QEP
Specialists teams summer 2006 recommendations
TEAMs
/ Team
Goals / Recommendations for 2006-2007
STUDENT
ASSESSMENT TEAM:
Lillian Young, Ismael
Rodriguez-Espiricueta, Ken Word, Phyllis Sisson
Explore
possible assessment instruments that would provide rich data about
the academic and affective characteristics of our students that
may help us to help them; discuss implementation and potential impact.
Notes
and Recommendations:
1.
CTC has ample instruments to collect data on the affective characteristics
of our students;
2.
Subject Matter Experts/Departments determine methods of assessment
in their area for all delivery methods -
students/faculty/community
Rationale:
- SACS
statements - Best Practices
- Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board Guidelines - Institutional
Effectiveness
- American
Council Education (MIVER - military); DOD
- Chronicle
of Higher Education-July 25, 2006 - Daily News
3.
Assessment must measure entering (prerequisite) skills - writing,
math, and reading
Rationale:
To ensure student success by correctly placing student into
classes; decrease failure, drop out and stop out.
4.
Replace present pre-post testing with common course exams.
Rationale:
If there is proper placement, pretest will not be needed. Measuring
learning outcomes/accountability
5.
Problems in testing: Time in classroom Solution: Using computer/online
systems
Rationale:
feedback; learning process; meets requirements for all CTC students
throughout the world (uniform)
QEP
DOCUMENT REVIEW TEAM:
Dawn Green, Richard
Iberra, Jan Anderson
Review
the goals and objectives of the QEP, evaluate for activity, and
recommend revision or maintenance.
QEP
Goal 1 - Improve processes that support assessment
Objective
1, system wide process, measurable student outcomes
Recommendations:
1.
Number the strategies on the Goals and Objectives Document so
that reports such as these can refer to numbers rather than having
to write out whole strategies.
2.
Hire SACS Consultant to assess our QEP progress while there is
still time to fix things without throwing everyone in a crisis
since the year of the Focus Report is rapidly approaching. (Use
experts for external guidance . . .)
Objective
2, integrate surveys with institutional data to identify issues
Recommendations:
3.
Central Texas College
4.
Consider an audit committee who can randomly visit depts. and
ask to see data, or is this what CTCD Facilitators (mentioned)
do? (Continue Unit Action Plan I housed at the unit level . .
.)
Objective
3, incorporate learning outcomes assessment into strategic planning
and institutional effectiveness
Recommendations:
5.
QEP and IE should meet, streamline goals, and coordinate suspense
dates for reporting. (Add learning outcomes assessment forms to
IE processes. . . )
6.
Coordinate QEP and Strategic Goals. (Correlate QEP Goals . . .
)
Objective
4, share and celebrate QEP successes
Recommendation:
7.
Also create other awards for depts. who fully participate in the
QEP.
QEP
Goal 2 - professional development on assessment, selected issues,
best practices
Recommendations:
8.
Assign group to check status of non-central campus faculty professional
development and how QEP training will be implemented, documented
and centralized. (Expand Faculty Professional Development . .
. )
9.
Develop a study group to explore . . . \
10.
Pursue stipend for non-managerial specialists. This was approved
by Dr. Anderson and written into the SACS response. What happened
to it? (Develop/implement awards . . . )
QEP
Goal 3 - foster systemic faculty, staff, administrative and student
communication
Recommendations:
11.
Select committee to work on email account procedures. If the administration
does not have server space for adjunct emails, set up adjuncts
with yahoo or hotmail email accounts at their orientation. Create
and implement procedures where departmental assistants review
adjunct email accounts and submit names of those who have stopped
teaching on a monthly basis.
QEP
Goal 4 - empower use of technology to support assessment
Objective
1, use of website and online delivery systems as portals for information
& feedback
Recommendations:
12.
Create learning communities . . . .
13.
Pursue faculty/staff training through HR training packages. (Suzanne
and Jan explored the idea of using ACC's professional development
modules. We had asked their training department if it were possible
to pay for module usage, but they were not at a place in their
development to discuss that. According to sources at the last
TCCTA meeting, now they are willing to talk about this.)
QEP
Goal 5 - involve the campus community in the QEP
Recommendation:
14.
Liaison with students who work on the student newspaper to place
articles about learning and the QEP in their regular newspaper
. (Collaborate with students in publishing biannual . . .)
