SACS QEP Development Committee

January 23, 2012

Attendance: Bliss Bailey, Richard Burt, Constance Relihan, Leonard Lock, Margaret Marshall, Pamela Stam, Aaron  Trehub, Denise Stoeckel

1. Review of the Minutes from Jan 9, 2012.  No Comments.

2. AU Portfolio Use survey response

  • a. School of Business and College of Liberal Arts currently use portfolios. Some departments who do use portfolios were not responsive to the survey.
  • b. M. Marshal posted a list of departments/programs that use portfolios on Wiki.

3. Discussion over how to modify the current QEP website to market the ePortfolio project and to gain more participation.

  • a. Group viewed the current QEP website set up by the Office of Communication and Marketing for the QEP Exploratory Committee.
    • i. D. Stoeckel was tasked with talking to Sarah Phillips of OCM about editing the web page with current QEP activities.
    • ii. D. Stoeckel was tasked with asking Drew Clark if QEP Development Committee can have someone on the committee to help with website development.
  • b. Discussion over the marketing audience of future survey. Faculty? Program level? Students?
    • i. The most recent survey was at the program level.
  • c. Discussion over the use of a marketing person on the committee. The QEP Exploratory Committee had a person from the Office of Communication and Marketing in attendance and this person was very helpful.
  • d. Some discussion about hiring a student or a TES employee to maintain website.
  • 4. Kathlene Yancey visit.

  • a. R. Burt stated that his idea of her visit would entail Dr. Yancey meeting with the Committee members first. Give her access to the WIKI documents so that she can review and provide feedback.
  • b. Have Dr. Yancey meet with the QEP Development Committee for a minimum of 2 hours (4 hours max) and with the small discussion group for 2 – 3 hours.
  • c. Should we meet with the respondents prior to K. Yancey’s prevention? This would allow the respondents to be on the same page when they meet with her.
    • i. The decision was to schedule this event around lunch time on or around Feb 14, 2012.
    • ii. D. Stoeckel tasked with making the reservations at the Student Center. D. Stoeckel stated that D. Clark would cover the cost.
  • d. M. Marshall: It would be nice to have a list of topics that the group can discuss
  • e. The group discussed the format of the Feb 14 meeting.  For the K. Yancey session: Three hours with QEP Committee and 3 hours with the respondents.
    • i. Keep the respondent Feb 14 session informal. Introduce the QEP project. Break into working groups – if enough people attend. If not, then just site and talk and discuss.
      • 1. L. Lock volunteered to put a presentation together. A simple PowerPoint. R. Burt will present. The presentation will include:
        • a. Here is what we’re doing.
        • b. What are some general tasks (from timeline)
        • c. Add a rough timeline.
      • 2. Some discussion among the group as to how to run the session:
        • a. Hold the presentation while they eat, then write out the LO’s and pass them out asking them to respond after they attend.
  • 5. Agenda items 5 & 6

