Using Research to Examine Global Challenges

Amy M. Buddie, Kenneth W. Hill, and Phillip M. Poskus

Kennesaw State University

Author Note

Amy M. Buddie, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and Department of Psychology, Kennesaw State University; Kenneth W. Hill, Global Strategic Initiatives and Department of Management, Kennesaw State University; Phillip M. Poskus, President’s Emerging Global Scholars Program and Department of Biology, Kennesaw State University.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Amy M. Buddie, Associate Director of Graduate Student Support and Undergraduate Research/Creative Activity, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Kennesaw State University, 3211 Campus Loop Road, Kennesaw, GA 30144. Phone: 470-578-6255. Fax: 770-499-3253. E-mail: abuddie@kennesaw.edu

Abstract

As a contributing partner to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ (AASCU’s) Global Engagement Initiative, President’s Emerging Global Scholars (PEGS) program at Kennesaw State University uses the nationally recognized, researched-based, Global Challenges concept to provide a foundation for its three-year leadership program targeting high-achieving undergraduate students. Delivered through KSU’s Tomorrow’s World Today course, this content provides a futurist’s look toward the year 2030 by examining key drivers of change such as economics, technology, security, governance, population, and resource management. Through classroom study and an international experience in Salvador, Brazil, the PEGS program partners with UNIFACS University, a Laureate institution. Students, faculty, and administrators from both institutions utilize undergraduate research in concert with intercultural relationship development as tools to better understand the geopolitical, social, academic, and economic challenges that face our world today and, more importantly, tomorrow.

Keywords: Seven Global Challenges, undergraduate research, student leadership, intercultural competency

Political scientists, economists, sociologists, scientists, futurists, and other experts have developed thought-provoking theories to better understand and predict future trends. In 1992, global experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a non-partisan think tank based in Washington DC, developed a strategic vision for the planet that extends to the year 2030 and beyond. Known as Seven Revolutions, the project argues that there are seven areas of change that will significantly impact what the world looks like in 2030. These revolutionary trends or challenges and their sub-issues are:

Population:

• Population growth in developing countries
• Population decline/aging in developed countries
• Urbanization
• Migration across borders Resource Management:
• Food and hunger
• Water
• Energy
• Climate change
• Loss of biodiversity Technology:
• Computation
• Genetics and biotechnology
• Nanotechnology
• Information technology
• Automation
• Convergence of technologies Information and Knowledge:
• Connectivity and the digital divide
• Lifelong learning
• Information integrity
• The impacts of social media Economics:
• The characteristics of globalization—sheer speed, depth, and challenges to integration
• The emerging global economies (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the changing balance of productivity
• Continuing extreme poverty and inequality
• The current global recession Security and Conflict:
• New security frontiers
• Sources and causes of conflict
• Addressing conflict—conflict management
• Changing patterns of conflict
• Changing roles of the military Governance:
• Corporate citizenship and multinational corporations
• Civil society and nongovernmental organizations
• National governments
• International/mega-community organizations
• Need for strategic coalitions
• Divergence versus convergence

The CSIS’s Seven Revolutions project was created to identify and analyze key policy challenges that policymakers, business executives, and citizens will face in the next 20 years. Because it was considered vital that higher education partner in this effort to develop the next generation of globally competent citizens and to promote strategic thinking around long-term trends that too few leaders take the time to consider, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) embraced these ideas and, in conjunction with its American Democracy Project, created a scholars group comprising educators from 12 institutions across the United States. This group is committed to furthering the research, teaching, scholarship, and advocacy of the Seven Revolutions concept in universities and colleges across the country. As such, this scholars group has come together to create AASCU’s Global Engagement Initiative. This effort mirrors the same fundamental ideas embodied in the original Seven Revolutions project, and, proudly, Kennesaw State University (KSU) is a contributing partner to this national effort. By viewing the world through a lens of challenge, it is easier to see how global issues impact individuals daily and to appreciate the ways in which these seven key drivers of change offer both promise and peril.

Since the inception of the Global Engagement Initiative seven years ago, the scholars and institutions associated with it have noted that there may be additional key drivers of change worthy of consideration. At KSU, the concepts of culture and values have emerged as important considerations and may be considered an eighth global challenge that overlaps with the previously identified seven. This has become increasingly clear as our student scholars have begun working internationally. Whether culture, values, and belief systems are considered bona fide global challenges or simply critical contexts, a genuine acknowledgement and understanding of these issues is important nevertheless.

In 2007, Kennesaw State University, responding to the recognized and emerging importance of global issues both nationally and internationally, initiated a comprehensive approach to campus internationalization by creating an all- encompassing Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP): “Global Learning for Engaged Citizenship.” As a result, each college within the university structure was challenged to create coursework and programming in support of the university’s strategic vision. The QEP and its subsequent programs led KSU to receive NAFSA’s distinguished Senator Paul Simon Award in 2011. The power of this initiative has transformed the campus culture and etched the concept of globalization into KSU’s DNA.

