1.   SoTL and “Student as Scholar” at Miami University Cecilia Shore, Andrea Bakker, Beverley Taylor and Jerry Stonewater Miami University, USA

2. What are the “Top25”? Our highest enrollment courses
Vulnerable to being Barr & Tagg’s (1995) “instructional paradigm”

3. The “student as scholar” model
A developmentally-informed vision of discovery learning (Hodge, Baxter Magolda & Haynes, 2009).
Requires that faculty shift to sharing authority with students (Mitchell, 2006)
A developmentally-informed vision of discovery learning that will enable students to forge their own identities (Hodge, Baxter Magolda & Haynes, 2009).
Requires that faculty move away from being the sole authority in the classroom who is telling students information and move toward asking students questions and authority with them (Mitchell, 2006).

4. Goals of Top 25 project emphasis on inquiry and active learning,
engagement with peer learners,
improved critical thinking,
innovative use of technology to move student learning of low-level memory information to outside class hours, and
increased student satisfaction. 

5. Project status Each year about 7 teams have come on board.
All but 2 department-led teams have an approved proposal for redesign.
18 teams are at least one year into their redesign.

6. Diverse redesigns Inverted classrooms
Revision to feature process of discipline rather than content
Revision to include breakout sessions, some with undergrad leaders
Some adopt modular approach for flexibility

7. How is SoTL being used to inform these efforts?
We assess student experiences through peer observation, focus groups and surveys; critical thinking is also assessed through analysis of student papers. 
Data from student surveys compare the redesigned & traditional course sections  
Data from student surveys from the past two academic years were used to compare the redesigned course sections (N = 2304) with the traditional course sections (N = 1609).

8. Inquiry
Students in the redesigned courses reported engaging in more inquiry-driven activities (e.g., “working on assignments that require you to build understanding on your own”);

9. Engagement
Students in redesigned courses were more likely to contribute to class discussions and to work with other students during class

10. Moving low-level tasks out of class
Students in redesigned courses reported less course emphasis on “memorizing facts, ideas, or methods”  and spent significantly more time preparing for the courses

11. Additional results
Redesign students reported significantly more emphasis on multiple aspects of critical thinking (e.g., making judgments about the value of information)
No differences in student satisfaction
Anecdotal reports of shift in student and faculty culture
Critical thinking small effect size

12. Discussion We see both ourselves and students as engaged in inquiry.
Sustainability issues
What comparable challenges and solutions are at work in your colleges and universities?

13. References
Barr, B., &Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6), 13–25.
Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty Learning Communities: Change agents for transforming Institutions into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 19,
Hodge, D. C., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Haynes, C. A. (2009). Engaged Learning: Enabling Self-Authorship and Effective Practice. Liberal Education, 95(4),
Mitchell, R. L. (2006). Emanation and generation. About Campus 11(5), 29–30.