UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presented by the US Department of Education. More information at
Advertisements

What Did We Learn About Our Future? Getting Ready for Strategic Planning Spring 2012.
Cedarville University Accreditation Self-Study Plan Presented by Dr. Thomas Mach.
David J. Sammons, Dean UF International Center. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools: SACS is our regional accrediting authority. The last SACS.
Accreditation Process Overview Presented By: The Saint John Vianney Accreditation Team Chris Gordon Pam Pyzyk Courtney Albright Dan Demeter Gloria Goss.
Foundations of Excellence ® in the First College Year (4-year institutions) Salisbury University Project Description of Review Process of First College.
Arts in Basic Curriculum 20-Year Anniversary Evaluation the Improve Group.
NC State’s QEP: Learning in a Technology-Rich Environment Ephraim Schechter September 23, 2004 Western Carolina University.
Tri-County Technical College Quality Enhancement Plan.
Service to the University, Discipline and Community Academic Promotions Briefing Session Chair, Academic Board Peter McCallum.
A Commitment to Excellence: SUNY Cortland Update on Strategic Planning.
Sample Presentation Headline REPRESENTATIVE SUBHEAD TO SUPPORT SUBJECT Presenter’s Name Position Title February 12, 2005 Quality Enhancement Plan PROPOSAL.
PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004.
Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant Title IIB Information Session April 10, 2006.
SACS Criteria A well-defined issue related to enhancing student learning Embedded in university’s on-going planning and assessment Broad participation.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B Strategies for enhancing teaching and learning: Reflections from Australia Merrilyn Goos Director Teaching and Educational Development.
Be a Part of Something Great! Learning Communities at Wayne State.
Institutional Accreditation Review Christine M. Ladisch Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Getting Prepared:
National Science Foundation: Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (TUES)
The SACS Re-accreditation Process: Opportunities to Enhance Quality at Carolina Presentation to the Faculty Council September 3, 2004.
Institutional Accreditation Review by Christine M. Ladisch Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Getting Prepared:
UWM CIO Office A Collaborative Process for IT Training and Development Copyright UW-Milwaukee, This work is the intellectual property of the author.
Rationale for CI 2300 Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age.
Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Reaffirmation of Accreditation.
Student Affairs Strategic Planning Team NASPA FL Drive-in Conference 2013.
ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN 1.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
The Learning Evidence Team Dr. Tracy Edwards Chief Learning Officer Valencia Community College February 18, 2004.
EMU Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Material Mission/Vision/Values Goals and Objectives January 10, 2014.
1. Continue to distinguish and clarify between Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Service Area Outcomes (SAOs) 2. Develop broad SLOs/SAOs in order to.
Assessment Cycle California Lutheran University Deans’ Council February 6, 2006.
Where Innovation Is Tradition Students as Scholars : QEP Update Fall 2010 Kimberly K. Eby Bethany M. Usher QEP Planning Committee.
Ron Strauss Lynn Williford Jim Dean Office of the Provost.
Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Reaffirmation of Accreditation.
Preparing for SACS: Focusing our Quality Enhancement Plan.
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) 101 Del Mar College January 8, 2007 Loraine Phillips, Ph.D. Interim Assessment Director Texas A&M University.
“PLANNING” CREATING A CULTURE OF EVIDENCE Elizabeth Noel, PhD Associate Vice President, Research Office of Research and Development.
ACCREDITATION Goals: Goals: - Certify to the public and to educational organizations that the school is recognized as an effective institution of learning.
Both Sides Now SACS’ New Accreditation Process Karen Helm Accreditation Liaison Director, University Planning and Analysis North Carolina State University.
EDU 385 CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT Week 1 Introduction and Syllabus.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
Preparing and Evaluating 21 st Century Faculty Aligning Expectations, Competencies and Rewards The NACU Teagle Grant Nancy Hensel, NACU Rick Gillman, Valporaiso.
Southern University At New Orleans 6400 Press Drive New Orleans, LA
UNC TLT Conference March 2006 How Technology Impacts Student Learning: An Assessment Workshop Joni Spurlin, Sharon Pitt, Allen Dupont, Donna Petherbridge.
Meeting the ‘Great Divide’: Establishing a Unified Culture for Planning and Assessment Cathy A. Fleuriet Ana Lisa Garza Presented at the 2006 Conference.
ACADEMIC PLAN REPORT Faculty Council March 16, 2012 Bruce W. Carney Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost.
SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation 7/28/09 Academic Affairs Retreat Cathy Sanders Director of Assessment.
Student Learning when Teaching with Technology: Aligning Objectives, Methods, and Assessments Copyright Information Copyright Karen St.Clair & Stan North.
Student Learning when Teaching with Technology: Aligning Objectives, Methods, and Assessments Copyright.
Leading Beyond the Institution: Graduates as Learners, Leaders, and Scholarly Practitioners Drs. Ron Zambo, Debby Zambo, Ray R. Buss.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
October 15, 2015 QEP: PAST AND PRESENT AND FUTURE.
Science Department Draft of Goals, Objectives and Concerns 2010.
August 15th 2007 Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes by Kirby Hayes.
Why Community-University Partnerships? Partnerships Enhance quality of life in the region Increase relevance of academic programs Add public purposes to.
UNC Deans Council The North Carolina K-12 Digital Learning Transition Glenn Kleiman Friday Institute for Educational Innovation NC State University College.
Response due: March 15,  Directions state that the report must “focus on the institution’s resolution of the recommendations and Commission concerns.”
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics PROGRAM.
Gordon State College Office of Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Meeting August 5, 2015.
Armstrong’s QEP Quality Enhancement Plan. QEP Steering Committee Nancy Remler, Chair – John Kraft, Andy Clark, Marilyn O’Mallon, Bob LeFavi, Mario Incorvaia,
ELI Annual Meeting, January 2006 Session Documents: Assessing the Impact of Technology on Student Learning:
Time to answer critical and inter-related questions: Whom will we serve? What will we offer? How will we serve them?
A DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPING BEST PRACTICES IN COMMUNITY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP UC Merced Task Force for Community Engaged Scholarship MAY 1, 2012.
1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES RECEIVE A QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Performance Measurement, Program and Project Evaluation.
Dr. Kathleen Haynie Haynie Research and Evaluation November 12, 2010.
The University of West Florida Reaffirmation of Accreditation Project Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.
Cal Poly Pomona University Strategic Plan 2011 ‐ 2015 Partial Assessment of Progress Presented to the University Strategic Planning Committee (USPC) 12/4/2014.
Strategic Plan: Goals, Objectives & Success Measures Administrative Forum, South Campus June 17,
February 21-22, 2018.
Presentation transcript:

