Western Carolina University logo with Coulter Faculty Commons

SoTL Scholar Feature: Amanda Storm

by | Jan 20, 2026 | Blog, Guest Post, Scholarship of Teaching & Learning

The SoTL Scholar Feature highlights the work of WCU faculty participating in the SoTL (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) Academy, a program sponsored by the Coulter Faculty Commons.  
Headshot of Amanda Storm.

Our current SoTL Scholar Feature focuses on Amanda Storm, a faculty member in the Department of Biology in the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Storm has extensive research experience in understanding how aspects of protein sequence and structure translate into functional diversity. She has taught at WCU for over 7 years. Her courses include General Biology II, Biotechnology First Year Seminar, Introduction to Genetics, Principles of Biotechnology and Protein Bioinformatics.  

What started you on your SoTL journey?  

I was first introduced to learning theory and pedagogy when I was able to take some science education courses and attend a Lilly Conference during my PhD. My interest in science and ‘how things work’ extends to ‘how we learn’ (which is basically biochemistry) but, though I applied ideas from SoTL, I hadn’t made time to start a SoTL project myself until recently. The main obstacle was the time and guidance needed to plan and apply the systematic aspects of intentional data collection and analysis.  

 

How has joining the SoTL Academy impacted your work? 

With all the responsibilities that faculty have to juggle, for me to add the SoTL plate to the mix required the encouragement, support and accountability that the SoTL Academy offered. The retreat offered a dedicated time to plan, the continued, periodic events kept progress moving, and the connection to people of various expertise helped navigate challenges and best practices.

 

What type of SoTL research are you conducting? 

My current project relates to understanding student use of course materials. It stemmed from an initial pilot of switching my sophomore Genetics course from a textbook to OER material, so I was providing students with course material in different formats including presentation slides, online articles and textbook sections, tutorial videos, animations, and interactives. I wondered if students would have a preference for a particular format of course material, given the choice.  So, that is what I ended up just asking students through peer-led interviews conducted by a student researcher while also monitoring if there are differences in what course materials students access on Canvas.  

 

Anything else you would like to share? 

To add a plug for the CFC – even if you don’t have an interest in adding another project to your life, SoTL events never fail to be an encouraging, up-lifting experience for me. They are an opportunity to validate the challenges of teaching, celebrate our successes and affirm the importance of the efforts we put into quality teaching. 

Want to Learn more about SoTL at WCU?
Check out the CFC’s Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) page

Academic Integrity at WCU: Key Insights from a Fall 2025 Student Survey

by | Jan 9, 2026 | Academic Integrity, Blog, Student Voices

Written by Gabriel Claros and Clemmy Brophy,
CFC Student Assistants

Academic integrity plays a central role in shaping the learning environment and the long-term value of a degree from Western Carolina University. To better understand how students perceive academic integrity and where additional support may be needed, 58 students participated in an anonymous survey during the 14th Annual Recalibrate Your Compass event in Fall 2025.  

Their responses reveal a campus community that overwhelmingly values honesty yet still faces challenges in navigating expectations and academic pressure. This data suggests that while students deeply value academic honesty, they still benefit from clear expectations and faculty support to consistently uphold it. 

The survey results provide valuable insight into how students experience academic integrity on a practical, day-to-day level. One of the strongest findings is that students (N=58) feel comfortable communicating with faculty about academic integrity. Almost all respondents (96%, n=56) reported that they feel very or somewhat comfortable asking professors questions about what constitutes cheating or plagiarism. This indicates that many faculty members are already fostering an approachable and supportive atmosphere. Only a small number of students (n=2) expressed discomfort, further suggesting communicating clear and consistent expectations across courses would be beneficial to students.

CFC Student Assistants, Gabriel and Clemmy, sitting behind a table during an event.

Gabriel (pictured on the left) and Clemmy (pictured on the right) are student assistants at the CFC, both are in their first semester at Western. Gabriel is majoring in Mechanical Engineering and Clemmy is majoring in Marketing.  

Students also expressed a strong sense of understanding regarding academic integrity policies. A remarkable 98% (n=57) agreed that they have a good understanding of what constitutes a violation of an academic integrity at WCU. Similarly, over three quarters of the students (79%, n=46) feel very confident about their professors’ expectations around generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in coursework. This highlights the benefits of having ongoing conversations in the classroom, ensuring that expectations are transparent and aligned with departmental and course objectives. 

