A Successful Beginning: The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) T opic Selection Process

1. A Successful Beginning: The Quality Enhancement Plan(QEP)Topic Selection Process College of the Mainland Steve Sewell, Ph.D. Bruce Glover, M.B.A. Pam Millsap, Ph.D. Michele Betancourt, M.A.

2. What exactly are the key elements of the QEP? And where do we start?

3. Key Elements of the QEP Data-driven! Must impact student learning! Institutional capacity to support the QEP! Broad campus involvement! Impact must be measurable!

4. “Data-driven!” SACS states that the QEP should include an institutional process that identifies “key issues emerging from institutional assessment.” In other words, the topic should emerge from data, not a “gut feeling” about what might be a good topic.

5. “Must impact student learning!” The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges defines student learning as “changes in knowledge, skills, behaviors, or values.” The QEP must impact student learning in a way that is measurable!

6. “Institutional capacity to support the QEP!” The QEP must be sustainable with regard to institutional resources (funding, human resources, physical space, etc.). Thus, the scale of the QEP must be appropriate to the institution’s resources.

7. “Broad campus involvement!” SACS requires “broad-based institutional participation of all appropriate campus constituencies in the identification of the topic or issue to be addressed by the QEP.” Thus, the topic selection process should involve multiple campus groups, with significant involvement of faculty, who “shoulder responsibility for student learning.”

8. Impact must be measurable! SACS recommends that the institution establish a structure for evaluating “the extent to which the goals set for the plan are attained.” Thus, assessment procedures should be considered on the front end of the process, not at the end!

9. The QEP Topic Selection Process at College of the Mainland (COM) How we started: • QEP Co-Chairs (faculty members) were appointed by administration in the fall of 2006. Why? • Assigning responsibility of the process to identified individuals ensures accountability. Responsibilities of QEP Co-Chairs: • Become educated about the QEP process through attendance at appropriate SACS conferences and/or other professional experiences. • Develop detailed plan for selection and development of QEP topic.

10. QEP Topic Selection Committee Established • The COM QEP Topic Selection Committee was established in the Spring of 2007 by the QEP Co-Chairs. • Committee membership was broad-based, with representation from academic success (developmental education) and general education departments as well as workforce programs, administration, support services, and the student body.

11. Audience Activity • Brainstorm/share in small groups about who should be (or is) on the QEP Topic Selection Committee at your institution. • Consider what campus groups need to be represented and what skills and viewpoints need to be "brought to the table" so that the topic selection process is inclusive.

12. Data Review • The QEP Topic Selection Committee conducted exhaustive reviews of sixteen data sources, including CCSSE survey results, Noel-Levitz survey results, general education assessment data, and more. • Committee members took responsibility for developing executive summaries of each data source reviewed.

13. Audience Activity • Brainstorm/share in small groups about what data sources are available at your institutions that might be pertinent to the selection of a QEP topic. • Review the data source provided (handout) to determine (based on that data source) what topics might be the most appropriate choices for a QEP.

14. Development of QEP survey • Survey was created that evaluated the importance of each of nine core competencies (skill areas) and the effectiveness with which each is addressed through the COM curriculum (according to the perceptions of the respondents). • Note 1: Survey included comment section so that respondents could identify additional competencies that they believed should be addressed. • Note 2: Most of the competencies are those that are endorsed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

15. QEP Survey • The QEP survey (hard copy and online) was administered in the fall of 2007. • Respondents represented multiple constituencies, including students, faculty, staff, administration, alumni, employers, community members, and members of the Board of Trustees.

16. Second Round of Data Review • The QEP Committee received 1576 completed QEP surveys. • Executive summaries of 16 data sources were reviewed again in conjunction with the QEP survey findings in order to discern patterns or trends within the data.

17. Creation of Long List of Potential QEP Topics • Based on a review of the executive summaries of sixteen data sources and the QEP survey data, the QEP Topic Selection Committee identified 23 potential topics for consideration. • Topics were merged, consolidated, and eliminated to yield a list of eleven topics.

18. Long List of Eleven QEP Topics(in no particular order) • Enhance writing skills across the curriculum • Enhance reading skills across the curriculum • Improve cultural competency skills • Increase student engagement • Improve oral communication across the curriculum • Enhance active and collaborative learning across the curriculum • Enhance critical thinking skills across the curriculum • Enhance ability to think globally in the 21st century • Increase employability through enhancement of life skills • Increase information literacy • Improve mathematical literacy

19. Dissemination of the List of Eleven QEP Topics • The QEP Topic Selection Committee developed a brief definition and an explanation of the data supporting the topic for each of the eleven topics. • This list was posted on the internal information network of the College (the I-Drive) for dissemination to the campus, in preparation for solicitation of two-page QEP proposals from the campus community.

20. Rubric Development • A subcommittee was established to develop a rubric for evaluation of the two-page QEP topic proposals to be solicited from the campus community at Fall 2008 Convocation meeting (attended by all campus personnel).

21. Some Notes about the Two-Page QEP Proposals • Anyone, including students, could submit a proposal to the QEP Topic Selection Committee. • The list of eleven identified potential topics was distributed at convocation (including explanation and data-based justification) and posted on the I-Drive. • Instruction guidelines for proposals were distributed. • The rubric for evaluation of the proposals was distributed. • A stipend of $100.00 was promised to the top fifteen proposal authors.

