SACS QEP Development Committee

May 21, 2012

Attendance: R. Burt, L. Elmer, D. Stoeckel, P. Stamm, C. Relihan, L. Lock, M. Marshall, and A. Trehub.

Today’s goal: to review the status of the QEP document for submission to interested persons and reviewers.

1. Executive Summary (R. Burt)

  • a. 2nd paragraph will be modified to include current action items and other items.

2. Sections II – IV. (C. Relihan and A. Trehub)

  • a. QEP Development Committee list will be moved to an appendix.
  • b. Discussion over where areas of the document could be condensed or edited.
  • c. Discussion let to the literature Review/Best Practices section
    • i. Information from this section should be woven into other areas of the document rather than stand alone.
    • ii. Need to add references relevant to eportfolio literature. The bibliography needs to be cross referenced to make sure literature cited in the document is captured.
  • d. Incomplete sections were identified as VI. Refining SLO’s and the text for the budget and timeline.

3. V. Student Learning Outcomes

  • a. Some formatting work and the addition of some examples to demonstrate the student learning objectives are needed.

4. VII. Action Items.

  • a. Discussion over replacing the current pie chart graphic. Discussion over asking internal reviewers for assistance on a graphic to use.

5. Budget and Resources sections

  • a. Budget is written and on target as $500,000 per year.
  • b. Resources
    • i. Space needs have been identified. Need some text on how funds will be distributed from Central Admin.

6. Discussion let to the development of the Coordinating Council, hiring of the program coordinator, and selection of software.

  • a. Does the coordinating committee need to start forming now?
  • b. Should the committee decide on the software platform?
    • i. Committee decided to suggest a list of software to present to the committee. This list will be in the QEP document.

7. Section XI Assessment

  • a. Discussion over editing the sample evaluation rubric and how an assessment could be conducted using the information from the section, such as the use of the tables.

8. Appendices

  • a. A work in progress at the time.

9. Snappy title discussion

  • a. Discussion over whether or not the use of APP as the title would confuse students. Decision was to let reviewers help determine if APP is an appropriate title or to use another recommended title.

10. General discussion topics

  • a. All draft documents should be uploaded to Master QEP Documents folder so that all QEP document sections are in one place on SharePoint.
  • b. M. Marshall and L. Elmer will get a copy of the full document to the committee for review before the next meeting.
  • c. P. Stamm will put together a list of questions to provide to the reviewers.
  • d. M. Marshall stated that the Marketing and Communication Department about the marketing plan for the ePortfolio project.
    • i. Discussion over various means of getting the word out about the program.
  • e. Discussion over the possible activities of the QEP Development Committee once the draft QEP is submitted in September 2012.
    • i. Reviewed meeting minutes from 10-6-2011 and found that the committee will continue until the submission of the final QEP document in January 2013.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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