In response to this emphasis, KSU’s University College and specifically the Department of First-Year and Transition Studies created a three-credit, first-year course entitled Tomorrow’s World Today (or KSU 1111). Intentionally designed to align the national and international concerns of CSIS, the work of the AASCU/ADP global scholars group, and KSU’s strategic plan, Tomorrow’s World Today seeks to foster the development of the next generation of globally competent citizens by teaching the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes to accomplish these goals through its focus on the areas of communication, analysis, critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and individual accountability. According to the established learning outcomes, students, as a result of taking the course, will be able to:

• describe various global, political, social, and behavioral systems, and the underlying causes of issues related to these systems;
• apply global perspectives when examining the critical issues currently facing our world and identify alternative solutions and opportunities associated with these issues;
• demonstrate the interconnectedness and interdependence of the seven global challenges and world events, and the relevance of the revolutions to local, state, and national communities; and,
• articulate personal skills in research, critical thinking, communications, and leadership.

Additionally, because KSU 1111 is designed as a first-year course and hosted by the Department of First-Year and Transition studies in KSU’s University College, students also focus on three additional areas of study: developing basic life skills, advancing strategies for academic success, and establishing campus and community connections.

Beyond developing the Tomorrow’s World Today course, Kennesaw State University’s focus on global challenges has spawned several signature events and student opportunities that are also sponsored by First-Year and Transition Studies and University College. KSU’s “Global Challenges Panel” is an interdisciplinary campus-wide event held each fall that brings together subject matter experts from a variety of disciplines to discuss the fundamentals and relationships inherent to each challenge as well as opportunities for change. Each of the experts creates his or her own “TED”-style video that is used in teaching the KSU 1111 course. In addition, the University College Global Engagement Scholars Program offers a competitive opportunity for 10 of the top first-semester students to visit Washington, DC each December. Through meetings with leadership at the Pentagon, State Department, Congress, and organizations such as USAID and Partners for the Americas, this group experiences the global challenges through a national lens.

Given the fundamental components of KSU’s Tomorrow’s World Today course, a real differentiation arises when KSU 1111 is taught as an honors course, as we do in the President’s Emerging Global Scholars (PEGS) program. Students in this program complete the following assignments to fulfill the course requirements:

• an in-depth research paper addressing one of the seven global challenges and a specific aspect or trend within that challenge;
• an international student interview designed to address culture and values, and arranged in conjunction with KSU’s International Student Association (ISA);
• a common reader project that emphasizes literary analysis and requires both an individual writing component and a team presentation;
• several challenge-specific discussion boards or reflective exercises associated with course readings;
• several “special topic” assignments designed to help establish and reinforce college-level learning strategies and skills;
• team-building and service experiences; and,
• a midterm and final exam.

Uniting the insights of CSIS’s research-based Seven Revolutions project, the strategic visions of AACSU’s Global Engagement Initiative, KSU, and University College, Tomorrow’s World Today has provided the perfect vehicle for addressing significant global issues in concert with a leadership development program for high-achieving students. Indeed, the President’s Emerging Global Scholars Program has presented a unique opportunity to blend academic coursework like Tomorrow’s World Today with invaluable co-curricular experiences.

The Global Challenges and KSU’s PEGS Program

As Kennesaw State University transitioned into a comprehensive state university, several trends influenced the development of new programming for high-achieving students. In addition to the previously detailed development of KSU 1111: Tomorrow’s World Today, KSU’s Center for Student Leadership (CSL) simultaneously experienced success in facilitating co-curricular, international education opportunities for junior- and senior-level students participating in a three- year leadership program—Leaders IN Kennesaw (LINK)—and also began to consider providing first- and second-year students opportunities to travel abroad. Finally, University President Dr. Daniel S. Papp charged the CSL with creating a leadership development program for honors students, one of many initiatives implemented to help raise the national profile of KSU. The convergence of these trends led to the creation of the President’s Emerging Global Scholars (PEGS) program.

The PEGS program is a three-year leadership development program for high-achieving KSU students designed to prepare students for application to prestigious, international scholarships—Rhodes, Fulbright, Marshall, etc.—and graduate programs. Recruited as high school seniors, students accepted into the PEGS program meet the University’s Honors and Admissions Scholars requirements: a GPA of 3.5 or higher and either an ACT composite score of 26 or higher, or an SAT (math and critical reading) score of 1200 or higher. Over the subsequent three years, students participate in co-curricular modules, lectures, and experiential opportunities addressing (a) self-awareness, (b) communication, (c) intercultural competence, (d) teamwork, (e) systematic inquiry and analysis, (f) global learning, (g) civic engagement, and (h) leadership theory.

Hosted by the Honors College and connected thematically to KSU’s Center for Student Leadership, the PEGS program provides an exceptional opportunity for honors students by blending the essential elements of success in today’s flattening world: academics and scholarship, leadership development, intercultural competency, campus and community service and engagement, and, as will be discussed in the next section, undergraduate research.

Through the capstone component of the first year, an international immersion experience in Salvador, Brazil is designed to provide a first-hand, research-oriented look at the seven global challenges in an emerging economy while introducing students to concepts of intercultural competency.

Research on the Global Challenges in the PEGS Program

In the fall of 2012, we added an undergraduate research component to the PEGS program in the first year. Undergraduate research has been identified as a “high-impact educational practice,” which means that it engages students in meaningful education and delivers deep learning outcomes for students (Kuh, 2008). According to the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR), undergraduate research is defined as “an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline” (CUR, 2011). There are numerous benefits associated with undergraduate research, including improvements in understanding scientific findings, public speaking, analyzing literature critically, and acquiring information independently; these benefits hold even when controlling for other relevant variables such as grade point average (Bauer & Bennett, 2003).

