Introduction

     The concept of quality enhancement is central to the accreditation principles of the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Core Requirement 2.12 specifies that an institution must develop “a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined issue or issues directly related to improving student learning.” The plan must be based on a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the learning environment.

     Based on more than eight years of assessment results (see the discussion of the College’s compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1), we have decided to focus on a goal articulated in the Final Report, (April 15, 1993: p.6) on our current curriculum: independent inquiry.

Like all institutions of higher education, the College seeks to impart subject-matter competencies to its students. But there is wide consensus in the College community . . . that we aim to go further and cultivate our students' intellectual curiosity, flexibility, and depth. If our students are going to be equipped to play leadership roles in the arts and sciences, in public affairs, and in the business world, we must nurture the skills and habits of independent inquiry. Moreover, we should nurture these skills not only in a handful of advanced honors students, but rather in all of our students and in a diversity of settings, including summer research opportunities and both freshman and advanced seminars.

The Final Report (p.26) makes clear an important set of educational objectives:

Among the most important educational objectives enumerated in the Statement of Purpose and the Statement of General Education Objectives are the skills involved in the development, oral presentation, and rational defense of the student's ideas. . . .

         The approved curriculum imagines two primary opportunities for developing these skills: the freshman seminar and a “junior or senior individual or small group learning experience.” The College has fully implemented the freshman seminar and has incorporated it into graduation requirements. The report offers the following description of the second of the opportunities:

during the junior or senior year, each student (should) be required to take at least one course designated as an individual or small group learning experience. This may include seminars, tutorials, independent study, or supervised research projects including Departmental Honors and special summer projects such as the Wilson Cross-Disciplinary Scholarship. All courses satisfying this requirement must offer each student significant opportunity for the oral presentation and defense of her or his ideas or research results (Final Report, p. 25).

         Although the College has not made this junior or senior level experience a requirement, in part because of an absence of research on how it might best be implemented, the opportunity for independent inquiry during the last two years remains an aspiration. Our Quality Enhancement Plan focuses on that opportunity. We know anecdotally that many of our students have experiences like those envisioned in the report on the curriculum. Many students are engaged in undergraduate research in courses that earn credit for independent research. Others are engaged in independent research outside of the classroom and on projects that do not result in the assignment of credit. Some undergraduate projects, for credit or not, involve active participation in original research, and significant student independence. Other projects involve less independence, more exploratory work, or both. The Final Report suggests that the skills of independent inquiry can be fostered through disciplinary or through inter- or cross-disciplinary efforts, mentioning the Wilson Cross-Disciplinary Scholarship as an instance of the latter. The report points to arrangements as diverse as tutorials, seminars, Departmental Honors, and supervised research projects. Ultimately, the report leaves unclear the precise nature of appropriate formats, referring to “individual and small group learning experiences.”

         The primary aim of the Quality Enhancement Plan is to promote independent inquiry and to enhance the culture of discovery, creativity, and scholarship. While we intend to refine, elaborate, and specify the definition of the desired experiences through an experimental approach to the QEP, for now we define independent inquiry as follows:

The specific goals of the QEP are described below:

1. Increase the number of opportunities for students to engage in independent inquiry during the junior or senior year.
2. Improve the quality and variety of independent inquiry experiences for students during the junior and senior years.
3. Elaborate, refine, and articulate the relationships between independent inquiry experiences and the general education, major, and minor curricula.

         Consistent with the vision in the curriculum, we will focus specifically on upper-division experiences. We will begin with a systematic examination of current arrangements that seem to be responsive to the curricular goal. In order to describe the kinds of work that students do relative to the goals articulated in the Final Report , we have begun an inventory of arrangements offered by each academic department and program. The survey asks department chairs and program directors to describe student work in three categories of primary interest. These include: (1) projects in which students are collaborating with faculty on research; (2) projects in which students are working on their own significant research studies; and (3) other opportunities provided by departments and programs for students to develop their own ideas, through research and research-related experiences **. Throughout, the focus is on the process of inquiry.

