ASA 1/13/2006

1. QEP Meeting # 7 Core Team – Campus Meetings Review Focus of the Plan January 13, 2006 ASA 1/13/2006

2. A Review of the Open Campus Meetings • Following the two QEP Core Team Meetings held on October 14th and 28th, campus-based meetings were scheduled. • Each campus-based meeting was open to all campus employees and any employee from another campus unable to attend their home campus meeting .

3. A Review of the Open Campus Meetings • Each of the campus-based meetings had the following four purposes: 1. Review the accreditation process 2. Present the conceptual framework for the student success database 3. Review the student success data 4. Solicit observations, feedback, and suggestions that might inform the institution’s decision on a focus for the QEP

4. 1st Meeting – Virginia Beach Campus • It was held on November 10, 2005 at 12:30 pm in the Pungo Auditorium. • It was attended by 39 individuals. • Comments offered fell into the following categories: • Suggested further data analysis • Policy and procedure recommendations • Observations and explanations

5. Virginia Beach Feedback • Further data analysis • Students who took a Student Success Skills course: How does their performance compare to those who didn’t? • For developmental students: Isolate the data to allow for the identification of ESL students. • Class size: Is that a variable to consider in student success? • Students without a declared major: How does their success compare to those with a major? • More analysis on online courses • Students with supplemental instruction • Include MTH 115 with the Gatekeeper courses

6. Virginia Beach Feedback • Policy and Procedure Recommendations • Make the Student Success Skills course mandatory.

7. Virginia Beach Feedback • Observations and Explanations • The institution used to have a more robust continuous alert system for students who struggled with their coursework. • There are significant differences among departments and campuses regarding student attendance. • Our placement cut scores changed in 2004. How does that impact the data? • There are significant differences in grading scales among the campuses. Perhaps that explains some of the differences in percentages. • What is our policy on final exams? Some have them and some do not. • Time in class is also a factor. Some faculty have too frequent early dismissals.

8. 2nd Meeting – Portsmouth Campus • It was held on November 11, 2005 at 11:00 am in the Campus Theater. • It was attended by 53 individuals. • Comments offered fell into the following categories: • Suggested further data analysis • Policy and procedure recommendations • Observations and explanations

9. Portsmouth Feedback • Further data analysis • Career-Technical and Transfer majors and courses: We should have the data analyzed for these areas separately. • Online course distributions: We should look closer at course pass rates impacted by this variable. • Library usage: What about this as a factor in student success?

10. Portsmouth Feedback • Policy and Procedure Recommendations • We make it too easy for students to enroll themselves without advising. • We need to enforce course prerequisites. • We should have an online screening device. • We should require students that have earned less than 15 credit hours to see an advisor. • We should consider blocking enrollment in college courses for developmental students. • We should do student surveys by discipline after they are enrolled for two weeks.

11. Portsmouth Feedback • Observations and Explanations • Faculty advising is a factor that needs to be considered. • Faculty interaction with students is also a factor. • Perhaps the academic load of younger students is a factor in their success. • We need to focus on variables we can control. • We need to encourage conversations among Gatekeeper course faculty. • There need to be more disclaimers on how to interpret data. • The analysis of 17 years old and younger students should account for a lack of support services. • A significant factor is pedagogy and course content.

12. 3rd Meeting – Norfolk Campus • It was also held on November 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm in the Roper Theater, rm. 4235. • It was attended by 37 individuals. • Comments offered fell into the following categories: • Suggested further data analysis • Policy and procedure recommendations • Observations and explanations

13. Norfolk Feedback • Further data analysis • The number of times that a student attempts a course: We might need to factor this variable in. • Declared majors versus non-declared majors: We should look at student success for this variable. • The number of online courses taken by students: This is likely a factor. • When students see a counselor: Is this a variable we should consider?

14. Norfolk Feedback • Policy and Procedure Recommendations • We need to have better faculty training for online instruction. • There needs to be curriculum guides for sophomore students. • Student Success Skills courses should be mandatory. • Orientation should be mandatory via a web portal. • We should encourage learning communities of developmental classes paired with a Student Success Skills course. • We need to be enforcing course prerequisites in SIS.

15. Norfolk Feedback • Observations and Explanations • Advising is an issue. • Academic advising and counseling is an issue. • Career counseling is a factor. • We need to be cautious on making any major decision on only one semester of data. • We need to benchmark to other institutions. • There was concern about a QEP that would only focus on developmental and Gatekeeper courses. • We should look at career centers as a focus. • Online registration of new students is a factor.

16. 4th Meeting – Chesapeake Campus • It was held on November 14, 2005 at 12:30 pm in the Whitehurst Bldg, rm. 2057. • It was attended by 48 individuals. • Comments offered fell into the following categories: • Suggested further data analysis • Policy and procedure recommendations • Observations and explanations

17. Chesapeake Feedback • Further data analysis • Students who placed directly into ENG 111 and MTH 158: We should compare them with those that didn’t. • There needs to be separation of the military data. • Night students: We might want to study how they compare with day students. • We should check to see whether or not student demographic data varies significantly between campuses. • Older students could be studied in more detail.

18. Chesapeake Feedback • Policy and Procedure Recommendations • We need to enforce course prerequisites in math. • We should look at Student Success Skills courses and ways to make students enroll in them.

19. Chesapeake Feedback • Observations and Explanations • We could also target students that are here for retraining. • What about service learning? Could that be a factor? • Academic advising is an issue. • Night students usually perform better than day students.

20. Brief Group Exercise • Identify 3-4 recurring themes from the campus-based meetings

21. Recurring Themes • Student Success Skills course • Advising • Course Prerequisites • Online Courses

22. Brief Group Exercise • Complete the following statement: TCC’s focus for its Quality Enhancement Plan is to enhance student learning by . . .

23. Next Steps • Official statement for the focus of the QEP • Establish working timeline • Create Working Committees to develop components of the Plan • Integration of the Plan into existing college planning initiatives

24. Proposed Timeline February 6, 2006: Working Committees formed April 3, 2006: First draft of QEP completed June 5, 2006: Second draft of QEP completed July 10, 2006: Final draft of QEP completed August 4, 2006: “Camera ready” document completed August 18, 2006: Creative Services produce copies of QEP September 4, 2006: QEP due to Commission on Colleges

25. Components of the QEP • Literature review and best practices • Development of strategies • Evaluation and assessment of the Plan • Institutional capability and the initiation/continuation of the Plan • Integration of the Plan into existing and future planning initiatives