SACS QEP Development Committee
September 4, 2012
Attendance: R. Burt, B. Bailey, M. Marshall, L. Elmer, D. Stoeckel, L. Lock, P. Stamm, A. Trehub, and L. LaMar.
1. M. Marshall presented the draft QEP to the committee members for comment.
- a. Comments referred to context as well as typographical edits.
2. L. Lock distributed a sample draft of an ePortfolio cohort Assessment Report template.
- a. The committee provided comment on the context, format and use.
- b. P. Stamm volunteered to have the ePortfolio Coordinator of Pharmacy to review the template and comment.
- c. L. Lock discussed the lack of use of the terms validity and reliability in the assessment section.
- i. The committee discussed the use of the terms and how the assessment cycles are planned. M. Marshall will consider the use of the terms in the text.
3. L. Elmer reported on findings from students with regard to the name of the ePortfolio program.
- a. Student group preferred “Project Portfolio” and provided several taglines to use for marketing (e.g., “Get a life!”, “Are you in?”)
4. Next Steps
- a. M. Marshall, L. Elmer will continue to edit the draft to create a final draft of the AU Administrative review.
- b. The plan is to convert the PDF an divide into sections to place on the website for public review
- i. Once up, an announcement will be posted in the AU Daily.
- c. K. Burt will need to draft an announcement for the AU daily and send an email out to the interested parties as well.
- d. Draft an email to all faculty. Email needs to be approved by the Faculty Senate.
- e. For students, sent out an email introducing the program and have them vote on taglines.
- f. Releaser the QEO document on Sept 10 and provide public review until Oct 10.
- g. M. Marshal and L. Elmer will meet with SGS leadership on Sept 10 to discuss the QEP
- i. Some committee members expressed concern that student excitement and eagerness to get started may overwhelm the committee an the Program
- 1. A. Trehub: As long as we are clear as to the timeline and the development of the program, students will k now.
- 2. As long as we are clear with regard to student expectations and communicate what is expected.
- 3. Discussion over the impact of the Program:
- a. Keep the title clear and easily identifiable.
- b. Make it clear that this is not a required activity for students and not all of the University will participate, so marketing will be complicated.
- c. Students that are not a part of hose active University components will be supported by student ambassadors and the Library’s MRDL.
- d. Discussion over how students in a non-active department may push those departments to join.
5. Planning for the SACSCOC On-site visit
- a. Discussion focused on presentations to Faculty Senate, Provost forum (Sept 2012) and Provost Council Meetings.
6. Some discussion over the name of the program
7. Next meeting: Tues, Sept 18 8 am in Gorie Hall. Focus will be on Marketing and on feedback received from presentations.
8. R. Burt: Department chairs and deans of the adopting groups should be told that the Program will send 2 folks of each to the Conference at Clemson.
9. Discussion to place the whole document (QEP) as a pdf on the QEP website
- a. M. Marshall: will edit the current document and then sent out as a pdf to the committee for review. Then that document (final draft) will be uploaded to the QEP website as a pdf for public review.
- b. The QEO document should stay on the QEP website. Other marketing-related information will go on the Program’s website.
Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012