QEP Leadership Meeting
February 22, 2010 Minutes
Members Present: Karen Downey, Dwight Rhodes, Chris Chance, Johanna Hume
Not Present: Manuela Imthurn, Bill Lewis
I. Documents e-mailed prior to meeting: Agenda, The Quality Enhancement Plan/2007, Timeline Considerations, Great Institution Case Study, Agreement on Joint Reaffirmation Committee Visits, Procedures for Visits, List of Quality Enhancement Plans (with links).
II. Additional Documents:
Karen distributed timeline and discussed upcoming dates.
Karen distributed her synopsis of the QEP.
Chris distributed information on gatekeeper courses that was discussed at an early Achieve the Dream meeting/workshop.
III. QEP Discussion:
The committee discussed the need for the QEP to be focused and measurable. It was decided that the committee needed to “frame the argument” instead of soliciting undirected suggestions from faculty. With that in mind, the committee discussed what 2-4 suggestions should be submitted for faculty input.
Chris discussed Achieve the Dream and stated that positive results have been gathered from all areas including tutoring, the Psyc 1300 classes and the Writing Center.
A short discussion centered on the need for data that shows the QEP is necessary. For example, would it be possible to solicit feedback from UHCL on ACC transfer students? It was decided that faculty at UHCL would not have a sense of which students were from ACC. Although we have positive GPA data, and ACC is consistently ranked #1 in transfer student GPAs, this is not information that identifies any particular weaknesses. It would be easier to gather data from employers of graduates from technical programs, such as Court Reporting or Nursing or from Workforce Development. It might be better to collect in-house data on drop-out rates, failure rates, etc.
IV. Faculty Survey:
The committee decided to submit three QEP proposals to the faculty.
1. Academic Honesty. The committee as a whole favors this plan. Dwight did raise some reservations on how well this plan would go over with the community, and it was agreed that, if chosen, this would need to be worded carefully.
Pros: It’s easy to prove that we do not have a uniform policy. Drew stated in an earlier meeting that our legal counsel is adamant about our need to have a uniform policy, so this is an issue that will need to be implemented regardless. Data would not be difficult to find regarding national surveys and statistics. Stephanie Stockstill has ready data on how many reports are filed. A survey could be given to faculty regarding how many instances of cheating they encounter, how many they report, problems with online research methods, issues with plagiarism/paraphrasing, etc. Students could also be polled. A QEP that focused on this issue could include behavior changes which could lead to better learning/academics as well as a focus on student values. All of these are acceptable reasons to pick a QEP. In addition, academic honesty would affect most areas of the college. Finally, significant funding would probably not be needed.
Cons: We don’t want the QEP to frame ACC as a “cheating” college or for the community or board to get the idea that this is an issue that faculty routinely ignore or that all students engage in. The college would need to emphasize the desirability of “ensuring” academic honesty and improving student research and paraphrasing/writing efforts.
2. Reading. This will need to be refined and will need to be focused and specific. Pros: This could be an extension of Achieve the Dream. Since much is already in place, programs can be extended instead of created from scratch. It would be easy to compile data on the need to improve student reading. This topic touches all classes. All faculty would agree that college-level reading is essential and that this problem is serious and widespread. There are many colleges that have already used this issue as a QEP. There should be many examples of QEPs, already in place, that we could follow if we choose this one.
Cons: It might be difficult to come up with what the QEP will specifically be doing and how it is going to be evaluated/measured. Funding may also be an issue.
3. Mentors/Social Workers: Johanna mentioned that, in one early Achieve the Dream meeting, the coaches discussed some programs that were already successful. One was a program in which faculty (and possibly staff) were given several students for a year. They were to monitor those students and their progress, essentially being their “social workers.” They were not academic mentors necessarily. They simply kept in touch once or twice a month and monitored grades, progress, problems, etc. Apparently, this program saw a huge improvement in retention rates with those students who participated.
Pros: This would be an inexpensive program. If staff were included as “mentors,” the QEP would touch most areas of the college. Data on the need to increase retention is easy to find. It might be a QEP that was easy to measure in terms of student outcomes and success.
Cons: The committee needs to create a good name for the program/plan. Retention may not be something the faculty is as interested in as the first two possibilities.
V. Assignments:
Dwight will look into community input. This could be from businesses, board, schools, etc. In addition, Dwight will write a paragraph on the possibility of Academic Integrity being our QEP.
Chris will write a synopsis of QEP, in lay terms, as well as why it should be a positive addition to Self-Study and not just a mandatory addition.
Johanna will write a paragraph on the social worker program as a possible QEP.
Karen will write a paragraph on reading as a possible QEP.
Bill is working on a budget for the committee.
VI. Additional members and help:
Karen suggested that every committee member find a “back-up” faculty member who will be on-call to attend meetings if necessary. These faculty, and possibly a staff member for each committee member as well, will also help with reading, literature reviews, compiling data, etc. They will not be actual committee members; however, they can help with the workload, will keep up with the minutes and will help to broaden involvement in the QEP process.
It was agreed that a student ambassador be invited to join the committee. Johanna is going to talk to Liz about possible choices. In addition, Karen is going to ask about a stipend for an adjunct faculty member to join the committee.
VII. Next Meeting
The committee agreed to have a meeting every 2-3 weeks initially this spring in order to get the process started, with a flow of information primarily through emails. Meetings will thereafter be held monthly (or less) on a need-to-meet basis. Mondays at 2:30 and Fridays at 8:00 were fine for all members present. The next meeting will be Monday, March 8@2:30.
QEP Leadership Committee
March 8, 2010 Minutes
Core Members Present: Bill Lewis, Dwight Rhodes, Chris Chance, Karen Downey, Johanna Hume
Not Present: Manuela Imthurn, Julia Theato
Resource Members Present: Pat Sanger, Nikki Thompson
I. Membership
Alternates at this point are: Judy Hafner, Rhonda Boone, Jason Nichols, and Jerrod Butcher. Bill Cranford and Marjorie Nash have agreed to help with literature review. Susan Butler has agreed to be a resource member.
Chris Chance is going to talk with Mohammed Mozaffari about being a core member of the committee and representing adjunct faculty.
Manuela has just had back surgery, but she expects to be back to work sometime after spring break. She would like to stay on the committee as a core member.
II. Initial Discussion
Pat reminded the committee that all surveys must go through the Institutional Effectiveness Department.
