Web view · 2018-02-19Senior Data Specialist/KPI Manager. OPAR. 3. Ms. Donna Brock. Associate VP, Strategic. Communications and University Relations. Strategic Communications and

Clark Atlanta University

Quality Enhancement Plan

MUSEMENTORED UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLARLY ENDEAVORS

August 2016

Quality Enhancement Plan

Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors (MUSE)

Submitted toSouthern Association of Colleges and

Schools Commission on Colleges

by

Clark Atlanta University

Ronald A. Johnson, Ph.D. President

Clark Atlanta University – QEP Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors (MUSE)

3

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................3

II. Process Used to Develop the QEP.......................................................................................................................5

A. The University...............................................................................................................................................................5

B. Mission, Vision, Core Values....................................................................................................................................5

C. Strategic Planning........................................................................................................................................................5

D. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Planning Process and Constituent Involvement.......................6

III. Identification of the Topic..................................................................................................................................13

A. Focus of the QEP........................................................................................................................................................13

B. QEP Topic Selection.................................................................................................................................................14

C. Institutional Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................14

IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes..............................................................................................................19

A. Goals and Objectives................................................................................................................................................20

B. Desired Student Learning Outcomes................................................................................................................20

C. Desired MUSE Program Outcomes....................................................................................................................23

V. Literature Review and Best Practices............................................................................................................24

A. Strengthening the Undergraduate Research Experience at CAU.........................................................24

B. The Importance of Research for the Undergraduate Student...............................................................27

C. The Importance of Undergraduate Research for the University Professor.....................................29

D. Creative and Research Activities.......................................................................................................................31

E. Best Practices at Selected Institutions.............................................................................................................32

VI. Actions to be Implemented................................................................................................................................34

Goal 1: Enhance the Visibility and Student Awareness of Creative and Research Activities at CAU ...34

A. Introduce Discovery of Scholarship to all first-year students......................................................35

B. Broaden exposure for undergraduate students..................................................................................35

C. Increase the exposure of first-year students to research...............................................................36

Goal 2: Establish a Culture and an Environment in Which Creative and Research Activities are Translated into Practice.........................................................................................................................................36

A. Identify courses that provide opportunities for students to engage in creative and research activities............................................................................................................................................36

B. Curriculum-based faculty-mentored undergraduate creative and research activities and/or courses..................................................................................................................................................37

Goal 3: Develop the Infrastructure and Ethos to Sustain and Elevate Undergraduate Creative and Research Activities...................................................................................................................................................38

A. Provide professional development and training to support faculty involvement in the QEP..........................................................................................................................................................................38

B. Create and implement a system of recognition and reward.........................................................39

C. Create and maintain a MUSE website......................................................................................................39

D. Create a system of co-curricular support for creative and research activities.....................40

Clark Atlanta University – Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors

4

VII. MUSE Program Timeline.....................................................................................................................................41

VIII. Organizational Structure....................................................................................................................................43

A. MUSE Staff.................................................................................................................................................................... 43

B. MUSE Advisory Council..........................................................................................................................................44

C. MUSE Collaborators.................................................................................................................................................44

IX. Resources.................................................................................................................................................................46

A. Personnel (Salaries & Wages)..............................................................................................................................47

B. MUSE celebration of scholarship and research support..........................................................................48

C. Outreach and visibility support..........................................................................................................................48

D. Faculty training and development support...................................................................................................49

X. Assessment of the Plan........................................................................................................................................50

A. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)..................................................................................................................50

B. Program Outcomes...................................................................................................................................................51

C. Assessment of the impact of the MUSE program........................................................................................51

1. Impact on student perception.....................................................................................................................51

2. Impact on student learning..........................................................................................................................52

3. Impact of student achievement and participation.............................................................................53

4. Impact on the institution...............................................................................................................................54

D. Use of Results for Improving Student Learning and the Program Outcomes.................................55

XI. Supporting Documents..................................................................................................................................................57

A: Exhibits...................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

B: References................................................................................................................................................................................ 61

C: Appendices............................................................................................................................................................................... 66

Appendix I: Acronyms.............................................................................................................................................66

Appendix II: Strategic Plan Recommendations............................................................................................67

Appendix III: Timeline of QEP Development................................................................................................68

Appendix IV: Campus Survey of QEP Topics.................................................................................................71

Appendix V: Call for Concept Papers................................................................................................................72

Appendix VI: Sources for the Development of Definitions and Goal..................................................73

Appendix VII: Taxonomies of Cognitive Thinking......................................................................................74

Appendix VIII: Existing Partnerships...............................................................................................................75

Appendix IX: College Composition II - CENG 106.......................................................................................76

A. College Composition II – CENG 106 Course Syllabus.......................................................................76

B. Assignment Scoring Rubrics........................................................................................................................84

Appendix X: Beyond MUSE – The Institutional Commitment................................................................87

Appendix XI: Assessment of QEP Impact - Student Perception Instruments.................................91

3


I. Executive Summary

Clark Atlanta University (CAU) has selected “Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors” (MUSE) as the topic of its Quality Enhancement Plan. Supported by its vision to increasingly become a dynamic 21st century research university, one of the hallmarks of the CAU community is to promote innovation and collaboration in order to unite and make significant contributions to the knowledge of humankind. Scholarly Endeavors, which encompass both creative and research activities, is defined by the University, “as a systematic or focused inquiry, investigation, experimentation, or exploration – predicated upon intense use of mind – that makes an original, revised, expanded, or interpretive contribution to one or more disciplines in pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and the public good.”

The MUSE vision is to emphasize scholarly inquiry throughout the curriculum to improve undergraduate student learning and enhance and showcase students’ creative works/ performances and research initiatives. The program is designed to employ the high impact practice of student-faculty engagement through curriculum infused pedagogy of creativity, research and discovery across undergraduate academic programs. The University, through this program, aims to fundamentally change the culture of teaching and learning by adapting more relevant, real-world inspired, creative and research-rich educational experiences for students at CAU.

MUSE Program Goals, Objectives and Outcomes (created by QEP Committee)

MUSE Mission: To enhance and/or expand faculty-mentored undergraduate scholarly endeavors

Goals Objectives Expected Program Outcomes1. Enhance the visibility and

student awareness of creative and research activities at CAU.

2. Establish a culture and an environment in which creative and research activities are translated into practice.

3. Develop the infrastructure and ethos to sustain and elevate undergraduate creative and research activities.

1. All first-year students will be exposed to Discovery of Scholarship (DS) and Scholarly Inquiry (SI).

2. Identify, modify/develop creative and/or research related courses for the Scholarly Inquiry (SI) level for all 29 undergraduate degree programs.

3. Expand opportunities for students to participate in creative and research activities.

1a. All first-year students will satisfactorily complete the Discovery of Scholarship (DS) level through First Year Seminar I & II (CGED 100/CGED101) and College Composition II (CENG 106)

1b. All first-year students that start in AY 2017-2018 or beyond will satisfactorily complete Scholarly Inquiry (SI) 200/300 level courses and/or experiences

2. Creative and research courses will be designated in Banner Course Management System as SI (Scholarly Inquiry) for all 29 undergraduate programs

3. An increase in the number and percentage of students participating in creative and research activities:• Across programs/disciplines• At sophomore and junior class

levels

Over the next five years (AY 2017-18 to 2021-22), the University will undertake a number of initiatives to infuse creative and research activities into the culture of the University at various levels, both within the curriculum and through co-curricular support. Subsequently, as part of the QEP, all first year students beginning with AY 2017-2018 will be introduced to MUSE through two


4

specific levels of inquiry: Discovery of Scholarship (DS) and Scholarly Inquiry (SI). Undergraduate student performance will be assessed at the DS and SI levels through academic courses and activities based on the corresponding student learning outcomes as outlined below.

MUSE Program Assessment and Student Learning Outcomes

Level of Inquiry Level Description Desired Student Learning Outcomes

MU

SE P

rogr

am L

evel

s of

In

qu

iry

(Will

be

asse

ssed

as

part

of

the

QE

P)

1Discovery of Scholarship (DS)

Introduce students to creative and research activities and processes at the introductory level.

1.1 Recognize the difference between personal beliefs and evidence.

1.2 Describe how scholarship influences society.1.3 Identify and articulate the lexicon used within the

discipline.1.4 Explain the processes of inquiry used within the

discipline.

2Scholarly Inquiry (SI)

Assist students in learning content and skills needed for evaluating scholarly work and understanding it in a larger context.

2.1 Describe the epistemological or historicalperspectives of a specific discipline.

2.2 Analyze the credibility (validity and reliability) ofsource information.

2.3 Identify appropriate discovery processes forscholarly inquiry.

2.4 Assess the validity of key assumptions andevidence.

2.5 Conduct evidence-based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the existing knowledgewithin the field.

2.6 Effectively communicate work to diverse audiencesand in a format appropriate for the discipline.

Although, not part of the MUSE QEP, the following Level 3-Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS) and Level 4-Multi-Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarly Inquiry (MSI) will serve as part of the University’s ongoing commitment to improve student learning and enhance student performances. This involves the infusion of the pedagogy of creativity, research, and discovery through relevant, real-world, and inspired educational experiences in and outside of the classroom. The learning outcomes at these levels are outlined below.

Level of Inquiry Level Description Desired Student Learning Outcomes

Inst

itu

tion

al O

utc

omes

- B

eyon

d M

USE

(W

ill b

e as

sess

ed a

s pa

rt o

f the

U

nive

rsit

y’s

Eff

ecti

vene

ss E

ffor

ts)

3Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS)

Enable students to compare and evaluate methods of creative and research activities.

3.1 Analyze relevant fundamental and advancedconcepts/theories within the field.

3.2 Conduct advanced evidence-based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the existingknowledge within the field.

3.3 Evaluate and apply ethical principles of thediscipline throughout the inquiry process.

3.4 Effectively communicate work to diverse audiencesand in a format appropriate for the discipline.

4 Multi- Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarship Inquiry (MSI)

Enable students to engage in authentic scholarly work in their respective discipline, or across disciplines, and have the opportunity to disseminate the results beyond the classroom.

4.1 Complete an original work through the application of theoretical concepts:a. within their discipline and identify how it

applies to other disciplines, orb. in multiple disciplines.

4.2 Appraise the significance/authenticity of the inquiryto the field(s).

4.3 Effectively communicate the work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for thediscipline(s).

5


II. Process Used to Develop the QEP

A. The University

Clark Atlanta University, established in 1988 as a result of the consolidation of two independent historical black institutions - Atlanta University (1865), the nation's first institution to award graduate degrees to African Americans, and Clark College (1869) the nation's first four-year liberal arts college to serve a primarily African-American student population - is a United Methodist Church-related, private, coeducational, residential, and comprehensive urban research university. The University offers undergraduate, graduate and professional, and non-degree certificate programs. (Appendix I includes a list of acronyms for reference throughout this document).

B. Mission, Vision, Core Values

Mission

Leveraging its distinctive history, Clark Atlanta University is an urban research university that transforms the lives of students and their communities by preparing citizen leaders to be problem- solvers through innovative learning programs; supportive interactions with faculty, staff, and students; exemplary scholarship; and purposeful service.-Approved by the Board of Trustees, June 22, 2013

Vision

Clark Atlanta University will increasingly become a dynamic 21st century research university of choice for a diverse student body with enhanced student enrollment yields, success and global marketability.

Core Values

Clark Atlanta University subscribes to the following seven guiding core values in achieving its vision and mission:

1. Promoting innovation and collaboration to unite and make significant contributions to the knowledge of humankind.

2. Upholding a student-centered ethos that is responsive to diverse student backgrounds, learning styles and career aspirations.

3. Commitment to the pursuit of quality and excellence in service to all stakeholders.4. Acting with personal and professional accountability and integrity in all we do.5. Exhibiting respect for all individuals, workplace and natural environments.6. Practicing and nurturing ethical behavior and social responsibility in all endeavors and

toward all constituents.7. Embracing and supporting all forms of human diversity and inclusiveness in all of our

actions toward the University Family and external constituents.

C. Strategic Planning

The current Mission, Vision, and Core Values were revised for the new five-year (2013-2018), strategic plan and approved by the Board of Trustees. This plan strives to promote the confluence of superb teaching, research, scholarship, creative works, and service that distinguishes the


6

University, and focuses primarily on the University’s critical role as a national comprehensive urban research institution.

The strategic planning process, initiated by the Board of Trustees and led by the University President, reflects input from all our constituents, affiliated community partners, and other university stakeholders. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was conducted on the University’s previous 2010-2013 strategic plan to determine the University’s effectiveness in meeting its five strategic priorities and goals. It was then decided that the themes/priorities would remain the same however, the timeline, key initiatives and projects should change to reflect the next level of thinking, and identify the actions needed to achieve this vision. As part of the new Strategic Plan, ten recommendations were identified and summarized resulting in four primary institutional priorities: (1) Increase Headcount Enrollment; (2) Distinctive Academic, Research, and Student Support Programs; (3) Enhance External Funding Support; and (4) Sustainable Financial Business Model (See Appendix II: Strategic Plan Recommendations).

The President, members of the Executive Cabinet, Academic School Deans, and Administrative Deans and Department Heads provided oversight for the strategic planning process and are ultimately responsible for executing and monitoring The Plan.

D. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Planning Process and Constituent Involvement

The first two priorities: Priority (1) Increase Headcount Enrollment, and Priority (2) Distinctive Academic, Research, and Student Support Programs, served as the major drivers in determining the focus of the QEP. The goals and directives under these two priorities placed a great deal of emphasis on student learning and retention by way of increased student engagement.

During the summer of 2014, the president, in consultation with SACSCOC Liaison/Director of Accreditation appointed members of the QEP Planning and Development Committee, comprised of a cross-section of administrative staff and faculty representing all four academic schools within the University. A list of QEP Planning and Development Committee members is provided in Table 1. (See Appendix III: Timeline of QEP Development).

Table 1: QEP Planning and Development Committee

QEP Planning and Development Committee(Appointed Members)

Name Position/Title Department1. Dr. James Perkins* (Chair) Vice President RSP/Professor Division of Research & Sponsored Programs2. Dr. Tia Minnis (Co-Chair) Exe Director of Assessment and

Institutional EffectivenessOffice of Planning Assessment andInstitutional Research (OPAR)

3. Dr. Marjorie Campbell* Professor/Chair Department of Biological Sciences4. Dr. Obie Clayton Professor/Chair Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice5. Dr. Margaret Counts-Spriggs Assoc. Prof. /Coordinator School of Social Work /BSW Program6. Dr. Danielle Gray-Singh Interim Dean School of Arts & Sciences7. Dr. Charles Moses* Interim Dean School of Business Administration8. Dr. Eric Mintz Professor/Interim Chair Department of Chemistry9. Mr. Christopher Hickey Professor/Chair Department of Art

10. Dr. Daniel Teodorescu* Director of Unit Assessment School of Education11. Dr. Kurt Young Professor/Chair Department of Political Science12. Dr. Leonissa Johnson** Assistant Professor School of Education13. Dr. Corinne Warrener** Chair/Assistant Professor School of Social Work (MSW)

* No longer members of the committee ** New member as of Spring 2015


7

Under the leadership of Dr. James Perkins, Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs/Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Tia Minnis, Executive Director of Assessment and Effectiveness, the committee was charged to establish a structure for the University’s QEP topic selection and oversee its development. Emphasis was placed on the importance of the topic selection alignment with the University’s mission, vision core values, and the priority goals of the Strategic Plan. The committee was charged to identify broad themes for the QEP and present it to the University constituents. Based on a summary of analysis of the abovementioned institutional drivers, the committee identified the following eight themes:

1. Research abroad2. Methodology development based on the work of Du Bois3. Faculty mentored undergraduate research4. Discipline specific writing skills5. Undergraduate research, creativity and scholarship (extend to all disciplines)6. Research across the curriculum7. Research-based learning8. Research-based Capstone Courses & Projects

In September 2014, a campus-wide online survey was conducted to determine possible QEP topics related to improving student learning and engagement (See Appendix IV: Campus Survey). The committee agreed that the survey would include the eight themes listed above along with an open- ended question for additional topic suggestions. Over a two-week period, 431 respondents representing a good cross section of University stakeholders participated in the survey. Approximately 22% of participants were faculty, 14% staff, 38% undergraduate and 26% graduate students; 6% alumni and 1% members of the Board of Trustees as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: QEP Theme Survey Respondents

Respondent Base Count: 431 Base Percentage: 100%Faculty 93 22%

Staff 62 14%

Undergraduate Student

165 38%

Graduate Student 110 26%

Alumni 27 6%

Trustee 2 1%

Source: Office of Planning, Assessment and Research, Quality Enhancement Plan - Topic Suggestion Survey,Summary Report Fall 2014

As illustrated in Table 3, the results of the survey indicated an overall high-level of interest in the areas related to undergraduate research as a means of stimulating student engagement to improve learning.


8

Table 3: Topic Suggestion Survey – Summary of Responses

Topic Suggestion Survey - Summary Response Report

Suggested TopicsN = 425

(Multiple Responses) Base Percentage: 100%

Faculty-mentored undergraduate research 189 44.5%

The Du Boisian Scholarly Traditions and Methodology 108 25.4%

Undergraduate Research, Creative Activity, and Scholarship

230 54.1%

Research-Based Capstone Courses and Projects 132 31.1%

Discipline Specific Research Writing Skills 189 44.5%

Research across the Curriculum 161 37.9%

Research-based Learning 184 43.3%

Research Abroad 225 52.9%Source: Office of Planning, Assessment and Research, Quality Enhancement Plan - Topic Suggestion Survey,Summary Report Fall 2014

In October 2014, the QEP Planning and Development Committee narrowed the themes to the following four categories:

1. Faculty-Mentored Undergraduate Research2. Research-Based Capstone Courses and Projects3. Undergraduate Research, Creative Activity and Scholarship4. Cross-Disciplinary Research

In Fall 2014, the QEP Planning and Development Committee published a call for concept papers to solicit brief suggestions (two page maximum) from the University faculty on initiatives that could serve as basis for the QEP (See Appendix V: Call for Concept Papers). The intention of these concept papers was to provide preliminary descriptions of new and/or enhanced activities that would have a measurable impact on student learning and/or the learning environment at Clark Atlanta University. Table 4 provides a list of concept paper submissions by schools.

Table 4: QEP Concept Paper Submissions

QEP Proposal Submission TeamsSchool/Department Members Focus

1.School of Education/Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Leadership

Dr. Daniel TeodorescuUndergraduate Research on Urban Poverty

Dr. Ruby ThompsonDr. Veda JairrelsDr. Darrell Groves

2.Arts & Sciences/Sociology/CriminalJustice Obie Clayton

Undergraduate Research Across theCurriculum

3. School of Social Work/BSW and MSW

Seok Won JinImproving Research and Writing Skills among HBCU Students: a Clinic for Research and Writing

Corinne WarrenerMustapha AlhassanKenya JonesTiffanie-Victoria Jones


9

Initially, the committee intended to select the top three concept papers from those submitted and ask the writers or teams to submit a full proposal for consideration for the QEP. However, only three concept papers were submitted to the committee by teams of faculty members from three of the four academic schools: (1) Undergraduate Research Across the Curriculum from the School of Arts and Sciences; (2) Improving Research and Writing Skills among HBCU Students: A Clinic for Research and Writing from the Whitney M. Young, Jr. School of Social Work; and (3) Undergraduate Research on Urban Poverty from the School of Education.

In January 2015, the QEP Planning and Development Committee engaged the campus faculty with an update on the QEP topic during the University’s Spring Opening Institute. All faculty and members of the executive cabinet were required to attend a two-hour presentation and work session. The presentation reinforced faculty awareness, disseminated information regarding progress on the QEP, and introduced the concept papers to the participants. Utilizing Today’s Meet, an online meeting tool, faculty members engaged in group conversations regarding how to develop and integrate creative and research works as a means of undergraduate student engagement in learning and applying it in each of their disciplines. The comments and suggestions were submitted via Today’s Meet and a representative from each roundtable reported their table topic discussions.

After reviewing faculty feedback from the opening institute and discussing the merits of the concept papers, the QEP Planning and Development Committee asked the writers of the three concept papers to consider collaborating and developing a single QEP proposal. This proposal would be inclusive of all degree programs across the four schools (Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Education, and Social Work) and represent a strong framework for undergraduate research, scholarship and creative activities.

By mid-January 2015, the members of the concept paper teams agreed to merge their papers into one and focus on the topic of the QEP: Undergraduate Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities. Additional faculty members and relevant staff were recruited to join the QEP proposal writing team. On March 12, 2015, Dr. Corinne Warrener, Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work was nominated to serve as the chair of the proposal writing team. Under the leadership of Dr. Warrener, the writing team consisted of both undergraduate and graduate faculty representatives from a variety of disciplines from all four schools. Table 5 provides a complete list of the members of the QEP proposal writing team.

1

Clark Atlanta University – Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors Table 5: QEP Proposal Writing Team Members

QEP Writing Team Members

Member Name Department1. Dr. Corinne Warrener (Lead) Social Work (MSW)2. Dr. Mustapha Alhassan Social Work (BSW)3. Dr. Obie Clayton Sociology/Criminal Justice4. Dr. Margaret Counts-Spriggs Social Work (BSW)5. Dr. Charles Richardson* Business Administration6. Professor Christopher Hickey Art7. Dr. Marjorie G.S. Campbell* Biological Sciences8. Dr. Medha Talpade Psychology9. Dr. Kenya Jones Social Work (MSW)10. Dr. Sandra Taylor Sociology/Criminal Justice11. Professor Mark Boozer Music12. Dr. Gwendolyn Mitchell Center for Faculty Professional Development (CFPD)13. Dr. Darrell Groves Educational Leadership

14. David Duncan*Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurial Development (CIED)

15. Dr. Seokwon Jin Social Work (MSW)16. Dr. Danielle Gray-Singh Arts & Sciences17. Dr. Veda Jairrels Curriculum and Instruction

* No longer a member of the writing team

In Spring of 2015, with the departure of Dr. James Perkins, Dr. Corinne Warrener was appointed to serve as the Co-Chair of the QEP Planning and Development Committee along with Dr. Tia A. Minnis. The QEP Planning and Development Committee Co-Chairs appointed two subcommittees, the Budget Subcommittee and Marketing and Communications Subcommittee, to assist the writing team in developing the final QEP proposal.

