New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research

This document is currently in draft. When it has been reviewed and proofed, it will be published on the site.

View the draft document.

Please note that it is not of publishable quality yet.

New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research SAA 2015 Workshop 59

Workshop Leaders

Janelle Jenstad (Director, MoEML)
Janelle Jenstad (Director, MoEML)
Kim McLean-Fiander (Associate Director,
Kim McLean-Fiander (Associate Director, MoEML)


Over the 2014-2015 academic year, we used this page to aggregate all materials for SAA workshop 59. This page is a permanent record of our work together. The page offers a model for future SAA workshop organizers and a link for participants to include in their teaching dossiers. You’ll find information about the participants and assignments, the text of some emails to our participants (under News/ Reminders/Announcements), a bibliography, and participants’ written contributions.

Workshop Description from SAA Bulletin

With the massive increase of online tools, archives, and digital library collections, undergraduates now have the resources to do original research. How can Shakespeareans and early modernists make space for that to happen in the classroom? The Map of Early Modern London’s pedagogical partnerships provide instructors with materials, students with real-world publication opportunities, and burgeoning digital projects with scholarly content. In this workshop, participants will develop ways of incorporating Research-Based Learning approaches into their teaching and discover new models for engaging students in research.

Additional Context

In its 1998 blueprint, the Boyer Commission (convened in 1995) recommended that all R1 (research/doctoral) universities1 make Research-Based Learning their standard pedagogical model. In RBL, learning is based on discovery guided by mentoring rather than on the transmission of information. Inherent in inquiry-based learning is an element of reciprocity: faculty can learn from students as students are learning from faculty (Boyer 15). One of the commission’s recommendations was to Use Information Technology Creatively: Because research universities create technological innovations, their students should have the best opportunities to learn state-of-the-art practices—and learn to ask questions that stretch the uses of the technology (Boyer 25).
Nearly twenty years on, the possibilities for students to learn state-of-the-art research practices are not limited to R1 universities. Thanks to subscription databases and open-access resources, almost all students have at their disposal the primary materials and tools to undertake original research. Thanks to pedagogical partnerships and Digital Humanities pedagogies, we can publish that original research, thus completing the students’ formation as scholars. At MoEML, we have asked two questions: (1) how can we bring this R1 RBL model into non-R1 institutions? and (2) how can we mobilize the scholarly capacities of students to help build better open-access projects that in turn facilitate further RBL opportunities? We believe this model is extensible into other literary periods, suitable for a variety of disciplines, adaptable to a variety of classroom settings, and achievable by other projects.

Our Goal for Participants

You will walk away from this experience with a working pedagogical model that you can apply either to a MoEML Pedagogical Partnership or to another collaborative research/teaching venture.

Dates and Assignments

  • October-November 2014. Complete the readings for this workshop.
  • 1 December 2014. Send us a brief description of your intended contribution.
  • 30 January 2014. Send us your written contribution.
  • 4 April 2015. 4-6 pm. Workshop 59 meets in person!


Assignment 1: Readings

At your leisure, please peruse the following articles and webpages.

Assignment 2: Brief Description

Due: Monday, 1 December 2014. Send us a brief description of your proposed written contribution. Contributions might take a number of forms and therefore may be of varying lengths. We suggest some possibilities below, but please feel free to seize this opportunity to create something that meets your current pedagogical and scholarly needs.
  1. Suggestions for current or past MoEML Pedagogical Partners
    • Specific advice for future MoEML Pedagogical Partners or other adherents to this pedagogical model.
    • Description of your experience as a MoEML Pedagogical Partner. Imagined audience: readers of the MoEML Blog. Possible questions to consider:
      • How did you incorporate the MoEML module into your course?
      • What was your role as MoEML Guest Editor?
      • What worked and what didn’t? What you would do differently next time?
      • How did the students respond? What did they derive from their RBL opportunity that they wouldn’t have derived from a traditional learning situation? Did (or how did) the high-stakes publication opportunity with MoEML change the experience of RBL (if you’ve done RBL and/or research-intensive exercises before)?
      • What were the challenges and teachable moments involved in groupwork, managing workflow, assessing the contributions, dealing with uneven student abilities and skills, etc?
      • How did your institution respond to your participation?
    • Write a how-to document for distribution to future MoEML Pedagogical Partners (and publication on MoEML site). Ideas:
      • How to assess collaboratively written projects, with potential sample rubrics.
      • How to create groups and apportion the responsibilities.
      • Research Tips. Getting the most out of [name of research tool or resource here].
      • Tech Tips. Eg., how to run a successful Skype or videoconference session.
      • How to deal with varying levels of student engagement, preparation, skills, and abilities.
  2. Suggestions for prospective MoEML Pedagogical Partners
    • Prepare a syllabus and assignment rubric for a MoEML Module in one of your courses.
    • Describe how you would incorporate a MoEML Module in one of your courses. How would you prepare your students to do the research required? How might you get the library involved? What resources are available at your institution? On the internet? Are there any archival or rare materials at your institution that would enliven the experience?
  3. Suggestions for Participants who want to create an RBL Module
    • Write a proposal for a collaboration with another digital project of your own choosing.
    • Write a proposal and plan to engage students at other universities in your own project (as we have done at MoEML).
  4. General Suggestions
    • Write a pitch to present to your home institution (e.g., a grant application to your campus teaching and learning centre, a course proposal for your home department).
    • Reflect on RBL pedagogy generally or in your classroom in particular.
    • Write about an RBL exercise you’ve done or would like to do.
    • Respond to the readings by Brew and Jewell and/or by Saklofske, Clements, and Cunningham.
    • Write a position paper on institutional barriers, opportunities, and expectations.
    • Write a position paper on peer reviewing the products of RBL. Who should peer review students’ work and how?

Assignment 3: Written Contribution

Due: Friday, 30 January, 2015. Send us your contribution as a .pdf file.

Assignment 4: Interactions

At SAA Meeting.


Participants’ Submissions

We include here contributions our participants gave us permission to publish after the workshop

Workshop Order of Proceeding


  1. The Boyer Commission’s Blueprint uses the designation R1, a now-deprecated category in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. There is no single equivalent term in the new ontology, which is more granular and less value-laden. We will use the still-popular R1 designation for polemical purposes. (JJ)

Cite this page

MLA citation

Jenstad, Janelle, and Kim McLean-Fiander. New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 6.6, edited by Janelle Jenstad, U of Victoria, 30 Jun. 2021, Draft.

Chicago citation

Jenstad, Janelle, and Kim McLean-Fiander. New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 6.6. Ed. Janelle Jenstad. Victoria: University of Victoria. Accessed June 30, 2021. Draft.

APA citation

Jenstad, J., & McLean-Fiander, K. 2021. New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research. In J. Jenstad (Ed), The Map of Early Modern London (Edition 6.6). Victoria: University of Victoria. Retrieved from Draft.

RIS file (for RefMan, RefWorks, EndNote etc.)

Provider: University of Victoria
Database: The Map of Early Modern London
Content: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

A1  - Jenstad, Janelle
A1  - McLean-Fiander, Kim
ED  - Jenstad, Janelle
T1  - New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research
T2  - The Map of Early Modern London
ET  - 6.6
PY  - 2021
DA  - 2021/06/30
CY  - Victoria
PB  - University of Victoria
LA  - English
UR  -
UR  -
ER  - 

TEI citation

<bibl type="mla"><author><name ref="#JENS1"><surname>Jenstad</surname>, <forename>Janelle</forename></name></author>, and <author><name ref="#MCFI1"><forename>Kim</forename> <surname>McLean-Fiander</surname></name></author>. <title level="a">New Models for Mobilizing Undergraduate Research</title>. <title level="m">The Map of Early Modern London</title>, Edition <edition>6.6</edition>, edited by <editor><name ref="#JENS1"><forename>Janelle</forename> <surname>Jenstad</surname></name></editor>, <publisher>U of Victoria</publisher>, <date when="2021-06-30">30 Jun. 2021</date>, <ref target=""></ref>. Draft.</bibl>