THE MAVERICK ADVANTAGE - UT Arlington – UTA · 2017-11-02 · Because student learning is key to...

T H E M AV E R I C KA D VA N TA G EBE BOLD. BE AMBITIOUS. SET YOURSELF APART!

A QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN FOR

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON

SITE VISIT APRIL 4–6, 2017

T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S AT A R L I N G T O N

2T H E M AV E R I C K A D VA N TA G E

CONTENTS

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

SECTION 2: PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Who We Are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Student Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Links to the Previous QEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

QEP Theme Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

UTA’s Strategic Plan 2020 Bold Solutions | Global Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Campus-wide Conversations and Quantitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Narrowing the Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Five Distinguishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

SECTION 3: QEP OUTCOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Student Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SLO 1: Think critically – apply prior knowledge and critical thought in new contexts to solve problems . . . . . . . . 13

SLO 2: Work in teams – effectively participate in diverse teams to contribute to shared goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SLO 3: Communicate – Effectively communicate ideas to community, professional, and global audiences . . . . . . 13

Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PO 1: All FTIC students will participate in three or more of The Five Distinguishing Activities prior to graduation . . 13

PO 2: Develop a system for tracking student participation in the Five Distinguishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PO 3: Provide an electronic platform for students to showcase their experiences to others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SECTION 4: LITERATURE REVIEW AND BEST PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Experiential Learning as a High-Impact Practice (HIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Experiential Learning and Distinguishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Career Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Global Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Undergraduate Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Impact of Experiential Education on Career and Life Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The ePortfolio as a High-Impact Practice (HIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17



SECTION 5: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

PO 1: Increase the number of students who participate in three or more of the five distinguishing activities . . . . . 19

PO 2: Develop a system for tracking student participation in the five distinguishing activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

PO 3: Provide an electronic platform for students to showcase their experiences to others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

SECTION 6: TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

SECTION 7: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

SECTION 8: REQUIRED RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Program Outcome 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Action Item 1 .1 – A broad-based marketing plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Action Item 1 .2 – Reaching all incoming students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Action Item 1 .3 – Assisting Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Program Outcome 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Action Item 2 .1 – Tracking Student Participation through a Learning Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Program Outcome 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Action Item 3 .1 – Selection of an ePortfolio system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Action Item 3 .2 – Student, Faculty and Staff Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

SECTION 9: BUDGET FOR REQUIRED RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

SECTION 10: ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Participation Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Student Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

SECTION 11: REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33



SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

T he University of Texas at Arlington’s (UTA) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) will provide all undergraduate

students with a competitive edge by connect-ing them with the University’s experiential learning ecosystem – The Five Distinguish-ing Activities: Leadership, Undergraduate Research, Global Engagement, Community Engagement, and Career Preparedness. The QEP will enable students across the University to identify and participate in these experien-tial learning opportunities that enhance their career preparedness, dedication to lifelong learning, and appreciation of a diverse and inclusive community.

Because student learning is key to any campus initiative, partic-ipating in The Five Distinguishing Activities will also enhance UTA students’ abilities in important areas, by applying the skills in new contexts outside the classroom. These are high-lighted in the following Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs):

• Student Learning Outcome 1: Think critically – Applyprior knowledge and critical thought in new contexts tosolve problems;

• Student Learning Outcome 2: Work in teams – Effectivelyparticipate in diverse teams to contribute to shared goals;

• Student Learning Outcome 3: Communicate – Effectivelycommunicate ideas to community, professional, and globalaudiences.

With this in mind, the University has committed itself to the following QEP Program Outcomes as it seeks to increase the retention and timely progression of undergraduate students towards graduation, career preparedness and lifelong learning:

• Program Outcome 1: All first time in college (FTIC)students will participate in three or more of The FiveDistinguishing Activities prior to graduation.

• Program Outcome 2: Develop a system for tracking stu-dent participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities.

• Program Outcome 3: Provide an electronic platform forstudents to showcase their experiences to others (e.g., po-tential employers, graduate/professional schools).



SECTION 2: PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT

WHO WE ARELocated in the heart of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area, UTA holds an elite Carnegie designation as one of the

“highest research” or R-1 campuses--a designation reserved for only 115 doctoral granting universities in the United States. UTA is a comprehensive research, teaching, and public service institution. It is the largest institution in The University of Texas System. The University includes the Colleges of Archi-tecture, Planning, and Public Affairs; Business; Education; Engineering; Liberal Arts; Nursing and Health Innovation; Science; the School of Social Work; University College; and the Honors College.

Over the years, the University has changed through a mat-uration process reflecting a succession of names, ownership, and missions. In 1917, Grubbs Vocational College was formed, a branch of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M). Later, the name changed to Arlington State College; it was elevated to senior college rank in 1959; and was transitioned from the Texas A&M System to The University of Texas System in 1965. Its final name change came in 1967, when it became The University of Texas at Arling-ton. Currently, the University has more than 54,528 students enrolled for the 2016-17 academic year.

MissionThe University of Texas at Arlington is a comprehensive research, teaching, and public service institution whose mission is the advancement of knowledge and the pursuit of excellence. The University is committed to the promotion of lifelong learning through its academic and continuing educa-tion programs and the formation of good citizenship through its community service-learning programs. The diverse student body shares a wide range of cultural values and the University community fosters unity of purpose and cultivates mutual respect.

VisionThe University of Texas at Arlington is a preeminent urban research university that inspires bold solutions with global impact through creative scholarship, transformative access, and collaborative learning.

Values The heart of UTA’s core values include:

• Access and Success. Provide a supportive environmentwhere students can flourish as scholars and citizens.Expand access to academic offerings, scholarship oppor-tunities, and other vital resources that prepare students tosucceed and graduate.

• Opportunity and Excellence. Pursue the highest standardsof excellence throughout every facet of the University. Pro-vide all qualified students with opportunities to reap thebenefits of the tremendous knowledge that exists at UTA.

• Inclusiveness and Diversity. Foster an inclusive environ-

ment that supports a diverse community of faculty, staff, and students. Encourage the exploration and discovery of the unfamiliar and promote the understanding of all viewpoints.

• Mavericks and Innovators. Ensure a culture of innovation,entrepreneurship, and creativity that strengthens ourMaverick nature. Cultivate an atmosphere that rewardscuriosity and challenges conventional thought.

• Collegiality and Collaboration. Encourage a spirit of col-legiality and camaraderie among all members of the UTAcommunity. Champion partnerships and collaborativeefforts that increase the University’s impact on society.

Student DiversityThe University has received several rankings and recognitions related to its diversity. U.S. News & World Report ranks UTA fifth in its diversity index among national universities. The University was designated a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) by the U.S. Department of Education, and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) named UTA as its outstanding member institution in 2014 for the University’s contributions to Hispanic higher education. UTA was also identified as one of the 40 most popular U.S. colleges and universities for international students by the Institute of International Education’s 2014-2015 Open Doors Report. Military Times ranks UTA as No. 20 on the 2017 “Best for Vets: Colleges” list, the highest of any four-year Texas university.

UTA’s diverse student body of 54,528 students hails from over 100 countries. UTA awarded over 7,500 baccalaureate degrees in 2015-2016. The University’s undergraduate student population is 28.6% Hispanic, 15.5% African American, 11.3% Asian, and 3.3% International. In terms of gender, about 40% of the students at UTA are male and about 60% female. Our diversity is not just in terms of the typical conceptualization of diversity. Our students are also diverse in their college experiences. First generation college students make up approximately 41% of our student population. In addition, U.S. News & World Report ranked UTA the third-largest destina-tion in the nation for transfer students based on its 2015 survey of undergraduate programs. Our students’ diverse college experiences influenced the trajectory of our QEP.

LINKS TO THE PREVIOUS QEPThough the formal process for QEP topic selection and devel-opment began evolving in the spring of 2014, the current Qual-ity Enhancement Plan has its roots in UTA’s previous QEP on active learning. That project, which began in 2008, provided faculty development to implement active learning strategies in the classroom, as well as assessment and research support for those faculty who participated. The previous QEP led to sev-eral changes to the institution, the most visible of which was the creation of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excel-lence, established in 2013. It also led to increased implementa-tion of active learning techniques throughout the University



and a general familiarity with the SACS/QEP process.Lessons learned about the development and implementa-

tions of a broad campus initiative focused on undergraduate student learning were carried forward into the current QEP development process. For the previous QEP, both the topic selection and the implementation were the product of faculty and program area proposals. For the topic selection, teams of faculty proposed topics and general implementation plans, with active learning being chosen as the most impactful. During the implementation phase, individual faculty members and staff developed proposals for how they would reframe a course or program using active learning. Each year, the steering commit-tee selected those proposals expected to be the most impactful to receive funding for teaching assistants, data collection, etc. This resulted in significant transformation of certain courses, which even led to published research and the development of best practices literature in active learning. Upon reflection and analysis, however, the impact of the plan could have been broader with greater buy-in and participation across campus.

QEP THEME FORMATIONUTA’s Strategic Plan 2020 Bold Solutions|Global ImpactAlong with the impact of our previous QEP, a driving force for the development of this QEP was UTA’s strategic plan. Development of Strategic Plan 2020 Bold Solutions|Global Impact began in earnest in fall 2013. Broad community input was gained through the “Forward Thinking” website (http://www.uta.edu/forwardthinking/). In an October message to faculty and staff, President Karbhari posed nine questions to guide the discussion. (See “Forward Thinking: Dialogue”: http://www.uta.edu/forwardthinking/messages/2013-10-03.html). Responses to these questions were submitted via a web feedback form. During the next few months, President Karbhari met with local business and government leaders, alumni, and UTA’s strongest supporters and Development Board members. Responses to the questions were then taken and posted on the “Forward Thinking” website (http://www.uta.edu/forwardthinking/feedback.php) where the following themes began to emerge.

• A Shared Vision • Our Reputation • Sense of Pride • Effecting Change • Looking to the Future • Identifying Peers • Building Community • Economic Impact • Focus on Students

Visitors to the site could click on “recommend” to agree with particular comments and themes. There were also meet-ings, breakfast and lunch discussions, and other gatherings during this time that contributed to the feedback. Begin-

1 Message to students and alumni: http://www.uta.edu/forwardthinking/messages/2013-11-21.html (students); http://www.uta.edu/forwardthinking/messages/2013-11-08-2.html (alumni)2 Presentation of Strategic Plan Draft: http://www.uta.edu/strategicplan/_downloads/presentation.pdf3 http://www.uta.edu/strategicplan/_downloads/draft-maverick-imperatives-and-strategies.pdf

ning in November of 2013, input from alumni and students was directly solicited1, including the recommendation of themes. Suggestions and ideas were collected from November 2013 until summer 2014. By summer 2014, this considerable feedback and input was compiled into a draft of the current strategic plan and then presented to members of the university community and other key stakeholders2. This presentation included Guiding Aspirations that have changed over time to better conceptualize our path. The Guiding Aspirations as determined in the Strategic Plan are:

• Transform the student experience by enhancing access and ensuring student success.