Perhaps the most striking takeaway is how deeply students value integrity itself. Every participant stated that acting with academic integrity is important to them. When asked how integrity affects the value of their degree, students used words like value, earned, legitimate, and ownership to describe why honest work matters. Their responses reflect a strong internal motivation to do work that they can be proud of, reinforcing the idea that academic integrity is not merely a policy, but a personal commitment shared across campus. 

Students also reported positive observations of integrity in their peers. 74% (n=43) have “observed a peer at WCU practice academic integrity,” and 86% (n=50) believe that most WCU students act with integrity most of the time. These perceptions matter because they shape the culture of the institution: when students believe their peers are committed to honest work, they are more likely to hold themselves to the same standard (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). 

Despite this overwhelmingly positive outlook, the survey also revealed challenges that commonly interfere with students’ ability to uphold academic integrity. Students were asked what the biggest challenges are that stand in the way of maintaining academic integrity. For this question, students could select multiple answers. 

Challenges students face in maintaining academic integrity

Bar chart showing challenges students face in maintaining academic integrity (multiple answers).

The challenge students selected the most was time pressure (n=43). Heavy workloads, overlapping deadlines, and personal responsibilities can lead students to feel rushed or overwhelmed, increasing the temptation to cut corners. Lack of confidence in their own work (n=25), unclear expectations (n=19), and the temptation to seek unauthorized help (n=16) were the three other challenges students selected in the survey. These challenges suggest that violations of academic integrity are often less about intent and more about time-crunches, stress, uncertainty, or feeling unprepared.

The survey also exposed a few knowledge gaps. While most students demonstrated a solid understanding of academic integrity, only 60% (n=35) correctly identified fabrication as the act of creating or falsifying information. The remaining students confused this term with plagiarism (n=16), self-plagiarism (n=5), or facilitation (n=2), highlighting the need for continued education on the distinctions between these concepts. 

Overall, the survey results suggest a campus that is committed to integrity but still navigating the pressures and complexities of modern academic life. Instructors can play a key role by clarifying expectations, especially around ethical GenAI use, and how to properly cite sources, and by recognizing the impact of external factors on student decision-making. Meanwhile, students can continue to contribute to a culture of honesty by asking questions, seeking support when needed, and reflecting on the long-term value of earning their degree with integrity.

Reference 

Tatum, H., & Schwartz, B. M. (2017). Honor codes: Evidence based strategies for improving academic integrity. Theory into Practice, 56(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308175 

Back due to popular demand: AI Forum

by | Jan 9, 2026 | AI, Blog, Classroom, Educational Technology, Faculty Development Workshop

Using Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Teaching & Learning

Tuesday, January 27 | 3:30 – 5:00 pm
Hunter Library 156 (CFC) or via Zoom

You’re invited to an open forum for faculty across disciplines to share ideas, challenges, and best practices focused on uses of AI in the classroom. The forum will be structured into two parts. Part 1: Faculty will share ideas regarding how they are using generative AI for teaching innovation and to ease course administration burdens. Part 2: Faculty will share ideas for setting and maintaining clear expectations regarding ethical and responsible student use of AI and the impacts of AI on student learning processes. We will also reflect on how faculty and students can set competency-based learning goals that emphasize distinctive human skills. Come ready to share your ideas and to learn from and be inspired by others.

Register for "Using AI to Enhance Teaching & Learning"

Things instructors should know about the WaLC’s AI policy

by | Jan 7, 2026 | Academic Integrity, AI, Blog, University Support

If you teach at Western, you might be wondering how peer educators at the WaLC (Writing and Learning Commons) navigate conversations around AI with students seeking support. The WaLC team would like instructors to know that an internal AI policy exists, and that it was developed to be as faculty forward as possible and while the policy allows for some flexibility, it’s conservative in its application.  

By default, peer educators ask students who come to the WaLC what their instructor has written in their syllabus (or assignment instructions) concerning the course’s AI policy. If there is no policy to be found, peer educators won’t encourage students to utilize AI in any way. If there is a statement that allows for AI use, peer educators can assist “in areas provided on the syllabus, or if not stated, in areas such as brainstorming, gathering information, interpreting feedback, outlining, and quizzing” (see AI Decision Tree, developed by the WaLC). 

