​

Date: June 10, 2022

​

ACCESS THE PDF for the FINAL REPORT FORM

​

​

​

​

​

Principal Investigators: Debbie Oesch-Minor and Connie Justice

Schools: IU School of Liberal Arts, and Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

Departments: Department of English, and The Living Lab

Email: djoeschm@iu.edu, and cjustice@iupui.edu

Faculty Research, Design, and PR Contributors: Mary Ann Cohen, Sara Harrell , Lynn Jettpace,

Additional Contributors: Doug Greathouse [Living Lab], Clay Hampton [Living Lab], Hannah Haas [Department of English], Jennifer Mahoney [Department of English], Norm Minnick [Department of English],

 

Please complete the table below, including each course that was part of the 2021 CEG project.

 

Course Number: CIT 4850 

Course Title: The Living Lab

Semester(s): Fall/Spring/Summer

Instructor Name: Connie Justice with Clay Hampton

Number of Students: 37

​

Course Number: W231

Course Title: Professional Writing Skills

Semester(s): Fall/Spring/Summer

Instructor Name: Debbie Oesch-Minor + Mary Ann Cohen, Sara Harrell , Hannah Haas, Lynn Jettpace, Jennifer Mahoney, Norm Minnick

Number of Students: 609

​

​

I. Overview of Project (brief summary of purpose, process, and outcomes)

​

GENERAL OVERVIEW

The W231/Living Lab CEG created a pathway between the IU School of Liberal Arts and the Purdue School of Engineering and Technology where students could pursue Project-Based Learning [PBL] with a community client in W231 and expand on the project concept to develop depth and expertise through a subsequent internship in The Living Lab. To help facilitate the documentation of PBL with community clients in W231, a Living Lab student/intern designed and built a database where W231 students share PBL relevant information that the Department of English [DOE] Writing Program can use to support and track community engaged PBL. Writing Program faculty circulated the database link and collected information in December of 2021 and April of 2022; ongoing DOE research will include analysis of the data to better understand the scope and impact of PBL in an IUPUI course offered campus-wide to meet general education, writing requirements in most majors. The W231/LivLab bridge provides a unique pathway for IUPUI students to develop depth and expertise by starting a project in one course, then taking the topic and/or client with them into a future PBL course.

 

STEPS, BENCHMARKS, and REPORTS

• SUMMER: Shadowing in The Living Lab. Oesch-Minor observed/attended LivLab classes on Zoom; Hampton and Justice taught LivLab interns Summer 2021.

• FALL: Networking with Writing Program administrators. Oesch-Minor met with Mel Wininger, the Writing Program 200-level course coordinator, to discuss: the CEG, surveying W231 faculty, and expanding PBL in other 200-level writing courses.

• FALL, AUGUST: Database Development. W231 CEG affiliates Cohen, Harrell, Jettpace, and Oesch-Minor with the LivLab student intern [Doug Greathouse], Hampton, and Justice to brainstorm content and usability features for the W231/LivLab database.

• FALL, AUGUST/SEPTEMBER: W231 Faculty Survey. The CEG Writing Program team surveyed W231 faculty to assess curricular consistencies as step one of applying to get W231 on IUPUI’s The Record. ANALYSIS of the SURVEY AVAILABLE at https://djoeschm.wixsite.com/ceg2022-w231-livlab/w231-engagement

• FALL: Oesch-Minor appealed to PRAC to add W231 to The Record.

• FALL, OCTOBER/NOVEMBER: The Greathouse Database. The LivLab student intern, Doug Greathouse, shared a prototype of the database with Cohen, Hampton, Jettpace, Justice, and Oesch-Minor as well as IUPUI Institute for Engaged Learning affiliates with specializations in assessment and digital documentation: Tom Hahn (Director, Research and Program Evaluation) and Holly Lindsay (Consultant, Web Developer). Both Zoom and in-person attendees.