Because the research projects are conducted in the students’ first year of college, the undergraduate research experience needs to be carefully constructed and monitored. Therefore, we split the work into two semesters.

First Semester

During the first week of the semester, students are provided with an overview of the research project and associated assignments, and they begin assembling teams (see Appendix B for materials related to these assignments). Because there are seven Global Challenges and 25 to 30 first-year students each year, the goal is to construct seven teams of four to five students who will create a survey for college students around a topic within their particular Global Challenge. The students rank-order their preferences regarding the seven Global Challenges and then are assigned to teams based on their rankings.

In the second week, we engage in a large Skype session with our entire class as well as the students and faculty at UNIFACS, the university in Brazil with which we collaborate. This session is simply introductory in nature; it is a way for the students and faculty to begin getting to know each other. At this point, the students are encouraged to begin interacting with their international partners through whatever means they choose. Some students form Facebook groups; other students use Skype or other videoconferencing software; others communicate through email or texting applications. The students are given a due date for submitting survey items related to their particular Global Challenge; they are instructed to work together to create items that are meaningful and important in each country.

During the third week, KSU students participate in a session about how to use the library resources (a librarian presents the session); afterward, the students begin using these new tools to find references for their research projects. The KSU students are required to individually review a minimum of three scholarly sources and turn in an assignment in which they summarize each source and explain how the information will be useful to them for their research projects. These assignments are placed in a shared Dropbox folder that is accessible to both their KSU and UNIFACS teammates. The idea is that the KSU team will then have a total of at least 12 to 15 sources that can form the basis for the literature review section of their research proposal, which is due at the end of the semester. The UNIFACS students do not receive academic credit for their participation in the research project, so we cannot require assignments of them, but some of them complete this assignment anyway and place their summaries in the shared Dropbox folder.

Over the next several weeks, students learn how to construct an empirical research proposal (with an abstract, literature review, method section, and reference section), and they learn some basic skills for writing good survey items. They also learn how to orally present a research proposal using PowerPoint or Prezi. A few weeks later, students are required to submit a draft of their proposed survey items and, shortly thereafter, a draft of their full research proposal. During the last two weeks of the semester, each team orally presents their research proposals to the class (with the Brazilian partners Skyped in) and submits a final research proposal for a grade.

Second Semester

At the beginning of the spring semester, students are introduced to the ethics of research and complete Institutional Review Board (IRB) certification and associated paperwork. They work as a group to finalize their survey items based on feedback from their research proposals the previous semester. The finalized survey containing all seven teams’ items is translated into Portuguese and administered in both Brazil (available on the UNIFACS homepage) and the U.S. (the English version is administered to the KSU psychology department’s subject pool; undergraduates in introductory psychology complete a research requirement, and this survey can count toward that requirement). When data collection is complete, the students analyze their data in order, ideally, to present posters at the annual Symposium of Student Scholars, a half-day event at KSU designed for undergraduates to present their research from the past academic year. The top teams are identified and asked to present their work at an external venue (which, for the past two years, has been the American Democracy Project conference). In May, the KSU students travel to Salvador, Brazil for an educational-abroad experience that includes meeting their Brazilian research partners face-to-face and discussing the research project with them, including analyzing the results and discussing the meanings and implications of the findings (see Appendix A).

Results from the Survey

A total of 134 UNIFACS and 71 KSU students took part in the final online survey containing the questions from all seven teams. After consenting to the project, participants responded to items from each Global Challenge in order (first population, then resource management, then technology, etc.). The final set of questions consisted of demographics. On average, participants took 15 to 20 minutes to complete the entire survey.

Because of space limitations in this article, we have only presented the results of four survey items from each team (see Table 1). Each team was permitted to focus on any item with its particular Global Challenge. For example, the resource management team chose to ask several questions about water usage and knowledge. The information/knowledge team chose to focus on the use of the Internet to search for information. The security team chose to focus on cyber crimes and cyber terrorism.

Table 1

Selected Responses from the Seven Revolutions Survey

Survey Item	Percent Agreed/ Satisfied/ Replied “Yes” in Brazil	Percent Agreed/ Satisfied/ Replied “Yes” in the U.S.	p Value
Global Challenge #1: Population
The cost of living in my country will increase.	74.9%	93.2%	.004
The demand for jobs in my country will increase.	60.5%	63.5%	n.s.
Developing countries will need economic support from other countries.	46.1%	83.6%	<.001
The economy is adapting appropriately to the increasing retirement age.	16.2%	28.4%	<.001
Global Challenge #2: Resource Management
I am informed about issues related to water management.	61.0%	43.8%	.015
Recycled water is an effective way to decrease overall water waste.	96.7%	80.8%	<.001
Natural resources require protection.	100%	90.1%	<.001
It is possible to decrease all of the avoidable resource waste.	92.1%	58.9%	<.001
Global Challenge #3: Technology
Countries with technology are stronger than countries without technology.	74.0%	75.0%	n.s.
The benefits of technology outweigh the risks.	37.0%	66.7%	<.001
Transformations (e.g., political, economic, social, technological) happen in the same way in developed and developing countries.	13.7%	31.9%	<.001
The Internet has been fundamental to the globalization process.	98.6%	81.9%	<.001
Global Challenge #4: Information/Knowledge
Internet information is the best way to keep yourself updated.	88.2%	87.3%	n.s.
Do you use any techniques to ensure that you are safely getting information online?	91.0%	76.1%	<.001
Do you use more research internet sites than books when you do research?	68.1%	93.0%	<.001
Information on the internet is reliable.	11.1%	39.4%	<.001
Global Challenge #5: Economics
I can influence the politics of my country.	89.3%	47.9%	<.001
It is beneficial for my country to directly invest into other countries.	58.2%	71.4%	n.s
The increasing population directly affects the economies of nations.	91.2%	95.8%	n.s.

