs to develop websites to describe the threads of research in their curricula, starting with freshman seminars and including: scope and methods courses; small research opportunities in lower-level courses; opportunities to work on faculty research during the school year and during the summer; upper-level independent studies and research seminars; and honors theses, among other possibilities. Finally, we will develop special funded seminars, teaching projects, and foundation grants to support the development of new and better opportunities for undergraduate student inquiry and better methods of mentoring those efforts. Background The College has implemented and assessed nearly all aspects of the approved curriculum, including all seven General Education Requirements and the Freshman Seminar. (See the discussion of compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1) for details.) We have implemented proficiency requirements in foreign language, writing, and computing, and after careful examination, decided to drop a proficiency in physical activity. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a curricular requirement in technology, and that has been assessed. The Final Report identifies effective oral communication as a curricular goal and points to the freshman seminar and the upper- division individual or small group experience as primary opportunities for developing the appropriate skills. (The report makes clear, however, that more will need to be done to help those students who are least proficient at oral communication. This issue is not the focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan.) Both anecdotal evidence and early returns from the inventory described above suggest that substantial numbers of students are engaged in independent inquiry. Some departments and programs for some years have had capstone or similar junior or senior level courses or requirements. Since the approval of the curriculum, others have developed capstone courses, seminars, or independent research classes that are consistent with the curricular goals for independent inquiry. (Examples include senior thesis requirements in Physics and Geology, capstone courses in Anthropology and Sociology, requirements for a senior project in American Studies, required senior seminars in Mathematics, upper division seminars in Biology, required senior projects in Music, grant-funded projects in International Studies, among many others.) As noted, we do not yet have a requirement for independent inquiry, and it is not yet clear whether such a requirement is desirable or feasible. The quality enhancement project will help to answer those questions. In addition, we have completed a survey of the 1216 current seniors, asking that they report on experiences that reflect the vision described in the Final Report. Fifty-four percent (660) responded, with 70 percent reporting that they have had “individual or small group experiences” that meet the criteria that we identified. Table 1 summarizes the findings.
Recall the objectives While it seems clear that many of our junior and senior students are pursuing individual and small group experiences, we do not know the relative value of various arrangements for promoting the skills of independent inquiry. Are tutorials, seminars, capstone courses, and individual research assistantships equally effective? Do some of these produce measurably better results? Are there advantages or disadvantages to various arrangements, including for example, individual versus collaborative small group projects? Can we improve mentoring skills through special teaching projects and seminars? Proposal Summary
Conceptual Foundations and Prospects William and Mary is committed to close faculty-student relationships, with an undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio of 12 to 1. Full-time faculty members teach 80 percent of all course enrollments. Part-time faculty members are responsible for 12 percent of the total student course enrollments, with the remaining eight percent taught by administrative and professional staff with faculty credentials, teaching assistants, and other staff. The goal of fostering independent inquiry suggests the concept of mentoring, which draws upon both rich traditions of teaching and learning and recent innovations in higher education. The concept of mentor derives from Greek mythology and, more specifically, from Homer’s Odyssey.***. Faculty-mentored student work is an important feature of the “William and Mary experience,” and alumni regularly report that individual work with a faculty member was among their most significant experiences at the College (see Appendix Two Alumni Reports on Most Valued Undergraduate Experiences). Almost certainly, a significant proportion of these experiences involved independent inquiry. The findings about the effects of collaborative scholarship for appreciation of diversity are important on their own. President Gene Nichol, acting on a commitment to public greatness, has initiated Gateway William and Mary to increase access to quality education for those with limited financial means. Gateway will increase diversity at the College, and collaborative learning may help to optimize the value of diversity for student learning. Chang (2003; reported in Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005:6) suggests that campus communities that are more diverse “tend to create more richly varied educational experiences that enhance students’ learning and better prepare them for participation in a democratic society” (Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005: 6). However, this does not happen simply as a result of “compositional diversity” (see, especially, Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005, especially p. 14. Attending classes together does not ensure the beneficial effects of interaction and engagement. Neither does sharing campus space ensure that students with different backgrounds will encounter differing opinions that provoke thoughtfulness. There is clear evidence of important differences of opinion across economic, racial, and ethnic groups on issues such as the death penalty, consumer protection, health care, drug testing, and citizens’ rights. Those differences can enrich student learning if students from diverse backgrounds engage one another and if learning experiences are organized to promote constructive and productive engagement. Projects focused on systematic inquiry that incorporate collaborative learning methods could provide rich opportunities to optimize the value of increased campus diversity. While we take an expansive view of the process of
