Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SACS and the QEP: Assessment and the Role of Academic Libraries Doyle Carter and Sarah Logan Presented to the Texas Library Association April 14, 2011.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SACS and the QEP: Assessment and the Role of Academic Libraries Doyle Carter and Sarah Logan Presented to the Texas Library Association April 14, 2011."— Presentation transcript:

1 SACS and the QEP: Assessment and the Role of Academic Libraries Doyle Carter and Sarah Logan Presented to the Texas Library Association April 14, 2011

2 SACSCOC Accreditation & the QEP Principles of Accreditation 1.Peer Review 2.Institutional Integrity 3.Commitment to Quality Enhancement & Continuous Improvement 4.Focus on Student Learning

3 Accreditation Reaffirms a Commitment to: 1.Comply with the Principle of Integrity (PR), Core Requirements (CR), Comprehensive Standards (CS), and Federal Requirements (FR) and with the policies and procedures of the Commission on Colleges; 2.Enhance the quality of its educational programs; 3.Focus on student learning; 4.Ensure a “culture of integrity” in all its operations.

4 Standards Core Requirement 2.12: The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that includes an institutional process for identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment and focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution. Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2: The institution has developed a Quality Enhancement Plan that (1) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP; (2) includes broad‐based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP; and (3) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.

5 Reaffirmation Processes

6 Reaffirmation Deliverables @ ASU

7 Overview of ASU’s QEP Process Phase 1: Planning & Topic Selection Phase 2: Research & Development Phase 3: Pilot & Finalize Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Institution’s Quality Enhancement Plan Institution’s QEP Impact Report 1. QEP Development 2. QEP Submission Optimally, one year for each phase June 2010-May 2011 June 2011-May 2012 June 2012-May 2013 The Quality Enhancement Plan is submitted to SACSCOC six weeks prior to the on-site review. For ASU, the site visit will take place in the spring of 2013. 3. QEP Implementation 4. QEP Evaluation AY 2013-14AY 2014-15AY 2015-16AY 2016-17AY 2017-18 The QEP Impact Report evaluates the impact of the QEP on student learning during the five years of implementation. For ASU, this will be submitted in the spring of 2018.

8 ASU’s QEP Development Gantt Chart Start

9 Step 1 Topic Selection Goal: Select a topic by May 6, 2011 Major Tasks: 1.Engage constituencies/solicit ideas (Aug-Oct) 2.Review existing student learning data (Aug-Oct) 3.Review literature (Aug-Oct) 4.Report findings (Nov) 5.Call for QEP topic proposals (Nov) 6.Compose and submit proposals (Nov-Mar) 7.Review proposals; make recommendation to Leadership Team (April) *Proposals to be submitted by small teams of faculty, staff, & students; submission guidelines and evaluation criteria will be included in the call for proposals

10 Campus Engagement Campaign

11 The QEP must… be directly related to institutional needs, that is; directly improve institutional/student performance (accomplishment of mission); be directly related to institutional strategic planning efforts; include detailed student learning outcomes tied directly to institutional needs; demonstrate a clear relationship between the activities of the QEP and the improvement of student learning, all tied to established institutional needs; include detailed budget/personnel data that clearly defined the institution’s financial/human resource commitment to the success of the QEP; include a detailed timetable of year-to-year activities, expenditures, and assessments that clearly indicates the viability of the 5-year plan; include documentation of broad-based input during development stage; directly involve all relevant constituencies in the plan’s implementation; include clearly stated goals that lead to specific measureable outcomes; ensure that outcomes are assessed through direct measures.

12 INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: Definition & Process  Definition  An official evaluation: has a planned methodology  A process of documenting in measurable terms  Process  Decide what you want to know. What is the project’s objective?  Decide how to measure progress towards the objective.  Implement measure(s) and targets.  Analyze results of implementation.  Use the results to inform decision making.

