Focusing on QEP Goals. “The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that (1) includes a broad- based institutional process.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Mid-Term Review of The Illinois Commitment Assessment of Achievements, Challenges, and Stakeholder Opinions Illinois Board of Higher Education April.
Advertisements

Office of Academic Student Instructional Support -OASIS- -Cheri Tillman, Pat Burns.
Engaging the First Year Student WEST TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
2008 National Survey of Student Engagement – SUNY Oneonta Patty Francis Steve Perry Fall 2008.
Instructor Teaching Impact. University Writing Program 150 sections of required writing courses per semester, taught by Instructors and GTAs 33 Instructors–
Making the Case for Christian Higher Education: New Challenges, New Opportunities Laurie A. Schreiner, Ph.D. Azusa Pacific University CCCU CEO Conference.
Assessment of the Impact of Ubiquitous Computing on Learning Ross A. Griffith Wake Forest University Ubiquitous Computing Conference Seton Hall University.
Tri-County Technical College Quality Enhancement Plan.
Prepared by: Fawn Skarsten Director Institutional Analysis.
Indiana State University Assessment of General Education Objectives Using Indicators From National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Gallaudet University Results on National Survey of Student Engagement Office of Institutional Research August, 2007.
Framing a Quality Enhancement Plan for Lamar University.
2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat.
A Commitment to Excellence: SUNY Cortland Update on Strategic Planning.
Bringing the World to UNO: Global Learning & Engagement Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) SACSCOC Committee Presentation.
University Surveys and Assessments Department Chair and Dean Retreat.
Strategic Planning and the NCA Special Emphasis A Focus on Community Engagement and Experiential Learning.
Presentation to Student Affairs Directors November, 2010 Marcia Belcheir, Ph.D. Institutional Analysis, Assessment, & Reporting.
Key Communities and Objectives Outcomes- Based Assessment Telling the Story Results Closing the Loop.
SACS Criteria A well-defined issue related to enhancing student learning Embedded in university’s on-going planning and assessment Broad participation.
College Strategic Plan by
WASC Educational Effectiveness Review Report First Draft March
College Strategic Plan by Strategic Planning and Quality Assurance Committee.
Benchmarking Effective Educational Practice Community Colleges of the State University of New York April, 2005.
The SACS Re-accreditation Process: Opportunities to Enhance Quality at Carolina Presentation to the Faculty Council September 3, 2004.
Student Success Factors Faculty In-Service Program Tuesday, August 25.
Central Virginia Community College Where your future begins.
Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING AT RYERSON PREDICTORS OF STUDENT SATISFACTION CHRISTOPHER EVANS VICE PROVOST ACADEMIC.
An Equal Opportunity University Third Annual Meeting of the Provost’s Committee on Undergraduate Student Success October 22, 2009.
Lamar University’s QEP: FRESHMAN SUCCESS Making it happen...
An Introduction: NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement.
TODAY AND TOMORROW University of Houston- Downtown Strategic Plan Highlights.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
Student Engagement: 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Research and Planning Presentation to Senate November 2008.
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008 Results for UBC-Vancouver.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
Assessing SAGES with NSSE data Office of Institutional Research September 25 th, 2007.
ESU’s NSSE 2013 Overview Joann Stryker Office of Institutional Research and Assessment University Senate, March 2014.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Missouri Valley College January 6, 2010.
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) 101 Del Mar College January 8, 2007 Loraine Phillips, Ph.D. Interim Assessment Director Texas A&M University.
NSSE 2013 How to Use Results (or “Why you should care about NSSE”) 8/26/
1 This CCFSSE Drop-In Overview Presentation Template can be customized using your college’s CCFSSE/CCSSE results. Please review the “Notes” section accompanying.
2009 Pitt Community College CCSSE Results September 21, 2009 Report to the Campus College CCSSE Results Pitt Community College Dr. Brian Miller, Assistant.
NSSE 2005 CSUMB Report California State University at Monterey Bay Office of Institutional Effectiveness Office of Assessment and Research.
University Senate Meeting January 25, General Issues Required to report on 14 Standards, including all the Federal Requirements Core requirements:
What could we learn from learning outcomes assessment programs in the U.S public research universities? Samuel S. Peng Center for Educational Research.
Provost’s Address to the University Senate December 13, 2004.
Highlights of NSSE 2001: University of Kentucky December 10, 2001.
NSSE Working Student Study Assessment Day Presentation Office of Assessment Fitchburg State College.
Welcome Aboard! CCC-QEP Carteret Community College Quality Enhancement Plan.
October 15, 2015 QEP: PAST AND PRESENT AND FUTURE.
Knowing Our Students, and Helping Them Succeed. 54.8% Latino Students (38.8% college-wide) 67.6% Female v. 32.4% Male (61.4% v. 38.6% college-wide) Average.
A Profile of BGSU Students Jie Wu Office of Institutional Research Summer 2008.
Lander University QEP Committee Report October 14, 2015 Committee Chair Jim Colbert.
Promote a diverse, inclusive learning environment by recruiting and retaining students, faculty and staff who reflect the demographic changes in our society.
Gordon State College Office of Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Meeting August 5, 2015.
Lamar University’s QEP: Active and Collaborative Engagement for Students (ACES): Growing Active and Collaborative Learning.
Time to answer critical and inter-related questions: Whom will we serve? What will we offer? How will we serve them?
QEP Topic Selection Team Announcement and Invitation
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 1 The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
The University of Texas-Pan American Susan Griffith, Ph.D. Executive Director National Survey of Student Engagement 2003 Results & Recommendations Presented.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2013 Presented by: November 2013 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
Strategic Plan: Goals, Objectives & Success Measures Administrative Forum, South Campus June 17,
Faculty Senate Pat Hulsebosch, Office of Academic Quality 11/17/08.
The University of Texas-Pan American
NSSE Results for Faculty
The University of Texas-Pan American
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services
Presentation transcript:

Focusing on QEP Goals

“The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that (1) includes a broad- based institutional process identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment, (2) focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution, (3) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP, (4) includes broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP, and (5) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.”

LU Data Review: Framing A QEP Student demographics Peer QEPs Focus Groups: Strengths and Weaknesses List of potential activities: survey of faculty preferences Goals ? So far QEP Development Committee Recommendations

What challenges are we going to tackle? and What goals are we trying to achieve?

Today: Goals By September: ballpark budget

Then... QEP Design Committee –Chooses specific activities to meet the goals and scope, with extensive faculty input –Designs a procedure for implementation –Selects assessments –Develops detailed 5 year budget –Keeps Leadership Team informed –Directs public relations and marketing of QEP

Assumptions of LU QEP Scope will be adjusted to fit budgetary constraints. Whatever we do, we want to do well No new course requirements Will elicit faculty involvement voluntarily using incentives Will attempt to incorporate the activities most preferred by faculty

LU Data QEP Dev. Committee Best Practices LU Mission, Vision QEP Goals

I. LU Mission Lamar University is a comprehensive public institution educating a diverse student body, preparing students for leadership and lifelong learning in a multicultural world, and enhancing the future of Southeast Texas, the state, the nation and the world, through teaching, research and creative activity, and service.

LU Strategic Goals Strategic Plan “To attract, retain and graduate...” “To engage students with faculty and staff.. “ “To meet learning needs of students...” “To provide educational experiences of excellence....” “To enhance student life...”

II. LU Data: Identifying Challenges 1. NSSE data 2. HERI data 3. Senior survey data 4. Core curriculum assessment data 5. Retention data 6. Student body demographics 7. Focus Group data

1.National Survey of Student Engagement Assesses engagement in five dimensions Level of academic challenge Active and collaborative learning Student-faculty interaction Enriching educational experiences Supportive campus environment Gathers data from freshmen and seniors

Why engagement is important George Kuh, creator of the NSSE... “Students who participate in collaborative learning and educational activities outside the classroom and who interact more with faculty members get better grades, are more satisfied with their education, and are more likely to remain in college. But the gains from those practices are even greater for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds, or who come to college less prepared than their peers."

NSSE-Student Engagement (03 and 06) Moderately weak in all areas for Freshmen Improvements from 03 to 06 everywhere In both years, Lamar freshmen scored below* LU seniors and below freshman students at comparable institutions on: –Active and collaborative learning (lowest) - Level of academic challenge –Enriching educational experiences *More detail in handout

NSSE Dimension LU 03Peers 03 LU 06Peers 06 LAC (-.71) (-.22 ACL (-.86) (-.36) SFI (-.34) EEE (scoring changed) (-.67) (-.26) SCE (-.40)

2. HERI 04: Faculty report on methods they use in most or all of their courses METHODLU %4-Yr Colleges % Class discussion7481 Cooperative learning3249 Essay midterm/final4857 Extensive lecturing6856 Group projects2536 Multiple drafts of written wk1827 MC midterm/final4934 Short answer midterm/final2439 Student presentations4046 Student-selected topics1015

Challenge? Lamar faculty report NOT using instruction which promotes active and collaborative learning. More use of lecture and multiple-choice exams than in peer institutions. Less use of discussion, collaborative learning, projects, etc.