Survey Item	Percent Agreed/ Satisfied/ Replied “Yes” in Brazil	Percent Agreed/ Satisfied/ Replied “Yes” in the U.S.	p Value
I am concerned with the economy of my country.	89.9%	87.3%	n.s.
Global Challenge #6: Security
I have heard of the topic of cyber terrorism.	71.7%	66.2%	.035
I feel as though cyber terrorism could affect me or my family.	65.9%	50.7%	.011
I believe that cyber crimes will cause a future conflict.	78.3%	74.6%	n.s.
How satisfied are you that your government has taken the proper steps to protect you and your family against cyber-crime?	2.2%	15.5%	<.001
Global Challenge #7: Governance
Do you know or have you heard of any cases of corruption in recent months?	97.8%	49.3%	<.001
Do you perceive corruption in government?	97.1%	78.6%	<.001
Control of the Internet should be shifted from the US to a UN Council.	60.0%	22.5%	<.001
The government should provide access to healthcare for low-income populations.	67.4%	45.7%	.004

Note. Questions that were asked on a Likert scale were recoded such that all “agree” responses (e.g., strongly agree, moderately agree, slightly agree) were combined into one response. The number of survey items for each Global Challenge varied; only four questions in each section are listed here for illustrative purposes. “n.s.” = not significant.

As Table 1 shows, survey responses from UNIFACS and KSU students differed significantly. For example, U.S. students were more likely than Brazilian students to think that the cost of living in their country would increase (Population). Brazilian students reported that they were more informed and concerned about water and waste management compared to U.S. students (Resource Management).

U.S. students were much more likely than Brazilian students to think that the benefits of technology outweigh the risks (Technology). U.S. students were more likely than Brazilian students to believe that information on the Internet is reliable, although both groups were highly likely to report that Internet information is the best way to keep themselves updated (Information/Knowledge). Brazilian students were much more likely than U.S. students to believe that they could influence the politics of their country (Economics). Brazilian students were more likely than U.S. students to have heard of cyber terrorism and to believe that it could affect themselves or their family (Security). Finally, Brazilian students were much more likely than U.S. students to have heard of cases of corruption recently and to perceive corruption in their government (Governance).

Strengths of the Research Project

The research project has been successful in many ways. The students learn a great deal about the research process very early in their college careers, which positions them well for future undergraduate research in their majors. The students develop scientific literacy, writing, and oral presentation skills through this project, and they emerge with a tangible product (i.e., a poster at the Symposium of Student Scholars) that can be listed on their résumés/vitae. In addition, they interact frequently with their Brazilian partners, learning how to navigate language barriers, work in global teams, and meaningfully engage with individuals who are culturally different from themselves.

The PEGS research model itself is unique in several ways (see Hu et al., 2008). First, in contrast to many other undergraduate research experiences, students are involved in all aspects of the research process (designing the study, collecting data, analyzing data, writing a paper, presenting the research, etc.). Second, PEGS students engage in an undergraduate research project in their first year, which is rare both nationally and internationally. Third, the PEGS research model incorporates several high-impact educational practices simultaneously, including undergraduate research, a first-year seminar, collaborative projects, and diversity/global learning (Kuh, 2008). Although research on the benefits of each individual high-impact practice does exist (Brownell & Swaner, 2010), there is currently no published research on this type of integration of high-impact educational practices.

Challenges Associated with the Research Project

Although the current model has been successful in terms of students learning about the research process and gaining global learning skills, there have been challenges.

First, there are intercultural challenges associated with this work. For example, the Brazilian students receive different training in research than the U.S. students, so the groups sometimes have different ideas about how best to write survey items. Neither group has ever worked in international research groups like this before, so they must learn to navigate language and cultural barriers as well as disagreements about the kinds of survey questions to ask, which can be done more or less effectively depending on the individuals in each group. In the last year, there were miscommunications regarding the final survey, so some of the questions asked in the U.S. survey were different from some of the questions asked in the Brazil survey, which meant we were unable to use all of the questions.

Second, the timeline associated with the project is not ideal; students learn about research and the scientific method, and design their projects in the fall semester, then complete the rest of the work in the spring semester, with the goal of presenting at the Symposium of Student Scholars in April. The students, however, are pressed for time, especially in the spring. In fact, in neither project year have the students completed a dataset in time to present it at the Symposium of Student Scholars; students are forced to wait a year to present in that venue— during which time they inevitably lose momentum and enthusiasm about the project. If the students were able to learn about research and the scientific method faster and/or sooner, the process could be streamlined and the schedule spread out more evenly over the academic year.