The Budget Subcommittee, led by the University’s Budget Director Ms. LaTanya Hartsfield, was charged to develop a feasible and fiscally responsible budget based on the submitted QEP proposal requirements. In order to accomplish this task the members of the Budget Subcommittee examined the University’s resources to determine how the University would meet the financial needs of the QEP through (1) the reallocation of existing financial, physical, and human resources, and (2) the generation of new resources . The QEP Budget subcommittee members are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: QEP Budget Sub-Committee

QEP Budget Subcommittee(Appointed Members)

Name Position/Title Department

1. Dr. Tia A. MinnisExecutive Director of Assessment &Effectiveness OPAR

2. Dr. Corinne Warrener Chair/Assistant Professor School of Social Work (MSW)3. Dr. Eric Mintz Professor/ Chair Department of Chemistry4. Ms. LaTanya Hartsfield Budget Director Business and Finance/Controller5. Mr. O’Leary Sanders Internal Compliance Officer Compliance Office/Internal Auditing


1

The Marketing and Communications subcommittee, led by Ms. Donna Brock, Associate VP for Strategic Communications and University Relations, was responsible for developing and implementing communication strategies designed to promote the QEP to the campus constituents, alumni, and the broader community during its development and throughout the implementation phase. The QEP Marketing and Communications subcommittee members are listed in Table 7.

Table 7: QEP Marketing and Communications Sub-Committee

QEP Marketing and Communications Subcommittee(Appointed Members)

Name Position/Title Department

1. Ms. Grene Baranco* Digital Communications ManagerStrategic Communications and UniversityRelations

2. Mr. Robert Bailey Senior Data Specialist/KPI Manager OPAR

3. Ms. Donna BrockAssociate VP, StrategicCommunications and University Relations

Strategic Communications and University Relations

4. Mr. Omar HarbisonSr. Instructional Media Producer and Trainer

Center for Faculty Professional Development

5. Dr. Lin Sun Professor of Art Art Department

6. Abrianna JohnsonStudent (Freshman - FashionMerchandising Major) Art Department

7. Alexa Heard Student (Junior – History Major)African America/African Women’sStudies/History Department

* No longer a member of the Marketing and Communications Sub-Committee

To ensure an ongoing and broad-based involvement of university stakeholders, various presentations for discussion and feedback were made to the University’s Board of Trustees; the President’s Leadership Team (Executive Cabinet); and all faculty and staff members throughout the process. The initial presentation to the University Board of Trustees was made on May 16, 2013 by Dr. Narendra Patel, Assistant VP for OPAR/SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison/Director of Accreditation. During this presentation the Board was provided an overview of the Reaffirmation of Accreditation Process including the requirements of the Compliance Certification Report (CCR) and the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) development process. Subsequent presentations were made during May 16, 2014, February 20, 2015 and October 22, 2015 board meetings to keep the board informed about the Committee’s progress and solicit feedback and advice on the best ways to proceed. In addition, on August 8, 2014, a one-day leadership retreat with the Executive Cabinet and school deans was held to initiate the process for QEP preparation.

After the appointment of the QEP Planning and Development Committee in the summer of 2014, Dr. James Perkins, VP for Research and Sponsored Programs/Professor of Chemistry/QEP Committee Chair, made presentations on the status and direction of the QEP planning and development process during each Executive Cabinet meeting. The QEP Planning and Development committee also took advantage of each opening and closing institute to keep the entire CAU community of faculty and staff informed and involved in the QEP planning and development process.

In addition to soliciting students’ input through the topic selection survey, faculty members of the QEP Committees engaged students in their respective classes in conversations about what they thought were appropriate ways to incorporate specific creative and research activities in the curriculum and enhance faculty and student engagement through mentoring. Initially, six students were asked to serve as members of the Marketing and Communications Subcommittee, two of whom, Ms. Abrianna Johnson, a Freshman Fashion Merchandising major, and Ms. Alexa Heard, a


1

Junior History major, have made significant contributions to the QEP’s marketing plan as active members of this subcommittee.

Moreover, many of the board members and the QEP Committee members represent a larger group of alumni. Several grant writers have also engaged external agencies such as the Mellon Foundation, Ford Foundation, and United Negro College Fund (UNCF) in developing and supporting the selected topic of the QEP and its activities.


1

III. Identification of the Topic

A. Focus of the QEP

The focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan evolved directly from the University’s 2013-2018 Strategic Plan. As noted in Section II, the development of this plan involved a broad-based participation of all university constituents and stakeholders. In order to develop the strategic plan, the University analyzed its current position in the industry, at national, state, regional, and local levels; reviewed the imperatives in higher education; and conducted appraisals of internal and external environmental (economic, social, demographic, political, legal, technological, and international) factors. The Strategic Plan, which focuses primarily on executing and continually refining and improving the University’s strategic and operational efficiency, serves as a guide for the University to accomplish its vision, and includes strategic priorities, long-term goals and objectives. The Plan also outlines near-term specific directions, detailed action plans, benchmarks and performance measures. The specific priorities, goals, objectives, directives and measures of success that directly guide the direction of the QEP are outlined in Table 8. As noted in the table, the University is focused on enhancing its academic program quality and improving student retention through the use of proven high-impact (best) practices of faculty-student engagement.

Table 8: University Strategic Plan Priorities, Goals, Objectives, Directives, and Success Measures Guiding the Direction of QEP

Priority 1: Increase Enrollment Headcount

GOAL 1.0: Attract an increased number and diversity of students who graduate at higher rates and are equipped to succeed in their careers.

Objective 1.3: Implement a University-wide comprehensive retention plan

Directions:1.3.1 Expand opportunities in educational support services, co-curricular activities and residential living/learning programs1.3.2 Integrate access to academic advisement, tutoring, research, and technologies1.3.3 Initiate a strong academic guidance, counseling and mentoring support structure

Selected Measures of Success• Improvements in student retention, graduation and placement rates: Persistence, progression and completion; career

and graduate/professional school placement• Faculty and student engagement in high-impact lifelong teaching-learning opportunities• Customer satisfaction

Priority 2: Distinctive Academic, Research, and Student Support Programs

GOAL2.0: Develop and enhance academic, research, and support programs recognized for their distinctiveness, innovation, and ability to prepare graduates sought after by employers and entrepreneurial community as well as graduate and professional schools.

Objective 2.1: Implement best practices standards of quality for all academic, research, and support programs

Directions:2.1.1 Develop campus-wide definition of and certification criteria for program uniqueness, and innovativeness including

national and international standards and defined ROI for individual program sustainability2.1.10 Restructure academic and student support units for increased productivity and efficiency

Selected Measures of Success:• Quality academic programs and support services: Degree of faculty and student engagement in the learning process and

contributions to academia and community• Effective use of educational methods and practices: Shared teaching-learning experiences• Supportive campus environment: Enriching educational, physical and spiritual experiences• Customer satisfaction


1

B. QEP Topic Selection

Based on the aforementioned goals, priorities, objectives and directives, the QEP Planning and Development Committee identified the broad themes for the QEP and presented it to the University constituents in various formats, including surveys, faculty institutes, and departmental and school meetings. A review of the feedback from these different sources, and an internal SWOT analysis of the institution and its educational programs, resulted in a QEP focused on enhancing undergraduate creative and research activities. It is believed that through purposeful engagement of faculty and undergraduate students focused on research and creativity activities (See Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices), the University can enhance student learning, growth and development, as well as their overall contribution to the institution and society at large. Aligned with our Strategic Plan, the QEP is designed to also support student enrollment, aid in student retention, and increase the academic stature of CAU.

Next the QEP Planning and Development Committee narrowed down the broad-based themes into four topic areas based on feedback from the University constituents, and published a call for concept papers to solicit brief suggestions (two page maximum) from University faculty on initiatives that could serve as basis for the QEP. The concept paper submitted were a result of three teams consisting of ten faculty members, representing three of the University’s four schools. Each concept paper presented a school/discipline specific, faculty-mentored research and/or creative activity. After reviewing the submissions, the QEP Planning and Development Committee decided that rather than asking each team to submit a full proposal, a collective effort from all three schools would result in a more inclusive proposal that could be replicated throughout the institution in all of the degree programs. The concept paper writers agreed and the proposal writing team was formed. In January 2015, the QEP Planning and Development Committee and the writing team agreed on the final QEP theme “Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities” and the Writing Team began to develop a QEP proposal that would aid the institution in enhancing and expanding its research and scholarly activities across programs, departments, and schools, as well as enhancing and showcasing the creative works of students.

C. Institutional Data Analysis

The QEP Planning and Development Committee reviewed institutional data provided by the Office of Institutional Research. The main focus was to identify an emerging pattern that evolved from data analysis to support and build a case for undergraduate creative and research initiatives that could be addressed through the new QEP.

The QEP Planning and Development Committee reviewed existing programs and best practices on student engagement through high impact practices such as First-Year Seminars, Learning Communities, Writing-Intensive Courses, Collaborative Learning Assignments/Projects, Undergraduate Research, Diversity/Global Learning, Capstone Courses and Projects, Service/Community-Based Learning, Experiential Learning to improve student retention rates. Thus, comprehensive learning that fosters clear linkages between faculty-student engagement and student academic/career objectives were especially critical to increasing student motivation.


1

1. Institutional Context

Campus mission and culture

Clark Atlanta University has a vibrant culture and a strong group of scholarly faculty and leaders committed to providing high-quality undergraduate experiences for students with opportunities that are accessible to a wide cross-section of students for broad disciplinary participation in undergraduate creative and research activities.

Scholarly faculty

Currently the University has 81% full-time faculty members with terminal degrees and of this 67% are tenured. The University has an active research environment with faculty committed to scholarly work in their fields. The faculty is also expected to regularly produce scholarship that is recognized by their peers and in which a premium is placed on effective undergraduate teaching, research, mentorship and productivity.

Integration with other engaging and high-impact opportunities

The undergraduate research approach is designed to integrate and coordinate, where possible, with other high-impact practices to maximize student development, leverage resources, and incorporate undergraduate research across the University. While some collaborations such as the honors program; building research awareness in a freshman seminar; working with service learning initiatives to develop community-based projects are more obvious, other partnerships such as study abroad; leadership programs; career placement and internships; and residential life programs can provide another layer of excellence for undergraduates. Additionally, educational leaders involved in broad areas of learning initiatives such as general education, global citizenship, communication proficiency, etc. can benefit from the undergraduate research programs to further their goals in maximizing undergraduate student learning.

General education requirements

During the 2014-2015 academic year, an ad-hoc committee of the University academic council proposed a reduction in the general education requirements from 54-58 credits to 30-36 credits. This faculty-led initiative recommended a competency-based general education curriculum. Implementation of the new General Education curriculum will begin in Fall 2016. Along with this new curriculum, CAU is revamping the first-year experience, introducing stackable credentials, incorporating project or research based synthesis to improve the career readiness of our students. The goal is to increase student retention, persistence and graduation rates. These changes will help facilitate the successful implementation of the QEP as general education serves as a foundation for the types of creative and research activities in which MUSE students will engage.

2. Assessment Data

Undergraduate Courses in Creative and Research Activities at CAU

Clark Atlanta University Undergraduate Catalog for AY 2014-2016 lists a total of 802 courses of which 56 (7%) have been identified as creative and/or research courses. During AY 2014-2015 the University offered 642 courses of which only 33 (5%) were identified as creative and research work related. Most importantly, the majority of these courses are at the senior level. These findings indicate that students may have limited opportunity or exposure to creative and research work


1

experience especially as it relates to faculty mentored engagement. (Note: This review was conducted by Office of Planning, Assessment and Institutional Research (OPAR) as a preliminary needs-analysis; data collected during the departmental curriculum audits will serve as formal baseline to be used to determine levels of increase as discussed in Section X: Assessment of The Plan).

Student Survey Data

The Fall 2013 New Freshmen Survey, conducted by the Office of Institutional Research, indicated that 60% of the respondents would definitely get a master’s degree and 35% indicated getting a doctorate degree. On the same survey the participants indicated writing original works (34%), creating artistic works (71%), or making a theoretical contribution to science (57%) as “not important.”

The Fall 2014 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshmen Survey indicated that the reason for deciding to go to college was to prepare for graduate or professional school as “very important” by 81% of the participants while 91% indicated to get training for a specific career as “very important.” On the same survey the participants indicated writing original works (38%), creating artistic works (46%), or making a theoretical contribution to science (33%) as “not important.”

The committee compared the data from these two surveys to Spring 2014 Senior Student Exit Survey which indicated that only 37% of the respondents felt their research ability was superior above average. On the same survey 42% respondents indicated attending graduate or professional school and 51% indicated getting a job or starting a business.

Faculty Survey Data

On the Fall 2014 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey, participants indicated that the goals for undergraduate student education, “to prepare students for graduate or advance education (94%)” and “to prepare students for employment after college (100%)” were essential/very important. On the same survey the participants indicated that they use performance demonstration (65%), student presentations (53%), group projects (60%), and reflective writing/journaling (48%) in all or most of the courses they teach. However, on questions regarding faculty engagement in any research activities the participants responded as follows: Engaged undergraduate students on research project (57%), engaged in academic research that spans multiple disciplines (55%), worked with undergraduates on a research project (63%), presented with undergraduate students at conference (43%), and published with undergraduates (22%). This data clearly indicates a gap between student career objectives and academic preparation.

Employer Data – What matters to hiring managers?

According to Chegg, Inc. (2013) there are a number of collegiate experiences that hiring managers deemed at least somewhat important in their hiring decisions about recent graduates: 93% of hiring managers want to see that the graduates they hire have demonstrated the initiative to lead while 91% hope to see that applicants have participated in extracurricular activities related to their field of study. This report also indicated that 51% of the recent graduate candidates had writing skills to summarize results, convey information, etc., 49% had writing skills to communicate ideas or explain information clearly, and 37% were making decision without having all the facts. The notion that college graduates exit universities and lack the ability to clearly communicate


1

information suggests institutions are failing to meet their mandate of forming critical thinkers or problem solvers.

According to April 2013 Hart Research Associates survey, 95% of employers indicated that they give hiring preference to college graduates with skills that enable them to contribute to innovation in the workplace and 92% agreed that “innovation is essential” to the continued success for their company/organization. Notably, nearly all employers placed a high priority on intellectual and interpersonal skills that help candidates contribute to innovation and indicated that they prioritize critical thinking, communications, and complex problem-solving skills over a candidate’s major field of study when making hiring decisions.

According to 2014 National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) Outlook Survey, the attributes employers seek on a job candidate’s resume include the ability to work in a team (78%), written communications skills (73%), problem-solving skills (71%), and analytical/quantitative skills (68%). On the same survey, when given the list of candidate skills and qualities, employers once again rated teamwork as “most important” (4.61) on a weighted average rating on a 5-point scale (1=Not at all important; 2=Not very important; 3=Somewhat important; 4=Very important; and 5=Extremely important). Tied with teamwork was the ability to make decisions and solve problems, followed by verbal communication skills. However, employers graded their average new graduate recruits on skills/attributes and found them lacking in teamwork at a grade of B, making it the second lowest graded attribute preceded by problem-solving ability at A-, analytical/quantitative skills at B+, and verbal communication skills at B+. Written communication skills, the third key skill employers look for, received a B-. These results clearly indicate a gap between employer expectations and new graduate recruit performance on an expected broad set of skills and attributes.

Higher Education Institutions Data

Admission to most graduate schools requires more than just indicators of academic ability such as grade-point average and high scores on standardized entrance examinations. In some fields, admissions committees look for undergraduate research, writing samples, work or internship history, or an in-person interview. Along with coursework and class size, a fundamental difference between undergraduate and graduate school is the research thesis. Graduate students, especially at the doctoral level are required to contribute an original piece of research that adds to the existing body of knowledge in a particular area of interest. Such research is supervised by at least one faculty member. At the undergraduate level students may participate in some research, but the scope of the projects tends to be limited and do not necessarily involve making a unique contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Undergraduate projects often introduce students to research fundamentals and basic experimental design.

Many postsecondary organizations (e.g., the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Graduate Council, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the University of Texas at Tyler, the Graduate Council at the University of Oregon, the Graduate School at the University of California-Davis, the Graduate College and Graduate Council at the University of Arizona, the Office of Graduate Studies at the University of Southern California, and the Graduate School at North Carolina State University have indicated that the primary purpose of graduate education is to instill in each student an understanding of and capacity for scholarship, independent judgement, academic rigor and intellectual honesty. To accomplish this, for example, it is essential that graduate students expect that their research results, with appropriate recognition, will be incorporated into progress reports, summary documents, applications for continuation of funding, and similar documents authored by


1

the faculty advisor, to the extent that the student's research is related to the faculty advisor's research program and the grants which support that research.

Institutions and programs such as Duke University Graduate School, have also clearly indicated research expectations of its graduate students (Duke University Graduate School, n.d.). For example, graduate students are expected to learn the research methods, ethical dimensions, and historical knowledge bases of the discipline; to communicate regularly with faculty mentors and the masters/doctoral committees, especially in matters relating to research and progress within the degree program; to discover and pursue a unique topic of research in order to participate in the construction of new knowledge in the chosen field and application of that knowledge to new problems/issues; and to exercise the highest integrity in all aspects of their work, especially in the tasks of collecting, analyzing, and presenting research data. Needless to say, nearly all graduate programs expect students to work independently, take initiative, and persist on reading, writing and research.

Conclusion

Many factors, such as those described above, contribute to the quality of undergraduate student learning. Among these considerations specific to individual students such as motivation, academic preparation, and availability of time obviously play important roles. Many aspects of institutional support, for example, in the areas of technology, library acquisitions, effective pedagogies, and teaching facilities equally affect students’ learning experiences. Therefore, we believe that student learning outcomes are also powerfully and positively affected by repeated encounters with teacher mentors who are active scholars.


1

IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes

The primary purpose of our QEP is to improve student learning and enhance their performances by infusing pedagogy of creativity, research and discovery across a wide range of program curricula. The University aims to provide our students a more relevant, real-world inspired, creative and research-rich educational experience. The University is determined to serve as a global crossroad for “Creating an Economy of IDEAS (Innovation, Design, Environment, Arts, Sciences) that matter” and has selected the acronym MUSE (Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors) for its QEP. (See Appendix VI for more details on sources used to develop definitions and goals).

Scholarly Endeavors encompass both creative and research activities and is defined at CAU as a systematic or focused inquiry, investigation, experimentation, or exploration – predicated upon intense use of mind – that makes an original, revised, expanded, or interpretive contribution to one or more disciplines in pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and the public good.

The MUSE vision is to emphasize scholarly inquiry throughout the curriculum, to enhance and showcase our students’ creative works/ performances and research initiatives. While accentuating the connection between these two areas, we anticipate fundamentally changing the culture of learning and educating students at CAU. For example, while students in the STEM areas will be provided more opportunities to engage in research and intellectual inquiry, students in the Creative and Performing Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences will also be provided opportunities to display their bodies of work to the larger university audiences through formats and platforms appropriate for their disciplines. This can include but is not limited to activities such as oral and poster presentations of student research at academic and/or professional conferences, art exhibitions, workshops, publications, fashion shows, community projects, recitals, and student showcases. While the University community understands that the scholarly output will vary considerably by discipline, all body of work classified as an accepted Scholarly Endeavor for the QEP are required to be tangible, timely, learning relevant, and generally recognized by peers and subject matter experts as a worthwhile meaningful contribution to the discipline.

Researchers have defined mentoring as an individual relationship between an experienced, typically older, person and a junior, less-experienced person (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Hansford, Tennent, & Ehrich, 2003; Lunsford, 2009). Simon, Perry, and Roff (2008) asserted that the psychosocial notion of mentoring involves social support and building a person‘s career self-image; additionally, Smith (2009), and Simon et al. (2008) specified that the career functions of mentoring involve co-authoring scholarly articles and research, in addition to assisting the protégés‘/mentees in successfully planning within an institution. Mentors also assist mentees with developing and defining professional goals and priorities.

The MUSE program employs the high impact practice of undergraduate research mentoring through a curriculum based approach because of its growing importance in the academy. Students who participate in scientific research as undergraduates report gaining many benefits from the experience. However, undergraduate research done independently under a faculty member's guidance or as part of an internship, regardless of its individual benefits, is inherently limited in its overall impact. Faculty members have limited time and funding to support undergraduate researchers, and most institutions have available (or have allocated) only enough human and financial resources to involve a small fraction of their undergraduates in such experiences. Given these barriers, the Council for Undergraduate Research and many institutions have adopted the class based approach. According to Auchincloss et al (2014) course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), “have the potential to give all students, rather than only a select few, the

2

Clark Atlanta University – Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors opportunity to engage in research.” They go on to argue that “ CUREs by their very nature are diverse in structure and theme, they are defined as having the following five elements that are reflective of authentic research: 1) engaging students in scientific practices; 2) emphasizing collaboration; 3) examining broadly relevant topics; 4) exploring questions with unknown answers to expose students to the process of scientific discovery; and 5) integrating iteration into the course, so students can see how science builds on itself” (Auchincloss et al ., 2014 ). For the purposes of MUSE, mentoring is seen as distinct from advising in that it goes beyond an expert directing a junior person. Mentoring involves a dynamic relationship between faculty and students whereby the faculty person engages the mentees, provides guidance on a project, and collaborates on the work for the purposes of advancing the mentees skills and record of scholarship. (More details on the mentoring relationship can be found in Section VI: Actions to be Implemented, Goal 2- B).

A. Goals and Objectives

The MUSE program mission is to enhance and/or expand faculty-mentored undergraduate scholarly endeavors (creative and research activities) through following three goals:

1. Enhance the visibility and student awareness of creative and research activities at CAU.2. Establish a culture and an environment in which creative and research activities are

translated into practice.3. Develop the infrastructure and ethos to sustain and elevate undergraduate creative and

research activities.

The following three objectives are developed as a specific means of achieving the QEP goals and measuring its success.

1. All first-year students will be exposed to Discovery of Scholarship (DS) and Scholarly Inquiry (SI).

2. Identify, modify/develop creative and/or research related courses for the Scholarly Inquiry (SI) level for all 29 undergraduate degree programs.

