Assessing Undergraduate Research in the Arts and Humanities

As teachers and administrators, we assess our students. We test them to measure their understanding of material. We ask them to write essays to show their ability to construct a scholarly argument. And we have them do research to establish their place in the study of a particular problem. In each case, we provide students with feedback. Some of this is formative: designed to highlight the strengths and weaknesses with the goal of improving performance on the next such assignment. Other feedback is summative, often in the form of grades. The British use the term “assessment” for these activities.

In the United States, however, the term frequently refers to the use of student work for program or course improvement. This should be just as constructive as grading students in a class. But this idea of assessment often seems to carry a negative connotation. Many faculty roll their eyes whenever the topic arises. This is in part because they know that assessment might be used for purposes it was not designed for. Some faculty fear that administrators might use assessment results to reward or terminate faculty. There is a concern that assessment might direct funding or provide talking points in service of some institutional agenda. Just as often and equally damaging, the eye-rolling results from past experience. At times, institutions have collected assessment data without a clear purpose. As a result, stacks of paper moldered in forgotten offices, and electronic files gathered virtual dust on neglected shared drives.

Step One: What Do You Want To Know?

So, to reclaim assessment as a beneficial component of program building, let us examine what assessment can do for you. We will begin with the question that should be at the forefront of any assessment discussion: “What do you want to know?” The answer to this deceptively simple question should lead to a discussion of how best to answer the question. This is the beginning of constructing a worthwhile assessment. One way that assessment differs from just asking questions is that with assessment there is a means to answer the question beyond simple anecdote.

An example of such a process comes from the assessment of the impact of undergraduate research. In a study of the effects of presenting at the Undergraduate Research Conference on students at the University of New Hampshire, the five investigators set out to answer these two questions:

  1. How do current students perceive the URC impacting their undergraduate experience?
  2. How do current students perceive their mentors’ role in their academic/research experience?

The investigators sent surveys to each presenter. Using a combination of closed-ended and open-ended questions, they collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data included student responses using a Likert scale to measure the impact of presenting at the URC on their overall skills and confidence in such aspects as public speaking and taking initiative; they analyzed these responses using statistical methodologies. The qualitative data came from answers to open-ended questions about faculty mentoring and students’ most memorable URC experience. These answers were read and categorized by several individuals and shared themes identified. By coding these themes, the investigators were able to analyze these qualitative data using quantitative methodologies.

Step Two: How Will You Know It?

In constructing a research question, it helps significantly if one conceptualizes a potential way to answer the question as one develops it. These potential ways might include surveys, or evaluation of student-generated artifacts such as capstone work or portfolios of research or creative writing, translation, music performance, and/or artwork.

A case in point for the use of student-generated artifacts in program assessment: the first five-year program review of the newly established Art History major at Truman State University, my home institution. We had changed the way we taught a senior thesis in Art History. For example, we moved from one semester with six hours of credit for completion of a thesis, to making the project two semesters, with one three-hour class each semester.

Our major question was whether the theses were showing improvement as a result of the changes, and in what ways. To answer this question, we needed to find measures of quality other than grades. For example, one such improvement could be in the level of ambition in the research. This quality might show up in bibliographies that included both primary and secondary materials, longer and more complete listings of sources, and scholarly articles as well as more general sources. In turn, the improved bibliography might coincide with more sophisticated and more challenging thesis questions. This can lead to more ambitious thesis statements, and hence longer theses.

By gathering data on these two factors, we were able to suggest that the changes we made in the major resulted in improvements. In our study of ten years of data, we found that the length of the average thesis more than doubled immediately after the move from one semester to two. Further, the variety and number of bibliographic sources increased over the ten years under study.

I Need Help! Where Might I Find It?

In the arts and humanities there are several examples and discussions of disciplinary-based assessments and assessment strategies. Here is CURAH’s sampling of some of the resources out there for many of the disciplines collected in the Arts and Humanities Division of CUR, grouped by discipline. Even if one resource is not in your discipline, it is worth looking at what other areas are doing.