• Enhance impactful research and scholarship. • Strengthen collaboration with corporate and nonprofit

sectors. • Build on faculty excellence to strengthen academic

programs. • Enhance visibility and impact through global engagement. • Lead in creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.

As part of this process, Maverick Imperatives were developed and defined throughout 2014, each keyed to the Guiding Aspirations. These Imperatives aim to bring the Guiding Aspirations to reality. They also comprise the core of the UTA educational experience and provide a framework for the strat-egies that will help us achieve pre-eminence on a global scale. The Maverick Imperatives include:

• Be Progressive: Educate Beyond the Classroom • Be Empowering: Create Lifelong Educational Paths • Be Responsible: Ensure Student Success • Be Wise: Cultivate Faculty and Staff • Be Pioneering: Transform Research Capabilities • Be Ambitious: Serve the Community Near and Far • Be Daring: Reimagine Infrastructure • Be Creative: Be the Innovation Destination

These Imperatives were a significant influence on the QEP due to the prevalence of experiential learning-related strate-gies3 identified to accomplish the imperatives. Five of the eight imperatives relate to experiential education and associated activities (see Table 1). Several of the strategies tied to these imperatives explicitly mention experiential learning or forms of experiential learning.

Campus-wide Conversations and Quantitative DataA second step in developing the QEP was engaging in dis-cussions of UTA’s distinguishing characteristics. A leadership group in Academic Affairs was charged by the Provost to develop the QEP which included stakeholders involved in the development of the Strategic Plan. Topic selection began in earnest in May 2015 with a Purposeful Idea Gallery (PIG). Hosted by the CTLE, the PIG was structured in the style of an interactive gallery crawl. Posters were hung throughout the CTLE with facts about the student body of UTA, data



Table 1 . Maverick Imperatives and their Experiential Learning-Related Strategies

Maverick ImperativeMaverick Imperative Strategies that Support Experiential Learning

Educate Beyond the Classroom“UT Arlington embraces a hands-on approach to learning that makes students an active partner in discovery. By emphasizing outside-the-classroom experiences such as research opportunities, internships, clinical placements, and service-learning endeavors, we progressively prepare our students to succeed in their chosen fields.”

• Increase experiential learning through internships, service learning, and undergraduate research.

• Increase funding and opportunities for student participation in research, scholarship, and creative activity.

• Provide opportunities and resources for students to study abroad and to complete fieldwork internationally.

Create Lifelong Educational Paths“To ensure an informed and engaged global citizenry, UT Arlington offers lifelong learning opportunities to help individuals achieve their personal and professional goals. We provide broad access to innovative educational programs so that no matter where learners are in their educational journey, they are empowered to keep pace with a rapidly changing world.”

• Create a community of entrepreneurs by providing opportunities for training.

• Prepare graduates with the skills and vision to adapt to and excel in a changing world.

Ensure Student Success“UT Arlington is committed to helping students achieve their full potential. We are responsible for providing these promising leaders with a supportive environment where they can flourish as scholars and citizens while preparing to become part of an increasingly global and competitive workforce.”

• Provide innovative and technology-rich instruction to support success in early courses.

• Create programs and policies that provide appropriate and meaningful roles for faculty to enhance UT Arlington’s reputation as a leader in outstanding undergraduate education, especially for academically talented students from under-represented groups.

Serve the Community Near and Far“UT Arlington treasures the responsibility of creating innovative partnerships that spawn fresh approaches to community engagement. To ensure success in the 21st century, we must continue to ambitiously expand our influence locally and globally. By doing so, we become an integral societal partner and a valuable resource for our neighbors near and far.”

• Develop new study abroad programs that address the needs and desires of lifelong learners.

• Increase coordinated efforts to link existing programs to public, corporate, and nonprofit entities.

Cultivate Faculty and Staff“UT Arlington is dedicated to attracting, nurturing, and retaining world-class faculty and staff who are aligned with our vision of becoming the Model 21st-Century Urban Research University. Such talented educators create a top-tier institution that draws high-achieving, highly motivated students’ intent on earning a college degree.”

• Support faculty, staff, and students at each point in their career path to help them establish a sustained lifelong program of intellectual growth, professional development, and personal fulfillment.

• Deploy strategies for recruiting and retaining highly talented faculty and professional staff.



from employers, and provocative quotes about the future of higher education. The event was open to all students, faculty, and staff; awareness of the event was generated through the Faculty Affairs Newsletter, the CTLE website, and through direct communication with departments. Each attendee was supplied with a pen and Post-It notes, which allowed them to respond with comments and questions directly on the presented materials. Over 40 individuals attended. After the event, the notes were collected, sorted, and coded. Themes such as student preparedness, the importance of student/fac-ulty interaction, and the importance of experiential learning emerged.

The Purposeful Idea Gallery was also an opportunity to identify faculty and staff who might serve on the QEP Devel-opment Team. Using names from those who attended the PIG, as well as nominations from Deans and other University leaders, a team was formed that represented a broad cross section of the University. Faculty from each college were appointed to the team, with some of the larger colleges having two representa-tives. The Division of Student Affairs, the Libraries, the Center for Distance Education, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting (IER), and University College were represented as well. Three student representatives were added to the team. (For the full list of team members, see Appendix 1). After some organizational meetings, the team began meeting bi-weekly with an initial task of choosing a focus or theme for the QEP.

As a preliminary step, UTA engaged the services of Hanover Research, an educational research and consulting firm. In collaboration with UTA’s Office of Institutional

Effectiveness and Reporting, the QEP team developed a set of interview questions, which were given to Hanover. Hanover then interviewed faculty and staff members, thereafter performing a qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts. These participants were broadly representative of the Univer-sity, coming from three academic departments, four divisions of Student Affairs, and two different advising offices. The questions focused on faculty and staff perceptions of student needs. Through the interviews, Hanover found faculty and staff identified student academic preparation and personal/interpersonal skill development as needs and urged for more opportunities for student engagement, particularly direct engagement with faculty. They also identified experiential and active learning as a way to increase student engagement and support students’ academic growth.

Once the QEP team began to meet regularly, we realized the need to supplement the qualitative approach taken by the Hanover interviews and the Purposeful Information Gallery with broad, quantitative data. A subcommittee was assigned to gather relevant and pertinent data on the areas of focus. We have many rich sources of data here at UTA, but different groups often gather them. The lists below show the results examined.

• List 1: Internal Data Surveys Examined– Senior Exit Survey, 2014-2015 Cohort– Student Affairs Survey, 2014– MAVS 1000 (First Year Experience) Survey, fall 2014– National Survey of Student Engagement, 2014 and

2015 (Snapshot and Topical Modules)



– Student Assessment Data on Texas Core Objectives– Communication assessed, fall 2014– Critical Thinking assessed, spring 2015– Disaggregated institutional data on graduation rates,

first year retention, second year retention, and trans-fer student success

• List 2: External Data Surveys Examined– National Association of Colleges and Employers

(NACE) Job Outlook, 2016– Falling Short: College Learning and Career Success,

2015 (Conducted by Hart Research for the American Association of Colleges and Universities)

– American Association of Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) Essential Student Learning Objectives

NSSE Data from the 2016 survey also suggested potential student needs that could be addressed by our QEP : only 43% of freshmen indicated participation in high impact activities such as service learning and research with faculty, and 35% of seniors participated in internships, capstone projects, research with faculty, study abroad or service learning.

Though some themes were already beginning to emerge from the existing data sources, we wanted one additional, direct means of communication from students, staff, and fac-ulty. The team created a very simple, web-based questionnaire that essentially asked, “What can we do to enhance student learning at UTA?” This questionnaire was promoted through Student Affairs, the Faculty Affairs Newsletter, and other electronic venues. While the questionnaire was live, the QEP Development Team leader and the Provost visited the meet-ings of student organizations, including Student Congress, the UTA Ambassadors, the UTA Volunteers, and others. At these visits, the Provost and QEP team leader promoted the survey and took direct feedback from these student leaders. At the same time, student leaders asked this same question at a “Meet Your Senator” event, where students left feedback at various places on campus with representatives from Student Congress.

The questionnaire generated meaningful responses and ideas. The responses were coded and analyzed4, with two responses emerging as clear priorities: experiential learning and increased faculty development for more engaging teaching practices. The experiential learning theme arose from many responses that said internships were necessary, asked for more research opportunities, or generally asked for more “hands-on” learning.

Narrowing the FocusExperiential learning, however, is a broad topic. Work began in the spring semester of 2016 to narrow that theme into a plan that was workable, aligned with activities already occur-ring on campus, and fit the needs of UTA’s students. The latter was particularly important. As mentioned above, our student body consists of a significant number of transfer and first gen-eration college students.

The ability of our students, particularly our most finan-cially challenged students, to access experiential learning

4 179 responses were coded. Total complete responses were 188. Of the respondents, 66% were students, 26% were faculty, and 8% were staff.

opportunities was a critical factor in our plan’s development, one that we returned to time and time again as we worked through various iterations of the QEP. Another factor was the existing and emerging experiential learning opportunities already on campus. Three entire schools and colleges–The College of Nursing and Health Innovation, The School of Social Work, and The College of Education–already have mandatory clinical experiences and/or internships. The cam-pus Center for Service Learning was already well established, helping faculty incorporate service learning as a pedagogical practice in ways that affect hundreds of students annually. The College of Business has an exemplary leadership program and robust internship placements. In addition to the existing programs were others that were in their beginning phases or about to launch. Construction had begun on UTA’s new Career Development Center, with a proposed national search for its director. Student Affairs began discussing how to frame and educate students on activities that would allow them to learn valuable life and leadership skills then translate those experiences into résumé-friendly language. The QEP Devel-opment Team made an inventory of these existing activities and gathered some data on student participation within them to make an educated decision about what the QEP might focus on. Clearly, there were many opportunities for students to engage in experiential learning, yet students had told us they wanted more. How might the plan serve their needs?

