1 / 27

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Five-Year Report on Hybrid Learning in Math Hubs

Orlando, Florida March 24, 2012. Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Five-Year Report on Hybrid Learning in Math Hubs. By Bob Indrihovic & Pat Velicky Florence-Darlington Technical College Florence, South Carolina. Transforming Remedial Math.

jarah
Download Presentation

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Five-Year Report on Hybrid Learning in Math Hubs

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. Orlando, Florida March 24, 2012 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)Five-Year Report on Hybrid Learning in Math Hubs By Bob Indrihovic & Pat Velicky Florence-Darlington Technical College Florence, South Carolina

  2. Transforming Remedial Math FDTC’s remedial math transformation began with the SACS Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)– • The title of the plan is Calculate This! modeled after the University of Alabama’s Math Technology Learning Center. • The QEP is a compliance standard that has been established by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). • The QEP is an ongoing plan of continuous improvement done on a 5-year reporting cycle.

  3. One of the five Institutional Goals at FDTC was perfect for Calculate This! Florence-Darlington Technical College will transform the traditional instructional approach into a flexible, customer-oriented learning environment emphasizing a global economy, certifications, work experience credit, competency-based outcomes, self-paced, individualized instruction, and the infusion of technology in all programs of study.

  4. Tutors Instructor

  5. OBJECTIVES: • SACS QEP Overview • FDTC QEP Process • FDTC QEP Data and Results

  6. SACS QEP Overview • Commission on Colleges expectations • Core Requirement 2.12 • Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 • Nine Steps to developing a QEP

  7. SACS QEP Overview • to dedicate itself to enhancing the quality of its programs and services within the context of its mission, resources, and capabilities • to create an environment in which teaching, public service, research, and learning occurs The Commission on Colleges expects an institution:

  8. SACS QEP Overview Core Requirement 2.12 states that the QEP • demonstrates that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process • presents an opportunity and an incentive for an institution to enhance overall institutional quality and effectiveness by focusing on an issue important to improving student learning • clearly and directly links to improving the quality of student learning • integrates into ongoing planning and evaluation

  9. SACS QEP Overview Comprehensive Standard 3.3.2 states that the QEP • demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP; • includes broad‐based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the QEP; • identifies goals and a plan to assess achievement.

  10. SACS QEP Overview Nine Steps to Developing a QEP Selecting the Topic Defining the Student Learning Outcomes Researching the Topic Identifying the Actions to be Implemented Establishing the Timeline for Implementation Organizing for Success Identifying Necessary Resources Assessing the Success of the QEP Preparing the QEP for Submission

  11. FDTC QEP Process • Phase I (April 2004 – May 2005) • Research • Budget planning • Calculate This! proposal/approval • QEP subcommittees formed • First two Math Hub courses designed and offered

  12. FDTC QEP Process • Phase II (June 2005 – May 2006) • Publicity about the Math Hub and QEP • Area Commission • FDTC community • S.C. Developmental Educators Conference • Local news media • QEP documents sent to SACS • SACS on-site review (October 2005) • Data Collection begins

  13. FDTC QEP Process • Phase III (June 2006 – June 2011) • Extensive data analysis of student learning • Assessment and adjustment of the Hub policies & procedures and instructional methodology • Continuous inclusion of the Math Hub in Math Department’s Institutional Effectiveness • Exploration of grants and other funding measures • SACS 5th Year Interim Report (June 2011)

  14. FDTC QEP Data and Results We are collecting and analyzing data for the four QEP goals.

  15. Primary Goal of QEP … to increase student knowledge of course competencies by at least 5% in our remedial/prerequisite courses.

  16. How We Measure Our Primary Goal • Within the first two days of each semester, students are given a course pre-assessment: a subset of the departmental final exam • A subset of the departmental final exam serves as he post-assessment • Both sets of data are stored electronically and used to compare changes in student learning outcomes • Finally, the data are divided into two groups for comparison: Hub environment and traditional environment .

  17. Primary Goal Results The average increase from pre to post for 2650 Hub students is 34.7points The average increase from pre to post for 2728 traditionalstudents is 29.1 points Percent difference between the two environments is This well exceeds our goal of 5%

  18. Secondary Goal One … to increase the course success rate in remedial/prerequisite math classes by at least 5%.

  19. Secondary Goal One Results The success rate for 5574 Hub students is 56.7% The success rate for 9996 traditionalstudents is 41.9% Percent difference between the two environments is This well exceeds our goal of 5%

  20. Secondary Goal Two … to increase the course success rate of students in curriculum math courses who took the prerequisite math course by at least 5%.

  21. Secondary Goal Two Results The success rate in a curriculum math course of the 867 students who took the prerequisite math coursein the Hub environment is 63.1% The success rate in a curriculum math course of the 3077 students who took the prerequisite math course in a traditional environment is 59.7% Percent difference between the two environments is This exceeds our goal of 5%

  22. Secondary Goal Three …to increase the average on the final exam of each remedial/prerequisite math course by at least 5%.

  23. Secondary Goal Three Results The average grade on the cumulative final exam of the 3203 Hub students is 77.1 The average grade on the cumulative final exam of the 7800 traditional students is 69.2 Percent difference between the two environments is This well exceeds our goal of 5%

  24. Additional Observations • Active student learning • One-on-one help • Increased student/faculty communication • Additional time on task • Course acceleration • Increased self-confidence and motivation

  25. Title III Grant FDTC received a $1.87 million Title III grant in Fall, 2009, to expand the Hub. As a result, most of the remedial/prerequisite math students now use and learn math via the Mathematics and Technology Hub.

  26. For more information… • http://qep.indrihovic.com • The Original Proposal – Calculate This! • Five Year Impact Report • Title III Annual Performance Report (Year 2) • Much More… Questions: Bob.Indrihovic@fdtc.edu Pat.Velicky@fdtc.edu

More Related