Nominate Yourself to be a CUR Councilor by Nov. 15: Encouraging Thoughts from our Volunteer-of-the-year

Please consider applying to become a CUR Councilor for the Arts & Humanities Division. The deadline to nominate yourself is Friday, November 15, 2019 (at 11:50 p.m. EST). The form is short and easy, but it does ask you to reflect on your work and your interest in undergraduate research. So set aside a few minutes and consider joining our team. To encourage you, CURAH editors consulted Pace University’s Maria Iacullo-Bird, our outgoing Chair and last year’s Volunteer-of-the-Year winner.

CURAH: Several of your CUR colleagues have described you as a “transformative Arts & Humanities Chair.” What were your key goals as chair of the division?

Maria: One key goal as Arts and Humanities (A&H) Division Chair was to build a solid operational structure for the division to enhance communication and community among both A&H councilors and the larger arts and humanities membership. Critical to this purpose was the establishment of conference-call meetings twice a semester that were supported by email updates, and the start of a digital website blog. My second major goal was to strengthen the visibility and voice of the arts and humanities within CUR and beyond. The website blog would be become essential for this purpose and additional areas of focus would be councilor recruitment to advance the strategic pillars of diversity and inclusion, the promotion of division travel awards, more A&H-targeted programming, and ongoing advocacy efforts. A notable example of expanded A&H programming occurred at CUR Dialogues through A&H-themed plenary sessions and advocacy keynotes that included A&H perspectives.  Dialogues also offered several sessions featuring NEH and NEA program officers who specifically addressed undergraduate research in the context of arts and humanities funding opportunities. 

My advocacy work began as the A&H Division representative to the CUR Advocacy Committee, and continued in my role as chair. I made annual visits to Capitol Hill representing CUR and my home institution Pace University to inform members of Congress and federal officials about the importance of undergraduate research and related educational initiatives through the lens of the arts and humanities. I am very gratified that during my term as chair a strong, dynamic, and activist reputation emerged for the A&H Division through sustained collaborative work with fellow A&H Councilors, the CUR Executive Officer and the CUR National Office staff.

CUR Councilor Maria Iacullo-Bird
CUR Councilor Maria-Iacullo Bird

CURAH: What did you enjoy most about your work as chair?

Maria: It has been a joy to get to know colleagues better in the division and to represent them and our fields in a range of activities that underscored the value of undergraduate research for the arts and humanities! I enjoyed being an active chair who through the national presence of CUR made the most of opportunities through advocacy and formal speaking presentations to offer a positive voice for the arts and humanities. I derived the greatest satisfaction when acting on my passionate belief in the fundamental importance of the arts and humanities, their relevance for the twenty-first century workplace, and for the transformative impact of undergraduate research.

Majoring in arts and humanities disciplines develops creativity, strong oral and written communication, and critical, analytic skills. These are highly transferable and valued across employment sectors. As teachers and researchers in the arts and humanities, we must work individually and together to promote a positive narrative to counter the negative pronouncements concerning the arts and humanities that are prevalent today. Given the current manipulation of truth, specious reasoning, and the absence of historical knowledge in the public sphere, we need the arts and humanities more than ever to make sense of current events and hopefully to make a better world domestically and globally.

CURAH: You received the Volunteer of the Year award recently; that reflects far more than simply serving as Division Chair. What do you consider your most important contributions to the work of CUR?

MariaI was deeply honored to receive the CUR Volunteer of the Year Award at the 2019 Annual Business Meeting. The last year of my three-year term as division chair culminated in my most intense and extensive year of CUR service activity. During my last year 2018-2019, in addition to the ongoing administrative and operational work of the division, I inaugurated two major awards — the Arts and Humanities Mentor Award and the Trimmer Travel Award; served on a major CUR search committee; made repeated trips to Washington, D.C. to continue my advocacy work on both sides of the aisle in Congress and with the National Humanities Alliance and Americans for the Arts; served as a juror and award presenter at the 2019 Second World Congress on Undergraduate Research in Oldenburg, Germany; and transitioned to my newly elected position as a member of the CUR Executive Board.

