220 likes | 318 Views
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.
E N D
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 BePrinciples, 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
The Handbooks’ Four Primary Indicators for an Acceptable QEP • FOCUS • INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY • ASSESSMENT • BROAD INVOLVEMENT
Indicators & Questions on Reaffirmation ReportForm • 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
On-Site Committee’s Dual Role Evaluating the QEP 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)
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
BEST BENEFIT - A REWARDING EXPERIENCE
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 www.kennesaw.edu/ie