SACS QEP Exploratory Committee

Minutes of the Meeting
(Meeting # 11)
March 9, 2011

Samford Hall, Room 107

Attending:
Nancy Bernard, Sushil Bhavnani (Chair), Marcia Boosinger, Katelyn Boston, Drew Clark (SACS Liaison, ex-officio), Deedie Dowdle, Charles Eick, Stephen Erath, Constance Hendricks, Steve Inabinet, Kathryn Jarvis, Iryna Johnson, Kim Key, Margaret Marshall

The meeting was called to order at 1:30pm.

Minutes of the meeting dated March 2, 2011 (Meeting #10), were approved unanimously as submitted.
 
Sushil outlined the agenda for meeting and distributed an Updated Mid-Spring Semester Time-line

The following changes were brought to the attention of the committee:
March 22 – blind reviews from committee members due to Drew by noon (changed from March 23)
March 23 – full committee meeting, added
March 30 – no committee meeting – this meeting changed to an information session conducted by Sushil and Drew for authors chosen to submit full proposals
April 6 – full committee meeting
April 27 – full committee meeting – final vote and wrap up

Concept Submission Process
Drew distributed hard copies of the 25 concept submissions. The rating process was confirmed and the committee was reminded to rate these concepts using a high, medium or low ranking. The only identifier on the submissions is a concept number. Committee members should e-mail their ratings to Drew no later than noon on March 22.

Call for Full Proposals
The subcommittee to develop the call for full proposals was established at the previous meeting and Sushil asked for others to join that committee if interested. The members of that cub-committee are Erath (chair), Boston, Hecht, Hendricks, Key, and Marshall.

Drew submitted two sample documents from UCF, the QEP Theme and Topic White Papers Preparation Guidelines and a QEP White Paper Review Form indicating that these could provide a guide for the development of the AU forms. He emphasized that the UCF documents were examples of a good way to run a QEP process, but not the only way. Drew also confirmed for the chair that these were public documents and were willingly shared by UCF. He also emphasized that it was important to remember that the author of the topic finally selected for Auburn's QEP will not necessarily be responsible for the implementation of the plan.

Margaret Marshall questioned the wording on page 2 of the white paper preparation guidelines under the section Significance and Urgency. Discussion followed. Drew indicated that the final QEP document submitted to SACS must address the question, "Why is important for student learning in this area to be improved at AU?"

Sushil asked about other areas including length and format. The committee agreed that full proposals should be limited to 15 total pages. The committee also adjusted the deadline for full proposals to be submitted by noon on April 22 instead of the end of the business day.

Other areas were discussed including a question regarding the Assessment questions, specifically the last sentence of that section. Sushil suggested that the subcommittee meet to develop a draft of the guidelines and the review form for the full committee to review and refine at the next committee meeting.

Drew clarified what needed to be submitted to him by the March 22 deadline. He asked for the rankings to be grouped by High, top 3rd; Medium, middle 3rd; and Low, bottom 3rd.

The next meeting of the Committee was set for March 23, 2011.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 p.m.

Last Updated: March 29, 2011

Auburn University | Auburn, Alabama 36849 | (334) 844-4000 |
Website Feedback | Privacy | Campus Accessibility | Copyright ©