3. Expand opportunities for students to participate in creative and research activities.

B. Desired Student Learning Outcomes

Over the next five years (AY 2017-18 to 2021-2022), the University will undertake a number of initiatives to infuse creative and research activities into the culture of the University at various levels, both within the curriculum and through co-curricular support. Subsequently, as part of the QEP, all first year students beginning with AY 2017-2018 will be introduced to MUSE through two specific levels of inquiry: Discovery of Scholarship (DS) and Scholarly Inquiry (SI). Academic courses and activities will be established at both levels as described below, and student performance will be assessed at the DS and SI levels based on the corresponding student learning outcomes.

1. Discovery of Scholarship (DS) Courses and Activities

Discovery of Scholarship (DS) courses and activities will introduce students to creative and research activities and processes at the introductory level. Undergraduate students will discover the characteristics of research scholarship and how knowledge is generated and disseminated through creativity and scholarly inquiry, as well as the importance of research and creativity to


2

society at large. The first-year students (freshman) involved at this level will be assessed on the following student learning outcomes:

All CAU first-year students will be able to:

1.1 Recognize the difference between personal beliefs and evidence.1.2 Describe how scholarship influences society.1.3 Identify and articulate the lexicon used within the discipline.1.4 Explain the processes of inquiry used within the discipline.

2. Scholarly Inquiry (SI) Courses and Activities

Scholarly Inquiry (SI) courses and activities are designed to help students learn content and skills needed for evaluating scholarly work and understand it in a larger context. SI courses and activities will allow student to “evaluate sources of knowledge, engage in inquiry-guided learning, and situate the concepts, practices, or results of inquiry within a broader context.” The sophomore and/or junior (second and third year) students involved at this level will be assessed on the following student learning outcomes:

All CAU Sophomore and/or Junior students will be able to:

2.1 Describe the epistemological or historical perspectives of a specific discipline.2.2 Analyze the credibility (validity and reliability) of source information.2.3 Identify appropriate discovery processes for scholarly inquiry.2.4 Assess the validity of key assumptions and evidence.2.5 Conduct evidence-based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the existing

knowledge within the field.2.6 Effectively communicate the work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for the

discipline

While the scope of the QEP includes the Discovery of Scholarship (DS) and the Scholarly Inquiry (SI) levels, the University will support advanced undergraduate research and creative works through the Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS) and Multi-Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarly Inquiry (MSI) levels through the Center for Undergraduate Research and Creativity (CURC). The description of these two levels and associated learning outcomes are included in Appendix X: Beyond MUSE – The Institutional Commitment .

Figure 1 provides a visual illustration of the two levels of inquiry designed to uphold the University mission, “to transform the lives of students and their communities by preparing citizen leaders to be problem-solvers through innovative learning programs; supportive interactions with faculty, staff, and students; exemplary scholarship; and purposeful service.” As depicted, Discovery of Scholarship is the foundation for scholarship, utilizing critical thinking and investigation skills to begin to understand how new knowledge, skills and products are developed. The Scholarly Inquiry level expands upon this knowledge through thoughtful critique and evaluation of works within the discipline.


2

Figure 1: Levels of Scholarly Inquiry and Creativity

As a result of the MUSE program, we anticipate that undergraduate students will learn how knowledge is generated and disseminated through Scholarly Endeavors (creative and research activities), and the importance of their scholarly pursuits to society. We expect that an ever- increasing number of students will be afforded the opportunity to participate in creative and research activities and showcase their works through the implementation and expansion of this program. Table 9 provides an overview of Student Learning Outcomes for participants in MUSE.

Table 9: Student Learning Outcomes Overview

Level of Inquiry Students will: Blooms Taxonomy

Cognitive Taxonomy

1Discovery of scholarship (DS)

1.1 Recognize the difference between personal beliefs andevidence.

Remember Factual Knowledge

1.2 Describe how scholarshipinfluences society.

UnderstandExplain

ConceptualKnowledge

1.3 Identify and articulate thelexicon used within the discipline.

Understand Identify

Factual Knowledge

1.4 Explain the processes of inquiryused within the discipline.

Apply ConceptualKnowledge

2 Scholarly Inquiry (SI)

2.1 Describe the epistemological or historical perspectives of aspecific discipline.

Apply Conceptual Knowledge

2.2 Analyze the credibility (validityand reliability) of source information.

Analyze Procedural Knowledge


2

2.3 Identify appropriate discovery processes for scholarly inquiry.

2.4 Assess the validity of key assumptions and evidence.

2.5 Conduct evidence-based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the existing knowledge within the field.

2.6 Effectively communicate work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for the discipline.

Note: See Appendix VII: Taxonomies of Cognitive Thinking.

C. Desired MUSE Program Outcomes

Apply Conceptual Knowledge

Analyze Conceptual Knowledge

Apply Procedural Knowledge

Create Procedural Knowledge

Based on the vision, goals, and objectives of this QEP, we find that the following outcomes are indicative of success of this project.

1a. All first-year students will satisfactorily complete the Discovery of Scholarship (DS) level through First Year Seminar I & II (CGED 100/CGED 101) and College Composition II (CENG 106)



3. An increase in the number and percentage of students participating in creative and research activities:• Across programs/disciplines• At sophomore and junior class levels

In addition to these program outcomes, the assessment of the student learning outcomes at each level of inquiry-based learning will be used to evidence student performances and overall achievement of the knowledge, skills and dispositions identified by faculty in the academic programs.


2

V. Literature Review and Best Practices

A. Strengthening the Undergraduate Research Experience at CAU

Boyer’s Commission (1998) called for the integration of undergraduate students in the research experience over a decade ago. As a result, there has been a great expansion of formal undergraduate research programs across US colleges and universities, transforming the practice from a ‘‘cottage industry to a movement’’ (Blanton 2008).

The Council for Undergraduate Research (CUR) defines undergraduate research activities as inquiries or investigations conducted by undergraduate students that make an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline. This broad definition emphasizes the intellectual content of the scholarly inquiry rather than the structure or format of the experience). Webber, et al.’s (2013) research supports the notion that undergraduate research has positive benefits for student success as well as advantages for faculty and graduate students who serve as mentors to undergraduate students. Several studies have also found that students greatly benefit from research engagement opportunities in that it positively enhances their analytical and critical thinking skills (Bauer and Bennett 2008; Kardash 2000; Kuh et al. 2007; Pike 2006; Volkwein and Carbone 1994), increases academic achievement and retention (Cole and Espinoza 2008; Ishiyama 2002; Nagda et al. 1998), clarifies their academic major (Tompkins 1998; Wasserman 2000; Seymour et al. 2004), and promotes pursuits to enroll in graduate school (Bauer and Bennett 2003; Hathaway et al. 2002; Seymour et al. 2004; Lopatto 2004; Russell 2008).

Student engagement, student motivation to succeed, and what students learn and accomplish during their undergraduate years are key concerns for academicians, and are critical talking points at both the state and national level (Market Watch Education 2011). The mandate to ensure that students are prepared for productive employment after college has placed significant demands on institutions of higher education at a time when resources to meet those demands have dwindled. Private colleges and universities, especially HBCUs, must ensure that undergraduate students acquire meaningful content and skill-based knowledge that prepares them for productive and meaningful careers after college in the most economical manner. Many colleges and universities are now providing research experiences for students in all disciplines. Undergraduate research, however, has been most prominently used in science disciplines. With strong support from various federal funding agencies and the research community, scientists are reshaping their courses to connect key concepts and questions with students’ early and active involvement in systematic investigation and research. The goal is to involve students with actively contested questions, empirical observation, cutting-edge technologies, and the sense of excitement that comes from working to answer important questions (Kuh, 2008).

In order for a college or university to graduate its students with competitive skills to succeed in graduate school or in today’s workforce, it is imperative for these institutions to know the demographics of their students. For first-time undergraduate students who enrolled in public four- year institutions in Fall 2005, the 6-year graduation rate was 57%; 65% at private nonprofits; and 42% at for-profit institutions (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). Of even greater concern is that degree completion rates vary by race and social class and are considerably lower for historically underserved students (Carey, 2004; NCES, 2013). CAU’s average first-year retention rate is 64% while national average for private colleges is 74%. CAU’s average 4-year and 6-year graduation rate is 14% and 39% respectively while the national public average is 44% and 56% for private institutions. Although greater numbers of minority students are entering college than in previous years, fewer earn degrees compared with non-minorities. Stagnant college completion


2

rates, unacceptable racial-ethnic gaps in college graduation rates, and external pressures for institutional accountability for student learning (Bok, 2006) have intensified the need to better understand the factors that influence student success in college. Furthermore, Smith and Rust (2011) argue that “…through the reinvention of the undergraduate curriculum to focus on student engagement in research and research-type activities, a truly inclusive community of academic practice can be created…” (p. 115).

A key study by Webber et al (2012) examined approximately 110,000 responses to the National Survey of Student Engagement and 40,000 responses to the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement at over 450 four-year institutions. Their findings revealed that individual and institutional characteristics predicted student and faculty member involvement and that the majority of faculty members perceived undergraduate research to be of importance.

Clark Atlanta University educates a student body that is primarily composed of first generation college students (80%), where many have limited experiences beyond their communities prior to their arrival at CAU. The majority of students are Pell qualified; and average annual family income is$29,000. Less than 20% of our graduates pursue advanced degrees, but do enter the workforce. Given these realities, CAU is poised to become a leader in preparing students for the 21st Century workplace, while maintaining its mission to prepare first- generation graduates to become informed and engaged citizens with the necessary knowledge, skills, and perspectives to meet challenges that confront the regional, national, and global environment.

The process of science is simple yet complex as Albert Einstein has articulated:

The history of scientific and technical discovery teaches us the human race is poor in independent thinking and creative imagination. Even when the external and scientific requirements for the birth of an idea have long been there, it generally needs an external stimulus to make it actually happen; man has, so to speak, to stumble right up against the thing before the right idea comes. (quoted in Boyer report p. 9)

According to Braxton (2006), students experience success in college in multiple ways. He suggests that there are eight domains of such success: (1) academic attainment, (2) acquisition of general education, (3) development of academic competence, (4) development of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions, (5) occupational attainment, (6) preparation for adulthood and citizenship, (7) personal accomplishments, and 8) personal development. However, it is important to note that student course-level learning constitutes a fundamental contributor to the attainment of six of these eight domains: academic attainment, acquisition of general education, development of academic competence, development of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions, occupational attainment, and preparation for adulthood and citizenship. The achievement of specific markers of student success within each of these six domains depends on course content; nevertheless, student course-level learning continues as the foremost contributor. However, student course learning plays, at best, an indirect role in the attainment of student success associated with the domains of personal accomplishments and personal development (Braxton, 2006).

The contribution of student course-level learning to the six domains of student success becomes more evident through a brief description of specific indicators of success within each of these six domains. For example, academic attainment includes such indicators as year-to-year persistence, graduation, and academic learning (Braxton, 2006). Braxton (2006) further stresses that the ability to acquire the basic acquisition skills of general education consists of the student being able to acquire general knowledge of arts and sciences, learning about significant cultures of the world, and


2

knowledge of community and world problems. The domain of the development of academic competence involves such specific markers of success as writing and speaking in a clear and effective manner, reading and mathematical skills, and meeting the requirements of a major. The development of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions includes such markers as critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and the development of intellectual interests. Specific indicators of success in the domain of occupational attainment include obtaining employment after graduation in the same field as one’s major and experiencing job satisfaction. The domain of preparation for adulthood and citizenship consists of specific indicators of success, such as the presentation of one’s self and one’s ideas in an acceptable manner, learning how to lead a group, and knowledge of government (Braxton, 2006).

Braxton’s (2008) pedagogical practices, and course assessment procedures and Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles of good practice for undergraduate education together supports the notion that faculty classroom teaching role performance contribute to student course level learning. Pedagogical practices may include faculty teaching skills, as well as, methods of teaching. Course assessment procedures that enhance student course learning place an emphasis on higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and synthesis of course content. Several studies also suggest that teaching skills of organization, preparation and instructional clarity often times contribute to student course learning (Pascarella and others, 1996; Hines, Cruickshank, and Kennedy, 1985; Schonwetter, Menec, and Perry, 1995; Schonwetter, Perry, and Struthers, 1994; Wood and Murray, 1999). These teaching skills also play a role in college student retention.

Moreover, active learning constitutes a method of teaching that enhances student course learning and positively influences college student retention. “Any class activity that “involves students in doing things and thinking about things they are doing” makes up active learning (Bonwell and Eison, 1991, p. 2). Empirical research exhibits the influence of active learning on student course learning (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Anderson and Adams, 1992; Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991; McKeachie, Pintrich, Yi Guang, and Smith, 1986). Moreover, these studies all indicate that undergraduate faculty members who use active learning in their courses have a positive impact on college student retention and that active learning enhances the persistence of under-prepared students.

Course assessment procedures that enhance student course learning accentuate higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and synthesis of course content (Braxton, 2008; Renaud and Murray, 2007). These studies also report that academic challenge plays a positive role in college student retention. The emphasis a course places on such higher order thinking skills as analysis and synthesis forms a critical aspect of the notion of academic challenge. Chickering and Gamson (1987) identify principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Faculty adherence to these principles positively influences student learning, as evidenced by a robust body of research (Sorcinelli, 1991). Such principles of good practice as encouragement of student and faculty contact, communication of high expectations, and respect for diverse talents and ways of knowing correspond to teaching practices that also have a positive effect on college student persistence. The encouragement of student and faculty contact entails frequent interaction between students both in and out of the classroom (Chickering and Gamson, 1987). These studies also provide some empirical evidence that student and faculty interactions play a positive role in college student retention. In addition, the communication of high expectations involves not only setting high expectations for students, but also expecting them to meet them (Chickering and Gamson, 1987). To sum up, the pedagogical practices of active learning, the teaching skills of instructional clarity, course assessment practices that emphasize higher-order thinking skills, and Chickering and Gamson’s principles of good practice in undergraduate education in the form of encouraging


2

student and faculty contact, communication of high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and ways of knowing contribute to multiple forms of student success through their positive impact on college student retention and student course-level learning.

The CAU QEP is designed to meet this challenge posed by Einstein by (1) incorporating undergraduate research creative activity, into the general education curriculum beginning in the student’s first semester; (2) requiring creative and research activities of all students by the time they graduate and (3) exposing all students, regardless of majors, to these research experiences. These experiences are designed to allow our students to make meaningful discoveries, and contribute to their course-level learning, academic experiences, and their successful degree completion. These initiatives or experiences are all evidenced based and rooted in the literature, as we will briefly discuss below.

B. The Importance of Research for the Undergraduate Student

Considerable evidence from several studies indicates that undergraduate research has positive effects on a student’s ability to think critically and communicate effectively as well as evaluate information and promote creativity (e.g., Salsman, Dulaney, Chinta, Zascavage, & Joshi, 2013; Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, and Lerner 1998; Kinkead 2003; Lopatto 2004 & 2010; & Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Participation in undergraduate research increases retention and graduation rates among involved students (e.g., Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, and Lerner 1998; Lopatto 2004 & 2010). (Source: NCES, IPEDS Fall 2010 Enrollment Retention Rate; and NCES IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey). Adding strength to the research findings cited above, other research has demonstrated that students who engage in research in their undergraduate curriculum have increased knowledge of the natural world, intellectual and practical skills, as well as personal and social responsibility (Kuh, 2008; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Additionally, research skills have been shown to lead to intellectual growth, academic achievement and professional growth (Lopatto, 2009). Hurtado, et al. (2008), reported that institutionally provided, structured opportunities for research, especially biomedical research, were key predictors for the success of all early students, but particularly for African American students. In STEM fields, Thirty (2011) found that undergraduate participation in authentic research is an “effective way to socialize novices into the scientific research community” and help them “develop mastery, knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary to become a scientist.”

Participation in undergraduate research also increases students’ understanding of the research process and gives them increased confidence in their skills and abilities (Hurtado et al., 2008). Kardash (2000) found that, after participating in undergraduate research, students were more likely to formulate a hypothesis, analyze data, orally communicate research results, and think critically. Although undergraduate research has always had the most traction in the STEM disciplines, colleges and universities are increasingly recognizing the desirability of providing students with focused research opportunities across all undergraduate curricula. Students across the sciences, social sciences, and humanities have found participation to be positive, stating that the experience increased their problem-solving and communication abilities (Hurtado et al., 2008).

It is in the context of the knowledge economy and society, the changes and challenges to modes of knowledge production, and the importance attached to preparing professionals who will be the principal disseminators and creators of new knowledge, that the research experience of undergraduates deserves attention, most particularly in respect to the effective transition into research degrees and graduate readiness to face the new knowledge demands of their professions (Shaw et al., 2013). These authors examined the concept of ‘research preparedness’ at the


2

undergraduate level. The research explored whether there are aspects of the experience of carrying out research prior to a research higher degree that contribute to a student feeling prepared to go on to do more research. The findings in this study suggested that students who undertook a fourth- year research project generally felt they were prepared for research.

Research self-efficacy has been found to be a key predictor of graduate students’ interest in conducting research and their actual research involvement and productivity, and is an area gaining research momentum in the United States (Forester et al. 2004). Shaw et al (2013) research findings suggested that the element of self-efficacy does influence undergraduate students’ engagement in research tasks and it was the strongest component in the research preparedness score within their study.

Undergraduate research allows beginning researchers to think in innovative ways within their disciplines, and to connect with people within their learning and professional communities. Nevertheless, there is an argument that research should begin at the commencement of the undergraduate program so that the development of skills can begin at an early stage, rather than leaving research until a student’s final year (Brew 2006). Furthermore, Shaw et al (2006) noted that undergraduate students who perform well in their discipline can obtain the opportunity through an undergraduate research project to immerse themselves to such an extent that they become curious to discover more and to search out new knowledge.

There is evidence to suggest that achievement in coursework programs is not sufficient to predict success in research higher degrees, which require students to exhibit independence and creativity (Lovitts, 2008). This raises the question of what students gain from a program where there is an independent project to complete? Does this serve to enhance connections to the research community, as well as knowledge of independent research? Taking a social-cognitive perspective, where individuals are viewed as both products and producers of their own environment (Bandura, 1986). Using Bandura’s social-cognitive perspective Shaw et al. (2013) identified elements of the undergraduate experience in end-on and embedded honors programs which prepare students for the transition to research higher degree studies. They presented a theoretical framework to examine the experience of students engaged in the process of becoming a researcher. Learning motivation, research environment, research self-efficacy and research orientation, taken together, provide a basis for determining research preparedness.

Data from the 2012 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey administered at CAU indicated that although 54% respondents integrated skills and knowledge from different sources and experiences, only 10% of freshman worked on a professor’s research project or with other students on group projects. Also while 39% freshmen frequently explored topics on their own even though not required for a class, only 33% respondents indicated that making a theoretical contribution to science was personally important to them and only 20% frequently looked up scientific research articles and resources compared to a national average of 35% (2012 CIRP Freshman Survey). Given the evidence, enhancement of undergraduate research/internship and inquiry opportunities at the University should help fill a significant gap in our students’ education and increase both 4- and 6-year graduation rates.

Data from the 2010 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) indicated that only 10% of students at CAU (national average 19%) worked on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or program requirements by their senior year. Further, 50% of CAU seniors (national average 33%) identified the completion of a culminating senior experience, such as a capstone course, senior project or thesis (SOURCE: NSSE Institutional Report 2010). Drawing from


2

these data and utilizing existing studies, there is strong evidence that participation in undergraduate research also increases retention and graduation rates among involved students (e.g., Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, and Lerner 1998; Lopatto 2004 & 2010).

C. The Importance of Undergraduate Research for the University Professor

Undergraduate education in research universities requires renewed emphasis on a point strongly made by John Dewey almost a century ago: learning is based on discovery guided by mentoring rather than on the transmission of information. Inherent in inquiry-based learning is an element of reciprocity: faculty can learn from students as students are learning from faculty. (quoted in Boyer p. 15)

Undergraduate research, of necessity, requires an educational collaboration between students and faculty members. Research experiences may be initiated by students who seek out faculty supervision for their projects or by faculty members who involve undergraduate students in their research teams. As we have illustrated, students benefit greatly from conducting undergraduate research, but is the relationship reciprocal for faculty? In studies conducted by Cech (2003), Chopin (2002) and Russell, Hancock, and McCullough (2007), it was found that many faculty members report that working with students on undergraduate research gives them the personal satisfaction of helping students grow and develop professionally. Additionally, some faculty members reported that they themselves benefitted professionally and intellectually as a result of their experiences supervising undergraduate researchers (Chopin, 2002; Mateja & Otto, 2007).

For example, the College of Wooster, an undergraduate liberal arts institution with no graduate students, has a high degree of faculty productivity and faculty often publish with their students (Clayton and Hall interview with faculty at Wooster, summer 2015). Professors and administrators at Wooster also provided evidence that undergraduate research can be a benefit to faculty members, both in assisting with their individual research program as well as helping faculty members accomplish the important goal of contributing to student learning. This finding is also supported by the work of Webber, Laird, Brcka Lorenz (2013), Adedokun (2010), Eagen, Sharkness and Hurtado (2011), Gates et al.(1999), Kardash (2000) and Zydney et al.(2002). In addition, faculty members who engage in undergraduate research may become better teachers due to their knowledge of cutting-edge research (Brandenberger, 1990; Chapman, 2003; Mateja & Otto, 2007).

Students bring energy and enthusiasm to the research process and can help faculty members “think outside the box” and bring fresh perspectives to research on new topics (Cech, 2003; Coker & Davies, 2006; Zydney et al., 2002). These fresh untested ideas can and often motivate the faculty to undertake new research projects (Coker & Davies, 2006; Zydney et al., 2002). Finally, as Howes et al. (2005) noted, “Undergraduates are inexpensive and intelligent labor” (p. 125).

