The University of Texas at Arlington
Active Learning Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) 

Table of Contents

1. Active Learning and UT Arlington’s Mission.
2. The Concept of Active Learning.
3. Active Learning as a Means to Higher-Level Thinking.
4. Active Learning Meets Our Needs.
5. UT Arlington’s Working Definition of Active Learning.
6. Models of Active Learning.
7. Next Steps.
8. References.
9. Appendix.
1. List of QEP Pre-Proposals Selected.
2. QEP Pre-Proposal Summaries.

I.  Active Learning and UT Arlington’s Mission

Through a series of surveys and focus groups during the fall of 2005, the faculty of the University of Texas at Arlington identified Active Learning as the theme for the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) in the SACS reaffirmation process. Active Learning, as an approach to undergraduate teaching and learning, complements UTA’s mission of “enhancing knowledge and the pursuit of excellence” and “promoting lifelong learning.” Over the past thirty years, UTA has evolved from a commuter institution, serving a largely local student population, to a residential university attracting students from all over the globe.  UTA faculty identified Active Learning as a theme that would continue to vitalize undergraduate programs and bring about even more student engagement in the life of the university and the surrounding community.  

(Return to Table of Contents) 

II.  The Concept of Active Learning

The concept of Active Learning can be traced to the 5th century BC when the philosopher Lao-Tse wrote, “If you tell me, I will listen.  If you show me, I will see.  But if you let me experience, I will learn” (Clark, 2000).  Currently, Active Learning is a term used to summarize political, social and philosophical shifts in educational thinking that occurred toward the end of the 20th century.  Unlike many education terms, Active Learning is dependent on no one theorist, but represents a range of educational ideas as well as practical responses to the changing needs of the global labor market.  It represents the shift from information, input-based teaching to an outcome-oriented model where the focus is measurement of learning outcomes.  It also encompasses the constructivist perspective by recognizing that effective learning is constructed in social and cultural contexts and has strong interactive and individual components. 

Berger (2002) describes three components of the Active Learning paradigm:  basic elements, learning strategies and teaching resources.

Basic elements, or building blocks of learning, include students talking and listening, writing, reading, and reflecting, each of which helps students develop new or enhanced mental structures or thinking capabilities.  Learning strategies, such as problem-solving, discussion teaching, real-world projects, and cooperative work create opportunities for students to directly apply subject and content learning.  Teaching resources in active learning include tools or approaches such as applied research, technologies, outside speakers, and readings (p. 192).

A consistent theme in the contemporary literature on Active Learning is that of students taking responsibility for their own learning while the instructor assumes the role of facilitator (Hoag, Brickley & Cawley, 2001).   Indeed, some research indicates that “students retain material longer if they have acquired it through their own efforts” (Bok, 2006, p. 123).  Instead of being passive recipients of information, active learners are required to construct their own knowledge as they think about the information received, discuss it with others, and use it in various ways through problem-solving and application.  The instructor’s role is to develop the information to be reflected upon, create a format for knowledge construction, and maintain an environment in which students can meaningfully interact with the instructor, the information, and each other.   According to Knowles (1970), this immediate use of knowledge and information in real world applications leads to more effective and more efficient learning for adult students.  

Chickering and Gamson (1987) provide a description of student engagement in Active Learning:

…students must do more than just listen:  They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems.  Most important, to be actively involved, students must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  Within this context, it is proposed that strategies promoting active learning be defined as instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing (p. 2).

(Return to Table of Contents) 

III. Active Learning as a Means to Higher-Level Thinking

The primary objective of the QEP, to be achieved through Active Learning, is for undergraduate students at UTA to demonstrate higher-level thinking, as indicated above by Chickering and Gamson (1987), across academic subject areas and workplace settings.

Higher-level thinking is described in Bloom et al.’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Huitt, 2004) and includes the processes of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.  Huitt’s research concludes that students remember more when they learn to handle information at these higher levels of the taxonomy because more reflection and elaboration is required of them.   

