Evaluating the QEP: Various Perspectives Ed Rugg, Rudy Jackson & Margaret Sullivan COC/SACS 2004...
-
Upload
myrtle-ellis -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Evaluating the QEP: Various Perspectives Ed Rugg, Rudy Jackson & Margaret Sullivan COC/SACS 2004...
Evaluating the QEP:Evaluating the QEP:Various PerspectivesVarious Perspectives
Ed Rugg , Rudy Jackson& Margaret Sullivan
COC/SACS 2004 Annual Meeting CS-31
Three Perspectives On Three Perspectives On Evaluating the QEPEvaluating the QEP
An On-Site Committee Chair’s
A COC Staff Member’s
The Consulting Network Director’s
What To Evaluate is DefinedWhat To Evaluate is Defined
In the Principles, Section 1
In the Handbooks
In the Reaffirmation Report Form
What the QEP Should BeWhat the QEP Should BePrinciples,Principles, Section 1 Section 1
Part of ongoing planning and evaluationLinked to effectiveness, quality, missionFocused on well-defined issue(s)Thorough & analyticalEngages the wider academic communityAction Plan to Improve Student Learning
What the QEP What the QEP Should Not BeShould Not Be
A loose collection of “all things” An ancillary project Simply a “course of action” Sketchy descriptions of assessments Lacking campus community buy-inMissing linkages to student learning
1. FOCUS
2. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY
3. ASSESSMENT
4. BROAD INVOLVEMENT
The Handbooks’ The Handbooks’ Four Four Primary IndicatorsPrimary Indicators
for an Acceptable QEPfor an Acceptable QEP
Indicators & Questions on Indicators & Questions on Reaffirmation ReportReaffirmation Report FormForm
5 Questions on FOCUS
5 Questions on CAPABILITY
4 Questions on ASSESSMENT
2 Questions on INVOLVEMENT
Primary EmphasisPrimary Emphasis Reaffirmation Report Part IIIReaffirmation 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 A Useful Analogy for Evaluating the QEPEvaluating the QEP
Think about the qualities expected of a fundable grant proposal
On-Site Committee’s Dual RoleOn-Site Committee’s Dual Role
1) Evaluating the QEP
2) Validating Remaining Compliance Issues
On-Site Committees On-Site Committees Chart New CoursesChart New Courses
New Approaches Pursued to Accomplish New Responsibilities
Keys to One On-Site Keys to One On-Site Committee’s SuccessCommittee’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 Pre-Visit Prep Included Preliminary EvaluationsPreliminary 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 Usefulness of Preliminary Evaluations During the VisitEvaluations During the VisitHelped 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)
TipTipInvite & Encourage Invite & Encourage
Dialogue on Dialogue on Strengthening the QEPStrengthening the QEP
Constructive Conversations Constructive Conversations Continued at the Exit Continued at the Exit
ConferenceConference
Helpful Dialogue for
Strengthening the QEP is Valuable
Benefits of Systematic Benefits of Systematic Evaluation of the QEPEvaluation of the QEP
Actively Engaged Entire Committee
Reached Consensus Early & Efficiently
Produced Comprehensive & Substantive Findings
Streamlined Final Report Preparation
Additional COC Staff Additional COC Staff Perspectives on QEP EvalsPerspectives on QEP Evals
Reflections on 2004
Value of this Approach
Closing Thoughts From The Closing Thoughts From The Trenches of the Consulting Trenches of the Consulting
NetworkNetwork