To narrow the focus, our outreach continued. Members of the Development Team conducted presentations and Q&A sessions in departmental meetings. Our student representa-tives did small informal focus groups with other students in their major. A questionnaire was distributed at the Univer-sity’s department chairs’ retreat early in the spring semester. The Development Team’s leader did brief presentations for the SACSCOC Leadership Group and the Council of Academic Deans. Leaders of various co-curricular programs, such as Study Abroad, gave presentations to the Development Team.

During Development Team meetings, the group debriefed the information that was being gathered by this outreach and it became apparent that individual departments and programs had different views on experiential learning and different needs when it came to the “how” or implementation. Depart-ments in the sciences, for example, were already invested in undergraduate research, but differed in how it was structured. Other departments had service learning requirements, but were trying to determine if those could be internships instead. Many departments and co-curricular programs expressed the need for better assessment strategies to ensure their students were getting the most out of the experiential learning oppor-tunities that were provided. It became apparent that there was no “one size fits all” solution, even though assessment emerged as a regular issue.

While the modes of experiential learning preferred and needed varied from program to program, there was a consis-tency of learning needs expressed by the programs during our outreach. Reflection and application were mentioned numer-



ous times – students needed to grow their ability to apply in-class learning to the messy situations found in an intern-ship or a lab. Similarly, students who had undergone experien-tial learning opportunities needed to practice the reflective process that would help them to articulate what they had gained throughout the experience. Working together in teams also emerged as a need. Students are often put into groups, but the degree to which deliberate cultivation of teamwork skills occurs varies considerably. The Development Team noted a high degree of similarity between the feedback given from programs, vital skill needs articulated by employers, the Texas State Core Objectives, and Essential Learning Outcomes identified by AAC&U (see Table 2).

This alignment gave us a very good indication of what our student learning outcomes might be as we worked to develop a plan that would meet the varied needs of academic programs.

Armed with nascent student learning outcomes and the idea that the QEP programming must take into account the

“big tent” nature of experiential education and our diverse academic and co-curricular activities, the Development Team sent a representative group to the AAC&U’s Summer Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success at the University of California Los Angeles in 2016. This group was also representative of the University, consisting of a faculty member from the College of Science, a faculty member from the College of Liberal Arts, senior staff members from the UTA Libraries and Student Affairs, and a representative from University College. There, in consultation with AAC&U Summer Institute faculty and peers from other institutions, the group developed a plan that focused on program and faculty development. Since individual academic and co-cur-ricular programs represented different forms of experiential education and had different needs, a structure was required that would meet those programs where they were at, thereby putting departments in the driver’s seat, so to speak. Those programs knew what their students needed in terms of learn-ing outcomes and what their students could access in terms of

embedded experiences. What the QEP could do, then, was to help build programmatic and faculty development infrastruc-ture, which could be accessed by a variety of “clients,” which could include entire academic departments, individual degree programs, co-curricular programs, or individual faculty. This infrastructure would support assessment, promoting a common language of career and life skills throughout the University. We also recognized that a system needed to be implemented to allow students to visibly tie these experiences together in a way that could be accessed by potential employ-ers or graduate schools. The ePortfolio was a logical way this reflection and display could happen.

Later in the summer three faculty members (two from the College of Liberal Arts, and one from the School of Social Work) who were part of the QEP writing team attended the SACSCOC Institute on Quality Enhancement and Accredita-tion. This valuable conference included sessions on assessment and accreditation, as well as various workshops on developing an effective Quality Enhancement Plan, and preparing for the site visit. The team heard from SASCOC leadership and met with faculty from other institutions that were going through the QEP process, or who had recently completed a successful QEP plan. It was also during the summer of 2016 that the Divi-sion of Student Affairs began to publicize what they had come to call the Five Distinguishing Activities–areas of engagement in which all students would be encouraged to participate. These Five Distinguishing Activities provided a logical framework with which to understand and promote experiential learning.

In the fall of 2016, the Development Team added new students to its roster, worked to refine the plan, and continued outreach. The team presented updates to Faculty Senate, senior leadership groups, such as the Provost’s Council, and individ-ual departments. The goals of this outreach were to solicit feed-back on specific aspects of the plan while also generating initial awareness of ways in which departments, programs, and fac-ulty could participate. One of the new student representatives to the Development Team was a vice president in the Student

Table 2 . Core Objectives, Learning Outcomes (SLO), and Employment Skills Schemas (similar topics are categorized by color – SLO 1: blue, SLO 2: green, SLO 3, orange

Core Objectives

AAC&U Essential Learning Outcomes: Intellectual and Practical Skills

NACE Top Skills Employers Want

Critical Thinking Inquiry and analysis Leadership

Communication Critical and creative thinking Ability to work in a team

Teamwork Written and Oral communication Written Communication Skills

Social Responsibility Quantitative literacy Problem-solving skills

Personal Responsibility Information literacy Verbal communication skills

Empirical and Quantitative Skills Teamwork Strong Work Ethic

Problem solving



Congress; he was thus able to give updates to the student body through his regular meetings. Student feedback was sought to determine how to generate student interest in the plan, since the students would see the effects of the QEP within existing classes. This led to the development of a student marketing plan in collaboration with Student Affairs. As the QEP was finalized and approved by the Provost, outreach and awareness continued, with the goal of generating excitement related to the QEP to support experiential learning and the opportuni-ties that would bring for students, faculty, and staff.

As we have shown, UTA’s Quality Enhancement Plan is the product of an involved, deliberate process, grounded in institutional assessment data, and involving multiple constitu-encies across campus. The core of this effort has been a Devel-opment Team, comprised of representatives from all academic colleges on campus, multiple units from Student Affairs, aca-demic support staff, and students. This team gathered informa-tion from local, state, and national research and best practices on experiential education and student success. It has involved a broad cross section of students, faculty, and staff throughout the development process to create a plan that meets the needs of the University and broader community. A timeline indicat-ing key activities and milestones is available in Appendix 2.

The Five Distinguishing ActivitiesThe heart of the QEP will be providing students the opportu-nity to grow through participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities. These activities, available in programs throughout the University, are described, with examples, below.

Career DevelopmentAt UTA, internships, practicums and capstone projects are part of the menu of options that students have across campus. There are opportunities for students to take advantage of both paid and unpaid internships based on their interests. Undergradu-ates may pursue internships as part of their degree programs, or to explore alternative career paths. For example, the College of Liberal Arts offers internships with Legal Aid of North West Texas, and the College of Science offers paid internships in math, science, and physics. The City of Arlington’s Urban Design Center provides free design work to residents through a partnership with the College of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs. Graduate student work on neighborhood plans, business improvement projects, streetscape and redevelopment designs. Various colleges and departments also offer a variety of practicums and capstone courses. A leading unit at UTA for aiding students and alumni in career development is the newly expanded and renovated Career Development Center. Center staff aim to prepare students and alumni for career success and to establish connections between potential employers and UTA students. In addition to internships, The Career Devel-opment Center has initiated a career mentoring program that matches students with alumni. The Center continues to grow the number of partnerships with employers, which provide increased opportunities for students to connect with corpora-tions throughout DFW. The staff also works with faculty and academic programs by offering presentations and workshops.



Community EngagementUTA earned a designation as a Carnegie Civic Engagement campus through 2020. UTA has also had a consistent showing on the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll since 2006. As such, community engagement opportunities abound throughout the university commu-nity. Academic programs partner with non-profits, public agencies and other entities to offer students opportunities that promote civic responsibility. Each year, the university hosts a Community Partners Breakfast to connect faculty with various community partners including school districts. For example, UTA’s partnership with the Arlington School District provides free counseling through the Center for Clin-ical Social Work to students from kindergarten to 12th grade. Social Work students also help parents apply for insurance and other services their children may need. Other examples of community engagement include activities such as “Alternative Breaks”, where students have an opportunity to travel to an underserved community during academic breaks and respond to areas of need. UTA also yearly hosts The Big Event, which allows students to fan out throughout the local community and engage in a day of service. UTA’s Fraternity and Sorority community includes more than 1200 students that support a number of philanthropies through their fraternity and soror-ity membership. In addition, the university has more than 300 student organizations, many of which participate in and support community engagement activities. The Follet Student Leadership Center advises UTA Volunteers, an organization with more than 200 members who complete service projects throughout the year around Arlington and the Metroplex.

Global EngagementUS News and World Report named UTA as the fifth most diverse university in the United States. We have almost five thousand students from 110 countries enrolled in programs across the university. Additionally, UTA was designated an Hispanic Serving Institution by the Department of Education. Study Abroad opportunities in more than 40 countries worldwide are available for all students through the Office of Interna-tional Education and 75 thousand dollars in scholarships are available for students to study abroad. Faculty and students are engaged in international collaborations, sponsored research, and student and faculty exchanges. UTA has reciprocal exchange programs with universities in Korea, Germany, Mex-ico, Sweden, Singapore, Norway, China and Thailand as well as many in Latin America. Its growing list of International Agreements total 113 and include fellowships and sponsored student agreements. The College of Business offers an Execu-tive MBA program in China, and the College of Nursing con-tinues to grow its partnerships with African countries offering students an opportunity to provide services to east Africans.

LeadershipThe university offers a number of opportunities for students to learn about leadership and practice their leadership skills. These leadership opportunities include programs such as Freshman Leaders on Campus, Leadership Honors, the

Goolsby Leadership Academy (http://www.uta.edu/goolsby/) in the College of Business, Student Congress, over 160 reg-istered student organizations, on-campus employment, and peer-mentoring programs. Students may also earn a minor in leadership studies through the College of Education.

Undergraduate ResearchUndergraduate research is a large and growing focus for the University of Texas at Arlington as exemplified by our R-1 Carnegie designation and the creation of a new undergraduate research initiative under the Office of the Vice President for Research (http://www.uta.edu/research/vpr/research-oppor-tunities/undergraduate/Programs/urop.php). Examples of existing opportunities include, ASSURE (Achieving Success through Undergraduate Research) is a program where Physic majors can work under the direction of seniors and faculty; the McNair Scholars program; the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and Honors College Sum-mer Research assistantship. Students can present their research at the campus-wide Annual Celebration of Excellence by Students (ACES) symposium, and McNair Scholars present their research at a national conference and publish full articles and abstracts in an open access journal.

MAVS 1000 Distinguishing Activities PilotIn fall 2016, students enrolled in MAVS 1000, UTA first year experience course, were introduced to the Five Distinguish-ing Activities in week two of the course. The content covered in class included an introduction to what the Five Distin-guishing Activities are and how participation in the activities enhances the student experience and makes the student more marketable after graduation.

