Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The University of Kentucky’s QEP is MCXC!What!?!?
The Quality Enhancement Plan(QEP)
SLT UpdateJune 6, 2012
Drs. Deanna Sellnow and Diane Snow, Co-Chairs
• Quality Enhancement Plan
• A core requirement for SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation • Focus: Enhancing student learning
Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum
Presentation U: “YOU are the ultimate presentation”
External Consultants:North Carolina State University Feb. 13-14, 2012
Deanna P. Dannels, PhDDr. Deanna P. Dannels, Professor of Communication, Director of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, and Associate Director of the Campus Writing andSpeaking Program; current research explores theoretical and curricular protocols for designing, implementing, and assessing oral communication within the disciplines.
Chris M. Anson, PhDProfessor of English; language and literacy, rhetoric and composition, writing across the curriculum, writing program administration
RecommendationsStrengths:Process well planned, thorough, collaborative, democratic, plentiful input across
constituencies, based on sound research, high potential for sustainability, forward-looking and cutting-edge approaches, staff support a novel component, focus on competencies (not just “skills”)
Challenges:Narrow the scopeFocus on faculty buy-in and Faculty Fellows programSpecific aspects of AssessmentImpact
External Consultant: Connie Ray, PhDMarch-April 2012
STRENGTHS: excellent description of process; thorough literature review; relationship to UK Core well documented; QEP nicely linked to Strategic Plan
CHALLENGES: More detail about how information was mined to develop QEP topic; more detail about assessment of QEP; add pilot project; assessment, assessment, assessment…
Edited in collaboration with:
Karen Badger – Social WorkJanet Eldred – English/EngineeringBrandi Frisby - CISKathi Kern – History/CELTTara Rose – Univ AssessmentJami Warren - CIS
Changes/Additions/Improvements:
1. Narrowed scope to Juniors and Seniors (vertical integration) 2.Much more detail about Faculty Fellows program and benefits to faculty 3.Added more detail regarding overall Impact4.Discussed Sustainability measures5.Many additions to theme development process; 2-day retreat and data mining6.Pilot project added to inform QEP assessment process7.Greatly improved assessment overall
Faculty Development Student Tutoring
Faculty Fellows: 7 cohorts = 175 trained over 5 years
Fall 2013Administrative faculty/staff hired
Faculty Fellow (FF) Cohort #1 selected (Attend workshops, collect baseline data, do curriculum revision)
Presentation Center Opens
Student Tutors hired and trained
Spring 2014FF Cohort #1 Implements MC & collects assessment data
FF Cohort #2 selected
(Attend workshops, consulting, baseline data, curriculum revision)
Lab tutoring Continues
Additional Lab funding if warranted
Fall 2014FF Cohort #1 Conducts assessment and makes revisions
FF Cohort #2 Implements MC & collects assessment data
FF Cohort #3 selected
(Attend workshops, consulting, baseline data, curriculum revision)
Additional Lab funding if warranted
Spring 2015
FF Cohort #2 Examines assessment data and makes revisions
FF Cohort #3 Implements MC & collects assessment datat
Workshops, Labs, &Tutoring Continues
2015-2018
Cohort #3 Collects & Examines Assessment Data
Cohorts #4-7complete 3-semester cycles
Workshops, Labs, & Tutoring Continues
Prepare Impact Report for SACS
QEP ImpactExhibit 6.2: Impact Potential Over Five-Years
Cohort # of Terms @25/Term=N @50/Term=N1(F 2013)=25 *8 625=5000 1250=10,0002(S 2014)=25 7 625=4375 1250=87503(F 2014)=25 6 625=3750 1250=75004(S 2015)=25 5 625=3125 1250=62505(F 2015)=25 4 625=2500 1250=50006(S 2016)=25 3 625=1875 1250=37507(F 2016)=25 2 625=1250 1250=2500Students (potentially) Served: 21,875 43,750
*Course implementation: Spring 2014, Fall 2014, Spring 2015, Fall 2015, Spring 2016, Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Fall 2017 (Impact Report due to SACS)
END Exhibit 6.2
QEP Sustainability1. Assessment data will be used to improve and sustain the program as part of the fabric of the UK culture.
2. Effectiveness of Presentation Center, and Faculty Fellows
3. University support and campus acceptance (PR efforts)
Topic Development1. Background information regarding institutional assessment of student learning and learning outcomes by Dr. Roger Sugarman, Director of Institutional Research (Appendix A-1), and by Dr. Marsha Watson, Director of University Assessment (Appendix A-2). These efforts helped the team to understand the current status of student learning at UK.
Topic Development2. Inform the campus and solicit “Big Ideas”. Goal was to:
1)educate the campus about the QEP, 2)generate excitement, and 3)request input via the QEP website (Big Ideas)
Topic Development
3. Data Collectors and Assessors gathered input from students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, community members, and summarized data from sources across campus.
Sources: Sugarman and Watson reports; “Big Ideas” submitted, unit reports, program reviews, news media, student testimonials, SACS reports
Topic DevelopmentStep 4) Data Mining at the Retreat. During a two-day retreat (June 10-11, 2010), members of the TST examined all six sources of evidence described above. TST members formed small groups and each group examined one set of the aforementioned documents to discover emergent themes. The group capitalized on the expertise of one group member (Dr. Jane Jensen, Education) who held a training session with team members on how to conduct a qualitative thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. From her tutorial session, the group learned a systematic way to analyze qualitative data through the use of a rubric that identifies themes based on redundancy (quantity of occurrences) and intensity (passion/power in occurrences). Thus, the TST sub-committees used this rubric to identify themes. Then, each sub-committee reported their findings to the larger group….. (then used a “concept-mapping approach”).
Topic Development5. Post-hoc Validation. At a later date, the Topic Development Team (TDT) revisited how each theme was supported by university-level assessment data, i.e. each theme was re-examined measuring it against existing assessments such as the Graduating Student Survey, Alumni Survey, Wabash National Study, Campus Climate Survey, NSSE, CLA, CAAP, Unit Reports, and Retention Data Reports.
B&E Pilot ProjectThe course, CIS 300 (Strategic Business and Professional Communication), focuses on developing MCXC skills in upper division students majoring in accounting, analytics, economics, finance, marketing, or management. Assessment of CIS300 will inform the implementation of Presentation U.
Qualtrics pre and post test; self report; measure of student confidence
Random grading of selected written works; early versus late projects
Assessment of student produced oral communication projects
Assessment of student produced visual communication projects
B&E Pilot Project
QEP-IT (Implementation Team)
Deanna Sellnow (Communication)Diane Snow (Medicine)Brandi Frisby (Communication)Karen Badger (Social Work)Janet Eldred (English/A&S and Engr)Scott Kelley (B&E)Ben Withers (Fine Arts/Honors)
Mark O’Bryan (Design)Kathi Kern (CELT and Hist/A&S)Karin Lewis (The Study)Judy Pratts (The Writing Center)Roxanne Mountford (WRD)Kathryn Cunningham (Education)Morris Grubs (Graduate School)
