Piedmont College

Check the following to indicate you will protect research subjects in compliance with federal regulations and PC policies.

____I will obtain informed consent from all subjects.

____I will report to the Academic Assessment Committee any harmful effects to the subjects.

____I will secure approval using the same procedures before altering the research protocol or consent forms.

DEPARTMENT APPROVALS

Principal Investigator

Piedmont College

School of Education

Syllabus for Specialist Degree

Strand II

Advanced Research III: Assessing and Presenting

EDS 822

Mastering the art of teaching:

Preparing Proactive Educators to Improve the Lives of Children

Course

Title: Advanced Research III: Assessing and Presenting

Number: EDS 822.1

Three Semester Hours

II. Instructor

Name: Dr. Bob Cummings

Office Location: L-120

Phone: (706) 778-3000 ext. 1265

Email:

Fax # (706) 776-9608 for Demorest and (706) 546-8223 for Athens

Office Hours: Posted L-120

Time and Place

Day(s): Mondays; Summer Institute

Time: 9am-5pm

Class Location: Lane Education Center/Demorest Ga.

IV. Text(s)

Required

Johnson, B. and Christensen, L., (2000). Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

APA Style Manual (4^th ed.)

School of Education Mission

Piedmont College Mission

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.

School of Education Mission & Philosophy:

The theme of the School of Education is “ Preparing Proactive Educators to Improve the Lives of Children.” Reinforcing 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.

Specific ideals under-gird our conceptual framework. We advocate the democratic ideals of: equal rights and opportunities; individual freedom and responsibility; responsibility for the greater good; respect for diversity; openness to possibilities; and open, informed discourse.

We endorse the following processes as a means of striving for our democratic ideals: engaging in participatory decision-making; collaborating in teaching and learning; collecting information from all constituencies; examining options and projecting consequences; nurturing open discourse; providing for field experiences; assessing processes as well as products; modeling democratic ideals in the classroom; forming communities of learners; and constantly revising the curriculum to reflect new insights and understandings. Further, we endorse the development of a sense of personal integrity and of strong habits of mind (e.g., reflectiveness, persistence, clarity, accuracy, and responsiveness to feedback).

Specialist Degree Program Goal(s);

The program goal of the Specialist Program in Instruction is designed to develop distinguished contributing teachers as leaders, mentors, and models across schools and systems. The primary purpose of schooling is instruction; therefore, all teachers, staff and administrators must focus through habits of mind on the ultimate goal of providing students with the best and most appropriate education possible through continuing school improvement. Regular classroom teachers, teachers in pull-out areas, lead teachers, department heads, building level administrators, as well as staff and administrators at the district level need to view themselves as instructional leaders and through proactive, scholarly and reflective professional and pedagogical development provide instructional expertise and leadership to students and peers both formally and informally.

The specialist program in instruction offers components that address the qualities necessary for preparing distinguished teaching and leadership. The program will provide a rigorous and scholarly pragmatic approach that will meet the needs of candidates in various geographic and educational contexts. To that end, participants are required to specialize in the four program strand themes:

Historical foundations of education,

Field based research that examines and leads to improved student achievement,

3. Personal and professional philosophy and pedagogy, and

4. Developing expertise in content inquiry style involving classroom practices and
management.

These four strands form a holistic approach to the one year, 30 hour, program of study as continuous themes and curricula to guide, instruct, and develop the professional educator to attain distinguished levels of both theory and practice and become contributing members in the professional discourse of improving schooling.

VI. Strand/Course Description & Purpose

The purpose of this course is to integrate knowledge gained in the two previous courses culminating in the summative presentation of the study and application of current research methods and theories, procedures and designs with an emphasis on quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies to aid in the processes of school improvement, or meeting criteria for National Board certification, and the development and implementation of a professional Development Portfolio (PDP). Included in this strand will be the evaluation, interpretation, and application of educational research methods. The focus of this course is for the candidate to demonstrate understanding by presenting a summary of research findings in report format. The understanding that the process of developing and conducting a study is equal if not greater to the product itself is embedded in the course.

VII. School of Education Outcomes

Candidate Learning Outcomes (CLO):

The following applicable outcomes, adapted from the 1994 INTASC standards (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium), are addressed in this course.