NOEL-LEVITZ
TEAM:
Julie Thomas
, Jeanette Jost, Bertha Kondrak, Joann Matthews, Ken Austin,
Lisa Egeston
Identify
target groups for fall 06 administration, create possible campus
questions, address challenges in determining participation and distribution
of surveys, especially including Phase 2 campuses
Recommendations:
- Target
populations. Broad based input is needed. Dr. Pate suggested that
a Zoomerang survey be done to garner that input. If the "At
Risk" student was the target population, the term would need
to be defined. A possible suggestion that would eliminate labeling
or breach of confidentiality would be for the student to self-identify.
- Custom
items. The Zoomerang survey could assist in the identification
of these.
- "First-come,
first-served" problem. There continues to be a struggle with
the sampling issue. In the 2003 survey, the sample size was achieved
really early. Noel-Levitz suggested that 100% be invited and to
close it when the % needed is met, and that was done in 2003.
Consequently, many students did not have the opportunity to participate
after being told by instructors there would be a grade incentive
for participating. The consensus of the group was that this needs
to be avoided. An incentive for participation was discussed. Discussion
ensued about targeting instructors or courses rather than students
to achieve a broad based survey sample.
- Zoomerang
items and suggestions:
- Who
do you want information from?
- Are
there groups of students about which you want to know more?
- Suggestion
was made to list choices and have a write in block; included
- Site Directors rather than faculty at the Navy or remote
sites or the Assistant Deans for Navy Atlantic and Pacific.
- Request
submission of campus questions that would relate to all in
Phase 2, not an individual campus.
- When
the Zoomerang items are identified, committee input will be
sought.
- The prior Zoomerang report is on the QEP Web site; committee
members will review that.
- Lesa
Egeston will draft an email about responsibility with regard
to the upcoming Noel-Levitz Survey. All Team Members will
have input.
WEBSITE
REVISION TEAM:
Sue Payne
, Vicky Stenson, Peg Jennings, Michelle Chapman
Review
other QEP sites, discuss possible modifications to the CTC QEP page
Recommendations:
- Levels
of interaction (i.e. students, faculty, community)
- Frequently
asked questions (FAQ) -
students/faculty/community
- Add
button for a Printable versions
- Audience:
Directed towards Whom? Levels of interaction (i.e. students, faculty,
community)
- Feasible
to offer online presentations with audio (phase two)
- Possibility
of adding feedback forms, via email
SUPPORT
FOR STUDENTS AT RISK:
Ismael Rodriguez-Espiricueta,
Geneice Brandes-Daunis
Discuss
facilitating collaboration among support service programs, obtaining
and sharing general student information, make recommendations for
next AY
DATATEL
/ PIVOTLINK TEAM:
Johnelle Welsh
, Julie Thomas, Nursing faculty, John Frith, Erasmus Addae
Decide
how these data bases can help us learn more about our students and
use that information to identify possible challenges for us, for
students.
COMMUNICATION
TEAM:
Barbara Merlo,
Tina Ady, Angela Mars, Mark Plasterer
Review
current methods, recommend additional practices for Phase 2 and
improvements on Central and Ft. Hood campuses.
Recommendations:
Integrate
QEP communication and training into current processes and communications:
- Integrate
QEP training into new employee orientation
- Develop
monthly focus areas for faculty/staff and for students and promote
them through QEP communication and other campus media and methods,
using the QEP focus logo and common graphics to tie all communication
together.
- Reinforce
role of QEP specialist as the information conduit representing
their unit.
- Continue
bi-monthly QEP newsletter for faculty/staff and once per semester
newsletter for students; extend distribution to phase 2 locations.
- Continue
annual QEP open house to share successes.
- Integrate
QEP goals into syllabi.
- Develop
ongoing training requirements for faculty/staff
- Continue
to use the QEP website as a method to train and inform.
- Provide
updates to the board via the Leadership Council.
- Include
QEP goals and successes in annual report to the community.
COLLABORATION
TEAM:
Tina Ady,
Aida Sapp, Kerstin Brooks, Deba Swan, faculty
Discuss
the concept of collaboration and identify challenges to effective
collaboration within the campus and across the institution. Identify
strategies for including community members in focus groups or surveys.
Recommendations:
- Simplify
the message, continue the QEP events in existence, and incorporate
QEP in the daily workflow.
- Infrastructure
for disseminating information to all levels must be set up.
- Staff
and faculty need the tools to implement the QEP and foster communication
and collaboration.
- Monthly
myths, to be used as the cornerstone of the upcoming year’s employee
communication effort.
