Developing a Quality Enhancement Plan: From Consensus to Effective Follow-Up

1. Developing a QEP Topic from Consensus to Follow-Up Dr. Eli Capilouto, Provost Dr. Marilyn Kurata, Interim Associate Provost for Undergraduate Programs 2006 ALAIR Winter Workshop January 27, 2006

2. Basic Guidelines for the QEP A QEP • should be an integral complement to the institution’s mission and strategic planning • should engage constituencies and exhibit broad-based participation in selection • should enhance student learning in measurable ways

3. UAB Mission Statement UAB is a research university and academic health center that discovers, teaches and applies knowledge for the intellectual, cultural, social and economic benefit of Birmingham, the state and beyond.

4. UAB StrategicPlanning: Background Strategic Plan derived from broad-based data • Surveys • Interviews • Focus groups and department-level discussions • Data reviews • Meetings with teaching award winners • Meetings with student leaders • Community input

5. UAB Strategic Plan Five goals of Strategic Plan focus on: • Undergraduate Education • Graduate and Professional Education • Research and Scholarship • Service to Community and State • Community and Financial Support

6. Goal #1: Undergraduate Education • We will achieve a highly effective undergraduate educational experience to give students the best possible preparation for productive and meaningful careers and lives that benefit society.

7. Step 1: Brainstorm QEP Topics Academic Programs Council, Executive Committee • Self-study for SACS Compliance Audit • Results of faculty & student Focus Groups • Data from Office of Planning and Analysis • Review of resource materials • Building a Nation of Learners, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities, & other relevant national studies

8. SACS Compliance Audit Core Requirement 2.7.3: General Education [The institution] requires in each undergraduate degree program the successful completion of a general education component at the collegiate level that is (1) a substantial component of each undergraduate degree, (2) ensures breadth of knowledge, and (3) is based on a coherent rationale.

9. Focus Groups • Student support services • Technology • General education • Changing student body • Library • Student learning experiences • Assessment • Calendar • Teacher training • Education for employability

10. Data from Office of Planning and Analysis Means to identify student characteristics, institutional weaknesses & strengths, and possible topics for QEP • National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results • Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Annual Freshman Survey results • Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory • ETS Academic Profile Test • Institutional graduation, retention, and other reports

11. Sample NSSE Data Used in Final QEP Experience of UAB seniors lower than expectations expressed by first-year students in following areas: • Participation in a learning community or other formal program linking courses for student cohort • Community service or volunteer work • Extramural activities • Culminating senior experience (thesis, comprehensive exam, capstone course, project, etc.)

12. Core competencies Numeracy Literacy Academic Enrichment Research opportunities for undergraduates Participation in experiential learning Honors experiences Life Skills Leadership Collaboration & teamwork Diversity Information technology Time and financial management Global and community consciousness Critical thinking Communication skills Ethics/values/integrity Potential Areas of Enhancement

13. The Final Choices • Increasing research capabilities for undergraduates • Increasing participation in experiential learning • Increasing honors experiences • Improving numeracy and literacy competencies

14. Step 2: Identify the Focus of the QEP Campus-wide input on ranking the final choices • Deans & Library Directors • Vice Presidents • All members of Academic Programs Council • Departments

15. Focus of our Quality Enhancement Plan • Improving numeracy and literacy competencies by strengthening the core curriculum

16. Step 3: Form the QEP Committee Representatives from: • 8 schools with undergraduate programs • Faculty Senate • Provost’s office • Student Affairs • Student Government Association • UAB Honors Program

17. Choose the QEP Committee Leadership Faculty from three arts and sciences schools: • Chair from Arts & Humanities • Co-chairs from • Natural Science & Mathematics • Social & Behavioral Sciences External Consultant

18. Basis for an Effective QEP Committee • Broad input from multiple constituencies • A faculty-driven process • Administrative support for faculty participation & technology needs • Regular communication between university administration and QEP Committee leadership

19. Charge to the QEP Committee • Develop a QEP that will improve, in a comprehensive and integrative way, fundamental learning competencies at the undergraduate level

20. Step 4: Develop the QEP Work of the QEP Committee • Collect data • Develop the QEP • Identify specific goals, outcomes, & best practices • Develop ways and means to achieve goals & outcomes • Write the document • Solicit feedback • Revise

21. Step 4a: Collect Data Multiple methods used • Review of literature and best practices • Site visits (virtual and actual) • Informal meetings with experts • Faculty survey • Faculty focus groups • Other surveys A dual-purpose enterprise • Expanded understanding of the issues • Enhanced buy-in

22. Review of Literature and Best Practices Initial step in data collection, but ongoing • Shared concepts, and buy-in, within the committee Literature review examples: • Boyer Commission report on Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities • Greater Expectations Project: Taking Responsibility for the Quality of the Baccalaureate Degree • Lynn Steen (Ed.): The Case for Quantitative Literacy • Colby et al.: Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility • Articles from the Chronicle, WSJ, NY Times, etc.

