QEP Leadership Team

Members:

• Mary Lynn Manns, Chair
• Amy Lanou, Assistant Chair
• Renee Bindewald / Timo Holmquist, Student Government Association representative
• Evelyn Chiang, Survey design and analysis consultant
• Jeff Foreman, Student Marketing/Promotion
• Chris Godfrey, Professional Development
• Archer Gravely, Institutional Research
• Debbie Griffith, Communication & Marketing
• Melissa Himelein, Center for Teaching & Learning representative
• Whitney King, Student assistant
• Deborah Miles, World Café facilitator
• Karin Peterson, Data categorization and structuring
• Susan Reiser, Research
• Lorena Russell, Professional Development
• Faith Sumpter and Jill Moffitt, Student Affairs representatives
• Barb Svenson, Data categorization and structuring
• Sandi Taylor, Asheville community representative
• Deaver Traywick, Writing Center advisor
• Scott Walters, Electronic communication & Humanities rep for student experience model
• Sally Wasileski, Natural Science rep for student experience model

Other contributions:

Assessment Liaisons:  Lisa Friedenberg, Jessica Dunsmore

Editing:  Eileen Crowe, Literature & Language

Marketing and Design:  Chris McKee, Steve Plever, Eric Seeger, Blair Jenkins, and our students (Taija Tevia-Clark, Christina Jones, Hanna Trussler, Howard Brooks Pierce), our SGA reps (Katja Greeson, Ryan Ridenour), and the students in the Lei Han's  New Media class and Alycia Fogle's Promotion Management class.

 Administrative Assistant:  Annis Lytle

QEP Leadership Team meetings:  Spring 2012

12:20 until 1:40, Center for Teaching & Learning

January 12:  The team invited members from campus who will help with the internal marketing of the QEP, faculty and students from New Media and Marketing.  Mary Lynn and Amy reminded the team that the purpose of this phase of  marketing is to prepare the campus for the onsite visit in March and continue to inform and excite everyone about the opportunities the QEP offers. Attendees examined the marketing products that are being developed and discussed ideas for developing additional materials.

February 7:  The team again invited members from campus who will help with the internal marketing of the QEP.  Everyone provided a final review of the marketing materials that will soon be released to the campus.

March 13, 12:20:  Mary Lynn announced the names of the twelve Inquiry ARC Pilot Group educators and thanked the seven individuals on the selection committee.  Bruce Larson visited the team and, along with Mary Lynn, provided a summary of the upcoming visit of the SACS onsite review team.

Upcoming meetings:

April 12, 12:20

QEP Leadership Team meetings:  Fall 2011

12:20 until 1:40, Center for Teaching & Learning

September 22:  The team was updated on the evolution of the QEP student experience framework since the last QEPLT meeting as well as the work that was done over the summer.  The team approved the QEP logo.  This was followed by a discussion of the QEP draft-- members provided feedback, which will be incorporated into the draft.  The meeting concluded with a discussion of the qualities and skills that should appear in the upcoming ad for the Inquiry ARC Director.

October 27:  The team made the following recommendations for the draft QEP budget:  (a)  add more reassigned time for the QEP Director, (b) cut the CT consultant/trainer budget, (c) add a line for "Inquiry ARC Project Grants", (d) increase stipends for QEP educators, especially in the pilot year.  The team also worked on the draft to establish a QEP Advisory Committee-- this document will go to FWDC within the next week.  The team briefly discussed the call for the pilot team of educators and will continue this discussion at their next meeting.

November 10:  The team discussed and edited the Call for Educators to Pilot the QEP.  They also discussed the changes that were made to the QEP budget since the last meeting.  Mary Lynn announced that the budget and the complete QEP has received full endorsement and approval by Senior Staff.  Since the internal marketing of the QEP will be a significant undertaking, Debbie Griffith (Communication & Marketing) shared some ideas and the team gave some recommendations as well-- this included (but was not limited to) the importance of keeping the QEP visible and using various medias such as print material (brochures, table tents, tri-folds), website with feature stories, presentations, posters, sandwich boards and exposure in the Blue Banner.  Mary Lynn reminded the team of the Call for a QEP Director and asked them to encourage fellow faculty to apply.

December 8:  The team discussed the next draft of the Call for Educators to Pilot the QEP, the Call for the QEP Director, and provided feedback on the plans for continuing the internal marketing of the QEP to the campus.

QEP Leadership Team meetings:  AY 2010/2011

August 26, 12:15, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team was introduced to the QEP and their responsibilites in the process.

September 23, 12:15, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team examined the results from Survey #1 and drafted the broad area for the QEP. 

December 17, 10:00, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team examined the results from Survey #3 and considered proposals (from Survey #2) that fit into "engaged learning" and "students as makers of knowledge."  They also discussed how the secondary finding in Survey #3 (global and cultural understanding) would play a role in the QEP topic.  Three rough topic ideas were generated.

January 6, 9:00, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team combined the three rough ideas from the previous meeting into a more refined idea and then evaluted it based on the criteria for choosing the QEP topic.  Members recommended we form a subcommittee to establish working definitions for "engaged learning" (which includes "students as makers of knowledge") and for "global and cultural understanding."

January 18, 11:00, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The subcommittee met--Mary Lynn Manns, Amy Lanou (Social Science), Scott Walters (Humanities), Sally Wasileski (Natural Science), Faith Sumpter (Student Affairs).  They drafted a working defintion for "engaged learning" which includes "students as makers of knowledge".  After much discussion, the subcommittee recommended four components in an engaged learning project that allows a student to be a maker of knowledge-- these are: inquiry, action, impact, reflection.  They decided to meet again for further refinement with Mark Harvey, Director of Undergraduate Research and Joseph Berryhill, Director of the Key Center.

February 1, 11:00, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The subcommitee met--Mary Lynn Manns, Amy Lanou (Social Science), Scott Walters (Humanities), Sally Wasileski (Natural Science), Faith Sumpter (Student Affairs) with Mark Harvey, Director of Undergraduate Research and Joseph Berryhill, Director of the Key Center to further refine the definition for "engaged learning" and to raise questions the QEPLT will want to consider in such areas as:  collecting data, the kinds of data we have and need, and the clarification of QEP focus and outcomes.

February 10, 12:20, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team discussed the QEP draft outline and made suggestions-- we are preparing this outline in order to get some in-progress feedback from SACS.  Within that discussion, we reviewed the four components of an "engaged learning expereince that allows students to be makers of knowledge" -- inquiry, action, impact, reflection. We also discussed the "where" for our QEP-- the courses, programs, etc.  The preliminary idea is to designate (with a to-be-determined code) a collection of classes across disciplines.  We anticipate that this could be staged by implementing the plan with a small subset of classes taught by faculty and then broadening the scope to a larger population of students, faculty, and student affairs staff.  Our assessment could compare the differences between students who engaged in such an experience and those who did not; in addition, each participating student’s collection of experiences should be tracked over his or her years at UNC Asheville.

February 24, 12:20, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team discussed the progress so far.  The QEP project has a context, as determined by the campus surveys-- Students as Makers of Knowledge through Engaged Learning Experiences.  The team has also defined this experience with the following process:  Inquiry-Action-Impact-Reflection.  During previous meetings, the team began the discussion of the outcome for the project, which (as determined by campus survey) is SLO#1.  The task of the meeting today was to identify which of the four components in SLO#1 will be the focus of the assessment (the outcome of the student's inquiry-action-impact-reflection experience).  After examining our most recent CLA data (a direct measurement of student learning), the team voted unanimously to select the following:  critical thinking and effective communication as expressed through writing.  The team also began to brainstorm on the implementation details for the inquiry-action-impact-reflection process and will continue this discussion at our next meeting.

March 3, 12:20, Highsmith 224:   Mary Lynn Manns presented a draft statement that summarizes our progress to date:  The QEP will provide students with opportunities to enhance their critical thinking and written communication skills through inquiry-action-impact-reflection experiences in community engaged undergraduate scholarship (or research-based service learning).  Now that we have developed the "what" for the QEP project, we continued the discussion of the "how" and "where" today.  Joseph Berryhill (Key Center) and Jessica Dunsmore (Institutional Effectiveness Director) joined us for this discussion.  Starting with three ideas we had drafted during previous meetings, we considered the pros and cons of each and narrowed to one possibility that we would like to explore further-- this possibility focuses on initiating the QEP in a subset of classes with teachers who volunteer to offer students the type of I-A-I-R learning experiences we have defined.  They will use the reflection and other assessment and tracking tools the QEP will provide.  Mary Lynn Manns and Amy Lanou were tasked with gathering details for implementing this possibility so that the team can continue their evaluation at the next QEP Leadership Team meeting.

March 24, 12:20, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team gave feedback on three QEP logo design options developed by Communications and Marketing.  It was also announced that student-produced videos about the QEP will be presented at 12noon on April 28th in the Whitman Room of the library.  The remainder of the meeting was dedicated to a discussion of the implementation details Amy and Mary Lynn presented to the team for consideration of pros and cons, general feedback, and recommended adjustments.  The team agreed that the best option is to implement phase one of the QEP in a cluster of three courses that focus on the IAIR model.  Among the 23 dimensions in the "decision points" table, the discussion included:  the title of the cluster, baseline and ending assessment, faculty incentives, marketing the program to students, etc.

April 7, 12:20, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team divided into two groups to work on:  (1)  drafting the definition for global & cultural understanding and (2)  taking a closer look at the definitions of the components in the IAIR model.  Since Sally Wasileski was on the subcommittee that original drafted the IAIR model, she joined us for this task.

April 14, 12:20, Center for Teaching & Learning:  Since the team planned to work on refining the wording for some of the definitions in the QEP, Deaver Traywick (from the campus Writing Center) joined the team today. The team spent some time discussing potential configurations for IAIR experiences in the clusters, incentives for students to select the IAIR cluster, and the development of critical thinking skills in student experiences.  The team then continued their refinement of the IAIR model.  Topics included:  potential illustrations of the model; ways to communicate the model so that faculty, students and staff recognize it is inclusive of all disciplines; the interrelationship of all four components in the model and the definition of each one.  While focusing on the “impact” component, the team decided that “impact” may not be the best word—it may set the bar too high because a project can take a long time to actually have an impact.  After considering a few other words, the team decided on “engage.”  The words in the new working draft of the model are now verbs that will define what the student will do in the experience:  Inquire-Engage-Act-Reflect (IEAR).  Some members of the team agreed to draft the definition for the “engage” component in this new model.

May 5, 12:20, Center for Teaching & Learning:  The team wrapped up their work this year.  They prepared input for the QEP logo design and worked on the second draft of Global & Cultural Understanding (learning about, working with and connecting with different people, places and time).  They also discussed the QEP plan to date, giving consideration to the number of courses in phase one of the QEP, student and faculty incentives, and options for the cluster of courses.

**Detailed meeting notes are available from Mary Lynn Manns.