CURAH: What might you say to encourage colleagues who are thinking about joining CUR or even serving as councilor?

Maria: Without hesitation I would urge them to become a CUR member and to consider how to become more involved by running to serve as a councilor. Joining CUR has been one of the best decisions I have made in my professional life! Membership in CUR makes available to me a great range of resources to inform and advance undergraduate research and also has expanded my network of colleagues and friends. Typically, we all belong to organizations directly related to our fields but participation in CUR offers a unique opportunity to get to know faculty and administrators from many disciplines as well as within one’s own academic specialty. It is wonderful to have colleagues across the country and even internationally who share a commitment to undergraduate research and can partner on projects to benefit teaching, mentoring, and research.

Serving as a councilor offered professional development opportunities that have been meaningful to me in reach and impact. My leadership abilities have been enhanced through my work as chair and now as a member of the CUR Executive Board and these achievements are recognized by Pace University where I contribute to the advancement of undergraduate research.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Moving to a multi-mentor model

As a history professor, I have mentored many undergraduates in their research. Instinctively, I tend to mentor them as I had been mentored: I interact with each student one-on-one and help them develop a research plan, ask probing questions, and guide their learning. But in 2016 I began exploring a different approach. Instead of following the traditional mentor-protégé relationship, I sought to create a team-based multi-mentor model as part of a new long-term undergraduate research opportunity.

A multi-mentor model is a team-based approach in which multiple members perform various and distinct roles. Each person, then, contributes to and guides the learning and professional growth of the others (Bradley et al., 2017). Team-based research is more pervasive in STEM and social science fields than in history. I found, however, this method also has distinct benefits for my students. Here some of the key lessons I have learned over the last three years about the challenges and benefits to multi-mentor research in the humanities.

The Project

The Dutch Church Book Provenance Project, as it is known, is an international effort led by the Dutch Church and Lambeth Palace Library. Essentially, the project aims to research and catalog the historic Dutch Church Library, a collection dating back to the church’s creation in 1550 as a refuge in England for foreign Protestants during the Reformation. Dutch clergy, influential merchants, and political figures donated books to the library over the years. As a result, it provides a lens through which to view the history of the Dutch in London. Following the Second World War, church leaders gave most of the library to Lambeth Palace, where it resides today. Although no list exists of the donated volumes, the books can be visually identified by markings on the spine.

Each summer, I travel to London with students from the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) to perform a number of tasks. These include identifying and cataloguing books in Lambeth Palace Library that once belonged to the Dutch Church, researching the books’ provenance to understand better how the collection came about, and contributing to an online, searchable database of the historical collection. Data collected by the students also will be added to the Lambeth Palace Library catalog and, eventually, to the Dutch Short Title Catalog and Universal Short Title Catalog.

Students at University of Central Oklahoma working on Dutch Church Book Provenance Project, following multi-mentor model.

Overcoming the Challenges

It was the group research aspect of this project that practically required me to move away from the mentor-protégé model towards a multi-mentor construction. One key challenge I encountered, however, was creating a team to guide the students’ learning. This step can often require reaching out to scholars and professionals beyond one’s own disciplinary expertise or networks. For instance, in this project, a team of mentors joins me in working with the students including the director of UCO’s museum studies program, book conservationists, and archivists and librarians. Moreover, the team hails from Lambeth Palace, the Dutch Church, London Metropolitan Archives, and the British Library. Each mentor brings skills to the project that they can share with the students.

Another challenge is creating avenues for the students to develop expertise to share with the group. Expertise can come in the form of knowledge about Greek or Latin grammar and literature, for example, or subject knowledge like the history of print. For each student, then, this expertise can be different, and mentors work with them to identify areas of expertise and contributions they can make to the goals of the project. Additionally, frequent opportunities are provided for participants to share their knowledge with the group.

