Fall 2000
Phone:(706) 778-3000 ext. 1265
Email: bcummings@piedmont.edu
Fax # (706) 776-9608 for Demorest and (706) 546-8223 for Athens
Office Hours:
Monday1:00 pm-5:00pm
Fridayby appointment
Class Location:Lane Education
Center, Computer Lab
Calhoun,
E. F. (1994). How to Use Action Research in the Self-Renewing School.Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Inspired
by the liberal arts tradition and a historical association with the Congregational
Christian Churches, Piedmont College cultivates a diverse, challenging
and caring intellectual environment to encourage academic success and spiritual
development.
To accomplish this mission, the college offers a number of major fields of study that are informed by the liberal arts, including specialized professional programs and selected graduate programs.Instructional opportunities are also provided at distant locations to meet student needs.
.
The
theme of the School of Education is ñPreparing Proactive Educators to Improve
the Lives of Children.îReinforcing the mission of Piedmont College, the
School of Education strives to prepare reflective, scholarly, proactive
educators.These practitioners effectively educate their own students to
become knowledgeable, inquisitive, and collaborative learners in diverse,
democratic learning communities.
The goal of the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) and Master of Arts (MA) programs at Piedmont College is to provide the graduate candidate knowledge in the social and educational development of students.Through an individualized program of study based on the candidateÍs undergraduate program, experience, and professional goals, the programs seek to:
Øprovide the candidatewith the ability to communicate and teach effectively using an interdisciplinary knowledge base and understanding of multidimensional classrooms;
Øuse and facilitate critical thinking skills;
Øenhance candidatesÍ content knowledge, integrating it with instructional technology;
Øenable
candidates to interpret and assess educational research, and conduct their
own classroom-based research; and to provide experiences that enable candidates
to assume roles as scholarly practitioners and develop their skills and
abilities as professional teachers.
As
producers and/or consumers of research, it is necessary to critically understand
the basic logic and procedures of research in order to better the research.The
public and public officials hold schools accountable for what is accomplished,
and as educational practitioners seek to improve their activities, research
(especially action research and assessment) takes on increasing importance.Through
the use of research (action research), educators are in a better position
to undertake educational improvements and assess their outcomes to improve
the quality of education.
Core Candidate
Learning Outcomes :
The following outcomes, adapted from the 1994 INTASC standards (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium), are addressed in this course.
1)Learning Environment: The proactive teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation to create a caring learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, self regulation and collaboration.The teacher additionally fosters the ideals of a democratic classroom by treating students fairly and justly, providing intellectual challenge, and supporting students as they pursue knowledge and understanding.CO: 2, 3, 9, 10, 11
2) Subject Matter: The scholarly teacher understands and can model the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. CO: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14
3) Student Learning: The reflectiveteacher understands how students develop and learn and can provide well-managed learning opportunities that support studentsÍ intellectual, social, and personal growth.
CO: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14
4) Diversity: The teacher committed to the ideals of the democratic classroom understands that learners are the products of their innate talents/disabilities, preferred learning styles, and cultural experiences and can adapt instruction to meet diverse needs. CO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,10, 11, 12, 14
5) Instructional Strategies: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional stratagies to proactively encourage the development of student critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. CO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14
6) Assessment Strategies: The teacher understands and uses a variety of assessment strategies to encourage the continual intellectual, social, and personal growth of students to become knowledgeable, inquisitive learners. CO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14
7) Communication and Technology: The proactive teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, non-verbal, and media communication techniques and technologies to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom. CO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14
8) Planning Instruction: The reflective, scholarly, and knowledgeable teacher plans and manages instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter/pedagogy, students, the community, and curriculum goals. CO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
9) Reflection and Professional Development: The teacher is a reflective practitionerwho continually evaluates the effects of her/his choices and actions upon others, and who proactively seeks opportunities for the continual development of a personal pedagogy. CO: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 14
10) Collaboration and Relationships: The proactive teacher communicates and interacts through democratic processes with other educators, parents/families, and the community to support student learning and well being. CO: 6
Early Childhood Graduate
Candidate Learning Outcomes:
11) Constructivist Practices: The proactive, scholarly, and reflective teacher models and provides opportunities for constructivist practices. CO: 5, 6, 8, 9, 13
12) Informed Teachers: The proactive, scholarly, and reflective teacher is an informed professional.
