1. Sample Presentation Headline REPRESENTATIVE SUBHEAD TO SUPPORT SUBJECT
Quality Enhancement Plan PROPOSAL WORKSHOP
Sample Presentation Headline REPRESENTATIVE SUBHEAD TO SUPPORT SUBJECT
Presenter’s Name
Position Title
February 12, 2005
Rial Rolfe, Ph.D.
Vice President for Academic Services
Sharon Kohout
Director, Office of Institutional
Planning & Effectiveness
Welcome to this workshop where we hope to give you as many details as possible on this next step in the QEP process.
Before we get started we’d like for you to know that a video stream of this workshop, as well as the slides, and handouts will be available on the QEP website.
Because we are Techlinking to our regional sites, we would like to go through our entire presentation. We have built in plenty of time at the end. You will also be able to send questions you think of later to an address posted on the qep website
So I guess we’ll go ahead and get started.

2. Quality Enhancement Plan
Agenda
QEP Background
QEP Process at TTUHSC
QEP Thematic Areas
Proposal Criteria
Proposal Format
Questions
This is what we plan to cover today. Read list.

3. Quality Enhancement Plan
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)
Commission on Colleges
One of six regional accreditors for Dept. of Education
Accredits 793 institutions of higher education
10-year accreditation cycle
Compliance Certification Report
Quality Enhancement Plan
TTUHSC
Reaccreditation in 2009
I’m sure by now just about everyone is aware of SACS (Southern Assn of Colleges and Schools) and the importance of maintaining our accreditation.
Read through slide. Accredits ALL institutions of higher learning…from community colleges to theological seminaries…to HSCs. Reminder that the accreditation process is carried out by faculty and staff at our peer institutions.
We have been preparing for our upcoming accreditation for over two years. We initially became separately accredited with SACS in 2004 (separated from TTU at that time.) All newly accredited institutions have a 5 yr. interval until the next accreditation. After we are accredited in 2009 we will be on a 10 yr. cycle….although SACS has recently added an in depth 5th Year Interim Report. So it really is a ongoing process.
It’s also important to understand that all of the regional accreditors are being pressured by the Dept. of Education for increased accountability from the institutions they accredit. We’re one of the lucky institutions that is going through the process just as SACS is responding to this pressure.

4. The Quality Enhancement Plan
QEP Definition:
A carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined topic or issue related to improving student learning
SACS implemented the QEP as a major component of accreditation just a few years ago (2003)…..so the process is still very new…and SACS tells us that it’s still being refined based on formative assessment of those first couple of years of QEP submissions.
So the information we are providing today reflects directives from SACS at this point in time.
Whereas the Compliance Certification Report is an audit (80 plus criteria that we must meet and for which we must supply evidence), the Quality Enhancement Plan is a course of action determined by the institution under review.
This is the official SACS definition. I would say that the key words are carefully designed, focused, well defined and…..improving student learning.
Several of us at the HSC have been attending SACS Annual Meetings and Summer Institutes on Quality Enhancement and we have heard over and over from institutions that have gone through this process that it has been one of the best things that has happened to the institution.
We’re confident that this will also be the case at the TTUHSC.

5. QEP Required Components
Clear and measurable goals
Adequate resources in place to implement the plan
Evaluation strategies for assessing the goals
Evidence of community input and support of the plan
These are the SACS criteria for the Quality Enhancement Plan. Let me emphasize that what we will be submitting to SACS early in 2009 will be a plan….A 75-page plan that with appendices is 100 pages or less. That plan will meet these criteria.
The SACS onsite review team will come in April 2009 and spend 2-3 days discussing the QEP as well as other components of the Compliance Report.
Our plan will be evaluated based on the identification of these components. Remember: the expectation is that we’ll have the plan READY for implementation, but won’t have started on it – unless we want to do a pilot in advance.
Clear and MEASURABLE goals: these need to relate directly to student learning
We know what we want to do and how we are going to get there.
Adequate resources: Personnel, fiscal/physical, time, energy (Institution must demonstrate commitment
Evaluation plan: begin with the end in mind
How will we know we’ve been successful AND HAVE IMPACTED STUDENT LEARNING?
According to SACS, this is one of the top issues that institutions stumble on
Community input and support: generally refers to the academic community but can involve the community at large.
Imperative that faculty and staff have input
Others: students, alumni, board, administration

6. Improving Student Learning
May include changes in students’ knowledge, skills, behaviors, and/or values
Examples:
Enhancing the academic climate
Enhancing critical thinking skills
Increasing student engagement in learning
Exploring imaginative ways to use technology in the curriculum
Introducing innovative teaching & learning strategies

7. Scope
The topic or issue in the QEP plan:
should be significant to the institution
should be a major enhancement of the student learning experience
should have a well-defined focus and a clear framework for development and implementation

8. Sample QEP Titles
Enhancing Students’ Academic Experiences through Scholarly and Creative Activity
Improving Student Learning through Direct Assessment
Using Educational Technology to Enhance Student Learning
INSPIRE: Infusing and Nurturing the Skills and Practice of Inquiry and Research in Education
Blueprint to Excellence: Enhancing Academic Support Services— the Campus Culture
Enhancing Student Learning by Developing Faculty Instructional Competencies
SACS started off the QEP implementation with 8 pilot institutions ( )
2nd group of 40 pilot institutions ( )
Right now 360 institutions are at some point in the development of their QEP

9. QEP Timeline July – August 2007 QEP Introduction Campaign
September – October 2007
Solicit QEP Topic Recommendations
November – December 2007
Review QEP Topic Recommendations; Determine Thematic Areas to Pursue
January – February 2008
Solicit QEP Topic Proposals Based on Thematic Areas
March 2008
Determine Final Four QEP Proposals for Referral to PEC
April 2008
Selection of QEP by PEC
May – October 2008
Research and Write QEP
November – February 2009
QEP Awareness Campaign
March 2009
Submit QEP to SACS
HSC Process
Dr. Rolfe appointed as QEP Director….
QEP Topics Selection Committee: represents all schools, on all campuses, as well as TTU and the community at large. First meeting in May Worked together to develop a process that would be appropriate for the HSC.
Marketing Campaign: thanks to Jeanne & Comm & Marketing
“Reveal” campaign during July & Aug. See marketing slides
We solicited Big Ideas from everyone in how to improve student learning at the HSC
On the cut-off date of Oct. 1, we had 141 ideas.
The QEP Topic Selection Committee assisted in grouping them into major areas.
Institutional Effectiveness Workgroup (broad-based HSC workgroup) came up with17 of the most promising ideas and grouped these into three thematic areas.
The rest of the slide includes next steps in the process.
Some flexibility in the Timeline except that the 80 page document (no more than 100 pages with appendices) be submitted in Feb

11. QEP Timeline July – August 2007 QEP Introduction Campaign
September – October 2007
Solicit QEP Topic Recommendations
November – December 2007
Review QEP Topic Recommendations, Determine Thematic Areas to Pursue
January – February 2008
Solicit QEP Topic Proposals Based on Thematic Areas
March 2008
Determine Final Four QEP Proposals for Referral to PEC
April 2008
Selection of QEP by PEC
May – October 2008
Research and Write QEP
November – February 2009
QEP Awareness Campaign
March 2009
Submit QEP to SACS
HSC Process
Dr. Rolfe appointed as QEP Director….when? Before July 2007
QEP Topics Selection Committee: represents all schools, on all campuses, as well as TTU and the community at large. First meeting in May Worked together to develop a process that would be appropriate for the HSC.
Marketing Campaign: thanks to Jeanne & Comm & Marketing
“Reveal” campaign during July & Aug. See marketing slides
We solicted Big Ieas from everyone in how to improve student learning at the HSC
On the cut-off date of Oct. 1, we had 141 ideas.
The QEP Topic Selection Committee assisted in grouping them into major areas.
Institutional Effectiveness Workgroup (broad-based HSC workgroup) came up with17 of the most promising ideas and grouped these into three thematic areas.
The rest of the slide includes next steps in the process.
Some flexibility in the Timeline except that the 80 page document (no more than 100 pages with appendices) be submitted in Feb 11