Midway through the fall semester, students were surveyed asking them about the Distinguishing Activities. Of the 2,372 students in MAVS 1000, 869 completed the mid-semester survey (a 37% response rate). The survey responses indicated the following:

• 67% feel participation in Distinguishing Activities will enhance their experience as a student at UTA.

• 76% feel participation in the Distinguishing Activities can make them more competitive in the job market after graduation.

• 66% intend to participate in leadership opportunities on campus.

• 82% intend to serve the community while attending UTA. • 62% intend to be globally connected through programs,

services or study abroad. • 81% intend to gain career experience through internships

and Career Development resources. • 52% intend to participate in undergraduate research.

Overall this data shows that students see value in the Distin-guishing Activities and have a desire to participate in them. The hope of the plan is to provide more opportunities for stu-dents to access the activities and be intentional in completion of the activities before graduation.



SECTION 3: QEP OUTCOMES

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMESUTA already prepares our students to achieve their academic and professional goals, but those who participate in The Five Distinguishing Activities will achieve a competitive edge that sets them apart from their peers by enhancing their ability to:

• SLO 1: Think critically – Apply prior knowledge and criti-cal thought in new contexts to solve problems;

• SLO 2: Work in teams – Effectively participate in diverse teams to contribute to shared goals;

• SLO 3: Communicate – Effectively communicate ideas to community, professional, and global audiences providing students a competitive advantage in preparation for the work force.

SLO 1: Think critically – apply prior knowledge and critical thought in new contexts to solve problems .Effective problem solving is reliant on the ability to apply prior knowledge and critical thinking in specific contexts. The capacity to understand a problem, consider related schol-arship, conceive of and test potential ideas or solutions, and offer evaluations and revisions based on results are skills which require practice. Problem solving is a reflective process that easily lends itself to experiential education situated curricula. Assessment of this learning outcome will allow us to better understand how our students improve their ability to problem solve through participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities.

SLO 2: Work in teams – effectively participate in diverse teams to contribute to shared goals .Working collaboratively is nearly as complicated as the problems groups are seeking to solve, and yet teamwork is an essential skill required for both academic and professional suc-cess. Through broad undergraduate participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities, UTA students will better develop the interpersonal, leadership, and self-management skills required to work in a diverse and inclusive community.

SLO 3: Communicate – Effectively communicate ideas to community, professional, and global audiences .Effective communication is a nuanced business that requires one to consider content, audience, and platform to create the most effective means for sharing ideas. Participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities will prepare students to com-municate with and to diverse audiences.

PROGRAM OUTCOMESThe overarching programmatic goal of the QEP is to provide all students a competitive edge upon graduation by creating a campus culture where participation in The Five Distin-guishing Activities, with support from faculty and staff, is an expectation of all students at UTA. To work toward this goal, the QEP implementation plan is focused around the three program outcomes.

• PO 1: All FTIC students will participate in three or more of the Five Distinguishing Activities prior to graduation.

• PO 2: Develop a system for tracking student participation in the Five Distinguishing Activities.

• PO 3: Provide an electronic platform for students to show-case their experiences to others (e.g., potential employers, graduate/professional schools).

PO 1: All FTIC students will participate in three or more of The Five Distinguishing Activities prior to graduation .The University’s expectation is that all students will eventually participate in at least three of The Five Distinguishing Activ-ities prior to graduation. The QEP will have focused action steps that outreach to large student cohorts and help students to identify opportunities within The Five Distinguishing Activities that are relevant to their personal and professional goals.

PO 2: Develop a system for tracking student participa-tion in the Five Distinguishing Activities .The actions related to this program outcome will create a process for tracking student participation in The Five Distin-guishing Activities.

PO 3: Provide an electronic platform for students to showcase their experiences to others (e .g ., potential employers, graduate/professional schools) .At the institutional level, the ePortfolios can drive institu-tional change and advance student success while supporting deeper student learning. This platform also provides a more comprehensive picture of the talent and skill set of UTA students at a level far greater than grades can present on a traditional transcript.



SECTION 4: LITERATURE REVIEW AND BEST PRACTICES

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING AS A HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICE (HIP)

“As we embark on the second decade of the twenty-first cen-tury we find even more evidence of cultural change affecting the classroom as the second wave of the Millennial Genera-tion joins the ranks of college learners” (Vito, 2011, p. 354).

More so than ever, we face the challenges of (1) adapting pedagogy to address both a more global economy and a new kind of student, and (2) increasing demand to build leadership qualities for the world of work (Vito, 2011). The University of Texas at Arlington’s Quality Enhancement Plan aims at increasing students’ career and life skills through the curation of five distinguishing activities that pervade the student expe-rience. This ecosystem acknowledges the student life world experience and what they bring to the classroom, building the

“connective tissue” between curricular and co-curricular and between work and home (Sanchez, 2016).

Schroeder (2010) suggests that student success is enhanced through the seamless educational experiences that facilitate the student’s incorporation into university life and culture, encouraging involvement in educationally purposeful activ-ities inside and outside the classroom, effective interaction with faculty and peers, and assisting students in integrating diverse academic and campus experiences. These enriching and experiential learning experiences can be simply defined as “hands-on” learning, and may involve any of the following

purposeful activities: service learning, applied learning in the discipline, co-operative education, internships, study abroad, and experimental activities (Austin & Rust, 2015). Many researchers strongly believe that incorporating experiential learning into academic life enhances student learning, and is a continuous cycle of experience, observation and reflection, forming of abstract concepts, and testing new applications (Austin & Rust, 2015; Vito, 2011)—an important cycle in stu-dent learning supported in the earliest literature on experien-tial learning. Dewey (1944), a strong proponent of experiential learning, noted that experience alone did not produce learn-ing. Kolb and Kolb (2005) drew on the work of John Dewey and noted that it is the reorganization of experience that adds to the meaning, and emphasizes the critical reflection aspect of experiential learning to create knowledge, building on prior experiences to reinforce knowledge and maximize experien-tial learning (Vito, 2011). Kolb and Kolb (2005) argue further that experiential learning requires institutional involvement, including, “curriculum development, faculty development, student development, administrative and staff development, and resource development” (p. 209). Similarly, the Associ-ation of American Colleges and Universities (2010), stresses the importance of faculty involvement to encourage students to connect “the learning gained in the classroom to learning gained in real life situations that are related to other learning experiences, extracurricular activities, or work.” DiConti



(2004) suggests that the most important role in the experien-tial setting for the faculty remains the instructional one with the most critical learning still taking place in the classroom combined with the inclusion of innovative pedagogy, particu-larly involving technology and collaborative learning.

For UTA, taking into account our learners’ characteristics and our institutional priorities, and drawing on the list of ten high-impact educational practices outlined by Kuh (2008) and suggestions by Austin & Rust (2015) our experiential education ecosystem focuses on five distinguishing activities: Undergrad-uate Research, Leadership, Community Engagement, Career Development, and International Awareness and Engagement.

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING AND DISTINGUISHING ACTIVITIESCareer DevelopmentThe American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) conducted research in 2010 and found that employ-ers wanted emphasis placed on “the ability to apply knowl-edge and skills to real-world settings through internships or other hands-on experiences” (Peer Review, p. 1). Employers surveyed also believed a “supervised and evaluated intern-ship” would be useful in ensuring graduates possessed the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed at their company. Research on the impact of internships by Kilgo et al. (2015) suggests that internships and capstone projects promote curiosity and lifelong learning. Internships were additionally found to help students become socially responsible leaders who recognize the need for cognition and have increased intercultural effectiveness (Kilgo et al., 2015). Knechel and Snowball (1987) cite a study by the American Accounting Association Committee on Internships that found they were beneficial to students because they exposed students to techniques and problems not found in the classroom and students gained a better understanding of the business world. Similarly, Kilgo et al. (2015) found that capstone projects also positively impacted critical thinking, attitudes toward literacy, intercultural effectiveness, and socially responsible leadership. Studies on the value of internships to the student, academic institution and profession have been conducted in a variety of disciplines (See Daniel & Daniel, 2013; Haag, 2006; O’Neil, 2010; Parilla & Hesser, 1998).

Community EngagementCommunity Engagement such as service learning benefits stu-dents personally, socially and academically. Service learning activities strengthen ties with the community, lead to greater student satisfaction with the institution and improved gradu-ation rates (Eyler, Giles, Jr., Stenson, and Gray, 2001; see also University of Minnesota, http://www.servicelearning.umn.edu/info/benefits.html).

Kuh (2008) writing about service learning as a High-Im-pact Practice notes the importance of both application and reflection. He says service learning allows students to take what they are learning in the classroom and apply it by analyzing and solve problems in the community. In doing so students learn that giving something back to the community

is “an important college outcome, and that working with com-munity partners is good preparation for citizenship, work, and life” (p. 1). Service learning has resulted in increased awareness of and openness to diversity (Jones & Abes, 2004; Simons & Cleary, 2006), cultural competence (Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Kilgo, 2012; Kilgo et al., 2015), broadened perspectives (Eng-berg & Fox, 2011), and civic engagement (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Engberg & Fox, 2011; Kilgo et al., 2015; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Simons & Cleary, 2006).

Global EngagementStudy abroad experiences are shown to positively impact active and critical thinking skills as well as cognitive devel-opment (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Pascarella et al., 2014). These experiences also build leadership (Kilgo et al., 2015; Nelson Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Parker & Pas-carella, 2013), civic engagement (Bowman, 2011), and cultural competence (Kilgo et al., 2015; Salisbury et al., 2013). Research collected by the Center for Global Education at California State University, Dominguez Hills shows that while most research on the impact study abroad has focused on inter-national and intercultural learning, there is a shift toward research demonstrating how study abroad impacts student retention and success (http://globaledresearch.com/study-abroad-impact.asp). According to various studies conducted at the University of Georgia, Indiana University and the University of Texas at Austin, students participating in study abroad programs graduated earlier, graduated at a higher rate, and had higher GPAs than those not participating in a study abroad program (see (Rubin & Sutton, 2001; Sutton & Rubin, 2004; Indiana University, 2009; Sutton & Rubin, 2010; Hamir, 2011). UC Merced also shared impressive outcomes from data on the career impact of global engagement on undergraduates based on a 2012 survey (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/5/prweb9541667.htm). Approximately 90% of study abroad alumni found their first job within 6 months of graduation as compared with 49% of recent college graduates.

