Transcript Progress Report: SACS Leadership Team

The University of Kentucky’s QEP is MCXC!
What!?!?
The Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP)
SLT Update
June 6, 2012
Drs. Deanna Sellnow and Diane Snow, Co-Chairs
• Quality Enhancement Plan
• A core requirement for SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation
• Focus: Enhancing student learning
Summer 2012:
Fall 2012:
Finalize the QEP
Approval
Process
Vet
January 2013:
Due to SACS!
April 9-11,
2013: SACS
Team Visit
Presentation U: “YOU are the ultimate presentation”
Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum
January 2012: Submitted document draft
February 2012: External consultants
February 2012: Topic Development
Team discussion
March-June 2012: Ongoing
Revisions
External Consultants:
North Carolina State University
Feb. 13-14, 2012
Deanna P. Dannels, PhD
Dr. Deanna P. Dannels, Professor of Communication, Director of
Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, and Associate Director of the Campus Writing and
Speaking Program; current research explores theoretical and curricular protocols for designing,
implementing, and assessing oral communication within the disciplines.
Chris M. Anson, PhD
Professor of English; language and literacy, rhetoric and composition, writing across the curriculum,
writing program administration
Recommendations
Strengths:
Process well planned, thorough, collaborative, democratic, plentiful input across
constituencies, based on sound research, high potential for sustainability,
forward-looking and cutting-edge approaches, staff support a novel
component, focus on competencies (not just “skills”)
Challenges:
Narrow the scope
Focus on faculty buy-in and Faculty Fellows program
Specific aspects of Assessment
Impact
External Consultant:
Connie Ray, PhD
March-April 2012
 STRENGTHS: excellent description of
process; thorough literature review;
relationship to UK Core well documented;
QEP nicely linked to Strategic Plan
 CHALLENGES: More detail about how
information was mined to develop QEP topic;
more detail about assessment of QEP; add
pilot project; assessment, assessment,
assessment…
Edited in collaboration with:
Karen Badger – Social Work
Janet Eldred – English/Engineering
Brandi Frisby - CIS
Kathi Kern – History/CELT
Tara Rose – Univ Assessment
Jami Warren - CIS
Changes/Additions/Improvements:
1. Narrowed scope to Juniors and Seniors (vertical integration)
2. Much more detail about Faculty Fellows program and benefits
to faculty
3. Added more detail regarding overall Impact
4. Discussed Sustainability measures
5. Many additions to theme development process; 2-day retreat
and data mining
6. Pilot project added to inform QEP assessment process
7. Greatly improved assessment overall
Faculty Development
Student Tutoring
Faculty Fellows: 7 cohorts = 175 trained over 5 years
Fall 2013
Administrative
faculty/staff hired
Faculty Fellow
(FF) Cohort #1
selected (Attend
workshops,
collect baseline
data, do
curriculum
revision)
Presentation
Center Opens
Student Tutors
hired and trained
Spring 2014
FF Cohort #1
Implements
MC & collects
assessment
data
FF Cohort #2
selected
(Attend
workshops,
consulting,
baseline data,
curriculum
revision)
Lab tutoring
Continues
Additional Lab
funding if
warranted
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
FF Cohort #1
Conducts
assessment and
makes revisions FF Cohort #2
Examines
FF Cohort #2
assessment data
Implements MC & and makes
collects
revisions
assessment data
FF Cohort #3
FF Cohort #3
Implements MC &
selected
collects
assessment datat
(Attend
workshops,
Workshops, Labs,
consulting,
&Tutoring
baseline data,
Continues
curriculum
revision)
Additional Lab
funding if
warranted
2015-2018
Cohort #3 Collects
& Examines
Assessment Data
Cohorts #47complete 3semester cycles
Workshops, Labs,
& Tutoring
Continues
Prepare Impact
Report for SACS
QEP Impact
Exhibit 6.2: Impact Potential Over Five-Years
Cohort
# of Terms
1(F 2013)=25
*8
2(S 2014)=25
7
3(F 2014)=25
6
4(S 2015)=25
5
5(F 2015)=25
4
6(S 2016)=25
3
7(F 2016)=25
2
Students (potentially) Served:
@25/Term=N
@50/Term=N
625=5000
1250=10,000
625=4375
1250=8750
625=3750
1250=7500
625=3125
1250=6250
625=2500
1250=5000
625=1875
1250=3750
625=1250
1250=2500
21,875
43,750
*Course implementation: Spring 2014, Fall 2014, Spring 2015, Fall 2015, Spring 2016,
Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Fall 2017 (Impact Report due to SACS)
END Exhibit 6.2
QEP Sustainability
1. Assessment data will be used to improve and
sustain the program as part of the fabric of the UK
culture.
