Evaluating the QEP: Various Perspectives Ed Rugg, Rudy Jackson & Margaret Sullivan COC/SACS 2004 Annual Meeting CS-31.

Evaluating the QEP:Evaluating the QEP:Various PerspectivesVarious Perspectives

Ed Rugg , Rudy Jackson& Margaret Sullivan

COC/SACS 2004 Annual Meeting CS-31

Three Perspectives On Three Perspectives On Evaluating the QEPEvaluating the QEP

An On-Site Committee Chair’s

A COC Staff Member’s

The Consulting Network Director’s

What To Evaluate is DefinedWhat To Evaluate is Defined

In the Principles, Section 1

In the Handbooks

In the Reaffirmation Report Form

What the QEP Should BeWhat the QEP Should BePrinciples,Principles, Section 1 Section 1

Part of ongoing planning and evaluationLinked to effectiveness, quality, missionFocused on well-defined issue(s)Thorough & analyticalEngages the wider academic communityAction Plan to Improve Student Learning

What the QEP What the QEP Should Not BeShould Not Be

A loose collection of “all things” An ancillary project Simply a “course of action” Sketchy descriptions of assessments Lacking campus community buy-inMissing linkages to student learning

1. FOCUS

2. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY

3. ASSESSMENT

4. BROAD INVOLVEMENT

The Handbooks’ The Handbooks’ Four Four Primary IndicatorsPrimary Indicators

for an Acceptable QEPfor an Acceptable QEP

Indicators & Questions on Indicators & Questions on Reaffirmation ReportReaffirmation Report FormForm

5 Questions on FOCUS

5 Questions on CAPABILITY

4 Questions on ASSESSMENT

2 Questions on INVOLVEMENT

Primary EmphasisPrimary Emphasis Reaffirmation Report Part IIIReaffirmation Report Part III

“…the institution has provided evidence that it is committed to a course of action that addresses a topic or issue to improve the quality of student learning.”

A Useful Analogy for A Useful Analogy for Evaluating the QEPEvaluating the QEP

Think about the qualities expected of a fundable grant proposal

TipTip Develop the QEP with Develop the QEP with its Evaluation in Mindits Evaluation in Mind

On-Site Committee’s Dual RoleOn-Site Committee’s Dual Role

1) Evaluating the QEP

2) Validating Remaining Compliance Issues

On-Site Committees On-Site Committees Chart New CoursesChart New Courses

New Approaches Pursued to Accomplish New Responsibilities

Keys to One On-Site Keys to One On-Site Committee’s SuccessCommittee’s Success

• Using a Common Frame of Reference for Evaluating the QEP

• Conducting In-Depth & Systematic Preliminary Evaluations of the QEP Before the Visit

Pre-Visit Prep Included Pre-Visit Prep Included Preliminary EvaluationsPreliminary Evaluations

• Committee Members Submitted Independent Evaluations of the QEP Using a Common Frame of Reference

• Chair Summarized & Returned the Committee’s Preliminary Evaluations

• Preliminary Recommendations Drafted

Usefulness of Preliminary Usefulness of Preliminary Evaluations During the VisitEvaluations During the VisitHelped Brief the Leadership Team Early

on the QEP’s Strengths & Weaknesses

Helped Generate Constructive & Useful Dialogue on Strengthening the QEP

Helped the Committee be Efficient & Productive (Also Happy and Rested)

TipTipInvite & Encourage Invite & Encourage

Dialogue on Dialogue on Strengthening the QEPStrengthening the QEP

Constructive Conversations Constructive Conversations Continued at the Exit Continued at the Exit

ConferenceConference

Helpful Dialogue for

Strengthening the QEP is Valuable

Benefits of Systematic Benefits of Systematic Evaluation of the QEPEvaluation of the QEP

Actively Engaged Entire Committee

Reached Consensus Early & Efficiently

Produced Comprehensive & Substantive Findings

Streamlined Final Report Preparation

Additional COC Staff Additional COC Staff Perspectives on QEP EvalsPerspectives on QEP Evals

Reflections on 2004

Value of this Approach

Closing Thoughts From The Closing Thoughts From The Trenches of the Consulting Trenches of the Consulting

NetworkNetwork

Your Turn for QuestionsYour Turn for Questions

These slides are available at

www.kennesaw.edu/ie