LeadershipLeadership is a critical characteristic for the student experi-ence and encompasses a variety of skills and competencies to be developed and applied inside and outside the classroom. Participation in leadership as a co-curricular activity is pos-itively associated with persistence and other desirable out-comes (Astin 1993; Kuh 1993; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Involvement in socially responsible leadership may influence persistence in two ways: (a) students are connected psycholog-ically and socially to an affinity group that is achievement-ori-ented and reinforces the desire to graduate, and (b) students engage in activities that help them develop skills and compe-tencies that enable them to succeed in college and prepare for the world of work, (e.g. interpersonal skills, critical thinking, self-confidence) (Pascarella and Terenzini 2005).

Pascarella and Terenzini (1983) and Ethington and Smart (1986) found that involvement in these types of distinguish-ing activities have a greater positive effect on persistence and to earning a degree because out-of-class experiences seem



to be related to student commitment to the institution, (e.g. involvement in a student organization, fraternity or soror-ity membership, tutoring other students, being elected to a student office).

Undergraduate ResearchThe literature strongly supports that undergraduate research has three important benefits: persistence to graduation, enroll-ment in graduate school (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), and cognitive gains (Bauer & Bennett, 2003). Additionally, recent research by Kilgo et al. (2015) indicates that undergraduate research was one of the most effective HIPs. Students participating in this HIP had positive out-comes for critical thinking, positive attitude toward literacy, need for cognition, intercultural effectiveness, and socially responsible leadership. Lopatto (2003) surveyed faculty and students on the benefits of undergraduate research. From a faculty perspective, he found that the perceived benefits were

“Opportunities to work and think independently, to read literature and to communicate...In addition, direct experience with a research question leads to an increment in research and problem solving skills” (p. 148). Students surveyed said the benefits were “Enhancement of professional or academic credentials” and “Clarification of a career path” (p. 141). All of these benefits speak to the importance of undergraduate research and clearly demonstrate why it is one of the distin-guishing activities outlined in this QEP.

IMPACT OF EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION ON CAREER AND LIFE SKILLSThe end result of students participating in the high-impact practices outlined in The Five Distinguishing Activities is that students are prepared with a solid education, but also with career and life skills necessary as they move to the workplace. There is an increased push in Texas (through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s 60x30 plan), around the country, and around the world (Lowden et al., 2011) for uni-versities and colleges not only to pursue excellence in research and teaching, but also to ensure that students are being pre-pared for life after college. This preparation entails ensuring that students have certain skills that employers feel are neces-sary for new employees to thrive in the workplace. Holtzman and Kraft (2011) note that this increased demand in the United States stems from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education in 2005 that “held colleges accountable for ensuring students were ready to meet the economic and workforce needs of the country” (p. 173).

The literature (Kuh, 2008; Holtzman & Kraft, 2011; Lowden et al., 2011) shows that students want skills that will help them obtain jobs in their fields after graduation and that employers want students who come prepared with not just the technical skills for their major, but with additional career and life skills such as communication, leadership, and critical thinking. Our students will develop these skills, which research shows employers want through participation in the high-impact practices articulated in our ecosystem. College graduates are competing for jobs in a global arena that is



constantly changing (Starr & Michanella, 2016), and in the midst of all the change, the one constant is the need for the career and life skills we are enhancing through our ecosys-tem. Through the vehicle of experiential learning, students gain these skills, the value of their degree is enhanced, and as a result graduates earn better paying jobs and are better pre-pared to move more quickly into higher level positions within their companies (Starr & Michanella, 2016; Kuh, 2008).

Sanchez (2016) recommends that the HIPs developing career and life skills should begin early in a student’s college experience and be carefully and intentionally scaffolded from first year through middle year and onto capstone and signa-ture work, with the integration of assessment, connection by using HIPs developmentally, and collaboration by identifying campus partners and advocates for high-impact practices. Institutions that do this have proven to benefit as well as students. Research shows that students become integrated as competent members, leading to a sense of belonging and social connectedness (Tinto, 1993; Kuh, 2004; Habley et al., 2012). A good example of an institution that identifies experiential learning as a significant contributor towards student achieve-ment is Grand Valley State University (GVSU), with their six-year graduation rates increasing from just under 50% in 2005 to nearly 61% in 2010 (Plotkowski & Joseph, 2011). Another example is Purdue University’s EPICS program which has engaged undergraduates in more than 400 community proj-ects over its twenty-year existence. The EPICS (Engineering Projects in Community Service) program has become an international model for student success, particularly in sup-porting female students in STEM.

There is concern among some professors that the focus on workplace-related skills is at odds with the mission of the uni-versity. However, there seems to be no reason why a consensus cannot be reached whereby academic quality and integrity is maintained while the needs of employers are also met (Lewin et al., 2011).

THE ePORTFOLIO AS A HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICE (HIP)Hubert (2016) defines an as “a web-based collection of significant artifacts and reflections representing a student’s curricular and co-curricular experiences” (p. 1). Jisc (2008) in England offers this definition: “An ePortfolio is the product, created by the learner, a collection of digital artifacts articulat-ing experiences, achievements and learning” (p. 6). In a future world where high-impact practices are strategically located throughout curricular pathways, a well-designed ePortfo-lio requirement could be the one that serves all the others. Although the focus of an ePortfolio may be on the learner, its benefit, according to La Guardia Community College, may be to the whole institution. An ePortfolio system can alter “how students learn, how faculty teach, and how institutions assess the value of their education” (LaGuardia Community College).

By asking students to be the curators and narrators of their education, reflective ePortfolio pedagogy showcases signature work in HIPs, allows institutions to authentically assess student learning artifacts, and ties HIPs together into a

whole that is greater than the individual pieces (Hubert et al, 2015). As the Auburn University QEP notes, “ePortfolios are both a learning process and a product that demonstrates learn-ing” (Auburn University, p. 4). As students gain or enhance marketable skills by participating in HIPs through curricu-lar, co-curricular, and extracurricular activities, ePortfolios become the means by which students can communicate their achievements, knowledge, and experiences to the larger cam-pus community and to the workforce.

It is important that the right type of approach is taken in deciding how to use the ePortfolio system and in deciding which system to use. LaGuardia Community College suggests that there are three basic types of ePortfolios: one that allows for assessment, one that demonstrates students’ work to an external audience, and one that encourages students to reflect on their learning. However, LaGuardia states that the most beneficial for its purposes, and for many other institutions, is an integrative ePortfolio. This is all-encompassing collection combines all of the elements from the other three types of ePortfolios. Jisc (2008) notes, “ePortfolios are about people, rather than technology. The tools have to be unobtrusive, sup-portive and flexible enough to accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of the learners” (p. 10). Jisc also highlights that “the most important question to ask about ePortfolios is not ‘What system should we adopt?’ but ‘What do we want to achieve, and with whom?’ Taking the learners as the starting point remains sound policy since the needs and requirements of target groups should be the driver behind an initiative” (p. 22).

Evidence shows that effective ePortfolio use correlates with student success and deep learning (Eynon et al, 2014). Curated electronic portfolios are ideal venues in which to showcase the work that results from student engagement with HIPs. They allow for text to be combined with multimedia representations to create shareable exhibitions that transcend time and distance. As such, they allow student work to escape the confines of a discrete educational event and formally intersect with the broader range of curricular, co-curricular, and life experiences that define what it means to be liberally educated. Arguably one of the most important parts of an ePortfolio system is the reflective component. Reflection, according to Kolb (1984), makes the learning experience more meaningful. Research shows that reflection also leads stu-dents to take more ownership in their work as well as making important connections between research and theory (Ayan & Seferoğlu, 2010).

Harring and Luo (2016) in talking about the implementa-tion of ePortfolios at a small Liberal Arts college outlined four functions for the use of ePortfolios. First, they help “students to reflect on and integrate their academic and co-curricu-lar work”; Second they are useful in the advising process as students and advisors review progress and achievements; Third they serve as “the creative opportunity for an ‘enhanced resume’ for job and graduate school interviews”; and Fourth, ePortfolios enable students departments and colleges to assess the student’s work over time. Harring and Luo (2016) note that the most important function of the ePortfolio is that



they “allow students to make their work public, to practice integrative and applied learning, and to construct a sophisti-cated bridge between their educational experiences and future learning and career opportunities” (p. 1).

The ePortfolio is also useful across all disciplines. Presant (2012) examined issues facing engineering educators when it comes to using ePortfolios. He notes that engineering educa-tors around the world are using ePortfolios to help students collate a vast array of experiences. Presant writes, “If properly introduced and managed in an undergraduate context, an ePortfolio can help a student develop and demonstrate attri-butes such as teamwork, communication skills, professional-ism, awareness of the impact of engineering on society and the environment, ethics and equity, and lifelong learning” (p. 1). However, he also points out that its real benefit comes when the learner reflects on the meaning of the various pieces “in relation to desired outcomes and professional identity” (p. 1).

Salt Lake Community College (Electronic Portfolios at SLCC) is a good example of a college that has successfully implemented ePortfolios strategically at the core of the student experience as a scaffold on which to anchor a growing list of HIPs, with the hope to open up and link classrooms in high-impact ways that lead to student ownership of their learning. As a Salt Lake City College student insightfully suggests when speaking about his experience with ePortfolio,

“If our knowledge stays in the classroom, it is useless. But if it travels class to class and to our homes it isn’t useless anymore. It becomes alive and effectual in our lives.”

In light of the preceding literature and from informa-tion gained at various conferences, the QEP proposes that a primary means for assisting students to display their work and achievements is through an integrative ePortfolio system, which will be available to all students. This system will enable students across disciplines to build an online profile that can easily be adapted to the needs of their discipline and also used for assessment purposes. The ePortfolio system gives students the platform to make connections, reflect on their experiences, and demonstrate their marketable skills to their peers, faculty, future employers, or when applying to graduate school.

For the ePortfolio system to be useful and functional, departments, programs, academic advising units, and others must be involved in communicating the value of this sys-tem to the students and where applicable be encouraged to implement it in their curriculum and various high-impact experiential learning opportunities. For example, study abroad students could use the ePortfolio system to document their time overseas, and upon returning the student could be encouraged to write or create a reflective element to their portfolio that helps the student tie their experiences in differ-ent cultures with their academic program of study. Broadcast students could use the system to showcase their demo reel and the various stories and productions they have created during both coursework and in internships they may have had. Simi-larly, students participating in other high-impact experiential learning, such as service learning, capstone projects, under-graduate research, or leadership roles could showcase their skills through their creative works, reports, and reflections on their relationships with their work and with others.

It is also important that faculty and staff be able to assess the progress of students using the ePortfolio system. The expectation of the QEP is that the portfolio system will serve as a means of increasing awareness of experiential learning opportunities to the campus at large. High-Impact Practices in alignment with the University’s Distinguishing Activities (including Service Learning, Study Abroad, Internships, Undergraduate Research, and Leadership) can all be show-cased using this system benefiting not only the individual program, but also the individual student. Exemplary programs can be championed as models for others and support can be provided to faculty and staff, who wish to enhance their current efforts or to include new High-Impact Practices for their students.

It is the goal of the QEP that this will lead to increased participation in these HIPs, with increased retention rates for first-time/full-time students as they are aware of opportunities and begin to participate, as well as increased graduation rates for first-time/full-time students as they develop the competen-cies to see their academic endeavors through to completion.



SECTION 5: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The QEP implementation plan is focused around the three program outcomes.

• PO 1: All FTIC students will participate in three or more of The Five Distinguishing Activities prior to graduation.

• PO 2: Develop a system for tracking student participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities.

• PO 3: Provide an electronic platform for students to show-case their experiences to others (e.g., potential employers, graduate/professional schools).

PO 1: All FTIC students will participate in three or more of the five distinguishing activities prior to graduation .UTA currently offers a wide variety of Distinguishing Activities throughout campus. These activities are available to students inside the classroom (i.e. service learning courses, internships for credit, capstone experiences, undergradu-ate research, study abroad and many more) or outside the classroom through co-curricular programs (i.e. leadership opportunities, student organizations, community service and others). As a university we must do a better job com-municating the value these experiences add to the students’ experiences and how these experiences help give students The Maverick Advantage. Through the action items outlined below, we will increase awareness of the importance of The Five Distinguishing Activities, and build a culture of partic-ipation in the Distinguishing Activities to increase the total student participation.

Action Item.1 1: Identify all current courses and activities that engage with the Five DistinguishingActivities. An up-to-date and comprehensive list of all curric-ular and co-curricular activities is under development to assist in identifying areas where additional activities may be needed.

Action Item 1.2: Implement a broad-based marketing campaign designed to make all students aware of the Distinguishing Activities, their importance, and the expectation that they participate in them.Promote the Five Distinguishing Activities through a robust marketing and communication plan that reaches all students. Marketing and communication will include print materials, email messaging, social media promotion, and in person mes-saging inside and outside the classroom.

These marketing materials will encourage participation in The Five Distinguishing Activities and will highlight the ben-efits to students who participate. The materials will highlight the value in participating in a number of activities by gradu-ation, encapsulating this as part of the Maverick Experience and what makes our students exceptional and marketable upon graduation.

Action Item 1.3: Introduce all incoming students to Dis-tinguishing Activities through robust modules in MAVS 1000 and the FIG Program (Freshmen Year Experi-ence Courses) and identify cohorts of students beyond first-time in college students to expand each year of the program. To expand the program to various cohorts of students, the plan identifies three different target populations to reach in the first three years of implementation (see Table 3). In year one, implementation will begin with first-time college students. This cohort of students is easy to access through mandatory first year experience courses. Year two targets incoming transfer students who will receive an introduction through orientation, but beyond that are more difficult to reach as they come in in various stages of the academic career. In year three the focus moves to incoming online students. As you extend to new cohorts each year, work continues with the group(s) from the previous year. The table below outlines the implementation cohorts.

Action Item 1.4: Assist departments in integration of the Five Distinguishing Activities into courses. To ensure that the Distinguishing Activities are available to students as part of their coursework, academic units will integrate experiential learning opportunities into curricula. This could be done through service learning, undergraduate research, project-based learning, or other experiential learning activities. The president will co-host a meeting with the Pro-vost, VP For Research and VP for Student Affairs for the Aca-demic Deans, Department Chairs to develop an implementa-tion plan. Advisors and faculty in each of the colleges will be educated in the Distinguishing Activities and ways in which students can participate. They will be asked to help ensure that students are seeking opportunities to participate in the various activities as they progress toward graduation. Faculty

Table 3 . Target student participation

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Target Population First-Time in College Students (MAVS 1000 and FIG, introductory courses)

Incoming Transfer Students (Orientation, IDEAS Center)

Incoming Online Students

Total Student Target 3,000 5,000 10,000



who teach courses that can integrate experiential learning will be encouraged to find creative and innovative ways to do so with help and support from the QEP Steering Committee.

PO 2: Develop a system for tracking student participa-tion in the five distinguishing activities .To measure the program’s success, it is necessary to have a sys-tem for tracking student participation in the Five Distinguish-ing Activities. In addition to tracking participation, students must be able to document their participation by answering reflective questions that give them the opportunity to demon-strate the learning gained through their various experiences.

Action Item 2.1: Work with the Center for Distance Education to develop a tracking system within the University’s LMS, Blackboard. Blackboard provides a platform where students will be able to learn about The Five Distinguishing Activities and track participation. In collaboration with Digital Teaching and Learning, Global Education Outreach and Extended Studies, and, the Office of Information Technology which supports Blackboard, the QEP Steering Committee will determine the best method for utilizing a Blackboard Organization or Course for this purpose. Both of these options allow us to enroll all students or entire cohorts of students. Within the Distinguishing Activities platform in Blackboard, students will be able to view information about the activities, review information about the program (through videos and pre-built presentations), and submit evidence of participation in the activities.

Because students utilize Blackboard for many of their courses, the level of training needed for students will be minimal. We will build the platform similar to how other courses are built so students can easily navigate and track their participation.

In addition to ease of use for students, Blackboard has robust analytics that allow those responsible for program implementation to monitor and review use analytics and pull data reports and participation numbers.

Action Item 2.2: Students will complete reflection assign-ments at the end of each Distinguishing Activity experi-ence and load them into the tracking system. Upon completion of a Distinguishing Activity students will provide evidence of their participation through a reflection assignment (see Table 4). The reflective questions are out-lined in the assessment section of the QEP. The questions ask the student to reflect on the experience itself, skills gained through the experience, and how the experience relates to their future goals with the hope students will be able to use these reflection assignments to help them build their ePortfo-lio (PO3).

PO 3: Provide an electronic platform for students to showcase their experiences to others (e .g ., potential employers, graduate/professional schools) .To meet the increasing demand for students to be able to demonstrate their marketability upon graduation, the ePort-folio provides a platform for students to visually display how their experiences throughout college (inside and outside the classroom) have prepared them to be successful employees after graduation. Not only does the QEP encourage students to participate in more hands-on activities and experiences, but it encourages them to display those experiences in creative ways using an ePortfolio.

Action Item 3.1: Select an ePortfolio system.The University does not currently have an ePortfolio system that is available for all students to use. To move this project forward, a committee will be formed to view, review, and select a system that meets the needs of various stakeholders around campus and that is, most importantly, student-friendly.

Action Item 3.2: Train faculty, staff and students to use the selected ePortfolio system. Once a system is identified, training must be provided for faculty, staff, and students around campus to encourage the use and integration of the portfolio into courses and programs around campus.

Table 4 . Goals for tracking are outlined below .

Academic Year: 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 2019–2020 2020–2021

Students who complete reflections through online tracking .

3000 5000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Table 5 . Targets for the use of portfolios over the next 5 years .

Academic Year: 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 2019–2020 2020–2021

Number of Active Portfolios

Product Selection & Pilot Programs

3000 (Introduced in MAVS 1000 and FIGS)

6000 9000 10,000



SECTION 6: TIMELINE AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

The table below includes the timeline for implementation of the program outcomes (described in Section 5: Implementation Plan) and identifies the responsible parties.

Table 6 . QEP Timeline

Program Outcome Action Item

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Responsible Party

Increase the number of students who participate in three or more of the five Distinguishing Activities prior to graduation .

Implement a broad-based marketing campaign designed to make all students aware of the Distinguishing Activities, their importance, and the expectation that they participate in them.

X X X X X

Provost; Steering Committee, University Communications

Introduce all incoming students to Distinguishing Activities through robust modules in MAVS 1000 and the FIG Program (Freshmen Year Experience Courses) and identify cohorts of students beyond first-time in college students to expand each year of the program.

X X X X X

Steering Committee;Student Affairs (MAVS 1000) and University College (FIGs)

Assist departments in integration of the Five Distinguishing Activities into courses.

X X X X X

Provost;Steering Committee, Academic Associate Deans of each college

Develop a system for tracking student participation in the Five Distinguishing Activities .

Work with the Center for Distance Education to develop a tracking system within the University’s LMS, Blackboard.

X

Steering Committee; Center for Distance Education

Students will complete reflection assignments at the end of each Distinguishing Activity experience and load them into the tracking system.

X X X X X

Steering Committee, Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting

Provide an electronic platform for students to showcase their experiences to others (e .g ., potential employers, graduate/professional schools) .

Select an ePortfolio system.X

Provost, Steering Committee

Train faculty, staff and students to use the selected ePortfolio system. X X X X X

Steering Committee, Academic Deans



QEP Lead: Provost

QEP Executive Team: Vice President for Research, Vice Provost for Academic

Planning and Policy, Vice President for Student Affairs, Vice Provost

for Faculty Affairs, VP Enrollment Management, Chief Analytics Officer

QEP Steering Committee: Representatives from areas within The Five

Distinguishing Activities (Leadership Center, Undergraduate Research, Service Learning, International Education, Career

Development Center), Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting, Global Education Outreach and Extended Studies, University

Analytics, LINK Lab, OIT, Faculty Representatives, Associate Deans of academic units, 2 undergraduate student representatives

SECTION 7: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The QEP Lead, The University Provost, will oversee the implementation of the QEP and will be responsible for ensur-ing that it meets the program outcomes and goals. The Provost will solicit input from the QEP Executive Team to help direct the plan.

The QEP Executive Team will monitor the QEP’s progress and provide direction and resources as needed. Members will include: Vice President for Research, Vice Provost for Aca-demic Planning and Policy, Vice President for Student Affairs, and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs., Vice President for Enrollment Management, Vice Provost for Digital Teaching and Learning.

The QEP Steering Committee will be co-chaired by Student Affairs and Academic Affairs. The team will be responsible for implementation, assessment, and facilitating campus-wide collaboration. Members will include: Represen-tatives from areas within The Five Distinguishing Activities (Leadership Center, Undergraduate Research, Service Learn-ing, International Education, Career Development Center), Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting, Global Education Outreach and Extended Studies, Digital Teaching and Learn-ing, LINK Lab and OIT, representatives from the academic units, and two undergraduate student representatives.