CO: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12
13) Scholarly Work: The proactive, reflective teacher actively engages in scholarly work. CO: 2, 6, 14
14) Action Research: The proactive, scholarly, and reflective teacher participates in action research.
CO: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14
*Research:The teacher refines instructional
practices informed by critical consideration of relevant research and by
the application of action research as an ongoing aspect of practice.
Modeling and Mentoring:the teacher both models
best practices and accepts responsibility to mentor new and veteran teachers.
b. (CLO 2,)apply the basic vocabulary of research;
c. (CLO 2,)utilize various kinds of research methods;
d. (CLO 2,) comprehend, apply, analyze, and evaluate quantitative and qualitative methods and designs;
e. (CLO 2,)perform data analysis and interpretation;
f. (CLO 2,7,)synthesize the use of computers with research;
g. (CLO 2, 6, 10,) conduct, implement, evaluate and present action research;
h. (CLO 2, 6, 9, 10,) comprehend and apply collaborative action research and how it assists teachers to make changes in their educational practices.
i. All
the above-mentioned Graduate Outcomes are examined and produced in this
course.
·Day classes meeting three times a week for entire semester: 6 absences
·Day classes meeting two times a week for entire semester: 4 absences
·All
eight-week classes: 1 absence
·Evening classes meeting for entire semester:3 absences
Only
those absences due to emergencies will be excused.Work missed due to an
excused absence may be made up.It is the studentÍs responsibility to inform
the professor in writing how he or she plans to make up the work.Any student
who misses more than the allowable number of classes will be asked to drop
the course or will receive an F at the end of the semester.Please contact
the professor prior to absence when possible.
ActActiActive
Active participation means that every student prepares for class by reading
the text and/or other assigned readings and that each student actively
participates in discussions and activities conducted during class.
Academic Integrity:
By accepting admission to Piedmont College, each student makes a commitment to understand, support, and abide by the "Academic Integrity Policy" without compromise or exception. This class will be conducted in strict observance of the policy. Refer to your Piedmont College Student Handbook for details.
All work submitted must
be your original work created in and for this course. It should be properly
referenced using APA (including information from the internet).Double dipping
(to be explained in class) is not permitted.
Students with any special
needs (disabilities, problems, or any other factors that may affect their
performance or that require special instructional strategies) should make
these special needs known to the instructor during the first class session.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Week
1
|
Introduction/Action
Research project/ APA Style
|
|
|
|
|
5
steps Action research/group assignments
|
|
|
|
|
Problem
Statements/
Evaluation
of Research
|
|
|
|
|
Data
Collection/validity
|
|
|
|
|
Data
Analysis/reliability
|
|
|
|
|
Action
Plan
|
|
|
|
|
Reflection
of Research Methods
|
|
|
|
|
Student
Projects
|
|
|
1.Scholarship-Strong, exceeding requirements of instructor.
2.Initiative-Contributions exceeding the assignment, showing independent resourcefulness.
3. Attitude-Positive benefit to class.
4.Cooperation-Forwarding all group activities, constant and spontaneous.
5.Individual
Improvement-Marked and Growing.
1.Scholarship-Accurate and complete, meeting all requirements of instructor.
2.Initiative-Good when stimulated by some desirable achievement.
3.Attitude-Proper and beneficial to group.
4.Cooperation-Good in group work.
5.Individual
Improvement-Showing marks of progress and responding to stimulation.
1.Scholarship-Barely meeting assignments and showing evidence of need of encouragement.
2.Initiative-Uncertain and apparent only at times.
3.Attitude-Generally neutral but not objectionable.
4.Cooperation-Not positive nor very effective and irregular.
5.Individual
Improvement-Very ordinary, definite marks lacking.
1.Scholarship-Not meeting all assignments and requirements of instructor.
2.Initiative-Lacking.
3.Attitude-Indifferent.
4.Cooperation-Just fair at times and lacking at other times.