1) Learning Environment: The candidate uses an understanding of individual and group motivation to create a caring learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self regulation. The candidate 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.

2) Subject Matter: The candidate 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.

3) Student Learning: The candidate understands how students develop and learn and can provide well-managed learning opportunities that support students’ intellectual, social, and personal growth.

4) Diversity: The candidate 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.

5) Instructional Strategies: The candidate understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage the development of student critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

6) Assessment Strategies: The candidate understands and uses a variety of assessment strategies to encourage the continual intellectual, social, and personal growth of students.

7) Communication and Technology: The candidate uses knowledge of effective verbal, non-verbal, and media communication techniques and technologies to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.

8) Planning Instruction: The candidate plans and manages instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter/pedagogy, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

9) Reflection and Professional Development: The candidate is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of her/his choices and actions upon others, and who actively seeks opportunities for the continual development of a personal pedagogy.

10) Collaboration and Relationships: The candidate communicates and interacts with other educators, parents/families, and the community to support student learning and well being.

National Board Professional Teacher Standards:

Five core propositions:

1.Teachers are committed to students and their learning.

2.Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach

those subjects to students.

3.Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring

student learning.

4.Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn

from experience.

5.Teachers are members of learning communities

Specialist Program Candidate Outcomes

Potentially all Specialist Program Candidate Outcomes could be met in this strand based on each Candidate’s PDP theme or topic.

Specialist Candidates will demonstrate proactive knowledge of techniques that bring about positive change in schools, schooling and practices

Specialist Candidates will be use assessment of characteristics and needs of student learners

Specialist Candidates (through reflection) will conduct self-assessment

Specialist Candidates will reflect and improve on student learning

Specialist Candidates will integrate technology to enhance learning

Specialist Candidates will model, develop, and deliver content expertise

Specialist Candidates will generate and use proactive and scholarly research to improve schooling

Specialist Candidates will create learning communities

Specialist Candidates will provide leadership for creating democratic learning

Specialist Candidates will contribute to professional growth of their profession

Specialist Candidates will demonstrate ethical dimensions of teaching

Core Course Outcomes Addressed in the Class

The Candidate will be able to demonstrate a knowledgeable understanding of research methodologies through application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of research by performing and reporting a PDP project in an educational environment. At the conclusion of the strand and course, candidiates should be able to:

a. (CCLO 2,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the processes an procedures of quantitative and qualitative research;

b. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate vocabulary of research;

c. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate various kinds of research methods;

d. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate quantitative and qualitative methods and designs;

e. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate data interpretation;

f. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate technology used for research;

g. (CCLO 2,) ,) apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate research and how it assists teachers to make changes in their educational practices.

Course Policies & Procedures

Class Attendance & Participation

Attendance/Participation:

Attendance, timeliness, and participation are required and part of your grade. The School of Education policy states that more than the allotted number of excused absences for any reason will result in failure of the course. The allotted number of excused absences is as follows:

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

Summer Institute: 1 absence per course

Only those absences due to emergencies will be excused. Work missed due to an excused absence may be made up. It is the student’s 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 Honesty

Written Work:

Use APA style (4th ed.). All papers for the course are to be typed using size 12 print and one of the following fonts: Bookman, Times New Roman, or Geneva. Papers should be double-spaced, error-free, and grammatically correct (including punctuation, spelling, capitalization, etc.). Make good use of writing references such as dictionaries, writing handbooks, and computer spelling and grammar checks. Each paper should have a cover sheet with your name, course number and name, assignment, and date clearly typed on the front.

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.

c. Special Considerations:

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.

Course Outline and Student Expectations

Schedule & Topic Outline

Session	Topic	Assignment	Assessment
Session1	Interpretation of Findings	Significance/ Meaning	Grounded theory or Hypothesis
Session 2	Form an Action Plan	Write an action plan	Action Plan
Session 3	Implementation of Action Plans at schools	Utilization of research for school improvement	Reflection paper
Session 4	Collaboration with other Teachers and implementation	Meet with peer teachers and discuss Utilization of research for school improvement	Reflection Paper
Session 5	Collaboration with school-wide / system wide implementation	Meet with school / system administrators And discuss Utilization of research for school improvement	Reflection Paper
Session 6	Human Subjects Research Process/ completion notification	Notify committee Research is completed	College Assessment/Specialist Committee Approval
Session 7	Writing the Research Report	APA style	Specialist Committee Approval of final Research Report
Session 8	Post Research Implications and Reflections	Present to a professional body the Utilization of research for school improvement	Professional Conference

Description of Assessments & Assignments and their due dates

TBA.

c. Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Rubric:

Grade A-Superior (90-100)

Scholarship-Strong, exceeding requirements of instructor.

Initiative-Contributions exceeding the assignment, showing independent resourcefulness.

Attitude-Positive benefit to class.

Cooperation-Forwarding all group activities, constant and spontaneous.

Individual Improvement-Marked and Growing.

Grade B-Good-Above Average (80-89)

Scholarship-Accurate and complete, meeting all requirements of instructor.

Initiative-Good when stimulated by some desirable achievement.

Attitude-Proper and beneficial to group.

Cooperation-Good in group work.

Individual Improvement-Showing marks of progress and responding to stimulation.

Grade C-Average (70-79)

Scholarship-Barely meeting assignments and showing evidence of need of encouragement.

Initiative-Uncertain and apparent only at times.

Attitude-Generally neutral but not objectionable.

Cooperation-Not positive nor very effective and irregular.

Individual Improvement-Very ordinary, definite marks lacking.

Grade D-Below Average, Yet Passing (65-69)

Scholarship-Not meeting all assignments and requirements of instructor.

Initiative-Lacking.

Attitude-Indifferent.

Cooperation-Just fair at times and lacking at other times.

Individual Improvement-Not noticeable.

Grade F-Failing (0-64)

Work unsatisfactory and is a failing grade and hence not defined.

e. Instructional Methods

The class will consist of discussions, democratic processes, integration of technology, individual and collaborative assignments, research reading and reporting, and presentations in the sessions.

Resources

Bibliography

List additional resources related to the class content. The bibliography should be as up to date as possible and should include references easily recognizable as pertaining to the conceptual framework, and to multicultural/global perspectives.

Websites

Piedmont College’s webpage: www.piedmont.edu

Library ../library/homepage.html

Galileo http://www.galileo.peachnet.edu/Homepage.cgi

Bookstore http://www.piedmont.bkstore.com/

Georgia Professional Standards Commission: www.gapsc.com

Educational Testing Services/Praxis: www.ets.org/praxis

Georgia Department of Education http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/

QCC http://admin.doe.k12.ga.us/gadoe/sla/qcccopy.nsf

Public Schools Report Card http://168.31.216.185/

US Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/

Georgia Association of Educators http://www.gae.org/

Education World http://www.education-world.com/

Internet Public Library http://www.ipl.org/

Education Website Clearinghouse http://library.ucf.edu/internet/Education/webed.htm

c. Praxis Information

All students seeking initial certification in the state of Georgia must pass Praxis I in order to be admitted to student teaching. Students may exempt this requirement by providing either SAT, ACT or GRE scores which meet the following criteria:

SAT: 1000 total with a minimum of 480 verbal and 520 math

ACT: 22 composite with a minimum of 21 verbal and 22 math

GRE: 1030 total with a minimum of 490 verbal and 540 quantitative

Students who are seeking initial certification must also pass Praxis II in the appropriate content area in order to be recommended for certification. Students who are currently certified and are adding a new field must also pass the appropriate content exam. Information on Praxis I & II may be found at www.ets.org/praxis and on the Piedmont College website at

QCC

If the course addresses particular QCC objectives, refer the students to the appropriate link.

If a course reflects teaching content, such as social studies or reading, the syllabus must refer students to the appropriate QCC objectives and provide information about the availability of these objectives and how they will be used in the course. Further, the syllabus must reflect how students will learn about the standards of relevant specialty organizations. For example, a math methods course should introduce students to the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and a reading methods course should introduce students to the standards of the International Reading Association.

Instructor’s Resources

For the benefit of adjunct as well as other fulltime faculty who may be teaching this class it might be beneficial to list resources you would recommend for use in preparing to teach this class.