SECTION 8: REQUIRED RESOURCES

To successfully achieve the goals of the Maverick Advantage, we have created a detailed implementation and assessment plan. The implementation plan’s action items and direct mea-sures of assessment require the following additional resources to ensure their effectiveness.

PROGRAM OUTCOME 1 Action Item 1 .1 – A broad-based marketing plan . A directed effort that includes existing staff from communica-tions and their liaisons with communications specialists in all colleges and co-curricular programs is required. In addition to existing staff from the Office of Communications and Mar-keting, this effort will require direction by the QEP Executive and Leadership Teams and funding for print and web-based materials.

Action Item 1 .2 – Reaching all incoming students . MAVS1000 and FIGS are existing programs on campus. However, the various entrance points for students into UTA require all academic programs to create mechanisms for enculturation. To build these structures into their curricula, the QEP Steering Committee will work with Associate Deans from each academic unit, University College Advisors, and Academic Unit Advisors to identify and make sure incoming students hear about The Five Distinguishing Activities within their selected programs. Printed materials and web-content will need to be created to support and ensure that this activity becomes a normal part of incoming student advising.

Action Item 1 .3 – Assisting Departments . In addition to the above, faculty must know of the oppor-

tunities in their college/school, and feel compelled and wel-come to include High Impact Experiential Learning Practices into their courses. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are an existing program that teaches faculty best practices, often introducing new technologies, such as ePortfolios to a group of faculty and staff. The PLC’s create faculty leads across campus with specialized training. In addition to PLCs, general informational programs/workshops will be operated through existing structures in the Provost’s office. Funding is allocated within the budget for a large amount of program-ming, especially in years 1 and 2, to support general faculty

education about The Five Distinguishing Activities, and how they can be best implemented in various fields.

PROGRAM OUTCOME 2 Action Item 2 .1 – Tracking Student Participation through a Learning Management System . Existing systems (Blackboard) will be used to provide training and evaluation modules for The Five Distinguishing Activities. Funds are necessary to partner with UTA’s Office of Commu-nications and Marketing to create videos and presentations. A graduate assistant will aid in the deployment, maintenance, and monitoring of these modules and their reports.PROGRAM OUTCOME 3Action Item 3 .1 – Selection of an ePortfolio system . Existing stakeholders will be brought together to evaluate systems that capture student reflections and experiences. The cost of ePortfolio systems vary drastically, and with the size of UTA’s student body, small changes in per student costs scale quickly to create a large range of overall cost for a system. Funds are budgeted for a committee to select, build, and implement an ePortfolio system that best meets the needs of our students and assessment goals of the QEP and IER.

Action Item 3 .2– Student, Faculty and Staff Training . Training modules will be created and housed online to aid students, staff, and faculty in using ePortfolio systems in their courses and activities.

ASSESSMENT Direct Assessment of student work and reflections will be designed to coincide with current IER assessment efforts. This additional assessment will require graders and grading days. Funds have been allocated to assess student work at multiple times throughout the academic year.

In addition to the new money enumerated below, the QEP was constructed with the intention of using as much existing staff, faculty, and administrative roles as possible. Overall, we wish the QEP to become a true part of the UTA culture, an embodiment of our strategic plan, and a defining part of what it means to be a Maverick. Therefore, we are weaving implementation of the QEP across campus – within the Provosts Office, Office of Research, Academic Colleges, and the co-curricular areas of our campus.



SECTION 9: BUDGET FOR REQUIRED RESOURCES

TABLE 7 . NEW FUNDS BUDGET ITEMS

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

PERSONNEL

Graduate Assistant Assessment/Blackboard (12 mo)

35,000 36,050 37,132 38,245 39,393 185,820

Total Salary 35,000 36,050 37,132 38,245 39,393 185,820

FRINGE

Graduate Assistant Assessment/Blackboard (12 mo)

3,500 3,605 3,713 3,825 3,939 18,582

Total Fringe 3,500 3,605 3,713 3,825 3,939 18,582

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

ePortfolio development and implementation

100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 400,000

Communications, Marketing, Materials

20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000

Assessment 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000

Student Workshops and Training

20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

General faculty development activities (programs/workshops)

16,000 16,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 50,000

Travel 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000

Total Implementation 170,000 135,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 680,000

TOTAL NEW FUNDS 208,500 174,655 165,845 167,070 168,332 884,402

Total Existing Funds (Table 8)

200,900 206,477 212,221 218,138 224,232 1,061,968

Total Budget (New and Existing)

409,400 381,132 378,066 385,208 392,564 1,946,370



TABLE 8 . EXISTING FUNDS AS ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY UTA

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

PERSONNEL

QEP Director 98,000 100,940 103,968 107,087 110,300 520,295

QEP Administrative Assistant

45,000 46,350 47,741 49,173 50,648 238,911

Total Salary 143,000 147,290 151,709 156,260 160,948 759,206

FRINGE

QEP Director 29,400 30,282 31,190 32,126 33,090 156,089

QEP Administrative Assistant

13,500 13,905 14,322 14,752 15,194 71,673

Total Fringe 42,900 44,187 45,513 46,878 48,284 227,762

PROGRAMMING ACTIVITIES

Professional Learning Communities Support

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000

Total Programming Costs 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000

Total 200,900 206,477 212,221 218,138 224,232 1,061,968



SECTION 10: ASSESSMENT

The following assessment plan is meant to provide both direct and indirect assessments of the student learning outcomes and the program outcomes through a variety of measures. The chart indicates direct assessment (D) of particular outcomes and indirect assessment (I) of others. Details of each assess-ment are included, with example rubrics and questions when appropriate. (See Table 9.)

PARTICIPATION NUMBERSYear to year, we will track the numbers of students participat-ing in the Five Distinguishing Activities. We will also track the numbers of students submitting reflections (total num-bers), and the numbers of portfolios created and submitted as final.

NATIONAL SURVEY ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)There are items on the NSSE that specifically address stu-dents’ involvement in experiential learning opportunities. (See Table 10.)

Table 9 . Assessment methods

SLO1 SLO2 SLO3 PO1 PO2 PO3

Participation Numbers (Five Distinguishing Activities, Blackboard and portfolio usage and submission)

D

NSSE I I

Student Reflection (#s submitted by students) D I D D I

Portfolio Rubric D

Table 10 . NSSE questions mapped to student learning and program outcomes

NSSE Questions Mapped to Outcomes SLO1 SLO2 SLO3 PO1 PO2 PO3

Which of the following have you done or do you plan to do before you graduate?

Participate in an internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement

X

Hold a formal leadership role in a student organization or group

X

Participate in a study abroad program X

Work with a faculty member on a research project X

Complete a culminating senior experience X

Perceived Gains Among Seniors

Writing clearly and effectively X

Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills X X X X

Working effectively with others X

Solving complex real-world problems X



Table 11 . Assessment rubric

4 – Master3 – Exceeds Benchmark 2 – Benchmark 1 – Marginal

Problem SolvingAAC&U Integrative Learning Rubric: Transfer

Adapts and applies, independently, skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situa-tion to new situations to solve difficult problems or explore complex situations in original ways.

Adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or method-ologies gained in one situation to new situations to solve problems or explore issues.

Uses skills, abilities, theories, or meth-odologies gained in one situation to a new situation to contribute to under-standing problems or issues.

Uses, in a basic way, skills, abilities, theories, or meth-odologies gained in one situation to a new situation.

CommunicationAAC&U Written Communication Rubric: Context and Purpose

Demonstrates a thor-ough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work.

Demonstrates ade-quate consideration of context, audience, and purpose with a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, pur-pose, and context).

Demonstrates aware-ness of context, audience, and pur-pose to the assigned task(s) (e.g., begins to show aware-ness of audience’s perceptions and assumptions).

Demonstrates minimal attention to context, audience, and purpose to the assigned task(s) (e.g., expectation of instructor or self as audience).

Map Experiences to Goals Modified from AAC&U Integrative Learning Rubric: Connections to Experience

Meaningfully syn-thesizes connections among experience and one’s personal and professional goals.

Effectively selects and develops exam-ples from experience to connect to per-sonal and profes-sional goals.

Identifies connec-tions between the experience and skills required for personal and professional goals.

Identifies skills acquired in experi-ence and how they are similar or related to personal and pro-fessional goals.

STUDENT REFLECTIONSUpon completion of a Distinguishing Activity, students will submit a reflection essay into Blackboard using the guiding questions listed below. This is a direct measure of the student learning outcomes and PO2, and an indirect measure of PO3 as students will be able to use the reflections as they build their ePortfolio.Post-project Reflection Questions and Rubric (Comments in bold indicate line on rubric)

SLO 3: Communication: Describe in as much detail as you can the project/experience you participated in.

SLO 1: Critical Thinking What were some concerns, poten-tial challenges, problems, or issues you faced during this expe-rience/project? How did you approach and resolve these issues?

SLO 1, SLO 2, SLO 3: Critical Thinking, Teamwork, and Communication: What did you learn or gain from this experience/project?

SLO 3, PO 3: Map Experiences to Goals: How did this experience/project specifically connect to your personal and major career goals? What can you point to that facilitated this change?

The rubric below will be used by a committee of faculty or staff, led by IER, to assess the reflections. It was adapted from the AAC&U VALUE rubrics. Specifically, the Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric (transfer dimension) to assess prob-lem solving, the Written Communication VALUE Rubric (context and purpose dimension) to assess communication, and again the Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric (modi-fied from the connections to experience dimension) to assess students’ ability to map experience to goals. The rubric is included below.

Portfolio Assessment: Once a portfolio system has been selected, at the end of each academic year, the same commit-tee will review the submitted portfolios using this same rubric.



SECTION 11: REFERENCES

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2010). Integrative and Applied Learning VALUE Rubric. LEAP Ini-tiative, Washington, DC.

Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York, NY: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Auburn University. (2013). ePortfolio Project: Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan: 2012-2018. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/qep/ePortfolio_project_rev_2new.pdf

Austin, M. J., & Rust, D. Z. (2015). Developing an experiential learning program: Milestones and challenges. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1), 143-153.

Ayan, D., & Seferoğlu, G. (2011). Using electronic portfolios to promote reflective thinking in language teacher educa-tion. Education Studies, 37(5), 513-521.

Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 210-230.

Bowman, N. A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of college diversity experi-ences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 29-68.

Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five high-impact practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality. Wash-ington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Daniel, R., & Daniel, L. (2013). Enhancing the transition from study to work: Reflections on the value and impact of internships in the creative and performing arts. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2-3), 138-153.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press.