Third, students on both campuses do not seem to see the relevance or significance of the research until late in the project; for many students, the project does not become important to them until they meet face-to-face with their international partners in May, almost a year after the project starts. This can make students procrastinate and/or settle for minimal performance and participation during the initial stages. This problem may have multiple causes and solutions. For example, perhaps students need to meet their international partners at the beginning of the project, not the end, in order to foster meaningful dialogue and excitement about the collaboration. Or perhaps survey research about college students’ attitudes and behaviors does not motivate some students; it is possible that if the project involved actually making a difference (i.e., community engagement research), the students would be excited about the project from the very beginning.

What’s Next?: The Future of the Model

To address the challenges encountered during the research project, amendments to the research model and to the PEGS curriculum have been proposed.

First, to promote joint understanding of the basic research process, the research project will begin during the first-year immersion experience in Brazil. As part of a one- or two-day workshop, American and Brazilian student researchers will undergo training on the basic elements of the research process, how to work more effectively in intercultural groups, and appropriate survey and question design. A key product of the workshop will be the creation of the survey instrument; creating the survey together, in person, should ensure a better quality survey and increase student participation and buy-in from both cohorts.

Second, creating the survey during the May immersion experience shifts the research project to the second year of the PEGS program. Data will be collected during the fall semester of the students’ second year and will be analyzed collaboratively when the UNIFACS students visit KSU in November. This timeline gives students the entire spring semester to prepare for presentation at the annual Symposium of Student Scholars held in April and alleviates some of the stress students reported regarding the timing of the project.

Conclusion

What have we learned over the course of the last two years? A great deal. For the first time, we created a true student exchange (one of the core components of the PEGS program): A group of UNIFACS students visited Atlanta and Kennesaw State University in November of 2014. The Brazilian students stayed with the American students for nine days and engaged in several cultural and educational events, including visiting the Carter Center, the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, the Center for Civil and Human Rights, and the CNN Center. In addition, both groups of students presented their Global Challenges research posters.

We’ve also learned to acknowledge the geographic and cultural challenges inherent in international research and study. Students on both campuses learn how to work more effectively in cross-cultural teams and, specifically, how to conduct intercultural research as undergraduates. Unquestionably, we’ve learned the importance of developing survey items together, face-to-face, and the richness that results when discussing the intricacies of global challenges through the respective lenses of each country’s culture.

Beyond the central project of undergraduate intercultural student research, the joint leadership teams from both institutions are exploring opportunities to publish together in refereed journals and in publications unique to each country that are linked to specific disciplines. Just as student exchanges are becoming a reality, faculty exchanges and conference presentations have occurred as well; for example, a group of faculty from KSU presented at a conference at UNIFACS in November 2014. Possibly some of the greatest lessons we’ve learned revolve around the vitality of the relationships we’ve created, the enthusiasm about our joint efforts, and the commitment and work ethic shared by students, faculty, and administrators. To draw on several parallels, we’ve learned that like the revolutions or challenges, the future is truly one of promise more so than peril and that this collaboration has created an energy that can overcome any of the challenges that develop in future iterations of our work together.

References

Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experience. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 210- 230.

Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five high-impact practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Council on Undergraduate Research (2011). Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cur.org/about_cur/fact_sheet/

Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J. G., & Li, S. (2008). Reinventing undergraduate education: Engaging college students in research and creative activities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Appendix A: Kennesaw State University and UNIFACS students in Salvador, Brazil (May 2014)

Appendix B: Assignments for the Cross-Cultural Undergraduate Research Project

Assignment #1: Three Article Summaries (worth 20 points)

Purpose of the Assignment

• This assignment is the first in a series related to the joint research project between KSU and UNIFACS. This assignment is designed to help you begin to do the background research necessary to construct a solid survey later in the semester.
• In this assignment, each student will individually read three articles and answer two summary questions about that article (see the form on the next page).
• The articles and summaries will be posted in Dropbox so that everyone in the group will have access to the information.

Submitting the Assignment

• The assignment will be submitted in your Revolution’s folder in Dropbox
• You should submit the following:
  • A copy of each of your three articles (preferably a pdf)
  • A summary of each of your three articles (see form below)

Grading Scheme

• Points will be earned according to the following rubric:

	Outstanding	Acceptable	Unacceptable
Article Summary (6 points maximum)	The main points of the article are summarized accurately and thoroughly.	Some main points are summarized. Contains a few inaccuracies or omissions.	Most of the main points are not addressed. Contains many inaccuracies.
	(5-6 points)	(3-4 points)
			(0-2 points)
Relationship to Your Revolution (9 points maximum)	There is a clear statement about how the article relates to the student’s revolution (e.g., how the article will help in a literature review of the topic, how the article will aid in the construction of survey items about this Revolution).	For the most part, there is a clear statement about how the article relates to the student’s revolution, but there is a lack of clarity in some places.	It is not clear how this article relates to the student’s revolution.
			(0-4 points)
	(8-9 points)
		(5-7 points)
Followed Directions (5 points maximum)	The student has followed directions for this assignment: (1) Three articles and three article summaries are posted in Dropbox; (2) The summary sheet (see last page of this document) is completed accurately.	The student has generally followed directions, but there are a few problems.	The student has completely failed to follow the directions for this assignment.
		(2-3 points)	(0-1 points)
	(4-5 points)

Article Summary

(complete one of these forms for each of your three articles)

Title of Article:

Author(s) of Article:

Your Name:

1. In the space below, provide a paragraph summary of the main points of the article.
2. In the space below, provide a description regarding how this article relates to your Revolution. In other words, how might this article end up being useful to you as you begin work on creating a survey about your Revolution?