Responses to the UTA Employer Survey (2004), as summarized below, suggest that higher-level thinking is strongly valued by potential employers for UTA graduates:

• Employers gave the highest ratings of importance to professional ethics, dependability, problem-solving, effective listening, working cooperatively, and multi-tasking.
• 99.3% of employers surveyed rated problem-solving as important, very important, or essential.
• 96.3% of employers surveyed rated apply job-related conceptual knowledge as important, very important, or essential.
• 90.8% of employers surveyed rated defining problems as important, very important, or essential.

(Return to Table of Contents) 

IV. Active Learning Meets Our Needs

Active Learning, an ideal vehicle for meeting the objective of higher levels of thinking across academic subject areas and work place settings, takes advantage of the rich opportunities found on the UTA campus and throughout the Metroplex.  Active Learners at UTA will analyze issues and resources, apply knowledge and skills in problem solving, synthesize understandings and evaluate outcomes.  They will draw upon the resources found in the diverse student and faculty bodies at UTA, as well as opportunities in the surrounding community, for problem-finding and –solving and real-world application.  These activities address the areas of note and concern as identified in the analysis of responses from UTA students to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2002-2004):

• First-year students at UTA scored lower on Active and Collaborative Learning than predicted and also scored lower than the National and Carnegie Doctoral Extensive groups.  They did score slightly higher than the UTA System comparison group.
• Senior-year students at UTA scored slightly lower on Active and Collaborative Learning than predicted and also scored lower than the National, Carnegie Doctoral Extensive, and the UT System comparison group.
• First-year students and senior students scored lower than all other comparison groups on Student-Faculty interaction.
• A slight but steady decline was noted in the number of class presentations required of first-year UTA students.
• Significant decreases were evident in the following scores from first year UTA students:
• Course emphasis on making judgments about the value of information, arguments or methods such as assessing the soundness of conclusions drawn by others based on data interpretation.
• Solving complex real-world issues.

(Return to Table of Contents) 

V. UT Arlington’s Working Definition of Active Learning.

Ideas generated from UTA faculty and research on Active Learning as it is realized in university classrooms across the country assisted the UTA QEP Steering Committee (comprised of faculty representatives from the nine academic units plus Honors and the Graduate School, along with representatives from Student Affairs, Academic Affairs, Advising, the Library, the Faculty Senate, and the student body) in crafting a local definition of Active Learning, specific to our university, our faculty, and our students.  While this definition is still in draft form, it provides the foundation for the Steering Committee’s identification of pre-proposals that meet the intent of the UTA Mission Statement, Strategic Plan, and QEP theme. 

Active Learning places the student at the center of the learning process, making him/her a partner in discovery, not a passive receiver of information.  It is a process that employs a variety of teaching and learning strategies to place the responsibility for creating and defining the learning environment on the instructor and the responsibility for effective engagement in the learning process on the students.  Active learning encourages students to communicate and interact with course materials by reading, writing, discussing, problem-solving, investigating, reflecting, and engaging in higher-order thinking tasks such as application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. An active learning approach draws upon a continuum of teaching and learning strategies, including class discussion activities, undergraduate research, and community-based learning experiences.

(Return to Table of Contents) 

VI.  Models of Active Learning

Through a Call for Pre-Proposals developed by the QEP Steering Committee, 38 pre-proposals in total were received, including pre-proposals from the various colleges and schools, Academic Affairs, Students Affairs, and the University Library.  These pre-proposals identified their own approach(es) to assessing student learning achievement employing active learning.  The Steering Committee reviewed and deliberated the wide range of excellent pre-proposals in multiple phases over several weeks.  First, each Committee member evaluated each pre-proposal based on the criteria for evaluation set out in the Call for Pre-Proposals:

• The number of students who may be affected by the course/program.
• The ability to employ the pre-proposal as a model for other department/programs.
• How clearly student learning outcomes and the plan for assessing those outcomes were articulated, as well as how the assessment would be utilized for continuous improvement.
• Feasibility of implementation, including personnel, budget, facilities, technology, library resources, etc. required.

