1. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) 101 Del Mar College January 8, 2007 Loraine Phillips, Ph.D. Interim Assessment Director Texas A&M University

2. Agenda SACS Overview Defining the QEP Issues Examples THEN… Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart from West Texas A&M Panel Discussion

4. 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.”

5. 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

6. What does all this mean for faculty? Assessment of Student Learning QEP

7. Core Requirement 2.5 Institutional 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

8. 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:

9. Areas for 3.3.1 (Under Construction) Educational programs, including student learning outcomes Administrative support services Educational support services Research within its educational mission, if appropriate Community/public service within its educational mission, if appropriate Proposal, Revisions to the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, December 12, 2006

11. 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

12. QEP Must focus on student learning Must enhance student success Must include broad-based participation in the identification of the topic or issue to be addressed in the QEP Must include careful review of best practices Must include clear goals

13. 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

14. “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 students Not Broad Brush but a focused Issue It’s a unifying event for the entire campus (David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)

15. 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)

16. Commission Decisions: Dec. 05 – June 06 77 institutions were considered for reaffirmation 72 reaffirmed 5 denied reaffirmation None were denied on the basis of the QEP 24 institutions with QEP monitoring (David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)

17. QEP Issues— Dec. 05 – June 06 Learning outcomes 17 issues to be monitored Assessment Issues 20 issues to be monitored Institutional Capacity 5 issues to be monitored (David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)

18. Learning Outcome Issues Approval of the QEP focus and an official revised version of the Plan. Goal to improve student attitudes needs a strong rationale The extent to which the stated learning outcome enhanced initiatives for the institution Clear, measurable student learning outcomes need to be articulated (David Carter, SACS VP, Dec. 2006 Annual Meeting)

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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)

22. 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)

23. 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)

24. Four Primary Indicators for an Acceptable QEP Focus Institutional Capability Assessment Broad Involvement

25. An Example of FOCUS Inquiry Research/based Education of Undergraduates Texas A&M University

26. 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

27. 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

28. An example of Focus Inquiry/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.

29. 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

30. For each outcome, we develop… Assessment and Documentation Responsibilities Timeline Reporting

31. QEP Criteria Rubric for Undergraduate Inquiry/Research-based Education Criteria Not developed Developing Target

32. Another QEP Assessment Example Increasing Student Engagement in High-risk Core Curriculum Courses through Academic Support and Classroom Engagement Blinn College, QEP, 2004

34. Later Reporting 5-Year Report Handbook coming soon For more information on SACS, go to: www.sacscoc.org

35. 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.

36. Questions? Contact me at lhphillips@tamu.edu