- The
team recommended keeping the QEP newsletter and open house, but
also recommended examining integrating ongoing communication and
training into existing processes.
- It
was agreed that the best way to communicate with students on all
campuses is through instructors
.
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT TEAM:
Jane Perschbach , Billy
Woodson, Rick Hindman, Joann Matthews, Yolanda Davis
Gain
input from faculty and staff about topics, examine best practices
of other institutions, and make recommendation for a timeline for
AY 06-07. Explore process for adjunct and documentation of PD using
the online process currently available.
ADJUNCT
SUPPORT TEAM:
Beth Pounds, Gordon
Bacon, Brenda Cornell, Mary Carr, Jan Anderson
Continue
adjunct participation in Quality Enhancement Planning, examine best
practices of other institutions, make recommendations for supporting
adjuncts in QEP Phase 2.
Recommendations:
- Incorporate
a link on the website under Faculty and Staff that is specifically
for adjuncts. Include a welcome message there - either in text
or through WIMBA. The message would not necessarily have to be
the Chancellor, although, again, that would be our first choice.
- Create
an electronic handbook on the website taking adjuncts through
a general orientation, but be specific enough that teachers could
run copies and use it as a reference. It could include:
- CTC's
mission and vision statements
- CTC's
organizational chart
- FAQs
on ID cards, parking, paychecks, keys, inclement weather, etc.
- General
information about syllabi and cert rolls
- Resources
for instructors: Faculty Senate, Professional Development opportunities,
employee counseling,
- Institutional
requirements - orientation, sexual harassment
- Instructions
on WebAdvisor
- Grade/
drop/add procedures
- Services
for students: Project Pass , student clubs, Belltower Buzz,
etc.
- Campus
maps
- Explanation
of 19.5 hour/week working limit
- Plagiarism
and cheating procedures
- There
should be a template that specific academic departments can use
to customize information to their departments. This information
might include:
- Specific
information on programs, courses, syllabi
- Printing
- Tests
- Absences/Tardies
- QEP
matters
- Departmental
meetings
- Supplies
and Equipment
- Telephone
usage
- Substitute
teaching
- List
of dept personnel and their numbers/email
A
committee could be created to work on this for QEP.
- Although
there appear to be problems with assigning CTC emails, all adjuncts
should be required to have an email/hotmail account to use for
CTC business. This requires a departmental procedure for purging
those accounts. Perhaps the key is not to purge, but to initiate
a new account each semester and have departments gather and turn
in. Someone needs to be charged with creating and distributing
a new list every semester. This might be easier than purging an
old list. Without electronic messaging through email, we feel
it will be very difficult to initiate the QEP overseas.
- There
should be institutional awards for adjuncts similar to those for
full-timers presented at the annual awards ceremony. Adjuncts
need to feel valued, and if its too difficult to include them
in this ceremony, they need to have a ceremony of their own with
some kind of recognition like a certificate. Each site could handle
this themselves through their own budgets.
- Adjuncts
should get the 10% discount in the bookstore to purchase things
they need for their classes and software for their homes that
is compatible with CTC's.
- Expand
Professional Development to include adjuncts (This is a QEP objective).
QEP
PHASE II TEAM:
Ken Austin, Jane Perschbach,
Billy Woodson
Discuss
how we will operationalize QEP on Phase 2 campuses; propose strategies
for collaboration and support.
Recommendation:
- It
was proposed that the initial semester of Phase II focus on training
and professional development for all that will be involved in
implementing the goals and objectives of the QEP. A plan for FAST
(Faculty Advanced Skills Training) is being developed. It will
include opportunities for adjuncts to participate. FAST will be
developed based on a model developed by Jane Perschbach. It was
agreed that this Summer Team will reconvene to discuss further
development of modules for FAST.
INSTRUCTIONAL
DELIVERY TEAM:
Suzanne Morales, Jenny
Shea
Develop
a model for comparing instructional practices and outcomes of core
courses across campuses (in order to insure consistency in course
delivery).
Recommendations:
- 1. Gain
buy-in from faculty members and departments, including distance
learning
- 2. Get
input from as many departments on campus as possible to address
the various contingencies from all subject areas
- Thus,
we would like to propose to the Faculty Senate, at our Sept. meeting,
to form an ad hoc committee with representatives from all our
departments. The goal will be to come up with a model (a draft
set of workable policies and procedures) that would enable CTC
to gather comparable data from all its sites using a system of
departmental exam results. Our task would be to have the model
ready for review by Christmas break.
|