After that, the Committee looked for commonalities across various pre-proposals – similar approaches, similar concepts, and most importantly similar student learning outcomes.  In response to the NSSE outcomes for UTA, pre-proposals that encouraged higher-levels of student thinking, as identified in Bloom et al.’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (i.e., application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis), were given priority in the selection process.  The Committee also took into account budgetary constraints, balance across units, and importance to the University.   

The objective during the selection process was to develop the best, most cohesive set of pre-proposals geared toward advancing the Active Learning agenda at UTA, consistent with the University’s Strategic Plan and the QEP for SACS reaffirmation.  To give coherence to the Active Learning initiative, the pre-proposals selected offer opportunities for students to participate in Active Learning at different levels of the university experience.  Large introductory classes, seminar classes, and capstone experiences were selected to give the widest exposure to Active Learning for students in their undergraduate careers at UTA.  The QEP Steering Committee is confident that these pre-proposals will serve as models for other UTA courses and programs as faculty enhance their focus on higher levels of student thinking through Active Learning. 

(Return to Table of Contents) 

VII.  Next Steps. 

The QEP Steering Committee will draft the plan over the summer of 2006, taking into account feedback received to this white paper.  This draft will then be disseminated back out to the academic community for final review in mid-to late September, 2006.  The final plan will then be submitted to SACS in January, 2007; six weeks prior to the on-site review (February 26-March 2, 2007). 

(Return to Table of Contents) 

VIII.  References.

Berger, B. K. (2002). Applying active learning at the graduate level: Merger issues at Newco.  Public Relations Review, 28, 191-200. 

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.  American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, March 1987, 3-7.   Reprint retrieved on February 26, 2006 from

http://www.fctel.uncc.edu/pedagogy/enhancinglearning/sevenprinciples.pdf 

Clark, D. (2000). Constructivism [online] available at http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/had/history/historyhtml [2/20/2006] 

Hoag, A., Brickley, D. J., & Cawley, J. M. (2001). Media management and the case method.  Journalism and Mass Communication Editor, 55, 49-59. 

Huitt. W. (2004). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.  Retrieved March 30, 2006 from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html 

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of Adult Education: Androgyny versus pedagogy.  New York: Associated Press. 

(Return to Table of Contents) 

IX.  Appendix.

A. LIST OF QEP PRE-PROPOSALS.  (Click Here For Full List With Authors)

(Return to Table of Contents) 

B.  QEP PRE-PROPOSALS SUMMARIES.

School of Architecture  

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s): Professors Rebecca Boles, Donald Gatzke, John Maruszczak and Thomas Rusher, primary project developer

Title of Pre-Proposal:  Digital Portfolio Pilot Project 

Course/Program Impacting:  Undergraduate students in all disciplines (based upon an existing three-credit hour elective digital portfolio course for architecture students). 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:   
A proposal for a pilot program to develop a universal digital portfolio for all UT Arlington students.

The portfolio is used by the design disciplines to document creative work. It has now been adopted by a broader range of disciplines as a learning device for students to present the entire range of their academic experience, as an assessment tool, and as a device for reflection and analysis. Other universities are embracing the digital portfolio as a common pedagogical tool across all disciplines. Students are using the vehicle of the digital portfolio not only to document the work of a single class but to synthesize and communicate the sum of their university educational experience. 

It is reported that employers are referring to digital portfolios to get a more complete profile of a student that was possible from just reviewing a resume.

Primary Learning Outcome: 
The student will compile, format, and produce a digital portfolio that is a summation of their individual experience, personal evolution, and academic path. 

Secondary Learning Outcomes:   
Demonstrated mastery of digital media 
Establishment of graphic and format consistency 
Evidence that content presented aligns with the student self-defined profile, goals, and target market 

The digital portfolio is a common active learning experience that the entire student body could undertake. The repository of shared expertise within the student body would foster peer-to-peer learning. The shared act of doing is as important as the specific content in fostering the community of collaborative learners.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

College of Business 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professors Edmund Prater and Patricia Swafford  
 
Title of Pre-Proposal:  Catapulting to Higher Learning 

Course/Program Impacting:  OPMA 3306 - Introduction to Operations Management 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
Most business students understand many topics such as accounting, finance, and marketing but lack a conceptual base when it comes to operations management.  Therefore, experiential learning is vital in operations management (OM) courses.  OPMA 3306 introduces undergraduate students to various OM concepts and techniques.  Using our catapult project, students will apply several techniques covered in lecture which allows them to gain a better understanding of those techniques.  

