Transcript NC State`s QEP - Western Carolina University

NC State’s QEP:
Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment
Ephraim Schechter
September 23, 2004
Western Carolina University
LITRE
Today’s topics
• What’s LITRE?
• How we got there
• Tips from our experience
LITRE is...
• Applied research
• Technology-enhanced approaches to
teaching/learning are:
• Explored
• Assessed for impact
• Results inform broader deployments,
future projects
LITRE website: http://litre.ncsu.edu
Major themes
• Students/faculty engage with technology
for learning/teaching
• Impact on student learning outcomes
• Supportive technological/pedagogical
environments
LITRE projects link to…
• General education goals
• College / department / program / course
curriculum objectives
• Outcomes-based academic program
review
First initiatives
• Monitor faculty/student experiences &
attitudes
• Document campus classroom technology
• Classroom/course-based pilot projects
• Faculty grants for new projects
Details available on LITRE website
Management
• Directed by a faculty member
• Experienced in LITRE areas
• On full released time as Special Assistant to
the Provost
• Faculty/staff Advisory Board
• Special-purpose committees
How we got there:
Choosing the topic
• Small planning group identified potential
project areas
• Deans & key groups winnowed the list
• Executive officers selected LITRE
• Campus groups developed the details
Guidelines
• Related to student learning
• Achieves something we want to achieve
• Supported by assessment, with
assessable impact
• Engages the academic community
• Capacity/commitment for 5+ years
• One topic is better than two
• Don’t highlight compliance issues
Tips from our experience
• Some projects are already too far along
• Don’t interfere with existing projects
• Everyone wants to be involved
but umbrella topics aren’t manageable
• Emphasize a strength
Developing the details
• Started at same time as Compliance Team
• Selected topic
• Created “LITRE Team” to develop it
• Co-chairs: faculty member, IT administrator
• Small “Leadership team” plus
• Steering team
• Advisory committee
• Topical work groups
Developing the details
• Work groups
• Review campus resources/issues, peer
institutions, literature
• Propose approaches, projects
• Areas
•
•
•
•
•
Educational infrastructure
Student information fluency
Faculty engagement
Learning resources / educational technology
E-learning environments
Developing the details
• Faculty survey informs work group discussions
• Campus forums respond to work group reports
• Early: issues & wish lists
• Later: specific proposals
• Advisory committee / steering team winnow
proposals
• Potential for immediate impact
• Existing campus involvement
• Probable funding constraints
• Provost and Chancellor decide what to fund
Writing the report
• Editorial board & writer
• Near the end of the development process
• Combine/summarize preliminary reports
• Adapt rationales, etc. from campus
presentations
• Edit for consistent tone
Available from LITRE website
Tips from NC State’s experience
• Everybody wants a piece of “the QEP pie”
• Build assessment in from the beginning
• Develop management structure as you go
• Leave plenty of time at the end to
• Negotiate final selections, budget details, etc.
with your executive officers
• Get feedback on final draft(s)
Tips from NC State’s experience
• Process or project?
• Don’t leave “exercise for the reader”
• “Insiders” make assumptions
• Have “outsiders” review the drafts
• Workgroup size
• Small groups are easier to manage
• Large groups give more campus involvement
Think about…
• What does SACS want?
• What are your current issues?
Which ones can be turned into effective
QEPs? Why?
• What planning approach fits WCU’s style?
LITRE website: http://litre.ncsu.edu
Ephraim I. Schechter, Ph.D.
University Planning & Analysis
North Carolina State University
919 / 515-2776
[email protected]