independent We will draw from the experiences of those who have been and are engaged both locally and in national-level efforts as we develop the Quality Enhancement Plan focused on independent inquiry. At William and Mary, faculty researchers have led National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (for example, see descriptions of recent programs in Mathematics, Environmental Studies, Geology, and Physics in “REUs: Faculty lead in a summer of study”), undergraduate research programs in biology and related fields (see HHMI at The College of William & Mary), among others. In addition, there are continuing undergraduate research programs including, for example, Chappell Undergraduate Research Fellowships, Mellon Teaching Fellows, among others. Resources
In addition, we have already in place other resources to support and advance the project. For example, the College established a Writing Resources Center in 1987, and in 1994, added an Oral Communications Studio (The Writing Resources Center). The Center and Studio staff includes a faculty director, an undergraduate assistant director, and twenty undergraduate consultants. Staff members assist people at all stages of the writing and oral communication processes, from prewriting to the final touches. They can provide direct consultation and general guidance as students develop oral and written presentations. In addition, the College implemented the University Teaching Project in 1994 to model “good teaching practices at the same time that it institutionalizes a dialogue on good teaching practices across campus” (see University Teaching Project). The Teaching Project operates from the premise that “if student learning is to become more active, more critical and synthetic, and more cooperative, then faculty need a dynamic teaching development program that has these same qualities.” We will build from this perspective to develop and implement special projects oriented to mentoring and the special skills needed to foster undergraduate independent inquiry. The Sharpe Community Scholars Program organizes service-learning experiences for self-selected freshman students. Some of these students continue beyond the first year to pursue summer projects and related experiences in the years that follow, supported by Sharpe Community Scholars Project Grants. Some of these projects center on the kinds of independent inquiry we intend to support and encourage. In addition, the College has submitted a grant application entitled Equality in Education to the federal Learn and Serve program. If funded, the grant will support 35 students to do course work and undertake service-learning projects that focus on minority achievement in the local public schools. The intention is that these students will have experiences that meet the criteria identified in the QEP. William and Mary’s Information Technology is launching a Technology Fellows program that provides another source of support. The project will include a “faculty fellows” program that will support undergraduate students to work with individual faculty members to bring technological innovations to new or ongoing faculty research. The emphasis is on technology in service to research and scholarship, and provides funding for collaborative work involving students and faculty. Some of these projects will involve the kinds of undergraduate scholarly inquiry envisioned in this proposal. Increased opportunities for independent inquiry will benefit from existing resources and will require some new resources. Funds will be dedicated to the development of projects to enhance current efforts towards independent inquiry, to increase opportunities for such projects, and to support efforts to enhance the skills of faculty members and others who mentor such efforts. As noted in the Proposal Summary (above), the first step in
the project is to complete the inventory of departments and programs in order to describe
systematically existing arrangements that support independent inquiry. That information will
be provided to the Educational Policy Committee, the Dean’s Advisory Committee, The grants for the first round will serve as “seed money”
to promote creative ideas rather than as funds for salaries or new faculty positions. This
focus will allow faculty to identify current practices and develop new learning experiences
that enhance independent inquiry skills. Proposal #1: Three members of the Environmental Studies faculty propose to conduct a “May Seminar” to allow close and critical examination of the Department’s capstone experience. The seminars and projects seem to be working to provide opportunities for independent inquiry, but the workload is extraordinary and may not be sustainable. In addition, it is not clear that students are doing work at the intended level of independence. Request: $1500. Proposal #2: The Director of the Sharpe Program proposes to award summer scholarships to two former Sharpe participants to conduct advanced research on community-based projects begun during their Sharpe experience. The projects are intended in part to provide additional evidence of the benefits that could result from a funded grant proposal. Request: $2000. Proposal #3: Two Psychology professors propose to fund students for summer research that will lead to a proposal for a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates grant. They will fund eight students in a pilot project. Request: $4000. Proposal #4: The chair of the Biology department proposes a “May Seminar” with three Biology professors and two professors from the School of Marine Science to examine mentoring undergraduates with the goal of developing several models for student engagement in biological inquiry. Request: $2500. Proposal #5: Two professors and two undergraduate students from the American Studies Program propose to extend a documentary film project on the history and culture of Williamsburg. The students will collect life-history information and narratives that capture life on Duke of Gloucester Street at the turn of the 20th century. Request $4,000. These five examples would require $14,000. The first illustrates a concern for improving the quality of ongoing opportunities. The second and fifth examples involve efforts to increase the number of opportunities drawing upon existing arrangements, projects, and administrative faculty. The Psychology example suggests a way in which many new opportunities could be created drawing upon outside funding. The fourth example is an effort to examine faculty mentoring to optimize the value of mentored experiences in inquiry. Developing the QEP: How We Got Here