Seeing the Benefits of a Multi-Mentor model

We know undergraduate research leads to a deeper socialization in the field and builds stronger relationships between students and mentors. Through my work on this project, I have found three additional benefits to multi-mentor research that are noteworthy. First, students involved in the project report a broader understanding of the term “mentor.” They move away from looking at me as the sole expert while, at the same time, move towards recognizing the diverse expertise and perspective that each member brings to the team.

In addition, students can easily network with other professionals engaged in the project, and they develop confidence in their knowledge and contribution to the research. Furthermore, scholars in other disciplines have found similar results in group research experiences (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005; Nicholson et al., 2017; Raggins & Kram, 2007). Clearly, this confidence enables the students to work together towards a common goal. They are able to see what needs to be done, to identify the skills each person contributes, to organize and delegate the duties among the team, and to take responsibility for their part in accomplishing the tasks.

Conclusion

Clearly, humanities students gain from undergraduate research opportunities. Developing multi-mentor experiences can add to these benefits by creating opportunities for students to work in a context of interdependence. Consequently, these experiences expand the definition of mentors. Additionally, they expose participants to diverse viewpoints and methods, and emphasize teamwork and communication. As a result, skills developed through multi-mentor research can prepare further our students for whatever career they should choose.

References

Bradley, Evan D., Michelle Bata, et al. “The Structure of Mentoring in Undergraduate Research: Multi-Mentor Models.” CUR Quarterly 1, no. 2 (2017): 35-42.

Dobrow, Shoshana R. and Monica C. Higgins. “Developmental networks and professional identity: A longitudinal study.” Career Development International 10 (2005): 567-83.

Nicholson, Brittany A., Meagen Pollock, et al. “Beyond the Mentor-Mentee Model: A Case for Multi Mentoring in Undergraduate Research.” Perspectives on Undergraduate Research and Mentoring 6, no. 1 (2017): 1–14.

Ragins, Belle Rose and Kathy E. Kram. The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2007.

(Note: the above post is based upon a poster Michael Springer presented at the Undergraduate Research Programs Directors Conference in 2019.)

Humanities and STEM Come Together in Scholarship on the Astrolabe

Sometimes undergraduates have an advantage over more senior scholars: pursuing two majors can make them more radically interdisciplinary and more open to unconventional combinations. Olivia Brock, Utah State University ’21, is a double major in mathematics/statistics and art history, interests that combined in her recent project on the astrolabe, that most beautiful tool of late medieval mathematical and astronomical thought. Olivia recently spoke with CURAH about her work.

CURAH: Tell us about your project.

Olivia: My project is designed to answer a question: how can interdisciplinary conversations between humanities and STEM fields be facilitated through the examination of material/visual culture? In particular, I am answering this question by studying the astrolabe, a medieval scientific instrument that puts into question the historical categorization of objects. As an object that is scientific, artistic, religious (and I’ll even add pseudo-scientific), the astrolabe presents a slew of interpretive challenges. I am examining the ways historians of visual and material culture have categorized these objects, and how their categories can limit our ability to fully understand astrolabes as the unique, specific, and complex objects that they are.

In addition, I hope to create an interdisciplinary dialogue that allows artists, scientists, scholars, and others to interact with intellectual ideas that may not be familiar. Ideally, through the dissemination of these ideas in writing and presentation, I can help the widest disciplinary audience connect with a single object and learn about new fields or ideas.

Olivia Brock, Utah State University
Olivia Brock, Utah State University

This particular goal is really important to me. As both a math/stats and art history student, I get a lot of questions about why I decided to do both majors, and comments regarding how disparate these fields are. Though these fields are quite different, and a traditional undergraduate education in either makes the bifurcation even more prominent, I have found that there are a lot of ways that these fields complement each other. It just takes a conscious effort to find these connections. This is why I’m so excited about this project: it allows me to pursue the connections I’ve found in a ways that go beyond traditional art history or math classes.

CURAH: What are the easiest and hardest things about the work you’re doing?