• FALL, NOVEMBER: Promotion for the W231/LivLab Bridge. A visual promoting the W231/LivLab connection was shared with W231 faculty. W231 faculty shared the link with students or shared the visual during class. LINK to the Visual: https://view.genial.ly/616830f06ce4d90d6c4c8425/presentation-genial-presentation

• FALL, NOVEMBER: Greathouse completed a database. He reported on the database and built a visual with data access information. LINK to the REPORT on the Greathouse Database: https://djoeschm.wixsite.com/ceg2022-w231-livlab/livlab-database

• FALL, DECEMBER: Pilot of the W231/LivLab database. W231 faculty participating with the CEG shared the Greathouse database link with W231 students/classes.

• FALL, DECEMBER: Two focus groups provided feedback on the likelihood of enrolling in LivLab after completing W231. The groups also discussed ways they could transfer the W231 project into other courses (like a capstone). All 43 students who participated said they were interested, but none of these students enrolled in LivLab for Spring 2022.

• FALL, DECEMBER: Hampton, Justice, and Oesch-Minor met with Greathouse to interview him about his experience working on the project as part of the CEG.

• WINTER: Mid-Point Progress Report. Oesch-Minor shared a report on semester one accomplishments with LivLab, W231, and CTL. LINK: https://view.genial.ly/61af7cc9bf1acf0d8529b3cd/presentation-w231livlab-progress-report-fall-2021

• WINTER/SPRING: Oesch-Minor hosted exit interviews with two community clients about their W231 team project experience and future interests in networking with IUPUI courses, like W231 and The Living Lab.

• WINTER: W231 was approved/added to The Record. [SLA staff generated the list, of students who earned a C or higher in W231, IEL entered the list into The Record queue for approval, Oesch-Minor approved each entry individually and included a note/overview of the W231 experience for each recipient.]

  • 320 Fall 2021 students who completed W231 with a C or higher were retroactively added to The Record.

  • 290 Spring 2022 students who completed W231 with a C or higher will be added to The Record.

• SPRING: CTL’s Richard Turner Zoomed with Oesch-Minor about the CEG’s next steps.

• SPRING, APRIL: Thirty W231 students participated in brief, team Exit Interviews.

• SPRING, MAY: As part of the IUPUI faculty/course survey process, two sections of W231 students were sent links with questions relating to PBL, including the role of ePortfolios in their PBL experience. To see their responses, visit https://djoeschm.wixsite.com/ceg2022-w231-livlab/w231-engagement

 

II. Strengths and Challenges

1. The principal strengths of the project for W231 and LivLab were building networks across Schools that promote and support Project-Based Learning opportunities for students. In time, as students become more familiar with PBL opportunities, they can better identify and register for PBL-oriented courses. [IEL built a tool to help students search for courses/activities on The Record Fall 2021; it went live in 2022.] As part of the W231/LivLab CEG, students participated in every stage of the process. Including students at almost every stage of the grant provided transparency and gave them a window into the worlds of faculty grants, project management, and curricular pathways.   Students were included as database designer/s, project consultants, focus-group respondents, survey respondents, product-reviewers, and Assessment Institute presenters.

2. The primary challenges with the CEG were with technology and buy-in.

   • On the technology side, the initial database concept was much too complicated to complete in a single semester; future LivLab participants may take up the project to build a heat map, public-facing search options, and a library of team reports.

   • At times, there were challenges with W231 faculty buy-in [six of ten W231 faculty participated], and the faculty who participated faced significant challenges getting student buy-in; only a small percentage of student teams added information into the Greathouse database.

   • The database itself has glitches related to who can access the system; we are working to resolve this problem over the summer.

   • One final barrier occurred when the IU School of Liberal Arts eliminated compensation for a dedicated, W231 faculty coordinator making it time-prohibitive for a faculty member to harvest data and manage correspondences to W231 students and community clients. Because of these challenges and setbacks, we did not systematize a follow-up process with W231 students and community clients. We will. But it will take more time.

3. What impact, if any, did COVID-19 have on your project?

   • The pandemic made it challenging to network with W231 faculty and to host in-person meetings. Zoom provided a good option to engage contributors.