Reading Topic: Pat expressed reservations that the developmental reading department was too small to be a good QEP. The committee stated that a reading QEP would be much broader and affect reading “across the curriculum” if chosen.
Pat also mentioned that the QEPs developed by other colleges within recent years are more representative of SACS’ intention for the QEP than those developed early on.
He also emphasized that the leadership committee should not be focused on budgetary concerns at all. SACS insists on the institution having funds available for the QEP, and the college and board will be supportive of whatever QEP is chosen.
III. Student Ambassadors
Johanna reported on her meeting with the student ambassadors. She noted that the students were initially most interested in the mentoring program with little interest in reading as a QEP. They did agree that academic integrity would be a fine QEP as well. In addition, the student advisor, Cammy Guggisberg, came up with a new QEP based upon increased use of Blackboard for all classes. The students were enthusiastic about this topic and were unanimous in their belief that it was a significant issue. The committee is now including technology as an example/possible QEP topic. Finally, the students were excited about volunteering to come to the QEP meetings and about helping with publicity and implementation. Julia Theato has been chosen to represent the group.
IV. Possible QEP Topics
Reading: Although the committee agrees that this is not a focused QEP topic at this point, it will still be included on the survey. It is a significant issue to the college as a whole, and individuals may have good ideas about how to make this a focused program.
Academic integrity: It was noted that the earlier Achieve the Dream meeting data did not address this topic. Pat mentioned that the college climate has changed in the last couple years regarding turnitin.com, Blackboard issues, plagiarism, etc. This may well be a valid topic with sufficient internal data to justify it. Stephanie Stockstill will have more information about this.
Mentoring: Pat had some helpful information on how to make this topic manageable and focused. He said the QEP could use specific peer groups which can be tracked. A control group would probably not be necessary or feasible. A peer or target group could be first semester students or students who are repeating a gatekeeper class for example. Assessment could be based upon persistence (semester to semester), retention (year to year) and/or number of classes passed.
Technology: It was once again emphasized that the possible need for new personnel should not affect the committee’s assessment of this possible topic. The issue of adjunct faculty was raised in terms of technology and Blackboard training. Pat mentioned that many other colleges require this of their adjuncts, and it could be incorporated into the QEP.
The possibility of combining the topics of mentoring and technology was discussed. For instance, a “college coach” would be assigned to an at-risk student initially by telephone for introduction purposes and thereafter communication would be had via Blackboard.
V. Surveys
Pat and Nikki wanted to know how we’ll be assessing survey results and the input we receive. The committee will definitely be considering new proposals and topics. We are not insistent that one of the four examples be the final QEP.
Pat stated that a student survey would need at least 300 students in order to give valid results. It was decided that the student survey would be taken at the same time that instructor evaluations are administered, which, according to Pat, is in April. This method will target a large number of students who will be likely to complete the surveys.
Regarding the student survey itself, Nikki suggested looking at the CCSSE data. The committee agreed that the original draft survey would be repeating a lot of the CCSSE work, which is already available. The students will be asked to give their thoughts on problems/issues at the college and suggest possible QEPs. The four topics will be included in the survey, but the descriptions will be brief and succinct.
The faculty, staff, administration, community, alumni, workforce, etc. survey will be available online through Survey Monkey. Charzetta will be asked to have a link on the ACC homepage. This survey will not differ significantly from the student survey. It will ask for input on topics/issues, possible new QEPs and will list the four possible topics that we have at this point. The committee’s thinking at this point is that there will be two comparable surveys: one for students, which will be taken along with faculty evaluations, and one for everyone else, which will be taken online.
The committee decided that radio announcements on KACC will be used to solicit survey responses. In addition, informational postcards with the ACC survey link will be distributed to: The Board (Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions Club, schools, other community groups and businesses), Regan Metoyer (ACC Alumni Association and Upward Bound), Wendy Del Bello (ACC Foundation), and advisory groups (for certificate programs). John Bethscheider and/or Drew Nelson will be asked to discuss this with Rodney Allbright in terms of keeping the board members informed.
Pat and Nikki stated that they need the basics for the surveys before spring break. Karen is writing up new paragraphs on reading and academic honesty. Johanna is writing up mentoring and technology.
VI. Future Discussion
Specific dates for surveys, as well as how input will be collected and analyzed, still need to be discussed.
QEP Leadership Committee
April 26, 2010 Minutes
Members Present
Karen Downey, Pat Sanger, Cammy Guggisberg, Chris Chance, Bill Lewis, Dwight Rhodes, Jerod Butcher, Johanna Hume, Julia Theato, Lynn Goswick, Nikki Thompson.
Not Present
Manuela Imthurn
Documents Distributed
Agenda, QEP student survey report, QEP faculty survey report, initial tally of faculty comments/draft rubric for evaluation, community survey postcard information.
I. Achieve the Dream
Chris discussed the last Achieve the Dream meeting with the grant’s advisors. He stated that they advised ACC to involve the community and continue with current activities. There was some discussion of QEP, and the advisors thought the ACC process was going well.
II. QEP Written Report
Karen stated that Linda Matteson has been approached to be the main writer for the QEP report. Members will write up individual sections and Linda (if chosen) will compile and write the full report.
III. Faculty Surveys
Top skills sets were as follows: Reading, writing, study skills, technology and critical thinking. The committee stressed that the QEP needs to be focused. Also, the most frequently chosen issue in the surveys does not necessarily need to be the final QEP. The final topic must have broad support and be measurable, but it does not have to rank in the top position.
The committee noted that many of the skill sets mentioned in the faculty survey were being addressed by Achieve the Dream such as study skills, critical thinking, tutoring, personal responsibility, etc.
IV. Student Surveys
Julia discussed that in her classes there was quite a bit of confusion with the QEPs and faculty surveys. However, Pat noted that the rate of response was quite good. They have received 6000 responses so far. So apparently, the initial confusion did not cause a low participation rate. The committee will be given the PDF pages of the surveys. IE will analyze the scantron data; the committee will evaluate the written comments.
V. Community/Alumni Survey
Lynn and Cammy discussed the need to have the postcard be brief and eye-catching. The committee agreed that, as they are the experts, they should design the postcard as they see fit. Bill Lewis agreed to help. Any information that is left off the postcard (such as details about the QEP), will be added to the survey in surveymonkey.com. It was also decided that the community link won’t be put on the ACC homepage as this could cause confusion among faculty, staff and/or students.