Additionally, the WaLC team has open conversations with their own peer educators who feel uncomfortable using AI themselves (see Step 1 of the AI decision tree). If they encounter a student whose professor requires their students to use AI and they neither are familiar nor comfortable using AI, they can refer the student to a peer educator who is.  

Decision Tree if peer educators should use AI.

One recommendation both the WaLC and the CFC have is for instructors to have a conversation with students of what is to be considered acceptable AI use in addition to having a course specific AI policy in the syllabus. For example, some students are still unsure if they can use certain software (Grammarly is a common example) in all of their course work, only for some activities, or not at all.  

The WaLC’s goal is to empower students to achieve their academic goals. To that end, the WaLC’s peer educators have come up with some creative ways in which they have utilized AI to help students. In one case, a recreational therapy major struggled using person-first language when discussing a patient’s disability. With the help of AI, they curated a vocabulary list consisting of words and phrases that helped the student expand their repertoire and become a more confident writer. Another example includes a student who couldn’t make sense of their instructor’s track changes and suggestions on their first draft since there weren’t any additional comments provided. They asked AI why the paper was marked up the way it was and concluded that a lot of their writing had been repetitive.

Sometimes, students do come into the WaLC with AI-generated writing. Peer educators are trained to approach those conversations similarly to the conversations about suspected plagiarism. These conversations all begin by asking open-ended, non-judgmental questions: “Do you know how to cite?” or “Did you forget to add attribution here?” to detect if plagiarism they noticed occurred unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge. Likewise, when a peer educator suspects AI use, they also ask probing questions to find out if and how AI was used by the student. Peer educators will always advise students to adhere to the instructor’s policy, and they remind students if they notice when AI was used, their professors will notice too.  

If you have questions about the WaLC’s AI policy, feel free to reach out to Haylee Melton at wilkieh@wcu.edu; if you would like support on how to approach your own AI policy, reach out to Coulter Faculty Commons at cfc@wcu.edu.

NEW: AI Ethics Course Module

The CFC is launching a module instructors can import into their Canvas course. The goal of this module is to help students learn the importance of using AI ethically in their college studies. It is a self-contained module that is intended to be customized by each instructor as desired to fit their teaching needs. Instructions are included in non-published pages of the module.  

If you are interested in piloting the module, import the “AI Course Ethics Module” from Canvas Commons. For step-by-step instructions, review Importing a Resource from Canvas Commons. 

The CFC would like to extend its thanks to Haylee Melton,
Associate Director of the Writing and Learning Commons, in collaborating on this article.

Teaching Analysis Polls (TAPs) registration is open for Spring

by | Jan 6, 2026 | Assessment, Blog, Feedback

Spring 2026 TAPs Dates

Teaching Analysis Polls (TAPs), the CFC’s mid-semester assessment program, will run from Monday, February 16 – Friday, March 6 during the 2026 Spring semester.   

Register for a TAP & save your spot!
Why sign up for a TAP? 

Get feedback from your students when it matters most: while you are actually teaching your class.

  • Improve student learning: Make small teaching changes now and see the benefits for your current class. 
  • Promote inclusive teaching: Show students you value their input by collecting feedback and making meaningful changes. 
  • Document your teaching: Highlight your responsiveness to student needs in your teaching materials.
Optimize your teaching in less than 2 hours with a TAP. Coulter Faculty Commons

This is what past participants have to say:

The TAP process was an easy and helpful one to improve my student engagement and outcomes. I recommend participating for all faculty looking to improve their courses via student feedback.

Reece Hayes

College of Health and Human Sciences

As a professor, the only feedback I tend to get is from student evaluation data at the conclusion of the semester. I appreciate the CFC for providing this opportunity to gather feedback from students mid-semester, as it was valuable formative feedback. Meeting with the CFC staff member to discuss the feedback and actionable steps I could take for the rest of the semester and beyond was the personalized professional development I needed to reflect on my teaching, as well as my students’ learning.

Roya Q. Scales

College of Education and Allied Professions

  • TAPs are available to anyone who teaches at WCU and are completely confidential.
  • We are offering in-person options at both the main campus and Biltmore Park, as well as online options for evening or remote classes. 

Please reach out to Anabel Livengood at llivengood@wcu.edu if you have any questions.

QR code for TAPs Registration (Spring 2026)