5.Individual
Improvement-Not noticeable.
Work unsatisfactory and
is a failing grade and hence not defined.
Research Project:25%
Final Exam:25%
There
will be field experience required in this course Each semesters needs will
vary depending on the make up of the class, student need and research topics
Expect a minimum of 5 hours and a maximum of 10 hours in the field doing
research..
e.Instructional
Methods
The
standards that follow remind us that we are involved not only in research
but in education. It is, therefore, essential that we continually reflect
on our research to be sure that it is not only sound scientifically but
that it makes a positive contribution to the educational enterprise.
I.
Guiding Standards: Responsibilities to the Field
A.
Preamble.
To
maintain the integrity of research, educational researchers should warrant
their research conclusions adequately in a way consistent with the standards
of their own theoretical and methodological perspectives. They should keep
themselves well informed in both their own and competing paradigms where
those are relevant to their research, and they should continually evaluate
the criteria of adequacy by which research is judged.
B.
Standards
Educational
researchers should conduct their professional lives in such a way that
they do not jeopardize future research, the public standing of the field,
or the discipline's research results.
Educational
researchers must not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent authorship, evidence,
data, findings, or conclusions.
Educational
researchers must not knowingly or negligently use their professional roles
for fraudulent purposes.
Educational
researchers should honestly and fully disclose their qualifications and
limitations when providing professional opinions to the public, to government
agencies, and others who may avail themselves of the expertise possessed
by members of AERA.
Educational
researchers should attempt to report their findings to all relevant stakeholders,
and should refrain from keeping secret or selectively communicating their
findings.
Educational
researchers should report research conceptions, procedures, results, and
analyses accurately and sufficiently in detail to allow knowledgeable,
trained researchers to understand and interpret them.
Educational
researchers' reports to the public should be written straightforwardly
to communicate the practical significance for policy, including limits
in effectiveness and in generalizability to situations, problems, and contexts.
In writing for or communicating with nonresearchers, educational researchers
must take care not to misrepresent the practical or policy implications
of their research or the research of others.
When
educational researchers participate in actions related to hiring, retention,
and advancement, they should not discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual
orientation, physical disabilities, marital status, color, social class,
religion, ethnic background, national origin, or other attributes not relevant
to the evaluation of academic or research competence.
Educational
researchers have a responsibility to make candid, forthright personnel
recommendations and not to recommend those who are manifestly unfit.
Educational
researchers should decline request to review the work of others where strong
conflicts of interest are involved, or when such requests cannot be conscientiously
fulfilled on time. Materials sent for review should be read in their entirety
and considered carefully, with evaluative comments justified with explicit
reasons.
Educational
researchers should avoid all forms of harassment, not merely those overt
actions or threats that are due cause for legal action. They must not use
their professional positions or rank to coerce personal or sexual favors
or economic or professional advantages from students, research assistants,
clerical staff, colleagues, or any others.
Educational
researchers should not be penalized for reporting in good faith violations
of these or other professional standards.
II.
Guiding Standards: Research Populations, Educational Institutions, and
the Public
A.
Preamble.
Educational
researchers conduct research within a broad array of settings and institutions,
including schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and prisons. It is
of paramount importance that educational researchers respect the rights,
privacy, dignity, and sensitivities of their research populations and also
the integrity of the institutions within which the research occurs. Educational
researchers should be especially careful in working with children and other
vulnerable populations. These standards are intended to reinforce and strengthen
already existing standards enforced by institutional review boards and
other professional associations.
B.
Standards.
Participants,
or their guardians, in a research study have the right to be informed about
the likely risks involved in the research and of potential consequences
for participants, and to give their informed consent before participating
in research. Educational researchers should communicate the aims of the
investigation as well as possible to informants and participants (and their
guardians), and appropriate representatives of institutions, and keep them
updated about any significant changes in the research program.
Honesty
should characterize the relationship between researchers and participants
and appropriate institutional representatives. Deception is discouraged;
it should be used only when clearly necessary for scientific studies, and
should then be minimized. After the study the researcher should explain
to the participants and institutional representatives the reasons for the
deception.
