SACS QEP Development Committee

October 31, 2011
3:00 p.m
308 OIT Building

Present: Bliss Bailey, Richard Burt (Chair), Lenny Lock, Margaret Marshall, Kevin Phelps, Constance Relihan, Pamela Stamm, Aaron Trehub

Absent: Bonnie Sanderson

I. Chair, Richard Burt called the meeting to order at 3:03pm and asked for approval of the previously available minutes (Meeting 2) posted on the SharePoint Site and hardcopy distributed. The October 10 minutes were approved without modification.

II. There was brief discussion about the team’s attendance plans and logistics for the upcoming E-Portfolio Conference at Virginia Tech as well as possible other future Conference attendance.

III. The general context of the discussion throughout the meeting was on developing a review of literature (i.e., what have others been doing) – having a common understanding of what that means, defining scope and content components, how to do it, and subsequently detailing specific tasks and “assignments” for each Committee member to accomplish in contributing to that review.    

IV. The group focused on the four goals (Effective Communication, Critical Thinking, Technical Competency, Visual Literacy) and there was discussion about the appropriate level of specificity/ generality for the commensurate learning outcomes associated with each goal to ensure relevant meaning, rigorous measurement, inclusion, and broad-based applicability across multiple settings.

V. There was a strongly developed sense that the project should be accessible, applicable, useful, and be of a design that it can be embraced by all undergraduate programs. At the same time, the team highlighted the need to better understand the current extent and nature of Portfolio implementation across the University to facilitate a ready articulated initiation as well as supporting a welcoming opportunity for broad-based inclusion and subsequent growth.

VI. The team discussed ways and means to obtain input and feedback regarding the project and, while a detailed plan was not developed, the group strongly endorsed that stakeholder invitation and feedback in refining the project are integral to the project’s success (see also #XIV).

VII. In addressing Portfolio Type Scope - after discussion of Program Assessment, Showcase, and Archive portfolio types, the team decided on focusing on the Showcase portfolio type.

VIII. In addressing Implementation Design Scope - there was discussion about program requirement, student opt-in (with Faculty sponsor), and invitation of those programs already having some level of portfolio development.  There was emphasis, at least initially, on invitation of those programs already having some level of portfolio development – Within the broader objective to promote and sustain portfolio development across the campus. The potential roles of learning communities and UNIV courses in this ongoing process were also highlighted.

IX. The paramount role of student reflection meaningfully woven throughout the portfolio was agreed.

X. After the above deliberations, and to accomplish due diligence, the team decided that seven (7) distinct (but overlapping) areas should be further researched and lead researchers by topic identified:

  • 1. How do programs introduce students to portfolios (Constance, Kevin);
  • 2. How is the knowledge delivered? (Constance, Kevin);
  • 3. What is the needed infrastructure? (Bliss, Kevin);
  • 4. What is the administrative structure and resources needed to sustain the program? (Richard, Margaret);
  • 5. How is the success of the QEP project measured/ assessed? (Lenny, Pamela);
  • 6. How are individual student portfolios evaluated? (Lenny, Margaret);
  • 7. Who are the experts we need to consult with (All). (ex. Kathleen Yancey, Kellogg W. Hunt Professor of English, Distinguished Research Professor, and Director of the graduate program in Rhetoric and Composition, Florida State University)

XI. Concerning Infrastructure (X.3 & 4 above)the group further identified these salient points for useful elaboration:  

  • 1. Project Administration (Who is in charge);
  • 2. Resources needed to support this effort;
  • 3. Student instruction (resources needed to support students such as Digital media lab, other help); and
  • 4. Potential Platforms

XII. The next meeting will be November 14 (Monday, 3:00 p.m., 308 OIT Building) at which time the preliminary research findings to date regarding the seven above areas will be shared.

XIII. The tentative timeline for a DRAFT review of literature is the Middle of December.

XIV. The process for sharing and obtaining input regarding the initial DRAFT document was discussed (within the mid-January timeframe), including presentation to the Faculty Senate and the Student Government Association.

XV. The group also decided that a student representative should be included as a Committee member.

XVI. The meeting adjourned at 4:40

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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