Quality Enhancement Plan Example by nrk14057

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 3

									                                  Quality Enhancement Plan Examples
Introduction
As stated in the program review guidelines, “as part of the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan,
academic programs are to develop an assessment plan to measure student learning as a result of
intentional efforts focused on student engagement.”

There are a variety of ways for a department to accomplish this task. Below are three examples of how
to develop this section of the program review document. Each example will describe a step-by-step
process leading to the development of a student learning engagement strategy.


                                      Using the NSSE results #1
Step 1: Learning Objectives
Department ABC examines its learning objectives and the NSSE survey items. There are a number of
items that match closely with Department ABC’s learning objective of:
                       Engaging students in course material outside the classroom.

Step 2: Examining data
The department then examines the NSSE results to determine its success in meeting this learning
objective.

Table 1 contains fictitious results for a few relevant NSSE items
                   NSSE ITEM                           MEAN          FREQUENCY                “NEVER”
                                                                                              Response
 Scale: 4 = Very often, 3 = Often, 2 =
 Sometimes, 1 = Never
   Talked about career plans with faculty             1.98                                      41.5%
   member or advisor
   Discussed ideas from your readings or              2.23                                      30.9%
   classes with faculty members outside of class
   Worked with classmates outside of class to         2.35                                      25.7%
   prepare class assignments
   Discussed ideas from your readings or              2.10                                      33.8%
   classes with others outside of class (students,
   family members, co-workers, etc.)
 Scale: Done, Plan to do, Do not plan to do,
 Have not decided
        Worked on a research project with a                           10.2% Done
        faculty member outside of course or                         8.7% Plan to do
        program requirements                                    68.3% Do not plan to do
                                                                   12.8% Undecided

Step 3: Analyzing the results
The faculty in department ABC collectively decide that students within their major are not interacting
with course material outside the classroom to the level they would like to see within their department. In
order to increase this interaction, the faculty decide to institute two new departmental programs.
Step 4: Developing a plan
       1. Faculty plan to meet with students individually or in-small groups 2-3 times per semester
          beyond the normal classroom meeting times. Each faculty member then decides how he/she
          would like to accomplish this task. For example, faculty member Dr. X might decide to have
          weekly meetings with student groups (5-7 students) for lunch-time informal discussions. Dr.
          Y might decide to coordinate a “career night” for majors.
       2. Faculty members also decide to increase the number of group projects within each of the
          major courses. This program also helps to support overall learning objectives of teamwork
          and collaboration.

Step 5: Assessing success of the program
After one year, department ABC gives the NSSE survey to their majors. During this administration they
see a slight increase in the student responses on the items listed above.

Step 6: Deciding on next course of action
At this point, the department might feel like it is moving in the right direction and plans to continue
utilizing the programs during the next academic year.


                                        Using the NSSE results #2
Step 1: Learning Objectives
Department DEF examines its learning objectives and the NSSE survey items. There are a number of
items that match closely with Department DEF’s learning objective of:
           Integrating and synthesizing material from a variety of courses within the discipline.

Step 2: Examining data
The department then examines the NSSE results to determine its success in achieving this stated
learning objective.

Table 2 contains fictitious results for a few relevant NSSE items
                              NSSE ITEM                                   MEAN         “NEVER” Response
 Scale: 4 = Very often, 3 = Often, 2 = Sometimes, 1 = Never
     Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or        2.13              40.9%
     information from various sources
     Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions,             2.44              33.1%
     genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing
     assignments
     Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when             2.01              43.4%
     completing assignments or during class discussions
 Scale: 4 = Very Much, 3 =Quite a bit, 2 = Some, 1= Very Little                         “VERY LITTLE”
                                                                                           Response
     Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or                     2.88            28.7%
     experiences into new, more complex interpretations and
     relationships

Step 3: Analyzing the results
Department DEF examines its NSSE responses to the above 4 items. Although these responses are by
no means low, they feel that to be successful in the DEF field students need to be synthesizing and
integrating material significantly more than these results demonstrate.
Step 4: Developing a plan
The department decides to take action to improve this learning outcome. Faculty decide to make
curriculum changes to more logically sequence major courses. They also decide to have students in
each course write a paper that integrates a concept previously learned in the curriculum with a new topic
from the current course. This type of “research paper” does not need to be lengthy; rather department
DEF is looking for a thoughtful integration of concepts and material. Students will be graded not only
on the current concept, but also on how they relate to another concept.

Step 5: Assessing success of the program
Department DEF decides that it wants to assess the success of this project in two ways. First, all majors
will complete the NSSE after the first year of the program. In addition, for a more qualitative
perspective, the department will conduct focus groups with students who have participated in the new
program.

Step 6: Deciding on next course of action
Since the results of this assessment might be pending, the department continues to work towards its
initial goal. Once focus group results come available the department will either decide to continue
utilizing this program or to alter it so as to make it more effective.

If the department determines that the program is successful they might want to choose another learning
objective to address with a new program.

                              QEP Example: Not Using NSSE Results
Step 1: Learning Objectives
                      Students will be able to write a coherent research paper.

Step 2: Examining data
Department JKL examines the syllabi of all the core “major” courses and determines that in most of the
courses students are not required to write more than 8 or 10 pages.

Step 3: Analyzing the results
The faculty decide that students need to be writing more in their “major” courses to become proficient in
this area.

Step 4: Developing a plan
The faculty in this department decide to incorporate a series of research papers for students to complete
during their major courses. The information from these research papers will be combined during a
senior capstone course. Each section will be between 15-20 pages in length and will build over the core
courses.

Step 5: Assessing success of the program
One year after implementation, the JKL department has quantitative evidence that this program is
working because students are writing more.

Step 6: Deciding on next course of action
In the following year, the faculty might decide to implement a rubric analysis of student works to
examine the level of student achievement.

								
To top