quality enhancement plan (qep) 101 del mar college january 8, 2007 loraine phillips, ph.d. interim...
TRANSCRIPT
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) 101
Del Mar CollegeJanuary 8, 2007
Loraine Phillips, Ph.D.
Interim Assessment Director
Texas A&M University
Agenda
SACS Overview
Defining the QEP
Issues
Examples
THEN…
Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart from West Texas A&M
Panel Discussion
What’s Different about the Reaccreditation Process
Now
“This renewed…process is designed to determine the quality of an institution within the framework of its mission, its goals, and its analysis of critical issues.”
What’s Different about the Reaccreditation Process
Now No more “Criteria for Accreditation” Report is now broken into two distinct parts:
Compliance Certification and the Quality Enhancement Plan (Core Requirement 2.12)
Review is completed by off-site committee first, then a separate on-site committee
Compliance Process is administrator-driven (Leadership Team), and campus-wide committees work on the QEP
What does all this mean for faculty?
Assessment of Student Learning
QEP
Core Requirement 2.5Institutional Effectiveness
“The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality, and (3) demonstrate the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.”
Newly revised, December 2006
Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1
(Still Under Construction)
Institutional Effectiveness
It will be something like…
The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses whether it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas:
Areas for 3.3.1(Under Construction)
Educational programs, including student learning outcomesAdministrative support servicesEducational support servicesResearch within its educational mission, if appropriateCommunity/public service within its educational mission, if appropriate
Proposal, Revisions to the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, December 12, 2006
Quality Enhancement Plan(QEP) CR 2.12
“The Institution has developed an acceptable QEP that (1) includes a broad-based institutional process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment, (2) focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution, (3) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP, (4) includes broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP, and (5) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.
Newly revised, December 2006
QEP
Must focus on student learningMust enhance student successMust include broad-based participation in the identification of the topic or issue to be addressed in the QEPMust include careful review of best practicesMust include clear goals
QEP
Must include allocation of adequate human and financial resources to develop, implement, and sustain
Must include implementation strategies that include a clear timeline and assignment of responsibilities
Must include a structure established for evaluating the extent to which the goals set for the plan are attained
“The Point” of the QEP
Not “where we are” but “where are we going?”Belief that we can enhance the quality of the experience for studentsNot Broad Brush but a focused IssueIt’s a unifying event for the entire campus
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Quality Enhancement Projects
Curricular initiatives, like critical thinking and writing across the curriculum
Pedagogical initiatives, like use of technology and capstone seminars
Faculty initiatives like teaching and learning centers
Support Service initiatives, like first year experience and advising
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Commission Decisions: Dec. 05 – June 06
77 institutions were considered for reaffirmation72 reaffirmed5 denied reaffirmationNone were denied on the basis of the QEP24 institutions with QEP monitoring(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
QEP Issues—Dec. 05 – June 06
Learning outcomes17 issues to be monitored
Assessment Issues20 issues to be monitored
Institutional Capacity5 issues to be monitored
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Learning Outcome Issues
Approval of the QEP focus and an official revised version of the Plan. Goal to improve student attitudes needs a strong rationaleThe extent to which the stated learning outcome enhanced initiatives for the institutionClear, measurable student learning outcomes need to be articulated
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Assessment Issues
Assessment instruments utilized and linkage to each learning outcome
Relationship between assessment strategies and improvements
Identify the measures that will be used to show improvements in learning outcomes
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Assessment Issues
“To assess student learning, the institution relies heavily on survey data measuring student satisfaction. Student satisfaction is not an indicator of student learning. The College should demonstrate that the goals of its plan are linked to measurable outcomes of student learning.”
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Assessment Issues
“Revise the assessment plan to provide more direct evidence of improvement in critical thinking skills rather than relying on surveys of opinions and perceptions.”
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Capacity Issues
“It is not clear who will supervise the QEP Director to ensure that there is top level administrative support for the success of the QEP.”
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Capacity Issues
“Provide a five-year plan that links the desired outcomes of the QEP to both fiscal and physical resource requirements and describe in a narrative and in a detailed budget how those requirements will be met.”