The laptop which will be given away will cost approximately $400.00. Employees of ACC will not be eligible for the drawing.
The postcard should be in area homes no later than June 10, 2010. The deadline for taking the survey and registering for the drawing will be June 20, 2010.
VI. Assignments
Committee members will be receiving their student surveys soon and should have their analysis/evaluations completed and sent back to Karen by May 6.
VII. Next Meeting
Friday, May 7 @10:00. At this meeting, the committee will discuss the student surveys.
QEP Leadership Committee
May 7, 2010 Minutes
Members Present: Karen Downey, Johanna Hume, Dwight Rhodes, Jarrod Butcher, Manuela Imthurn
Not Present: Chris Chance, Bill Lewis, Julia Theato
Minutes from April 26 meeting were corrected and approved.
I. Budget
Bill Lewis received a budget code from Drew Nelson.
Johanna Hume will talk with Mohammad Mozaffari about joining the committee this summer. The committee decided to budget his stipend of $300/semester for 4 semesters.
The giveaway laptop will cost approximately $400.00
Survey postcards will cost $1427.00 including mailing costs.
II. Remaining Surveys
Lynn Goswick will forward the link to the Community Survey to the Technical Programs’ Advisory Board Committee members via Constant Contact.
Wendy Del Bello has the list for the alumni who will also receive the Community Survey link via Constant Contact.
Karen will ask Lynn about the charges for this service.
All surveys will be due back by June 20.
III. Student Surveys
Karen distributed an analysis of the student surveys. Reading and technology were the top QEPs chosen. Study Skills was the overwhelming topic seen in the written comment section.
The committee spent considerable time discussing the merits of both study skills and technology as QEPs. It was decided that committee members would go back to faculty and student comments or research best practices and formulate possible QEPs. The focus will be on study skills and technology at this point, pending analysis of upcoming community surveys.
These specific QEPs will be distributed to all committee members by June 7. (It was later decided that a Blackboard QEP class will be created for the committee. Proposals will be posted there and the committee will comment on them through the discussion board.)
The committee decided to wait until these proposals had been formulated, distributed and discussed before setting a date for the next meeting.
QEP Leadership Meeting
June 21, 2010 Minutes
Members Present: Karen Downey, Johanna Hume, Manuela Imthurn, Rhonda Boone, Drew Nelson, Cammy Guiggisberg, Jerrod Butcher, Linda Matteson
Not Present: Chris Chance, Bill Lewis, Julia Theato, Dwight Rhodes
I. Community survey
We received 173 responses from the community surveys. 68% said reading was very important, 66% academic honesty, 38% campus mentors, 64.75% technology. These results mimic the responses from faculty and students. (173 represents close to a 2% response rate.)
The drawing for the laptop was held. Drew Nelson drew Brenda Price’s name. *Cammy will call Ms. Price. Lynn has the laptop.
II. Blackboard
Karen, Chris and Johanna are course designers for the QEP online meeting room on Blackboard. The Discussion board has already been in use, and the committee members are encouraged to continue using this space.
III. Technology v. study skills as QEP
a. Split
The last QEP meeting showed that committee members were split between technology and study skills as a topic. Johanna posted a list from Allison Tate showing numerous study skills seminars/workshops.
Drew noted that many topics can be folded into QEP. One prong could be “Study skills is an important topic to many; let’s start working on this outside of QEP.”
b. Hybrid courses/Pilot program
Drew mentioned that Lady of the Lake has a scholarship program to redesign courses. Proposals are taken to address specific issues each year/each time period. The QEP could incorporate this into the pilot program for hybrid courses. A committee could look for “premier” courses which could be helpful in terms of enacting student engagement. Reading and study skills could also be integrated into these pilot hybrid programs.
The college could apply for grant money in this area.
c. Support for technology
The committee discussed grading online. Manuela suggested this be done immediately. Other members noted that the majority of classes do not have grades online. Nursing is very different. Training will take some time with Blackboard and/or Excel, but perhaps it could be done sooner than 2 years. Manuela noted that given the lack of technology (like gradebooks), technology should be the QEP instead of study skills.
Cammy noted her support for technology as a QEP, particularly e-mailing (communicating with students) and online grading. She thought this was particularly essential with adjunct faculty.
Drew noted that although ACC is behind in terms of online grading, we are not behind in terms of smart classrooms, internet classes, etc.
d. Miscellaneous
Cammy asked if Dena could help with targeting students who need study skills help. Drew thinks this may also be a good way to push earlier assessments within course design.
Drew mentioned the HEOA which deals with federal requirements regarding textbook information. The site is: http://dltj.org/article/textbook-disclosure-rules/.
Drew briefly discussed HB 2504 (attached), -which mandates that syllabi, instructor qualifications, textbooks, and departmental budgets must be online fall 2010. Online grading is not included.
Cammy asked where technology fees go. She believes students should have free paper up to a certain maximum in the cyber labs on campus.
IV. Vote on Topic
The committee voted unanimously for technology as ACC’s QEP topic.
V. Writing QEP
Linda Matteson will be writing the QEP.
VI. Software and other resources
It was noted that Bruce Glover had a spread sheet of everything their college did from day one of their QEP. Project Manager (Microsoft Office) can be used so that documentation can be shown to the visiting committee. GANTT (timeline charts) are good to show.
Entrensics Informer may be another helpful tool. This is a report writing software using drag and drop and is useful for tracking students.
*Karen asked Bill Lewis to look into the Project Manager Program.
Drew mentioned CIRTL and the University of Wisconsin. This program uses technology to promote good teaching. Merlot is connected to a grant for course redesign. The University of North Texas is involved in social science/humanities course redesign. Central Florida is another in the consortium.
Bill Cranford and Marjorie Nash have agreed to help with the literature review. Manuela will look through our online teaching certification class for resources that Dena already has made available.
Drew mentioned a book New Directions for Institutional Research by James O. Nichols, University of Mississippi, which discusses systematic effectiveness and planning charts. Drew will get this book for everyone on the committee.
VII. Marketing
The Marketing Department will hold an ice cream social on July 7 or 8. This could also be the kick-off for QEP. This is for staff, not students. **It was decided that a flyer should be made up for the QEP. **It was also suggested that the Board of Regents be invited.
VIII. Writing and researching the QEP
a. Writing
**Drew said that the committee needs to make the QEP into a statement. This should be close to what is in the surveys. For example, “The QEP’s focus is increasing students’ academic engagement and improving faculty skills, engagement, communication, and accountability.” Each word is one of the goals. Each goal needs to be benchmarked and needs to show improvement, assessment, etc.
Possible goal 1: Communication and accountability. This could include training faculty, e-mail priority, and Blackboard. This might be the pilot year prior to our SACS visit.
Possible goal 2: Grades, redesign projects. In this stage it seems likely that the college will need to hire a specialist. This will show SACS that QEP will work within the budget process and will have institution-wide support. This person would be an instructional technologist. Dena has a design background, but the college will need someone in digital media and someone who can help with the design of courses.
Writing the QEP can be started in terms of what we’ve done already such as: community survey, faculty survey, student survey, committee meetings, etc.
These summaries need to include: when, where, why, how, results: These need to be detailed summaries. They should link to a table (charts provided by IE). Drew suggested that scatter charts would be useful as well.
*Johanna will write up the faculty survey process and results.
*Community will be done by Cammy.
*Linda needs to be sent everything as well so she can “catch up” on the process.
*Karen will do the overall summary and will check on dates/deadlines for QEP in general.
*Jerrod will do student survey.
b. Research/Literature Review
Drew suggested that resources be split among committee members. There is no need for every member to read every resource. Instead, **each member could be given several items to research and then would be responsible for writing an annotated bibliography on the source. In addition, each source should be given a rating. These can be posted to Blackboard and discussed/investigated further.
IX. Miscellaneous
Johanna noted that the presenter at the fall workshop will be speaking on generational differences. It was suggested that members of the committee take her to lunch after her presentation.
Fall workshop will also be a good time to insert a QEP “commercial.”
X. Next meeting
If members will post to Blackboard and will discuss, then the next meeting is TBA. Blackboard should be able to take the place of some face-to-face meetings. However, if the majority of members aren’t participating, a meeting will be necessary soon.
Members who have files to post to Blackboard should send them to Karen via Blackboard Mail.
*Johanna will rearrange and retitle the Blackboard discussion board.
*Denotes that a specific task was assigned.
**Denotes that a specific task was discussed but not assigned to an individual.
QEP Leadership Meeting
July 20, 2010 Minutes
Members Present: Karen Downey, Pat Sanger, Drew Nelson, Nikki Thompson, Lynn Goswick, Dwight Rhodes, Linda Matteson, Johanna Hume, Rhonda Boone, Dena Faust, Chris Chance.
Not Present: Bill Lewis, Jarrod Butcher
I. House Bill 2504: Charzetta Fleming has developed our new online site for faculty syllabi, vitae, etc. (Update: The site is now available, and information is due online by 9/3/2010.) Drew stated that this would have no impact on the QEP.
II. Project Manager Software: Bill Lewis reviewed the software. ACC already has a license for it. Pat suggested that Sandra Buso in DEID could input all the QEP information into Project Manager as she is very familiar with it and already uses Gantt charts. These charts and Project Manager overall are excellent ways to document the committee actions, both past and present. Sandra can input information from the past year as well as future plans.
III. Web Courses: Dena Faust defined the three types of online classes that ACC offers. These are internet, hybrid and web-enhanced. Internet is close to or 100% online. Hybrid is a combination but typically the online component takes the place of some in-class time. Web-enhanced courses have regularly scheduled classes. These courses are supplemented online such as posted syllabi and online testing.
Dena presented statistics for online, hybrid and web-enhanced classes. However, she stated that the numbers were deceptive as many section numbers are combined in Blackboard. Pure internet classes (124 for the three semesters studied) and hybrids are relatively straightforward. Web-enhanced are harder to track due to this section number/combination issue.
Semester |
Internet |
Hybrid |
Web-Assisted |
Unique Class Sections |
Fall 2009 |
124 |
22 |
423 |
999 |
Spring 2010 |
142 |
33 |
458 |
994 |
Summer 2010 |
96 |
16 |
218 |
432 |
Note: This data may not be an exact reflection of the number of sections using MyBlackboard. We have many “combined” sections in which multiple unique sections are combined into one section in Blackboard. For example, the entire nursing program is in one section. Every nursing class that a student takes for a 2-year span is in one section in Blackboard.
QEP Leadership Committee
August 10, 2010 Minutes
Members Present
Karen Downey, Manuela Imthurn, Jerrod Butcher, Johanna Hume, Dena Faust, Rhonda Boone, Nikki Thompson, Chris Chance, Drew Nelson, Dwight Rhodes
Members Absent
Bill Lewis, Jason Nichols, Patrick Sanger
Class Statistics
Nikki presented the following grade distribution statistics:
Withdrawal Rates Failure Rates
2007-2008
Internet/Hybrid 23.17% 21.81%
Face2face 14.37% 14.77%
2008-2009
Internet/Hybrid 22.84% 26.90%
Face2face 15.24% 20.89%
Literature Review
A discussion was held on the various reviews that had been posted to Blackboard. Many of the articles were helpful to the topic of an online student orientation for Blackboard. Issues that were discussed included the need to make the orientation mandatory as students would be unlikely to take it otherwise, and the need to have communications across campus regarding the QEP.
In addition, it was suggested that faculty have a workshop session that includes the kind of help that is available to students (online orientations, Student Blackboard Lounge, PSYC 1300, etc.) and that a student focus group be created to pilot the online Blackboard orientation prior to its becoming mandatory for all students.
Orientation
Suggestions were made regarding work that needs to be done for the QEP at this point. They included:
1. Survey faculty who use Blackboard to find out where students are deficient and which skills are important. Nikki suggested that this could be done by late September on SurveyMonkey. Dena mentioned that the survey should be directed toward Blackboard Tools and Blackboard issues specifically. It was decided that a student survey was not necessary at this point given the literature that focuses on student surveys and our own pass/fail data.
2. Outline possible modules for the orientation. Nikki said that the orientation needs to be general for the overall student population with optional modules such as “What is WiFi?” or “Time Management.” These extra modules are not part of the QEP and would not be tracked by QEP data.
Nikki explained that we will be measuring the mandatory online orientation only and looking for improvement. Extra modules may or may not increase student learning outcomes. However, causality is not essential, so the optional modules are fine and do not need to be tracked.
Tracking of the specific QEP could include data such as which online students continue with online classes, which online students continue with f2f classes only, etc.
Assessing Other Colleges’ Orientations
The committee will be assessing the orientations that Dena has posted to Blackboard. She needs specific comments (flash tutorials, audio, clean or cluttered looks, etc.) These comments will be discussed at the next meeting. The committee had favorable comments on some of the following colleges:
Grand Rapids Community College http://www.grcc.edu/orientations
Edison State College http://online.edison.edu/orientation/index.html
Stephen F. Austin http://www.oit.sfasu.edu/orientation/index/index.htm
U of AR, Ft. Smith http://www.uafortsmith.edu/Online/OrientationInfoForWebBasedClasses
Granite State http://www.granite.edu/academics/online-programs/blackboard-orientation.aspx
There are several other orientations that need to be reviewed as well.
Next Meeting
Thursday, September 2, 2010
2:30
S-119
QEP Leadership Committee Meeting
September 2, 2010 Minutes
Members Present
Cammy Guggisburg, Karen Downey, Drew Nelson, Lynn Goswick, Dwight Rhodes, Chris Chance, Bill Lewis, Manuela Imthurn, Nikki Thompson, Pat Sanger, Jerrod Butcher
Not Present
Dena Faust, Julia Theato
Fall Planning
Drew reiterated that there should be no implementation of the QEP in spring 2011. We should be planning, collecting data, and writing the report this fall.
Surveys
It was decided that issuing an attitudinal/perception survey this fall to faculty would be appropriate. We may also decide on a survey for students. Nikki said that mid fall (late September or early October) is her goal.
The committee will be posting possible research/survey questions to a Blackboard thread. These could include areas of student deficiencies, student Blackboard access, and future enrollment possibilities for the college overall and specifically for distance learning.
Issues with QEP
The committee discussed how students could be flagged regarding orientation. The college can block transcripts and refuse re-enrollment for students who do not take the orientation. Flags have to be taken off manually at this point. This will be an issue in terms of manpower.
Budgeting
It was suggested that the budgeting process needs to start now. The committee believes that the creation of an extra position for Distance Education will be essential. Pat mentioned that he had come up with a budget proposal for two new positions, one for DE and one for IER, to begin in spring 2012.
Bill asked if other colleges hire new positions for their QEP. Drew stated that many colleges actually hire a QEP coordinator like Wharton. Pat said that he would submit his proposal for two new positions to the Planning Team and to Darryl.
Blackboard Future
Pat mentioned that we may move to LERN 9 next summer. The goal is to be online with the most up-to-date Blackboard version by fall 2011.
Non-QEP Issues
The committee decided that some of the non-QEP issues should be written into the report. For example, complaints about students not receiving grades in a timely manner now are immediately forwarded to the division chair and to Dena. Another example is Dena’s online certification class, which is mandatory for all faculty teaching Internet courses.
Writing the Report
The committee needs to write up what we have done over the past year and decisions that led to the QEP topic.
Johanna will go through all the past minutes and make suggestions about what topics need to be written up. When the topics are posted to Blackboard, committee members will choose at least one topic to write up and post. Karen will decide upon a general format for the write-ups.
Karen and Chris will write up all activities/discussions/decisions that happened prior to the first committee meeting.
Johanna will write up the events surrounding the faculty survey; Karen, the student survey; and Jerrod, the community survey.
Tasks
1. All literature reviews are to be e-mailed to Karen and Dena.
2. All online orientation comments are to be e-mailed to Karen and Dena.
3. Research questions will be posted to Blackboard by 9/16 for possible faculty and student surveys. This will give Nikki enough time to formulate a survey.
4. Committee members will chose topics and e-mail their write-ups to Karen (once the topics are posted to Blackboard).
Next Meeting
No specific time was set for the next meeting. Committee members should be communicating via Blackboard threads for the next few weeks.
QEP Leadership Meeting
October 28, 2010 Minutes
Members Present: Karen Downey, Johanna Hume, Chris Chance, Rhonda Boone, Dwight Rhodes, Lynn Goswick
Not Present: Bill Lewis, Dena Faust, Jerrod Butcher, Cammy Guggisberg, Nikki Thompson, Jason Nichols, Julia Theato, Charzetta Fleming
I. Results from online faculty survey
The committee was pleased with the amount of information received in the survey, both in terms of the objective answers and the suggestions and comments.
Clearly, many instructors are using Blackboard on a regular basis; most rate the functions within Blackboard in a similar fashion. In addition to Blackboard functions, pop-ups, Java and attachments will definitely need to be addressed in the tutorial.
The committee discussed faculty issues with technology in general, such as the need to learn new software. Faculty time constraints were discussed in terms of this issue.
Rhonda mentioned that her high school students are mandated to use Blackboard, so many of our future students should be more familiar with Blackboard than we see today. Faculty who are not yet using Blackboard will at least need to be familiar with the basics of the system soon.
Lynn suggested that Blackboard training be available as a break-out session at every Workshop.
II. Report Write-ups
The committee discussed the need to get Linda Matteson as much material as possible as soon as possible.
Sections that are already written include the initial faculty and student surveys.
Other segments/authors:
Lynn - History of the college and mission statement
Chris - Time-line and information gathered previous to the creation of the QEP committee
Chris - Upcoming faculty focus group
Karen and Johanna - Literature Review
Karen - Topic selection
Jerrod - Community survey
Unassigned - Student online focus groups
Pat, Nikki, Drew - Data gathering including fall online faculty survey
Unassigned - Recommendations for college outside of QEP
Karen and Johanna both expressed some concern regarding the gathering of data and how it is to be incorporated into the QEP.
III. Focus Groups
The committee discussed organizing focus groups in order to solicit information regarding possible Blackboard tutorial topics. It was decided that a face-to-face focus group will be held with faculty on campus. An online focus groups will be offered for a segment of students taking online and/or web enhanced classes.
Faculty
Dwight offered to get names of possible faculty who use Blackboard (from Dena or from the catalog).
Chris will invite the faculty for a lunch focus group discussion. This will be held on Friday, November 12, 2010. It was decided that the QEP would provide lunch for participants. Chris will not have a specified question list. It was felt that opening up the floor for discussion on Blackboard and technology would result in numerous comments.
Students
The student comments will be solicited via Blackboard by Johanna Hume, Karen Downey, Chris Chance, Rhonda Boone, Manuela Imthurn and Tammi Lansford. The committee felt this would be a good cross-section of the college faculty; it would also include online, hybrid and web enhanced courses. The deadline for responses will be November 9.
The questions that will be posted are the following: 1. In your experience with Blackboard, what problems have you encountered with the Blackboard program? 2. In your experience with online and/or web-enhanced courses, what technical issues have you encountered? 3. What other challenges have you encountered in taking online and/or web-enhanced classes?
Other focus groups will be held in the spring and summer. In particular, it was noted that the new version of Blackboard should be in use by summer 2011. More input will be needed once this new system is in place. Possible future focus groups will include Student Services in addition to faculty and students.
IV. Tasks
Members need to write up their sections and give to Linda ASAP. She is very anxious to get as much of this done as possible before final exams.
Dwight and Chris: Faculty focus group.
Members involved in online student focus group: Save all discussion comments as a document. Write up common themes and comments.
QEP Leadership Meeting
January 28, 2011
Members Present: Karen Downey, Chris Chance, Dwight Rhodes, Jerrod Butcher, Manuela Imthurn, Linda Matteson, Johanna Hume, Bill Lewis
Not Present: Dena Faust, Lynn Goswick, Rhonda Boone, Jason Nichols
Board Meeting
Karen briefly discussed the Board meeting of January 27 where she made a presentation updating the Board on the progress of the QEP.
Budget
Bill Lewis discussed the information contained in the budget chart. The main expenses will be coming out of IT, IE and DE in terms of percentage of these departments’ responsibilities that will be devoted to the QEP. The bulk of this figure is composed of salaries, benefits, time, etc. DE, for example, has projected that 30% of the departmental duties will be dedicated to the QEP annually. It is unknown at this time if David Goza’s full-time position in DE will become permanent. Other expenses include Blackboard training/professional development for faculty and a student worker for the Distance Education Department.
The board and the entire college are, of course, extremely concerned with the budget cuts that will be mandated by the Texas Legislature. However, it is not expected that the QEP will require new full-time positions.
Drew is committed to the marketing portion of the QEP budget, as well as off-campus Blackboard training.
Money may also be available through the Professional Development Committee in terms of workshops.
Bill mentioned that it is very difficult for faculty to focus on training when it is given on-campus. Off-campus training is much more effective in terms of learning software.
Although all faculty will need initial and on-going training with Blackboard, a need for faculty experts in Blackboard was also discussed. A small group of well-trained faculty may be able to take pressure off of DE.
Objectives
The committee had a lengthy discussion about the objectives chart that Karen developed. The committee stressed the need for good marketing regarding the orientation objectives and mandates. It was suggested that the Marketing Department and ESC be the “front-line” in terms of advising students of the orientation requirement. However, just as significant will be information in WebACCess since so many students register online. Pop-up messages regarding Blackboard orientation should be seen by students in WebACCess during the registration process.
The committee decided that students taking online, hybrid and web-enhanced classes will be the groups expected to take the orientation. In other words, all students must take the orientation (or test out) before logging in to Blackboard.
At this point there is no “web-enhanced” designation for web-enhanced classes, as there are designations for hybrid and Internet classes. If web-enhanced classes could be designated in the course catalog and could then be tagged in the system, a large percentage of students will be targeted with the initial orientation. Chris mentioned that hybrid classes are now segregated in the course listings. This seems to have a significant negative impact on enrollment. Johanna will talk to Irene about web-enhanced designations and having all classes that are not designated “Internet” being grouped together in the course listings.
A lengthy discussion was also had regarding percentages and several other columns in the objectives chart. Attached to these minutes is the revised Objectives Matrix.
Section Write-Ups
Already Completed
History of college
Initial faculty, student and community surveys
Faculty focus group
Pre QEP time-line
Literature Review
(If any of the above have not been sent to Karen and Linda, let me know and I’ll put them in the following list)
To Be Completed (TASKS)
History of online courses: Dena
Informal student survey: Johanna (Karen will forward Rhonda’s information)
Budget: Bill
Strategies: Jerrod
Goals and objectives: Manuela
Assessments: Dwight
Outcomes: Karen
Evaluation of outcomes: Manuela
Project Manager Timetable/Calendar: Chris (with Sandra)
Tables/Charts: To be included after narrative is written. Not assigned.
Additional tasks
Jerrod will discuss marketing strategies with Lynn regarding SACS’ visit and QEP during implementation.
Johanna will talk with Irene about designations and course listings. She will also ask Wendy about professional development/workshop money.
Karen will send literature review sections to all QEP members.
Deadlines
Drafts of all sections should be completed and forwarded to Karen before Dr. Jackson’s meeting, if possible. Deadline for sections to be finalized and given to Linda is March 4. The QEP report needs to be finished before the summer session begins. SACS’ visit will be in September, and the visiting team will want the QEP report sometime in August.
Next Meetings
The committee will be meeting with Dr. Jackson, Tuesday, February 8 at 1:15, S-119.
The committee will also meet before Spring Break, Friday, March 4 at 8:30, S-119.
February 8, 2011
QEP Workshop with Dr. Rudolph Jackson
Members Present: Karen Downey, Chris Chance, Lynn Goswick, Linda Matteson, Rhonda Boone, Bill Lewis, Dwight Rhodes, Johanna Hume, Jerrod Butcher, Manuela Imthurn
Guests: John Bethscheider, Drew Nelson
Members Not Present: Jason Nichols, Dena Faust
Dr. Jackson’s Introduction
Dr. Jackson spoke to the committee about the reaccreditation process and the QEP. He stressed that our priority short-term goal is reaffirmation. The QEP may ultimately do many things for the college, but we must not lose sight of the underlying goal.
The visiting team will be looking for a QEP that is: meaningful to the institution, anchored in the college mission, focused, feasible, and within the college’s capabilities. Capabilities include time, facilities, budget and personnel.
He discussed the fact that success will be measured in terms of three areas: outcomes, process, and development. For example, is the QEP working according to plan? Has there been broad based involvement during the development and implementation stages? In addition, the QEP needs to be framed in terms of student learning.
The committee then split into two groups to discuss objectives and restating our objectives to show how the QEP is focused in specific student learning, skills and knowledge. Both groups discussed what the students need to learn, at what level they need to learn it, and when it will be learned.
Restated Objectives
The committee developed the following objectives as the core of the QEP:
1. Students will be able to configure computer settings.
2. Students will be able to access the course delivery system.
3. Students will be able to demonstrate competency in navigation and understanding of the course delivery system.
Dr. Jackson strongly urged the committee to change the QEP wording from MyBlackboard to“Course delivery system.” The committee agreed that this would be best in case the college ever changed vendors. MyBlackboard will still be able to be used in terms of PR.
