SACS QEP Development Committee

January 30, 2012

Attendance: R. Burt, D. Stoeckel. L. Elmer, B. Sanderson, P. Stam, B. Bailey, A. Trehub, L. Lock, K. Phelps

1. Introduction of new committee member: Laura Elmer

2. Review of 1/23/2012 minutes

  • a. M. Marshall mentioned typos. D. Stoeckel recognized that the document was in a rough form and will correct typos.
  • b. A. Trehub asked that the reference to the Digital Media Laboratory be changed to Media and Digital Resource lab (MDRL) in RBD Library.

3. R. Burt reported on his meeting with Drew Clark.

  • a. The committee’s job is to develop a plan, not to implement the pan. The responsibility of the implementation belongs to the Provost.
  • b. The committee is to define the expectations for the director of the ePortfolio program, such as qualification and what level of employment (e.g., faculty or professional).
  • c. The committee can make recommendations for  1 or more strategies where this person may be housed at the university, but the ultimate decision is with the Provost’s Office.
  • d. The document that the committee submits will be more of a draft plan for the university leadership to review.  The university leadership will revise the document based on their recommendations and then submit to SACS as a final plan.
  • 4. K. Yancey visit.

  • a. D. Stoeckel reported that K. Yancey has proposed that the dates of March 27-28, 2012 for her visit.
    • i. Discussion over the logistics of her visit:
      • 1. Discussion over the logistics of her visit:
        • a. M. Marshall suggested keeping an open schedule with respondents and students to allow for more flexibility on attendance.
  • b. The group decided that the goals of K. Yancey’s visit would be to get to know the students of Auburn University, help Auburn departments transition to ePortfolios, and to provide advice to the QEP Development Committee on the development of the QEP.
    • i. The group will ask her to meet with them at lunch on 3/28/12 before her departure to share her thoughts on the QEP and then have her submit a formal report on her findings within a couple of weeks after the visit.
  • 5. February meeting with survey respondents.

  • a. D. Stoeckel reserved room 2223 in the Student Center. The date of the meeting was set for February 16, 2012 from 11:30 a.m. – 1 pm.
  • b. Invitations will go out to survey participants regarding the meeting.
  • c. The group discussed having 2 presentations: R. Burt provide an introduction to the QEP project, followed by a presentation by B. Anderson on the use of ePortfolios in the nursing school. Then into small roundtable discussions with the audience.
  • 6. Project Timeline

  • a. The group reviewed the timeline and determined which components should be altered or removed.
  • b. Pilot projects need to address 1 or more of the QEP learning objectives.  They can be course-based, program-based or experienced-based. A whole project can be used for a showcase, or a component of the project. Then the pilot project could be how to add these to ePortfolios.
  • c. Discussion over how to determine the number of departments/programs to project for future assessment (i.e., how many departments/programs are we going to say will be using ePortfolios after 5 years?).
    • i. The group identified three classes of departments/programs based on portfolio use:
      • 1. Departments/programs that use ePortfolios
      • 2. Departments/programs that have a portfolio requirement (not ePortfolios)
      • 3. Departments/programs that do not require a portfolio
        • a. NOTE: These departments could be classified as being in the artifact collection phase of building a portfolio.
    • ii. An assessment of the progress of the QEP would be to see an increase in the number of departments/programs that progress from 3 to 2 to 1.
      • 1. Need to think about the cost to the department to go from 3 to 2 to 1.
    • iii. A. Trehub: We should simply state the percentage of departments/programs to implement ePortfolio at the end of 5 years.
    • iv. M. Marshal: but maybe a department will never get to ePortfolios, but provide components of an ePortfolio and tie this to our learning objectives.  At least they would be gathering artifacts.
      • 1. Comment: How do we capture those students that will do this on their own?
    • v. Comment: If they want to participate in the QEP or ePortfolio project then they will get resources, such as access to software, access to the digital media lab, and other resoures.
    • vi. L. Elmer: Students prefer the electronic means of communication. Could we market the ePortfolio as a means of getting a good job after college?
  • d. M. Marshall: Discussion on how to assess the success of the QEP project.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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