Dotterer (2002), noted that inquiry based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments have become commonplace at a majority of American doctoral and research institutions, comprehensive universities, and liberal arts colleges. Dotterer (2002) attributes the focus in part to the appealing nature of practicing undergraduate research, but, less obviously, it is also attributable to inclusive and comprehensive elements at the heart of undergraduate research itself. This new curricular approach combines teaching and research—two historic poles of a professional dichotomy, into one integrated pedagogy and system of performance—a new “vision” that scholarship and teaching may not be as separable as conventionally thought or practiced. In undergraduate research, teaching and scholarship, rather, become parts of one simultaneous, overlapping, shared process. Dotterer (2002) saw that this new pedagogy rejects the archetype of a scholar struggling alone with

3

Clark Atlanta University – Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors competing findings who is then forced to profess those or far-older discoveries to a group of as-yet uninformed students. By replacing this pedagogy to one that is based on the collaborative investigative model, research done with a mentoring model or done jointly by students and teachers is a major shift in how scholarship in the academy is practiced. By replacing competitive modes of inquiry with ones more focused on collective and collaborative work, this model of collaboration even offers an enlivening future alternative in academic leadership and institutional governance. Collaboration offers an exciting and effective new heuristic approach for student- faculty or for administrative-faculty interactions.

Dotterer (2002) promoted the idea that undergraduate research, therefore, is a comprehensive curricular innovation and major reform in contemporary American undergraduate education and scholarship. Its central premise is the formation of a collaborative enterprise between student and faculty member—most often one mentor and one burgeoning scholar, however, sometimes (particularly in the social sciences) a team consisting of either one or both. This collaboration model thus triggers the four-step learning process critical to the inquiry-based model and, congruently, several of its prime benefits: (1) identifying and acquiring a disciplinary or interdisciplinary methodology, (2) setting out a concrete investigative problem, (3) carrying out an actual project, and (4) sharing a new scholar’s discoveries with his or her peers (Dotterer, 2002). By incorporating both old and new strategies, undergraduate research motivates students to learn by doing. With faculty mentors, students engage directly in practicing the work of their discipline while they avoid passively acquiring knowledge that that discipline has produced.

Romer et al. (1995) highlighted ten of the twelve quality attributes of outstanding undergraduate education, identified by the Education Commission for the States (1995) as their description of what is fundamental in quality undergraduate education, apply directly to this new blossoming of undergraduate education. They are: (1) high expectations, (2) respect for diverse talents and learning styles, (3) the synthesizing of experiences, (4) the ongoing practice of learned skills, (5) the integration of education and experience, (6) active learning, (7) assessment and prompt feedback,(8) collaboration, (9) adequate time on task, and (10) out-of-class contact with faculty members. The remaining two attributes—emphasis on early years of study and coherence in learning—while not necessary to an undergraduate research model of instruction, are certainly supportive of this pedagogy and its attendant outcomes and are likely to be growing components as inquiry-based education plays an increasing role in first courses in the major and in the design of core curricula.

One of the goals cited by the National Science Foundation in its recent Strategic Plan is to invest in “people to develop a diverse, internationally competitive, and globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens” (NSF, 2000). The integration of research and education is one of the core strategies employed by NSF to accomplish this goal. “Research at the undergraduate level is…known to be a powerful pedagogical tool that significantly enhances the quality of undergraduate science education insofar as research more effectively demonstrates the collective intellectual skills needed by practicing scientists than conventional methods of science education” (NSF, 2000 ).

Participation in undergraduate research with faculty also contributes toward student retention in undergraduate studies and directs students toward specific career paths. The changing demographics of our students, the expanding scope of institutions providing undergraduate education, and the enhanced appreciation for active learning strategies, have further propelled undergraduate research to national prominence as an effective educational strategy NSF (accessed 2015).


3

Faculty members who work with undergraduates on research have to invest extra time and effort, however, they also benefit from the experience. Zydney et al. (2002a) and Adedokun et al. (2010) found that faculty mentors report significant benefits to their quality of work and life. Potential future faculty—graduate students—benefit as well. Dolan and Johnson (2010) found numerous benefits for graduate students who serve as mentors to UR students, including greater career preparation, improved teaching and communication skills, and cognitive growth.

D. Creative and Research Activities

Creative and research activities at CAU are interpreted broadly to reflect what goes on not only in laboratories, but also in libraries, art studios, and music practice rooms. Because undergraduate creative and research activities enhance student learning experiences and expands the intellectual vitality on campus, Clark Atlanta University considers undergraduate students as a critical part of the University’s exciting community of discovery, creativity, and innovation in all its academic disciplines. As the Boyer Commission Report states:

Most if not all research universities have also recognized a special role in visual and performing arts. After students learn to use the materials of the discipline, students in the arts are engaged in independent research throughout their programs, for every exercise in painting, photography, musical composition or performance is a problem to be solved as surely as a problem in physics.

Adjunct to their academic programs, universities support a range of public arts programs, often housed in facilities that rival the best in major cities. These programs can be the principal components of the cultural life of their neighborhoods or their region (Boyer Commission Report, p. 3)

Undergraduate researchers can tackle important, real-world questions ranging from how to improve K-12 education to improving disease prevention, from enhancing the livability of rural communities to understanding and protecting the environment. For example, Teach for America, a model program for improving urban education was the senior project for a Princeton University senior.

Through original research, structured internships and inquiry, students develop critical thinking skills; become effective communicators and problem solvers; learn to identify, locate, manage, and evaluate relevant information; and collaborate with others (Boyer Commission Report, p. 17). Successful undergraduate scholarship bridges the gap between students viewing themselves as passive learners and seeing themselves as professionals forging new learning experiences (Boyer Commission Report pp. 16-17). Engaged students are better students; and research and internships produce students who are better equipped to enter the workforce and produce meaningful results. Unfortunately, research shows that minority students lag behind their white counterparts in participating in internships and research opportunities in our nation’s large corporations and laboratories (Participation in Undergraduate Research at Minority Serving Institutions, pp.16-17). Minority students often state that they have to work during the summer months to earn money for their college expenses thus depriving them of opportunities associated with internship experiences (Participation in Undergraduate Research at Minority Serving Institutions, pp.16-17). This challenge must somehow be overcome.

The inaugural Gallup Purdue Index Report, a survey of more than 30,000 graduates measured the degree to which graduates had "great jobs" through successful and engaging careers and were


3

leading "great lives" by thriving in their overall well-being. The report found that “graduates who believed their colleges prepared them for life beyond the academy or jobs (where students were able to apply their classroom knowledge) were three times as likely to be engaged at work. Those who completed long-term projects, internships, or participated heavily in extracurricular activities or organizations doubled their chances of being engaged at work. Only a third of the survey respondents reported that they participated in an internship or job during college” (Carlson, June 20, 2014, Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A25-26).

E. Best Practices at Selected Institutions

The Boyer Commission Report constantly stressed that all undergraduate students, regardless of major should have a research experience during their undergraduate years. In order to make this a reality for CAU students, the University has joined the Council of Undergraduate Research and members of faculty from various disciplines attended its annual conference held in June 2015. Members of faculty have also visited several colleges and universities with distinctive undergraduate research programs listed in Table 10 with examples of best practices in undergraduate research.

Table 10: Best Practices in Undergraduate Student Research at Selected Institutions

Institution Program NameBest Practices and

Models for CAU’s QEP Method of Contact

Bethune-Cookman University

CURE (Center for Undergraduate Research Excellence)

Internships and Undergraduate ResearchExperiences

• Attended the UNCF Mellon Conference onHigh-Impact Practices

College of Wooster • Undergraduate Research• Sophomore Research Program• Independent Study (I.S.)• Applied Mathematics Research

Experience (AMRE)

Independent Study

Innovation Lab

• Site Visit• Personal Correspondence

Council on UndergraduateResearch

Undergraduate Research Programs: Building, Enhancing, Sustaining

• Annual Research Day • Conference

Fort Valley State University

Undergraduate Research Program • Annual Research Day • Conference Meetings• Website Review• Personal Correspondence

George Mason University

• Students as Scholars• Office of Student Scholarship,

Creative Activities and Research (OSCAR)

• QEP• Website• Creative Activity

Focus

• GMU rep visited CAU’s campus

• QEP Consultant• Personal Correspondence• Website Review

Georgia Institute ofTechnology

Undergraduate ResearchOpportunities Program (UROP)

• Specific designation for research courses

• Site Visit

Johns Hopkins University

• Undergraduate Research• PURA (Provost’s

Undergraduate Research Awards)

• DURA (Dean’s Undergraduate Research Awards)

• Woodrow Wilson Fellowship

• Annual Research Day • Site Visit

The University ofCalifornia, Davis

Undergraduate Research Center • Undergraduate Research office

• Site Visit

University ofMaryland

Maryland Center forUndergraduate Research (MCUR)

• Website Review

University ofMemphis

Undergraduate Research,Scholarship and Creative Activities

Publication of StudentResearch

• Site Visit


3

Conclusion

Supported by the best practice literature reviews, the MUSE QEP will serve as an effective approach to engage in and enhance undergraduate student learning and to prepare them to become contributing citizens in the mainstream of society.

Therefore, this MUSE QEP is intentionally designed to reshape the University’s curriculum by transforming the undergraduate experience through students’ use of, and exposure to, original creative and research activities. It is also structured to provide students with significant opportunities to connect classroom learning to real world situations. Through scientific discovery and creative activities and courses students will be engaged in their field of study and create original bodies of work that will expand the knowledge of humankind.


3

VI. Actions to be Implemented

Clark Atlanta University aims to enhance faculty-mentored undergraduate creative and research activities. To this end, the goals of MUSE are to enhance visibility and student awareness of scholarly endeavors at the University, create a culture where creative and research activities are translated into practice, and develop an infrastructure to support and sustain a culture of undergraduate scholarly activities.

Overview

The MUSE program is driven by three goals and supported by various strategies outlined in this section. The cornerstone of this program is the introduction of all students to the Discovery of Scholarship and Scholarly Inquiry. Further, students will be encouraged to progress to the Intensive Research and Scholarship and Multi-Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarship Inquiry levels beyond MUSE. Courses throughout the curriculum that emphasize creative and research activities at the Scholarly Inquiry level will be identified. As these courses are identified and aligned with MUSE requirements, they will be designated through the registration system in order to correspond with the level of learning (see Goal 2-A). This will enhance visibility for students who want to pursue creative and research endeavors.

It is expected that many of the enhancements made in this process will be carried out within the schools. When courses are identified and/or modified, departments must follow the University’s governance protocol and go through the appropriate curriculum committees for academic program/courses review and approval as required. MUSE does not act in a governing capacity, but rather is a resource intended to assist faculty in developing and enhancing scholarly opportunities for students. The MUSE Director will oversee activities and supervise staff involved in the various aspects of the program. Along with the MUSE Director and staff, a MUSE Advisory Council will assist academic departments in creating effective plans that align with CAU’s Strategic Plan, university governance, and discipline-related scholarship.

Additional strategies that will contribute to the success of MUSE include a Celebration of Scholarship, which will recognize student and faculty scholarship, faculty mentorship training, a website, and enhancement of co-curricular support activities. The activities described in this section will be implemented in phases to allow for incremental execution of the MUSE program goals and objectives.

Goal 1: Enhance the Visibility and Student Awareness of Creative and Research Activities at CAU

In order to enhance undergraduate creative and research activities, MUSE will focus on the visibility and awareness of the program. Students, faculty, and staff must be aware of the opportunities and support systems available in order to actively pursue participation or direct students to opportunities. In this vein, MUSE will move to infuse creative and research activities into the curriculum in such a way that all students will be exposed to Discovery of Scholarship and Scholarly Inquiry during their time at CAU. Those who wish to pursue creative and research activities beyond MUSE at the Intensive Research and Scholarship and Multi-Disciplinary/Multi- Method Scholarship Inquiry levels will have the opportunity to do so through the CURC. Emphasis will be placed on including students from all disciplines and capturing students early in their academic careers.


3

A. Introduce Discovery of Scholarship to all first-year students

Acknowledging the importance of creative and research activities in the development of students as future scholars, MUSE proposes the identification, modification/development of creative and research-focused courses across undergraduate disciplines at CAU.

First Year Seminar I and II (CGED 100/CGED 101) courses will be modified to include a module on creative and research activities. These modules will expose students to the Discovery of Scholarship level. College Composition II (CENG 106), course required for all students, will also include an introduction to creative and research activities such as a research paper to develop knowledge around synthesizing information and presenting it in a scholarly manner. This course will be modified to include appropriate introductory material that serve as a foundation for scholarly activities in any discipline. Students in First Year Seminar I and II and College Composition II will be encouraged to attend the Celebration of Scholarship (see Goal 1-B) to assist in exposing students to the mentored scholarly works happening at CAU.

B. Broaden exposure for undergraduate students

The University currently offers several programs which celebrate the achievements of our undergraduate students. However, no single event exists which showcases the work of all students, regardless of academic discipline. With this in mind, the University has initiated an Undergraduate Research Symposium effective Spring 2016. This Symposium, coordinated by the Center for Undergraduate Research and Creativity (CURC), will be open to all undergraduates and provide the opportunity for students to display, perform, discuss, or present their work in a professional setting. The Undergraduate Research Symposium offers students the ability to develop public speaking and presentation skills. Additionally, as a free event, it serves as a forum for other members of the campus and community to engage in student research.

The Undergraduate Research Symposium is not intended to replace the events offered by some departments and programs at CAU but to augment them. Currently departments sponsor senior recitals, senior art exhibitions, spring fashion shows and the Cancer Center’s research day. The MUSE program will provide developmental support to departments or schools that have isolated celebrations of student achievement, and it will identify and support departments that have no such events. Support will include publicity, creation of repositories appropriate for the various disciplines, suggestions for the streamlining of events, inclusion in the campus-wide celebration, and other suggestions pertaining to research and creativity as needed. The result of this support will be the inclusion of more disciplines in the campus-wide celebration, thus broadening participation. Currently much of the efforts to recognize students have emphasized research in the STEM disciplines. New efforts under MUSE will seek to expand recognition to all disciplines and include creative work as worthy of acknowledgement.

As such, a celebration of Scholarly Endeavors will be created as an annual event to recognize student and faculty achievements. The entire CAU community will be invited to this two-day celebration event which will include an exhibition of student work. On the first day, students will present traditional research through oral and poster presentations, displays of creative works in the form of art exhibits, fashion design presentations, vocal performances, musical recitals, community projects and other creative works from across all disciplines. On the second day students and faculty will be recognized for their efforts throughout the year with an awards ceremony.


3

C. Increase the exposure of first-year students to research

The celebration of student achievement in Scholarly Endeavors will provide an opportunity for first- year students to gain exposure to the creative and research works of more advanced undergraduate students. To this end, attendance at the celebration will be a mandatory requirement for all students in First Year Seminars I and II (CGED 100/101). The MUSE Office and CURC will provide all coordinators of First Year Seminars with dates for the celebratory event a semester in advance, so that the date(s) can be incorporated into course syllabi, along with an appropriate objective and learning outcome, if needed. Seminar coordinators will document attendance and submit numbers to MUSE, enabling quantification of broadened participation through the First Year Seminars.

All entering first-year students are required to complete two (2) semesters of First Year Seminar, a course sequence that creates opportunity for high-educational impact practices. Structured to introduce students to a chosen major discipline as well as to orient students to the University, the course is coordinated by a faculty member from each discipline. The course provides excellent opportunity for students to gain introductory exposure to creative and research activities. The vision of MUSE is to infuse creative and research activities throughout the curriculum, therefore emphasis is placed on course content throughout a student’s matriculation. These Seminars will be modified to include a module and other content to acclimate students to creative and research activities at CAU.

Goal 2: Establish a Culture and an Environment in Which Creative and Research Activities are Translated into Practice

The MUSE program participants will coordinate opportunities for students to translate their creative and research experiences into practice. Students will work with faculty mentors to engage in creative/research activities and to present their work at local, national, and international conferences. Students will also be offered the opportunity to submit their creative/research works to MUSE journal for publication. The CURC will organize regular on campus seminars/forums where students will showcase their creative/research works and performances.

A. Identify courses that provide opportunities for students to engage in creative and research activities

As the Discovery of Scholarship level is implemented in Year-1 (AY 2017-2018) via First Year Seminar I and II (CGED 100/CGED 101) and College Composition II (CENG 106), academic programs, with support of the MUSE Director and Advisory Council, will identify courses that meet the criteria for Scholarly Inquiry. Courses may be modified or enhanced. In some programs, new courses may need to be developed to help bridge the gap between Discovery of Scholarship and the Scholarly Inquiry levels.

•DS Module

Year 0Development

•SI CourseIdentification

Year 1

Year 2

•DS Modules Implementation and Assessment•SI Courses, Assignments, and Rubrics Modified as needed•SI Courses Offered and Assessed

Year 3

•DS Courses for 2017- 2018 Cohort Offered and Assessed•SI Courses Offered and Assessed

•DS Courses for 2018-2019 Cohort Offered and Assessed

Ongoing Implementaion and Assessment


3

Figure 1. Implementation Design

CAU’s new core curriculum incorporates ePortfolios. As part of ongoing efforts to revamp the curriculum to accommodate new core there have been recommendations that departments include ePortfolios in their current curriculum revisions. This initiative can also benefit the MUSE program’s curriculum audits. Special attention will be given to the inclusion of developing MUSE student ePortfolios to serve as a repository of student work toward graduation. When MUSE is implemented, departments may consider how to include creative and research works in the ePortfolio.

The MUSE Director will coordinate the implementation of all DS and SI, creative and research activities courses, and Faculty Development and Training for the QEP as described in Goal 3-A. The MUSE Director will consult with departments (including chairs and deans) on the development of appropriate definitions and designations of courses. Curriculum audits should highlight the nature of creative and research activities in selected classroom exercises and all other assignments, where plausible.

B. Curriculum-based faculty-mentored undergraduate creative and research activities and/or courses

Since mentoring is an essential element in the development of undergraduate researchers, all undergraduate research mentors will serve as guides, resources, and role models for methods of inquiry in a chosen field of study and for the responsible conduct of research. Faculty mentors will engage and encourage students through the entire research and creativity process; from formulating research questions to designing a strategy to address those questions to interpreting


3

collected data. Faculty mentors will also facilitate dissemination of results to professional audiences by supporting students’ participation in conferences, publication of manuscripts, and presentations to clients and the general public. In this way, faculty mentors will often provide students with an enhanced understanding of their field and their first entry into professional circles. These activities will range from more traditional research efforts, such as developing and testing hypotheses in a lab setting, to non-traditional undertakings, such as fashion shows, art exhibitions, developing community programs, and more.

Faculty-student mentoring relationships are both productive and transformative. A faculty mentor will motivate students as they transition from “consumers” of knowledge into “producers” of original, intellectual, or creative contributions to their disciplines. Typically, such close faculty- student relationships have a tremendous impact on a student’s academic, professional, and personal development (Salsman, Dulaney, Chinta, Zascavage, & Joshi, 2013; Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, and Lerner 1998; Kinkead 2003; Lopatto 2004 & 2010; & Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Undergraduate researchers develop skills such as ethical decision making, critical thinking, and effective communication. Students also gain confidence and self-efficacy as they accomplish their goals and take ownership of their work (Hurtado et al., 2008).

Goal 3: Develop the Infrastructure and Ethos to Sustain and Elevate Undergraduate Creative and Research Activities

CAU has a dedicated faculty and outstanding scholars and researchers who routinely and creatively engage students. In order to sustain a culture of undergraduate creative and research activities, first a culture that recognizes, respects, and rewards faculty must be maintained. Second, appropriate ongoing opportunities for faculty training and development must be offered. Third, a website that fulfills multiple functions related to organization, dissemination, communication, and preservation in support of undergraduate student creative and research activities must be created and maintained. Finally, co-curricular support for all endeavors related to undergraduate creative and research activities must be ensured and sustained. Recognition, respect, and rewards are crucial in promoting faculty engagement for this initiative.

A. Provide professional development and training to support faculty involvement in the QEP

The emphasis on ongoing faculty development and training is critical to the success of MUSE. Opportunities for faculty development and training will be made available to enhance faculty capacity in the implementation of MUSE program. Professional development will be afforded to participating faculty in the form of both workshop-based training and on-line resources. The Center for Faculty Professional Development (CFPD) serves as an essential part of the infrastructure that supports the MUSE program and provides needed faculty training.

1. Conduct a needs assessment

A needs assessment inventory will be administered to gather information regarding tangible and intangible support faculty require in order to more fully engage undergraduate students in creative and research activities. The feedback will aid MUSE and the CFPD staff in identifying training requirements and on offering a series of workshops to help support faculty, chairs, and deans in meeting their needs.


3

2. Develop training and workshops for faculty, chairs, and deans

A series of new faculty development workshops focused on training in undergraduate research- oriented curricula will be structured and promoted by the MUSE Director. The CFPD training workshops that enable faculty to incorporate a variety of pedagogies (most notably related to technology) into the classroom are already in place. These new workshops will serve to augment the existing pedagogical training provided by the CFPD. The MUSE Director will collaborate with the CFPD Director to launch such training for faculty as well as develop administrator workshops for academic chairs and school deans to provide faculty support. The MUSE Director will collaborate with the CFPD to provide training in mentorship, with special emphasis on the growing needs of junior faculty. This training will be open to all faculty members who wish to develop mentorship skills. The MUSE Director will organize a Community of Mentors for junior faculty by posting to the MUSE website (See Goal 3-C) general information and an “expertise locator” where seasoned faculty can self-identify expertise. The MUSE Director will also seek the input of seasoned senior faculty from diverse disciplines as well as other experts in matters pertaining to research- oriented mentorship. The directors of CFPD and MUSE will collectively develop a guide for faculty mentors, outlining parameters and expectations of good mentorship.

B. Create and implement a system of recognition and reward

Recognition, respect, and rewards are critical components of making MUSE program successful. A variety of incentives will be created to attract faculty and encourage their participation in all aspects of the MUSE program.

Recognition and awards will include an awards banquet at the closing session of the annual Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors, whereby faculty will be acknowledged and receive awards for their superior efforts in mentoring undergraduate students in creative and research activities through the curriculum. Students will also receive awards and recognition for creative and research works produced in the SI courses.

C. Create and maintain a MUSE website

The development and maintenance of an effective website is critical to the success of MUSE. In June of 2015, the QEP writing team conducted a review of university research web pages from several research universities within the United States. This review included a group of selected research universities within the state of Georgia, other universities identified by the CAU administration as aspirant institutions and/or top tier elite universities. This review focused exclusively on undergraduate creative and research activities, with the aim of locating the best models for a web presence, congruent with the direction of our QEP. Isolated strengths were identified at Kennesaw State University, University of Miami, University of Pittsburgh, University of Southern California, and Northwestern University.