Olivia: There are a few bumps that I’ve run into over the course of this project that have really stood out to me. First, methodology. I work as a writing tutor in the Science Writing Center here at USU, and a big part of my job is helping students with their “Methods” sections. These are strict, orderly, pre-determined methodologies that make predicting the course of scientific research much more feasible. For me, as a scientifically-minded person, the more subjective methodological approach to my art historical research has been difficult to adapt to. I can’t create a step-by-step guide to my research as one might for a lab experiment.

The next bump I ran into was while working to develop an overall thesis for my project. How do I come up with an original and interesting claim, while at the same time ensuring that I can ground my ideas with established literature and evidence? The balance between originality and credibility has been difficult for me to maintain. Fortunately, in Dr. Alexa Sand I have a great and experienced mentor who has really helped me achieve this balance.

I’m not sure there’s been anything I’d specify as being “easy” for me. I’ve had a lot of ups and downs. But I love the work and subject matter, and that makes it easier for me to stay excited and motivated about this project.

CURAH: What kinds of things have you learned? (about astrolabes, about scholarship, or about yourself)

Olivia: I learned

  • that even the most basic object can have a plethora of intangible functions and relationships that become apparent when you look at the object in a different light.
  • that the astrolabe is just a single example of the arts and sciences working in tandem: there are so many interesting multidisciplinary interactions that can be found over the course of history. They just require someone to look for them.
  • that scholarship is hard, but it’s worth it. The knowledge that I can take an idea and pursue it as far as it can be pursued is incredibly rewarding.
  • that I may love sharing my ideas a little more than I love pursuing them. I’ve really enjoyed this process, but my favorite parts, so far, have been the times when I’ve gotten to interact with my research community and share my ideas and knowledge with other curious students.

CURAH: Have you made any discoveries along the way?

Olivia: I didn’t make anything that I would call a “discovery.” However, I never had the expectation of major discovery. My goal for the project is to pursue an idea that is personally important to me and important to the academic community at Utah State. I’m not trying to answer any major questions or problems but rather working to create discussion among my peers.

Because of this goal, however, I have helped some other students make small discoveries. Many students “discovered” the astrolabe for the very first time upon our conversations. Others may have discovered that there are a number of connections between the humanities and STEM that they may not have been aware of before. And others may have even discovered that there is a place in the research realm for even the most bizarre or disparate of interests. I also made personal discoveries about myself and my interests that will undoubtably change the course of my academic and professional career.

CURAH: How do you imagine the project will help you in your career goals?

Olivia: I must admit that my career goals are a bit unclear right now. However, through this project, I have become much more open to pursuing academic scholarship, at least through graduate school, and maybe into a career. This project also taught me that I love talking and writing about science in a non-scientific way, which has sparked ideas about potential careers in scientific communication or scientific journalism.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Deadline extended to Oct. 6 for CUR Institute on Inquiry in the Arts and Humanities

CUR Institutes are a great way for institutional teams to learn about key topics and to develop strategies for institutional development. The longstanding Institute on Inquiry in the Arts and Humanities will happen again this year, this time at Trinity University in San Antonio in November. A draft schedule is available. Apply soon. Teams are notified on a rolling basis!

The goals of the institute are as follows:

  • Inform participants about current research on learning outcomes for students engaging in un- dergraduate research, scholarship, and creative activity (URSCA).
  • Provide models of URSCA programs by a range of institutional types and budgets.
  • Facilitate teams in defining a mission and overall action plan for URSCA in the arts and humanities on their campus, developing strategies to meet those goals, and resolving challenges.
  • Identify sources and strategies for obtaining funding, both internal and external.
  • Define arts-and-humanities-friendly assessment mechanisms for the URSCA program.
  • Address workload and tenure & promotion issues for faculty who mentor URSCA.
  • Ensure that teams return to campus with an action plan that addresses some or all of the above points.

Applications open late summer.

Application deadline is now Sunday, October 6.