3. Senior survey: Satisfaction with Core and Major (fall 05, spring 06) Lowest Highest FALL 05SPRING 06 Writing (comp) Math/Qualitative Fine Arts Literature Social Science Oral Comm Phil of Know Physical Activity Major courses

Implications? Overall mean satisfaction with core academic areas (2.86) lower than mean satisfaction for ALL other areas (3.08). Courses that students like best (Written and Oral Communications) focus on active learning. Academic course they dislike most is least active.

4. Core Curriculum Assessment Data LU students score slightly below targets set by Core Curriculum Committee in all three areas: critical thinking, writing, and math/quantitative thinking. Critical thinking score on MAPP (111.4) slightly above average compared to juniors from peer institutions. However, it did not meet the target of ¼ standard deviation above average Math and quantitative thinking score on MAPP (113.1) was lower than the target of ¼ standard deviation above average Writing score on MAPP (114.3) was lower than target (115.15). In-house assessment found 57.2 % of papers acceptable; target was 80%.

* Attrition rates higher in some sub-groups 5. LU Freshman Retention 1-yr Retention rateAttrition rate Fall 2004 entering FTIC freshmen to fall %40.99%* Fall 2005 entering FTIC freshmen to fall %42.07%* National average of public comprehensive “low-lows” 65% in Pell Institute report, “Demography is not Destiny: Increasing the Graduation Rates of Low-Income College Students at Large Public Institutions” (2007)

THECB Comparisons: 1 yr persistence LUUT Pan Am SFAPrairie View Tarl eton WT A&M TAMU Int’l TAMU Corpus

6. Student Demographic Data: How our freshmen have changed Since 2000, LU freshmen have become younger (from approximately 70% to 80% under 20) more diverse (from approximately 75% white/25 of color to 50/50) more full-time (from about 60% full time/40% part time to 75/25)

At Lamar, students enjoy small classes taught by well qualified faculty who maintain good rapport with students, who make themselves available to students, and who are committed to student success. At Lamar, students have opportunities for hands-on learning experiences, including research, internships, and study abroad. 7. Focus Group Data: Perceived Strengths

More perceived strengths … Lamar has a lively and livable campus environment. Lamar makes information technology available. Lamar has diverse academic programs meeting the needs of a diverse student body.

Focus Group: perceived weaknesses … Lamar’s academic standards are too low and our academic culture is not as conducive to learning as it could be. Lamar lags in educational technology. Lamar’s academic programs, faculty, and staff do not reflect the diversity of our student body. Note: These are PERCEPTIONS of strengths and weaknesses. They may not be pervasively true of Lamar University, but they tell us what people believe to be desirable and undesirable qualities.

Conclusions of the QEP Development Group We already have as perceived strengths  Strong faculty-student relations  Opportunities for hands-on learning experiences  A high level of diversity These offer a strong foundation for a QEP focused on student engagement and active learning in the freshman year.

Possible QEP activities identified by QEP Development Committee *Highest faculty interest Course Redesign Undergraduate Research Inquiry-Based Learning* Enhanced Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning* Experiential/Applied Learning Integrative Learning

-- Chronicle of Higher Education 1. Does this group concur with the general recommendation of the QEP Development committee that our goal should be a QEP focused on student engagement and active learning in the freshman year? Discussion

Focus on Freshman success and retention in general? Focus on learning quality in Core Curriculum ? Focus on active and collaborative learning (adapting our teaching to our students)? Focus on leadership and/or lifelong learning and/or multicultural issues? 2. Does this group want to further specify goals or challenges? such as...

Priorities Use the “ballot” to indicate the three issues which are your top priorities for the QEP. Number the items 1, 2, 3.

The Documented Challenges 1.Too little active and collaborative learning 2. Low student satisfaction with core curriculum 3. Student learning in core lagging slightly 4. High attrition rate from freshman-sophomore year. Persistence for all students lagging. 5. Changing student demographics 6. Perception that Lamar’s academic standards are too low and our academic culture is not as conducive to learning as it could be.

Freshman Success and Retention Best Practices: the package from “Demography is Not Destiny” Pell Institute 2007 Freshman-year experiences Redesign of Freshman/core courses for active learning Learning communities (and living/learning) Coordinated, proactive advising system Student engagement activities: service learning, undergrad research, clubs, groups and organizations. Financial aid education

Learning Quality in Core Curriculum: Best Practices Revised teaching methods; more active learning Use of technology Clarified and revised learning outcomes Improved assessments More student feedback More use of collaboration, service learning, projects