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments 

What is a Quality Enhancement Plan? Plan for institutional improvement Crucial to enhancing educational quality Directly related to student learning Based on comprehensive analysis of institutional effectiveness

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Criteria for selecting topic (SACS) Related to student learning Addresses a strategic issue Comprehensive, institutional in scope Capability to implement Commitment to implement NC State is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. See:

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Why LITRE was chosen by NC State Builds on a strength Potential for leadership Relevant to undergraduate and graduate education Widespread, grassroots faculty involvement and success Strong interest among the deans Potential to positively and substantively transform learning outcomes at NC State

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  How do we keep learning first? Link LITRE activities to: –NC State Mission –Four Ways of Knowing and Doing –General Education Requirements –Committee on Undergraduate Program Review (CUPR) –Departmental and Program Curriculum Objectives

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  The Essence of LITRE Scholarly inquiry focused on enhancing the technology-rich learning environment Investigative process through which new approaches to student learning, using technology, are proposed, vetted, empirically evaluated, and if the evaluation results indicate, deployed and routinely assessed Evidence will be collected, analyzed and inform future projects

Initial Research PROCESS Faculty Engagement Information Fluency Learning Resources E-Learning Educational Infrastructure OUTCOMES Information gathering Literary review Peer review Analysis of issues Optimal environment Needs Assessment PROCESS Faculty Survey Research group reports University surveys OUTCOMES Survey data & reports Significant results Benchmarking Consensus-building Selection Criteria Initial Steps PROCESS Identified needs Established priorities Resourced strategies Institutional commitment OUTCOMES LITRE grants LITRE investigations Compact planning LITRE organization Mature Inquiry PROCESS Leadership & advocacy Ongoing LITRE investments Assessment Synthesis of results OUTCOMES Dissemination of results Knowledge of best practice Impact on policy and planning Improved student learning Improved learning environment LITRE: The Empirical Inquiry

