SACS QEP Development Committee
April 16, 2012
Attendance: M. Marshall, R. Burt, P. Stamm, C. Relihan, B. Sanderson, D. Stoeckel, L. Elmer, A. Trehub.
1. Review of the minutes from 4/2/2012.
- a. M. Marshall found a few typos and informed D. Stoeckel
2. Update on Revision to Draft QEP
- a. Comments about the forma of the document. The SACS guidelines are more geared toward document and font size.
- b. Committee identified sections that needed further revision and reduction in size (i.e., appendices) to meet the 75 page restriction.
3. Discussion of committee meeting times.
- a. Next scheduled meetings are 4/23, 4/30 and 5/7.
- b. The committee decided to meet on the following dates:
- i. 4/23
- ii. 4/30
- iii. 5/21
- iv. 6/18
- 1. Meeting will remain at the same time (3 pm) and location (205 OIT).
- c. D. Stoeckel tasked with informing committee members of meeting schedule.
4. Review of Draft Assessment Plan written by L. Lock and C. Relihan.
- a. Discussion over a central assessment model vs. individualized department assessments.
- b. Discussion over how to motivate and coordinate the departments who are participating to conduct the assessment of the career ePortfolios produced by their students.
- i. Discussion based on University Of Mississippi model of assessment and how similar processes exist at Auburn University that could be used in a similar manner. Both direct and indirect measure (i.e., use of Digital Measures, NSEE and surveys).
- 1. Survey question could be used as indirect measures.
- 2. Could use existing surveys so that not to overburden the departments.
- 3. Discussion over the importance of the involvement of faculty in assessments.
- 4. Discussion over the type of questions to ask in order to determine the success of the QEP (i.e., Career ePortfolio Program).
- a. The program should be “broad and deep” – we want more departments to participate over time and we want them to participate for a long time and progress in their participation.
- i. Discussion over the University of Louisville model.
- b. Committee discussed assessment how many departments are at what level of the program and how they progress over time.
- i. The department would only repot at which Learning Outcome they are assessment.
- c. This could be used to identify areas that need more attention or resource allocation.
- c. Committee reviewed draft assessment survey form developed by L. Lock and C. Relihan.
- i. Discussion over how to encourage colleges/departments to conduct assessments and report their findings.
- ii. What incentives to use for faculty, departments, students?
- d. Concerns: Assessments can get too complicated and if the effort to participate in the Career ePortfolio program is voluntary, will folks want to do a lot of work?
- i. Suggestion: Start simple. Collect basic information such as how many departments are participating? What level of ePortfolio development?
5. Next Monday topics of discussion:
- a. How do we assess success? Committee members are to bring questions to ask in the assessment - outside of the Learning Objectives.
- b. D. Stoeckel is to inform Committee members of meeting schedule.
- c. M. Marshall will incorporate draft assessment document into the larger QEP document.
- d. Committee members are to read the draft and comment.
6. Discussion over the possibility of presenting the QEP at the faculty senate meeting in Aug/Sept of this year.
Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012