         Data from the inventory will inform the first two goals of the project: increased and improved opportunities for independent inquiry. We will support both new efforts that increase the number of opportunities and efforts to improve existing arrangements. In pursuit of the third goal, we will explore how best to foster student inquiry within diverse disciplines and fields, recognizing the diversity of practices in the departments and programs that comprise the contemporary arts and sciences. We intend to promote a culture of inquiry, creativity, and discovery by providing more and better opportunities for student investigation and creative work through funded projects, internships, outreach activities, study abroad, and civic engagement. In addition, we will create more opportunities for students to present their work orally and in writing. As we explore the connections between independent inquiry and other aspects of our curricula, we will encourage departments and programs to develop websites to describe the threads of research in their curricula, starting with freshman seminars and including: scope and methods courses; small research opportunities in lower-level courses; opportunities to work on faculty research during the school year and during the summer; upper-level independent studies and research seminars; and honors theses, among other possibilities. Finally, we will develop special funded seminars, teaching projects, and foundation grants to support the development of new and better opportunities for undergraduate student inquiry and better methods of mentoring those efforts.

Background

          The College has implemented and assessed nearly all aspects of the approved curriculum, including all seven General Education Requirements and the Freshman Seminar. (See the discussion of compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1) for details.) We have implemented proficiency requirements in foreign language, writing, and computing, and after careful examination, decided to drop a proficiency in physical activity. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a curricular requirement in technology, and that has been assessed. The Final Report identifies effective oral communication as a curricular goal and points to the freshman seminar and the upper- division individual or small group experience as primary opportunities for developing the appropriate skills. (The report makes clear, however, that more will need to be done to help those students who are least proficient at oral communication. This issue is not the focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan.)

         Both anecdotal evidence and early returns from the inventory described above suggest that substantial numbers of students are engaged in independent inquiry. Some departments and programs for some years have had capstone or similar junior or senior level courses or requirements. Since the approval of the curriculum, others have developed capstone courses, seminars, or independent research classes that are consistent with the curricular goals for independent inquiry. (Examples include senior thesis requirements in Physics and Geology, capstone courses in Anthropology and Sociology, requirements for a senior project in American Studies, required senior seminars in Mathematics, upper division seminars in Biology, required senior projects in Music, grant-funded projects in International Studies, among many others.) As noted, we do not yet have a requirement for independent inquiry, and it is not yet clear whether such a requirement is desirable or feasible. The quality enhancement project will help to answer those questions.

         In addition, we have completed a survey of the 1216 current seniors, asking that they report on experiences that reflect the vision described in the Final Report. Fifty-four percent (660) responded, with 70 percent reporting that they have had “individual or small group experiences” that meet the criteria that we identified. Table 1 summarizes the findings.

         Recall the objectives of the curricular goal from articulated in the Final Report: to promote the skills involved in the development, oral presentation, and rational defense of students’ ideas. Note further that the format is described as “individual or small group experiences.” Beyond these basics, there are unanswered questions and options to explore. The College has not made the junior/senior experience a requirement of graduation. It is not clear what criteria would be applied if the requirement were formally implemented – or, as noted, whether such a requirement is desirable or feasible. Are the experiences envisioned necessarily tied to students’ major field of study? The Final Report does not answer that, or indicate whether student efforts must be graded or whether the work must be done for credit. In addition, it does not prescribe that the experiences involve faculty guidance. Is it possible that the requirement could be met through arrangements involving administrators, coaches, or others affiliated with the College?

         While it seems clear that many of our junior and senior students are pursuing individual and small group experiences, we do not know the relative value of various arrangements for promoting the skills of independent inquiry. Are tutorials, seminars, capstone courses, and individual research assistantships equally effective? Do some of these produce measurably better results? Are there advantages or disadvantages to various arrangements, including for example, individual versus collaborative small group projects? Can we improve mentoring skills through special teaching projects and seminars?

