QEP Breakfast Meeting Focus Group Summary Report

Summary of Findings

Participants said that the intent and purpose of the QEP program is clear. However, most remarked that how QEP relates to other purposes such as IE, Vision 2020, and professional accreditation is not clear.

Most participants reported that IE is viewed as an administrative function and lacks faculty buy-in. One respondent reported that IE and QEP have begun to have some faculty buy-in within the college.

QEPC reporting structure is not clear ; Who owns QEP? Who leads QEP? Who does QEPC report do?

Participants learned about QEP from their deans and the Assessment Conference. It was very helpful for the PIs to be able to present their projects and for faculty to learn from the PIs at the Assessment Conference.

Participants remarked that the guidelines and examples for proposal development are clear. They received very good support from MARS staff. However, such help was unexpected given the traditional roles of the office.

Participants also reported that they learned about assessments from Center for Teaching Excellence and from discussions on learning communities and portfolios evaluations.

Participants reported that money is a motivator to do QEP.

Participants remarked that there must be a clear message from the Provost ’s Office that assessment is important and that it is part of the reward system if it is to be successful.

Participants reported that it is very important to communicate the message of assessment using the suitable language for different audiences because deans, department heads, and faculty all have different priorities.

Participants indicated that they need support in several areas: (1) assessment professionals to help with literature review and get assessment data published, (2) an opportunity to partner with other faculty or assessment professionals to get data published, and (3) knowledge of grant opportunities.

Participants reported that their QEP assessment activities have improved the learning process. Their remarks include: (1) a research rubric used in multi-section courses helped gather information on student learning, (2) students were given the opportunity to stop and think about their ability to deal with conflicts in a team environment and their comments indicated learning has taken place, and (3) requiring students to prepare learning portfolios provide the opportunity for students to reflect on their learning experiences.

Background

In fall 2002, TAMU launched the QEP designed to use outcomes-based assessment to evaluate student learning in four leaning themes—research, diversity, technology, and internationalization. The Quality Enhancement Plan Council (QEPC), charged to support the QEP effort, developed a proposal solicitation process to encourage faculty participation. An annual budget of $100,000 is set aside to support about 20 academic programs each year to assess student learning in the four QEP themes. The first RFP for QEP proposals was issued in October 2002 and the second RFP in April 2003. A total of 36 programs received funding for academic years 2002-03 and 2003-04.

To support the QEP effort, the QEPC provides guidelines in proposal development, reviews the proposals, recommends funding, and provides support/feedback to PIs in their assessment activities. In order to improve the QEP process, a small group of QEP PIs were invited to a breakfast meeting on October 20, 2004 to give feedback on how well the QEPC communicated the intent and scope of the QEP, how they learned about QEP, how adequate was the support provided, and what improvements can be made to better the process. This report is a summary of responses from a 1.5-hour discussion on the QEP process by QEP PIs.

Methodology

A list of questions was developed with input from MARS staff and several QEP EC members to guide the focus group discussion. An invitation was extended to all eighteen 2003-04 QEP PIs to the breakfast meeting at the Faculty Club. Four of the 2002-03 QEP PIs who have completed their QEP projects were also invited. All participants were provided with the discussion questions the day before the breakfast meeting. The format of the focus group discussion is semi-structured in a way to allow the moderator, Dr. Mark Troy, to phrase the questions to match the flow of the conversation. Dr. Simone Tiu served as the note taker. The focus group notes were categorized to identify themes of the discussion.

Dr. Frances Gelwick ; Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Dr. Marty Loudder ; Accounting
Dr. Fidel Fernandez ; Biomedical Engineering
Dr. Claude Gibson ; English
Dr. Vicky Salin ; Agricultural Economics
Dr. Eluned Jones ; Agricultural Economics
QEPC Members and Guests

Six QEPC members and guests attended the breakfast meeting. They are:
Dr. John Fackler ; Chair, QEPC
Dr. John Fackler, Chair, QEPC
Marilee Bresciani ; Assistant Vice President for Institutional Assessment
Dr. Nancy Simpson ; Director, Center for Teaching Excellence
Dr. Elizabeth Tebeaux ; Director, Office of Distance Education
Dr. Simone Tiu ; Assistant Director, Measurement and Research Services
Dr. Mark Troy (moderator) ; Associate Director, Measurement and Research Services