The project begins when student groups decide to buy or build their catapult.  Most often, groups exercise their creative abilities and decide to design and build their own catapults.  Next, groups apply project management techniques and learn how to create production schedules and time phased material requirement records for attaining resources.  In the competition phase, groups use their catapults to create data representing its ability to hit a defined target; also, they gather observations on other groups’ catapults and catapulting process.  At this stage, group interest builds due to their competitive nature.  Using this data, observations, and quality control techniques, groups assess their catapult’s performance and identify ways to improve it.  After the second competition, groups compare performance of different catapults and prepare a project report that integrates the different applied techniques. 

This project incorporates a variety of tools within a common context to assist students in understanding the integrative nature of analytical tools.  Along with its integrated approach, it also promotes the development of effective communication and team participation skills by requiring students to provide various forms of reports throughout the project.  This goal of this QEP proposal is to enhance this project as well as identify effective teaching and assessment tools for improved student learning. 

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

College of Education 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professors Jeannine Hirtle, Nancy Hadaway, Beverly Boulware, Joy Wiggins, and Kathleen Tice  
 
Title of Pre-Proposal:    New Media Literacy for a New Generation of Learners

Course/Program Impacting: College of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction’s Literacy Studies Program. 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
Today’s new generation of learners are: digitally literate, connected, immediate, experiential, social, highly interactive and collaborative. Yet often, there is a disconnect between the way the Net Generation is taught and the way they go about learning, problem solving and communicating in their daily lives.

Five members of UTA’s faculty of the College of Educations Literacy Studies Program (LIST) will conduct a study to address the characteristics of these new learners through ubiquitous computing. This New Media Literacy for a New Generation Project will expand on the Literacy Studies program’s constructivist pedagogy to introduce teachers and future educators to digital techniques and tools to allow them to collect and “publish” audio content along with writing in a shared, blog-based environment or the subscriptions to RRS feeds, integrate web logs and pod casts into their hybrid, online classes, or continuity training.  

This study seeks to discover how digital tools can support teaching and learning for the net generation students as well as non traditional students in a social constructivist environment.  Faculty training will be provided by the UTA Center for Distance Education. Faculty blogs will also be supported by the UTA CDE. The population studied will be the College of Education Literacy Studies faculty and the students in five LIST courses during 2007.  Data will be collected and analyzed with ethnographic software that analyzes textual, graphic, audio, and video data.  Researchers will utilize blogs as well as face to face meetings in order to process their perceptions of project training, equipment training, pedagogical development, research software training, and the actual discussion and writing of the research project. 

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

College of Engineering 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professor Bonnie Boardman 

Title of Pre-Proposal: A Controlled Study on Classroom Response Technologies for Large Classes 

Course/Program Impacting: College of Engineering – various courses and programs 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
This proposal requests funds to implement and assess a classroom response system (CRS) for the introductory engineering course (XE 1104) which has as many as 600 students each semester. The objective of the proposal is to assess the CRS effectiveness in increasing active learning and improving student learning outcomes for XE 1104 beginning in fall 2006 with fan-out to other courses as appropriate.  Evaluation criteria will consider the improvement in classroom learning overall and student learning with respect to two main learning outcomes for XE 1104, multi-disciplinary teamwork and ethical responsibility.  In XE 1104, students are introduced to engineering ethics issues and are required to work in teams of four that have at least three of the engineering departments represented. 

A controlled experimental design study is proposed to separate out student learning effects due to different implementations of the course, one of which utilizes CRS.   The controlled study will target three specific assessment goals:   

1. Classroom Learning: Assessed using exams scores and course evaluation questions.
2. Multi-disciplinary Teamwork: Assessed using end-of-semester peer evaluations.
3. Engineering Ethics; Assessed using ethics questions on exams.

