I. Conceptualizing "Undergraduate Research" for CLS

We begin by briefly considering the nature of scholarship in general as a basis for developing a coherent and useful understanding of what undergraduate scholarship entails. Then, most importantly, we turn to a discussion of how undergraduate scholarship can best contribute to student learning and the enhancement of a positive climate for learning and inquiry.

For many who are familiar with Ernest Boyer's influential Scholarship Reconsidered , the traditional understanding of scholarship asinvestigation has been supplemented by three other important categories of valid scholarly work: the scholarship of integrating knowledge , the scholarship of applying knowledge , and the scholarship ofteaching . If we understand the term scholarship more generally to refer to an intellectually rigorous effort to know or create, Boyer's categories, in effect, name four highly valued aspects of scholarship (investigation, integration, application and teaching ) . For purposes of further discussion, then, we adopt a definition of scholarship as the creation, organization or application of knowledge or aesthetic productions. This definition assumes that: a) knowledge is produced (rather than discovered) by creating and/or integrating information and theory; and b) aesthetic products (both artifacts and experiences) most often result from intentional skilled innovative activity. The application of knowledge is included in this definition of scholarship based on the assumption that such application involves high-level intellectual work.

Before turning to how this working definition of scholarship in general might serve as a basis for specifying the nature of scholarly work by undergraduate students, we want to urge that the term "undergraduate research" be modified. The undergraduate research movement in higher education clearly emanates from the natural sciences. The leading spokespersons and promoters of undergraduate research within the natural sciences have often endorsed the broadest and most inclusive scope of participation. Yet at the same time the most prominent model for undergraduate research has been scientific research as conventionally understood. Thus there seems to have developed a gap between the expressed intentions of many supporters in the ranks of the sciences and the perceptions of many faculty and students in the arts and humanities. Some faculty members outside of the sciences and social sciences seem to feel alienated from the undergraduate research movement. This is also evidenced at UW-L's Undergraduate Research Day when some students from the humanities are apologetic about what they presume to be the "non-research" status of their work. Toward breaching this gap, we feel it advisable to broaden the term used to refer to the student work under discussion. We suggest, at least for now, the phrase "research, scholarship and creative endeavor." This is more in keeping with what the academic community means by scholarship, and refers explicitly to all fields of inquiry at the university.

More specifically, then, to what are we referring when we speak of undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavor? Clearly, undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavor parallels -- though typically at a less accomplished level -- the intellectual work of the variety of scholars within the university community. We can discuss this more specifically by focussing on the criteria commonly used to analyze or evaluate research/scholarship/creative endeavor. One such list recently articulated by a task force of psychologists (Halpern and associates, 1998), slightly modified here, suggests that scholarship:

a) demonstrates appropriate intellectual expertise;

b) displays some degree of innovation;

c) can be documented by the scholar;

d) can be reviewed by peers;

e) is somehow significant or has an impact; and

f) (usually) can be replicated or elaborated.

While we can imagine examples that would challenge these criteria in some ways, most research/ scholarship/creative endeavor in the arts, humanities and social sciences, as well as the natural sciences, share most or all of these features. Undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavor, then, is exemplary student work from class projects and/or independent studies that investigates, integrates, and/or applies knowledge in ways that reflect some combination of expertise, innovation and/or significance. Such student work should feature a blend of some of the above scholarly characteristics judged appropriate by the student's faculty mentor. In CLS, an increased engagement with this trend in higher education would have us do more to encourage our students' intellectual work, as well as do more to encourage our students to disseminate the exemplary work they are already doing. An addendum to this report describes a few examples of such exemplary scholarship by undergraduates working with faculty mentors.

II. Maximizing Learning through Undergraduate Research/Scholarship/Creative Endeavor

We also believe that how our students' scholarship is presented to the university community is a central part of the learning process that needs further consideration. One approach, now utilized at UW-L, is modeled on the meetings of academic associations, using oral and poster presentations and publication in a journal. This approach emphasizes the finished product as the point of departure for public discussion and -- for students who give oral presentations -- probably maximizes the salience of the public performance with which their experiences culminate.

