Upload
teresa-barker
View
223
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TTU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)Improving Critical Thinking and Real-World Problem Solving SkillsThrough Active Learning
TTU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)Improving Critical Thinking and Real-World Problem Solving SkillsThrough Active Learning
A Component of SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation
April 11 – 13, 2006
Elements of a Successful QEP
Broad Campus Involvement
Supported by Research Findings
Effective Methods of Assessment
Supports Vision/ Goals of Institution
Improving Student Learning
Identified Weakness
Issues SACS Will Focus On
Establishing the Focus
Evidence of Broad Campus Involvement in Developing QEP
Capacity to Initiate and Continue
Assessment of Progress
TTU Vision
“TTU will be one of the best universities in the nation through a commitment to the life-long success of our students”
Organizational Structure for SACS
Leadership TeamLeadership Team
Compliance CommitteeCompliance Committee QEP CommitteeQEP Committee
Steering CommitteeSteering Committee
UniversityUniversity
QEP Committee Composition
Dr. Barry Stein, Chairperson, Director of PlanningDr. Joseph Biernacki, Engineering - ProfessorMisty Cecil, StudentDr. Glenn Cunningham, Engineering - Associate ProfessorTheresa Ennis, StudentDr. Wade Faw, Agriculture - DirectorDr. Ada Haynes, Arts & Sciences - ProfessorDr. Sandi Smith, Education - Assistant ProfessorGail Stearman, Nursing - Assistant ProfessorDr. Thomas Timmerman, Business Administration - Associate Professor
Goals of QEP Committee
Identify Weaknesses in
Student Learning
SuggestTopics & Strategies
Vision
ImprovedLife-longSuccess
Vision
ImprovedLife-longSuccess
TTU QEP Development ProcessTopic Generation
Phase ITopic Refinement
Phase IITopic Selection
Phase IIIAnalysis & Refinement
Phase IV
Campus Units
Enter Strategic Goals/action Plans for
QEP Topics
Ana
lysis of
Ca
mp
us InputIdentify Weaknesses
Identify TopicsIdentify Strategies
QEP Committee Focus Groups
SGAFaculty SenateDeans’ CouncilSteering Committee
Phase I
Identify Weaknesses with Assessment Data
Employer SurveysTeaching Evaluations - Objectives Selected
Teaching Evaluations - Progress Ratings
Enrolled Student Surveys
Alumni Surveys
General Education Test Results
Progress on IDEA Teaching Objectives
TTU Progress on IDEA Objectives (2001-2004)
38.0
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
Objective
Ad
j T
Sco
re
Phase II
Maximizing Involvement in Process
QEP TopicsCritical ThinkingProblem SolvingCreative ThinkingCommunicationTeamwork SkillsLife-long Learning
QEP TopicsCritical ThinkingProblem SolvingCreative ThinkingCommunicationTeamwork SkillsLife-long Learning
Faculty Senate
Deans’ Council
SACS SteeringCommittee
SGA
Focus Groups
Feedback on QEP Topics
Skills Graduates need for Success
# 1 for Faculty = Critical Thinking
# 1 for Students = Real World Problem Solving
# 1 from Employer Survey = Problem Solving
Narrowing the QEP Focus
Maximizing Participation
Improve critical thinking/real world problem solving skills through the use of active learning strategies.
With emphasis on communication skills
With emphasis on teamwork skills
With emphasis on creative thinking
Phase IV: Analysis of Campus Input
What was Learned:
Areas of emphasis broadened participation
Some Units Submitted Good Ideas
Some Units did not
Stimulate More Faculty InvolvementTeaching/learning Enhancement Grants for Faculty/Staff
Adjustments to Process
Replicate TTU’s Best Practices in New AreasIncentives for sharing best practices and mentoring
Additional Evidence of Broad Campus Involvement
Over 100 unit and individual faculty/staff proposals submitted
Proposals from academic and non-academic units
Capacity to Initiate and Continue
$250,000 committed over 5 years to support grants, assessment, and administration of QEP
Expertise in assessment and pedagogy available
Additional funds available through external grants
QEP is a key component of the strategic plan
Planned Assessments
Implementation Indicators
Student evaluation of progress
Student performance indicators
Alumni evaluation of progress
Employer evaluation of graduates