APA site:

Galileo:

Ask Eric; a research site:

Piedmont Library help online:

Piedmont College Bookstore online:

WOW! check this out: How to COW:

Piedmont's Schedule Athens and Demorest Campus

Professional Standards Commission(PSC)

Certification Channel

Common Links

Georgia Department of Education

Public Schools Report Cards

US Department of Education

Educational Testing Service

Piedmont College

Piedmont College Library

Georgia Association of Educators

Education World

Internet Public Library

Rev. 10-18-00 Rev. 1-24-01

Approval Procedures for Research Involving Human Subjects

Academic Assessment Committee

Piedmont College

Dissemination of this document

All faculty members, including part-time faculty

Students in all courses in which research with human subjects is taught and/or conducted

Any individual conducting human subject research sponsored by Piedmont College or conducted on any Piedmont College facility

Basis for these procedures

Piedmont College is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects in behavioral and biomedical research, following these procedures and federal regulations in Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 46, “Protection of Human Subjects.” These procedures apply to research sponsored by Piedmont College, conducted by employees or agents of Piedmont College, or conducted using the properties of Piedmont College

Following these procedures protects researchers, the College and those involved in our research projects.

What proposals must be submitted? Any proposal for research associated with Piedmont

College using human subjects in any way.

Definitions

“Research” refers to any systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

“Human subjects” refers to live individuals about whom the researcher(s) obtains (a) data through intervention or interaction or observation, and/or (b) identifiable private information.

Responsibilities

1) Academic Assessment Committee: For developing procedures for approval of human subject research and reviewing those procedures as needed; reviewing research proposals requiring “expedited” and “full review” procedures; maintaining records of all research proposals; and advising faculty and administration of any problems arising regarding human research involving Piedmont College.

2) Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness: For oversight regarding any legal issues arising from research projects, and for the operations of the Academic Assessment Committee.

3) Deans of the Schools of Arts & Sciences, Business, Education and Nursing: Submit to Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness a list of faculty members designated to review research proposals by members of their respective schools (“Reviewers”). For monitoring the performance of respective faculty members and department chairs in management of research projects in conformity with these procedures.

Deans may require additional procedures for the review of research proposals, as long as the additions do not contravene those in this document.

4) Reviewers: For conscientious review of research proposals submitted to them for consideration, and appropriate referrals of those proposals, as per the procedures provided in this document. To provide counsel to faculty members with questions about the procedures for review of research proposals.

5) Researchers: For designing, implementing and reporting any research to meet both letter and spirit of these procedures. The guiding concept for research on human subjects at Piedmont College is “do no harm.”

Criteria for research projects involving human subjects

1) Are risks to human subjects minimized?

2) Are risks reasonable, relative to the benefits and knowledge expected to accrue?

3) Is selection of subjects equitable, especially those from vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or the economically or educationally disadvantaged?

4) Are subjects adequately informed about the research and their rights?

5) Is consent and/or assent of the subjects appropriately documented?

6) Is the safety of the subjects protected?

7) If appropriate, are the privacy of subjects and the confidentiality of data protected?

Researchers at Piedmont College conducting research involving employees and/or students at other institutions must follow the procedures of and receive approval from those institutions, in addition to meeting Piedmont College’s criteria.

Researchers and reviewers should be familiar with guidelines for human subject research published by organizations of their respective academic disciplines.

Researchers involved in handling blood borne pathogens should adhere to the Universal

Precautions guidelines established by OSHA and CDC.

Adult Consent and Child Assent

Subject participation must be voluntary. The procedure for insuring voluntary participation differs for adults and children. Adults must give their informed consent before participating, and children must give their assent.

1) Informed consent from adults. Subjects must give informed consent before participating. They must be told in clear and simple terms what they need to know to decide whether or not to participate. Consent forms are the greatest source of problems in getting Academic Assessment Committee approval. The Academic Assessment Committee may waive or modify the elements of informed consent (CFR 46.116(d)), but normally consent forms include the following items (CFR 46.116):

information explaining the purpose of the research, describing the procedure, identifying experimental procedures, and telling how long participation will last;

a description of reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts;

a description of benefits that the subject or others might reasonably expect;

a disclosure of alternative procedures or treatments that might help the subject (this especially applies to medical studies);

a statement describing the extent to which confidentiality will be maintained;

for research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation or medical treatments are available if injury occurs, and if so, what this consists of or where further information can be obtained;

an explanation of whom to contact for answers to questions about the research and about subject’s rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject; and

a statement that participation is voluntary, refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled.