13 INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: Process  Process with an example  What is the objective of the project? Are students using library resources that support QEP objectives?  Decide how to measure progress towards the objective? Count resources used during a certain time period.  Assign targets and implement the measures 50% of students will access QEP-related materials at least once. Assign staff to record usage.  Analyze results of implementation Count: catalogue/database use, visitors to special displays  Use of results Do numbers and uses support QEP objectives?

14 INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: Process The “YES” Loop  If YES  re-define objective and/or targets In a semester, 75% of students will access QEP-related materials at least twice. In a semester, 50% of students will make better use of QEP- related materials as measured by increased scores on specific parts of written work involving QEP topic (this one takes faculty involvement).  or move on to assessment of other projects

15 INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: Process The “NO” Loop  If NO, how do we correct the situation?  Implement recommendations from Use of Results  Advertise QEP materials in different places/publications  Train staff to mention QEP-related materials to students  Tweak displays/presentations  Start assessment cycle again  The question could change to, “Are more students using library resources that support QEP objectives now?” Goal: increase one-time access 20% from baseline in a semester

16 ABOUT ASSESSMENT: TYPES  Direct  Student learning: assess learning with a test of learning  Satisfaction with library’s support of QEP: survey people regarding their satisfaction with the library’s support  Indirect  Student learning: assess students’ perceptions of the amount they’ve learned with a survey  Impact of library’s efforts in support of QEP: survey library users about their satisfaction with the library’s QEP materials

17 ABOUT ASSESSMENT: USES  Measure knowledge and ability  Improve current services  Verify improvement from past to present  Plan future services or directions  Inform and/or change perceptions of your department and its services  Discover particular strengths and weaknesses

18 ABOUT ASSESSMENT: CYCLE  Baseline  Often forgotten: everyone just wants to start the project  Vital: if you do NOT measure at baseline, you cannot measure actual strengths, weaknesses or improvement  Ex: 50% of our students use the library to research QEP topics. So??? How many used it the year before the QEP started for other research?  How many used it to research QEP topics before they were called QEP?   Continuing  Measure on an appropriate cycle: monthly, biennially, etc.  Usage depends on peak times; satisfaction may or may not

19 ABOUT ASSESSMENT: TYPES OF COMPARISONS  Longitudinal  Compare over time  Baseline 1 year later 2 years later  Benchmark  Compare yourself to peers and “stretch” peers  You can assess longitudinally with or w/out a benchmark  Normed vs. criterion  Normed means each is compared to others  Criterion means all are compared to a standard  FYI: all the above can be used in various combinations

20 LIBRARIANS  Keep things  Archives are great places to find resources; ordinary people are often unaware of what is available  E-materials: librarians stay up to date with what they are, how they work, how they may have changed. This is extremely helpful for digital immigrants.  Organization: librarians are organized: having everything is of no help unless one can find the particular piece s/he wants

21 LIBRARIANS  Know things  Why this is important researchers sometimes do not ask questions well: librarians can help define the questions deciding what one wants to know and having materials available may not be compatible: librarians can suggest solutions  Librarians keep up to date Buzz words, processes, and databases change Helping researchers update their mental files is important  Where/how to find resources Librarians know the connections between various resources. Librarians know where related resources can be found.

22 LIBRARIANS  Do things  Example: for a QEP about quantitative problem solving Library may support: help people find appropriate resources Library may have direct involvement: present the resources  Make presentations About resources available About history of mathematics  Set up displays Pamphlets describing resources Real-world applications of quantitative problem solving

23 CONTACT INFORMATION  Dr. Doyle Carter Director, Quality Enhancement Plan Angelo State University ASU Station #11017 San Angelo, TX 76909-1017 325-486-6333 doyle.carter@angelo.edu www.angelo.edu/qep  Dr. Sarah Logan Assistant VP, Institutional Research & Effectiveness Angelo State University ASU Station #10920 San Angelo, TX 76909-0920 325-942-2259 sarah.logan@angelo.edu www.angelo.edu/pulications/ institutional_research


Download ppt "SACS and the QEP: Assessment and the Role of Academic Libraries Doyle Carter and Sarah Logan Presented to the Texas Library Association April 14, 2011."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google