Assignment #2: Research Paper (worth 100 points)

1. For this assignment, you will get into teams to create materials for a research project and write a proposal for that project.
2. Each team will take one of the 7 Global Challenges and come up with survey items related to that particular Revolution. Although you will not collect data this semester, we will finish the project next semester by collecting data from a sample of KSU students as well as a sample of students in Brazil.
3. You will be creating a survey about your particular Global Challenge. You may also choose to include other kinds of questions that might be interesting to examine. For example, you could ask students demographic questions like age, gender, major, grade point average, religion, etc. In addition, there might be questions that you think might be theoretically related to responses to the survey questions. For example, you might ask questions about their:
   • personality (http://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html#where)
   • political attitudes (see the last few pages: https://files.kennesaw.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-2037923_1- t_lVRTwsvf)
   • levels of nationalism (see Table 2: https://files.kennesaw.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-2037929_1- t_soK5IKwF)

This is obviously not an exhaustive list; feel free to get creative here! You are not obligated to include any questions outside of the survey items you create for the paper, but you might have particular interests that you’d like to see reflected in your final research project.

1. What will go in your research proposal?
2. Title page. The title page contains a title, the names of the researchers, the institution, a running head, and page numbers.
3. Abstract. The abstract is a summary of the research project. You should include a statement about the purpose of the research, some information about who the participants will be, some information about the questions you are asking, and any hypotheses you have about how the results will turn out. The abstract should be between 150-250 words.

1. Introduction. The Introduction (or Literature Review) will be a minimum of 3 full pages (double-spaced, with one-inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman font) and will use a minimum of 5 scientific, scholarly references. In the Introduction, you should (a) describe the general topic area and the importance of studying this topic, (b) synthesize the existing research on your topic, and (c) in the last paragraph, briefly describe your study and conclude with a specific hypothesis (if you have a hypothesis) about whether students in Brazil will react differently to your questions compared to students at KSU (and if they differ, what will the specific differences be?).
2. Method. The Method section will contain three subsections:
   1. Participants. This section summarizes information about your participants. For example, how many people do you anticipate recruiting for your study? How will they be recruited? How will they be compensated for their time (e.g., they will volunteer, they will be paid, they will receive course credit)? How many people will be from Brazil and how many people will be from KSU?
   2. Materials. In this section, you will write about your actual survey. For example, what is the total number of questions asked? Describe the general details about the topics of the questions.
   3. Procedure. This is a summary of what participants will experience in the study from start to finish, including how long the study will take to complete for any individual participant.
3. References. You must use a minimum of five reliable sources in your paper. These sources are listed in the Reference section. Any sources used in your paper must also be listed in the Reference section.
4. Appendix. The Appendix will contain a list of your survey items. These items should be clearly related to the team’s particular

Revolution and should be well constructed (no leading questions, no double-barreled questions, the items are not too lengthy, etc.). There should be clear instructions for the survey as a whole and each survey item, and the response options for each survey item should be clear (in other words, is it a yes/no response? a Likert scale? etc.).

1. I encourage each group to check in with me periodically. There are due dates for drafts of your paper and your survey, but you don’t have to wait until those due dates to get feedback. Send me an email with an early draft of your survey items and I’ll give you feedback. Send me questions you have as you write your paper. I’m here to help!  My email is abuddie@kennesaw.edu
2. Because this is a group project, we want to ensure that the teams work well together and that they aren’t any “social loafers.” You will complete a “Team Evaluation Form” at the end of the project and at periodic intervals before then. Your feedback will not be shared with the other team members.

Research Proposal Grading Rubric (100 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Title Page (5%)	 The title captures the topic of the paper.  The title page conforms to correct APA format.	 The title somewhat captures the topic of the paper, but some important information is missing.  The title page mostly conforms to correct APA format.	 The title is confusing – relevant details are omitted or many irrelevant details have been added.  The title page contains a large number of APA format errors.	 The title is missing or is completely misleading as to the topic of the paper.  The title page contains a large number of APA format errors.
		(4 points)
	(5 points)		(2-3 points)
				(0-1 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Abstract (10%)	 The abstract is the correct length (150- 250 words)  The main parts of the paper (introduction, method, hypothesized results if applicable) are appropriately summarized.	 The abstract is a little bit too long.  For the most part, the main parts of the paper (introduction, method, hypothesized results) are appropriately summarized; any issues here are minor.	 The abstract is extremely short or extremely long.  There are major omissions in summarizing the main parts of the paper (introduction, method, hypothesized results).	The abstract is missing or does not summarize the paper in any logical way.
		(8-9 points)	(5-7 points)	(0-4 points)
	(10 points)