Educational
researchers should be sensitive to any locally established institutional
policies or guidelines for conducting research.
Participants
have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, unless otherwise
constrained by their official capacities or roles.
Educational
researchers should exercise caution to ensure that there is no exploitation
for personal gain of research populations or of institutional settings
of research. Educational researchers should not use their influence over
subordinates, students, or others to compel them to participate in research.
Researchers
have a responsibility to be mindful of cultural, religious, gender, and
other significant differences within the research population in the planning,
conduct, and reporting of their research.
Researchers
should carefully consider and minimize the use of research techniques that
might have negative social consequences, for example, experimental interventions
that might deprive students of important parts of the standard curriculum.
Educational
researchers should be sensitive to the integrity of ongoing institutional
activities and alert appropriate institutional representatives of possible
disturbances in such activities which may result from the conduct of the
research.
Educational
researchers should communicate their findings and the practical significance
of their research in clear, straightforward, and appropriate language to
relevant research populations, institutional representatives, and other
stakeholders.
Informants
and participants have a right to remain anonymous. This right should be
respected when no clear understanding to the contrary has been reached.
Researchers are responsible for taking appropriate precautions to protect
the confidentiality of both participants and data. Those being studied
should be made aware of the capacities of the various data-gathering technologies
to be used in the investigation so that they can make an informed decision
about their participation. It should also be made clear to informants and
participants that despite every effort made to preserve it, anonymity may
be compromised. Secondary researchers should respect and maintain the anonymity
established by primary researchers.
III.
Guiding Standards: Intellectual Ownership
A.
Preamble.
Intellectual
ownership is predominantly a function of creative contribution. Intellectual
ownership is not predominantly a function of effort expended.
B.
Standards.
Authorship
should be determined based on the following guidelines, which are not intended
to stifle collaboration, but rather to clarify the credit appropriately
due for various contributions to research.
·a.
All those, regardless of status, who have made substantive creative contribution
to the generation of an intellectual product are entitled to be listed
as authors of that product.
·b.
First authorship and order of authorship should be the consequence of relative
creative leadership and creative contribution. Examples of creative contributions
are: writing first drafts or substantial portions; significant rewriting
or substantive editing; and contributing generative ideas or basic conceptual
schemes or analytic categories, collecting data which require significant
interpretation or judgment, and interpreting data.
·c.
Clerical or mechanical contributions to an intellectual product are not
grounds for ascribing authorship. Examples of such technical contributions
are: typing, routine data collection or analysis, routine editing, and
participation in staff meetings.
·d.
Authorship and first authorship are not warranted by legal or contractual
responsibility for or authority over the project or process that generates
an intellectual product. It is improper to enter into contractual arrangements
that preclude the proper assignment of authorship.
·e.
Anyone listed as author must have given his/her consent to be so listed.
·f.
The work of those who have contributed to the production of an intellectual
product in ways short of these requirements for authorship should be appropriately
acknowledged within the product.
·g.
Acknowledgement of other work significantly relied on in the development
of an intellectual product is required. However, so long as such work is
not plagiarized or otherwise inappropriately used, such reliance is not
ground for authorship or ownership.
·h.
It is improper to use positions of authority to appropriate the work of
others or claim credit for it. In hierarchical relationships, educational
researchers should take care to ensure that those in subordinate positions
receive fair and appropriate authorship credit.
·i.
Theses and dissertations are special cases in which authorship is not determined
strictly by the criteria elaborated in these standards. Authorship in the
publication of work arising from theses and dissertations is determined
by creative intellectual contributions as in other cases.
·j.
Authors should disclose the publication history of articles they submit
for publication; that is, if the present article is substantially similar
in content and form to one previously published, that fact should be noted
and the place of publication cited.
While
under suitable circumstances, ideas and other intellectual products may
be viewed as commodities, arrangements concerning the production or distribution
of ideas or other intellectual products must be consistent with academic
freedom and the appropriate availability of intellectual products to scholars,
students, and the public. Moreover, when a conflict between the academic
and scholarly purposes of intellectual production and profit from such
production arise, preference should be given to the academic and scholarly
purposes.
