SACS QEP Development Committee

October 16, 2012

Attendance: B. Bailey, R. Burt, B. Sanderson, l. LaMar, A. Trehub, M. Marshall, L. Elmer, L. Lock, D. Stoeckel, P. Stamm.

NOTE: October 2, 2012 meeting was cancelled.

1. Review of QEP

  • a. Need to remove some appendices or add information from some appendices to the main document.
    • i. No major comments resulted from the public review period. One comment was very useful, but most comments pertained to minor changes or were actual questions regarding the ePortfolio program.
    • ii. Minor edits are still to be done, but formatting is needed.  The graphic designer can repair the formatting.
  • b. On p. 12 there is text related to the 2nd review process. There is a placeholder in the document where information is to be inserted for this.
    • i. Mention the presentations that were made during the development process.
    • ii. Comments were made both formally and orally to show that the document was put out to review.
    • iii. Can’t be specific about how grants will be rewarded. That will be the responsibilities of the advisory committee and the new assistant director.
  • c. Still need information from the various departments for Table 7.
  • d. The graphic designer will receive the QEP on October 31 and then the final product will be provided at the end of November.
  • e. The January 15, 2013 deadline for submission to the President still stands.

2. Frequently asked questions (FAQ’s)

  • a. Question #3 regarding server space.
    • i. B. Bailey will be able to provide information for this.
  • b. Some discussion about the division of the FAQ’s into topic groups or categories: funding, participation, student-centered, faculty-centered, etc.
  • c. Discussion over the FAQ asking if a course could be designed for students to take for credit.
    • i. P. Stamm volunteered to add information t this issues with information on the HSOP plans of providing a course.
    • ii. Overall, the committee agreed that individual units/programs/departments could provide a course to fit their individual needs.

3. The committee further discussed which appendices to remove or to edit to save on document size.

  • a. Appendix on software/platform selection
    • i. Put a statement in the document tha the Development committee reviewed this item but that the advisory committee wil make the final decision.
  • b. Discussion over the removal of the list of interested parties.
    • i. The committee decided to move the table to thebody of the document where the initial survey is discussed, but if this causes the body of the document to go over with regard to page number then simply use the information of the table as a handout for the onsite review in March.
  • c. Notes from conferences
    • i. Could edit to shorten the information to just bullet points or place the information in the body of the report.
  • d. Job descriptions
    • i.Write a statement that the committee has drafted a job description for the technology position and post the description for the Assistant Director position.

4. Next Meeting – November 27, 2012.

Last Updated: Dec. 26, 2012

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