1. WHAT’S YOUR QEP? …toolbox for broad-based participation

2. Queens University of Charlotte Profile  Located in Charlotte, North Carolina  Private, co-ed, masters-level university founded in 1857  Commitment to liberal arts and professional studies  Serves approximately 2,300 undergraduates  Five North Carolina professors of the year  16 NCAA Division II men’s and women’s athletic teams  Award winning international study and internship programs QEP  Reaffirmation in 2011  QEP process began in 2009

3. QEP Timeline February 2009March 2009April 2009May 2009Summer 2009 Determine topic selection strategies with team #1 Gather topic ideas from the entire community Collect feedback; hold community discussions to narrow topic choices Announce three topic choices; assemble faculty team #2 to write white papers Faculty team writes white papers September 2009October 2009November 2009December 20092010 Present white papers; arrange community discussions Advance papers through necessary committees and councils Collect and organize campus- wide input Announce topic; generate enthusiasm Guide team #3: Implementation

4. Guiding Questions  How can we encourage the entire community to participate?  How can we generate enthusiasm for topic selection?  How can we accomplish these goals using our resources wisely?

5. StudentsFaculty Board of Trustees StaffAdministration COMMUNITY

6. Timeline for Campus-wide input Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5 Brainstorming & Outreach Narrowing Set ballot boxesIce Cream StationsConduct focus groups Gather and condense ideas Use rubric to narrow to 3 topics Recruit student orgsEncourage online discussions Lunchroom BlitzSurvey to rank ideas Announce topics in Week 6 Set up Intranet site

7. Student Involvement  Ask the right questions.  Meet students where they live, work, and play.  Make use of high traffic areas where students normally congregate.  Recruit student organizations to help.  Encourage peer-to-peer communication.  Feed them.

8. Idea Ballot boxes were spread around campus, so students could submit ideas wherever they gather: Center for Academic Success, dining room, residence halls, etc.

10. Lunchroom Blitz Colorful bags, QEP descriptions, conversation prompts, and ballots to offer ideas were pre- arranged on each table. For 3 days students discussed and submitted their ideas while dining.

12. Lunchroom Blitz Student and staff volunteers approached students in the dining room to stimulate conversation and to encourage idea submissions.

13. Eating lunch. Offering ideas. North Carolina Teaching Fellows discussing the QEP.

14. Ice Cream For Your Thoughts  One day during the lunch and dinner hours, we set up a student- run ice cream station in a high traffic area.  Students received a free ice cream cone for offering a QEP topic idea.

16. Student Organizations Recruiting the help of student organizations promotes peer- to-peer communication, generates ownership and energy, and is FREE! The Latin American Club hosts “A cookie for your thoughts” in the student center.

18. Faculty & Staff Involvement  Divide work among three committees to prevent burnout and ensure maximum participation.  Invite a cross-section of faculty and staff to serve on committees.  Use technology: intranet & survey tools.  Keep it low-tech too; develop opportunities for face-to- face discussions.  Communicate widely.  Work with Faculty Council and the Center for Excellence in Teaching & Learning.  Feed them.

19. Generating Topic Ideas: Committee #1  Director of Career & Internship Services  Vice President of Enrollment Management  University Librarian  Associate Professor, Nursing  Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs  Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies  Director of Athletics  Dean of Students  Associate Professor, Psychology  Associate Professor, Education  Director of Academic Advising  Associate Professor, Communication  Associate Professor, Business  5 student representatives

20. Use Technology  Reserving a space through the university’s intranet system allows a space for vibrant discussion, a one- stop shop for relevant information, and a timeline.  Setting up a QEP “class” in Blackboard or Moodle could be a good alternative for schools without an intranet.

22. Use Technology Electronic survey tools are available through intranet systems, course management platforms, or via the web (e.g. www.surveymonkey.com). Electronic surveys are useful for instantaneous data, point of contact response, and easy to use interfaces.www.surveymonkey.com

23. Faculty, staff, and students were invited to thoughtfully discuss possible QEP topics. Discussion Groups

24. Next, faculty and staff were invited to a reception to discuss the completed white papers and to offer feedback about which topic generated the most enthusiasm. Discussion Groups

25. Administration & Board of Trustees  President’s Council  Executive Council  Dean’s Council  Academics Committee of the Board of Trustees

26. What’s Our QEP? White Paper Topics Student-faculty Interaction We would create an intentional structure for different types of academic collaboration between faculty and students, perhaps emphasizing research opportunities but also potentially including advising and mentoring. Sustainability in a Global Context We would think critically about the stewardship role of the U.S. and other countries in the world and our duty to create a sustainable global environment, encouraging the campus community to “act locally but think globally.” Diversity and Civic Engagement We would frame diversity so that it is not thought of as a problem to be solved but as an opportunity to explore the creative tension that diverse backgrounds and cultures can bring, emphasizing the power of action and communication to build community and make positive change happen.

27. Smart Moves  Avoided competition; vote language.  Made it fun and relaxed.  Very affordable; virtually no money.  No burnout – the work was spread over three committees, which had the benefit of getting more people involved.  Faculty led discussion during administrative meetings.  Kept it focused on student learning.  Invited students to participate in decision-making.

28. Less Smart Moves  Should have been more clear about final decision making process  Could have allowed more time for white papers; for the authors it seemed to feel like a “hurry up and wait” situation.  First student “ballot” was more complicated than it needed to be.  Should have had a focus group for staff only.