WHATS YOUR QEP?toolbox for broad-based participation
Queens University of CharlotteProfileLocated in Charlotte, North CarolinaPrivate, co-ed, masters-level university founded in 1857Commitment to liberal arts and professional studiesServes approximately 2,300 undergraduates Five North Carolina professors of the year16 NCAA Division II mens and womens athletic teamsAward winning international study and internship programsQEPReaffirmation in 2011QEP process began in 2009
February 2009March 2009April 2009May 2009Summer 2009Determine topic selection strategies with team #1Gather topic ideas from the entire communityCollect feedback; hold community discussions to narrow topic choicesAnnounce three topic choices; assemble faculty team #2 to write white papersFaculty team writes white papers
September 2009October 2009November 2009December 20092010Present white papers; arrange community discussionsAdvance papers through necessary committees and councilsCollect and organize campus-wide input Announce topic; generate enthusiasm Guide team #3: Implementation
Guiding QuestionsHow can we encourage the entire community to participate?How can we generate enthusiasm for topic selection?How can we accomplish these goals using our resources wisely?
Timeline for Campus-wide input
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Brainstorming & OutreachBrainstorming & OutreachNarrowingNarrowingNarrowingSet ballot boxesIce Cream StationsConduct focus groupsGather and condense ideasUse rubric to narrow to 3 topicsRecruit student orgsEncourage online discussionsLunchroom BlitzSurvey to rank ideasAnnounce topics in Week 6Set up Intranet site
Student InvolvementAsk the right questions.Meet students where they live, work, and play.Make use of high traffic areas where students normally congregate.Recruit student organizations to help.Encourage peer-to-peer communication.Feed them.
Idea Ballot boxes were spread around campus, so students could submit ideas wherever they gather: Center for Academic Success, dining room, residence halls, etc.
Lunchroom BlitzColorful bags, QEP descriptions, conversation prompts, and ballots to offer ideas were pre-arranged on each table. For 3 days students discussed and submitted their ideas while dining.
Lunchroom BlitzStudent and staff volunteers approached students in the dining room to stimulate conversation and to encourage idea submissions.
Eating lunch. Offering ideas.North Carolina Teaching Fellows discussing the QEP.
Ice Cream For Your ThoughtsOne day during the lunch and dinner hours, we set up a student-run ice cream station in a high traffic area.Students received a free ice cream cone for offering a QEP topic idea.
Student OrganizationsRecruiting the help of student organizations promotes peer-to-peer communication, generates ownership and energy, and is FREE!
The Latin American Club hosts A cookie for your thoughts in the student center.
Faculty & Staff InvolvementDivide work among three committees to prevent burnout and ensure maximum participation.Invite a cross-section of faculty and staff to serve on committees.Use technology: intranet & survey tools.Keep it low-tech too; develop opportunities for face-to-face discussions.Communicate widely.Work with Faculty Council and the Center for Excellence in Teaching & Learning.Feed them.
Generating Topic Ideas: Committee #1
Director of Career & Internship ServicesVice President of Enrollment ManagementUniversity LibrarianAssociate Professor, NursingAssociate Vice President for Academic AffairsAssistant Professor, Environmental StudiesDirector of AthleticsDean of StudentsAssociate Professor, PsychologyAssociate Professor, EducationDirector of Academic AdvisingAssociate Professor, CommunicationAssociate Professor, Business5 student representatives
Use TechnologyReserving a space through the universitys intranet system allows a space for vibrant discussion, a one-stop shop for relevant information, and a timeline.Setting up a QEP class in Blackboard or Moodle could be a good alternative for schools without an intranet.
Use TechnologyElectronic survey tools are available through intranet systems, course management platforms, or via the web (e.g. www.surveymonkey.com). Electronic surveys are useful for instantaneous data, point of contact response, and easy to use interfaces.
Faculty, staff, and students were invited to thoughtfully discuss possible QEP topics.Discussion Groups
Next, faculty and staff were invited to a reception to discuss the completed white papers and to offer feedback about which topic generated the most enthusiasm.Discussion Groups
Administration & Board of TrusteesPresidents CouncilExecutive CouncilDeans CouncilAcademics Committee of the Board of Trustees
Whats Our QEP?White Paper Topics
Student-faculty InteractionWe would create an intentional structure for different types of academic collaboration between faculty and students, perhaps emphasizing research opportunities but also potentially including advising and mentoring.
Sustainability in a Global ContextWe would think critically about the stewardship role of the U.S. and other countries in the world and our duty to create a sustainable global environment, encouraging the campus community to act locally but think globally.
Diversity and Civic EngagementWe would frame diversity so that it is not thought of as a problem to be solved but as an opportunity to explore the creative tension that diverse backgrounds and cultures can bring, emphasizing the power of action and communication to build community and make positive change happen.
Smart MovesAvoided competition; vote language.Made it fun and relaxed.Very affordable; virtually no money.No burnout the work was spread over three committees, which had the benefit of getting more people involved. Faculty led discussion during administrative meetings.Kept it focused on student learning.Invited students to participate in decision-making.
Less Smart MovesShould have been more clear about final decision making processCould have allowed more time for white papers; for the authors it seemed to feel like a hurry up and wait situation.First student ballot was more complicated than it needed to be.Should have had a focus group for staff only.