2) Documenting informed consent. Consent forms are normally used, but the Academic Assessment Committee may waive the requirement for a consent form if (CFR 46.117):

signing the form itself would put a subject at risk; or

the research presents no more than minimal risk and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside the research context.

If consent forms will not be used, the researcher must explain in the application to the Academic Assessment Committee how informed consent will be obtained.

3) Assent from children. Parents may give consent for their children to participate, but the children themselves must assent to participate. “Assent” is more than a mere failure of the child to object; it is an affirmative action on the part of the child indication a willingness to participate. Assent is often oral rather than written, especially with younger children. Because there is no generally agreed-upon age at which children become adults, the Academic Assessment Committee defines “children” as persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved in the research. The researcher must explain in the application for approval to Academic Assessment Committee how assent will be obtained.

Procedures

1) Submit research proposals to one of the individuals designated by your School to review research proposals (reviewers). Researchers from the staff or an outside agency performing research are to submit proposals to the Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.

Submit an original and one copy of packets including the following:

i) A completed application form (copy attached). Indicate whether the project in your view is exempt from review, or needs expedited or full review by the Academic Assessment Committee. Guidelines for Exempt and Expedited Research Proposals are on the reverse of the application form.

ii) A one page description of your research design and how you will treat subjects. Do not include background, review of the literature, theories, or any references unrelated to treatment of human subjects—unless such material is essential to justify a problematical treatment of subjects.

iii) Sections of your research design dealing with the treatment of subjects, including but not limited to interview protocols and questionnaires or surveys.

iv) Consent forms which tell subjects clearly the purpose of the study, exactly what will happen with them, any risks and benefits, how any anticipated discomfort will be handled, what confidentiality will be maintained, whom to contact for additional information, and the voluntary nature of the participation.

Revisions of research projects reflecting changes in the treatment of human subjects are to be submitted when such changes are anticipated and before changes are implemented.

2) Reviewers promptly assess proposals submitted to them and transmit to the Academic Assessment Committee a copy of each proposal with a completed application packet for its inspection.

a) Research proposals approved by the reviewer as exempt may be commenced as soon as the reviewer signs to approve the research. If the reviewer considers the proposed research to require either an expedited or full review, the researcher is to be notified to postpone researching until the Academic Assessment Committee has assessed the proposal.

Note: The Academic Assessment Committee, after determining on inspection that a research proposal is questionable, will advise the researcher to suspend research until the Committee is satisfied that the research meets the criteria listed above.

b) Research proposals requiring either expedited review or full review may commence after the application is signed by either the chair of the Academic Assessment Committee or the Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.

3) The Academic Assessment Committee will consider any research proposals for expedited or full review received not less than one week before its regularly scheduled meeting. Decisions of the Committee will be communicated immediately to both the researcher and reviewer. The chair of the Committee may call special meetings of the Committee to consider proposals if the situation warrants. At least three members must be present for consideration of research proposals.

The Committee may use the expertise of qualified third parties in reviewing research proposals, or in assessing the work of the Committee.

4) The researcher is to notify the Academic Assessment Committee when the research is completed, including the submission of research reports.

5) In addition to its minutes of meetings, the Academic Assessment Committee will maintain an organized file of research proposals received, annotated with decisions by the Committee. The Committee’s files are to be open for inspection and copying by any interested parties at Piedmont College, subject to limits imposed by the Committee regarding specific cases to protect human subjects.

Proposals are to be retained for at least three years after the research is completed, then conveyed to the college archives.

For more information, contact the Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

at 706-778-8500 x 1169.

February 6, 2001

TO: Curriculum and Programs Committee

FROM: Academic Assessment Committee

Revision of Procedures for Approval of Human Subjects Research Proposals

At the regular meeting of the committee, 1-17-01, we agreed to add language to the procedures section of the guidelines. This is not a substantive change, but merely a statement indicating that researchers are to inform the committee when their research is complete, plus a statement indicating disposition of documents related to research proposals.

Attached is a copy of page 4 of the guidelines with the new text in italics.

2-21-00 Rev. 10-18-00

Piedmont College

Academic Assessment Committee

Approval for Research Procedures Involving Human Subjects

Application Form

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.

Researcher assurance: