SACS QEP Development Committee

February 6, 2012

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

1. Review of the minutes from 1/31/12

  • a. No comments.

2. K. Yancey’s visit

  • a. D. Stoeckel is to email R. Burt with K. Yancey’s arrival and departure. Date for her visit is set for March 27 -28.

3. February 16 Workshop

  • a. D. Stoeckel has received 11 RSVP’s thus far and R. Burt has received 2 – 3.
  • b. The committee reviewed the agenda for this meeting.
    • i. A PPT will be presented by R. Burt and B. Sanderson, then break out into small group discussions.
  • c. Review of PPT created by L. Lock. Members provided comments and edits.
  • d. The committee decided to create a handout that replicated Slide 5 of the PPT for the participants. Slide #5 listed the learning goals and examples. Workgroup participants will be asked for input.
  • e. B. Bailey raised the issue of FERPA compliance with regard to the development of ePortfolios.  
    • i. R. Burt suggested that FERPA compliance issues be a discussion point at the workshop.
    • ii. K. Phelps suggested that this issue be discussed with K. Yancey when she visits.
  • f. L. Elmer offered to share her ePortfolio at the workshop as another example besides the nursing examples offered by B. Sanderson.
  • g. M. Marshall suggested that a workgroup aid for the committee members be created for use when directing the small group breakout sessions.  The aid would contain the same questions posed to the small groups with enough space for writing notes for each question.
  • h. R. Burt, L. Lock and B. Sanderson will continue to work on the ppt and present a final draft to the group at the next meeting (Feb 13).
  • i. D. Stoeckel was tasked with ordering the food for the luncheon.

  • 4. Pilot projects  

  • a. R. Burt created a table that corresponded to the planned activities from the QEP Exploratory committee and the major elements of the QEP Implementation timeline.
    • i. The committee reviewed an example of the QEP from Mississippi State, University of Houston, Florida State University to view the format that was used by other university to set out the action times.
  • b. The committee discussed pilot projects.
    • 1. Groups that are using portfolios in classes but have no support.
    • 2. Groups that require portfolios but have minimal support.
    • 3. Groups that require portfolios and have full support (run their own pilots).
  • c. A. Trehub: By putting this structure (WEP) in place we are proposing to coordinate all groups who are requiring portfolios.  Creating the infrastructure to allow all groups to develop portfolios.
  • d. M. Marshall: There are 3 components [to the infrastructure]:
    • i. The person who coordinates it all (the ePortfolio program)
    • ii. A faculty development component
    • iii. Student support component.
  • e. The committee decided upon the use of a matrix that mapped the project’s learning objectives against the steps of building an ePortfolio.
    • i. L. Elmer was tasked with creating a document containing this matrix.
    • ii. The matrix could be used to determine where a particular department/program was in their attempt to accomplish the use of eportfolios.
    • iii. Some discussion over the use of eportfolios as a means of meeting a departments writing plan.
  • f. The committee decided to begin on a draft of the QEP document to move forward on decisions and details.
    • i. M. Marshall was tasked with drafting the section on Action Items
      • 1. L. Lock agreed to assist M. Marshall with this draft.
    • ii. The committee agreed, in general, to work on other sections of the document.
    • iii. The committee agreed to draft the QEP document in MSWord rather than on the Wiki.
      • 1. Each draft would be saved as a new version to track changes and create a document history.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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