Literature Review: Content (20%)

 There is a clear main topic in the paper.  The literature reviewed in the introduction section is relevant to the topic and is succinctly summarized.  The information in the literature review is directly tied to the study that the team is proposing.  The literature review is the correct length (a minimum of 3 pages double- spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, and 1-inch margins on all sides). (18-20 points)

 There is a clear main topic in the paper.  The literature reviewed in the introduction section is mostly relevant to the topic and is mostly succinctly summarized.  Most of the information in the literature review is directly tied to the study that the team is proposing; there may be some information missing or some irrelevant information added.  The literature review is the correct length. (13-17 points)

 The main topic is not completely clear.  The literature reviewed in the introduction section is largely irrelevant to the topic.  The literature reviewed in the introduction section is not summarized well.  The literature review does not tie to the study that the team is proposing.  The literature review is too short (not a minimum of 3 full pages) (8-12 points)

The literature review is either absent, extremely short, largely incomprehensible, or plagiarized. (0-7 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Literature Review: Citations (5%)	 Sources reliable and properly cited.  All information is relevant to the topic.  Sufficient information provided to support all elements of the topic.  Sources contribute to the paper in a significant way.  A minimum of five sources is used in the introduction section. (5 points)	 Sources reliable.  Most information relevant to the topic.  Sufficient information provided to support most elements of the topic.  Sources contribute to the paper in a significant way.  A minimum of five sources is used in the introduction section. (4 points)	 Source reliability is questionable.  Some information from the sources is relevant to the topic.  Sources somewhat contribute to the paper.  Surface research used in paper construction.  Fewer than five sources are used in the introduction section. (2-3 points)	 Failed to cite sources  Sources unrelated to topic  Sources cited are unreliable (i.e., random website with questionable information).  Sources do not contribute to the paper in a significant way and are shallow or unrelated.  Little to no research used in paper construction. (0-1 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Literature Review: Organization (5%)	The literature review is well organized:  The beginning introduces the basic topic.  The middle summarizes existing literature on the topic, using subheadings and/or transitions.  The end transitions into the study that the team is proposing (with hypotheses if applicable). (5 points)	The literature review is mostly well organized; any organizational issues are minor. (4 points)	The literature review is not well organized; it is difficult to follow the author’s points. (2-3 points)	There is no organization to this paper; it is impossible to follow the author’s points. (0-1 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Method: Participants (5%)	The Participants section thoroughly describes the participants, including:  Proposed number of participants  Relevant demographic information  Method of recruitment (5 points)	The Participants section mostly describes the participants. Any problems in this section are minor. (4 points)	The Participants section contains a great deal of omissions such that it is very unclear who the participants will be or how they will be recruited. (2-3 points)	The Participants section is either missing or does not describe the participants at all. (0-1 points)
Method: Materials (10%)	The Materials section thoroughly describes the survey items, including:  Total number of questions asked.  General details about the topics of the questions. (10 points)	The Materials section mostly describes the questions. Any problems in this section are minor. (8-9 points)	The Materials section contains a great deal of omissions such that it is very unclear what the questions are or how the questions are asked. (5-7 points)	The Materials section is either missing or does not describe the materials at all. (0-4 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Method: Procedure (5%)	The Procedure section thoroughly describes the procedure, including:  How long the survey would take for a participant to complete  What happens first, second, third, etc. for each participant (5 points)	The Procedure section mostly describes the procedure. Any problems in this section are minor. (4 points)	The Procedure section contains a great deal of omissions such that it is very unclear how the survey will be administered. (2-3 points)	The Procedure section is either missing or does not describe the procedure at all. (0-1 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
References (5%)	 All of the references used in the paper are listed in the Reference section.  The five minimum references are scholarly articles, books, or book chapters.  The reference section uses proper APA format. (5 points)	 Most of the references used in the paper are listed in the Reference section.  Some of the five minimum references are not scholarly sources.  There are minor errors in formatting the reference section. (4 points)	 Several references are missing from the reference section.  Most of the five minimum references are not scholarly sources.  There are major errors in formatting the reference section. (2-3 points)	 Many references are missing from the reference section.  None of the five minimum references are scholarly sources.  There was no effort to format the reference section correctly. (0-1 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Appendix (10%)	 Your survey items are listed.  These survey items are clearly related to the team’s particular Global Challenge.  The survey items are well constructed (no leading questions, no double-barreled questions, the items are not too lengthy, etc.).  There are clear instructions for the survey as a whole and each survey item.  The response options for each survey item are clear (in other words, is it a yes/no response? a Likert scale? etc.). (10 points)	The Appendix is mostly accurate and clear. Any problems in this section are minor. (8-9 points)	The Appendix has a large number of errors and/or is very unclear. (5-7 points)	The Appendix is either missing or does not contain the correct information at all. (0-4 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Writing (10%)	 Consistent and appropriate formal style of writing.  Sophisticated and precise word choice.  No spelling errors.  No errors in grammar.  No punctuation or capitalization errors.  Writing flows well from sentence to sentence and section to section. (10 points)	 Style mostly consistent and appropriate for formal writing.  Fairly effective word choice.  Very few errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization.  Paper mostly flows but may have a few awkward transitions. (8-9 points)	 Style somewhat consistent and appropriate for formal writing.  Somewhat awkward word choice.  Many errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization.  Paper does not flow and jumps from topic to topic or sentence to sentence without connecting ideas. (5-7 points)	 Major spelling, grammatical, punctuation, and/or other writing errors that make the paper difficult to read and understand.  Does not follow general writing style. requirements.  Does not flow and is very disjointed with no overall structure or transitions (0-4 points)

