QEP Meeting Minutes
January 28, 2013
Members present: Merriman, Harden, Brabham, Dumas, Trotti, Taylor, Colby, Bonner.
Brabham handed out a copy of the SACS QEP Guidelines to remind the committee that according to this rubric, we want to be "exceptional" with our QEP.
- Common rubric items-- what should the upper level writing rubrics (for discipline-specific WE courses) and lower level writing rubrics have in common?
- Rubric which will be used to evaluate freshman level courses -- this will be the current rubric used in the English department for entry-level writing.
- Evaluate for items which we want to be common in WE courses -- we can solicit representative UL rubrics to look at in order to determine this. The discipline-specific courses will probably have additional rubric items that are used for grading a particular assignment but that won't be used as part of the QEP assessment.
- Collect rubrics currently being used on campus for evaluation -- we may be able to develop a general template rubric that we can give to instructors of UL WE courses tha they can add on to to add the specificity they need for their course.
- Rethink assessment at midpoint(after freshman courses) -- we've been asked to rethink putting some kind of assessment between the freshmen and UL WE courses.
- University-administered assessment-ETS Proficiency Profile? (We can add questions to the existing assessment.) -- This will cost probably about $25 per student. A couple of committee members said that getting the students to take this sseriously if there is no grade attached is very hard. Another question is how to get adeuate representation from students across the campus. Currently this exam is being administered to classes where the professor has just volunteered to let his class take the exam. And how will we know when a student should take this exam -- would it be triggered by earned credits? WE courses begin at the junior year; ETS is given at the beginning of the junior year. So, how does ETS really give us a midpoint assessment?
- The committee will look at how other schools handle this in their QEP. We may not want to have a midpoint assessment. Does SACS need it?
- Marketing our QEP-- we need campus forums to answer questions on a more global level and also some kind of smaller group meetings to introduce the QEP and find out the initial feelings about it with the faculty. We need to start now.
- Small group meetings -- We don't want to spring WE courses on the campus community suddenly if we want to get real buy-in. We discussed trying to do this at a departmental level but with 27 departments, this would be hard to do. Decision was made to contact the dean of each college and ask them to call a 30-minute required college meeting for QEP. Brabham will put together a slideshow for this. Taylor and Hardin will do the meetings.
- Campus forums will then be held to introduce the common rubric and get feedback from faculty. Two forums should be enough.
- Writing team update -- the document needs to be written as one large narrative so it flows. Dumas and Trotti will be the main writers. Brabham has started the document with an outline similar to Alcorn's.
- Writing Center floor plan -- Wood went to the meetings with the architects. Bonner was also at those meetings representing the CAE. She said that what the architects showed them has already been changed but it looks like the WC will be on the second flor of Mabee.
- We discussed whether we would ask for a single person for WC and WAC director or for two people. We agreed that because of the money involved, we would only ask for one person. According to Coley, that will work IF that person has all the consultant/staff support we are asking for.
- Timeline for our QEP
- Feb. 25 -- First rough draft due to Dr. Cooper
- Mar. 11 -- Dr. Cooper returns rough draft with edits
- May 1 -- Final draft of our QEP to Dr. Cooper for outside review during summer
- Dec. 2013 -- Final draft submitted to SACS for Feb. 2014 visit
Next Meeting: February 11, 2013