 

 

 

III. Project Goals

1. What were your 2021 CEG project goals?

   1. PHASE ONE would explore ways to better capture W231 team and client information—like names, addresses, and emails—through W231 students. 

   2. PHASE TWO was a digital humanities component. CEG investigators will explore ways to better document and report on community-student partnerships in both W231 and Living Labs. 

   3. PHASE THREE would enlist the support of W231 team/s as well as Living Lab students to explore models and best practices for sharing signature works through an open-source database.

   4. PHASE FOUR was to pilot a project with student/s, client/s, or project/s from W231 stepping across the bridge into The Living Lab.

 

1. To what extent did you achieve each of your project goals?  Please explain.

   1. PHASE ONE was a success. We explored ways to gather/track student projects and community clients. We determined that a database would be the best option, with the W231 students independently doing the data entry. Doug Greathouse in LivLab built the database. Some W231 students entered data Fall 2021 and Spring 2022.

   2. PHASE TWO was a partial success. The database will help W231 and LivLab track community clients as the critical first step in the digital humanities project. In the future, we hope to add a heat map component to help visualize and share the impact of the team projects, add client response/search access, and create a searchable library of student-team projects.

   3. PHASE THREE was a partial success. Initially, the CEG team anticipated that student projects could be added into the database and shared/searched like an online library. Creating a searchable library will take considerably more back-end coding and database development. As a way around this challenge, we explored opensource options and talked with W231 students about where they were comfortable sharing their work. IUPUI Engaged Learning Showcase, hosted by the Institute for Engaged Learning, proved to be an ideal choice. W231 student-teams were invited to share their Recommendation Report projects in the Showcase; students could add their URL on a Google Form to be included in the Showcase. Ten teams representing approximately 48 students shared their work in the 2022 Showcase. LINK https://getengaged.iupui.edu/showcase/2022/project-based-learning/english-w231-professional-writing-skills/index.html

   4. PHASE FOUR was to have a Fall W231 student enroll in The Living Lab in the Spring. This goal was not achieved. We did invite W231 students to enroll in LivLab and shared a short presentation to encourage their interest: https://view.genial.ly/616830f06ce4d90d6c4c8425/presentation-genial-presentation We will continue promoting this option.

 

IV. Impact

1. What kinds of formative feedback or assessment did you seek on the course/project as you were developing or implementing the course/project (e.g., peer reviews, mid-semester evaluation, student focus groups, student surveys, conversations with students, critical self-reflections after class meetings)?

   1. We consulted with peers and administrators in the Writing Program and Engineering/Technology for guidance and support related to the project. Oesch-Minor also met with representatives from UITS, IEL Community Engagement, Handshake, Sustainability, ePortfolio, The Record, JAG Challenge, and BRIDGE to better understand PBL at IUPUI and digital options for building PBL pathways on campus.

   2. CEG Co-PIs relied on student feedback from two W231 courses in the Fall and two W231 courses in the spring. These 43 students provided feedback on the idea of bridging W231/LivLab, feedback on the database design [as pilot users], participated in focus groups and exit interviews, and provided affirmation that they are interested in having more control over projects and ways to share the work they do in W231. Their feedback is accessible in the CEG ePortfolio.

   3. How did you use it to improve your course/project? As part of the Fall W231/LivLab project, Oesch-Minor developed/integrated pedagogical transparency. This transparency started the first week of class with a podcast on the ambiguity of property ownership and a Canvas activity on “who owns your education?” Each week, time was dedicated to encouraging students to ask “why” and “how” about each step of the project and what they were learning in the course. Periodic reflections—spoken and written—were part of this emphasis on asking students to question/interrogate everything in the course curriculum. The fall class responded well to this transparency and suggested that teams have more independent time for teamwork during class. In the spring, emphasis was again placed on “owning your education” with even more team time to work on projects during class. The 2022 students were encouraged to speak up; they suggested changes in due dates, modifications to assignments, and pushed for more autonomy with Recommendation Report sections. At the same time, we talked more about Project-Based Learning and ways they demonstrate ownership and autonomy through their work in other environments. The end results? Impressive team projects and interest in participating in future PBL courses. [Visit the 2022 IEL Showcase to see W231 team projects: https://getengaged.iupui.edu/showcase/2022/project-based-learning/english-w231-professional-writing-skills/index.html