Assessment Plan for the QEP Baseline Measures
Inventory of Arts and Sciences departments and programs: Collect descriptions of
undergraduate research, independent and small group experiences that involve independent
inquiry, oral and written defense of ideas and research – Complete by Survey of current seniors: Collect information on experiences of seniors in independent inquiry -- done Submit results of inventory and senior survey: Arts and Sciences faculty, Dean’s Advisory Council, Arts and Sciences Educational Policy Committee, schools of business, education, Faculty University Priorities Committee, and Faculty Assembly. Establish QEP Advisory Committee (appointed by Provost on recommendation from Faculty Assembly Executive Committee)
A Working Group of faculty members will evaluate funded projects using guidelines established by the QEP Advisory Committee In the second year of the QEP, assessments will continue along the same schedule as the first year. In addition, a pilot study will be designed and implemented to evaluate identified independent inquiry experiences in the curriculum and co-curriculum. The pilot will be modeled on current assessment practices used at the College to evaluate student learning in general education and will be integrated into the broader process of institutional effectiveness. We will survey graduating seniors to describe the number and percent of students who report having had the identified upper level independent inquiry experiences and to assess those experiences from the students’ perspectives. Note: The assessment model presented below describes the processes through which faculty members examine the value of the experiences for achieving curricular goals. As noted above, the project explores an important component of the approved curriculum. Assessment results will be used to inform discussions about the curriculum, and to determine how to enhance opportunities for independent inquiry for upper level undergraduates. Those discussions will direct subsequent phases of the project and help determine resource allocation decisions. Assessment Model
Academic leaders at William and Mary have engaged in assessment for nearly two decades. Throughout that time, faculty members, department chairs, program directors, deans, the provost, and others have thought seriously about the goals of assessment and about developing directions in academic accountability. We have developed and pursued scholarly research, written and published papers and articles, presented at national academic conferences, and otherwise reflected on the value of assessment, and more particularly, the evaluation of "student outcomes." We are fortunate to attract uniformly bright, highly motivated students and faculty members who are committed to the highest standards of teaching and scholarship. In the course of many years of external program reviews and extensive assessment of general education, we have reached two conclusions that we hold with some confidence. First, we have in place effective mechanisms for testing the quality of our curricula against external standards. Second, committed teachers working within the context of carefully organized academic courses do the most authentic evaluation of student academic work (skills, abilities, knowledge, and critical thinking abilities, in particular). It does not follow from these observations that we need nothing further by way of academic assessment. Indeed, given (1) motivated, prepared students; (2) courses conceived as parts of a well-designed curricula; and (3) committed, well-trained, and motivated teachers, there remains a critical question about linkage: Do the courses deliver the specific content and skills required by and for the curricula? We believe that this fundamentally is a question about learning experiences. We have designed a process that focuses specifically on that question. The assessment process asks faculty members to identify the specific learning expectations for their courses. Faculty working groups check these against the learning expectations for the curriculum of which the courses are a part. We ask instructors to describe the learning experiences that they provide for students to learn what is expected. Based their own experiences and common understandings within the profession , faculty working groups evaluate the extent to which curricular experiences result in the types of learning they expect of students. We use a range of student work to examine (1) the effectiveness of the learning experiences and (2) the standards being applied by the teacher. Through survey data, students describe learning experiences, and these descriptions provide a context for evaluating learning through samples of student work. In addition, faculty members may explain student survey responses, and these explanations can clarify the work of faculty working groups. We have looked carefully at assessment strategies in other universities, especially those that purport to focus on student "outcomes." We believe that our current strategy provides the data most useful for assessing the quality of student learning. Further, the assessment strategy provides direct information about how to improve student learning when we identify that need. Assessment Process and Example
