SACS QEP Development Committee

April 30, 2012

Attendance: B. Sanderson, M. Marshall, L. Lock, L. Elmer. R. Brut, P. Stamm, B. Bailey, D. Stoeckel, C. Relihan, A. Trehub.

The committee began the meeting by reviewing the QEP document.

1. Executive Summary

  • a. R. Burt will review.

2. Sections II (Introduction), III (Process used to develop), IV (Identification of the Topic).

  • a. Most of text was lifted from proposal.
  • b. Section III needs some editorial work – Process of Selection.
  • c. Section IV Identification of the Topic – needs text.
    • i. Need to cover how career ePortfolio was selected and how this QEP fits information of ongoing needs.
  • d. Whoever works on these sections needs to tie in existing text/sections as well as the tie information/text that has not been included yet (e.g., the proposal).

3. R. Burt identified 3 parts: The process of how the topic was selected, what was selected and why, and the work of QEP Development Committee to build the QEP.

  • a. What’s in there now is cut/paste from the QEP exploratory report.

4. Section V. Student Learning Outcomes

  • a. Section V is ready to send out to AU interested participants to review.

5. Review of the Literature

  • a. The committee has a list of literature reviews, but they are not compiled into one document.
  • b. This section needs a lot of work.

6. Section VII. Actions to be implemented.

  • a. This section is ready for review by Auburn University interested parties.

7. Section VIII. Timeline and VIX Organizational Structure – both of these sections are ready for review.

8. Section X. Budget and resources.

  • a. This section needs text to go with the budget table.

9. Section XI. Assessment

  • a. This section needs more work since the learning objectives needed clarification.
  • b. The Assessment Table should be reworked.

10. XII. Appendices

  • a. This section needs organization, editing, and coupled with the previous sections.
  • b. D. Stoeckel was tasked with creating the list of committee members and the list of “1st Adopters” or Interested Parties for the Appendices.

11. Comments:

  • a. Need to add information from K. Yancey’s visit. This would go into Section III. Process.
  • b. Drew will need to provide the committee with the expected role of the Development Committee after the submission of the QEP.
  • c. Need to write in what is to happen in the fall once the program is vetted into the University.

12. Discussion over the next steps.

  • a. Need to organize and break up the work.
  • b. R. Burt would like to submit full document to interested participants.
  • c. M. Marshal is willing to work on the Assessment section but requested some assistance.
    • i. P. Stamm and L. Lock volunteered.
  • d. C. Relihan will work on the Process and A. Trehub offered assistance.

13. The committee discussed various options to name the career ePortfolio program provided by AU’s Marketing department and decided to continue on this task.

14. A full draft document is to be reviewed by the committee at the next meeting, May 21, 2012.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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