Ownership
of intellectual products should be based upon the following guidelines:
·a.
Individuals are entitled to profit from the sale or disposition of those
intellectual products, they create. They may therefore enter into contracts
or other arrangements for the publication or disposition of intellectual
products, and profit financially from these arrangements.
·b.
Arrangements for the publication or disposition of intellectual products
should be consistent with their appropriate public availability and with
academic freedom. Such arrangements should emphasize the academic functions
of publication over the maximization of profit.
·c.
Individuals or groups who fund or otherwise provide resources for the development
of intellectual products are entitled to assert claims to a fair share
of the royalties or other profits from the sale or disposition of these
products. As such claims are likely to be contentious, funding institutions
and authors should agree on policies for the disposition of profits at
the outset of the research or development project.
·d.
Authors should not use positions of authority over other individuals to
compel them to purchase an intellectual product from which the authors
benefit. This standard is not meant to prohibit use of an author's own
textbook in a class, but copies should be made available on library reserve
so that students are not forced to purchase it.
IV.
Guiding Standards: Editing, Reviewing, and Appraising Research
A.
Preamble.
Editors
and reviewers have a responsibility to recognize a wide variety of theoretical
and methodological perspectives and, at the same time, to ensure that manuscripts
meet the highest standards as defined in the various perspectives.
B.
Standards
AERA
journals should handle refereed articles in a manner consistent with the
following principles:
·a.
Fairness requires a review process that evaluates submitted works solely
on the basis of merit. Merit shall be understood to include both the competence
with which the argument is conducted and the significance of the results
achieved.
·b.
Although each AERA journal may concentrate on a particular field or type
of research, the set of journals as a whole should be open to all disciplines
and perspectives currently represented in the membership and which support
a tradition of responsible educational scholarship. This standard is not
intended to exclude worthy innovations.
·c.
Blind review, with multiple readers, should be used for each submission,
except where explicitly waived. (See #3.)
·d.
Judgments of the adequacy of an inquiry should be made by reviewers who
are competent to read the work submitted to them. Editors should strive
to select reviewers who are familiar with the research paradigm and who
are not so unsympathetic as to preclude a disinterested judgment of the
merit of the inquiry.
·e.
Editors should insist that even unfavorable reviews be dispassionate and
constructive. Authors have the right to know the grounds for rejection
of their work.
AERA
journals should have written, published policies for refereeing articles.
AERA
journals should have a written, published policy stating when solicited
and nonrefereed publications are permissible.
AERA
journals should publish statements indicating any special emphases expected
to characterize articles submitted for review.
In
addition to enforcing standing strictures against sexist and racist language,
editors should reject articles that contain ad hominem attacks on
individuals or groups or insist that such language or attacks be removed
prior to publication.
AERA
journals and AERA members who serve as editors of journals should require
authors to disclose the full publication history of material substantially
similar in content and form to that submitted to their journals.
V.
Guiding Standards: Sponsors, Policymakers, and Other Users of Research
A.
Preamble.
Researchers,
research institutions, and sponsors of research jointly share responsibility
for the ethical integrity of research, and should ensure that this integrity
is not violated. While it is recognized that these parties may sometimes
have conflicting legitimate aims, all those with responsibility for research
should protect against compromising the standards of research, the community
of researchers, the subjects of research, and the users of research. They
should support the widest possible dissemination and publication of research
results. AERA should promote, as nearly as it can, conditions conducive
to the preservation of research integrity.
B.
Standards.
The
data and results of a research study belong to the researchers who designed
and conducted the study, unless specific contractual arrangements have
been made with respect to either or both the data and results, except as
noted in II B.4. (participants may withdraw at any stage.)
Educational
researchers are free to interpret and publish their findings without censorship
or approval from individuals or organizations, including sponsors, funding
agencies, participants, colleagues, supervisors, or administrators. This
understanding should be conveyed to participants as part of the responsibility
to secure informed consent.
Researchers
conducting sponsored research retain the right to publish the findings
under their own names.