Ger 1 – Mathematics And Quantitative Reasoning Courses offered by the College in fulfillment of GER 1 must develop computational techniques in the context of problems that are pertinent to the experience and training of the students. The setting of these problems should be recognizable to an informed nonmathematician. The problems themselves must require mathematical tools for their analysis. GER 1 Criteria: Courses offered by the College in fulfillment of GER 1 must: Elaboration: The numerical calculations in (a) may be carried out by hand, using calculators, or using computers. The justifications in (b) may be either mathematical proofs or careful analyses of the mathematical models used in the course, aimed at giving students experience in the process of creating appropriate mathematical models and/or understanding why one mathematical model of a given phenomenon is preferable to another. The applications envisioned in (c) must be recognizable as such by an educated nonmathematician. It is not enough for a GER1 course to study a family of mathematical or statistical techniques that could be used in real-world problems. To meet GER1 goal (c), a course must show how the techniques are used in the study of real-world problems. To qualify for approval, a GER 1 course must satisfy the following two requirements: A) Include BOTH mathematics and quantitative reasoning at its core. Thus, it is expected that numerical procedures (quantitative reasoning) will be accompanied by mathematical theory as justification; and B) Devote a significant amount of time to applications of the mathematical methods developed in the course. Interpretive Guidelines:
Footnotes *Undergraduate research currently is fashionable. It is actively promoted and supported by the National Science Foundation, the Council for Undergraduate Research, the American Association of Colleges and Universities, and in initiatives including the Boyer Report on “Reinventing Undergraduate Education” (1998). While most American academics believe that undergraduate research is important to the intellectual development of students, there is little systematic empirical evidence to document the presumed benefits. Seymour and her colleagues (2004: 494) report that only “three journal articles and one conference presentation describe the methods and findings of formal research studies that explore the benefits to undergraduates of research experiences.” The documented benefits include gains in research skills and oral communication of research results. A review of programs intended to promote undergraduate research reveals that few are embedded in curricular arrangements, or are designed intentionally to promote particular learning objectives. For these reasons, we have chosen not to make a close link between our QEP proposal and undergraduate research as usually understood. Back **In some disciplines, research refers exclusively to experimental or field studies that are oriented to the creation of knowledge for the purpose of disseminating findings for peer and public review. This project recognizes the significance of such experiences for promoting independent inquiry. At the same time, the project recognizes and includes a broader variety of experiences that promote the skills and attitudes of independent and critical inquiry. Back ***Although recent usage does not always reflect the first use of the term mentor, in Homer's Odyssey the original Mentor was an older and wiser counselor, and a trusted guide. At times even the goddess Athena takes Mentor's shape to provide divine counsel when human participants in the epic poem need special help. Back References Association of American Colleges and Universities "Greater Expectations" Project, A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College, http://www.greaterexpectations.org/ The Boyer Commission Report on Reinventing Undergraduate Education.“ 1998. A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities,” http://naples.cc.stonybrook.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf Cabrera, A.F. Nora, A., Bernal, E., Terenzini, P., and Pascarella, P. November, 1998. “Collaborative Learning: Preferences, Gains in Cognitive and Affective Outcomes, and Openness to Diversity Among College Students.” Presented at the Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL. Chang, M.J. (2003). “Racial differences in viewpoints about contemporary issues among entering college students: Fact or fiction?” NASPA Journal, 40(4), 55-71. Reported in Milem, J. F., M. J. Chang, and A. L. Antonio. 2005. Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Chappell Undergraduate Research Fellowships, http://www.wm.edu/charlescenter/index.php?id=1354 Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, The College and William and Mary, Compliance Certification Review, http://www.wm.edu/sacs/accdoc/3/3/1/ Council on Undergraduate Research, “Learning Through Research,” http://www.cur.org/ Curriculum Review Steering Committee, Faculty of Arts and Sciences (The College of William and Mary). April 15, 1993. Final Report on the Undergraduate Curriculum. Elgren, Tim and Nancy Hensel. “Undergraduate Research Experiences: Synergies Between Scholarship and Teaching,” Winter 2006. Peer Review. http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi06/PR-WI06_analysis.cfm “Equality in Education.” 2006. A grant proposal from the College of William and Mary to the Learn and Serve Program. Gateway William and Mary, “Gateway to Debt-free College Education,” http://www.wm.edu/gateway/ “HHMI at The College of William & Mary,” http://www.wm.edu/hhmi/ Mellon Teaching Fellows, http://www.wm.edu/charlescenter/?id=4281 Milem, J. F., M. J. Chang, and A. L. Antonio. 2005. “Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective.” Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Process of Institutional Effectiveness, “Presentation of Expected Outcomes for Educational Programs, Administration, and Support Services,” http://www.wm.edu/sacs/pie.php Seymour, Elaine, Anne-Barrie Hunter, Sandra L. Laursen, Tracee DeAntoni. “Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study.” Science Education. Volume 88, Issue 4, July 2004, Pages: 493-534. Sharpe Community Scholars Program, “Offering students the opportunity to continue academic study through community activism,” http://www.wm.edu/sharpe Technology Fellows program, “Incorporating tech-savvy undergraduates with faculty to utilize technology in teaching and research,” http://www.wm.edu/it/tip/faculty/ The Writing Resources Center, “Offering writing and oral communication assistance,” http://www.wm/edu/wrc/about.php “REUs: Faculty lead in a summer of study,” http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5129 University Teaching Project, “Strategies to promote learning in students,” http://www.wm.edu/charlescenter/?id=1293
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||