Evaluating the QEP: Various Perspectives Ed Rugg, Rudy Jackson & Margaret Sullivan COC/SACS 2004 Annual Meeting CS-31

Three Perspectives On Evaluating the QEP An On-Site Committee Chair’s A COC Staff Member’s The Consulting Network Director’s

What To Evaluate is Defined In the Principles, Section 1 In the Handbooks In the Reaffirmation Report Form

What the QEP Should Be Principles, Section 1  Part of ongoing planning and evaluation  Linked to effectiveness, quality, mission  Focused on well-defined issue(s)  Thorough & analytical  Engages the wider academic community  Action Plan to Improve Student Learning

What the QEP Should Not Be A loose collection of “all things” An ancillary project Simply a “course of action” Sketchy descriptions of assessments Lacking campus community buy-in Missing linkages to student learning

1. FOCUS 2. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY 3. ASSESSMENT 4. BROAD INVOLVEMENT The Handbooks’ Four Primary Indicators Four Primary Indicators for an Acceptable QEP for an Acceptable QEP

Indicators & Questions on Reaffirmation Report Form  5 Questions on FOCUS  5 Questions on CAPABILITY  4 Questions on ASSESSMENT  2 Questions on INVOLVEMENT

Primary Emphasis Reaffirmation Report Part III “…the institution has provided evidence that it is committed to a course of action that addresses a topic or issue to improve the quality of student learning.”

A Useful Analogy for Evaluating the QEP Think about the qualities expected of a fundable grant proposal

Tip Develop the QEP with its Evaluation in Mind

On-Site Committee’s Dual Role 1) Evaluating the QEP 2) Validating Remaining Compliance Issues

On-Site Committees Chart New Courses New Approaches Pursued to Accomplish New Responsibilities

Keys to One On-Site Committee’s Success Using a Common Frame of Reference for Evaluating the QEP Conducting In-Depth & Systematic Preliminary Evaluations of the QEP Before the Visit

Pre-Visit Prep Included Preliminary Evaluations Committee Members Submitted Independent Evaluations of the QEP Using a Common Frame of Reference Chair Summarized & Returned the Committee’s Preliminary Evaluations Preliminary Recommendations Drafted

Usefulness of Preliminary Evaluations During the Visit Helped Brief the Leadership Team Early on the QEP’s Strengths & Weaknesses Helped Generate Constructive & Useful Dialogue on Strengthening the QEP Helped the Committee be Efficient & Productive (Also Happy and Rested)

Tip Invite & Encourage Dialogue on Strengthening the QEP

Constructive Conversations Continued at the Exit Conference Helpful Dialogue for Strengthening the QEP is Valuable

Benefits of Systematic Evaluation of the QEP  Actively Engaged Entire Committee  Reached Consensus Early & Efficiently  Produced Comprehensive & Substantive Findings  Streamlined Final Report Preparation

Additional COC Staff Perspectives on QEP Evals Reflections on 2004 Value of this Approach

Closing Thoughts From The Trenches of the Consulting Network

Your Turn for Questions These slides are available at