Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:
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: Finalize the QEP Vet Fall 2012: Approval Process January 2013: Due to SACS! April 9-11, 2013: SACS Team Visit
Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum Presentation U: “YOU are the ultimate presentation”
January 2012: Submitted document draftFebruary 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 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 FF Cohort #1 Conducts assessment and makes revisions FF Cohort #2 Implements MC & collects assessment data FF Cohort #3 selected (Attend workshops, consulting, baseline data, curriculum revision) Additional Lab funding if warranted Spring 2015 FF Cohort #2 Examines assessment data and makes revisions FF Cohort #3 Implements MC & collects assessment datat Workshops, Labs, &Tutoring Continues 2015-2018 Cohort #3 Collects & Examines Assessment Data Cohorts #4- 7complete 3- semester cycles Workshops, Labs, & Tutoring Continues Prepare Impact Report for SACS
QEP Impact Exhibit 6.2: Impact Potential Over Five-Years Cohort # of Terms@25/Term=N@50/Term=N 1(F 2013)=25*8625=50001250=10,000 2(S 2014)=257625=43751250=8750 3(F 2014)=256625=37501250=7500 4(S 2015)=255625=31251250=6250 5(F 2015)=254625=25001250=5000 6(S 2016)=253625=18751250=3750 7(F 2016)=252625=12501250=2500 Students (potentially) Served: 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 re- examined 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