23. Virtual and Actual Site Visits • Web site visits to > 50 colleges & universities • Actual site visits to: • Georgia State University • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis • Special-purpose visit • Mathematics Teaching and Learning Center at the University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) • About 50% of QEP Committee participated in actual site visits with Provost

24. Meetings with Individuals with Special Knowledge and Expertise • Academic advisors • Leaders in Student Affairs • Executive Director, statewide Articulation and General Studies Committee • “Consumers” of our graduates: • Graduate Program Directors • Employers, via our Career Center

25. Data Collection Initiatives Targeting Faculty Buy-In Outside the Committee • Survey of faculty teaching first courses in the majors  key foundation competencies • Focus Groups of faculty teaching upper-division courses in the majors  graduation-level competencies • Faculty participants nominated by QEP Committee members, deans, and departmental chairs

26. Key Aspects of Faculty Survey • Informed faculty of the QEP process • Rapidly involved large numbers of faculty • Characterized by rapid acquisition & analysis of data due to Web-based methodology • Provided comprehensive input since 69% of nominated faculty participated, representing 85% of undergraduate majors • Provided a baseline for later assessment of the QEP as it is implemented

27. Sample Items from ourWeb-based Faculty Survey

28. Key Aspects of Faculty Focus Groups • Participants grouped by school • QEP Committee members received training to serve as facilitators & recorders for Focus Groups in other schools • Like survey, process contributed to faculty buy-in • Involved many faculty • Informed faculty of on-going QEP development • Results complemented survey characteristics • Elicited a wider range of ideas and reactions • Allowed faculty to respond to each others’ ideas

29. Faculty Focus Group Agenda • Results of the faculty survey • Competencies that our graduates should have acquired, regardless of major • Ongoing and recommended activities that support the graduation competencies Subtext towards buy-in • We value faculty input and are using it to shape the QEP • Graduation competencies are a university-wide responsibility, not the outcome of a single department or course

30. Other Surveys Groups surveyed • Alumni • Parents’ Association Purpose • Provided additional perspectives on graduation competencies • Engaged the broader UAB community

31. Step 4b: Develop the QEP After data collection & discussion, QEP Committee agreed on • Conceptual framework of the QEP • Specific focus for the QEP • Learning outcome of the QEP • Best practices to achieve the learning outcome

32. Conceptual Framework for the QEP Shared Vision for a UAB Graduate • Communication • Knowledge • Problem-Solving • Citizenship

33. Specific Focus and Learning Outcome Specific focus of QEP • Writing • Quantitative Literacy • Ethics and Civic Responsibility Learning outcome of the QEP • Students will demonstrate increased proficiency in targeted competencies

34. Best Practices A coherent and comprehensive plan • Learning Communities • Mid-Curriculum Enhancement • Capstone Experience Support units • Center for Teaching and Learning • Math Learning Laboratory • Writing Center

35. Strengths of the QEP Committee Process • Multiple perspectives on each issue • Insight into future arguments & counter-arguments • Consensus on best practices • Continual liaison with schools and departments

36. Weaknesses of the Committee Process • Difficult to have full attendance at meetings • More discussions than decisions • Too much time on details • “Everybody has to say everything”  Phase 2 of the development process: Creation of subcommittee structure to flesh out details of implementation

37. QEP Subcommittee Structure

38. Subcommittee Process • Fostered more efficient arrival at consensus • Failure at consensus settled by vote of whole committee • Vote needed about 3 times • Generated written reports that provided basis for drafting final plan • Strengthened members’ commitment to specific components of QEP, identifying future implementation leaders

39. Step 4c: Write the Document • Drafting the document • SACS guidelines • Subcommittee reports • Leadership team • Revising the document • Multiple reviewers, including top administrative input on timeline, budget, & implementation team • Writing the document • Science & humanities perspectives • Data analysis • Fluent writing

40. Step 5: Get the Word Out • A university-wide effort • President • Provost • Administrative support units • Academic Affairs • Student Affairs • Media Relations • Deans & chairs • QEP Committee

41. Examples of Getting the Word Out Presentations on the QEP • Board of Trustees • Academic Programs Council • Faculty Senate • Campus-wide, School-wide, & departmental meetings • Community-based advisory boards • Student groups Media campaign • Kiosks • Posters • Ads

42. Sample Media Campaign Posters

43. Sample Media Campaign Newspaper Ad

44. The QEP One Year Later • Director of Core Curriculum Enhancement • University Task Forces spearheading component initiatives • Departmental self-studies & initiatives related to QEP outcome • Restructured freshman composition • Restructuring of basic math courses underway • UAB Discussion Book & supporting activities • Freshman Learning Communities for fall 2006 • Ford Foundation Grant for 2006-08

45. Conclusions and Recommendations • Embrace the QEP as an opportunity to make significant improvements in the educational experience of your students • Use faculty to generate the QEP • Make transparent the administration’s consistent support for the developing QEP • Keep communication flowing both ways among all constituencies • Start early

46. Final Advice: Keep Your Sense of Humor

47. http://sacs.ad.uab.edu Click on link at bottom of lefthand column for QEP document