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

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