Proposal Summary

• July 2006October 31, 2006. Complete inventory of departments and programs to describe upper-division arrangements that promote independent inquiry as conceived in the Final Report.
• September 2006November/December 2006. Report findings from the inventory of departments and programs and the survey of graduating seniors. Results will be reported to the Arts and Sciences Educational Policy Committee (EPC), the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC; the committee of department chairs and program directors), the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the faculties of the schools of business and education, the Faculty University Priorities Committee (FUPC), and the Faculty Assembly. Solicit recommendations for a committee to guide developmental efforts.See Appendix One Project Management. October 2, 2006
• November 30, 2006/January 2007. Based on recommendations from the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee, the Provost will establish a committee with majority of of faculty representation to implement the QEP. The charge of this committee will be to articulate expectations for student learning, establish funding priorities, and solicit proposals. The proposals may concern revisions or improvements of existing individual or small group experiences; new projects centered on independent inquiry, discovery, or creative work; or on teaching projects and seminars oriented to promoting, understanding, or improving processes of independent inquiry.
• November 1, 2006February 1, 2007. FacultyCommittee articulates expectations for student learning that include (1) developing ideas or creative works; (2) effective oral presentation and defense of ideas; (3) effective written presentation and defense of ideas; and (4) other criteria as determined by the committee. Announce committee funding priorities and solicits proposals.
• December 11, 2006 April 15, 2007. Committee selects and funds projects.
• August 2007. Round #1 projects are implemented.
• May December 2007. Complete evaluation assessment of round #1 funded projects from academic year based on selected student work, reviewed in terms of established criteria for student learning. Assess funded teaching projects and seminars based on documentary evidence and interviews with participants. Report findings to EPC, DAC, Faculty University Priorities Committee (FUPC), Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• September 2007 February 1, 2008. Based on assessment of round #1 projects, clarify expectations for student learning and announce funding priorities for second round of solicitations.
• December 2007April 15, 2008. Select and fund projectsround #2 projects.
• August 2008. Implement round #2 projects.
• July December 2008. Evaluate Assess round #2 funded projects based on selected student work, reviewed in terms of established criteria for student learning. Assess funded teaching projects and seminars based on documentary evidence and interviews with participants. Report findings to EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• September 2008 February 1, 2009. Review and assess project results to date. Determine next rounds for solicitation, assessment, and funding. Based on assessment of second round projects, clarify expectations for student learning and announce funding priorities for round #3 projects.
• April 15, 2009. Select and fund round #3 projects
• August 2009. Implement round #3 projects.
• December 2009. Assess round #3 projects based on selected student work, reviewed in terms of established criteria for student learning. Assess funded teaching projects and seminars based on documentary evidence and interviews with participants. Report findings to EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• February 2010. Complete third year cumulative review of assessed projects. In this review, we will assess progress towards achieving our project goals, and described above. Develop recommendations for subsequent funding and report recommendations to EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly.
• March 2010. In consultation with EPC, DAC, FUPC, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, faculties of the schools of business and education, and Faculty Assembly, the Committee will develop and implement long-term plans for integrating independent inquiry into the curriculum of the College.

Conceptual Foundations and Prospects

         William and Mary is committed to close faculty-student relationships, with an undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio of 12 to 1. Full-time faculty members teach 80 percent of all course enrollments. Part-time faculty members are responsible for 12 percent of the total student course enrollments, with the remaining eight percent taught by administrative and professional staff with faculty credentials, teaching assistants, and other staff.

         The goal of fostering independent inquiry suggests the concept of mentoring, which draws upon both rich traditions of teaching and learning and recent innovations in higher education. The concept of mentor derives from Greek mythology and, more specifically, from Homer’s Odyssey.***.

          Faculty-mentored student work is an important feature of the “William and Mary experience,” and alumni regularly report that individual work with a faculty member was among their most significant experiences at the College (see Appendix Two Alumni Reports on Most Valued Undergraduate Experiences). Almost certainly, a significant proportion of these experiences involved independent inquiry.

         A major goal of The QEP provides an opportunity to bring increased intentionality to the mentoring relationships that are pervasive at the College. In the vision of the approved curriculum, that means focusing on independent inquiry. The vision suggests also that such work involves both individual and small group work, and that in turn, directs some attention to the idea of collaboration. Recent research in higher education suggests that collaboration can advance skills that are important to independent inquiry -- and promote other potentially desirable outcomes. These other outcomes include learning-related and cognitive skills, personal development, appreciation for fine arts, analytical skills, and understanding science and technology. In earlier research, collaborative learning also had the greatest effect on reported openness to diversity (see Cabrera, Nora, Bernal, Terenzini, and Pascarella, [November, 1998]). The research concerns perceived rather than objectively measured changes. Still, the results are intriguing and encouraging. It is important also to note that there are several models of collaboration and these variations may be important in our efforts to advance and promote independent inquiry.

         The findings about the effects of collaborative scholarship for appreciation of diversity are important on their own. President Gene Nichol, acting on a commitment to public greatness, has initiated Gateway William and Mary to increase access to quality education for those with limited financial means. Gateway will increase diversity at the College, and collaborative learning may help to optimize the value of diversity for student learning. Chang (2003; reported in Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005:6) suggests that campus communities that are more diverse “tend to create more richly varied educational experiences that enhance students’ learning and better prepare them for participation in a democratic society” (Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005: 6). However, this does not happen simply as a result of “compositional diversity” (see, especially, Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005, especially p. 14. Attending classes together does not ensure the beneficial effects of interaction and engagement. Neither does sharing campus space ensure that students with different backgrounds will encounter differing opinions that provoke thoughtfulness.