While this is one legitimate option, we recommend that other options be created that give more opportunity for students to reflect on the process of accomplishing their scholarly work in addition to the resulting product. An additional valuable setting for public presentation of undergraduate scholarly work is the round table discussion s . Round table discussions would promote additional depth of learning in the context of informal, connected conversations. With the approval of the faculty mentor, the occasion of round table discussions of completed projects would be publicized and include the distribution of an abstract of the project. Such settings would encourage students to articulate their reflections about how they developed and carried out their projects, in an environment emphasizing exchange and mutual interest rather than performance to a more distant audience. Students could more easily recognize that their project is not an isolated effort, but part of a continuing learning process wherein the origin of their ideas, the process of carrying out their project, and its significance take on added meaning in dialogue with others. Indeed, this venue, like the "paper presentation" and "poster presentation," is also utilized at professional academic meetings in numerous disciplines.

Rather than just one event per year presenting and celebrating student scholarship, regularly recurring presentations in settings most appropriate to the nature of the project could be organized. In addition to the annual daylong event now held on campus, round-table discussions could be scheduled periodically, as well as art exhibits, theatre productions, music performances, and oral presentations. The current Undergraduate Research Committee solicits proposals, funds selected student projects, organizes Undergraduate Research Day, and publishes an annual journal. We are making no recommendations to alter those activities. However, we do agree with those faculty members who believe that much exemplary student work is already being accomplished that does not take part in the current initiative, and that yet more can be encouraged. We are suggesting this additional student work could be showcased in additional venues as noted above. This would call for some organizational work to advocate, recruit, promote, schedule and publicize this additional undergraduate research/scholarship/ creative endeavor. We envision this being done with as little bureaucratization of the process as possible, emphasizing trust in the judgment and competence of faculty mentors to help students work to appropriately high standards. Responsibilities for scheduling and publicizing the additional student presentations or performances suggested here would be developed collaboratively and assigned to existing entities (see Recommendations below for details).

III. Challenges

We have described an approach appropriate to CLS for greater participation in the national movement to foster undergraduate scholarly work, an approach that addresses several important issues of particular concern to some of the disciplines in CLS. We can foresee at least the following four potential challenges: 1) the integration of mentoring with existing workloads; 2) student expectations; 3) quality control; and 4) benefits to students.

Integrating mentoring with workload. Under current conditions, committing the time and effort involved in mentoring students is a significant challenge. One strategy is to make student projects more integral to the mentor's ongoing research or creative endeavor (without, of course, exploiting students). Making sure that the student work is congruent with the mentor's regular teaching responsibilities is another strategy. Every effort should be made to see that mentoring is rewarded appropriately (e.g., merit evaluations, retention and promotion, etc.). But, without doubt, instructional workload issues need further explicit attention if mentoring by a significant numbers of instructors is to become and remain viable. We need to acknowledge that not all instructors will have the time to be mentors or will be able to do so only from time to time. Even as mentoring is strongly encouraged and rewarded, we need to acknowledge that, under present workload conditions, mentoring individual student projects should not become a standard expectation.

Student expectations. As emphasized above, one major purpose in providing opportunities for undergraduate scholarship is the enhancement of learning. Students capable of exemplary work should be encouraged to pursue projects that allow them to act on their intellectual interests and curiosities. Clearly, not all students will show this interest or have the necessary skills to pursue such projects. Because we do not recommend formulating elaborate policies specifying the process by which student projects are initiated, mentors will need to use good judgment in making wise and realistic choices in establishing mentoring relationships. Furthermore, mentors will need to help students reach realistic expectations and to recognize their limitations in terms of time, expertise and resources. Projects initiated by students for the sole purpose of resume enhancement should not be encouraged.

Quality Control. The only approval process being proposed in regard to undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavors is the mentor's sponsorship and pledge of assistance. Instructors who have agreed to serve as mentors are expected to see the student through to completion of the work. If over time it becomes apparent that too often quality of the student work is low, the College should address that problem. We both anticipate and hope that this will not be the case, and trust the judgment and commitment of the mentors and our students. Of course, the existing Undergraduate Research Committee will continue to review proposals for funding student projects and organize the annual Undergraduate Research Day. We foresee that some of the CLS students' ideas for projects would lead to proposals to the university Undergraduate Research Committee.

Student benefits. Undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavor is primarily for the benefit of students, not faculty or instructional academic staff. Whereas the students do take on the role of "researchers," undergraduates should not be treated like graduate student research assistants. We need to keep in mind that the scholarly work is being pursued at the undergraduate level. Thus the product of this work, for both the student and the instructor, will be in keeping with its undergraduate character. The symbiotic relationships between faculty research interests and undergraduate educational experiences must be articulated explicitly and enacted consciously; the danger of the development of parasitic relationships that exploit students must always be in our awareness and avoided. In order to achieve and maintain maximum benefits for the students, the following should be kept in mind: students' projects should mirror the student's own interest and competence; scholarly tasks that fit a mentor's project need to have significant educational value for the student; and the student needs to be given full credit for her/his work in any publication.

