1 / 15

QEP Overview

QEP Overview. What the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is How the QEP fits with A ssessment @ MUW How the QEP should be S tructured Timeline for implementation of the QEP. QEP Overview. What the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is As Defined by SACSCOC (“Commission on Colleges”)

deana
Download Presentation

QEP Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. QEP Overview • What the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is • How the QEP fits with Assessment @ MUW • How the QEP should be Structured • Timeline for implementation of the QEP

  2. QEP Overview • What the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is • As Defined by SACSCOC (“Commission on Colleges”) Key Web Addresses/URLs: • Main Page: http://www.sacscoc.org/ • “Accreditation Standards” – Most Recent: http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2010principlesofacreditation.pdf • “Institutional Resources” – Especially “Quality Enhancement Plans: Lists and Summaries Since 2004”: http://www.sacscoc.org/inst_forms_and_info1.asp B. As Operationalized for Learning-Centered Education C. Planned Institutional & Learning-Centered Impacts

  3. QEP Overview SACSCOC Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2: The institution has developed a Quality Enhancement Plan that (1) demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP; (2) includes broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP; and (3) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement. (Quality Enhancement Plan) (Note: This requirement is not addressed by the institution in its Compliance Certification.)

  4. QEP Overview SACSCOC Core Requirement 2.12: “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.”

  5. QEP Overview Taken from SACSCOC Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 -&- Core Requirement 2.12, QEP must address Student Learning Objectives: • Informed by sources such as our University Mission, Vision, Strategic Goals, etc. • Informed by Data-Driven Decision Making resulting from Assessment Processes -&- is Evaluated using similar Assessment Processes • Informed by Broad-Based Institutional Dialogue • Must Provide Clear Evidence of Institutional Support • Additionally: According to SACSCOC President Belle S. Wheelan, is Fundamentally “Transformative” for the Institution

  6. QEP Overview QEP Operationalized for Learning-Centered Education • SACSCOC is endorsing a shift from Lecture-Based Education to Learning-Centered Education • Takes Emphasis Away from Content as a scarce resource, Lecturer as Content-Expert to Educator as Leader of High-Impact Learning Experiences: • Shifts Content out of class; Student is made responsible for bringing Content to class, prepared to Apply Content to Problem-Solving, Creative Engagement • Educator helps Student evaluate the quality and usefulness of Content for Application • Student is encouraged to assess own Learning and Evaluate how Learning addresses Goals (Metacognitive Model—e.g., Use of Reflective Academic Goal Portfolios) • Encourages use of Technology out and in classroom (e.g., for Immediate Feedback) • Emphasizes Assessment of Real-Time “Classroom” Applications as Measures of Student Learning • The Application of a significant Learning Objective should be Evaluated both in and out of the Classroom (e.g., Extracurricular Activities, as applicable)

  7. QEP Overview Planned Institutional and Learning Centered Impacts: • Institutional—e.g., Retention: • At the close of 2010-2011, PIE Council recommended shifting Retention to the #1 Priority for MUW: “Increase retention and graduation rates, overall and for low-income and minority students, while maintaining high academic standards” • MUW’s primary Strategic Goal stresses: • “The University will provide an innovative, high-quality academic enterprise that engages students, faculty and staff by fostering students’ deep learning, engagement and holistic development” • Consider Desired Outcomes – What would We Identify as “Transformative” for MUW?

  8. QEP Overview • How the QEP fits with Assessment @ MUW MUW’s Two Parallel Assessment Processes • Program/Unit-Based Assessment (ACTION) • November: Begin ‘Review & Design’ Talks • January 15: Submit ACTION Document – Includes Results from Previous year & Plan for the Upcoming Year • Jan – Nov: Implement & Assess Plans • Student Learning Outcomes (SMART) • August: Begin ‘Review & Design’ Talks • September 15: Submit SMART Documents – Both Results from Previous year & Plan for the Upcoming Year • Sept – Aug: Assess Student Learning

  9. QEP Overview • How the QEP fits with Assessment @ MUW • Specific Assessment Threads that Must run through SMART & ACTION: • General Education Assessment: Liberal Arts Emphasis in MUW Mission & Vision Statement • Primarily in SMART with obvious crossover to ACTION • Developed & Conducted by GECC (formerly CCC) • Retention-Based Assessment: Stated MUW Campus Priority • Primarily in ACTION with obvious crossover to SMART • Developed & Conducted by Retention Working Group/Committee • QEP-Based Assessment: • Initially in SMART with necessary crossover to ACTION • Developed & Conducted by QEP Team

  10. QEP Overview • MUW’s QEP Organizational Structure • President’s Cabinet • Academic Council(QEP must be SLO-related) • QEP Administrative Team • SACSCOC Liaison • Planning & Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Council • Purpose: Ensures processes are being completed, documented, & communicated • QEP Team • QEP Chair—Dr. Thomas C. Richardson • Subcommittee from PIE Council • Purpose: Actual management of QEP processes

  11. QEP Overview • Timeline for Implementing QEP @ MUW • SACSCOC 10yr Compliance Review • Spring 2014: On-site Peer Review (officially Jan-May; March as Target) • Nov 2013: Off-Site Peer Review • Sept 2013: Compliance Certification Due • June 2012: Orientation of Leadership Teams • Aug-May 2012: Begin Internal Review • QEP 27-month Planning Timeline • Spring 2014: On-site Peer Review • (officially Jan-May; March as Target) • January 2014: Submit QEP Plan • (officially 4-6 weeks before On-site Review) • December 2013: Complete QEP Plan • September 2013: Complete QEP Draft • September 2012: Initiate Detailed Development of QEP Plan • July 2012: Pre-Development of QEP Plan • May 2012: Select Final QEP Topic • December 2011: Select QEP Topic Pool • Aug-Dec 2011: Initial Call for Topics

  12. QEP Overview • Timeline for Implementing QEP @ MUW • Fall 2011 Essential QEP Activities: • Finalization of QEP Organizational Structure • Finalization of Topic Evaluation Criteria • (SLO Considerations, Desired University “Impacts,” etc.) • Establishment of Topic Submission & Evaluation Process • Topic Submissions Reviewed • Approved Pool of Topics Announced • Additional Planning

More Related