         There is clear evidence of important differences of opinion across economic, racial, and ethnic groups on issues such as the death penalty, consumer protection, health care, drug testing, and citizens’ rights. Those differences can enrich student learning if students from diverse backgrounds engage one another and if learning experiences are organized to promote constructive and productive engagement. Projects focused on systematic inquiry that incorporate collaborative learning methods could provide rich opportunities to optimize the value of increased campus diversity.

         While we take an expansive view of the process of independent undergraduate inquiry, the idea of undergraduate research is not new, either at William and Mary or generally in American higher education. It is the focus of renewed concern among research universities (see The Boyer Commission Report on Reinventing Undergraduate Education). It is integral to the “new academy,” as conceived in the Association of American Colleges and Universities "Greater Expectations" Project. (The most recent edition of the AAC&U’s Peer Review is entitled "Undergraduate Research: A Path to Engagement, Achievement, and Integration.") Furthermore, the work of the national Council on Undergraduate Research has brought focused energy and expanded opportunities for undergraduate research for nearly three decades. There is developing scholarship that reveals that undergraduate research is transformative for individual students -- and transformative for academic curricula and institutions (see Tim Elgren, past president of the Council on Undergraduate Research, “Undergraduate Research Experiences: Synergies between Scholarship and Teaching”.

         We will draw from the experiences of those who have been and are engaged both locally and in national-level efforts as we develop the Quality Enhancement Plan focused on independent inquiry. At William and Mary, faculty researchers have led National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (for example, see descriptions of recent programs in Mathematics, Environmental Studies, Geology, and Physics in “REUs: Faculty lead in a summer of study”), undergraduate research programs in biology and related fields (see HHMI at The College of William & Mary), among others. In addition, there are continuing undergraduate research programs including, for example, Chappell Undergraduate Research Fellowships, Mellon Teaching Fellows, among others.

         In addition, we have already in place other resources to support and advance the project. For example, the College established a Writing Resources Center in 1987, and in 1994, added an Oral Communications Studio (The Writing Resources Center). The Center and Studio staff includes a faculty director, an undergraduate assistant director, and twenty undergraduate consultants. Staff members assist people at all stages of the writing and oral communication processes, from prewriting to the final touches. They can provide direct consultation and general guidance as students develop oral and written presentations.

         In addition, the College implemented the University Teaching Project in 1994 to model “good teaching practices at the same time that it institutionalizes a dialogue on good teaching practices across campus” (see University Teaching Project). The Teaching Project operates from the premise that “if student learning is to become more active, more critical and synthetic, and more cooperative, then faculty need a dynamic teaching development program that has these same qualities.” We will build from this perspective to develop and implement special projects oriented to mentoring and the special skills needed to foster undergraduate independent inquiry.

         The Sharpe Community Scholars Program organizes service-learning experiences for self-selected freshman students. Some of these students continue beyond the first year to pursue summer projects and related experiences in the years that follow, supported by Sharpe Community Scholars Project Grants. Some of these projects center on the kinds of independent inquiry we intend to support and encourage. In addition, the College has submitted a grant application entitled Equality in Education to the federal Learn and Serve program. If funded, the grant will support 35 students to do course work and undertake service-learning projects that focus on minority achievement in the local public schools. The intention is that these students will have experiences that meet the criteria identified in the QEP.

         William and Mary’s Information Technology is launching a Technology Fellows program that provides another source of support. The project will include a “faculty fellows” program that will support undergraduate students to work with individual faculty members to bring technological innovations to new or ongoing faculty research. The emphasis is on technology in service to research and scholarship, and provides funding for collaborative work involving students and faculty. Some of these projects will involve the kinds of undergraduate scholarly inquiry envisioned in this proposal.

         Increased opportunities for independent inquiry will benefit from existing resources and will require some new resources. Funds will be dedicated to the development of projects to enhance current efforts towards independent inquiry, to increase opportunities for such projects, and to support efforts to enhance the skills of faculty members and others who mentor such efforts.

         As noted in the Proposal Summary (above), the first step in the project is to complete the inventory of departments and programs in order to describe systematically existing arrangements that support independent inquiry. That information will be provided to the Educational Policy Committee, the Dean’s Advisory Committee, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the faculties of the schools of business and education. Those groups, in turn, will provide direction for the development of new projects, beginning with the nomination of faculty members to guide the effort. The selected committee members will develop criteria for funding projects and make explicit the Expectations for Student Learning (see Process of Institutional Effectiveness) associated with independent inquiry projects. (These include, from the Final Report, (1) students develop their own ideas or conduct research; (2) students make effective oral presentations of their ideas or research findings; and (3) students present their ideas or research effectively in writing.)

         The grants for the first round will serve as “seed money” to promote creative ideas rather than as funds for salaries or new faculty positions. This focus will allow faculty to identify current practices and develop new learning experiences that enhance independent inquiry skills. Once existing and new opportunities have been identified, Subsequent phases will target resources to ensure students have opportunities to engage in independent inquiry and to continue to explore ever broadening avenues for these experiences. Examples of the potential for grants in the first year follow. Note that these are hypothetical and only for the purpose of illustration. See Appendix Three QEP Project Budget.

         Proposal #1: Three members of the Environmental Studies faculty propose to conduct a “May Seminar” to allow close and critical examination of the Department’s capstone experience. The seminars and projects seem to be working to provide opportunities for independent inquiry, but the workload is extraordinary and may not be sustainable. In addition, it is not clear that students are doing work at the intended level of independence. Request: $1500.

         Proposal #2: The Director of the Sharpe Program proposes to award summer scholarships to two former Sharpe participants to conduct advanced research on community-based projects begun during their Sharpe experience. The projects are intended in part to provide additional evidence of the benefits that could result from a funded grant proposal. Request: $2000.

         Proposal #3: Two Psychology professors propose to fund students for summer research that will lead to a proposal for a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates grant. They will fund eight students in a pilot project. Request: $4000.

         Proposal #4: The chair of the Biology department proposes a “May Seminar” with three Biology professors and two professors from the School of Marine Science to examine mentoring undergraduates with the goal of developing several models for student engagement in biological inquiry. Request: $2500.

         Proposal #5: Two professors and two undergraduate students from the American Studies Program propose to extend a documentary film project on the history and culture of Williamsburg. The students will collect life-history information and narratives that capture life on Duke of Gloucester Street at the turn of the 20th century. Request $4,000.

         These five examples would require $14,000. The first illustrates a concern for improving the quality of ongoing opportunities. The second and fifth examples involve efforts to increase the number of opportunities drawing upon existing arrangements, projects, and administrative faculty. The Psychology example suggests a way in which many new opportunities could be created drawing upon outside funding. The fourth example is an effort to examine faculty mentoring to optimize the value of mentored experiences in inquiry.

Developing the QEP: How We Got Here

Assessment Plan for the QEP

Baseline Measures

• Date: January 30, 2006

Inventory of Arts and Sciences departments and programs: Collect descriptions of undergraduate research, independent and small group experiences that involve independent inquiry, oral and written defense of ideas and research – Complete by July 1, 2006 October 31, 2006

• Date: February 3, 2006

Survey of current seniors: Collect information on experiences of seniors in independent inquiry -- done

• Date: September November/December, 2006

Submit results of inventory and senior survey: Arts and Sciences faculty, Dean’s Advisory Council, Arts and Sciences Educational Policy Committee, schools of business, education, Faculty University Priorities Committee, and Faculty Assembly.

• Date: October November, 2006/January 2007

Establish QEP Advisory Committee (appointed by Provost on recommendation from Faculty Assembly Executive Committee)

• Develop Expectations for Student Learning associated with independent inquiry (see Process of Institutional Effectiveness)
• With Assessment Steering Committee and Educational Policy Committee, develop specific strategies for assessment
• Develop criteria for judging projects to promote undergraduate independent inquiry
• Develop solicitation for projects, including a section on how project will be evaluated

Date: April 2007

Survey of graduating seniors: Continue collecting information on experiences of students in upper level independent inquiry.

• Date: May December 2007

A Working Group of faculty members will evaluate funded projects using guidelines established by the QEP Advisory Committee

• Student work will be used to evaluate extent to which learning expectations are met through experiences of independent inquiry.
• Teaching projects will be evaluated based on interviews with participants and evaluations conducted as part of the project
• The Working Group will summarize results of the evaluations and assess the evaluation process in a report to the QEP Advisory Committee, the EPC, the DAC, the FUPC, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the faculties of the schools of business and education, and the Faculty Assembly.

In the second year of the QEP, assessments will continue along the same schedule as the first year. In addition, a pilot study will be designed and implemented to evaluate identified independent inquiry experiences in the curriculum and co-curriculum. The pilot will be modeled on current assessment practices used at the College to evaluate student learning in general education and will be integrated into the broader process of institutional effectiveness.

• Date: May 2008

We will survey graduating seniors to describe the number and percent of students who report having had the identified upper level independent inquiry experiences and to assess those experiences from the students’ perspectives. Note: The assessment model presented below describes the processes through which faculty members examine the value of the experiences for achieving curricular goals.

As noted above, the project explores an important component of the approved curriculum. Assessment results will be used to inform discussions about the curriculum, and to determine how to enhance opportunities for independent inquiry for upper level undergraduates. Those discussions will direct subsequent phases of the project and help determine resource allocation decisions.

         Academic leaders at William and Mary have engaged in assessment for nearly two decades. Throughout that time, faculty members, department chairs, program directors, deans, the provost, and others have thought seriously about the goals of assessment and about developing directions in academic accountability. We have developed and pursued scholarly research, written and published papers and articles, presented at national academic conferences, and otherwise reflected on the value of assessment, and more particularly, the evaluation of "student outcomes."

We are fortunate to attract uniformly bright, highly motivated students and faculty members who are committed to the highest standards of teaching and scholarship. In the course of many years of external program reviews and extensive assessment of general education, we have reached two conclusions that we hold with some confidence. First, we have in place effective mechanisms for testing the quality of our curricula against external standards. Second, committed teachers working within the context of carefully organized academic courses do the most authentic evaluation of student academic work (skills, abilities, knowledge, and critical thinking abilities, in particular).

         It does not follow from these observations that we need nothing further by way of academic assessment. Indeed, given (1) motivated, prepared students; (2) courses conceived as parts of a well-designed curricula; and (3) committed, well-trained, and motivated teachers, there remains a critical question about linkage: Do the courses deliver the specific content and skills required by and for the curricula? We believe that this fundamentally is a question about learning experiences. We have designed a process that focuses specifically on that question. The assessment process asks faculty members to identify the specific learning expectations for their courses. Faculty working groups check these against the learning expectations for the curriculum of which the courses are a part. We ask instructors to describe the learning experiences that they provide for students to learn what is expected. Based their own experiences and common understandings within the profession , faculty working groups evaluate the extent to which curricular experiences result in the types of learning they expect of students. We use a range of student work to examine (1) the effectiveness of the learning experiences and (2) the standards being applied by the teacher. Through survey data, students describe learning experiences, and these descriptions provide a context for evaluating learning through samples of student work. In addition, faculty members may explain student survey responses, and these explanations can clarify the work of faculty working groups.

         We have looked carefully at assessment strategies in other universities, especially those that purport to focus on student "outcomes." We believe that our current strategy provides the data most useful for assessing the quality of student learning. Further, the assessment strategy provides direct information about how to improve student learning when we identify that need.

• Independent inquiry projects assessed within Process of Institutional Effectiveness:
1. Purpose
2. Expectations for Student Learning
3. Learning Experiences
4. Student Work for Evaluating Student Learning
5. Decisions to Improve Student Learning



• Example (General Education Requirement 1 PIE):



GER PIE 1
Purpose The purpose of GER1 is to expose students to analytical techniques and computational tools for addressing real world problems.
Expectations	Experiences	Evaluations
Students will understand why approaches and calculations used in the course work. Students will apply mathematics to study real-world problems. Students will carry out numerical calculations by hand or by using calculators or computers.	Faculty members teaching GER courses provide course syllabi and write brief narratives to describe the learning experiences that help students to achieve the expectations for learning. The syllabi and narratives are included in course portfolios that are used by faculty working groups to assess student learning.	Faculty working groups review portfolios for each of the GER1 course sections. For each course section, the portfolio includes course syllabi, a narrative written by the teaching faculty member to describe how student learning expectations are achieved, examples of student work, and results from a survey of students in the course sections. Members of the faculty working groups review the portfolios and make judgments about whether students are achieving the expectations for learning through the learning experiences.



• Example of assessment criteria (from GER 1):

Ger 1 – Mathematics And Quantitative Reasoning

Courses offered by the College in fulfillment of GER 1 must develop computational techniques in the context of problems that are pertinent to the experience and training of the students. The setting of these problems should be recognizable to an informed nonmathematician.

The problems themselves must require mathematical tools for their analysis.

GER 1 Criteria:

Courses offered by the College in fulfillment of GER 1 must:

1. involve numerical calculations;
2. include mathematical justifications explaining why the approaches and calculations used in the course actually work;
3. include applications of mathematics to real-world settings or to disciplines other than mathematics.

Elaboration:

The numerical calculations in (a) may be carried out by hand, using calculators, or using computers.

The justifications in (b) may be either mathematical proofs or careful analyses of the mathematical models used in the course, aimed at giving students experience in the process of creating appropriate mathematical models and/or understanding why one mathematical model of a given phenomenon is preferable to another.

The applications envisioned in (c) must be recognizable as such by an educated nonmathematician.

It is not enough for a GER1 course to study a family of mathematical or statistical techniques that could be used in real-world problems. To meet GER1 goal (c), a course must show how the techniques are used in the study of real-world problems.

To qualify for approval, a GER 1 course must satisfy the following two requirements:

A) Include BOTH mathematics and quantitative reasoning at its core. Thus, it is expected that numerical procedures (quantitative reasoning) will be accompanied by mathematical theory as justification; and

B) Devote a significant amount of time to applications of the mathematical methods developed in the course.

Interpretive Guidelines:

1. Currently offered courses in the Mathematics Department that are most likely to satisfy GER 1 include the first course in calculus and the elementary probability course. But, in order to conform to Standard B, the Mathematics Department should ensure that its beginning courses offered for GER 1 credit will be heavily oriented toward applications. Specialized new courses in the department that are offered for GER 1 credit are expected to display practical content, not confine themselves solely to the development, however sophisticated, of a mathematical topic.
2. Mathematically oriented courses that might satisfy GER 1 are also found outside the Mathematics Department. Typically, such courses employ specialized tools and focus on discipline-specific applications, comprehensible only to those acquainted with the subject field. It is unlikely that a 3 or 4 hour course can accommodate an explanation of the peculiar quantitative needs of a discipline as well as a sound exposition of pertinent mathematical methods and still find time to provide reasonable practice in the application of those methods. It is anticipated, therefore, that courses offered for GER 1 credit by departments other than Mathematics, or by one of the Schools, will ordinarily have a subject matter prerequisite.


• Example of Portfolio Scoring Guide (from GER 1):



COURSE PORTFOLIO RATING GUIDE: GER 1 – MATHEMATICS AND QUANTITATIVE REASONING
The purpose of GER 1 is to expose students to analytical techniques and computational tools for addressing real world problems.
INSTRUCTIONS: Rate the extent to which the portfolio demonstrates that course experiences result in the types of learning defined by the GER requirement. Indicate a rating for each expectation and the overall portfolio, and add comments for instructor.
SCALE (learning expectations): Not enough information: portfolio is missing components or does not address experiences related to a learning expectation Inadequate: portfolio suggests that students did not really have experiences in the course that led to the type of learning expected in the GER. Student work, course material, and survey responses indicate that the expectation for student learning was met only minimally, if at all. Adequate: The portfolio suggests that students had experiences in the course that led to the type of learning expected in the GER. Student work, course material, and survey responses indicate that the expectation for student learning was addressed at least to some extent or even emphasized in the course. Exemplary: The link between the course and the learning expectation is very strong and clearly evidenced in student work, course material, and survey responses. The portfolio could be used as an exemplar to show how to align course experiences with the GER learning expectation

Expectations for Student Learning	Not Enough Information	Inadequate	Adequate	Exemplary
1. Students will carry out numerical calculations by hand or by using calculators or computers. Adequate: student work, course material, and/or survey responses include several examples of how students used numerical calculations
2. Students will understand why approaches and calculations used in the course work. Adequate: student work, course material, and/or survey responses include an explanation of why an approach or calculation was used
3. Students will apply mathematics to study real-world problems. Adequate: student work, course material, and/or survey responses demonstrate use of mathematics to address a problem students might face in the workforce or as an informed and educated citizen
SCALE (Overall portfolio): Not enough information: at least one expectation could not be judged, all others were judged adequate or exemplary Inadequate: at least one expectation was judged inadequate Adequate: all expectations were judged adequate or exemplary Exemplary: all expectations were judged adequate or exemplary, and portfolio could be used to exemplify how a GER course aligns with learning expectations
PORTFOLIO RATING (circle):	Not Enough Information	Inadequate	Adequate	Exemplary
COMMENTS for instructor:



• Example of student survey (from GER 1):
  Surveys Conducted Electronically:



GER 1: MATHEMATICS AND QUANTITATIVE REASONING
The purpose of GER 1 is to expose students to analytical techniques and computational tools for addressing real world problems.
INSTRUCTIONS: Answer the following questions. Include any additional comments you have at the end of the questionnaire. Click on "SUBMIT SURVEY" button at the bottom of the page to register your responses.
COURSE: (course title) 1. Are you taking this course to fulfill GER 1? Yes      No      If not, when/how did you fulfill GER 1? 2. Did you have problems getting into this course? Yes      No
For the next items: "not at all" and "minimally" indicate students did NOT really have the experience in the course "to some extent" and "emphasized in course" indicate that students DID have the experience
To what extent did (course name)
3. involve numerical calculation? (scale) 4. explain why the approaches and calculations used in the course work? (scale) 5. apply mathematics to study real-world problems or to disciplines other than mathematics? (scale)
COMMENTS:

Footnotes

*Undergraduate research currently is fashionable. It is actively promoted and supported by the National Science Foundation, the Council for Undergraduate Research, the American Association of Colleges and Universities, and in initiatives including the Boyer Report on “Reinventing Undergraduate Education” (1998). While most American academics believe that undergraduate research is important to the intellectual development of students, there is little systematic empirical evidence to document the presumed benefits. Seymour and her colleagues (2004: 494) report that only “three journal articles and one conference presentation describe the methods and findings of formal research studies that explore the benefits to undergraduates of research experiences.” The documented benefits include gains in research skills and oral communication of research results. A review of programs intended to promote undergraduate research reveals that few are embedded in curricular arrangements, or are designed intentionally to promote particular learning objectives. For these reasons, we have chosen not to make a close link between our QEP proposal and undergraduate research as usually understood. Back

**In some disciplines, research refers exclusively to experimental or field studies that are oriented to the creation of knowledge for the purpose of disseminating findings for peer and public review. This project recognizes the significance of such experiences for promoting independent inquiry. At the same time, the project recognizes and includes a broader variety of experiences that promote the skills and attitudes of independent and critical inquiry. Back

***Although recent usage does not always reflect the first use of the term mentor, in Homer's Odyssey the original Mentor was an older and wiser counselor, and a trusted guide. At times even the goddess Athena takes Mentor's shape to provide divine counsel when human participants in the epic poem need special help. Back

References

Association of American Colleges and Universities "Greater Expectations" Project, A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College, http://www.greaterexpectations.org/

The Boyer Commission Report on Reinventing Undergraduate Education.“ 1998. A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities,” http://naples.cc.stonybrook.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf

Cabrera, A.F. Nora, A., Bernal, E., Terenzini, P., and Pascarella, P. November, 1998. “Collaborative Learning: Preferences, Gains in Cognitive and Affective Outcomes, and Openness to Diversity Among College Students.” Presented at the Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.

Chang, M.J. (2003). “Racial differences in viewpoints about contemporary issues among entering college students: Fact or fiction?” NASPA Journal, 40(4), 55-71. Reported in Milem, J. F., M. J. Chang, and A. L. Antonio. 2005. Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Chappell Undergraduate Research Fellowships, http://www.wm.edu/charlescenter/index.php?id=1354

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1, The College and William and Mary, Compliance Certification Review, http://www.wm.edu/sacs/accdoc/3/3/1/

Council on Undergraduate Research, “Learning Through Research,” http://www.cur.org/

Curriculum Review Steering Committee, Faculty of Arts and Sciences (The College of William and Mary). April 15, 1993. Final Report on the Undergraduate Curriculum.

Elgren, Tim and Nancy Hensel. “Undergraduate Research Experiences: Synergies Between Scholarship and Teaching,” Winter 2006. Peer Review. http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi06/PR-WI06_analysis.cfm

“Equality in Education.” 2006. A grant proposal from the College of William and Mary to the Learn and Serve Program.

Gateway William and Mary, “Gateway to Debt-free College Education,” http://www.wm.edu/gateway/

“HHMI at The College of William & Mary,” http://www.wm.edu/hhmi/

Mellon Teaching Fellows, http://www.wm.edu/charlescenter/?id=4281

Milem, J. F., M. J. Chang, and A. L. Antonio. 2005. “Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective.” Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Process of Institutional Effectiveness, “Presentation of Expected Outcomes for Educational Programs, Administration, and Support Services,” http://www.wm.edu/sacs/pie.php

Seymour, Elaine, Anne-Barrie Hunter, Sandra L. Laursen, Tracee DeAntoni. “Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study.” Science Education. Volume 88, Issue 4, July 2004, Pages: 493-534.

Sharpe Community Scholars Program, “Offering students the opportunity to continue academic study through community activism,” http://www.wm.edu/sharpe

Technology Fellows program, “Incorporating tech-savvy undergraduates with faculty to utilize technology in teaching and research,” http://www.wm.edu/it/tip/faculty/

The Writing Resources Center, “Offering writing and oral communication assistance,” http://www.wm/edu/wrc/about.php

“REUs: Faculty lead in a summer of study,” http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5129

University Teaching Project, “Strategies to promote learning in students,” http://www.wm.edu/charlescenter/?id=1293