QEP Talking Points
Purpose: (executive summary back front cover) to enhance student learning by increasing students’ participation in transformational learning experiences (TLEs) that transform perspective and engage students in practical application of their learning
TLEs (pp. 37-38 & 52): study abroad, undergraduate research, service learning, internships,
APSU’s Mission (pp. 10 & 36): TLEs prepare students to be engaged and productive citizens by providing them opportunities to engage and apply what they learn
APSU’s BRAVO Initiative (pp. 10-13, 15, 19, & 45): TLEs address the knowledge, skills, and values (p. 17) that APSU students need to succeed and to contribute to the world (pp. 3-6 & 12-17).
TLE Student Learning Outcomes (p. 18)
- Apply learning through TLEs
- Demonstrate engaged learning as articulated in BRAVO through TLE artifacts placed in an e-portfolio
TLE Pedagogical Approach
- Four Pillar Practices (pp. 43 & 55)
- Dimensions of learning (p. 54)
High-Impact Practice Criteria (p. 41): high expectations, significant time & effort, faculty/student interaction, experience
diversity, constructive feedback, reflection & integration work, applied learning,
and public demonstration of competence
Best Practices (pp. (41-45): cross-campus & off-campus collaborations, active & collaborative learning, structured critical reflection, feedback, and professional development
TLE Exemplars at APSU (pp. 20-34): meet the high-impact practice criteria and best practice
QEP Glossary Terms (pp. 73-75)
Planning the QEP (pp. 1-2, 10, & 62-64): During Fall, 2012, a QEP Think Tank was established. Members of the QEP Writing Teams were then selected. Students, faculty and staff served. In developing the proposed QEP, the APSU campus community established a meaningful connection with the university campus mission and the campus wide BRAVO student learning outcomes.
QEP Think Tank (pp. 1-2 & 6-9): This group analyzed National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) surveys, and employer and alumni surveys. They also sought broad-based campus input via surveys targeting student learning, as well as through campus forums, to identify the QEP topic.
QEP Co-Chairs (pp. 2 & 62): Throughout 2013, the QEP Co-Chairs asked for any additional input as they presented the Think Tank QEP topic recommendations to all the various bodies that represent the APSU campus community.
QEP Writing Teams (pp. 2 and 62): During Summer and Fall, 2013, three teams of faculty and professional
staff wrote the QEP action plan. Students were also enlisted to serve on the three
Staging, Implementation and Evaluation Phases (pp. 56-64): Campus involvement continues as the QEP is staged, implemented, and evaluated. A Task Force composed of campus wide broad representation will assist with staging the QEP. Committees to advise and support the QEP staff will form as well.
Building the Future upon Current Successes (pp. 37-39 & 48-51): APSU already involves a widespread constituency in activities that will provide a strong foundation upon which to build this QEP. Several high-impact practices which are precursors to the APSU branded TLEs exist; they receive support from offices established in the last few years. A Center for Teaching and Learning that provides important development opportunities is established as well.
Culture of Engagement (pp. 35-41 & 58): The QEP provides the needed framework and the message that a shift in culture is occurring. With expectations of student participation, widespread involvement of faculty and professional staff, numerous opportunities, and a clear message about their efficacy, well-structured, carefully assessed TLEs will become embedded in the APSU culture.
Detailed Plan of Action (pp. 58-64, 69-70, & 72-73): Action steps, the scheduling implementation, the evaluation of goals, and the assessment timeline are provided in the QEP.
Professional Development for Faculty and Staff (pp. 38-39, 44-45, 59. & 65-68): APSU currently deploys development resources in an intentional, visible manner designed to increase student and faculty participation. Additional resources will be dedicated to these efforts, including the hiring of a Faculty Professional Development Analyst.
Administrative and Instructional Support Staff (pp. 65-67 & 69-70): APSU will establish the organizational structure needed to support faculty and professional staff in providing TLE opportunities to students. Administrative staffing will include a QEP Director and an Assessment Analyst. Additional instructional support positions will be added to assist in the development of TLEs and the coordination of the e-portfolio system.
Purchase a campus wide e-portfolio system (pp. 60-61, 68, & 70): Students, faculty, and professional staff will use e-portfolios for evaluation and assessment of their work. See above, hiring of instructional support positions to support this work.
QEP Project Evaluation Goals (p.69-70):
1) introduce the concept of TLEs to the campus community to foster a “Culture of engagement”
2) encourage the growth in the number of TLE courses, assignments, and activities
3) institutionalize the way that the TLES are evaluated and stored
4) provide faculty and staff participating in TLE activities with development opportunities
Assessment Guiding Principles (p. 70-71): the QEP establishes a campus-wide approach whereby faculty and professional staff assist students in achieving relevant BRAVO outcomes through TLEs, which provide students with additional opportunities to apply what they learn.
BRAVO, E-Portfolios and the VALUE Integrative/Applied Learning Rubric (pp.71, 45-47, & 76-79): e-portfolios facilitate direct assessment of student work within a shared context of learning. Using the VALUE Rubric with e-portfolios will ensure that this context of learning is marked by common language and by shared expectations. The BRAVO student learning outcomes are mapped to this rubric. See BRAVO-mapped TLE Exemplar mapped to Applied Learning Scoring Rubric (p. 79).
Focused Measures of Progress (p. 72): the
Direct Measures include 1) assess the TLEs being developed to ensure that they meet established high-impact practice criteria/best practices and are mapped to the BRAVO learning outcomes, and 2) assess student TLE work using the BRAVO-mapped VALUE Integrative/Applied Rubric; an Indirect Measure is to assess student perceptions of their experiences through NSSE; and the Outputs include 1) count the number of TLEs, and 2) count the number of students involved. See other potential measures of progress (p. 71).
Assessment Tools (p. 72): Besides the NSSE, the FSSE, and the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, a locally-developed TLE Student Survey will be used to analyze the perceptions and effects of TLE participation.