LITRE Vision In the twenty-first century, North Carolina State University will use its historic strength in technology to pursue its stated mission “to create an innovative learning environment that stresses mastery of fundamentals, intellectual discipline, creativity, problem solving, and responsibility.” A technology-rich environment can:  enhance classroom and laboratory teaching and learning.  help faculty accommodate students’ individual learning styles and circumstances.  encourage active learning.  extend the expertise of the university beyond the university walls.  conserve scarce resources. Technology has limitations. It is a tool for achieving the university’s mission, not an end in itself. It is an effective tool only when it is in the hands of skilled users, and only when its application is appropriate, reliable, integrated, supported and sustainable.

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  LITRE Research Groups Established a structure that divided an enormous task into workable “chunks” Created research group descriptions and identified leadership before the second LITRE team meeting Conducted research groups activities outside of the LITRE team meetings Developed draft reports and recommendations for inclusion in the QEP Extended university participation in LITRE

LITRE: The Empirical Inquiry Initial Research PROCESS Faculty Engagement Information Fluency Learning Resources E-Learning Educational Infrastructure OUTCOMES Information gathering Literary review Peer review Analysis of issues Optimal environment Needs Assessment PROCESS Faculty Survey Research group reports University surveys OUTCOMES Survey data & reports Significant results Benchmarking Consensus-building Selection Criteria Initial Steps PROCESS Identified needs Established priorities Resourced strategies Institutional commitment OUTCOMES LITRE grants LITRE investigations Compact planning LITRE organization Mature Inquiry PROCESS Leadership & advocacy Ongoing LITRE investments Assessment Synthesis of results OUTCOMES Dissemination of results Knowledge of best practice Impact on policy and planning Improved student learning Improved learning environment Initial Research PROCESS Faculty Engagement Information Fluency Learning Resources E-Learning Educational Infrastructure OUTCOMES Information gathering Literary review Peer review Analysis of issues Optimal environment

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Big Ideas – Overarching Themes Provide an appropriate educational technology infrastructure Achieve institutional preparedness Link learning with technology –Measuring success against student learning Define an ongoing coordinating mechanism for LITRE

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Campus Forum on LITRE When: April 16, 2003 Who: 100+ faculty, staff and students at NC State Purpose –General information for the NC State community –Solicit general feedback on the LITRE direction –Solicit specific feedback on LITRE research group activities and potential projects

LITRE: The Empirical Inquiry Initial Research PROCESS Faculty Engagement Information Fluency Learning Resources E-Learning Educational Infrastructure OUTCOMES Information gathering Literary review Peer review Analysis of issues Optimal environment Needs Assessment PROCESS Faculty Survey Research group reports University surveys OUTCOMES Survey data & reports Significant results Benchmarking Consensus-building Selection Criteria Initial Steps PROCESS Identified needs Established priorities Resourced strategies Institutional commitment OUTCOMES LITRE grants LITRE investigations Compact planning LITRE organization Mature Inquiry PROCESS Leadership & advocacy Ongoing LITRE investments Assessment Synthesis of results OUTCOMES Dissemination of results Knowledge of best practice Impact on policy and planning Improved student learning Improved learning environment Needs Assessment PROCESS Faculty Survey Research group reports University surveys OUTCOMES Survey data & reports Significant results Benchmarking Consensus-building Selection Criteria

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  LITRE Faculty Survey When: Spring 2003 Why: Inform recommendations of the LITRE work groups and provide baseline for future LITRE efforts NC State University faculty were surveyed about their experiences with computer-based instructional and learning aids. 1,790 faculty were invited to participate in the survey. 983 did, for an overall response rate of 55%. Report completed in August 2003

Survey: General Results Respondents age and years at the university have no relationship to the number of technologies used. Student preparation to use technologies in and outside the class was high and met expectation The reason most often given for not using a technology was that it was not appropriate for the course Faculty were more likely to teach the use of technology themselves or ask students to teach each other before utilizing a central, student training resource