12. Thematic Areas
Academic Support for Students: focus on improving academic and professional success of students through tutoring, study skills and time management workshops, preparation for licensure exams, and similar support Interdisciplinary Education: provide instruction in professionalism, cultural competence, communication skills, critical thinking, problem solving, and/or other core competencies common to all members of healthcare teams Faculty Development Programs: offer resources for faculty to further their pedagogical and professional development
Before going into details, talk about the area of IT & Media. Great deal of interest but consensus that technology should support ideas in the one of the three reas and not be the total focus.
Academic Support: mentoring programs, learning centers, Communications Central (to improve written & oral skills) – we’re hoping people will think out of the box.
Interdisciplinary Education: this one is pretty self-explanatory; could mention Interdisciplinary Colleges; evidence-based guidelines for healthcare delivery (IOM); better clinical simulation
Faculty Development: many responses on the need for improved teaching skills; just remember that a demonstration of student learning must be the outcome.

13. QEP Topics “Short List”

14. Proposal Criteria
The potential for significantly improving student learning at every TTUHSC campus and in each of the TTUHSC schools (School of Medicine, School of Nursing, School of Allied Health Sciences, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, and Paul M. Foster School of Medicine at El Paso)
The potential for empirical, data-based measurement of its impact on student learning
The potential for gaining widespread support and acceptance among TTUHSC constituents
The potential for rapid deployment and time-sensitive adjustments for improvement over its five-year period
The proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its relationship to the TTUHSC Strategic Plan and Mission, its budget implications, and its practicality of implementation.
Could talk a bit about broad-based impact. Doesn’t have to be every student in every school….but perhaps high risk students in all schools. The IE Workgroup was adamant that all campuses have potential for recipients of the QEP activities.
Possibility: could pilot the project in one or two schools, do some formative evaluation, and implement plan with other schools.

15. 1. Brief Descriptive Title of the QEP Topic:
Proposal Format
1. Brief Descriptive Title of the QEP Topic:
Using Technology to Enhance Student Learning
Creating Collaborative Care (C3)
Doing the Right Thing: A Campus Conversation on Ethics
Inspire: Infusing and Nurturing the Skills and Practice of Inquiry and Research in Education

16. Proposal Format
2. Current Environment: What are the major elements in the current student learning environment that will be addressed by the proposed QEP topic?
Faculty Survey
Student Survey
HSC Strategic Plan
School Resources
Submitted QEP Topics
This is the “NEED” part.
Can be something that needs to be improved
Can build on a strength that already exists…..perhaps needs to be expanded to other schools
Can look at the literature (IOM competencies)

17. Proposal Format
3. Purpose/Focus Statement: The [QEP topic] will increase/enhance student learning at the TTUHSC by . . .
Equipping students to persist through the completion of their academic program because they have acquired the knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values which characterize successful learners.

18. 4. Implementation Plan Proposal Format
Resources Needed: What are the specific needs--including estimated costs--for staffing, funding, facilities, equipment, and administrative support to implement and maintain the QEP topic? .

19. 4. Implementation Plan Proposal Format
Strategies and Activities: How will the QEP topic direct the institution in addressing the issues identified in #2 and achieving the outcomes suggested in #5?
Current Environment (#2)
Future Environment (#5)

20. 4. Implementation Plan Proposal Format
Results/Outputs: If resources are provided and strategies/activities implemented for the QEP topic, what tangible results might be expected in terms of number of faculty trained, students involved, courses or programs developed or modified, etc.?

21. Proposal Format
5. Future Environment: If this QEP topic is adopted, what difference will it make in terms of student learning at the end of its implementation? Be as specific as possible, using both direct and indirect measures of student learning.

23. Additional Points Proposal Format
The proposal should be prepared as a Microsoft Word document with one-inch margins and 10-point typeface. It may not exceed eight (8) single-spaced pages in length, including bibliography.
Supporting documentation can be included
Due no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 3, 2008
Each of the submitters of the four most viable QEP proposals will receive a $5,000 award. In the case of team submissions, the team will receive the award to be divided among themselves.

24. ?