Specifics to be addressed in the above objectives, respectively, would include:
1. Browser settings, Java, internet speed
2. Access to college website and course delivery system link, knowledge of login procedures, ability to access classes within the course delivery system.
3. File management, assignment submissions, discussions, mail.
Options for Implementation Strategies
Dr. Jackson discussed some different options in terms of implementing the CDS (course delivery system) orientation. He first strongly urged the committee to choose a small cohort of students to track. He said that many more students could be encouraged to take the orientation; however, for the purposes of the QEP, a small group would be much more beneficial.
Dr. Jackson suggested that the QEP target cohort be all new students who will be taking online or hybrid courses. No other students should be included for tracking purposes. The majority of the cohort would access the orientation online at the beginning of their classes. This could be made mandatory by faculty teaching online. In addition, a minority of the students would take the orientation on campus during the late summer orientation for new students.
Different tracking and data collection strategies were discussed. The college could collect data beginning fall 2011 until the orientation was implemented in summer and fall 2013. And/or, a portion of the student body could be given pre-skills tests in 2011 and 2012. These could all help with baseline data regarding the skills that our typical incoming freshman have and could be compared to the success rates of those students who complete the orientation. Dr. Jackson did not express concern that data collection and tracking strategies were as yet undecided.
Someone stated that Blue Ridge uses Accuplacer for initial testing before their orientation. The committee may look into this. However, the issue of pre-testing large numbers of students was discussed in an earlier meeting. Initially the committee felt that testing prior to taking an orientation would be too much of a burden for students.
Resources
This topic was not discussed thoroughly. Resources will not be tested or tracked. They will, however, need to be stated in the report. These may include: faculty training, the preparation of the online orientation itself, creation of an on-campus orientation, possible pretests/assessments, Advising Department (to counsel students for online class readiness).
Miscellaneous
Dr. Jackson suggested that the QEP report include an organizational chart. This should show which departments will be involved (IE/DE), personnel, skills and percentage of time to be devoted to the QEP.
Finally, Dr. Jackson discussed the visiting team. It’s time for the committee to find and contact the external consultant for the QEP. This personal should have experience in online learning and/or testing and/or course delivery systems, etc.
Tasks
Section write-ups need to be finished and given to Karen and Linda as soon as possible. They can then be discussed at the March meeting.
Next Meeting
Friday, March 4, 2011
8:30, S-119
QEP Leadership Meeting
February 18, 2011 Minutes
Members Present: Karen Downey, Pat Sanger, Nikki Thompson, Dena Faust, Johanna Hume, Drew Nelson, Rhonda Boone, Chris Chance, Jerrod Butcher, Dwight Rhodes, Manuela Imthurn, Linda Matteson
Not Present: Bill Lewis, Lynn Goswick, Jason Nichols
Visiting Team
Dena will work on getting our QEP expert for the SACS’ team visit in September. She already has someone in mind. The committee will send the report to this person by this summer. Drew also mentioned that one of his contacts in Dallas may be able to act in an advisory capacity.
Course Delivery System Orientation
The committee decided that all students will take the orientation the first semester. In subsequent semesters, students new to ACC will take the orientation. This will be easier to track; in addition, Dena will be launching Blackboard 9, so it will be a new system for everyone.
Although this will be a large group, smaller cohorts can be segmented for reporting purposes later.
The committee found out from Irene Robinson that students who take the orientation can be flagged by the system. They can be blocked from registration the following semester if they do not take the orientation. It was decided that the QEP would propose making the orientation mandatory, not merely encouraged. Irene will be contacted about consequences and wording.
Timeline
Development and implementation of the orientation was discussed at length. The committee decided on the following timeline based upon Dena’s suggestions:
1. Summer/Fall 2011: Dena will be looking for student interns to help with the design of the orientation.
2. Spring/summer 2012: Dena and her intern(s) will develop the orientation.
3. Summer/fall 2012: Faculty will be trained on the new system and will test the orientation. Student focus groups will be assembled to test the orientation.
4. Spring 2013: Blackboard 9 (ILearn) will go live. The orientation will be implemented at the same time.
Orientation Modules
Students will have to work through one module successfully before advancing to the next. That will translate into students having to “pass” the orientation with 100%.
Tracking
A lengthy discussion was held regarding tracking. The committee will use both hard and soft data in the reports. Questions will be added to course/faculty surveys completed by students at the end of semesters, and faculty and support staff will be surveyed. In addition, pass/fail and withdrawal rates will be compared to historical data.
It was suggested that it would be helpful if students could save or print out a “snapshot” of their completion certificate to submit to faculty, much like turnitin.com has a time/date stamp. This may increase completion rates.
Pat will take care of tracking.
Tasks/Next Meeting
All sections need to be written up and submitted to Karen prior to the next meeting which is Friday, March 4 @8:30.
QEP Committee Meeting
April 08, 2011 Minutes
Members Present
Chris Chance, Dwight Rhodes, Manuela Imthurn, Dena Faust, Linda Matteson, Johanna Hume
Not Present
Karen Downey, Bill Lewis, Jarrod Butcher, Rhonda Boone
The purpose of this meeting was to review Linda’s revised draft of the QEP report.
History of the college
There were no suggestions to the narrative. Chris will talk with Tom Bates, John Bethscheider, John Duke and others to get information regarding our past experiences and success with SACS. He will write up this addition as well as formulate a timeline of ACC’s history.
Johanna will write out the mission statement, the historical statement for the college and any other pertinent historical information to be included in the appendix.
History of Distance Education
Dena will find the dates that ACC began offering distance classes. No other suggestions were made.
Pre-QEP Team
Dwight suggested that we list the committee members and their disciplines.
Overview of Topic
Dena will ask Pat about the 6,000 responses. Obviously, many students submitted evaluations more than once. However, Pat may have a good way to explain the process and numbers.
Johanna found the graphs that will explain the numbers and ratings for faculty and student surveys. She sent these via e-mail to Karen and the members present at the meeting.
The committee decided that the report did not need to explain why study skills or reading were not chosen as topics. Technology had high ratings in all the surveys, and areas in the rest of the report give significant justifications for choosing this topic.
It was mentioned that a blanket PR campaign regarding the topic would be needed shortly before the SACS visit.