	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Poor
Team Meetings and Teamwork (10%)	Team evaluation forms indicate that you were a contributing member of the team, pulled your weight, completed tasks on time, etc. (10 points)	Was generally a good team member; any problems are minor. (8-9 points)	Major problems in team meetings and teamwork. (5-7 points)	Severe problems in team meetings and teamwork; serious cases will result in a more than 10% reduction in your paper grade. (0-4 points)

Assignment #3: Oral Presentations (30 points

Components	Sophisticated (5 points)	Competent (3-4 points)	Not yet Competent (0-2 points)
Organization	Presentation is clear, logical, and organized. Listener can follow line of reasoning.	Presentation is generally clear and well organized. A few minor points may be confusing.	Organization is haphazard; listener can follow presentation only with effort. Arguments are not clear.
Verbal Performance	Level of presentation is appropriate for the audience. Presentation is a planned conversation, paced for audience understanding. It is not a reading of a paper. Speaker can be heard by all. Sentences are complete and grammatical. They flow together easily. Words are well chosen; they express the intended meaning precisely. Consistently clarifies, restates, and responds to questions. Summarizes when needed.	Level of presentation is generally appropriate. Pacing is sometimes too fast or too slow. Audience occasionally has trouble hearing speaker. Sentences are complete and grammatical for the most part. They flow together easily. With some exceptions, words are well chosen and precise. Generally responsive to audience questions and needs. Misses some opportunities for interaction.	Aspects of presentation are too elementary or too sophisticated for audience. Presenter can be heard only if listener is very attentive. Much of the information is read. Listeners can follow presentation, but they are distracted by some grammatical errors and use of slang. Some sentences are halting, incomplete, or vocabulary is limited or inappropriate. Responds to questions inadequately.

Components	Sophisticated (5 points)	Competent (3-4 points)	Not yet Competent (0-2 points)
Accuracy/Completeness of Content	Information (names, facts, etc.) included in the presentation is consistently accurate.	No significant errors are made. Listeners recognize any errors to be the result of nervousness or oversight.	Enough errors are made to distract a knowledgeable listener. Some information is accurate but the listener must determine what information is reliable.
Major Sections Summarized	There is content from the major sections of the paper: Literature review, hypothesis/research question, participants, survey questions, procedure, references	For the most part, there is content from the major sections of the paper: Literature review, hypothesis/research question, participants, survey questions, procedure, references	There are major sections missing from the presentation.
Time Management	The presentation is the correct length (approx. 8-10 min.).	The presentation is a little too long (11-13 min.) or a little too short (5-7 min.).	The presentation is extremely short (4 min. or less) or extremely long (more than 13 min.).
Use of PowerPoint or Prezi	PowerPoint/Prezi enhances the presentation.	PowerPoint/Prezi contributes to the quality of the presentation.

Components	Sophisticated (5 points)	Competent (3-4 points)	Not yet Competent (0-2 points)
	The font on the visuals is readable. Information is represented and organized to maximize audience comprehension. Details are minimized so that main points stand out. There are no grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.	Font size is mostly readable. Appropriate information is included. Some material is not supported by visual aids. There are a few minor grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.	Communication aids are poorly prepared or used inappropriately. Font size is too small to read. Too much information is included. Details or some unimportant information is highlighted and may confuse the audience. There are many grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

USING RESEARCH TO EXAMINE GLOBAL CHALLENGES

Author Biographies

Amy Buddie is currently the Associate Director for Graduate Student Support and Undergraduate Research/Creative Activity at Kennesaw State University’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). She coordinates the Southeastern Conference on the Teaching of Psychology as well as KSU’s Symposium of Student Scholars. She is a councilor in the psychology division of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). Amy earned a PhD in social psychology from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and completed two years of postdoctoral training at the Research Institute on Addictions at the University of Buffalo before joining the Department of Psychology at KSU in 2003.

Ken Hill joined Kennesaw State University in the fall of 2002. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of South Alabama in 1979 and a Master of Arts in Human Resource Development in 1993 from The George Washington University. Ken has worked in the fields of operations management, training/organization development, human resources, and consulting with Development Dimensions International (DDI). As an AASCU Global Engagement Scholar, and honors faculty, Ken merges his experience and interest in global issues with his concern for student learning and development. He is currently the Director of Strategic Global Initiatives for the Honors College.

Phillip Poskus is a graduate of both Kennesaw State University’s College of Science and Mathematics and the Center for Student Leadership (CSL); he earned his B.S. in Biology with a minor in Applied Statistics and Data Analysis and a Certificate of Ethical Leadership. During his last semester as a student, Phillip worked with the director of the CSL to develop the President’s Emerging Global Scholars (PEGS) program and stayed on the CSL team to manage the program after his graduation. Phillip earned a Master in Public Health with a concentration in Epidemiology from the University of Georgia in the spring of 2014.