A final objective of the proposed project is to promote CRS as continuous assessment tool for student learning.  The easy instant feedback enables instructors to continuously monitor student absorption of the wide variety of topics covered by this critical course. The proposed project includes a full implementation of CRS in all sections of XE 1104 and some additional courses.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

College of Engineering 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):     Professor William E. Dillon 

Title of Pre-Proposal:     An Instant-Response Homework System for Engineering Classes 

Course/Program Impacting:     E E 2315 & Other Lower Division Engineering Courses 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
Homework problems assigned to engineering students develop problem solving skills over engineering models by requiring the students to calculate answers based on a supplied set of numerical parameters.  Normally, examples of such problems are published within textbooks and all students are assigned the same problems which are graded and returned in about a week.  Unfortunately, students have often lost focus on the problems by the time the assignment is returned. 

A solution to this drawback is to intelligently generate random variables for the model parameters so each student gets a unique version.  Answers are automatically calculated and stored in a password-protected data base under the student’s user name.  When the student enters the answers on line, the server immediately evaluates the input.  Thus, students get instant feedback to reinforce their understanding of the problem-solving procedures. 

This method has been used for several years for teaching electric circuit analysis at UTA.  The main requirement for further development is providing the engineering (or scientific) expertise for designing the problems.  Before considerable effort is invested in expanding the scope to additional fields of learning, an assessment of this method is in order.   

The assessment will be implemented in the fall of 2006 with two sections of E E 2315 involving 60 to 80 students.  The method will be extended to other lower-division engineering courses within the college of engineering at the rate of several new courses per semester.  This could extend to one third to one half of the engineering curriculum. 

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):     Professor Lynn Peterson 

Title of Pre-Proposal:     Enhancement of the Engineering Capstone Design Experience 

Course/Program Impacting:     College of Engineering

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:   
For each of the programs in the College of Engineering, students’ undergraduate coursework culminates in a capstone design experience.   The common characteristic of these experiences is a strong engineering design emphasis, usually in a team environment.   Each team typically selects its own real-world problem and takes that problem from definition to design of a solution and usually to implementation.  This is an ideal framework for active learning. 

The capstone design courses in each engineering undergraduate program serve as the point at which many of the student learning outcomes required of an engineering curriculum are assessed.   In each, student teams work closely with faculty member(s) in the development of a project.   The goals of each of the courses are well defined; in each engineering undergraduate program there is a list of the student learning outcomes which that course addresses and there is direct evidence that a set of student learning outcomes is achieved for each student in his/her capstone experience.  The QEP effort is intended to enhance active learning components in these courses with the introduction of additional well-defined active learning tasks.  The literature and experience in other institutions indicate the possibility of building on the success of others.  It is intended that developments will be done in the first 2 years; throughout the 3 years we plan to assess appropriately the effect of additional active learning activities in the engineering capstone design experiences.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

Honors College 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professors Robert F. McMahon, Karl Petruso, Minerva Cordero-Epperson 

Title of Pre-Proposal: Freshman/Sophomore and Junior/Senior Honors Seminar Courses  

Course/Program Impacting:  Honors Students at all levels in all disciplines 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal: 
The Honors College will develop freshman/sophomore and junior/senior level Honors undergraduate seminars to be offered every fall and spring semester on interdisciplinary topics attractive Honors and Honors-qualified students from a variety of academic disciplines.  Seminar topics will be selected from proposals submitted by UTA faculty; topics and instructors changing each semester.  The seminars will emphasize active learning through direct engagement with the instructor and fellow students, critical examination of a focus topic, interactive classroom discussion, free exchange of ideas and opinions, and exploration of new ideas, thus promoting active learning, critical thinking, improved oral skills and enthusiasm for study.  Expected student learning outcomes include: 1) knowledge of major aspects of the seminar topic; 2) ability to critically read and discuss seminar materials and subject matter; 3) ability to critically assess an assigned topic and develop critical questions and statements as the basis for group discussion; 4) Ability to carry out independent research, develop and deliver an oral presentation, and moderate a seminar discussion on an assigned topic (junior/senior students); and 5) ability to express and discuss opinions regarding an assigned topic with the instructor and peers in an interactive group setting.  The proposed seminar courses will be developed as a model for introduction of seminar courses into other undergraduate curricula, perhaps, eventually leading to a freshman/sophomore seminar core curriculum requirement.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