IV. Recommendations

1. CLS instructors and departments are encouraged to be more cognizant of exemplary student work and to offer appropriate encouragement and opportunities for students to pursue and disseminate exemplary work.
2. CLS instructors are encouraged to serve as mentors for students whose work is exemplary or who show promise of exemplary scholarly or creative work.

4. CLS students should be encouraged to write proposals for project funding for submission to the UW-L Undergraduate Research Committee.

• the College should offer proposal writing workshops to students (and their mentors)
• the College should offer mentoring workshops to instructors

• A process for scheduling student performances, exhibits, or round table discussions of projects should be developed collaboratively by the academic departments and the Office of the Dean of CLS.
• A process for publicizing student performances, exhibits, or round table discussions of projects should be developed collaboratively by the academic departments and the CLS Public Relations Committee.
• A brochure for students (both current and prospective) with information about the nature of undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavor and details about mentors, workshops, etc., should be created by the CLS Public Relations Committee.

7. The College of Liberal Studies is encouraged to establish a fund for the support of Undergraduate research/scholarship/creative endeavor.

Boyer, Ernest. Scholarship Reconsidered . Carnegie Foundation. 1990, 1997.

Halpern, Diane F., and seventeen others. "Scholarship in psychology: a paradigm for the twenty-first
century." The American Psychologist. 1998 (December), 1292-1297.

ADDENDUM: SOME EXAMPLES OF EXEMPLARY STUDENT WORK IN CLS

[Note: While all departments and disciplines in the college have students doing exemplary work, only a few are listed in the limited space here. Even with the disciplines listed, the projects that are mentioned are only examples of the variety of students' scholarly work.]

An undergraduate research project in Theatre Arts may involve in-depth projects in acting, directing, scenery design, lighting design, costume design, technical direction, dramaturgy or playwriting. An example of undergraduate research in directing was the directing of the UW-L production of Oleanna , which involved: detailed script analysis; research on the playwright, the times and historical events influencing the playwright, and comparisons and contrasts with other plays; working with the production team to establish a sense of direction, set goals, and define responsibilities; conducting auditions and rehearsing the show; and assessing the overall project.

Psychology students do various research projects using experimental, survey and/or case study methods. For example, students have completed an in-depth investigation of trends in the study of child development within psychology along with corresponding advise to parents; others did a similar study of changing views of mental illness. As another example, two psychology students worked together to conduct a comparative study of perceptions of gender roles among U.S. and Mexican male college students.

Philosophy students read extensively in pursuing the conceptual clarification of ideas or truth claims. One philosophy student conceptualized and analyzed recent philosophical trends in terms of themes presented in very early Western philosophy. Another student compared medieval and contemporary women mystics.

History students contribute regularly to Studies in History and Contemporary Culture , a journal edited and published locally by the Department of History. Examples of history students' work include an analysis of Hegel's contribution to historiography, and a study of FDR's influence on Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb.

English students accomplish writing projects in a variety of genres of fiction and non-fiction, as well as literary scholarship and linguistic research. One English student wrote a novel, choosing the genre of fantasy fiction for youth. The project involved considerable research into this genre, as well as research related to details about the novel's story line, characters, settings, etc. The student gave a public reading of portions of the finished novel, as well as reflections what she learned doing the project. Another student worked on a linguistic study of aspects of the Norwegian language in Norway and in Wisconsin.

Archaeological Studies students all get field experience at archaeological sites and laboratory experience analyzing artifacts, leading to the completion of an undergraduate thesis project. Several student projects have resulted in paper presentations at professional meetings as well as publications. Numerous research projects have used data from archaeological sites in the Upper Midwest and Belize.

Art students can build on skills and knowledge in foundation courses to produce a body of work in any of several media. For example, one art student studied the work of noted German printmaker Kathe Kollwitz, including the relationship between Kollwitz's art, her personal history and the social history of Germany from WWI to WWII. The student studied Kollwitz's techniques and used them in original artwork, eventually presenting both that original work and a documentary presentation on Kollwitz.