Minutes: Reinvention Center Southeast Regional Network Meeting
October 12, 2007
North Carolina State University, Kamphoefner Hall, Raleigh, NC
The Southeast Regional Meeting included 61 participants from 19 universities and one professional organization.
Introductions and Welcoming Remarks
The meeting began at 10 a.m. with welcomes from The Reinvention Center Director, Wendy Katkin, and North Carolina State University Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, Dr. Larry Nielson. Provost Nielson noted that there is great value in developing undergraduate research at large universities. He described the efforts at NCSU, including a new program for improving teaching and learning in the sciences, doubling the staff in the undergraduate research office, and revising General Education to reduce the amount of core disciplinary course work and increase attention to interdisciplinary studies and a global curriculum that addresses the future and relates to research. Provost Nielson also noted that assessment is key to these efforts to improve undergraduate education because universities need to know where we’ve been and where we’re going.
Dr. Katkin invited the participants to introduce themselves and explained how the regional meetings have always fostered discussion. She described the mission of The Reinvention Center stemming from the Boyer Commission Report and the changes that have come from the relocation of The Center to the University of Miami as it becomes a membership-based organization. To date more than fifty institutions have joined, there are more people working at the Center and discussions with NSF to develop an Assessment Network. Dr. Katkin reminded the group that 1/3 of the graduates come from 3% of the institutions – Research Universities – so their impact and influence is important. Nevertheless Research Universities are not all alike and the differences are important as we think about how to respond to calls for accountability like those of the Spellings Commission Report.
Topic One: Assessment
Dr. Allen DuPont, Director of the Office of Assessment, NCSU “The Assessment Cycle at the Research University”: Dr. DuPont’s presentation considered what assessment means, why it is necessary and how it fits within the research culture. Dr. DuPont explained the decentralized efforts regarding assessment underway at NCSU and the ways that assessment can help institutions respond to public criticism and calls for accountability. Dr. DuPont’s Power point presentation is attached here
Additional issues that emerged in discussion included:
· CLA was designed for liberal arts colleges;
· Research universities need to respond collectively to efforts to impose inappropriate assessments
· Need to recognize the difference between the political talk about assessment (the CLA in particular) and the critical talk about assessment and the value of teaching and learning at a university. Pay attention to the process of CLA while we prepare to explain what’s missing.
· Teaching evaluations have very different objectives so are usually kept separated (as they are at NCSU)
Dr. Pam Steinke, Assistant Director of the Office of Assessment, NCSU, “Assessing Undergraduate Research Outcomes”: Dr. Steinke explained the mission of the Office of Assessment at NCSU as encouraging good undergraduate research assessment and how such assessment provides a basis for our claims that undergraduate research is valuable. At NCSU such assessment recognizes that large and complex studies, carried out only every ten years are less useful than smaller scale assessments done more continuously. One such study administered a pre and post test to forty students funded to do research with a faculty member that asked students to respond to an open-ended prompt about their course work (pretest) and their research experience (posttest). The responses were also compared to a group of cohorts who did not do a research project. Dr. Steinke’s power point presentation
Additional issues that emerged in discussion included:
· Are the results influenced by the likelihood that those students who seek out a research opportunity are already more academically advanced?
· Before we assess, we need to be clear with students about the goals. If we don’t have goals, how do we know what we’re measuring? Assessment specialists, students and faculty might have very different goals for a research experience. Important, then, for the assessment specialists to work at the local level to decide what learning/research outcomes are important.
· The list of outcomes used by the NCSU team began with those identified in earlier surveys, but there’s a need to go beyond that general list. Cognitive outcomes and personal/social outcomes are not the same.
· Some research suggests that the value of the research experience may be more apparent to students later than it is immediately. Bayer’s study at Delaware tracked students 5 years after the research experience.
· Likewise, students who are regularly in contact with graduate students and research faculty, as they are at research universities, may not consider the research experience the same as those students from liberal arts colleges who do not have this environment all the time.
· What does this study tell us about the relationship with faculty? A University of Michigan study suggests that having the mentor/student be of the same gender or ethnicity doesn’t make a big difference on the experience.
· Important to educate legislatures about research and why it is messy. Having an undergraduate research exhibit at the state capital and arranging for students to meet with legislators can be very helpful.
Mary Crowe, Project Director, The Scientific Research Society, Sigma Xi, “Announcement of a National Undergraduate Research Assessment Initiative”: Dr. Crowe outlined the efforts of Sigma Xi to undertake a comprehensive study of undergraduate research in the US. At the heart of this study are questions like: who is doing undergraduate research? and what is the impact of undergraduate research on student learning? Dr. Crowe’s presentation was abbreviated because of time, but her full presentation is attached here
Topic Two: Technology at the Research University
NCSU Delta Team (David Tredwell, Steven Valenziano, A. J. Klingenmaier, Dana Hartweg, Ben Huckaby and Sari Nasir), “Google’s North American ‘Build your Campus in 3D’ using the Google Sketch up Modeling Program”: The Delta team students presented their work on the “Build Your Own Campus” project and discussed the processes they used to complete the 3d map of NCSU campus. Because the team started late and was working under a tight deadline, they had to determine efficient ways of learning the program, assigning and completing tasks, teaching each other what they learned, and working together to make decisions. Students displayed the map and demonstrated some of the features of the program they used. For more information about DELTA at NCSU see their Web site at http://delta.ncsu.edu/ . To see the 3d map students created and read more about the project see http://delta.ncsu.edu/about/research_initiatives/3d_ole/google_sketchup/
Additional issues that emerged in discussion included:
· The audience was particularly interested in details about the project such as how students were selected for the project, how the project was funded, the role of faculty or technology experts, and the future plans for continuing to develop the 3d map of the campus.
· Students were asked to explain their personal objectives in signing on for the project and whether those objectives were met. Goals included getting more experience with 3d modeling, learning the program, working with others, gaining leadership experience in a team setting, applying skills to a real world application. All of the students noted that they not only met their goals but got more than they had originally expected.
· Could such a project be added to a course? Would the experience change if the students were graded? If the technology weren’t so new, would it have been as meaningful? The students thought the project could be added to a course with some modifications. They noted that they had to develop their own benchmarks and that the contest itself was a kind of grade. They felt they would have learned a great deal even if the technology wasn’t so new, but that they were breaking ground was a huge part of their motivation.
· How might such experiences be measured? How would assessment capture the excitement, the teamwork involved in the project and the product?
· What difference does it make that this project was initiated by non-faculty? Even non-teaching units like technology support personnel are a part of the university and share its teaching mission. Such projects might even be initiated by students.
Dr. Kay Sandberg, Associate Teaching Professor, Department of Chemistry, NCSU, “Creative Integration of Technology: Almost as Good as Being There”: Dr. Sandberg did a demonstration of her use of online technology for delivering lectures in organic chemistry. She explained how the use of the online lecture is used in a course that enrolls distant-learning students as well as on-campus students. Both kinds of students have responded favorably because the technology allows them to review the parts of the lecture they find most difficult. Dr. Sandberg uses online discussions and online assessment to measure student learning. The link for Dr. Sandberg’s presentation is:
http://courses.ncsu.edu/ch221/common/kas/Reinvent/Reinvent.html
Additional issues that emerged in discussion included:
· The audience was again interested in many of the details of this system, including the amount of time necessary to develop the online lecturers, the number of students in a typical course, and the attempts to assess the success or compare this approach with more traditional lecture courses.
· For those institutions involved in distant learning, and for those courses where the material doesn’t change rapidly, the technology seems to make a good deal of sense, but students still have to be willing to do the work necessary to learn the material.
Dr. John S. Risley, Professor of Physics, NCSU and President of WebAssign, Raleigh, NC, “The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP): Teaching with Technology in an Interactive Classroom”: Dr. Risley’s presentation showed how active learning can be brought to a large enrollment course through the WebAssign program that had been previewed in Dr. Sandberg’s presentation. Using WebAssign, students complete activities online, giving the instructor the ability to monitor the progress of student learning while ensuring that all students are actively engaging with the material. Because the technology also updates students’ grades, students always know where they stand in the course. Dr. Risley’s full presentation is here.
Additional issues that emerged in discussion included:
· What are we assuming about student’s experience with technology? Are students from under-funded schools put at a disadvantage when they don’t want to admit that they don’t know this technology? A: While there will always be some students who are uncomfortable with new technology, students don’t really need to be trained to use these tools since click and point makes everything pretty immediately accessible.
· What evidence is there that this system works? A: Keeping 100+ students actively engaged in learning in this way allows them to communicate and work as a team. Performance among under-represented groups is enhanced by three ingredients of active learning: classroom environment; tangible activities with hands on experiences; continual assessment via homework, exercises, problems, lab groups, quizzes and tests. With a total of 140 assignments in 15 weeks, students keep up with the material and have a higher level of interaction with the faculty. The WebAssign system also allows national comparisons so you know how your students are doing compared with others.
Dr. Carolyn Miller, Professor of English and Dr. Susan K. Miller-Cochran, Associate Professor of English, NCSU, “Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty for the Digital World”: Dr. Carolyn Miller described the new graduate program CRDM that began at NCSU two years ago. The program was designed in recognition that new media is transforming the communication process, that the technology requires new theory and research focused on communication and new instructional strategies to transform undergraduate education. A post master degree, the program recognizes that not all of its graduates will be interested in becoming faculty members, but includes components of research and teaching for those who are preparing for such roles.
Dr. Susan Miller-Cochran described one of the core seminars that the program requires. Students in the seminar reflect on what teaching means and engage with the scholarship of teaching and learning. They experiment with different technologies and serve as discussion leaders to help classmates learn new technology. Students are regularly engaged in thinking about how the use of technology can blur the boundaries between different classes and different semesters and how technology influences the ways that faculty teach. Dr. Miller and Dr. Miller-Cochran’s full presentation is available here.
Additional issues that emerged in discussion included:
· The audience was interested in the process used for the graduate program to be approved by the institution, the kinds of projects that have been done by its students, and how such a program might be brought into the undergraduate curriculum as well.
Dr. Wendy Katkin, Director of The Reinvention Center, “Wrap-Up and Planning for the National Reinvention Center Conference”: Dr. Katkin presented a draft of the program for the upcoming National Conference scheduled for November 14-15, 2008. Traditionally the program has been shaped by participants at the various regional meetings offering suggestions of both topics and presenters and Dr. Katkin invited the group to make similar suggestions. She described the intent in the sessions as currently designed and members of the audience made suggestions for adding topics or expanding the issue by considering other facets not yet represented on the program. Participants were asked to make additional suggestions and to nominate specific presenters through email.
Participants:
The Reinvention Center
Wendy Katkin, Director
Margaret Marshall, Associate Director
Local Host:
George Barthalmus, Director of Undergraduate Research
Boston University
Victor Coelho, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education
Clemson University
Jeffrey Appling, Associate Professor of Chemistry Education
Duke University
Lee Willard, Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
Emory University
Peter C. Sederberg, Special Assistant to the Provost for Undergraduate Initiatives
Georgia Institute of Technology
Karen Harwell, Director of Undergraduate Research
North Carolina State University
John Ambrose, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Academic Program
Maxine Atkinson, Director of First Year Inquiry Program
Larry Blanton, Director of the Honors Program
Roger Callanan, Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Academic Program
Thomas Conway, Dean of Undergraduate Academic Programs
Mike Cuales, Senior Multimedia Specialist, DELTA
Judy Day, Assistant Director of Undergraduate Research
Allen DuPont, Director of Assessment
Leeann Gillen, Project Manager/Instructional Designer DELTA
Robert Hambrick, Instructional Designer DELTA
Dana Hartweg, Student, Art and Design
Samuel-David Harward, Senior Instructional Designer DELTA
Ben Huckaby, Multimedia Specialist DELTA
A. J. Klingenmaier, Student, Senior Art and Design
Aubrey Komorowski, Graduate Student, Statistics
Carolyn Miller, Professor of English
Susan Miller-Cochran, Associate Professor and Director of FYWP
Sari Nasir, Student, Art and Design
Larry Nielsen, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
P. J. Odom, Multimedia Specialist DELTA
John S. Risley, Professor of Physics
Amanda Robertson, Instructional Designer DELTA
Kay Sandberg, Associate Teaching Professor
Pamela Steinke, Undergraduate Academic Program Assessment
Tracie Temple, Assistant Director of Instructional Development
David Tredwell, Information Technology Support DELTA
Steven Valenziano, Information Technology Support DELTA
Ms. Jennifer Warren, Administrative Support Specialist
Scott Watkins, Instructional Technologist DELTA
Sigma Xi National Office
Roger Harris, Director of Membership and Chapters
University of Alabama
Mary Alice Fields, Head of Gorgas Information Services
Valerie Glenn, Government Document Coordinator
Maria Hernandez-Reif, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies
Michael Pearce, Catalog Librarian
Jamie Satcher, Professor for Counselor Education
Shane Sharpe, Director of Computer-Based Honors Program
Jimmy Williams, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice
University of Buffalo
Timothy Tryjankowski, Director for Center for Undergraduate Research
University of Georgia
Pamela Kleiber, Associate Director for Honors Program
University of Houston
Agnes DeFranco, Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
University of Kentucky
Evie Russell, Administrative Support Associate
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Richard Rogers, Faculty Advisor to the Provost for Undergraduate Education
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Martha S. Arnold, Associate Director, Office for Undergraduate Research
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Mary Crowe, Director of Undergraduate Research
University of Notre Dame
Kevin Barry, Associate Director Kaneb Center
Cecilia Lucero, Assistant to the Dean of First Year Studies
Paul Turner, Manager, Academic Technologies
University of South Carolina
Helen I. Doerpinghaus, Associate Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies
Julie Morris, Program Director, Office of Undergraduate Research
University of Texas Austin
Lynda Gonzales, Program Coordinator, Office of the Dean of Undergraduate
Sarah Simmons, Program Director, College of Natural Sciences
Paul Woodruff, Inaugural Dean of Undergraduate Studies
Vanderbilt University
Lucius Outlaw, Associate Provost, Undergraduate Education
Virginia Tech
Ray E. Van Dyke, Director of Academic Assessment