(David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)
Four Primary Indicators for an Acceptable QEP
Focus
Institutional Capability
Assessment
Broad Involvement
An Example of FOCUSInquiry Research/based Education of Undergraduates
Texas A&M University
Connection of the QEP to University Vision and Mission
Vision 2020
President’s Task Force for Enhancing the Undergraduate Experience (with overarching learning outcomes)
NSSE Results
Subcommittee for Undergraduate Research
Launching the new Office of Undergraduate Research
President Gates’ Task Force Recommendations
Recommendations to Enhance Undergraduate Experience through Research/Inquiry Make Inquiry/Research-based learning the standard
paradigm for as many of our undergraduate courses as practicable.
Create a class of new courses with inquiry/research-based learning as a major element.
Enhance existing undergraduate programs through imbedding inquiry/research courses throughout their programs from first to fourth year.
Provide the option for a summary inquiry/research experience in all undergraduate degree programs and encourage students to take this option.
Texas A&M Task Force Report, 2005
An example of FocusInquiry/Research-based Education of Undergraduates
Boyer Report (Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities, 1997 ) Research extensive universities have a unique niche in
providing undergraduate education within a “knowledge creating” setting.
It is important to provide more of our students access to this learning environment to improve learning outcomes and to develop the researchers and professors of the future.
Reinvention Center The follow on organization that brought together these
research extensive universities to help develop strategies and “best practices” for achieving the goals set out in the Boyer Commission Report.
An example of Assessment QEP Criteria Rubric for Undergraduate
Inquiry/Research-based Education
Outcomes Connection of the QEP to University vision and mission Broad-based support from the appropriate constituents Institutional capability to implement and sustain Systematic assessment processes inform constituents of the
impact of Inquiry/Research-based Education Focus is pervasive within the University community Identified Inquiry/Research-based student learning
outcomes are assessed and data used for course/program improvement
Texas A&M, QEP, 2006
For each outcome, we develop…
Assessment and Documentation
Responsibilities
Timeline
Reporting
QEP Criteria Rubric for Undergraduate Inquiry/Research-based Education
CriteriaNot developedDevelopingTarget
Another QEP Assessment Example
Increasing Student Engagement in High-risk Core Curriculum Courses through Academic Support and Classroom Engagement
Blinn College, QEP, 2004
Elements of the Quality Enhancement Plan.(Schematic Overview)
Define high-risk Core Curriculum courses >34% D/F/W/I (17 courses) (from fall Final Grades Reports 2001-2003)
Realizing the Need for Increasing Student Engagement
Defining Desired Broad Student Learning Outcomes in Key Areas
Aligning Measurements and Assessment Tools
Assessing the Plan
Annual Process
Assessment
Annual Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment
Broad Outcomes
Assessment
Field-Based Outcomes
Assessment
Administrative Objectives
Assessment
Achievement
Attitude/Values
Pre- and Post-Tests
Achievement Attitude Values Participation
Attitudinal Surveys
Focus Groups
Course-specific Matrices
Participation CCSSE
Academic Support Survey of Students and Faculty in High-Risk Courses, pilot Spring 2004
6 outcomes 1 outcome 1 outcome 2 outcomes
Institutional Analysis (Focus Groups, Taskforce Report, Marketing Report, Syllabi Revisions, IR&E data)
Student Evaluation of Instruction
Annual review of results by Committee on Institutional
Strategic Planning and Effectiveness
Annual review and revision of student learning outcomes by
faculty teams.
Benchmarks Benchmarks Benchmarks Benchmarks
Grade Distribution Reports
Increasing Student Engagement in High-Risk Core Courses through Enhanced Academic Support
Later Reporting
5-Year ReportHandbook coming soon
For more information on SACS, go to:www.sacscoc.org
References
Boyer Report. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities, 1997. Proposal, Revisions to the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. SACS, 2006.Carter, David. The Quality Enhancement Plan: Decisions and Directions. SACS COC, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting.QEP. Blinn College, 2004.QEP. Texas A&M, 2002-2006. Task Force for Undergraduate Excellence. Texas A&M, 2005.