2. Effectiveness of Presentation Center, and Faculty
Fellows
3. University support and campus acceptance (PR
efforts)
Topic Development
1. Background information regarding institutional
assessment of student learning and learning
outcomes by Dr. Roger Sugarman, Director of
Institutional Research (Appendix A-1), and by Dr.
Marsha Watson, Director of University Assessment
(Appendix A-2). These efforts helped the team to
understand the current status of student learning at
UK.
Topic Development
2. Inform the campus and solicit “Big Ideas”. Goal
was to:
1)educate the campus about the QEP,
2)generate excitement, and
3)request input via the QEP website (Big Ideas)
Topic Development
3. Data Collectors and Assessors gathered
input from students, faculty, staff, parents,
alumni, community members, and
summarized data from sources across
campus.
Sources: Sugarman and Watson reports; “Big
Ideas” submitted, unit reports, program
reviews, news media, student testimonials,
SACS reports
Topic Development
Step 4) Data Mining at the Retreat. During a two-day retreat (June 10-11,
2010), members of the TST examined all six sources of evidence described
above. TST members formed small groups and each group examined one set of
the aforementioned documents to discover emergent themes. The group
capitalized on the expertise of one group member (Dr. Jane Jensen, Education)
who held a training session with team members on how to conduct a qualitative
thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. From her tutorial session, the
group learned a systematic way to analyze qualitative data through the use of a
rubric that identifies themes based on redundancy (quantity of occurrences) and
intensity (passion/power in occurrences). Thus, the TST sub-committees used
this rubric to identify themes. Then, each sub-committee reported their findings to
the larger group….. (then used a “concept-mapping approach”).
Topic Development
5. Post-hoc Validation. At a later date, the Topic
Development Team (TDT) revisited how each
theme was supported by university-level
assessment data, i.e. each theme was reexamined measuring it against existing
assessments such as the Graduating Student
Survey, Alumni Survey, Wabash National Study,
Campus Climate Survey, NSSE, CLA, CAAP, Unit
Reports, and Retention Data Reports.
B&E Pilot Project
The course, CIS 300 (Strategic Business and Professional
Communication), focuses on developing MCXC skills in
upper division students majoring in accounting, analytics,
economics, finance, marketing, or management. Assessment
of CIS300 will inform the implementation of Presentation U.
Qualtrics pre and post test; self report; measure of student confidence
Random grading of selected written works; early versus late projects
Assessment of student produced oral communication projects
Assessment of student produced visual communication projects
B&E Pilot Project
Summer 2012:
Fall 2012:
Finalize the QEP
Approval
Process
Vet
January 2013:
Due to SACS!
April 9-11,
2013: SACS
Team Visit
QEP-IT (Implementation Team)
Deanna Sellnow (Communication)
Diane Snow (Medicine)
Brandi Frisby (Communication)
Karen Badger (Social Work)
Janet Eldred (English/A&S and Engr)
Scott Kelley (B&E)
Ben Withers (Fine Arts/Honors)
Mark O’Bryan (Design)
Kathi Kern (CELT and Hist/A&S)
Karin Lewis (The Study)
Judy Pratts (The Writing Center)
Roxanne Mountford (WRD)
Kathryn Cunningham
(Education)
Morris Grubs (Graduate School)
Questions? Comments? Concerns?
deanna.sellnow @uky.edu
[email protected]
www.uky.edu/SACS