  • a. Need to tie in the LO’s and the job description of the Director of the QEP. The timeline states that we do this Spring/Summer of 2012.
  • b. R. Burt: The initial steps of the timeline are our responsibility (the QEP group).  But to conduct workshops in 2013 would be the Director’s activity.
  • c. M. Marshall: Maybe use the word Coordinator v. Director.
    • i. A director would be someone who has a specific skill set. A coordinator doesn’t need to be as skilled, but work with available resources (much like Va. Tech’s model).  A coordinator position would be a simpler way to approach – less staff and resources.
    • ii. C. Relihan brought up the comparison between a full-time faculty and staff full-time and part-time positions. There could be an issue of credibility with a non-faculty person conducting a faculty development activity.
    • iii. B. Baily: Need to think about if we can create a separate department for this position/program that “turf issues” may be a concern.
    • iv. General discussion: Who does this person report to? Undergrad Studies? Writing Program? IMG? Career Services? Digital Media?
      • 1. Va. Tech position descriptions are located on the Wiki: QEP/Shared docs/VaTech Director Position.Description.
      • 2. M. Marshall: Va. Tech built in a rationale in building to this position over time (A rational document is also on Wiki). Va. Tech began with the concept of a director but knew they would need other specialist to build the program. So why hire a high profile position to oversee a possibly small program?
      • 3. R. Burt: This person will need to make decision to build a program. A coordinator may not fulfill this role or realize what is needed, but a Director will. We’ve got to decide where this person/position fits in the AU Hierarchy. 
      • 4. M. Marshall: Eportfolios dovetail into so many things, so this person needs to coordinate with existing resources.
      • 5. The group discussed the pros and cons of hiring a faculty position.
        • a. This position may limit their time to teach or conduct research.
        • b. C. Relihan: They are a lot of PhD’s that could and would do this.
      • 6. L. Lock: A person’s credibility with faculty and students is important.
      • 7. B. Bailey:  A PhD matters. A PhD is more important than the faculty role.
      • 8. M. Marshall: We’re not looking for a beginning PHD, but for someone with years of experience.
        • a. You want someone who has been in “the trenches”. Someone who can talk about curriculum and not just the technology.
      • 9. R. Burt: We have to consider the reporting hierarchy when writing the job description.
      • 10. L. Lock: We could limit the amount of staff to keep cost down. Va. Tech hired 4 people. 
      • 11. (General Discussion):
        • a. Va. Tech used their existing Faculty development center (like our Biggio) to jump start the program.
        • b. Va. Tech hired a director and planned for the additional 4 people.
        • c. L. Lock: Can we just put a statement in our director’s job description that additional staff may be hired if the QEP program is a success.
        • d. M. Marshall: need to project these positions to hold budget lines open. It’s difficult to build from a blank slate.
      • 12. R. Burt: Couldn’t we project out so that these positions are required under specific salaries/budget – then have the Director write the positions based on the need.  Say “These are your responsibilities, budget and position needs.”  So at least the person knows that there’s money in the budget to determine these things.
      • 13. R. Burt: Would this be a good item to discuss with K. Yancey when she visits?
      • 14. M. Marshall: The ePortfolio project blends into so many of our existing programs, but it could get too big.
      • 15. A. Trehub: has to rise to a level of seriousness to satisfy the SACS Committee. We could write in for a Director with 2 support staff (1 educational specialist and 1 IT specialist).
      • 16. B. Bailey: What if we find an internal department/program where a director or assistant director could be the “director” of the QEP project?
        • a. A program where the QEP program can reside.  A dedicated project in its new “home”. Build on existing infrastructure. The QEP program could dovetail into assessments for that program/department.
      • 17. The group discussed placing the ePortfolio project at the Biggio Center, The Writing Initiative Program, Career Planning and Placement, IMG (Instructional Media Group), and the Media and Digital Resource lab (MDRL) in RBD Library.
      • 18. R. Burt: need to work on a job descriptions.
        • a. Discussion over whether or not to invite the Director of Biggio to meetings.  Yes. We had input from Biggio on the proposal.
        • b. M. Marshall was tasked with writing a draft job description and to talk to Biggio to get their interest.
        • c. B. Bailey: Maybe discuss this with the Provost, at the next Provost Staff meeting.
        • d. R. Burt: Should we talk to Drew about this idea? Yes. We need to make the decision and then discuss with Drew.
        • e. A. Trehub: Why not let the centers make their case about sponsoring the position?
      • 19. More discussion over the position placement and resources for the Director position.
        • a. L. Lock: We want to maximize the positive outcome of this project.
        • b. Discussion over issue of how placement of the position may be perceived.
  • D. Stoeckel exited the meeting due to time constraints. P. Stam continued with note taking. Her notes are below:

    Project, support, and space needs to be better defined before identifying where this project is housed. Possible locations include 1) Biggio, 2) Writing Center, 3) IMG, 4) Career Services, and 5) RBD Library (MDRL). This may not be a complete list. Members want to make sure that all plausible program / center are considered and given the opportunity to house this effort.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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