I have had an opportunity to engage with colleagues in two major areas that relate to the scholarship of teaching: (a) pedagogical research and (b) creative scholarship related to teaching.

Pedagogical Research

During academic year 1995-1996, the College of Nursing and Health Science at George Mason University (GMU) offered its first writing-intensive nursing course. Along with other nursing faculty, Dr. Cary and I each taught a section of the course during the spring semester of 1996. We saw an opportunity to integrate the scholarship of teaching with the scholarship of discovery by conducting a pilot study (Silva, Cary, & Thaiss, in press) on students' perceptions of their writing skills at the beginning and at the end of the course. We collaborated on this project with Dr. Thaiss, now Chair of the English Department and then Director of the Writing Across the Curriculum Project at GMU.

Pilot study--The writing-intensive course requirements were specified in a senior-level course entitled "Professional Transition and Role Integration." Dr. Cary and I had 27 students in each of our classes. Our sections of the course were taught over a seven-week period. The specific writing-intensive student assignments were a one-page professional letter and a ten-page paper that focused on a professional issue. The writing-intensive teaching strategies included detailed instructions during class about the assignments, extensive oral and written feedback on drafts of the assignments, and multiple opportunities for revisions of the assignments.

Results from the writing-intensive course were as follows: At the beginning of the course, 42% of the students perceived their writing skills to be poor/fair, and 58% of the students perceived their writing skills to be good/excellent. However, at the end of the course, only 14% of the students perceived their writing skills to be poor/fair, and 86% of the students perceived their writing skills to be good/excellent. In addition, through student feedback and our own evaluation of the course, we discovered that the critical teaching strategy in improving students' writing was revision, revision, revision, with constructive and rapid feedback from peers and faculty. We also learned that for multiple revisions to occur (especially within a seven-week course) that assignments needed to be short, that is, one or two pages.

As a result of the pilot study, the following changes occurred in all sections of the course: (a) The ten-page professional issue paper was changed to a two-page position statement requiring several revisions, and (b) class time was committed to writing and to reflecting upon the writing-intensive assignments. In addition, Dr. Cary and I requested to teach the seven-week course again.

Main study--That opportunity came during the spring semester of 1997. We sought and received funding from the Research Committee of the College of Nursing and Health Science to expand the pilot study and to incorporate the two preceding changes into each section of the course that we taught. Results of this main study showed that the targeted writing strategies used in the writing-intensive course substantially improved the  students' writing skills. 

In summary, regarding pedagogical research and the scholarship of teaching, the following positive outcomes occurred: (a) The writing-intensive components of the "Professional Transition and Role Integration" course were changed in accord with the results of the pilot and main studies; (b) the nature of the course and the pilot study results were presented at two national-level writing-across-the curriculum conferences; (c) the pilot study has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed nursing journal (Silva, Cary, & Thaiss, in press); (d) the main study has been presented at a regional research conference and   is currently being written for publication; and (e) collaborative and interdisciplinary dialogues about how to best teach a writing-intensive course occurred between the Nursing and the English Departments.