Characteristics of the best designs include the following:

• Easy to locate from university’s home page• Presence of an online undergraduate research journal• Presence of an online repository containing documents (pdf, html, etc.) and media

(YouTube, wmv, flickr, etc.)• Distinctive celebrations of undergraduate research and creativity pages

4

Clark Atlanta University – Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors These pages typically include clear guidelines for posters, panels, abstracts, exhibitions, performances, and electronic media; clear provisions for all disciplines; awards categories and details; a frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) link, a calendar, eligibility requirements, and application guidelines. Additional features outlined on these websites include:

• Archives of undergraduate achievement from past years, categorized by discipline or division of disciplines

• Clearly categorized tabs and headings• Usage of blogs and e-newsletters• A well-organized wide range of information

About us page; Programs and opportunities Fellowships, grants, and funding; Advising; Innovations and intellectual property; Centers and Institutes; Calendar of events; Library resources.

The MUSE Director will coordinate with the University’s web content developer to design and maintain a MUSE website that will integrate the aforementioned features and attributes. This website should be linked and coordinated with ScholarBridge, a tool already in use at CAU to help scholars connect.

D. Create a system of co-curricular support for creative and research activities

To fully engage undergraduate students and promote creative and research activities, there must also be support outside the classroom. As part of the departmental-level audit process, the departments will identify their current efforts to support creative and research activities, as well as document areas of need within their respective disciplines. The MUSE staff will conduct an audit of campus-wide support for creative and research initiatives, including reports from departmental level audit. This will allow the MUSE program to become a centralized resource for students requiring support needed for creative and research activities.

Depending on the results of the audits and the needs of schools and departments, the MUSE staff will coordinate efforts to create new supports for participating disciplines. This may include, for example, the development of a Scholarship Clinic, where students can meet with a designated point person in any discipline to discuss efforts for writing, publication, or other dissemination of scholarly activities. Such efforts will be different from the current offerings in writing labs in that the Scholarship Clinic will assist students by providing discipline-specific feedback in areas, such as writing an effective proposal, submitting an abstract to a conference, and preparing effective presentation. Co-curricular support will also include identification of conferences and other forums for which students can apply to present or represent CAU. Awards to support student travel/lodging, registration and other related expenses may be provided by the University.


4

VII. MUSE Program Timeline

Activity/Task

Yea

r 0

20

16

-17

Yea

r 1

20

17

-18

Yea

r 2

20

18

-19

Yea

r 3

20

19

-20

Yea

r 4

20

20

-21

Yea

r 5

20

21

-22

Responsibility

MUSE Pre-implementation Goal: Operationalize QEP (MUSE Initiative).Establish MUSE office facilities Provost/VPSelect and hire MUSE Director President/ProvostHire additional program support staff MUSE DirectorEstablish MUSE Advisory Council Provost/MUSE Director

Goal 1: Enhance the visibility and student awareness of creative and research activities at CAU.

A. Introduce Discovery of Scholarship to all first-year students.Modify First Year Seminar (research module) and College Composition II courses to include assignments/activities related tothe DS level

Provost/MUSE Director/ Advisory Council

Implement revised DS level courses (First Year Seminar, College Composition II)

MUSE Director/Advisory Council/Deans/Chairs

Assess DS level courses (First Year Seminar, College Composition II)

MUSE Director/ Academic Departments

Identify and develop co-curricular supportsMUSE Director/School Deans/ Academic Departments

B. Broaden exposure for undergraduate students.Develop a 2-day Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors event (UG Research Symposium)

MUSE /CURC Directors

Invite undergraduates to participate in and attend 2-day celebration of Celebration ofScholarly Endeavors event

MUSE Director

C. Increase the exposure of first-year students to researchModify First Year Seminar (research module) and College Composition II coursesto include DS content information

Provost/MUSE Director/ Advisory Council

First Year Seminar students attend a 2-day Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors event

MUSE /CURC Directors

Goal 2: Establish a culture and an environment in which creative and research activities are translated into practice.A. Identify courses that provide opportunities for students to engage in creative and research activities

Identify SI courses via curriculum audit MUSE Director /School Deans/Dept. Chairs & FacultyModify SI courses as needed

Coordinate with registrar's office to designate SI courses in Banner

Departments/MUSE/Registrar

Implement SI courses MUSE Director /School Deans/Dept. Chairs & FacultyAssess SI courses

B. Curriculum-based faculty mentored undergraduate creative and research activities and/or courses.Implement DS level courses/activities

MUSE Director /School Deans/Dept. Chairs & Faculty

Modify SI level courses as neededImplement SI courses/activities


4

Activity/Task

Yea

r 0

20

16

-17

Yea

r 1

20

17

-18

Yea

r 2

20

18

-19

Yea

r 3

20

19

-20

Yea

r 4

20

20

-21

Yea

r 5

20

21

-22

Responsibility

Participate in a 2-day Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors

MUSE Director/Faculty

Goal 3: Develop the infrastructure and ethos to sustain and elevate undergraduate creative and research activities.

A. Provide professional development and training to support faculty involvement in the QEP.

Conduct needs assessment for faculty development

MUSE/CFPD DirectorsCreate new workshops on mentoring for faculty, department chairs, and schooldeansDevelop mentoring guide for faculty

B. Create and implement a system of recognition and rewards.

Develop criteria for incentives and awardsProvost/MUSE Director/ Advisory Council

Disseminate awards at Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors

MUSE Director

C. Create and maintain a MUSE Website.Coordinate with the University’s web content developer to design and maintain aMUSE website

MUSE Director/CAU web developer

D. Create a system of co-curricular support for creative and research activities.Identify existing co-curricular resources and coordinate with MUSE

MUSE Director/ Students Affairs/Career Services

Develop new co-curricular resources that support creative and research activities ofstudents

MUSE/CURC Directors

MUSE Director

MUSEAdvisory Council

Office Staff Assistant MUSE Assessment Coordinator


4

VIII. Organizational Structure

A. MUSE Staff

Clark Atlanta University has the infrastructure needed to support the implementation of the MUSE program. The University is committed to providing the support needed to ensure its continued success. A director will be hired for the MUSE program during year 0 (AY 2016-2017) The MUSE program office will be housed on campus in the Thomas Cole Research Science Center.

The MUSE Director will oversee the implementation of the QEP related functions, including monitoring student-faculty engagement, program marketing, assessment, reporting, faculty development, training workshops, and the integration of the MUSE courses/activities with undergraduate academic programs for the DS and SI levels.

The MUSE Assessment Coordinator will manage all program assessment activities. This will include activities such as data collection, consultation with departments and faculty, data analysis, writing reports and sharing findings with appropriate stakeholders.

The Staff Assistant will support the MUSE Director and the Assessment Coordinator and supporting personnel to ensure appropriate and current information is available on the website, and attend meetings as needed. The Staff Assistant will be in charge of MUSE website management and maintenance which will require coordination with the Director to post research opportunities and manage the database.

Two Undergraduate Fellows will be selected through an application process from existing Presidential Scholars, whereby the students demonstrate a serious interest and commitment to research. The Fellows will assist with MUSE office functions, attend relevant meetings, and participate as members of the MUSE Advisory Council. The Fellows will be charged with acting as liaisons within the student community, promoting the MUSE, and various related functions (including the annual Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors) with the University community.

Figure 2 illustrates the Organizational Structure of the MUSE program.

Figure 2. MUSE Organizational Structure


4

B. MUSE Advisory Council

The MUSE Advisory Council will consist of the directors of MUSE, CURC, CIED, RSP, CFPD, eleven faculty representatives from the four academic schools (Arts and Science, Business Administration, Education, and Social Work), MUSE assessment coordinator, two undergraduate students, and one graduate student. Table 11 provides a list of the MUSE Advisory Council membership.

Table 11: MUSE Advisory Council Members

The Director will serve as the Chair of MUSE Advisory Council. The Director, in consultation with the MUSE Advisory Council, will oversee the development of instructions and templates for curriculum audits, review departmental reports stemming from audits, review research course designations, assess and implement professional development needs and review grant proposals.

The MUSE Director will also coordinate with other University Centers and Divisions to ensure and enhance the implementation of other aspects of the QEP, including faculty training and development, website and media efforts, as well as promoting the MUSE program.

C. MUSE Collaborators

The success of the MUSE program will be dependent upon effective collaboration with established departments and units within the University. The MUSE Director will work in concert with various units, clarifying each unit’s role in the execution of this program. Seven major units have been initially identified as key collaborators for implementing and continuously managing this program. Table 12 provides a list of MUSE collaborators and their roles for supporting this QEP.

• Chair: MUSE Director• Directors: CURC, CIED, RSP, CFPD• Assessment Coordinator• Faculty Representatives: School of Arts and Sciences; Business; Education;

Social Work 5 from School of Arts & Sciences (1 from Natural Sciences, Social Sciences,

Communication Arts, and 2 from Humanities with at least 1 from performance art)

2 from School of Business Administration 2 from School of Education 2 from School of Social Work

• 2 Undergraduate Presidential Scholar students and 1 Graduate Student


4

Table 12: MUSE Collaborators and Supporting Roles

MUSE Collaborators Role1. Center for Undergraduate Research and Creativity

(CURC)Support research partnering activities

2. Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurial Development (CIED)

Assist in cultivating partnerships with industry

3. Center for Faculty and Professional Development (CFPD)

Collaborate for faculty development

4. Division of Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP)Provide annual faculty research data. Support faculty/student research efforts

5. Center for Academic Student Success (CASS) Support course development activities6. University Research Centers (URC) Provide projects and training for students7. Office of the Registrar Support course designation in Banner8. Student Life Provide project partnerships with MUSE


4

IX. Resources

Clark Atlanta University has a dedicated faculty and outstanding scholars and researchers who engage students by sharing their knowledge, skills, innovations and ideas. Appendix VIII lists the many existing partnerships. As these data indicate, the overwhelming majority of our current research initiatives are in the STEM areas. There is a need to engage all students and faculty in non- STEM related creative and research activities and, as such, the University will create the mechanisms to bring faculty together to work on interdisciplinary and joint projects that engage undergraduate students and enhance their overall learning experience.

1. Sustainability : The MUSE program represents sound strategies for effective pedagogical, curricular and course-based mentoring approaches to foster a creative and research activities based culture among undergraduates. The MUSE program aligns with the University’s strategic priorities and represents a strong design for its wholesome integration into the University’s best practices and planning for physical space allocations, curricular development, financial commitments, student training and mentoring, and faculty release time eligibility. This effort is also strongly supported by the University stakeholders.

2. Infrastructure : The University has committed facilities within (1) the Center for Undergraduate Research and Creativity (CURC) and (2) the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurial Development. The CURC will house the MUSE program office and a director for the MUSE program will be hired in Year-0 (AY 2016-2017). The MUSE Director will appoint additional support staff as delineated in the organizational structure. The operating budget will be set by the University’s Budget Office to include operating expenses and salaries for the director and support staff. In addition, the MUSE Director will work with the MUSE Advisory Council, faculty members from various departments, the director of research and sponsored program, and collaborating Centers to identify additional extramural funding from sources such as Mellon Foundation, Ford Foundation, and other federal agencies to support and expand the activities of the MUSE program.

3. Instruction : The new general education core curriculum will provide a formal and permanent avenue for orienting students to creative and research activities while preparing them for careers within their field or advanced studies. For the MUSE program, courses will be identified, modified/developed at the Scholarly Inquiry-SI level across the University. These courses will be designed to assist students in learning content and skills needed for evaluating scholarly work and understanding it in a larger context.


4

Table 13: MUSE Operational Budget

QEP Proposed Budget Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 52016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022

QEP Director $47,500 $95,000 $97,850 $100,786 $103,809 $106,923Staff Assistant $40,000 $41,200 $42,436 $43,709 $45,020Assessment Coordinator (New)

$14,483$50,000 $51,500 $53,045 $54,636 $56,275

Fringe Benefits (30.49%) $56,407 $58,099 $59,842 $61,637 $63,486Contingency $15,000 $12,500 $10,000 $7,500 $5,000Summer Faculty/Course Development/Supplemental Pay $18,000 $24,000 $24,000 $18,000 $18,000Personnel (Salaries & Wages) Subtotal $79,983 $280,407 $285,149 $284,108 $289,291 $276,705

MUSE Celebration of Scholarship & Research Support 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000Awards and Honors $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000Printing & Duplication $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000Travel (Faculty & Staff travel to conferences & workshops) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000Student Travel Awards $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Council of Undergraduate Research Institutional Membership $860 $860 $860 $860 $860 $860Celebration of Scholarship & Research Support Subtotal $860 $40,860 $40,860 $40,860 $40,860 $40,860

MUSE Training & Development 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022Professional Development (training, workshops, etc.) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $2,000 $2,000Consultants $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $6,000 $6,000Training & Development Subtotal $0 $18,000 $18,000 $20,000 $14,000 $16,000

MUSE Infrastructure 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022Website Development $10,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000Advertising/Marketing $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $2,000 $2,000Computers $4,500Software $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000Office Supplies $500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000Infrastructure Subtotal $10,500 $17,500 $13,000 $13,000 $8,000 $12,000

Total $91,343 $356,767 $357,009 $357,968 $352,151 $345,565

Additional Funding Sources Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Mellon Grant $195,000 $40,000 $79,000 $76,000STEM $40,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000UNCF Grant $320,000 (pending but currently funded by the University) $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000Total $40,000 $167,000 $164,000 $88,000 $88,000 $88,000

University portion minus grants $51,343 $189,767 $193,009 $269,968 $264,151 $257,565

Revised August 17, 2016

A. Personnel (Salaries & Wages)

In order to sustain the MUSE program a clear foundation must be established to plan, implement and oversee the program activities. One of the goals of MUSE is to develop an infrastructure to support and sustain a culture of undergraduate creative and research activities. Key personnel are essential to developing and maintaining this program. Personnel salaries and wages will be covered through the University’s unrestricted funds.

CAU will appoint a full time director for the MUSE who will report to the office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The QEP budget reflects the cost of this new position. The MUSE Director will coordinate and supervise all program specific activities in collaboration with the CURC, CIED, CFPD, and department chairs and school deans. The MUSE Director will be responsible for ensuring the achievement of program goals. A full-time Staff Assistant will also be employed during the AY 2017-2018 to support the varied activities of MUSE. In addition, an Assessment Coordinator will be hired to administer instruments, analyze data, and complete


4

reports for annual assessment activities beginning in the AY 2017-2018 school year and throughout the programs duration to measure the progress of the MUSE goals.

The MUSE Director will have the support of two Federal Work Study students (undergraduate) beginning AY 2017-2018. In addition, the University will fund two undergraduate Presidential Scholar students to work with the MUSE program each year beginning AY 2017-2018. These students will provide the MUSE Director, Staff Assistant, and Assessment Coordinator with assistance in their duties and responsibilities.

For the remaining budget categories in Table 13 above (Celebration of Scholarship & Research Support, Training & Development, and Infrastructure) the University has allocated funds. The current Mellon Foundation Grant will fund the first three academic years (2017-18 – 2019-20) of the program, after which the University will appropriate funds as well as seek additional extramural funding sources. The details for non-salaried budget items are described below.

B. MUSE celebration of scholarship and research support

One purpose of the MUSE program is to create a culture where creative and research activities are translated into practice. Resources have been allocated to create that culture. An annual Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors will recognize student scholars and faculty mentors at the end of Year-1 (2017-2018). This 2-day event will include an exhibition of student work and an awards ceremony. Students with exceptional creative or research activities will be recognized. Funding of$5,000 for the exhibition and $2,000 for awards and honors has been allocated annually.

The MUSE publication of abstracts of student work will be published once during the academic year. The funds for the publication include $3,000 for design each year and $5,000 MUSE Research Journal ($5 per booklet for 1,000 copies), for a total of $8,000. An electronic version of full works will be available and disseminated online with no additional cost.

Student travel awards will be granted to present the results of MUSE related creative and research activities. Students will compete for travel awards from an annual $15,000 allocation. Also, an annual amount of $10,000 has been set aside to support faculty and student travel. These funds will be granted to mentors presenting MUSE related creative and research activities with undergraduate mentees.

Another goal of the MUSE program is to strengthen visibility and student awareness of creative and research activity at CAU. Research and creativity infused courses are fundamental to reach this goal and faculty members are essential to this work. As part of the curriculum audit, the department will submit a proposal for up to $5,000 for materials, equipment, software, or other supplies needed to initiate the curriculum audit to include undergraduate creative and research activities. This audit must be completed at the end of the AY 2017-2018. For the first two and one half years of this QEP we currently have in hand more than sufficient funding from the Mellon Foundation and other grants to meet the costs in MUSE Celebration of Scholarship & Research Support. Our STEM faculty incorporates support for faculty and student travel to meetings in their funded projects. Faculty have also committed to seeking additional restricted support in this area. Additional funding up to$ 12,000 per year will be provided by the University’s unrestricted funds if needed.

C. Outreach and visibility support

A functional website will be critical to the success of the MUSE program. During Year-0 (2016- 2017), an external firm will be granted up to $10,000 to develop a MUSE website. One thousand


4

dollars will be used for maintenance during Years 1-4 (AY 2017-2018 – AY 2020-2021). Another$5,000 will be expended during Year-5 (AY 2021-2022) to update the existing site.

Effective marketing will be essential in building awareness and interest in the MUSE program. During Year-1 (AY 2017-2018), $20,000 has been allotted to fund necessary marketing tools. An annual marketing budget of $10,000 will begin during Year-2 (AY 2018-2019).

The day-to-day operations of MUSE program implementation will include activities such as planning, reporting, collecting data, conducting training and meetings. These activities will require necessary computers, software and office supplies. Years-0 (AY 2016-2017) and Year-1 (2017- 2018) have a total of $4,500 allocated to purchase computers. Four thousand dollars will be used annually for appropriate software purchase and updates. An annual $1,000 for office supplies will begin during Year-1 (AY 2017-2018) of the MUSE program.

D. Faculty training and development support

Training will be needed to prepare faculty in course development, mentorship and to support effective working relationships between faculty and students. In addition to the course development and other identified training needs, four annual required workshops for faculty mentors and student mentees will be offered (two per semester) in order to support effective working relationships between faculty and students. A line item of $38,000 has been created to fund faculty training throughout the program. An additional $48,000 has been allocated to secure consultants as needed each year.

5


X. Assessment of the Plan

The development of the QEP involved a great deal of discussion around how undergraduate student creative and research activities should look once the QEP is fully implemented. The idea was to infuse creative and research activities throughout the curricular and co-curricular initiatives, resulting in a culture and an environment within which students are actively encouraged to participate and produce original works.

Both formative and summative assessment processes will be managed by the Assessment Coordinator and the MUSE Director in collaboration with the Office of Planning, Assessment, and Institutional Research (OPAR). The primary purpose of assessment will be to monitor/track the progress as well as evaluate the success of the MUSE program in terms of both student learning outcomes and overall program outcomes, which are discussed in more detail below. A matrix aligning the QEP program goals, activities and outcomes based on the program objectives is provided in Exhibit 1 of this document.

A. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

The ultimate goal of the MUSE program is to enhance undergraduate creative and research activities. This is to be achieved through: (1) enhancing visibility and student awareness of research and creative activities at CAU; (2) establishing a culture and an environment in which research and creative activities are translated into practice; and (3) developing the infrastructure and ethos to sustain and elevate undergraduate creative and research activities. The student learning outcomes, as discussed in Section IV, designate that students engaged in the MUSE program activities will be able to master the level of inquiry as listed in Table 14.

Table 14: MUSE Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

Level of Inquiry Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

1 Discovery of Scholarship (DS)

1.1 Recognize the difference between personal beliefs and evidence.1.2 Describe how scholarship influences society.1.3 Identify and articulate the lexicon used within the discipline.1.4 Explain the processes of inquiry used within the discipline.

2 Scholarly Inquiry (SI)

2.1 Describe the epistemological or historical perspectives of a specific discipline.

2.2 Analyze the credibility (validity and reliability) of source information.2.3 Identify appropriate discovery processes for scholarly inquiry.2.4 Assess the validity of key assumptions and evidence.2.5 Conduct evidence-based inquiry to create original work that

contributes to the existing knowledge within the field.2.6 Effectively communicate work to diverse audiences and in a format

appropriate for the discipline.

The MUSE SLOs will be assessed using both direct and indirect measures. The direct measures will utilize pre- and post-tests in the First Year Seminar modules and assessment rubrics developed by faculty in consultation with the MUSE office. The indirect measures will involve the use of student satisfaction and perception surveys.

As a part of the course auditing process, which includes the designation of courses at the Scholarly Inquiry (SI) level, and the identification of specific assignments within each course, the departments will also provide the assessment rubrics that will be used to measure the above listed


5

MUSE SLOs. These rubrics will be reviewed, modified, or created under consultation with the MUSE Director and with the approval of the MUSE Advisory Council. Sample rubrics, which will serve as a basis for departmental rubrics, are provided in the Exhibits section. Assessment within discipline specific courses should follow the guidelines set forth in the sample rubrics, which can be adapted to fit within current courses, assignments, and assessment. Creative and research designated courses will also include a student satisfaction survey (to be developed by the MUSE Advisory Council) that will focus on the student experience in MUSE related courses. The Office of Assessment will provide all required training for faculty involved in assessment of MUSE SLOs.

B. Program Outcomes

In conjunction with the MUSE objectives and student learning outcomes, the program seeks to have:

1a. All first-year students will satisfactorily complete the Discovery of Scholarship (DS) level through First Year Seminar I & II (CGED 100/CGED 101) and College Composition II (CENG 106)



3. An increase in the number and percentage of students participating in creative and research activities:• Across programs/disciplines• At sophomore and junior class levels

C. Assessment of the impact of the MUSE program

The impact of the QEP on student Scholarly Endeavors will be assessed annually (formative) through a triangulation of assessment approaches. Data on student perception, student learning, and student achievement and participation levels will be obtained from multiple sources, including surveys, rubric based assessment of course assignments, and evaluation of student research and creative works in both quantity and quality. This approach will ensure that sufficient data is collected in order to evaluate the impact of the MUSE Program. This QEP assessment plan focuses on the following four areas:

1. Impact on student perception (Indirect Assessment – Self-Reported)2. Impact on student learning (Direct Assessment of Student Learning)3. Impact of student achievement and participation (Direct Learning and Performance

Assessment)4. Impact on the institution (Direct and Summative Assessment)

1. Impact on student perception (Indirect Assessment – Self-Reported)

To assess students’ perception of their skills and abilities, the Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors and Senior Student Exit Survey will be utilized. The Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors (See Appendix XI - A) is an in-house developed instrument designed to measure students’ self-declared level of proficiency in Scholarly Endeavors (creative/research works). This survey includes nine questions specific to students’ creative and research abilities to be rated on a five-point Likert scale


5

ranging from poor to very good. The Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors will be administered to all first-year students in AY 2017-2018 at the New Student Orientation in Fall 2017 prior to the start of the MUSE courses and/or activities. This survey will also be administered to all current non-MUSE Sophomore and Junior students during AY 2017-2018, to establish a perception baseline for cross-classification comparison with Sophomore and Junior students who will have successfully completed MUSE courses and activities.

The Senior Student Exit Survey (See Appendix XI – B, Q 21) is an in-house developed instrument designed to measure graduating student’s perception and satisfaction of programs, services and overall experience at the University. The nine questions specific to the creative and research abilities of students from the Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors will be included in this survey to reassess students’ self-declared level of proficiency in Scholarly Endeavors. The Senior Student Exit Survey will be administered at the end of Year-5 (AY 2021-2022) for all eligible MUSE graduating students. In developing the questions for the Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors and Senior Student Exit Survey the assessment office reviewed the CIRP First College Year Survey and CIRP College Senior Survey to identify related questions asked of student nationally in attaining student perception in the areas of creative and research skills and abilities. Appendix XI – C, outlines the specific question referenced in the development of these surveys.

Each survey will be strategically administered to the students at the designated times to first, determine the first-year students’ perception before the program, secondly, to compare the self- perception of the first-year students as they progress through the program. The perception survey will be administered after the completion of the MUSE modules in Freshman Seminars I and II to determine if the modules have enhanced the students’ perceived levels of proficiency in Scholarly Endeavors. Finally, the data collected from the MUSE participants during their sophomore and junior years via the Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors will be compared to the data collected from the original Sophomore and Junior students surveyed during Year-1 (AY 2017 - 2018), who did not participate in the MUSE program. The data collected via these surveys will help to identify if there is a positive change in the students’ levels of perception as it relates to their creative and/or research skill and abilities.

2. Impact on student learning (Direct Assessment of Student Learning)

The MUSE QEP is centered on student learning and is designed to aid in the development of academic competence such as effective written and oral communication, and quantitative skills, and meeting the requirements of a major. As students matriculate through the academic programs it is expected that with the inclusion of the MUSE courses and activities, students’ development of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions such as critical thinking, reasoning and problem- solving skills, and the overall development of intellectual interests will be enhanced.

The assessment of the MUSE Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) at each level will be conducted through rubric-based evaluations of identified assignments within the selected courses. All first- year students, entering in Fall 2017, will be introduced to Level I, the Discovery of Scholarship (DS), through tailored learning modules in Freshmen Seminar I (CGED 100), which will continue in Freshmen Seminar II (CGED 101). These newly developed modules will include pre- and post-tests and faculty developed rubrics to assess student knowledge gain as a result of successfully completing the class. Further and more in-depth assessment of student learning at the DS level will be conducted in College Composition II (CENG 106). The syllabus and revised rubric used for this course to assess the student research project, writing assignments, and oral presentation are provided in Appendix IX. The items on these rubrics were reviewed and compared to the student learning outcomes at the DS level to ensure that the assignments are appropriate as evidence of


5

mastery of student learning. Prior to the implementation of the MUSE program in AY 2017-2018, baseline data will be collected during Spring 2017 (Year-0), on student completing College Composition II (CENG 106) with the revised assignment rubrics.

All students who would have participated in MUSE at the Freshmen level (DS) would continue to participate in the MUSE Experience through identified courses in their major for Level II-Scholarly Inquiry (SI), that further enhance the opportunity for Scholarly Endeavors. At Level II the student mastery of the identified knowledge, skills, and dispositions (KSDs) will be measured via selected assignments in identified SI courses at the 200 and 300 levels for all degree programs. These assignments will be identified by the faculty and departments in Year-0 (AY 2016-2017). Each assignment and assessment rubric will be reviewed and approved by the MUSE Advisory Council during Years-0 (AY 2016-2017) and Year-1 (AY 2017-2018). The sample rubrics in the Exhibits section will be disseminated to all faculty as a guide for developing new rubrics, or modifying existing assignment rubrics. The rubrics provided are designed to ensure that each selected assignment provides students an opportunity to demonstrate the desired KSDs, and to ensure that the requirements of the assignments are clearly articulated.

3. Impact of student achievement and participation (Direct Learning and Performance Assessment)

The assessment of students’ performance will be based on the artifacts developed and presented by students as part of the learning process. Students will be encouraged to present their scholarly works at the MUSE Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors and the CURC Undergraduate Research Symposium, as well as to other conferences external to the University. Students’ acceptance to both internal and external conferences will be used to validate the quality of their work. In addition, the evaluations at the internal conferences can be used as evidence to support their mastery of the subject matter/learning outcomes, and the impact of the program. The assessment of each student’s performance will be discipline appropriate.

The 2015-2016 CURC Undergraduate Research Symposium served as the base-line for the student participation level. This Symposium introduced components of the MUSE Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors to include both STEM and non-STEM students. The event was a success with 90 students participating. However, 72% of the participants were Seniors, 22% Juniors, 5% were Sophomores. As a result of the MUSE program we anticipate (1) an increase in the number of Sophomore and Junior students presenting at the Symposium, and (2) an increase in the number of students from non-STEM disciplines presenting at the Symposium and the Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors within the first three years of the MUSE program implementation. With a current baseline of Sophomores and Juniors accounting for 27% of the total participants, the target increase is at least 40% of the total participants in the Research Symposium classified as Sophomores and Juniors by Year-4 (AY 2020-2021). In addition, by Year-3 (AY 2019-2020) of the MUSE program our goal is that at least 30% of the participants, presenting at the CURC Undergraduate Research Symposium and the MUSE Celebration of Scholarly Endeavors, represent non-STEM disciplines. This level of participation will serve as the minimum threshold for Years-4 and 5 (AY 2020-2021 and AY 2021-2022).

Table 14 below outlines the expected outcomes of the MUSE program as well as the related assessment methods and success criteria established for the program.


5

Table 14: Program Outcomes and Expectations

Program OutcomeAssessment Method (Data

Collection Tools) Criteria (Expectations)

1a. All first-year students will satisfactorily complete the Discovery of Scholarship (DS) level through First Year Seminar I & II (CGED 100/CGED 101) andCollege Composition II (CENG 106)

Freshman Seminars I & II• Pre- and Post-Tests• Student Surveys – rate the

effectiveness of the modules from the student’s perspective

College Composition II• Research Paper• Writing Assignments• Oral Presentation

At least 80% of the student will• earn a minimum of 75 point on

the post-test.• rate the modules at a 3 or above on a

5 point scale for its effectiveness in meeting the stated objectives

At least 80% of the student will earn a minimum of 75 point on each assignment


Rubrics for identified assignments in selected courses at the 200/300 level to assess student mastery of KSDs outlined in the program SLOs

At least 80% of the student will earn a minimum passing score reflective of assignment rubric ratings scale


Advisory Council course and assessment review rubric criteria to determine course relativeness

Designated SI courses in the Banner system for all 29 undergraduate academic programs by Year 2

3. An increase in the number and percentage of students participating in creative and research activities• Across programs/disciplines• Participation at the

sophomore and junior level

Internal Reports of MUSE student participation by discipline/major and classification in the following events:

• CURC Research Symposium

• MUSE Celebration of Scholars

• Local, Regional and National Conferences

An increase in the sophomore and junior students presentation of creative and research works at the CURC Research Symposium

• Baseline: AY 2015-2016 - appx. 27% Sophomore and Junior students

• Target: at least 40% of students participants at the Symposium will be Sophomore and Juniors by year- 4 (2020-2021)

MUSE Celebration of Scholars (New Initiative)• Baseline: data to be collected in

Year 2• Target for Year 3-5: at least 30%

of the MUSE participants will be non-STEM majors40% will be juniors and seniors

4. Impact on the institution (Direct and Summative Assessment)

The MUSE QEP is aligned with and directly guided by specific priorities, goals, objectives, directives and measures of success outlined in the University Strategic Plan (See Table 8 – Section III). As noted in the plan, the University is focused on enhancing its academic program quality and improving student retention through the use of proven high-impact (best) practices of faculty- student engagement and mentoring, undergraduate research opportunities, and Freshmen Seminars all designed to increase the potential for student participation, learning, and achievement. To this end, the impact of the QEP on the University can be measured through improvements in key


5

performance areas for the University, stakeholder value, and student achievements. Table 15below outlines each area of QEP impact on the University.

Table 15: QEP Impact on CAU

University Impact Success Indicators Measures

Key Performance Benchmarks

1. Improved Student Retention2. Term-To-Term Student

Persistence3. Year-To-Year Student

Progression4. Increased 4 and 6 Graduation5. Increased Career or Higher

Education Placement

1. Retention Rate2. Persistence Rate3. Progression Rate4. Graduation Rate5. Placement Rate

Stakeholder Value & University Rankings

1. Align with and Support CAU Strategic Objectives

2. Establish CAU Uniqueness with Recruits (Elite Scholars)

3. Establish CAU Uniqueness with Recruiters for Elite Graduate Programs and Companies

4. CAU Develops, Supports and Attracts Elite Faculty

1. CAU Key Measures (Revenue, Costs, and other identified institutional Key Performance Indicators)

2. % of Student applicants meeting the university ideal student profile

3. Student Satisfaction with overall university experience

4. Faculty Productivity

Student Achievements

1. Successful Completion of MUSE Courses

2. Undergraduate Research Experiences (Projects, Presentation, Publications)

3. Graduate Degrees4. Employment within the field

1. MUSE Courses Completion Rates2. Number of students conducting

research, presenting at conferences, publishing

3. Number of students accepted to graduate programs

4. Number of student employed within related fields

D. Use of Results for Improving Student Learning and the Program Outcomes

The assessment of the QEP will be an on-going process. Formative assessment results collected from the annual assessment reports, submitted via TracDat (University wide assessment reporting system), will be used to identify ways in which to improve both teaching and learning and continuously enhance student performances and achievements. Integrated into this QEP will be analysis of data collected from various sources including surveys on the learning modules, pre-and post-tests, assessment of student assignments, project, papers, and presentations. This information will help enhance the delivery of instruction, course content and/or structure, student support services, and faculty development and training from year to year. The Summative assessment will enable the University to demonstrate that the goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of the MUSE Program are achieved. In addition, it can serve as roadmap to fundamentally change the culture of teaching and learning at the University through the successful implementation of high impact practice of student-faculty engagement and curriculum infused pedagogy of creativity, research and discovery across all undergraduate academic programs.


5

Conclusion

Clark Atlanta University has developed a comprehensive, well-designed, and integrated assessment of the plan to measure the overall impact of the MUSE QEP on the students, student learning, and the institution. This assessment plan is based on clear goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes that will be evaluated on an on-going basis and the resulting data will be used to continuously improve student learning, curricular and co-curricular activities, and faculty development efforts at the University.


5

XI. Supporting Documents

A. Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Goals, Activities and Program Outcome Alignment Matrix

Exhibit 2: Sample Rubric for SLO Assessment

B. References

C. Appendices

Appendix I: Acronyms

Appendix II: Strategic Plan Recommendations

Appendix III: Timeline for QEP Development

Appendix IV: Campus Survey of QEP Topics

Appendix V: Call for Concept Papers

Appendix VI: Sources for the Development of Definitions and Goals

Appendix VII: Taxonomies of Cognitive Thinking

Appendix VIII: Existing Partnerships

Appendix IX: CENG 106 College Composition II

Appendix X: Beyond MUSE – The Institutional Commitment

Appendix XI: Assessment of QEP Impact – Student Perception Instruments


5

A: Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Goals, Activities, and Program Outcomes Alignment Matrix

Goals Activities

Program Outcomes

1a. All first-year students will satisfactorily complete the Discovery of Scholarship (DS) level through First Year Seminar I & II (CGED 100/CGED 101)and College Composition II (CENG 106)

1b. All first-year students that start in AY 2017-2018 or beyond will satisfactorily complete Scholarly Inquiry (SI) 200/300 levelcourses and/or experiences


3. An increase in the number and percentage of students participating in creative and research activities:• Across programs/

disciplines• At Sophomore and Junior

class levels

Goal 1: Enhance the visibility and student awareness of creative and research activity at CAU.

A. Introduce Discovery of Scholarship to all first-year students.

X X X

B. Broaden exposure for undergraduate students X X

C. Increase the exposure of first-year students to research X

Goal 2: Establish a culture and an environment in which creative and research activities are translated into practice.

A. Identify courses that provide opportunities for students to engage in creative and research activities

X X

B. Curriculum-based faculty-mentored undergraduate creative and research activities and/or courses

X X X

Goal 3: Develop the infrastructure and ethos to sustain and elevate undergraduate creative and research activities.

A. Provide professional development and training to support faculty involvement in the QEP.

X X

B. Create and implement a system of faculty recognition and rewards. X

C. Create and maintain a MUSE Website. X X

D. Create a system of co-curricular support for creative and research activities. X


Exhibit 2: Sample Rubric for SLO Assessment

Level of Scholarship

QEP Student Learning Outcomes

Level of Competence

Novice (1) Emerging (2) Proficient (3) Advanced (4)

Dis

cove

ry o

f Sch

olar

ship

(D

S)

1. Recognize the difference between personal beliefs and evidence.

Unable to make distinctions among personal beliefs, opinions, claims and evidence-based understanding.

Occasionally make accurate distinctions among personal beliefs, opinions, claims and evidence-basedunderstanding.

Usually make accurate distinctions among personal beliefs, opinions, claims and evidence-based understanding.

Consistently make accurate distinctions among personal beliefs, opinions, claims and evidence-based understanding.

2. Describe how scholarship influences society.

Explain none of the implications of new knowledge and societalimpact.

Explain a few of the implications of new knowledge and societalimpact.

Explain some of the implications of new knowledge and societalimpact.

Explain multiple implications of new knowledge and societal impact.

3. Identify and articulate the lexicon used within the discipline.

Demonstrate only a limited understanding of discipline- specific language.

Occasionally demonstrate understanding of discipline-specificlanguage.

Generally demonstrate understanding of discipline-specificlanguage.

Consistently demonstrate recognition and articulation of discipline-specific lexicon.

4. Explain the processes of inquiry and/or expression used within the discipline.

Demonstrate only a limited awareness of appropriate research and/or expressive methodologies used in the field; identify few elements of the methodologies used in previous conducted research and/or creative activity.

Occasionally identify appropriate methodology used for research and/or creative activities in the field; identify some key elements of the methodologies used in previously conducted research and/or creativity; and recognize some advantages and limitations of a particularmethodology.

Generally identify appropriate methodologies used for research and/or creativity in the field; describe the methodologies used in previously conducted research and/or creative works in the field; and recognize some advantages and limitations of different methodologies.

Consistently identify appropriate methodologies for exploring a range of research questions and or creative products; explain the design of the methodologies used in previously conducted research and/or creative works in the field; and recognize advantages and limitations of different methodologies.

59


6



Level of Competence

Novice (1) Emerging (2) Proficient (3) Advanced (4)Sc

hol

arly

Inq

uir

y (S

I)1. Implement the

epistemological or historical perspectives of a specific discipline.

Acquire information using rudimentary strategies; retrieve information that lacks relevance and quality; demonstrate no ability to refine inquiry.

Acquire information using simple strategies; retrieve information about previous scholarship from limited and narrow sources that may not provide or support analysis; demonstrate limited ability to refine inquiry in response to evidence.

Acquire information using a variety of strategies and some credible information sources; retrieve information about previous scholarship from sources that provide and enable analysis and/or synthesis; demonstrate ability to refine inquiry in response to evidence.

Acquire information using effective, well-designed strategies and the most appropriate information sources; retrieve information about previous scholarship from credible sources that provide and enable comprehensive analysis and/or synthesis; effectively refine inquiry in response to evidence

2. Analyze the credibility (validity and reliability) of source information.

Be unable to use criteria that are appropriate to the discipline to judge the quality and validity of the source information; be unable to distinguish between primary and secondary sources.

Use limited criteria that are appropriate to the discipline to judge the quality and validity of the source information; distinguish between primary and secondary sources.

Use some criteria that are appropriate to the discipline to judge the quality and validity of the source information; distinguish among some types of source information, including primary and secondary sources; and demonstrate the use of some types of source information in scholarly inquiry.

Use a wide range of criteria that are appropriate to the discipline to judge the quality and validity of the source information; distinguish among a wide range of different types of source information, including primary and secondary sources; and clearly demonstrate how each type of source information can beuseful for scholarly inquiry.

3. Identify appropriate discovery processes for scholarly inquiry.

Demonstrate only a limited awareness of appropriate research methodologies used in the field; identify few elements of the methodologies used in previous conducted research.

Occasionally identify appropriate methodology used for research in the field; identify some key elements of the methodologies used in previously conducted research; and recognize some advantages and limitations of a particular methodology.

Generally identify appropriate methodologies used for research in the field; describe the methodologies used in previously conducted research in the field; and recognize some advantages and limitations of different methodologies.

Consistently identify appropriate methodologies for exploring a range of research questions; explain the design of the methodologies used in previously conducted research in the field; and recognize advantages and limitations of different methodologies.

4. Assess the validity of key assumptions and evidence

Identify few or no important themes from previous scholarship; provide no questions of scholars’ viewpoints, taking them as fact.

Identify general themes from previous scholarship and may rely on unfounded assumptions and/or irrelevant evidence; provide few questions about scholars’ viewpoints

Identify several important premises from previous scholarship and does not rely on unfounded assumptions, irrelevant or inadequate evidence; sometimes question scholars’ viewpoints.

Identify significant premises from previous scholarship and critically question assumptions and evidence; question viewpoints of scholars thoroughly.

Adapted from: George Mason University Students as Scholars Initiative. (2015, June).

6

B: References

Adedokun, O., Dyehouse, M., Bessenbacher, A., & Burgess, W. (2010). Exploring faculty perception of the benefits and challenges of mentoring undergraduate research students. Paper (poster) presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136.

Anderson, J. A., and Adams, A. M. “Acknowledging the Learning Styles of Diverse Student Populations: Implications for Instructional Design.” In L.L.B. Border and V. N. Chism (eds.), Teaching for Diversity. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

Auchincloss, L.C., Laursen, S.L., Branchaw, J., Eagan, K. Hanaur, D.I., Lawrie, G., McLinn, C.M. Pelaez,N. & Rowland, S. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiemces:a meeting report. CBE Life Science Education,94, 29-40.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions on the value of undergraduate research.Journal of Higher Education, 74, 210–230.

Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2008). Evaluation of the undergraduate research Program at The University of Delaware: A multifaceted design. In R. Taraban & R. L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist. New York: Teachers College Press.

Berk, R., Berg.J.; Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo,T. (2005). Measuring the Effectiveness of Faculty Mentor Relationships. Academic Medicine,80, (1), 66-71.

Blanton, R. L. (2008). A brief history of undergraduate research. In R. Taraban & R. L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science: The Transformation from student to scientist. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Boyer, E. L. (1998). The Boyer Commission on educating undergraduates in the research university.Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for American’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY.

Braxton, J. 2008. “Toward a scholarship of practice centered on college student retention”. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 115. NJ: Wiley Publishers.

Braxton, J. M. Faculty Professional Choices in Teaching That Foster Student Success. Washington, D.C.: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2006.

Braxton, J. M., Bray, N. J., and Berger, J. B. “Faculty Teaching Skills and Their Influence on the College Student Departure Process.” Journal of College Student Development, 2000, 41(2), 215–227.

Brew, A. 2006. Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.


6

Chegg, Inc. (2013). Bridge that gap: Analyzing the student skill index. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/Bridge%20That%20Gap- v8.pdf

Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. “Seven Principles for Good Practice.” AAHE Bulletin, 1987, 39, 3– 7.

Cornelius, V &, Wood.L. (2012). Academic to student mentoring within a large Australian Business school. Asian Social Science. 8(14), p. 1-8.

Dolan, E., & Johnson, D. (2010). The Undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triad: Unique functions and tensions associated with undergraduate research experiences at research universities. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 543–553.

Dotterer, R. (2002). “Student-faculty collaborations, undergraduate research, and collaboration as an administrative model”. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 90. NJ: Wiley Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Duke University Graduate School. (n.d.) Best practices and core expectations: Expectations of graduate students. Retrieved from https://gradschool.duke.edu/academics/academic- policies-and-forms/standards-conduct/best-practices-and-core- expectations#expectationsofstudents

Forester, M., J. Kahn, and M. Hesson-McInnis. 2004. “Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy”. Journal of Career Assessment 12, no. 1: 3–16.

Hansford, B., Tennent, L., & Ehrich, L. C. (2003). Educational mentoring: Is it worth the effort?Education Research and Perspectives, 30(1), 42–75.

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B., & Gregerman, S. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 614–631.

Hines, C. V., Cruickshank, D. R., and Kennedy, J. J. “Teacher Clarity and Its Relationship to Student Achievement and Satisfaction.” American Educational Research Journal, 1985, 22, 87–99.

Hughes, N., Wainwright, S., & Ward, N. (2011). Developing the writing skills of social work students: Connecting academic and professional expertise. Journal of Academic Writing, Vol.1; No.1, pp.54-60.

Ishiyama, J. (2002). Does early participation in undergraduate research benefit social science and humanities majors? Journal of College Student Development, 36(3), 380–386.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 505–532.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. “Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity”. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 4.San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1991.

Kardash, C. A. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 191–201.


6

Kuh, G. (2008) High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Kuh, G., & Nelson Laird, T. (2007). Why teacher scholars matter: Some insights from NSSE and FSSE. Liberal Education, 93, 40–45.

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experience (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology Education, 3, 270–277.

Lopatto, D. (2009) Undergraduate Research as a High-Impact Student Experience. http://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/undergraduate-research-high- impact-student-experience

Lunsford, L. (2007). Mentoring and talent development: Doctoral advisors and their protégés. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Psychology.

Market Education Watch (2011). http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-a-college-education- worth-2011-05-03, quoted in L. Phelps and A. Prevost (2012). “Community-college research university collaboration: Emerging student research and transfer partnerships”. New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 157. Spring , NJ: Wiley Publications

Market Watch Education, Fort Myers News Press (2011) http://www.news--- press.com/section/EDUCATIONSUMMIT/Education---Summit

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Yi-Guang, L., and Smith, D.A.F. Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature. Ann Arbor: Regents of the University of Michigan, 1986.

Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. (1998). Undergraduate student faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 55–72.

Northwestern University. (n.d.). Undergraduate Research and Arts Exposition with a culminating “Creative Arts Festival”. Retrieved from http://undergradresearch.northwestern.edu/expo

Northwestern University. (n.d.). Undergraduate Research at Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://undergradresearch.northwestern.edu/ -

Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. “How College Affects Students”, Vol. 2: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Pike, G. (2006). The convergent and discriminant validity of NSSE scalelet scores. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 550–563.

Renaud, R. D., and Murray, H. G. “The Validity of Higher-Order Questions as a Process Indicator of Educational Quality.” Research in Higher Education, 2007, 48, 319–351.

Romer, R., Ewell, P., Jones, D., and Lenth, C. “Making quality count in undergraduate Education”.Denver: Education Commission for the States, 1995.

Russell, S. H. (2008). Undergraduate research opportunities: Facilitating and encouraging the transition from student to scientist. In R. Taraban & R. L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective


6

undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist (pp. 53–80). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Salsman, N., Dulaney, C. L., Chinta, R., Zascavage, V., & Joshi, H. (2013). Student effort in and perceived benefits from undergraduate research. College Student Journal, 47(1), 202-211.

Schonwetter, D., Menec, V., and Perry, R. “An Empirical Comparison of Two Effective College Teaching Behaviors: Expressiveness and Organization.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Apr. 1995.

Schonwetter, D., Perry, R. P., and Struthers, C. W. “Students’ Perceptions of Control and Success in the College Classroom: Affects and Achievement in Different Instructional Conditions.” Journal of Experimental Education, 1994, 61, 227–246.

Seymour, E., Hunter, A., Laursen, S. L., & Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study.Science Education, 88, 493–534.

Shaw, K., A. Holbrook, and S. Bourke. 2013. “Student experience of final-year undergraduate research projects: an exploration of ‘research preparedness’”. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 5, 711-727.

Simon, C. E., Perry, A. R., & Roff, L. L. (2008). Special section: The status of women in social work education. Psychosocial and career mentoring: Female African American social work education administrators‘ experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(1), 9–22.

Smith, K. (2009). Recruitment and Retention of African Americans to the Social Work Profession.Social Work Networker, 47(1), 4.

Smith, P., & Rust, C. (2011). The potential of research-based learning for the creation of truly inclusive academic communities of practice. Innovations In Education And Teaching International, 48(2), 115-125. doi:10.1080/14703297.2011.564005

Sorcinelli, M. D. ”Research Findings on the Seven Principles.” In A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson (eds.), Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Tompkins, L. (1998). Being a scientist: One woman’s experience. In A. Pattarucci (Ed.), Women in science: Meeting career challenges (pp. 110–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

University of Southern California. (2015). Undergraduate Symposium for Scholarly and Creative Work. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/programs/ugprograms/ugsymposium/

University of Southern California. (n.d.) Discovery Scholars. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/programs/ugprograms/discovery/

Volkwein, F., & Carbone, D. (1994). The impact of departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 147–167.

Wasserman, E. R. (2000). The door in the dream: Conversations with eminent women in science.Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.


6

Webber, K. L., Laird, T. N., & BrckaLorenz, A. M. (2013). Student and faculty member engagement in undergraduate research. Research In Higher Education, 54(2), 227-249. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9280-5

Webber, K., F. T. Nelson Laird, and A. BrackaLorenz. 2013. “Student and faculty member engagement in undergraduate research”. Research in Higher Education, 54: 227-249. NY: Springer Publishers.

Wood, A., and Murray, H. “Effects of Teacher Enthusiasm on Student Attention, Motivation, and Memory Encoding.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, Apr. 1999.

Zydney, A. L., Bennett, J. S., Shahid, A., & Bauer, K. W. (2002a). Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 291–297.


6

C: Appendices

Appendix I: Acronyms

CURC Center for Undergraduate Research and Creativity

MUSE Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors

DS Discovery of Scholarship

SI Scholarship Inquiry

RS Research and Scholarship

MSI Multidisciplinary/multimethod Scholarly Inquiry

CFPD Center for Faculty Professional Development

RSP Division of Research and Sponsored Programs

CIED Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurial Development


6

Appendix II: Strategic Plan Recommendations

Source: Clark Atlanta University Strategic Plan 2013-14 – 2017-18


6

Appendix III: Timeline of QEP Development

August 2014

26 Quality Enhancement Plan Team Meeting

September 2014

4 QEP Development Team Meeting (Identify Possible themes/Topics based on Strategic Plan)

8Conduct surveys of university constituents (faculty, administrators staff and students) to rate possible topics and suggest additional topics

18 QEP Development Team Meeting

22 Close Topic Suggestion Survey and review findings

October 2014

2QEP Development Team Meeting (Based on all input, create list of the top five possible themes/topics)

6 Solicit two-page concept papers from constituents based on any of the top five themes/topics


20 Concept Papers are Due

21-30 QEP Development Team will review the submitted Concept papers

30QEP Development Team Meeting (Evaluate two-page concept papers collectively and Selecttop 3 Concept Papers)

November 2014


17 Present top 3 topics to SACSCOC Leadership Team/Executive Cabinet

21 QEP Development Team Meeting with Dean Kirksey and Dr. Heffner

December 2014

4 QEP Development Committee Meeting



6

January 2015

5 QEP Development Committee Meeting: Workshop Planning

6 QEP Development Committee Meeting: Workshop Planning

7• Provide University constituents with progress report on the QEP development and

proposal topics (Opening Institute)• Quality Enhancement Plan Presentation to Faculty


9 Send out Request For Proposal

12 Present Quality Enhancement Plan to Executive Cabinet


February 2015


19• QEP Development Committee Meeting• QEP Proposals Due


27 Evaluate developed proposals and choose top three

March – April 2015

-- Top 3 Proposal Presentation

-- Review the top three proposals, choose the winning topic/proposal

3/2 Research literature and best practices on selected undergraduate research topic

3/12 Begin writing the QEP with involvement of relevant constituents

3/26 QEP Development Committee Meeting



May 2015

7 QEP Development Committee Meeting/1st Draft of QEP Due

18 Complete 1st Draft review/Feedback


June-July 2015

22 Make necessary revisions and complete 2nd Draft of QEP

29 QEP Consultant Feedback on Draft 2 – Video Conference

August 2015

12Provide University constituents with progress report on the QEP development (Opening Institute)

13 Faculty QEP Session/Student Affairs QEP Session (1/2 Day Presentation and Q&A)

7


September 2015

28 Complete Final Draft of QEP for submission

October 2015

--

Facilitate QEP Town Hall Presentations (Broadening Participation & Accountability) (Inform constituents on the QEP, what it is, why it was selected, how it impacts faculty, staff, administrators and students, what roles they have or how they can get involved, theimplementation plan, and expected outcomes.)

-- Make final revision to the QEP report based on additional feedback from constituents

November 2015 - March 2, 2016

-- Submit QEP to SACSCOC Visiting Team

April 2016

13 -15 Onsite Visit

May 2016

-- Make necessary revisions based on recommendations from the a SACSCOC Visiting Team


7

Appendix IV: Campus Survey of QEP Topics

CAU 2016 Reaffirmation of Accreditation Quality Enhancement Plan

Topic Suggestion Survey

Based on the Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plan of the institution, below are suggested QEP topics the Development Committee has identified in support of research, scholarship, and creative activities.

Please identify the topic(s) you view as most appropriate and beneficial to enhancing our student learning and/or the learning environment. You are encouraged to also suggest additional topics in the box below:

D Research AbroadD Faculty-mentored undergraduate researchD The Du Boisian Scholarly Traditions and MethodologyD Undergraduate Research, Creative Activity and ScholarshipD Research-Based Capstone Courses and ProjectsD Discipline Specific Research Writing SkillsD Research across the CurriculumD Research-Based Learning

Other Suggestions: (Please indicated any additional topics)

Please indicate your status below:D FacultyD StaffD Undergraduate StudentD Graduate StudentD AlumniD Trustee

Thank You for Your Suggestions!

Clark Atlanta University 2016 SACSCOC Reaffirmation of Accreditation

QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN (QEP)CALL FOR CONCEPT PAPERS


7

Appendix V: Call for Concept Papers

THE QEP

The SACSCOC decennial Reaffirmation of Accreditation requires Clark Atlanta University to submit a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) proposal. The QEP is a five-year project that addresses a well-defined topic focused on enhancing student learning and/or the learning environment.

An acceptable QEP must: (1) include a broad-based institutional process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment; (2) focus on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution; (3) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP; (4) includes broad-based involvement of the institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP; and (5) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.

Based on the campus wide feedback from the QEP Topic Suggestion Survey, and in alignment with the university’s mission, vision, and strategic plan, the QEP development committee has identified four broad categories from which the concept papers will be developed.

THE CONCEPT PAPER

As a first step to develop a full QEP proposal, individuals and/or groups are invited to submit a concept paper. The call for concept papers serves to elicit brief suggestions from University constituents on initiatives that can serve as basis for the QEP. A concept paper should provide a preliminary description of an activity that will have a measurable impact on student learning and/or the learning environment at CAU. The top three concept papers selected will proceed to full research-based proposal for the QEP.

SUBMITTING A CONCEPT PAPER

1. Concept papers must be submitted to the QEP Development Committee via email at [email protected] by Monday, October 20, 2014.

2. Your concept paper must be completed using one of the following formats:a. The attached form provided. (Additional references can be attached), orb. In a Word Document not to exceed three double-spaced pages (excluding references

and the cover page provided).3. For further details on developing a concept paper please review the attached concept

paper instruction sheet.

FOR MORE INFORMATION contact the QEP Development Committee at [email protected] will be awarded to the top three concepts papers that are selected for a full proposal*.


7

Appendix VI: Sources for the Development of Definitions and Goal

The definitions are reworking and syntheses of the following:

• A definition provided by the Council on Undergraduate Research, 2012.• a definition from ‘Appendix A: Guidelines Regarding Tenure and Promotion’ in Report From

Tenure and Promotion Task Force, Washington State University, December 2003, p. 9.• Ideas and text from the document Local Assessment of Evaluation and Reward Systems for

Arts Faculties in Higher Education, http://nasm.arts- accredit.org/site/docs/PUBLICATIONS/Local_Assessment_of_Eval_and_Reward_Systems- Feb2009.pdf . This document was created by representatives from the National Office for Arts Accreditation (consisting of the National Association of Schools of Art and Design, the National Association of Schools of Dance, the National Association of Schools of Music, the National Association of Schools of Theatre), the National Architectural Accrediting Board, and the American Society of Landscape Architects.

Also influential were ideas from:

• Robert M. Diamond, PhD., Priorities and the Promotion and Tenure Process: The Faculty Reward System, The National Academy for Academic Leadership, http://www.thenationalacademy.org/readings/priorities.html, Retrieved: 10 March 2015.

• June Ovington, Thomas Diamantes, Douglas Roby, and Charles Ryan, “Tenure in the Professional School of Education” in Tenure and Promotion Considerations: An Analysis of Cultural Issues, http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol42003/diamantes.pdf, p. 7, Retrieved: 10 March 2015. The document was created by authors from Wright State University.

• Clark Atlanta University Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Proposal Development Team, February 2015.

Incorporation of DuBois’ ideas into goals and objectives:

• The following quote from DuBois should remain central to the proposal and placed more prominently in it: “The function of the university is not simply to teach bread-winning, or to furnish teachers for public schools, or to be a centre of polite society; it is, above all, to be the organ of that fine adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, and adjustment which forms the secret of progress.”


7

Appendix VII: Taxonomies of Cognitive Thinking

The types of knowledge used in cognition/thinking are:

Factual Knowledge• Knowledge of terminology• Knowledge of specific details and elements

Conceptual Knowledge• Knowledge of classifications and categories• Knowledge of principles and generalizations• Knowledge of theories, models, and structures

Procedural Knowledge• Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms• Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods• Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures

Metacognitive Knowledge• Strategic Knowledge• Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional

knowledge• Self-knowledge

Note. This information can be retrieved from the following online site http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/#2001

The cognitive processes which thinkers use related to Bloom’s taxonomy are listed below. The action words describe the thought processes associated with the taxonomy:

Remember• Recognizing• Recalling

Understand

• Interpreting• Exemplifying• Classifying• Summarizing• Inferring• Comparing• Explaining

Apply• Executing• Implementing

Analyze• Differentiating• Organizing• Attributing

Evaluate• Checking• Critiquing

Create• Generating• Planning• Producing

Note. For information related to the taxonomies: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub- pages/blooms-taxonomy/#2001


Appendix VIII: Existing Partnerships

SPONSOR/Program PARTNERS PURPOSE CAU FACULTYAndrew W. Mellon Foundation

CAU undergraduate Research

Support infrastructure for curricular design and faculty development to support undergraduate research$ 495,000

Dr. Obie Clayton

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Translational Research Network (RTRN)

18 Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) including Clark Atlanta University

A Consortium seeking to accelerate the quality and pace of transformative research by unifying basic, clinical and behavioral scientists with community partners

Dr. Shafiq Khan, Principal Investigator CAU RCMI Program and other Biomedical research faculty

National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Fellowships in Research and Science Teaching (FIRST)

Emory University (Lead), Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse School of Medicine, Morehouse College, Spelman College

A fellowship program that combines the faculties of Emory University and four top national minority servicing institutions in the Atlanta Metropolitan area to increase the quantity and quality of post-doctoral fellows achieving careers in biological/biomedical sciences.$225,797$9,639 Student Support

Dr. Paul Musey, Interim Chair and Professor of Biological Sciences

U.S. Department of Education Network for Enhancing Teacher Quality (Net Q)

Clark Atlanta University, Georgia State University (Lead)

To Increase the quality and number of highly qualified teachers who are committed to high needs schools and to enhance pre/post baccalaureate teacher preparation programs.$74,799

Dr. James Young, School of Education

National Science Foundation (NSF) Georgia- Alabama Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (GA-AL LSAMP)

Clark Atlanta University (Lead), Atlanta Metropolitan College, Drake State Technical College Georgia State University, Lawson State Community College, Morehouse College, Paine College, Spelman College, University of West Georgia

To increase the quantity and quality of underrepresented minority (URM) students who earn associate and baccalaureate degrees in the STEM fields.$3,465,320

20 Students $2000/student

Dr. Ronald Johnson, PresidentDr. Conrad Ingram, Chemistry

75


7

Appendix IX: College Composition II - CENG 106

A. College Composition II – CENG 106 Course Syllabus

CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

COMMON SYLLABUS FOR COLLEGE COMPOSITION II (CENG 106)

WRITING, ANALYTICAL READING, AND RESEARCH

INSTRUCTOR CLASS DAYS CLASS LOCATION

OFFICE HOURS INSTRUCTOR EXTENSION OFFICE LOCATION

CLASS MEETING TIMES SEMESTER

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES

College Composition II – CENG 106 is the second writing-based English course required of all undergraduates as a part of the University’s Core Curriculum. Designed to continue mastery of the writing, reading and grammar skills begun in ENG 105, which is its prerequisite, “College Composition II” includes higher-level essay development strategies and the use of critical analysis and various research techniques. Its skills-building interdisciplinary learning approaches teach students the following:

1. To master the ability to use the basic structure and organization of the essay and paragraph and to adapt other organizational structures to suit a variety of writing purposes;

2. To master critical thinking skills necessary to become analytical readers and writers;

3. To use standard English in writing and speaking;

4. To compose multi-paragraph essays of cause and effect, argumentation, literary analysis, and critique or evaluation and prepare a research paper and other source-based assignments;

5. To develop research strategies for using the library and its databases and other resources and for incorporating well-documented source material into essays and some other class tasks;

6. To prepare effective business letters and resumes for job applications or other purposes;

7. To correct their essay errors in grammar, punctuation, and mechanics;

8. To apply the fundamental principles of proofreading, editing, and revising; and

9. To recognize the importance of transferring the skills from both College Composition I and II to other University courses, as well as to graduate or professional school and future careers.


7

REQUIRED COURSE TEXTBOOKS

Wyrick, Jean. Steps to Writing Well with Additional Readings. Cengage. 2016 CAU edition. Hacker, Diane & Sommers. A Pocket Style Manual. Bedford/St. Martin’s Co. 2016 edition.

CENG 106 ENROLLMENT PREQUISITE: In order to take CENG 106, students must have received a grade of C or better in CENG 105 or its CAU pre-approved equivalent.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: ENG 106 SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES

Through the submission of course assignments and participation in class activities, students enrolled in ENG 106 are expected to learn and demonstrate well the following abilities below:

1. Select, narrow, and focus general topics to reflect adequately the size and scope of assigned course papers;

2. Employ critical thinking and analytical reading skills to select source details and other information for inclusion in research-based and other assignments;

3. Utilize outlines, prewriting exercises, and other organization strategies to aid in the preparation of written assignments;

4. Use paper drafting, revision, and the other steps of the writing process to complete essays;

5. Construct cohesive research papers and other source-based assignments which narrow a specific subject for exploration, effectively incorporate source summaries, paraphrases, and quotes, employ MLA or other appropriate documentation, and avoid plagiarism;

6. Compose clear, concise thesis statements by employing several strategies appropriate for specific types of essays and also often including an essay map with the thesis;

7. Construct introductory paragraphs which demonstrate adequate background information, a well- defined and identifiable thesis statement, and an indication of the body’s content and the paper’s development method;

8. Construct body paragraphs with topic sentences and others of varying lengths and types and appropriate tone, vocabulary, and content detail depth;

9. Compose fully developed in-class timed and out-of-class essays that utilize transitional words, phrases, and sentences to promote paragraph and essay unity and coherence;

10. Employ appropriate editing and proofreading strategies to avoid major sentence structure errors and violations of the standard rules of grammar and English language usage;

11. Construct essays and paragraphs which reflect the strategy of cause and effect through the use of analysis, logic, and sufficient details and examples;

12. Write argumentation/persuasion essays which state and defend a pro or con paper subject thesis position, utilize various development strategies, provide an adequate amount of details and examples, and successfully anticipate and refute the major arguments of opponents;


7

13. Avoid fallacies and generalizations in all essays especially when attempting to explain the logic of the argument paper’s body paragraph reasons for its thesis;

14. Use appropriate vocabulary communication levels and diction choices in the writing process;

15. Write critiques and literary analysis which evaluate and interpret reading assignments, employ specific work form or genre strategies, and utilize strong examples and details; and

16. Prepare effective business letters and resumes that are precise in diction and grammar and conform to the structural and content standards of those writing forms.

GRADING AND EVALUATION

In English 106, students may receive grades of A, B, C, D, and F on written work and other course-related activities, as well as evaluations of 0-100 on objective tests, quizzes, and exercises. The University’s Objective Grading Scale is 90-100 (A), 80-89 (B), 70-79 (C), 60-69 (D) and Grades below 60 (F). However, in order to complete College English II successfully, students must receive a final course grade of C or better. Students who fail ENG 105 by receiving a final grade below C may not enroll in ENG 106 until they have passed the prerequisite course. A final grade of D in either course is not a passing grade and will not fulfill University graduation requirements. Successful completion of both ENG 105 and ENG 106 or their non-CAU equivalent is the prerequisite for taking “World Literature I or II,” ENG 201/202, which are also Core Curriculum classes, and for enrolling in all Mass Communications courses. Students who get an Incomplete (I) as a 105 or 106 final course grade must submit their missing work to their former teacher by no more than 2 semesters later or CAU may turn the I into an F.Transfer students who submit equivalent courses as English prerequisites or as Core English requirements must have those approved by the Retention Office when they enter CAU. AP and IB test scores attempted to be used to get English credits also must be approved by that office.

Final grades in ENG 106 will reflect each student’s level of writing competence and his or her course assignments quality and correctness and will be calculated as follows:

20% Research Paper50% Other Class-Assigned Essays15% Department Exit Final Exam Essay15% Quizzes, Research Reports, & Class Participation

MANUSCRIPT FORMAT FOR STUDENT ESSAYS

All out-of-class essays must include the following format and other requirements below:

8 ½ x 11 white, lineless paper with 1 inch top, bottom, & side margins Dark black ink-typed, double spaced readable copy from a computer Essay’s title centered & placed above the text on the first page Your full name & course title or number, class time, work submission date, &

teacher’s name placed in the top left corner of the first page A running head title with your last name and the page number in the top right

corner of page one and all other pages or as teacher-specified


7

All in-class essays and other hand-written assignments must be done in dark blue or black ink on 8 ½ x 11 lined white loose-leaf paper. Avoid torn-out binder pages and ragged edges.

CLASS ATTENDANCE AND OFFICIAL EXCUSES FOR ABSENCES

Students are expected to come on time each class meeting day and submit all course work . Official CAU excuses from the Dean of Students Office, the Health Center, CAU Music group directors, or Sports coaches are required for most course absences and to make-up missed work.Students who have SIX or more unexcused absences in M-W-F classes or FOUR or more in T-TH classes may receive a final course grade of F in CENG 105 and must repeat it.

TEACHER CONFERENCE HOURS AND AES LAB TUTORIAL ASSISTANCE

To discuss their grades, clarify assignments, or gain course work help, students can visit their instructor’s office during his or her weekly conference hours or pre-make a specific appointment to meet with their teacher. They also can go to the Academic Enrichment and Success Support Lab on Kresge Hall’s upper first floor to get tutorial help. Open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the lab can be reached by entering the building’s front door near Thayer Hall.

REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION STYLE

Students must always give credit in their own work for the use of the words, thoughts, and ideas of others to avoid source plagiarism. MLA parenthetical source documentation style must be used in all CENG 105 and 106 essays which incorporate direct quotes, paraphrases, summaries, and other information from research materials and class reading selections. Your Steps and Pocket Style Manual texts contain both writing instructions for MLA-documented papers and the correct formats to use for MLA in-text outside source citations and bibliography entries.

THE DEPARTMENT’S COURSE PLAGIARISM POLICY

Plagiarism is a form of cheating and is a serious act of academic and other dishonesty. It reflects poorly on a person’s character and can damage his or her reputation and ability to get jobs or stay employed or in school. While many people think plagiarism only occurs when the direct words of others are written-copied or spoken without the original source being acknowledged, there are many other forms of it that should not ever be used especially by college students. Your teacher will give you a list of plagiarism offenses. These acts can cause you to fail the class assignment or the course. CAU also may expel or suspend you for them. They include class-submitting essays of friends or other writers as your own; turning in to an instructor entire papers free-downloaded or bought from on-line sources; and constructing a course essay by only patching together full or major parts of non-cited paragraphs from one or more sources.

CLASS CELL PHONE USE POLICIES

To assure all students can concentrate, hear lectures, and stay focused on their academic work, no student cell phones may be out in class. They only can be visible when instructors ask students to use them for course purposes. Therefore, students may not talk, text, or play non-academic games on their cell phones during class. They also cannot audio or videotape or take cell pictures of anyone during class

8

Clark Atlanta University – Mentored Undergraduate Scholarly Endeavors or leave the classroom to make or accept calls, which distracts others. Students who often violate these policies will be reported to the department’s chair or the Dean of Students by their instructor. Students who use their phones to cheat on tests will be reported to both persons and fail those exams and possibly the course. Cell rules violators the Dean sends to a Disciplinary Committee may be suspended or expelled from CAU.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGED COURSE READINGS

CENG 106 students should be sure to read and analyze all Steps student and professional writer models that match their paper assignments to help them improve their own writing. The book’s “Additional Readings” section also has many articles or essays by black and other authors. Time-written actual CAU student essays are in the “How to Ace the Exit” chapter.

COURSE CONTENT

The course content in both “College English I and II” was chosen to support and under gird numerous writing assignments and other English skills situations encountered by students during their college experience and in post undergraduate schools and professional settings. The following units provide students with a general overview of their 106 class content. The instructor may also give his or her students a SCHEDULE of COURSE ACTIVITIES that indicates when specific class information will be covered and the dates assignments are due. Each instructor further is responsible for deciding the essay topics, research activities, and class reading selections to assign. He or she may also add assignments other than those indicated below and use either or both texts during the course to meet his or her students’ learning needs.

All CENG 106 students must write a diagnostic in-class essay at the beginning of the semester so their instructor can assess their grammar skills and writing abilities. They also must write a departmental CENG 106 Exit Essay at the end of the course as the final exam to demonstrate the level of writing and grammar skills they have acquired by having been enrolled in both CENG 105 and CENG 106. Each student’ 50- minute timed test essay will be graded by at least two English instructors who are not his or her own 106 teacher. Exit Exam paper models, a topics list, and test writing directions and advice are in the “How to Ace the Exit” CAU custom chapter of Steps.


8

COURSE WORK UNITS FOR COLLEGE ENGLISH II

UNIT ONE

-Course Introduction: Syllabus Overview; Class Objectives; Texts; General ENG 105 Skills Expected; Attendance and Other Policies; Grading Criteria; and AES and Instructor Assistance-Teacher-Own Topics 50-Minute In-Class Diagnostic Writing Sample (given by class period 2)-“The Connection between Reading and Writing”-- Steps Chapter 4-Discussion of Critical Reading and Writing Strategies and Text Annotation--Steps Chapter 4-Assign Annotation Practice Article and In-class Analysis Exercise—Steps Chapter 4-Discuss the Benefits of Essay Drafting and the Other 4 Steps of the Writing Process-Research’s Role in Writing Essays and in Oral Presentations—Steps Research Chap. Intro-Paper Parts, Corrections Symbols, & Characteristics of Effective Essays--Steps Chapters 2, 3

UNIT II

-Woodruff Library Research Database Training Session (scheduled at class time intervals)-Library Resources ENG 106 Departmental Common Course Quiz Assigned & Due-Assign Cause & Effect Essay with At Least Two Research Sources Required—Steps Ch. 14-Re-Discuss Topic Sentence and Thesis Use and Adequate Body Paragraph Development-Steps-C and E Essay Paper Models Review and Further Writing Directions---Steps Chapter 14-Assign Steps Article Reading Selections to Support Some Cause & Effect Paper Topics-Using Sources to Support a Writer’s Paper Assertions, Testing Source Validity, Being Objective in Views/ Paper Tone, Avoiding Generalizations, & Research Procedures--Pocket M. Ch. 25-34-Explain MLA Parenthetical Source Documentation—Steps Chap. 20/ Pocket Manual Ch. 33-MLA Citation In-Class Exercises and Plagiarism and Further MLA Documentation Discussion-Major Grammar Errors Review and Effective Revision and Proofreading---Pocket ManualCENG 106 Syllabus 6

UNIT III

-Source-Documented Cause and Effect Paper Due-Discuss Timed Writing and the Upcoming Exit Essay Exam, Its Grading Scoring Standards, & the Paper Development Differences Between In & Out-of Class Essays—Steps CAU Chap.-Discuss Timed Writing’s Role in Passing GRE, LSAT, & Teacher Certification Test Essays-Assign 2 Readings as Possible Essay Topics or Paper Idea Prompts---Steps Chap. 28 & 30-Practice Transitional Word, Phrase, and Sentence Use to Promote Unity and Coherence-50-Minute In-Class Timed Essay Assigned Based on the Unit’s 2 Reading Selections

UNIT IV

-Individual or Group Oral Reports Assigned-Discuss “Presenting Your Research and Other Findings to Others”---Steps Chapter 21-Review Diction Choices and the Writing and Oral Correlation---Pocket Manual Chapter 1-9-Assign & Discuss Language Levels Article and Word Logic Chapter---Steps Chapter 7-Also Assign “Presentation Visual Aids” Section---Steps Chapter 21


8

UNIT V-Oral Report Presentations Days-Explain Argumentation and Persuasion Essay Assignment---Steps Chapter 15-Assign Readings about Social or Political Issues--Steps Chapter 29 & 31-Introduce Persuasion Strategies and Written Argument Thesis Styles—Steps Chapter 15-Discuss Methods for Refuting Opponents of Your Argument Position---Steps Chapter 15-Review MLA Documentation for Any Research Support Used in the Paper—Pocket Man.

UNIT VI-Argumentation and Persuasion Essay Due-Explain the Literary Analysis Essay Assignment---Steps Chapter 22-Introduce Literary Terms and Short Story Fiction Structure Parts---Steps Chapter 22-Assign and Discuss the Unit’s Two Short Stories to Use to Write the Essay-Discuss More Steps of Analytical Reading---Steps Chapter 4-Explain Strategies for Using and Documenting Story Details as Paper Examples—Ch. 22

UNIT VII-Literary Analysis Due-Further Discuss the Exit Exam Essay and Its Requirements—Steps CAU Custom Chapter-Study Chapter’s Exam Topics List and Merit-Analyzed CAU Student Paper Models-Review Exam’s Essay Structure and Major Grammar and Sentence Structure Errors to Avoid-Assign In-Class Timed Writing Practice Essay

UNIT VIII-Explain and Assign the Evaluation or Critique Essay---Steps Chapter 41-Assign Readings, Exhibit, or Program to Attend, etc. to Analyze for the Paper-Emphasize Staying Subject-Focused & Making Balanced Judgments & Convincing Arguments-Discuss Writing Strategies & the Errors of Over-summarizing or Under-using ExamplesCENG 106 Syllabus 7

UNIT IX-Evaluation or Critique Essay Due-Explain & Assign Business Writing Unit: The Resume and Business Letter ---Steps Ch. 23-Examine and Analyze Resume and Business Letter Models in both Steps and Pocket Manual-Focus on Formats & Types, Key Words & Descriptive Adjectives, Diction Use, & Purpose-Discuss the Importance of Grammar Correctness and Writing Editing and Proofreading Skills in Business and Other Fields and in Jobs and Careers

UNIT X-Resume and Business Letter Due-Assign the 5 to 7 Text-Page or More Research Paper and Its Topics---Steps & Pocket Manual-Further Discuss Library Skills and Avoiding Plagiarism—Pocket Manual Chapter 28-Explain Expanding a Short Essay’s Structure to Produce a Long Research or Other Paper-Review MLA Source Documentation and Give Citation Format Exercises---Steps Chap. 20


8

-Again Discuss Writing Methods, Paper Organization & Outlining, & Research Strategies

UNIT XI

-Research Paper Due-Further Essay, Grammar, and Writing Strategies Review to Prepare for the ENG 106 Exit Exam-One to Two Further In-Class Timed Writing Practice Opportunities Provided

-Common Departmental CENG 106 Exit Essay Exam Administered as the Course Final Exam*

*The Exit topics are provided by the Composition Coordinator/Exam Director using a national writing test formula. The in-class exam is administered by 106 teachers on the last official class day for their course sections. The test essays should reflect the level of writing and grammar skills each student has gained by taking both CENG 105 and 106. The papers are scored holistically 1(F) to 5(A) by two English faculty other than each student’s own instructor using modified ETS grading standards. The All-English Faculty Grading Session is held during the CAU Reading Period at each semester’s end. The two evaluators’ combined score determines a paper’s P/F status and A-F grade range, which is worth 15% of each student’s final class grade.


B. Assignment Scoring Rubrics

1. Research Paper Scoring Rubric

College Composition II - CENG 106

CATEGORY Unacceptable (1) Poor (2)

(Does not meet expectations)

Acceptable (3)

(Meets Expectations)

Good (4)

(Meets minimal expectation)

Excellent (5)

(Exceeds expectations)

Score

INTRODUCTION Does not adequately introduce topic. Vague or disconnected from primary idea. No thesis statement

Does not adequately introduce topic. Vague thesis statement.

Introduces topic. General thesis statement.

Clearly conveys topic. Clearly-stated thesis statement.

Strong introduction of topic and specific thesis statement.

FOCUS AND DEVELOPMENT

Irrelevant Information provided. Little to no supporting evidence to support thesis statement. No substantiating evidence provided. No transitions between thoughts. Poorlyorganized.

Much of the information provided is irrelevant. Little supporting evidence. Weak transitions. Poor organizations.

Some information relevant to topic. Supporting evidence provided. Some use of transition between thoughts. Organized inlogical order.

Most information is clearly relevant to thesis and organized in a logical fashion that makes a cogent argument. Gooduse of transitions.

All information is relevant to thesis and is logically organized.Presents strong evidence that substantiates claim(s).

SUPPORT Little to no supporting evidence. Inadequate supporting evidence.

Some supporting evidence provided. Some evidence not peer-reviewed.

Strong supporting evidence provided. Sources evidence detailed research.

Strong supporting evidence provided.

Well-researched. Strong peer-reviewed sources.

CONCLUSION Does not summarize evidence to reflect thesis and impact of research.

Weak summary of thesis, main ideas, and impact of research.

Basic review of points. Some references to research and its research.

Strong review of points. Strong referencing of research and its impact.

Excellent review of points and referencing of research and its impact.

GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION

Major errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation that distract from paper.

Multiple errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation

Few errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation

Very few errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

No errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

MLA CITATIONS AND REFERENCES

Major errors in MLA citations and references.

Multiple errors in MLA citations and references.

Few errors in MLA citation and references.

Very few errors in MLA citation in references.

No errors in MLA

citations and references.

WORKS CITED Major errors on Works Cited page Multiple errors of Works Cited page

Few errors on Works Cited page.

Very few errors on Works Cited Page

No errors on Works C

Cited page.

84


8

2. Essay Assignment Scoring

College Composition II - CENG 106

Criterion Excellent (5)

(Exceeds Expectations)

Good (4)

(Meets Minimal Expectations)

Adequate (3)

(Meets Minimal Expectations)

Poor (2)

(Does not meet Expectation)

Unacceptable(1)

Thesis Statement The essay’s thesis statement effectively reflects the writer’s purposes

The thesis statement expresses the writer’s purpose.

The paper has a clear thesis or principle of organization though the essay’s parts may seem slightly vague.

Thesis statement and organization are vague and/or weak or missing.

The paper seems to be a mechanical exercise without a thesis that controls and supports details in the paragraphs.

Essay Structure/ Organization

Body paragraphs carefully follow the organizational plan that is stated in the Introduction and are fully developed and tightly controlled.

Reasonably well- developed, unified paragraphs document the thesis. The organization is logical and correct for the assignment.

Paragraphs generally follow a logical organizational plan and usually are sufficiently unified and developed.

Underdeveloped, ineffective paragraphs exist and do not support the thesis.

There is not apparent principle of organization.Paragraphing shows no logical plan.

Sentence Structure

Sentences are varied in their length and structure according to the writer’ meaning and emphasis.

Sentences show a variety of patterns, and constructions indicate that the writer has facility in the use of language.Effective transitions are accompanied by sentences constructed with orderly relationships between word groups.

Sentence variety is minimal, and sentence constructions lack sophistication. Some transitions are used, and essay parts are related to each other in a fairly orderly manner.

Errors in sentence structure are often frequent enough to distract the reader. Sentences often fail to conform to conventions of standard written English

There are frequent sentence structure errors.

Word Choice The word choice is almost uniformly good. Words are chosen for precise denotation, connotation, and tone. Appropriate transitional words and phrases and effective coherence techniques make the prose distinctive.

The writer has gone beyond automatic word choice to find one more precise and effective.

The word choice is generally correct, but the range is limited; therefore, the diction is often imprecise and monotonous.

Words are occasionally misused. Transitions and coherence devices are inadequate.

Words that should be common to most college students are misused.

Writing Mechanics and Formatting Guidelines

Virtually no errors in syntax, grammar, mechanics, and usage occur.

The paper is generally correct in grammar, mechanics, and usage, though there are some problems with complex grammar and punctuation.

Though the paper contains few major errors, there are mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and mechanics.

Syntactical, mechanical, grammatical, and usage errors occur frequently.

Some errors indicate a failure to understand the basic rules of grammar.


8

3. Oral Presentation Scoring Rubric

College Composition II – CENG 106

PRESENCE:--body language/eye contact--poise

5 4 3 2 1 0

LANGUAGE SKILLS: 5 4 3 2 1 0--correct usage--appropriate vocabulary and grammar--clear enunciation--appropriate volume

ORGANIZATION:--clear objectives--logical structure

5 4 3 2 1 0

MASTERY OF SUBJECT--relevance--insightful commentary--able to answer questions--spoken, not read

5 4 3 2 1 0

VISUAL AIDS--visual aids/power point--handouts--audio, video

5 4 3 2 1 0

OVERALL IMPRESSION--engaging--easy to listen to

5 4 3 2 1 0

--clear expression of ideas TOTAL SCORE /30

5=EXCELLENT

4= GOOD

3=FAIR

2=POOR

1=UNACCEPTABLE


8

Appendix X: Beyond MUSE – The Institutional Commitment

The Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS) level and Multi-Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarly Inquiry (MSI) level are not part of the MUSE QEP but are however impacted by the QEP and it activities and will serve as part of the University’s ongoing commitment to improve student learning and enhance their performances beyond the MUSE QEP 5 year implementation. The goal is to continue to infuse pedagogy of creativity, research, and discovery through relevant, real-world, and inspired educational experiences in and outside of the classroom. An overview of these levels, along with learning outcomes are outlined in this appendix.

Level 3 - Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS) Description and SLOs:

Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS) Courses and Activities

Intensive Research & Scholarship (IRS) courses and activities will enable students to compare and evaluate methods of creative and research activities. The IRS courses and activities will allow student to “actively participate in the process of scholarly inquiry and evaluate the methodologies to make a significant contribution to the creation of a disciplinary-appropriate product”. The junior and/or senior (third and fourth year) students involved at this level will be assessed on the following student learning outcomes:

Students will be able to:

3.1 Analyze relevant fundamental and advanced concepts/theories within the field3.2 Conduct advanced evidence-based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the

existing knowledge within the field.4.3 Evaluate and apply ethical principles of the discipline throughout the inquiry process4.4 Effectively communicate the work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for the

discipline

Level 4 - Multi-Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarly Inquiry (MSI) Description and SLOs:

Multi-Disciplinary/Multi-Method Scholarly Inquiry (MSI) Courses and Activities

Multi-Disciplinary or Multi-Method Scholarly Inquiry (MSI) courses and activities will enable students to engage in authentic scholarly work in their respective discipline, or across disciplines, and have the opportunity to disseminate the results beyond the classroom. These courses and activities are designed to enhance the interactions between faculty and students in scholarly works beyond the classroom. The junior and/or senior (third and/or fourth year) students involved at this level will be assessed on the following student learning outcomes:Students will be able to:

4.1 Complete an original work through the application of theoretical concepts:a. within their discipline and identify how it applies to other disciplines, orb. in multiple disciplines

4.2 Appraise the significance/authenticity of the inquiry to the field(s).4.3 Effectively communicate the work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for the

discipline(s).


8

IRS and MSI – Overview of Student Learning Outcomes

Level of Inquiry Students will:Blooms

TaxonomyCognitive

Taxonomy

3Intensive Research and Scholarship (IRS)

3.1 Analyze relevant fundamental and advancedconcepts/theories within the field.

Evaluate ProceduralKnowledge

3.2 Conduct evidence-based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the existing knowledge within the field.

Apply Procedural Knowledge

3.3 Evaluate and apply ethical principles of the disciplinethroughout the inquiry process.

AnalyzeSynthesize

ConceptualKnowledge

3.4 Effectively communicate work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for the discipline.

Create Procedural Knowledge

4

Multi- Disciplinary/Multi- Method Scholarship Inquiry (MSI)

4.1 Complete an original work through the application of theoretical concepts:a. within their discipline and identify how it applies to

other disciplines, orb. in multiple disciplines.

Create Metacognitive Knowledge

4.2 Appraise the significance/authenticity of the inquiry to the field(s).

Evaluate Metacognitive Knowledge

4.3 Effectively communicate work to diverse audiences and ina format appropriate for the discipline(s).

Create MetacognitiveKnowledge




Level of CompetenceNovice (1) Emerging (2) Proficient (3) Advanced (4)

Inte

nsi

ve R

esea

rch

an

d S

chol

arsh

ip (

IRS)

1. Analyze relevant fundamental and advanced concepts/theories within the field.

Demonstrate little understanding of concepts/theories; inability to adequately explain concepts/theories; little to no demonstration of application of theories.

Some attempt or understanding to use relevant concepts/theories within the field; basic understanding and/or lack of application of concepts/theories to other areas.

Demonstrate general understanding to relevant concepts/theories within the field.

Demonstrate detailed attention to relevant concepts/theories within the field.

2. Conduct evidence- based inquiry to create original work that contributes to the existing knowledge within the field.

Provide little evidence of following appropriate scholarly conventions.

Attempt to follow appropriate scholarly conventions; make some appropriate and effective choices throughout the inquiry process.

Demonstrate consistent use of appropriate scholarly conventions; make appropriate and effective choices throughout the inquiry process.

Demonstrate detailed attention to successful execution of a wide range of conventions; make appropriate, highly effective and perhaps innovative choices throughout the inquiry process.

3. Evaluate and apply ethical principles of the discipline throughout the inquiry process.

Demonstrate no attention to ethical principles during the inquiry process.

Demonstrate only limited attention to ethical principles during the inquiry process

Demonstrate attention to ethical principles at some points during the inquiry process.

Demonstrate detailed attention to ethical principles throughout the inquiry process.

4. Effectively communicate work in a format appropriate for the discipline.

Use approaches or include errors that limit or obscure relevance and impede understanding.

Use some appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to an audience from the discipline; design a presentation with limited clarity and/or some errors.

Use mostly appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to an audience from the discipline; design a presentation that is clear and has few errors.

Use appropriate evidence, presentation modes and/or argument strategies to skillfully communicate meaning to a an audience from the discipline; communicate with clarity and fluency and in a virtually error-free presentation.

89


Level ofScholarship


Level of CompetenceNovice (1) Emerging (2) Proficient (3) Advanced (4)

Mu

lti-

Dis

cip

lin

ary/

Mu

lti-

Met

hod

Sch

olar

ship

Inq

uir

y (M

SI)

1. Complete an original work through the application of theoretical concepts:a. within their discipline

and identify how it applies to other disciplines, or

b. in multiple disciplines.

Follow plan of the faculty/mentors, require frequent interventions from faculty mentors to evaluate, adapt, and execute the plan.

Develop a plan, implement most of the plan, and evaluate and adapt the plan mostly as directed by the faculty/mentors.

Design a plan, implement the plan, and evaluate and adapt some research or design strategies as the project progresses, in consultation with faculty/mentors.

Design a project plan, successfully implement the plan, and evaluate and adapt research or design strategies as the project progresses, in consultation with faculty/mentors.

2. Appraise the significance/authenticit y of the inquiry to the field(s).

Largely fail to place concepts, evidence, practices, perspectives, and/or conclusions within a broader context or to acknowledge limitations or other views.

Demonstrate limited ability to place concepts, evidence, practices, perspectives, and/or conclusions within a broader context; acknowledge few limitations or other views.

Demonstrate some ability to place concepts, evidence, practices, perspectives, and/or conclusions within a broader context; acknowledge and summarize others’ points of view.

Demonstrate consistent ability to place concepts, evidence, practices, perspectives, and/or conclusions within a broader context; acknowledge limitations andsynthesize others’ points of view.

3. Effectively communicate work to diverse audiences and in a format appropriate for the discipline(s).

Use approaches or include errors that limit or obscure relevance and impede understanding.

Use some appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to a specified audience; design a presentation with limited clarity and/or some errors.

Use mostly appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to a specified audience; design a presentation that is clear and has few errors.

Use appropriate evidence, presentation modes and/or argument strategies to skillfully communicate meaning to a specified audience; communicate with clarity and fluency and in a virtually error-free presentation.

90


9

Appendix XI: Assessment of QEP Impact - Student Perception Instruments

A. Student Survey of Scholarly Endeavors:


9

B. Senior Exit Survey – Question 20

C. (CIRP) First College Year Survey & College Senior Survey Questions :

First College Year Survey Questions referenced in designing internal surveys:


9


9

College Senior Survey (CIRP) Questions referenced in designing internal surveys:


9


9

MUSEMENTORED UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLARLY ENDEAVORS