1. Focusing on QEP Goals

2. “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.”

3. 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

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

5. Today: Goals By September: ballpark budget

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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.

10. 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...”

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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."

14. 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

15. NSSE Dimension LU 03Peers 03 LU 06Peers 06 LAC45.652.7 (-.71)46.649.6 (-.22 ACL32.541.1 (-.86)34.640.4 (-.36) SFI32.335.7 (-.34)28.631.1 EEE (scoring changed) 48.655.4 (-.67)21.825.1 (-.26) SCE57.161.1 (-.40)55.857.3

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 3. Senior survey: Satisfaction with Core and Major (fall 05, spring 06) Lowest Highest FALL 05SPRING 06 Writing (comp)3.243.14 Math/Qualitative2.863.1 Fine Arts2.792.75 Literature2.962.73 Social Science2.892.8 Oral Comm.3.273.29 Phil of Know.2.622.72 Physical Activity2.252.4 Major courses3.673.66

19. 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.

20. 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-111.6 Math and quantitative thinking score on MAPP (113.1) was lower than the target of ¼ standard deviation above average-114.2. Writing score on MAPP (114.3) was lower than target (115.15). In-house assessment found 57.2 % of papers acceptable; target was 80%.

21. * Attrition rates higher in some sub-groups 5. LU Freshman Retention 1-yr Retention rateAttrition rate Fall 2004 entering FTIC freshmen to fall 05 59.01%40.99%* Fall 2005 entering FTIC freshmen to fall 06 57.93%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)

22. THECB Comparisons: 1 yr persistence LUUT Pan Am SFAPrairie View Tarl eton WT A&M TAMU Int’l TAMU Corpus 2004 72.876.686.676.182.979.384.881.1 2005 75.682.384.78279.578.686.880.1

23. 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)

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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

29. -- 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

30. 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...

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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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