SACS QEP Development Committee

January 9, 2012

Attendance: D. Stoeckel, B. Baily, M. Marshall, R. Burt, A. Trehub , B. Sanderson, L. Lock , C. Relihan, and K. Phelps

Review of 12/5/2011 minutes:

1. QEP Wiki – Master Document

  • a. Members have difficulty using Wiki. Can’t track histories, “clunky” (or difficult to work with), and losing page count on documents.
  • b. Discussion switched to the required document length – no more than 75 pages as quoted from the SACS QEP Handbook.
  • c. Alternatives to using Wiki were discussed such as the use of Dropbox and Sharepoint.
  • d. After discussion of the pros of Wiki (i.e., Wiki would allow for building the document and not worry about formatting), it was agreed upon to keep Wiki as the document building program/site.

2. Timeline for preparing the QEP document

  • a. A handout of the timeline was dispersed and commented upon. There were 9 items on the timeline: 1. Select a Topic, 2. Defining the SLO’s, 3. Researching the topic, 4. Identifying the actions to be implemented, 5. Establishing the timeline for implementation, 6. Organizing for success, 7. Identifying necessary resources, 8. Assessing the success of the QEP, and 9. Preparing the QEP for Submission.
    • i. C. Relihan submitted a draft timeline for items 4 -8.
    • ii. Question: When do we start and stop on each item
      Some discussion over when the timeline (item #5) should be completed. All agreed that the timeline (item #5) should be completed by Feb/March
    • iii. Items 6 and 7 should be done by May.
    • iv. Item #8 (Assessing the success) – L. Lock and others have worked on this item and should be done by June.
  • b. When should this be presented to the University Senate?
    • i. Several ideas were discussed – conduct several presentations and introduce the concept of eportfolios and introduce the QEP, start advertising the QEP before the next Senate meeting and then again in June, use the presentations to solicit input from the AU Senate (next Senate meeting 2/14/2011).
  • 3. Yancey/Eynon Visit Update

  • a. Both speakers are willing to visit. D. Stoeckel informed the group that Eynon has agreed to visit in early March, but that Yancey was still working on finding dates for her visit.
  • b. What topics? Reflection? Assessment (use of eportfolios an an assessment tool)?
  • c. The group discussed the strengths of each speaker and decided that Eynon should cover reflection and Yancey cover assessment.
  • d. What is the purpose of bringing these speakers?
    • i. Should have some guiding questions prior to   their visit. Since Eynon is tied to March, perhaps Yancey may come in February.
      • 1. Have Yancey’s presence encourage faculty to use eportfolios in research.
      • 2. The team discussed how Yancey’s visits could be used.
        • a. Have her attend as a presenter then come back as a consultant.
        • b. First visit could include a presentation to those programs/departments already using portfolios – help them move to electronic portfolios.
        • c. Have her conduct a small group discussion with those who are using portfolios and help them take the next steps to eportfolios.
        • d. Consultation with the QEP group could deal with planning of the project overall – what should we plan for with regards to budget, assessment strategies, and how to implement the pilot.
      • 3. Lock in B Eynon dates and discuss his specific topics later.
  • 4. Definitions – where to put these in the document (QEP)?

  • a. M. Marshall stated: Seems to go in the learning outcomes, but we would create a definition section in the document. 
  • b. R. Burt stated: Let’s just put in the Learning Objective section.
  • c. A. Trehub: Could add a glossary as an appendix.
  • d. After some discussion the group decided that an appendix that contains definitions could be added in addition to a bibliography.
  • e. Discussion over the formatting of the Wiki document with regard to the various sections and the table of contents.
  • 5. M. Marshall stated: couldn’t the software vendor (Digication) be used as a consultant?  They will know what other schools are doing.

    6. C. Relihan: The AEEBL site has a list of vendors.

    7. L. Lock: Talking to various vendors helped Education make a decision on programs/software.

    8. A. Trehub showed the group some “Useful Links” that he had created on the Wiki/Sharepoint that listed and linked to various software vendors. A comprehensive list of vendors.