Goals and Objectives
The BB orientation modules are in a different order in this section compared to the strategies section. The order will be slightly changed.
The committee decided to drop OCDP in favor of the widely used Course Management System (CMS). This will need to be changed throughout the report.
Manuela’s graph (already created) regarding goals, objectives and sub-objectives will be included.
Assessment
The committee suggested that some explanatory charts and tables need to be embedded into the document. All other data should be placed in the appendix.
The committee decided that “hybrid courses” needed to be dropped completely from the direct measures section. Dena said that only the online courses will be directly tracked. “Hybrid” and “web enhanced” can remain in the indirect goals.
There was some confusion regarding the dates of the 5 years of pre-orientation data. In the current document, Spring 2008 is the start date for collection of data. The committee suggested that Fall 2007 would be the appropriate start-date. However, this suggestion will be run by Karen in case the committee has misunderstood the time-line.
Dena will get the data (pass/fail/completion rates since Fall 2007).
In the indirect measures section, Dena suggested we use the statement “any students and faculty using the CMS” instead of using the specific terms online, hybrid and web-enhanced.
Expected Outcomes
It was decided to leave in the specific questions listed here even though the previous sections were more generalized. There was another discussion about the Fall 2007 vs. Spring 2008 start date in terms of collecting data.
Budget
The narrative was not changed. However, this section will need tables with concrete (albeit preliminary) numbers. Bill and/or Chris will be taking Bill’s budget to Drew to tighten up the numbers and have tables/charts created.
The difference between real costs and absorbed costs was also discussed. The committee stressed that by using absorbed costs when discussing salary, Dena’s additional responsibilities are not truly being reflected in the budget. The only costs to the institution at this point will be: DE student worker, travel, training, marketing, supplies.
The committee would like the report to be specific in reflecting the absorbed costs to the institution and to the DE department in particular.
Literature Review
Johanna will meet with Linda next Tuesday to discuss this section.
TASKS AND RECAP
Appendix
Information to be included at this point:
1. Blackboard terminology (Dena)
2. School terminology (not assigned)
3. Mission statement, historical statement (Johanna)
4. Timeline of ACC history (Chris)
To be embedded with sections
1. Chart of goals, objectives, sub-objectives (already created, Manuela will send to Linda)
2. Charts of faculty and student surveys (Linda has)
3. Pass/fail/withdrawal rates (Dena will get from Pat)
4. Historical SACS info (Chris)
5. Budget numbers/tables (Chris and Bill)
6. Decision made on using Fall 2007 or Spring 2008 (Karen)
7. List of committee members and their disciplines to Pre-QEP section (not assigned)
Deadlines and Next Meeting
Chris emphasized that all committee members need to continue to read and review the document. Any small changes in usage should be sent to Linda. However, the committee needs to continue to identify weaknesses and missing information. In particular, members should be alert to any additional information that could be included in the appendix.
All tasks should be completed by April 25. All new sections, charts, tables, etc. need to be e-mailed to Karen by this date. Linda will make the revisions and send them out to the committee for another review.
The next meeting will be the day of graduation, Tuesday, May 10 @4:00. The committee will probably meet upstairs at Joe’s for an early dinner and review of the report before graduation duties begin.
QEP Leadership Meeting
May 10, 2011 Minutes
Members Present
Karen Downey, Chris Chance, Johanna Hume, Dwight Rhodes, Jerrod Butcher, Rhonda Boone, Linda Matteson
Not Present
Bill Lewis, Dena Faust, Manuela Imthurn
New Information
Pat will compile the failure/withdrawal rates and charts (first pull) and send them to Karen by June 1, 2011.
Karen and Johanna met with John Bethscheider regarding the budget on May 3. Bethscheider said that a stipend for Dena or any other employee was unlikely given the budget environment. However, he feels that money could be used from the IT software budget.
Bethscheider mentioned that Blackboard currently has an online orientation which costs $10,000 in start-up fees (for 4,000-6,000 students) with $4,000 maintenance fees each year. The committee decided to put this in the budget. The student worker will be taken out since Dena does not think an untrained worker will be helpful for the QEP. In addition, some funds will be shifted from professional development and training.
The Blackboard orientation does have a free option if the college and DE agree to be a part of the Blackboard orientation program. It is unclear what this involvement would entail as far as DE, faculty, administration and staff is concerned. The committee, administration and/or DE will investigate this over the next few months.
Johanna will e-mail the Blackboard orientation link to the committee.
Document
Additions/Suggestions
p. 6: An introductory sentence is required stating that the co-chairs were charged with selecting members and creating a committee.
p. 7: In the first paragraph under “overview,” the following will be included: The CCSSE data was evaluated and helped to make the topic selection…”
p. 8: Justification is needed: Sentence or paragraph on the committee brainstorming ideas based upon Achieve the Dream, CCESSI, perceived needs and deficiencies by committee members, members informally gathering comments and suggestions from administration, students, staff…This should begin at bottom of page 7.
p. 10: Dwight and Jerrod will review the charts and better explain the use of percentages and rankings in this section.
p.11: Before the “unanimous decision” an explanation is needed giving the reason the committee made this decision. This may need to be a brief paragraph
p. 26-27: QEP Assessment: Students enrolled in online classes are required to take orientation. All others will be encouraged to do so.
Committee members who made comments and suggestions regarding usage, punctuation, placement, etc. will send those to Linda using mark-up in Word. (ASAP!!)
Appendices
Index of appendices is needed after Table of Contents
Chris has the Microsoft Project chart and the GANTT chart. He will send this to Linda and work with Sandra on reducing the GANTT chart and/or having IT/Charzetta create a link to it. The GANTT chart is simply a timeline for the QEP.
Johanna will reformat the minutes and send to Linda. A link needs to be created for these rather than including them in the report.
IT will need to create a QEP page off the ACC Homepage. The report itself, all documentation and links will be posted here. (Who is in charge of discussing this with IT??)
Johanna will type up a short section on “What we learned.” Committee needs to help with a title for this.
Karen will add titles to the advisory groups.
Deadline for report to be complete and sent to Gary Storts: June 15, 2011
Gary Storts is the Director of Instructional Design and Development at Tennessee Board of Regents, Regents Online Campus Collaborative. He has previously been an adjunct instructor at Tennessee State University and the Director of Distance Education/Instructional Technology Specialist at Jackson State Community College.
