SACS and the QEP: Assessment and the Role of Academic Libraries

1. SACS and the QEP: Assessment and the Role of Academic Libraries Doyle Carter and Sarah Logan Presented to the Texas Library Association April 14, 2011

2. SACSCOC Accreditation & the QEP Principles of Accreditation • Peer Review • Institutional Integrity • Commitment to Quality Enhancement & Continuous Improvement • Focus on Student Learning

3. Accreditation Reaffirms aCommitment to: • Comply with the Principle of Integrity (PR), Core Requirements (CR), Comprehensive Standards (CS), and Federal Requirements (FR) and with the policies and procedures of the Commission on Colleges; • Enhance the quality of its educational programs; • Focus on student learning; • Ensure a “culture of integrity” in all its operations.

4. Standards Core Requirement 2.12: The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that includes an institutional process for identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment and focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution.  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.

5. Reaffirmation Processes

6. Reaffirmation Deliverables @ ASU

7. Overview of ASU’s QEP Process 1. QEP Development Phase 3: Pilot & Finalize Phase 2: Research & Development Phase 1: Planning & Topic Selection Optimally, one year for each phase June 2010-May 2011 June 2011-May 2012 June 2012-May 2013 2. QEP Submission Institution’s Quality Enhancement Plan The Quality Enhancement Plan is submitted to SACSCOC six weeks prior to the on-site review. For ASU, the site visit will take place in the spring of 2013. 3. QEP Implementation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 4. QEP Evaluation Institution’s QEP Impact Report The QEP Impact Report evaluates the impact of the QEP on student learning during the five years of implementation. For ASU, this will be submitted in the spring of 2018.

8. ASU’s QEP DevelopmentGantt Chart Start

9. Step 1Topic Selection Goal: Select a topic by May 6, 2011 Major Tasks: • Engage constituencies/solicit ideas (Aug-Oct) • Review existing student learning data (Aug-Oct) • Review literature (Aug-Oct) • Report findings (Nov) • Call for QEP topic proposals (Nov) • Compose and submit proposals (Nov-Mar) • Review proposals; make recommendation to Leadership Team (April) *Proposals to be submitted by small teams of faculty, staff, & students; submission guidelines and evaluation criteria will be included in the call for proposals

10. Campus Engagement Campaign

11. The QEP must… • be directly related to institutional needs, that is; directly improve institutional/student performance (accomplishment of mission); • be directly related to institutional strategic planning efforts; • include detailed student learning outcomes tied directly to institutional needs; • demonstrate a clear relationship between the activities of the QEP and the improvement of student learning, all tied to established institutional needs; • include detailed budget/personnel data that clearly defined the institution’s financial/human resource commitment to the success of the QEP; • include a detailed timetable of year-to-year activities, expenditures, and assessments that clearly indicates the viability of the 5-year plan; • include documentation of broad-based input during development stage; • directly involve all relevant constituencies in the plan’s implementation; • include clearly stated goals that lead to specific measureable outcomes; • ensure that outcomes are assessed through direct measures.

12. INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: Definition & Process • Definition • An official evaluation: has a planned methodology • A process of documenting in measurable terms • Process • Decide what you want to know. What is the project’s objective? • Decide how to measure progress towards the objective. • Implement measure(s) and targets. • Analyze results of implementation. • Use the results to inform decision making.

13. INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: Process • Process with an example • What is the objective of the project? • Are students using library resources that support QEP objectives? • Decide how to measure progress towards the objective? • Count resources used during a certain time period. • Assign targets and implement the measures • 50% of students will access QEP-related materials at least once. • Assign staff to record usage. • Analyze results of implementation • Count: catalogue/database use, visitors to special displays • Use of results • Do numbers and uses support QEP objectives?

14. INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: ProcessThe “YES” Loop • If YES • re-define objective and/or targets • In a semester, 75% of students will access QEP-related materials at least twice. • In a semester, 50% of students will make better use of QEP-related materials as measured by increased scores on specific parts of written work involving QEP topic (this one takes faculty involvement). • or move on to assessment of other projects

15. INTRO TO ASSESSMENT: ProcessThe “NO” Loop • If NO, how do we correct the situation? • Implement recommendations from Use of Results • Advertise QEP materials in different places/publications • Train staff to mention QEP-related materials to students • Tweak displays/presentations • Start assessment cycle again • The question could change to, “Are more students using library resources that support QEP objectives now?” • Goal: increase one-time access 20% from baseline in a semester

16. ABOUT ASSESSMENT: TYPES • Direct • Student learning: assess learning with a test of learning • Satisfaction with library’s support of QEP: survey people regarding their satisfaction with the library’s support • Indirect • Student learning: assess students’ perceptions of the amount they’ve learned with a survey • Impact of library’s efforts in support of QEP: survey library users about their satisfaction with the library’s QEP materials

17. ABOUT ASSESSMENT: USES • Measure knowledge and ability • Improve current services • Verify improvement from past to present • Plan future services or directions • Inform and/or change perceptions of your department and its services • Discover particular strengths and weaknesses

18. ABOUT ASSESSMENT: CYCLE • Baseline • Often forgotten: everyone just wants to start the project • Vital: if you do NOT measure at baseline, you cannot measure actual strengths, weaknesses or improvement • Ex: 50% of our students use the library to research QEP topics. So??? How many used it the year before the QEP started for other research?  How many used it to research QEP topics before they were called QEP?  • Continuing • Measure on an appropriate cycle: monthly, biennially, etc. • Usage depends on peak times; satisfaction may or may not

19. ABOUT ASSESSMENT: TYPES OF COMPARISONS • Longitudinal • Compare over time • Baseline 1 year later 2 years later • Benchmark • Compare yourself to peers and “stretch” peers • You can assess longitudinally with or w/out a benchmark • Normed vs. criterion • Normed means each is compared to others • Criterion means all are compared to a standard • FYI: all the above can be used in various combinations

20. LIBRARIANS • Keep things • Archives are great places to find resources; ordinary people are often unaware of what is available • E-materials: librarians stay up to date with what they are, how they work, how they may have changed. This is extremely helpful for digital immigrants. • Organization: librarians are organized: having everything is of no help unless one can find the particular piece s/he wants

21. LIBRARIANS • Know things • Why this is important • researchers sometimes do not ask questions well: librarians can help define the questions • deciding what one wants to know and having materials available may not be compatible: librarians can suggest solutions • Librarians keep up to date • Buzz words, processes, and databases change • Helping researchers update their mental files is important • Where/how to find resources • Librarians know the connections between various resources. • Librarians know where related resources can be found.

22. LIBRARIANS • Do things • Example: for a QEP about quantitative problem solving • Library may support: help people find appropriate resources • Library may have direct involvement: present the resources • Make presentations • About resources available • About history of mathematics • Set up displays • Pamphlets describing resources • Real-world applications of quantitative problem solving

23. CONTACT INFORMATION • Dr. Doyle Carter • Director, • Quality Enhancement Plan • Angelo State University • ASU Station #11017 • San Angelo, TX 76909-1017 • 325-486-6333 • doyle.carter@angelo.edu • www.angelo.edu/qep • Dr. Sarah Logan • Assistant VP, Institutional • Research & Effectiveness • Angelo State University • ASU Station #10920 • San Angelo, TX 76909-0920 • 325-942-2259 • sarah.logan@angelo.edu • www.angelo.edu/pulications/institutional_research