  • a. Discussion ensured over the various software products.
  • b. The group decided to create a short list of software needs for Auburn to help with the decision of researching vendors and their products.
  • c. Question: Are we comfortable using commercial products or open-source? Each has benefits and limitations.
    • i. Group agreed that they will have some philosophical discussions over this issue.
    • ii. Va. Tech using Sakai (open-source.).  The benefit of open-source is that the student can still use the program once they leave AU.
  • d. A. Trehub wrote up “key criteria” in his document (under Useful Links?).  The group agreed that these criteria are important to their decision-making.
    • i. Group agreed to put this on the agenda. B. Bailey and L. Lock agreed to review the list and slim it down to 10 – 12 criteria.
    • ii. The new list will provide a “rough and ready” list to provide vendors when learning about their products.
    • iii. Comment: LSU spent an enormous amount of time training students to use DreamWeaver, but the students ended up with an open-source product. Could this be a topic that Yancey or Eynon help us with?
  • e. Discussion over the structure of licensing with a vendor.
    • i. We want some kind of initial license for students so that they can continue to use the program for a period of time after they graduate. After this they are responsible for obtaining their own license to continue
    • ii. Should we use a program that is placed on our server or a cloud.
      • 1. Comment: Difficult to decide because no matter what we choose now, things will change.
    • iii. We should talk to Bedford-St. Martins (vendor) because they have spent a lot of time in learning what customers want out of an eportfolio program.
    • iv. C. Relihan: WE could present tis to the University developers and see if they would want to develop something like this for AU.
  • f. Group discussed some “wants” in a eportfolio program:
    • i. Vendor needs to show customization
    • ii. Need to consider the cost of AU staff time, security issue with open-source product.
    • iii. Possibly offer more than one platform to the students?
    • iv. C. Relihan began taking questions for a survey:
      • 1. Are you using portfolios? If so, what software or program do you use?
    • v. Comment: Should we restrict students to specific programs? They can use what platform they want, AU will only support specific ones.
    • vi. Eportfolios would benefit those departments that don’t know what to use (i.e., platforms).
    • vii. M. Marshall: May want to talk to Deepka of CLA (IT Director for College of Liberal Arts) to see what she has learned.
  • 9. Action Items

  • a. R. Burt read Step 4 from the QEP process (time line).
    • i. What do we need to achieve the following: Student learning Goals.
    • ii. M. Marshall suggested that information from the QEP proposals be refined and add what they group has learned since writing the proposal.
    • iii. R. Burt: perhaps Yancey and Eynon can help us with this step as well.  Let’s add tweaking the timeline to an action item on the next agenda so that we can create a good, solid draft.
  • b. Discussion of meeting times and days.
    • i. A. Trehub has some scheduling conflicts due to rotations. He’ll send in a schedule.
    • ii. After discussion, the group decided to stick to Monday afternoons but meet on a weekly basis.
    • iii. Group wants to add “forming subcommittees” to list of action items to cover tasks on time line.
      • 1. Comment: Next meeting (Jan 23) let’s look to serve weekly small discussion over forming subcommittees and actions.
  • c. Action Items:
    • i. D. Stoeckel will communicate with invited speakers. Clarify the purpose of their visit. Get a more definitive date for Yancey.
    • ii. A. Trehub will go through the list of criteria and pick out the ones he sees as as important. Narrow down the list to about 10. If other members have an opinion as to what criteria they think are important, send ideas to A. Trehub.
      • 1. Some discussion over the use of the term “privacy” as a criteria.  “levels of access” was accepted as a better term.
    • iii. M. Marshall asked if the Wiki program could be made easier to navigate. B. Bliss provided suggestions. Not an action item.
    • iv. L. Lock: A subcommittee could begin to work on a section of the Wiki document that M. Marshall drafted.  The QEP proposal has most of the preliminary text and might be useful to rotate the job of inserting proposal text into the Wiki Doc. Everyone can take the definitions they worked on and insert them individually.
    • v. R. Burt: Next meeting, let’s look at the timeline and what’s in the doc and see what’s missing to create action items.
      • 1. Should we not work on items in the timeline until next meeting?
    • vi. M. Marshall: Who’s going to take the lead of the budget?
      • 1. R. Burt: I’ll take the lead on this, but a lot of input is needed.
      • 2. K. Phelps: Lots of questions to answer
      • 3. B. Bliss: How much per student do we want to spend? Need to think about all of the costs involved. What percentage of students do we think will accomplish this in the next 5 years? Projects fail sometimes. Need to be careful how much upfront costs are there.
        • a. M. Marshall: It would be everyone who wants to do it – so all students regardless of the department’s goal. QEP only asks to project out 5 years.
    • vii. R. Burt: We’ll be researching who’s been exposed to portfolios across the country and on campus – so that should give us an idea on the projection of the number of students to expect to participate.
    • viii. C. Relihan gathered questions for a campus-wide survey:
      • 1. Are you using portfolios with undergrad majors?
        • a. Should we ask if they are career portfolios? No, let’s just see who’s using portfolios first.
      • 2. Are you using eportfolios? What platform are you using?
      • 3. Are you interested in expanding to eportfolios?
      • 4. Who is the portfolio contact for your department/program?
    • ix. Comment: Those that are interested in more long term goals would be for another survey. Let’s find those currently using portfolios and interested in moving forward first.
  • d. By next meeting: (tasks)
    • i. A. Trehub will present a preliminary list of criteria to help with the selection of platforms.
    • ii. M. Marshall will cut and paste action items, learning objectives, and other items from the pre-proposal into the Wiki document.
    • iii. Individuals will post their definitions into the glossary on Wiki.
    • iv. D. Stoeckel will confirm info with Yancey and Eynon.
    • v. C. Relihan will submit the survey created during the meeting.
    • vi. Everyone let R. Burt any scheduling conflicts for the new weekly meeting schedule.
    • vii. Look at the evaluation matrix of software/platforms and create a preliminary list to review.
    • viii. Everyone look at the timeline and action items, then determine what actions need to be done and when.
    • ix. Next meeting: Identify subcommittees to fulfill those actions.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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