Institute is November 8-10 at Trinity University in San Antonio.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Abstracts For Global Conference on Women and Gender Due October 1

Interested undergraduate students should submit abstracts for the upcoming Global Conference on Women and Gender by October 1. The meeting, which welcomes participants from all academic fields, takes place March 19–21, 2020, hosted by Christopher Newport University’s College of Arts and Humanities. This year’s conference theme is “Gender, Politics and Everyday Life: Power, Resistance and Representation”; please see the call for more information and directions for submission, and check out CURAH’s resource page on abstract writing for guidance.

New Resource Lists Undergraduate Presentation Opportunities in the Arts & Humanities

Finding a place to disseminate your work is the final key step in any scholarly or creative project. Now, thanks to the work of Alexa Sand and others, CURAH maintains a sortable database of undergraduate presentation opportunities in the Arts & Humanities. We have tagged conferences by region, by date, and by approximate deadline, with web addresses to provide more information. Many of these conferences have undergraduate awards. If you find an interesting conference, read the call for papers (CFP) carefully, and consider using CURAH’s excellent advice on preparing a conference abstract. Finding a local conference can reduce your travel costs; if you’re not sure how to fund your travel, consider applying for one of CURAH’s student travel awards.

New opportunities are constantly being added. If you know of a conference in your field that invites posters or presentations from undergraduates, please let us know.

Sigma Tau Delta Submissions Window Opening Soon

Sigma Tau Delta, the international English honor society, will be accepting paper and roundtable submissions between September 30 and October 28 for its next annual international convention, to be held in Las Vegas, NV, March 25–28, 2020. More information on the convention theme, submission guidelines, and eligibility requirements is available at the convention website.

Looking for some pointers as you work on your proposal? Take a look at the CURAH resource page, including one on how to write an abstract.

International Congress on Medieval Studies Invites Undergraduate Papers by September 15

The Medieval Institute at Western Michigan University has invited paper proposals for the 2020 International Congress on Medieval Studies, which will include sessions for undergraduate papers. The conference will be held May 7–10, on the WMU campus. Information about submissions, which are due by September 15, is available on the conference website.

Looking for guidance on that abstract? CURAH is here to help!

Introducing students to qualitative research in Writing, rhetoric, and literacy

THE CHALLENGE

Typically situated within departments of English, the allied fields of writing, rhetoric, and literacy studies (WRL) face a particular set of challenges with respect to undergraduate research. Specifically, many of the methodologies that inform WRL research are archival and empirical in nature. Undergraduate English majors, however, practiced in scholarly inquiry guided by textual interpretation and literary analysis are often unfamiliar with the methods used in WRL. Moreover, becoming proficient enough to conduct independent undergraduate WRL research requires several semesters of engagement. This is an amount of time often beyond the reach of many students. The same is also true of English majors studying folklore and linguistics, disciplines that often engage archival and empirical methodologies and longitudinal studies.

FINDING A SOLUTION

Although research opportunities in WRL may be open to all students, faculty face the institutional challenge of making them accessible to all students as departments of English strive to prepare a more diverse range of students to engage in undergraduate research.[1] That accessibility, then, is contingent on creating sustainable means of introducing students to, and preparing them as, archival and empirical researchers. By situating the research experience in English 3379 (“Methods for the Study of Writing, Rhetoric and Literacy Studies”), the faculty sought to mitigate the challenges of students’ unfamiliarity with WRL methodologies. They also addressed the limited time available to them to conduct research.

THE COURSE

As a required gateway course in the WRL concentration, English 3379 was designed to guide students through the processes of articulating research questions, aligning those questions with and then practicing empirical methods, building project proposals, and presenting their in-progress work. Through a series of three scaffolded research modules, students consequently gained a better understanding of the research undertaken in WRL. The course also employed a series of short videos to introduce students to the Ohio State WRL faculty and their areas of research. Additionally, ENGL 3379 included a course-specific LibGuide that offered resources and processes for undertaking research in English studies and WRL.