DiConti, V. D. (2004). Experiential education in a knowl-edge-based economy: Is it time to reexamine the liberal arts? JGE: The Journal of General Education, 53(3), 167-183.

Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice, multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development,

49(2), 95-109.

Engberg, M. E., & Fox, K. (2011). Exploring the relationship between undergraduate service-learning experiences and global perspective-taking. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(1), 85-105.

Ethington, C. A, and Smart, J. C. (1986). Persistence to Grad-uate Education. Research in Higher Education, 24(3): 287-303.

Eyler, J., Giles, Jr. D., Stenson, C., and Gray, C (2001). “At a Glance: What We Know about the Effects of Service Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, 1993-2001”. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/downloads/aag.pdf

Eynon, B., Gambino, L. M., & Török, J. (2014). What differ-ence does ePortfolio make? A field report from the con-nect to learning project. International Journal of ePortfolio,

4(1), 95–114.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.

Haag, S., Guilbeau, E., & Goble, W. (2006). Assessing engineering internship efficacy: Industry’s perception of student performance. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 257.

Habley, W. R., Bloom, J. L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based strategies for college student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hamir, H. B. (2011). Go abroad and graduate on time: Study abroad participation, degree completion, and time-to-de-gree. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Nebraska Lincoln.

Harring, K., & Luo, T. (2016, Summer). ePortfolios: Support-ing Reflection and Deep Learning in High-Impact Practices. Retrieved January 2017, from Peer Review: https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2016/summer/Harring

Holtzman, D. & Kraft, E. (2011). A comparison of qualitative feedback from alumni and employers with a national study for assessment of business curricula. American Insti-tute of Higher Education, 6th Annual Proceedings, 4(1), 173-180.

Hubert, D., Pickavance, J., & Hyberger, A. (2015). Reflec-tive ePortfolios: One HIP to rule them all? Peer Review: Advancing Collaborative Roadmaps for Student Success, 17(4). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2015/fall/hubert



Hubert, D. (2016). Reflective strategies across high-impact practices. Proceedings from Association of American Colleges & Universities Summer Institute, June 21-25, 2016: High-Impact Practices and Student Success. University of California Los Angeles.

Indiana University. (2009). Overseas Study at Indiana University Bloomington. University Planing, Institutional Research and Accountability.

Jisc. (2008). Effective practice with ePortfolios: Supporting 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140615090512/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticee-Portfolios.pdf

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Coop-erative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC: Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of ser-vice-learning on college students’ identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 149–166.

Kilgo, C. A. (2012). The estimated effects of service learning and undergraduate research on students’ intercultural effectiveness (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 1510365).

Kilgo, C., Sheets, J., & Pascarella, E. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longi-tudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69, 509-525.

Knechel, R. and Snowball, D. Accounting Internships and Subsequent Academic Performance: An Empirical Study. The Accounting Review 62, 4 (Oct., 1987), 799-807.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher edu-cation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193ğ212.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2004). Forging a new direction: How UTEP cre-ated its own brand of excellence. About Campus, 9(5), 9-15.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). LEAP Initiative, Washington, DC.

LaGuardia Community College. LaGuardia and the ePortfolio field. Retrieved from http://ePortfolio.lagcc.cuny.edu/about/field.htm

Lopatto, D. (2003). The Essential Features of Undergradu-ate Research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, March, 2003, 139-142.

Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D., & Lewin, J. (2011). Employers’ perceptions of the employability skills of new graduates. London, UK: University of Glasgow SCRE Centre and Edge Foundation.

Nelson Laird, T. F., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects: Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 448–476.

O’Neill, N. (2010). Internships as a high-impact practice: Some reflections on quality. Peer Review, 12(4), 4-8.

Parker, E. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2013). Student faculty nonclass-room interactions and students’ moral development over four years of college. Unpublished paper presented at the NASPA Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.

Pascarella, E. T., Martin, G. L., Hanson, J. M., Trolian, T. L., Gillig, B., & Blaich, C. (2014). Effects of diversity experi-ences on critical thinking skills over four years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 86–92.

Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1983). Predicting Vol-untary Freshman Year Persistence/Withdrawal Behavior in a Residential University: A Path Analytic Validation of Tinto’s Model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2): 215-226.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Parilla, P., & Hesser, G. (1998). Internships and the Socio-logical Perspective: Applying Principles of Experiential Learning. Teaching Sociology, 26(4), 310-329. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.uta.edu/stable/1318771

Peer Review. (2010, Fall). New Research on Internships and Expe-riential Learning Programs. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from Association of American Colleges & Universities: https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/new-re-search-internships-and-experiential-learning-programs



Plotkowski, P. D. & Joseph, J. L. (2011). Enhancing graduation rates through high impact activities: Experiential learn-ing, engagement, mentoring and scholarships. American Society for Engineering Education, 22.618.1 - 22.618.9. Grand Valley State University.

Presant, D. (2012). Proceedings from the 2012 Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference: ePortfo-lios to build, demonstrate and maintain professional competence. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba.

Roberts, J. (2012). Beyond learning by doing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Roberts, J. (2016). Experiential education in the college context. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rubin, D. L., & Sutton, R. C. (2001). Assessing Student Learn-ing Outcomes from Study Abroad. International Educator, 10(2), 30-31.

Salisbury, M. H., An, B. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2013). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence among undergraduate college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 1–20.

Salt Lake Community College. Electronic Portfolios at SLCC. Retrieved from http://www.slcc.edu/gened/ePortfolio/

Sanchez, G. (2016). Integrative and developmental frameworks and strategies for high-impact practices. Proceedings from Association of American Colleges & Universities Summer Institute, June 21-25, 2016: High-Impact Practices and Student Success. University of California Los Angeles.

Schroeder, C. (2010). Toward seamless educational experiences. Gen-eral Education in California, May 4, 2010, Senior Associ-ate Consultant, Noel-Levitz.

Simons, L., & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students’ personal and social development. College Teaching, 54(4), 307-319.

Starr, L., & Minchella, D. (2016). Learning beyond the science classroom: A roadmap to success. Journal of STEM Educa-tion: Innovations & Research, 17(1), 52-57.

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a system-wide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Fronteirs: The Interdisci-plinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(Fall), 65-82.

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2010). Documenting the impact of study abroad: Final report on the GLOSSARI project. NAFSA Annual Conference. Kansas, City, MO.

Tinto, V., Goodsell, A. S., & Maher, M. R. (Eds.). (1992). Col-laborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer-sity Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The University of Texas at Arlington. (2016). Maverick imper-atives. Strategic Plan 2020: Bold Solutions | Global Impact. Retrieved from https://www.uta.edu/strategicplan/plan/imperatives/index.php.

Vito, M. E. (2011). Proceedings from The 6th International Conference for the American Institute of Higher Edu-cation, April 6-8, 2011: Collaborative, experiential and technology approaches for millennial generation learners. Charleston, SC. Published in American Institute of Higher Education, 4(1), 354-362.



5 Dr. Pope has left UTA to become the Director of Assessment and Compliance at UT Health Science Center San Antonio

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1 . TABLE OF QEP DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEMBERSHIP

Name DepartmentCollege or School Title Sub-Team

Nakia Pope5 Philosophy, Division of Faculty Affairs

College of Liberal Arts

Director, Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence; Associate Professor

All

Molly Albart Student Affairs Director of Student Affairs Planning, Assessment and Student Success at V.P. for Student Affairs

Student Learning and Assessment; Writing Group

Karabi Bezboruah Public Administration

College of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs

Associate Professor

Edgar Carrazco Computer Science College of Engineering

Student (Senior) Communication

Andrew Clark Communication College of Liberal Arts

Associate Professor Communication (Chair); Writing Group

Danish Dawood Accounting College of Business

Student (Graduate); Vice President, Student Council

Mridul Dhapola

Mechanical Engineering

Engineering Student (Sophmore)

Brian Saul Duran Fuentes

English College of Liberal Arts

Student (Senior)

Frank Foss Chemistry and Biochemistry

College of Science

Associate Professor Institutional Organization (Chair)

Becky Garner Public Health College of Nursing and Health Innovation

Student Learning and Assessment; Writing Group

Kevin Gustafson English Honors College, College of Liberal Arts

Interim Dean of Honors College; Director, Center for Service Learning; Associate Professor

Process/Context

Jane Himarios Economics College of Business

Clinical Professor Communication

Holly Hungerford-Kresser

Curriculum and Instruction

College of Education

Associate Professor Student Learning and Assessment (Co-Chair); Writing Group

Graham Hunt Music College of Liberal Arts

Process/Context

Douglas Klahr Architecture CAPPA

Professor and Theory-

Composition Area Coordinator

Associate Professor Communication

Christian Koll Biology College of Science

Student (Senior) Process/Context



6 Dr. Van Noort has left UTA to become the Vice President for Academic Programs at UNC.

Name DepartmentCollege or School Title Sub-Team

(Mary) Beth Mancini

Nursing College of Nursing and Health Innovation

Associate Dean and Chair, Undergraduate Nursing; Professor

Institutional Organization

Maria Martinez-Cosio

Division of Faculty Affairs

Assistant Vice-Provost for Faculty Development, Associate Professor

Institutional Organization

Lisa Nagy Student Affairs Senior Associate Vice President Institutional Organization

Lynn Peterson Engineering College of Engineering

Senior Associate Dean Student Learning and Assessment

Loraine Phillips Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting

Provost’s Office Assistant Vice Provost of Institutional Effectiveness and Reporting

Student Learning and Assessment

Regina Praetorius Social Work School of Social Work

Associate Professor – BSW Director Process/Context (Chair); Writing Group

Fayruz Quazi Mechanical Engineering

College of Engineering

Student (Senior) Student Learning and Assessment

Mike Roner Biology College of Science

Associate Professor Communication

Sarah Sarraj Center for Distance Education

Instructional Design Manager Institutional Organization

Barbara Tobolowsky

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

College of Education

Associate Professor Process/Context

Gretchen Trkay Library – Experiential Learning & Undergraduate Research

Library Librarian Student Learning and Assessment (Co-Chair); Writing Group

Catherine Unite University College Learning Center

University College Director, University College Learning Center

Writing Group

Kimberly Van Noort6

University College Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies



APPENDIX 2APPENDIX 2. QEP TIMELINE

THE MAVERICK ADVANTAGE - UT Arlington – UTA · 2017-11-02 · Because student learning is key to...

Documents

Transcript of THE MAVERICK ADVANTAGE - UT Arlington – UTA · 2017-11-02 · Because student learning is key to...