 

 

1. How did you measure the impact of your project on student learning and/or success? Provide a narrative or a table outlining course learning objectives, indicators/metrics used to measure student learning outcomes and experiences, and key findings for each indicator. A template of the table is provided below.

 

DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS CEG PROJECT, there were not specific goals related to course curriculum revisions. However, we did want to assess aspects of the CEG with emphasis on PBL and what students value about their PBL experiences. At the heart of these questions is: does PBL help students retain and transfer learning into other situations? Student exit interviews and a survey provided insights on these questions.

​

FOR Faculty Survey Analysis, Student Exit Interviews, and Students Survey Analysis, visit the W231 Engagement tab: https://djoeschm.wixsite.com/ceg2022-w231-livlab/w231-engagement

 

​2. Based on your course assessment data, what specific claims can you make about the impact of your project on student learning and/or success?

 

The more transparent the curriculum, the better students understand what they are learning and why it is part of the curriculum. They appreciate pedagogical transparency—which goes beyond TILTing an assignment to routine course discussions about “what, why, and how”. When students are using PBL with authentic audiences, it is easier to explain the “what, why, and how” at each stage of a project. And, this CEG helped support the idea that using multiple technologies with a project helps students better understand how writing changes to meet genre-oriented expectations that are influenced by [or dictated by] the technology used to share writing or ideas. For example, Twitter has a limit on characters. It’s easy for students to understand this. It’s more challenging to show them how writing changed from an Annotated Bibliography to a Review of Literature to shaping questions for a local survey to reporting on all of this research through a well-supported argument the Analysis of a Recommendation Report.

​

3. In what ways do your findings extend, build upon, or provide counterevidence to the claims articulated in your literature review?

The claims in the Literature Review align with the findings of the CEG. However, there is little college-level research on the benefits of PBL and the role of authentic audiences in college courses using PBL. The CEG project reveals the need for systematic exploration into the real and perceived benefits of working with authentic audiences [external clients] in PBL-oriented college courses. In addition, the CEG experience revealed the benefits of pedagogical transparency. Justice does this particularly well with LivLab interns when she points to examples of challenges, successes, and strategies used by experts in the fields of computer engineering and information technology: she is a master teacher. Oesch-Minor made strides in this area by being more intentional about including weekly discussions related to “what, why, and how” for course and project stages, like a segment on metacognition to explain the “what, why, and how” of formal reflective memos; a section of failure and resilience after teams formed around five of the twenty-five student elevator pitches; a section on keeping team notes in a shared Google Doc and the connection to professional roles from IT coders to police officers to layers to social workers; etc.

 

V. Sustainability and Dissemination

1. How do you propose to retain or improve upon the course/curricular enhancements you’ve made and continue to study its impact on student learning and success?

The Writing Program and LivLab will continue to work together to cultivate a bridge between these courses. And, Writing Program affiliates will continue using the new database to document and track PBL projects with W231 community clients. This is just the beginning of campus-wide opportunities for faculty using PBL to network and build engaging experiences for students.

​

• What are your plans, if any, for expansion of this project? Please explain.

  • Yes. Justice and Oesch-Minor plan to continue work on the W231 database to add components like a heat map, searchable format, and W231 project library. Oesch-Minor, Cohen, and Jettpace, with the support of the new, 200-level Course Coordinator, Mel Wininger, plan to explore ways to systematize correspondences with community clients. Oesch-Minor plans to continue her exploration of pathways for W231 students to continue their projects in future courses, capstones, and professional studies.

• Have other faculty members, within or outside your department or school, expressed any interest in your project?  Yes.

