SACS QEP Development Committee

August 16, 2012

Attendance: R. Burt, B. Bailey,  L. Elmer, D. Stoeckel, L. Lock, M. Marshall, P. Stamm, and B. Sanderson

1. Review of June 18, 2012 meeting.

  • a. No minutes were taken.
  • b. R. Burt stated that the meeting covered the draft document. The discussion then led to the submission of the draft document to interested programs/departments.
  • c. 75 emails were sent out notifying individuals that the document was ready for review.
  • d. 69 individuals accessed the document on Sharepoint.
  • e. Approximately 5 people provided comment via email, approximately 7 people provided comment on Sharepoint, and 5 people provided comment by way of personal communication with M. Marshall.

2. Report from M. Marshall and L. Elmer on ePortfolio conference they attended in Boston.

  • a. One major learning point that was taken from the conference was to slow down the development of the ePortfolio program. To “stage out” the process with multiple timelines for each stage of development.
    • i. Set individualized timelines for the various goals.
  • b. “Use resources to get done what you want to get done” – in other words, focus on needs with regard to resources. Seed Grants could be used to provide resources to those participants with needs.
  • c. We could hire the ePortfolio coordinator and then setup a goal date for program implementation.
  • d. We don’t’ have to pick a platform initially; we can pilot various platforms to find the best fit.

3. Revise the coordinating committee to be initially a search committee tasked with screening and recommending the coordinator.

  • a. Discussion lead to setting up a hiring committee to hire the coordinator by March 2013.
    • i. Committee would be tasked with writing /adjusting the job description and going through the hiring process.
  • b. The Committee agreed that a search committee be formed first, then after the coordinator is hired, set up an advisory or steering committee.
    • i. Put information in the QEP on how the advisory/steering committee is to be put together and what objectives they will work on.
  • c. P. Stamm suggested putting together and advisory committee and creates a sub-committee for the search.
    • i. Another idea discussed was to have an Oversight Committee where members were heads of subcommittees. Subcommittees could  then be  meade up of non-Oversight Committee members.
  • d. R. Burt felt that a search committee would be best. No more than 6 members:
    • i. 2 members from support units
    • ii. 2 members from Early Adopters
    • iii. 2 members from the current QEP Development committee (someone from the QEP Dev. Committee will chair the search committee)
  • e. Getting back to the idea of staging the timeline, a recommendation for Stage 1 set as creating a search committee, and State 2 to form the Steering/Oversight committee.
    • i. L. Lock expressed concern about the size of the search committee. He felt that representation may be lost with only 6 members.
  • f. M. Marshall stated that she talked to people from Virginia Tech and Loyola about the timing of the search.
    • i. It was recommended to start announcing in October, review and interview in Feb-March, then hire in last Spring Semester 2013.

4. Delay Selecting Technology Package

  • a. M. Marshall stated that she could write in the QEP that a package will be decided upon in fall 2013. This prevents locking into a timeline that is unrealistic.
  • b. C. Relihan stated that she was concerned that the QEP would look like a document hat is planning to plan.
    • i. Discussion within the group over how there are 5 years to implement the program and that certain, free or readily available programs could be used or programs/departments could use their favored programs/platforms.
    • ii. Discussion over providing seed grants to departments to purchase programs of their choice.
    • iii. There was a basic understanding among the group that there was to be no universal acceptance of any platform or program for the ePortfolio program. The main reason for having a universal platform was primarily for assessment reasons.
    • iv. R Burt stated that a subcommittee could be formed to keep up with what type of formats everyone is using and how well they work. Part of the seed grants can be used to purchase software. This would affect the role of IMG.

5. Scheduling of next meeting:

  • a. Committee decided that the next QEP Development Committee meeting would be hled on Fri, 8/24 at 9 am.

6. M. Marshall asked committee members to generate a list of ideas of seed grants and to submit to her for the next meeting.

  • a. The committee discussed how to identify “adopters” and created a list of those departments/programs known to have interest:  Building Science, Art, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Education Abroad Program
  • b. The committee discussed how the program could identify new adopters in the future.
    • i. Discussion over classifying new adopters based on current portfolio use
    • ii. Form a subcommittee under the Steering committee composed of members of the previous year’s adopters.
    • iii. Start small, and only accept a few adopters the first year to assist with developing a model on how to identify future adopters and how to support them.

7. Review of the presentation to the Faculty Senate

  • a. The committee reviewed the presentation.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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