Educational
researchers should not agree to conduct research that conflicts with academic
freedom, nor should they agree to undue or questionable influence by government
or other funding agencies. Examples of such improper influence include
endeavors to interfere with the conduct of research, the analysis of findings,
or the reporting of interpretations. Researchers should report to AERA
attempts by sponsors or funding agencies to use any questionable influence.
Educational
researchers should fully disclose the aims and sponsorship of their research,
except where such disclosure would violate the usual tenets of confidentiality
and anonymity. Sponsors or funders have the right to have disclaimers included
in research reports to differentiate their sponsorship from the conclusions
of the research.
Educational
researchers should not accept funds from sponsoring agencies that request
multiple renderings of reports that would distort the results or mislead
readers.
Educational
researchers should fulfill their responsibilities to agencies funding research,
which are entitled to an accounting of the use of their funds, and to a
report of the procedures, findings, and implications of the funded research.
Educational
researchers should make clear the bases and rationales, and the limits
thereof, of their professionally rendered judgments in consultation with
the public, government, or other institutions. When there are contrasting
professional opinions to the one being offered, this should be made clear.
Educational
researchers should disclose to appropriate parties all cases where they
would stand to benefit financially from their research or cases where their
affiliations might tend to bias their interpretation of their research
or their professional judgments.
VI.
Guiding Standards: Students and Student Researchers
A.
Preamble.
Educational
researchers have a responsibility to ensure the competence of those inducted
into the field and to provide appropriate help and professional advice
to novice researchers.
B.
Standards.
In
relations with students and student researchers, educational researchers
should be candid, fair, nonexploitative, and committed to their welfare
and progress. They should conscientiously supervise, encourage, and support
students and student researchers in their academic endeavors, and should
appropriately assist them in securing research support or professional
employment.
Students
and student researchers should be selected based upon their competence
and potential contributions to the field. Educational researchers should
not discriminate among students and student researchers on the basis of
gender, sexual orientation, marital status, color, social class, religion,
ethnic background, national origin, or other irrelevant factors.
Educational
researchers should inform students and student researchers concerning the
ethical dimensions of research, encourage their practice of research consistent
with ethical standards, and support their avoidance of questionable projects.
Educational
researchers should realistically apprise students and student researchers
with regard to career opportunities and implications associated with their
participation in particular research projects or degree programs. Educational
researchers should ensure that research assistantships be educative.
Educational
researchers should be fair in the evaluation of research performance, and
should communicate that evaluation fully and honestly to the student or
student researcher. Researchers have an obligation to report honestly on
the competence of assistants to other professionals who require such evaluations.
Educational
researchers should not permit personal animosities or intellectual differences
vis-a-vis colleagues to foreclose student and student researcher access
to those colleagues, or to place the student or student researcher in an
untenable position with those colleagues.
The
Ethical Standards of the American Educational Research Association were
developed and, in June 1992, adopted by AERA to be an educational document,
to stimulate collegial debate, and to evoke voluntary compliance by moral
persuasion. Accordingly, it is not the intention of the Association to
monitor adherence to the Standards or to investigate allegations of violations
to the Code.
2-21-00 Rev. 10-18-00
Researcher and project information: (print or type)
|
Principal Investigator:
|
___Faculty___Staff___Student
|
||
|
Department:
|
Telephone:
|
Email:
|
|
|
Proposal Title:
|
|||
|
Co-Principal Investigator(s):
|
Funding Agency:
|
||
|
Grant Title(if different
from Proposal Title):
|
|||
|
Starting date:Estimated
ending date:
|
|||
Review category:
|
____1.Exempt
from review per category #____.(Research
may begin after reviewer signs below.)
____2.Expedited
review per category #____.(Research
may begin after Academic Assessment Committee signs below.) ____3.Other,
requiring full review.(Research
may begin after Academic Assessment Committee signs below.) |
Items submitted:
|
For new applications,
check to show you are submitting the following four items:
____1.This
application cover sheet. ____2.A
one-page lay summary of your proposal, explaining what you will be doing
with human subjects. ____3.Any
methods section from your proposal that apply to human subjects, and any
interview or survey instruments you will use. ____4.Any
consent form you are using and a description of assent procedures for subjects
who are minors, if applicable. |