  • Chris Rogers, JAG Challenge coordinator teaching in the Purdue School of Engineering and Technology expressed interest in the CEG and fostering PBL across courses.

  • Gurkan Mihci, Herron School of Art, expressed interest in the concept and provided a team of HER 340 Design students to explore ways to document and share what students do in W231; their semester-long PBL project included surveys of W231 students and faculty.

  • David Pierce, Director of the Sports Innovation Institute in the IU School of Health and Human Sciences, supported curricular changes that added W231 to their degree program to integrate PBL earlier in their program, through a general education course.

  • Mel Wininger, Writing Program Senior Lecturer and 200-Level Course Coordinator, expressed interest in expanding PBL and documenting PBL in other 200-level writing classes.

  • Tiana Irouje, IU Director of Student Engagement and Success, Zoomed with Oesch-Minor about PBL and bridging IT lab projects with other courses; Oesch-Minor also interviewed Una Thacker, Director of the IU Fix-IT program [an internship program with similarities to The Living Lab] who showed interest in documenting PBL and expanding opportunities for students to explore a project through multiple courses, across disciplines.

  • Jerry Daday, IUPUI’s IEL, attended a Zoom with Doug Greathouse and met with Oesch-Minor to demonstrate an interest in projects like the W231/LivLab CEG as an integral part of the Project-Based Learning Lab, Faculty Fellows program.

• Have you disseminated the results of your project in any way? If yes, please describe. If not, why not? Yes.

  • Oesch-Minor presented on aspects of the W231/LivLab project to:

    • CEG Participants [in the Department of English and The Living Lab];

    • SLA, Department of English, Writing Program Administrators;

    • Institute for Engaged Learning representatives in several Zoom and F2F meetings. IEL voices included Tom Hahn [Research/Assessment], Morgan Studer [consultant, database designer], Amy Powell [ePortfolio], David Pierce [PBL Lab], and Jerry Daday;

    • Assessment Institute attendees in a 2-Hour, pre-conference Workshop:

 

Assessment Institute, Virtual Pre-Conference Two-Hour Workshop [Zoom]: October 24, 2021

“Integrating HIPs into Every Stage of Project-Based Learning: Onboarding Students, Scaffolding Transparent Assignments, Engaging Community Partners, and Managing Projects and Deliverables” with Mary D’Alleva [CSU East Bay], Kelley Ditzel [GCSU], and Tiana Irouje [IU], along with an IUPUI W231 Professional Writing Skills student and community partner.

 

Future Dissemination:  Steve Fox, SLA Department of English, Writing Program Director, is coordinating a time to present the CEG to SLA, Department of English, Writing Program administrators. In addition,  Cohen, Hass, Jettpace, Mahoney, Minnick, and Oesch-Minor requested time to present the CEG at a Writing Program faculty workshop.

 

Knowing what you know now, what advice do you have for future CEG scholars? We’ll include your insights and suggestions in our support for the work of future CEG scholars.

​

• Be strategic. Be realistic. Break larger projects into installments that follow a multi-year plan.

 

VI. Not applicable

VIII. Positioning Yourself as a Scholarly Teacher

Since the start of this project, we have encouraged you to frame your work as scholarly teaching, especially on the ways the dimensions enable you to conceptualize your work and frame it so that its successes and impact are visible and recognizable to your peers. To follow through on that process, we ask you to turn to the Scholarly Teaching Taxonomy and find your work within its dimensions and levels.

At the beginning of your project, you completed the Scholarly Teaching Growth Survey, and you were asked to download and keep a copy of your responses. At the end of your project, we are asking you to complete the Scholarly Teaching Growth Survey in the context of your now-completed CEG work. We ask you to then offer a short reflection (300 words) on the changes in your position in and attitude toward scholarly teaching as indicated by your pre- and post- project survey results.

Your reflection should address the following prompts:

1. In what way have you moved across levels or added dimensions which indicate growth or advancement in scholarly teaching? What new teaching and learning practices would you attribute to these changes across levels or dimensions? [answer below]

2. How has your work on this CEG project impacted you in the following areas?

   1. Confidence in your teaching work and your readiness to pursue scholarly teaching projects.

   2. Your connection to your peers’ teaching practices and/or to your department or school teaching mission

   3. Your commitment to a scholarly teaching career

   4. Your commitment to offering your students a better learning experience

   5. Your overall satisfaction with your teaching

 

OESCH-MINOR: The bridge between W231 and The Living Lab will be the first formal collaboration of its kind between two different colleges, informed by and built on Gold Standard PBL. After completing the CEG, I know much more about innovative PBL programming. Shadowing, working with, and talking to faculty using PBL at IUPUI and around the country expanded my conception of PBL possibilities and the very real value for student learning and learning transfer.  In addition, the bridge between courses, like we pursed between W231 and LivLab, would be groundbreaking progress in higher education. It would empower students to gain breadth and depth across disciplines by providing voice and choice to pursue an area of vested interest.

​

In my classrooms, I’ll do more to talk about the wonderful opportunities across campus to engage in PBL. I already challenge students to find ways to develop depth and expertise through research opportunities and lab positions. Now, I’ll challenge them to develop depth and expertise by taking projects with them from one class, into another, with an eye toward using their capstone to take PBL topics to the next level.

 

I do feel more confident about my knowledge of PBL and transparent pedagogical practices. I am more comfortable encouraging/supporting other faculty members who are interested in PBL and ePortfolios after working with the IEL PBL affiliates, PBL Lab Faculty Fellows; LivLab’s Connie, Clay, and students, like Doug; and networking with CEG partners in the Writing Program. I was invited to serve as a judge for the Fall 2022 JAG Challenge and hope to continue to find new ways to build bridges between my courses and other PBL opportunities. Creating rich-PBL experiences for students enhances their course learning and ability to transfer what they are learning across disciplines and into their professions. It does take additional time and effort to integrate and manage PBL at the course level, but it is time well spent to help students better engage and master course content as they take ownership of their education.

​

1. How does your department regard your achievement in completing this CEG project?

   • The departments are supportive of the CEG and ongoing efforts to promote community-engaged learning, as well as being keenly interested in documenting and tracking community engaged learning.

2. How would you document your growth as a scholarly teacher in your teaching documentation for advancements (Faculty Annual Report, P&T dossier, etc.).

OESCH-MINOR: My participation in the CEG and professional growth will be documented in my FAR and promotion to Teaching Professor dossier.

​

 

CEG Involvement by W231 Faculty

_________________________________________________

IU School of Liberal Arts, Department of English, Writing Program

SPRING 2022 W231 Faculty Contributors to the CEG

Cohen, Mary Ann: CEG CO-PI

Haas, Hannah: CEG Contributor

Harrell, Sara: CEG CO-PI

Jettpace, Lynn: CEG CO-PI

Mahoney, Jennifer: CEG Contributor

Minnick, Norm: CEG Contributor

Oesch-Minor, Debbie: CEG PI

Wininger, Mel: 200-Level Course Director

​

*All W231 faculty received email invitations to join the CEG for the Spring, even if they were not part of the CEG in the fall. 

_______________________________________________________

FALL 2021 W231 Faculty

Cohen, Mary Ann: CEG CO-PI

Haas, Hannah: CEG Contributor

Harrell, Sara: CEG CO-PI

Jettpace, Lynn: CEG CO-PI

Mahoney, Jennifer: CEG Contributor

Minnick, Norm: CEG Contributor

Oesch-Minor, Debbie: CEG PI

Wininger, Mel: 200-Level Course Director/ Consulted with Oesch-Minor about the CEG

​

* All W231 faculty received three email invitations to join the CEG. 

 

____________________CEG TRANSPARENCY_______________________

You can read more about the CEG and see documents and presentations related to the grant on the W231/LivLab Grant ePortfolio: https://djoeschm.wixsite.com/ceg2022-w231-livlab