1 / 15

Quality Enhancement Plan Fall 2013 Performance Update

Quality Enhancement Plan Fall 2013 Performance Update. Spring 2014 Presentation. Project Overview. Professional Development 9 sessions, 177 participants (F) 10 in progress (S) Research Productivity 2012—2 (Refereed Presentations) 1 Invited Keynote

melvin-walls
Télécharger la présentation

Quality Enhancement Plan Fall 2013 Performance Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality Enhancement Plan Fall 2013 Performance Update Spring 2014 Presentation

  2. Project Overview Professional Development • 9 sessions, 177 participants (F) • 10 in progress (S) Research Productivity • 2012—2 (Refereed Presentations) 1 Invited Keynote • 2013—9 (Refereed Presentations) 1 Invited Keynote • 2014—1 (Refereed Presentation) 1 Invited Keynote;1 invited conference session Participating Instructors • 49 (F) • 55 (S) QEP Classes • 67 (F) • 71 (S) Students Enrolled • 1513 (F) • 1844 (S) Grant Proposals • 1 (SU) (partially funded) • 1 (F) (Under review) • 1 (SP) (Under development) TEAM USA Classroom Usage • 33 hrs per wk (F) • 31 hrs per wk (S)

  3. Findings • 82% of SLO Critical Thinking Mastery Targets were met

  4. Critical Thinking—SLO Target Mastery Report n=233 n=535 n=58 n=51 n=1969 n=445 n=302 n=499 n=103 n=633 45 100-600 level sections

  5. Critical Thinking—California Critical Thinking Skills Test Comparing QEP students with non-QEP students….. • Higher percentile score • A statistically significant difference in all critical thinking constructs--Induction, Deduction, Analysis, Inference, Evaluation, Interpretation and Explanation

  6. Critical Thinking—California Critical Thinking Skills Test Percentile n=52 n=49

  7. Critical Thinking/Collaboration—Pre/Post Critical Thinking/Collaboration Test • Higher post-test scores • A statistically significant difference pertaining to evaluating, analyzing, creating and collaboration as compared to pre-test scores

  8. Critical Thinking—Pre/Post Test Critical Thinking 2.7% n=718 n=699

  9. Collaboration—Pre/Post Test Collaboration 5.3% n=718 n=699

  10. Final Grades Comparing QEP students with non-QEP students….. • More A’s and B’s and fewer D’s and F’s in QEP courses as compared to non-QEP courses • A statistically significant difference in student grades

  11. Final Grades # of Students 50% 48% 24% 36% 11% 15% 7% 4% 3% 2% 100-600 level sections QEP NON-QEP QEP n=1489 Non-QEP n=1089

  12. Persistence—Course Withdrawal Rates Comparing QEP students with non-QEP students….. • 50% fewer student withdrawals from QEP courses • Astatistically significant difference in persistence

  13. Persistence—Course Withdrawal Rate (100-400 Level) 39sections 35 sections

  14. What is Team-Based Learning? Team Based Learning is a collaborative learning strategy including the following instructional components: • In-Class Application Activities: Application of content using based on 4 S’s Significant problem Same problem Specific choice Simultaneous reporting • Peer Evaluation: Team members evaluate each other’s performance • Readiness Assurance: Application does not begin until students have mastered content as evidenced by “iRAT” and “tRAT” assessments • Strategically Formed Teams purposefully designed Teams:

More Related