College of Liberal Arts 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professor Stephanie Cole 

Title of Pre-Proposal: Personal Response Systems: Active Learning in a Large Lecture Hall 

Course/Program Impacting:  HIST 1311, United States History to 1865 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
This project will involve the re-development of a core requirement course, which is usually taught in a large lecture hall, to learn more about the benefits of a personal response system. This relatively new technology employs handheld devices (or “clickers”) that allow students to answer questions posed by the lecturer, and innovative software, which both presents the entire class’s responses instantly in a graph, and keeps track of individual responses.  A personal response system allows an instructor to engage students during lecture, assess their comprehension on the spot, and track student learning over time, even in large courses where students are often inclined to remain anonymous and passive. 

To date nationwide, clicker technology has been most often used in math and science courses, and usually involves testing students’ comprehension of material by having them answer problems.  In a humanities course, like history, it can test students’ ability to apply knowledge, but it can also engage students in their own historical analysis. This project will center on reorganizing the course around primary sources, with the aim of helping students in the process of making their own interpretations discover how well-informed and well-intentioned historians sometimes arrive at different understandings of the past.  In addition to creating a more interactive course, this project will rely on intensive tracking of student in-class participation to subsequent performance on class assignments and exams.  The overall goal will be to use active learning strategies to teach introductory students how historical research is conducted, and how historical interpretations are developed.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

College of Liberal Arts 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professors Rebecca Deen, Victoria Farrar-Myers, Dale Story 

Title of Pre-Proposal: Democracy in Action: Understanding the Democratic Process through an Analysis of Political Campaigns 

Course/Program Impacting:   POLS 2311 U.S. Government and POLS 2312 State and Local Government 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
POLS 2311 U.S. Government and POLS 2312 State and Local Government students will participate in an active learning project regarding political campaigns and elections.  The objective of this project is for the students to understand better the electoral process and to assess the impact of contemporary campaigning on the democratic process.  Working in small groups, students will conduct research on candidates running for local office (e.g., state representative, city council, county judge, district attorney), listen to presentations from guest speakers regarding these races, evaluate the campaigns and present their analysis to their classmates.  This multi-pronged learning strategy allows students to develop important research and analytical skills by engaging actively with the course material through “real world” experiences. 

In this project students will:

• Learn about the electoral structure through appropriate readings and instructor lectures
• Work in small groups to:
• Research the issue positions and campaign strategies of a specific candidate for local elected office (e.g., state representative, city council, county judge, district attorney).  The selection of the elected offices will depend on the various elections being held in a given year and will be supervised by the course instructor.
• Research the groups supporting or opposing the candidates through content analysis of local papers, candidate literature, websites, etc...
• Learn about the candidates for office by listening to special guest speakers in class.
• Conduct an analysis of the democratic process by comparing the practice of elections to the abstract theoretical process.
• Present the small group analysis to the class and their individual analysis as an essay to the instructor.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

University Library/College of Liberal Arts 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):     Gretchen Trkay, MLS and Professor Joanna Johnson 

Title of Pre-Proposal:     Academic Integrity 101:  An Anti-Plagiarism Instruction Session 

Course/Program Impacting:     ENGL 1302 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
Dr. Joanna Johnson’s English 1302 students, working in small groups, are asked to determine whether a fellow student has plagiarized a section of her research paper. Using several resources, students explore the ethical issues surrounding information and academic integrity, the consequences for violating ethical standards, and how to avoid plagiarism. Dr. Johnson’s students will be the pilot for assessing the session’s impact on student learning. 

After participating in this session, students will:

• Recognize the economic, legal, and social standards for information use in order to apply these standards to their research and writing. 

According to Plagiarism: A Good Practice Guide “a short talk may be effective at conveying information, but cannot change attitudes and beliefs or develop skills.” Carroll and Appleton make the recommendation that active learning techniques, which incorporate discussion and hands-on experience, be utilized for best results in anti-plagiarism instruction. 

Active learning will be incorporated through problem-based learning and cooperative learning techniques. Problem-based learning curriculum design principles included in this session are: a well-designed problem or scenario; the opportunity for students to explore what they already know; hints and tools that guide students to resources of which they may not be aware; and the opportunity to present the information they have discovered.  Cooperative learning strategies are utilized as students contribute their own knowledge and skills to: develop a strategy for addressing the “problem;” explore multiple information sources; determine the information which is to be presented; and decide the best method for conveying what they have discovered. 

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

School of Nursing 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professor Fran Martin, MSN, RN 

Title of Pre-Proposal:  RN-BSN Capstone Seminar 

Course/Program Impacting: N4382 Capstone Seminar, RN-BSN Program, School of Nursing 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal: 

Capstone Seminar in the School of Nursing RN-BSN Program is a senior course for the RN student who has enrolled to obtain their Bachelors of Science in Nursing.  This course is provided at up to 8 sites concurrently using distance education.  

Developing an understanding of a specific subject adequate to pass the information on to one’s peers is one method of increasing the utility of the information.  Another is to develop a specific understanding of the subject as it applies to a real world agency.  In the RN-BSN Capstone seminar course students demonstrate the knowledge of nursing theory they have gained in the program and how it applies to current health care environment by: 

1) Searching the literature for articles on timely topics in nursing and health care such as ethics, genetics, evidence-based practice, global health care, and health care economics.  Each student then shares their articles with fellow students both in class at their site and in online discussions in which students from different sites are grouped together. This provides students the opportunity to broaden their knowledge by learning from each other.   

2)  Writing a literature review on a topic chosen for its relevance in a community agency they are connected with.  Their review is then used to present a Power Point presentation to educate their classmates, or employees and/or clients in their chosen agency, with faculty support.  Some agencies have implemented new procedures and even programs due to these student presentations according to feedback received.

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals) 

College of Science 

QEP PRE-PROPOSAL SUMMARY 

Author(s):  Professors T. Aktosun, R. Gornet, H. Kojouharov, B. Shipman, J. Su 

Title of Pre-Proposal:  Active Learning through URE Courses 

Course/Program Impacting:  Undergraduate Mathematics at UTA 

Summary of the planned pre-proposal:  
In order to create an active learning environment for our undergraduate mathematics students, we propose to introduce a URE (Undergraduate Research Experiences) course in our curriculum. Students enrolled in such courses are expected to perform meaningful research under supervision and mentorship of active faculty researchers. Such courses also aim at training students to improve their oral, written, computational, and presentation skills, to show the undergraduate students the excitement and joy of doing scientific research, to encourage them to pursue advanced degrees in mathematics, sciences, and engineering, to increase the quality and quantity of our undergraduate majors, to attract excellent undergraduate students to mathematics by creating an intellectual and challenging atmosphere in our department, and also to retain our talented undergraduate students in our graduate program. 

The expectations from the students enrolled in such courses include collaborating scientifically with faculty and peers, and possibly disseminating research results through scientific publications and giving public presentations. Our proposed project regarding URE courses has similar goals with an NSF-REU site project. The scope of URE courses can be very broad so that other academic units on campus can offer similar courses and involve their active faculty and undergraduate students in meaningful research. 

We propose a gradual implementation of URE courses and envision that in five years most of our undergraduate majors will be involved in supervised research. For the assessment we will use direct methods (e.g. collecting data on participants and research projects) as well as indirect methods (e.g. input and evaluations by participants).

(Return to List of Pre-Proposals)

If you wish to provide Comments send an e-mail directly to Victoria@uta.edu.  Thank You!