Undergraduate Research Community
for the Human Sciences

Assessment Task Force Report

Task Force Members: Gladys Gary Vaughn, Jan Van Buren, Karla Hughes, Nina Collins, Mary Pritchard, Shirley Hymon-Parker

State the Task: Criteria for assessment for the URC for Human Sciences

Left-Right Arrow: URC

Oval: URC Discovery Application

What value have we added to students’ undergraduate experience?

What value have we added to Human Sciences professional foundations? Knowledge base?

What value have we added to Human Sciences faculty?

What value have we added to the university’s intellectual community?

What value have we added to academe?

  • First assess the URC (See Vision statements to determine what’s being evaluated)
    • Assess models, assess products,
    • Level of participation in URC?
  • Assess the various undergraduate research models
    • What difference did it make?
    • What was the impact of this experience on the individual? In essence what was the quality of the undergraduate experience?
    • Impact on Human Sciences
    • What is the impact on human capacity development? i.e. federal agencies

Clarify vision for the future:

  • The vision for the assessment committee is to see individual units build assessment into each model (campus efforts).
  • URC provides models/rubrics for assessment for units.
  • Data gains/national recognition.  Setting the pace for undergraduate research in Human Sciences (i.e. front/back page of the Chronicle of Higher Education)
  • Growth measure progression from benchmark
  • Increase the number of students submitting and presenting at professional associations
    • Increase participation
    • Increase in quality of participating units
  • Effectiveness of models to fit institutional culture(administrative structure, size of the school, mission, land-grant, funding, student mix, public or private).

Identify steps toward vision:

Assessment Advisory Body Accountability/Value Added


Systems-Mechanics of Execution


  • Stated outcomes
  • Components of the vision/mission
  • Define reciprocity between URC & units
  • Re: responsibility reporting
  • Who/what/how much monitoring-update linking w/existing data (FAEIS)
  • Inventory components: students’ submissions, publications, faculty presentations, course engagement/document (# / %)
  • Graduate school attendance (# of students attending graduate school)
  • Assess faculty development
  • Set priorities
  • Data evidence-collect, analyze, report, feedback, disseminate
  • Information systems
  • Storage retrieval
  • Cataloging of undergraduate research.
  • Collaboration :
  • Faculty- to -student
  • Student- to- student
  • Personnel & funding incentive
  • Venue for student presentation
  • Collaboration-multi-state (inter-intra)
  • Integrative research/development/engagement
  • Description of workable models and commonalities
  • Assessment of faculty development, best practices
  • Workable models


URC Mission & Vision

    • By asking these questions: 1, 2,3,4,5 (see grid block above)
    • Set priorities, benchmark (AERA)
    • Need resources/grant/funding
    • 3rd party/data collection
    • Personnel (3-5)
    • Structure to advise

Commit to initial actions:

  • Inform central administration of URC participation
  • Measure benchmarks of non-URC institutions vs. URC participants
  • Continue task force or form a new task force concurrently with other initiatives
  • Search out funding sources
  • Create and monitor types of recognition
  • Create opportunities for public relations (value)
  • Define “research” for undergraduates- permeantation of scientific method

Follow-up Committee Point Person:

  • New personnel hired to implement activities of the URC or the task force.

Brainstorm Notes:

Stated outcomes


Components of vision

Data evidence

Multiple measures: Collect, analyze, report-disseminate, feedback)

System for collecting data

Set priorities


Personnel funding


Link with FAEIS and others (i.e. Link with Food & Nutrition Summer Institute for Historically Black Colleges)

Integrative research/development


Report to URC units re: responsibilities


  • Number of students participating (% of units)
  • Number of faculty participating
  • Number of courses being offered in participating institutions
  • Number of presentation/publications/submissions

Update engagement- Popular Press or peer review

  • Description of workable models
  • Commonalities of models

Information systems

Storage & retrieval system

Assessment faculty development

Tenure Promotion & D process- faculty

January 25, 2001


©2002-2016 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community.

Research Journal: Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3 Vol. 4 Vol. 5 Vol. 6 Vol. 7 Vol. 8 Vol. 9 Vol. 10 Vol. 11 Vol. 12 Vol. 13 Vol. 14 Vol. 15
High School Edition

Call for Papers ¦ URC Home ¦ Kappa Omicron Nu

KONbutton K O N KONbutton