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Survey: Results Respondents were asked what would make it easier to use the technologies that they did use in their courses. –“If they were available and supported in the classrooms in which I typically teach” and “If I had more time to develop assignments or classes with these technologies” were chosen most often, 37% and 36% of the time. The survey and survey report are available at

LITRE: The Empirical Inquiry Initial Research PROCESS Faculty Engagement Information Fluency Learning Resources E-Learning Educational Infrastructure OUTCOMES Information gathering Literary review Peer review Analysis of issues Optimal environment Needs Assessment PROCESS Faculty Survey Research group reports University surveys OUTCOMES Survey data & reports Significant results Benchmarking Consensus-building Selection Criteria Initial Steps PROCESS Identified needs Established priorities Resourced strategies Institutional commitment OUTCOMES LITRE grants LITRE investigations Compact planning LITRE organization Mature Inquiry PROCESS Leadership & advocacy Ongoing LITRE investments Assessment Synthesis of results OUTCOMES Dissemination of results Knowledge of best practice Impact on policy and planning Improved student learning Improved learning environment Initial Steps PROCESS Identified needs Established priorities Resourced strategies Institutional commitment OUTCOMES LITRE grants LITRE investigations Compact planning LITRE organization

Criteria for Project Selection Greatest impact on learning (tied to curricular goals departmental, college, or university level) Foundational (logically prior) Sustainable, transferable, scalable Financially feasible Assessable (investigator agrees to assess impact) Broad campus relevance Marketing value (visibility) Politically feasible Technically feasible

LITRE Action Initiatives Organizing the LITRE effort Classroom and laboratory improvements Grants Infrastructure and support improvements

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  LITRE Recommendations on Policy Develop distance education course policies and strategies for resident students Recommend a new rationale and learning objectives for student information fluency within the GER Recognize and reward the scholarship of teaching and learning with technology (TLT) Address the university’s copyright and intellectual property policies to encourage TLT

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Assessment LITRE Assessment Committee Project specific –Contributions to student learning –Tools will vary: surveys, course-embedded, longitudinal –Tied to program and general education assessment when appropriate Periodic overview of results across projects Results used to stimulate innovation, improve programs and services, policy analysis, planning and budget

Lessons Learned Hire an editor Establish a structure for broad institutional involvement Acquire budget information early Bring the campus into the process early Keep the focus on learning Be a good architect—simultaneously understand the overarching ideas and design details Establish a common language –What does “technology” mean? –What is learning at NC State? –What comprises the “learning space” of NC State?

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  Activities to Date Plan complete on February 9 SACS on-site visit next week (March 23-25) Named a LITRE leader: Dr. Lavon Page In the midst of establishing a LITRE Advisory Council Actively working on first set of LITRE action initiatives

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  LITRE Impacts Will learning change? Will the NC State learning environment support changes in teaching and learning? Will students engage with technology for learning? Will more faculty engage technology for teaching?

LITRE: The Empirical Inquiry Initial Research PROCESS Faculty Engagement Information Fluency Learning Resources E-Learning Educational Infrastructure OUTCOMES Information gathering Literary review Peer review Analysis of issues Optimal environment Needs Assessment PROCESS Faculty Survey Research group reports University surveys OUTCOMES Survey data & reports Significant results Benchmarking Consensus-building Selection Criteria Initial Steps PROCESS Identified needs Established priorities Resourced strategies Institutional commitment OUTCOMES LITRE grants LITRE investigations Compact planning LITRE organization Mature Inquiry PROCESS Leadership & advocacy Ongoing LITRE investments Assessment Synthesis of results OUTCOMES Dissemination of results Knowledge of best practice Impact on policy and planning Improved student learning Improved learning environment Mature Inquiry PROCESS Leadership & advocacy Ongoing LITRE investments Assessment Synthesis of results OUTCOMES Dissemination of results Knowledge of best practice Impact on policy and planning Improved student learning Improved learning environment

UNC TLT Annual Conference, March 2004 questions | comments  LITRE -

Questions and Answers Contact Information –Sharon Pitt: