QEP Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2012
Present: Kathy Harden, Brian Brabham, Chrisann Merriman, Jackie Dumas, Judy Trotti, Lem Taylor, Tobey Coley, Katie Bonner, Kathy Wood, Sarah Elizabeth Norrell and Jacquelyn Jameelah Jackson. The last two are student members.
We discussed the WC space needs for some time, starting with the Dumas proposal. Coley summarized his list serv information on WC and WAC space needs. Of the 36 WC represented on the list serve summary document, 10 of them were from large universities. Those might be out of our range. The remaining 26 had 6000 or fewer students. Of these, 16 had large open spaces, 5 had small rooms, and the others either couldn’t be determined or had a large room with smaller rooms attached (more like the Dumas proposal). Coley was satisfied with the Dumas floor plan based on what he found during his summary. A comment was made that our WC could be of such quality that it would stand out as part of the campus “scene”.
Some discussion on whether another office for a WAC director should be in the plan. Wood asked about the need for a large and a smaller meeting room. The larger meeting room could be partitioned if needed. Dumas answered that the smaller room would serve as more of a conference room to meet with WC personnel. There was also some talk about having a small kiosk area where the current food prep area is to offer coffee and snacks or even a place to purchase paper, etc. That area also might be where another office could be located (perhaps for the WAC director).
The rest of the committee was in agreement with going with the Dumas floor plan so Brabham will submit this plan to Dr. Oldham.
We discussed open hours for a WC. Consensus was that it should be available at non-business hours when students would be most likely to use it – perhaps 8:00 am to 10:00 pm on weekdays and various hours on weekends.
The definition survey brought in a lot of comments on the overuse of “result” and the need to overhaul the second sentence of the definition to clarify it. One comment that intrigued Coley was about whether we need a definition of effective writing. Perhaps we only need it for a working definition as we determine the scope of our QEP. However, the survey did serve as an additional PR moment for the QEP on campus. We are not going to do any “fixes” on the definition right now but we have the comments to go from later.
Should we hire a WC director even before we have a WC? This was a question Brabham brought from Cooper. We were of mixed feelings about that. We feel like we don’t have enough of the decisions made that would clarify the answer to this question yet.
Do we want just a WC or have a WC and WAC? The consensus is that we want both. Wood suggested that WAC will actually promote the non-remedial aspect of a WC significantly.
We then discussed whether or not we would need two people: a WC director and a WAC director. There was some concern that one person could not adequately do both jobs because the two jobs are just too big. Coley said that in 13 of the 26 schools on the list serve table, a WAC program is associated with a WC and in some cases these two jobs are done by a single person. We decided that it would be a good idea to contact some of these schools directly and see if there are any problems or pluses associated with having one person do both jobs. Coley will take the point on this.
A discussion point was raised on what our scope is. We decided that we’ve been working on that today in this meeting. We’ve decided that we want both a writing center and writing across the curriculum and that we want this to be both remedial and a way to improve ALL student writing across the disciplines on campus. However, this doesn’t answer all the scope questions. We will continue this discussion at the next meeting.
Submitted by Kathleen Wood