22. Evaluation of Two-Page QEP Proposals • Seventeen two-page proposals were submitted to the QEP Topic Selection Committee in the fall of 2008. • Using the rubric evaluation tool, combined with discussion of the proposals’ strengths and weaknesses, the committee selected the five top-ranked proposals in a blind review (i.e., the authors’ names were not attached to the proposals). • The writers of the five top-ranked proposals were invited to submit expanded, more detailed proposals (3500 to 4000 words, i.e., approximately fifteen pages in length). • The authors of the five top-ranked proposals included faculty members, professional staff, and a dean.

23. The Evaluation of the Expanded QEP Proposals • A more detailed rubric was developed for evaluating the expanded proposals. • Guidelines for submission and the rubric for evaluating the proposals were distributed to the top five proposal writers. • The writers of the top five proposals were given approximately three months (November through January) to develop their expanded proposals, and they were promised a stipend of $1000.00 for each proposal.

24. To broaden representation of constituencies, outside readers (including students and faculty from workforce, developmental education, and general education) were invited to join the committee in reviewing the expanded proposals. • An “orientation meeting” was held to review with all the readers the most important elements of a successful QEP, so that their evaluation would focus on key components as identified by SACS.

25. The author of each proposal met with the committee and outside readers as a group to answer questions about the proposal and to clarify or expand on proposal elements, as requested by the committee. • After rating the proposals on the rubric, the committee and the outside readers discussed the final ratings and each proposal’s strengths and weaknesses.

26. Based on rubric findings and discussion, the QEP Topic Selection Committee and outside readers selected as COM’s QEP topic: Oral Communication!

27. A Sound Foundation for the Final Topic (Oral Communication) The final topic was justified according to four sources: • Literature • Best Practices • Internal COM Data • Rubric Findings

28. Literature (A Sampling) • Oral/written communication skills were ranked among top three skills considered important by employers, after teamwork skills and critical thinking (survey conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities). • Students often lack confidence in their oral communication skills (Friedland, 2004). • Oral communication skills need to be integrated into instruction across the curriculum if skills are to be developed (National Communication Association, 1996).

29. Best Practices • Oral communication is a key element in the QEP’s of other institutions, including the University of Southern Mississippi and Durham Technical College. • Other institutions emphasize oral communication through the implementation of such interventions as the establishment of a Speaking Center and the integration of oral communication elements across the curriculum.

30. Best Practices, continued • The dramatic gains in oral communication skills through the integration of oral communication elements across the curriculum is demonstrated by the practices of Alverno College.

31. Internal COM Data:General Education Curriculum Map • Data from COM’s general education curriculum map indicated that, relative to other identified competencies, speaking skills (and computer literacy) are underemphasized with respect to both instruction and assessment of these skills. Note 1: Critical thinking is the skill most widely taught and assessed throughout the curriculum (and multiple assessment findings indicate that COM students are successfully achieving this skill).

32. Percentage of Core Curriculum Courses Which Assess or Teach the Eight Core Competencies

33. Internal COM Data:QEP SURVEY • QEP Survey of 1576 respondents indicated that oral communication was ranked below only reading comprehension and critical thinking with regard to its perceived importance, BUT

34. QEP Survey, continued: • With regard to the effectiveness with which the identified competencies are addressed by the College, oral communication was ranked sixth, below all of the basic academic competencies (reading comprehension was ranked second) and above only interpersonal skills, multicultural sensitivity, and global awareness.

35. QEP Survey, continued: • In other words, according to the QEP Survey data, oral communication is seen as an important skill which is noteffectively addressed at COM.

36. The Quality of the Proposal Matters, Too!(It’s Not Just the Topic!) • Although none of the topics were better supported by the data than oral communication, any of the top five topics could have been justified as legitimate topics according to the data. • Thus, the quality of the proposals became the key determinant, as the committee looked for specific information as to how the topics might be implemented.

37. Key Elements of the Winning Proposal • The oral communication proposal offered specific student learning outcomes (a key factor, according to SACS) and specific measures of assessment. • In addition, the oral communication proposal offered very specific ideas about intervention strategies and a more detailed timeline than any of the other proposals.

38. Thus, while the selected proposal will obviously need to be fleshed out in greater detail by the QEP Topic Development Committee (next phase), it functions as a ROAD MAP for writing the final QEP proposal to be submitted to SACS and implemented by the College.

39. THUS: COM’s QEP topic selection process: • Was data-driven! • Resulted in a topic which will impact student learning! • Resulted in a proposal which addressed COM’s institutional capacity to support the QEP! • Reflected broad campus involvement! And • Resulted in a topic with measurable impact!

40. Therefore: We feel that our QEP topic selection process has culminated in: A Successful Beginning!

41. Warning: We encountered a few obstacles and challenges along the way! • Coordination of campus survey with Institutional Research • Convincing people to consider the data, not just to go with their “gut feeling” about which topic should be chosen • Keeping people focused on measurable outcomes

42. A Successful Beginning: The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)Topic Selection Process College of the Mainland Steve Sewell, Ph.D. ssewell@com.edu Bruce Glover, M.B.A. bglover@com.edu Pam Millsap, Ph.D. pmillsap@com.edu Michele Betancourt,M.A. mbetancourt@com.edu

43. List of Handouts(This isn’t a slide!) • QEP Survey • Two-page proposal rubric • Expanded proposal rubric • An example of an executive summary