Schnabel, Jennifer. “Engl 3379.” OSU LibGuide. http://guides.osu.edu/c.php?g=715909&p=5094612.

THE RESEARCH MODULES

Module One

The first module in 3379 introduced archival research methods, prompting students to apply their established skills in textual interpretation and rhetorical analysis as they engaged the historiographic methods necessary to examine and interpret primary source artifacts originating from the Ohio State University community during the 1970 “Spring of Dissent.” Then, students collaboratively researched and analyzed artifacts related to social justice and social change on the OSU campus, producing final project proposals such as “The Rhetoric of the Spring of Dissent: Music as a Primary Motivator in the Student Riots of 1970.” Specifically, they

  • Analyzed one oral history or dissent documentary artifact housed in the university digital archive.
  • Collaboratively conducted background research on the period.
  • Searched the student newspaper archive and the University Archives to locate additional artifacts that situated the oral history and dissent documentary artifacts.[2]

Module Two

Then, the second module required students to apply their developing skills and knowledge of WRL to examine and code discursive artifacts and investigate questions related to writing studies. Specifically, students

  • Practiced coding portions of selected anchor texts
  • Articulated a rationale for a RAD (replicable, aggregable, and data-supported) study that required empirical (qualitative or quantitative) research methods
  • Proposed a working research question and claim situated in discrete data sets examined through aligned research methods.

Module project proposals then examined the “Efficacy and Impact of Early College High School upon Student Achievement and Identity” and “Evolving Classrooms: Trading Pen and Paper for Laptops.”

The Final Module

The final module further extended students’ engagement with qualitative research. Here, they created interview and survey protocols and analyzed their fieldnotes.  This module asked students to

  • Conduct an ethnographic observation of a community literacy space and compose field notes and a reflection on that observation
  • Study a range of literacy narratives, including those from our class and others housed in the Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives (DALN), and formulate research questions from those narratives, and
  • Create interview questions for a specific set of subjects (participants).
” The Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives Blog.” https://thedaln.wordpress.com/.

Student Projects

Students then composed project proposals such as “Literacy Standards in the Housing Industry” and “Crafting Coffee, Community, Literacies, and Lattes: Understanding Coffee Literacy within the Roosevelt Coffeehouse in Columbus, Ohio.”


 “The Roosevelt Coffee House. workfrom. https://workfrom.co/the-roosevelt-coffeehouse.

The course ultimately closed with a Work-in-Progress Symposium, a showcase event open to the University community through which undergraduate 3379 researchers disseminated their work to and had conversations with graduate students, faculty and staff.

IMPACTS

As a survey of WRL and its research methods, English 3379 creates the space for WRL students to engage published scholarship in the field. Additionally, they try their hands at WRL methods, and use those methods to ask and investigate the questions that interest them—alongside their peers and under the guidance of a teacher-researcher and mentor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the Office of Distance Education and eLearning at The Ohio State University, which has funded an ALX Grant to support the curricular revision of English 3379. Professor Jonathan Buehl serves as principal investigator on that project. Thanks, as well, to Professor Tamar Chute, University Archivist and Head of Archives at University Libraries for her partnership in the archival project and Professor Jennifer Schnabel, English Subject Librarian for designing the 3379 LibGuide.

Kay Halasek, Susan Lang, and Addison Koneval, and will present “Designing with Research in Mind: Implementing Diverse Methdologies in an Undergraduate Course in the Humanities” at ISSOTL 2019 in Atlanta, GA at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, October 11, 2019 (Session A708).

NOTES

[1] National venues for developing and presenting undergraduate research in WRL are many: The Naylor Workshop in Undergraduate Research in Writing Studies and the Conference on College Composition and Communication undergraduate poster sessions as well as publications such as Young Scholars in Writing.

[2] See Sheridon Ward’s August 19, 2019 CURAH blog post, for another undergraduate English major’s archival experience at Ohio State.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

The Arts and Humanities Division of the Council on Undergraduate Research