Quality Enhancement Plan
SLATED for Success
Student
Learning and Teaching
Effectiveness Development
Report to the On-Site Review Team, Site
Visit September 17-19, 2007
Submitted by
SACS Liaison Dr. Debbie Scott
(423) 585-6844
Dr. Wade McCamey President
Dr. Debbie Scott Vice President for Planning, Research and Assessment
Dr. Lori Campbell Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dr. Foster Chason Vice President for Student Affairs
Dr. Rosemary Jackson Vice President for Business Affairs
Dr. Eddie Stone Vice
President, Information Technologies
(served from 2004-2006)
Mr. Paul Todaro Interim Executive Director for Information and
(served from 2006-present) Educational Technologies; Director for User Services and Technical Operations
Mrs. Carla Todaro Faculty
Representative; Associate Professor of English and Assistant Dean of Humanities
Division
Ms. Carla Todaro (until January 2008) Chair, QEP Development Committee
Division of Humanities QEP Representative
Associate Professor, English
Assistant Dean, Humanities Division
(423) 585-6951 carla.todaro@ws.edu
Ms. Viki D. Rouse Writer, QEP Development Committee
Division of Humanities QEP Representative
Assistant Professor, English
Faculty Development
Ms. Janice W. Donahue (until May 2007) Team Leader
Coordinator, Academic Enrichment
Associate Professor, Developmental Education
Mr. Darrel McGhee (beginning August 2007) Team
Leader
Assistant Professor, History
Dr. Franklin M. Bangurah Professor, Developmental Mathematics
Mr. David Knowles Assistant Professor, History
Marketing
Mr. Joe Fall Team Leader
Walters State Sevierville Campus QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Business
Department Head, Hospitality Business
Ms. Amy Ross Division of Business QEP Representative
Walters State Articulation Officer
Associate Professor and Head, Business Management
Ms. Nicole Cardwell-Hampton Associate Professor, Greenhouse and Nursery
Management
Mr. John Rose
Representative
Assistant Professor, Criminal Justice
Mr. Bill Sproat
Representative
Associate Professor, Biology
Outcomes Assessment
Dr. Betsy Dobbins,
Division of Health Programs QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Nursing
Dr. Mary D. Owens QEP Pilot Instructor
Professor, Mathematics
Mr. Chris Knight QEP Pilot Instructor
Division of Mathematics QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Mathematics
Coordinator of Developmental Mathematics
Mr. Allen Nix Division of Technical Education QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science
Ms. Michelle Mitrik Division of Humanities QEP Representative
Assistant Professor, Spanish
Engagement Assessment
Mr. Charlie Williams Team Leader
Division of Public Safety QEP Representative
Associate Professor, EMT
M.A., Education, Thesis Focus: Learning Styles
Ms. Victoria Whitehead MSN, RN
Associate Professor, Nursing
Ms. Kimberly Bolton Division of Natural Sciences QEP Representative
Instructor of Biology
Ms. Kim Gunnin Director, Enrollment Development and Retention Services
Professional Staff QEP Representative
Literature Review
Dr. Chris Baker Team Leader
Division of Behavioral/Social Sciences QEP Representative
Professor, Sociology
Dr. Tina Wu Professor, Psychology
Mr. Jamie Posey Librarian
Automation Specialist
Mr. Thomas Duda Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science
Mr. Roger Beverly Institutional
Capability
Professional Staff QEP Representative
Assistant Vice President, Business Affairs
Note: In August 2007, the QEP Development Committee will end and the QEP Implementation Committee will begin. In preparation for the transition, the Outcomes and Engagement teams will merge, and members of the Literature Review team will join the Faculty Development team which will be led by Mr. Darrel McGhee in place of Ms. Janice Donahue. The member in charge of Institutional Capability will serve on a consultant basis only. Carla Todaro will serve as chair until January 2008 at which time Amy Ross will take the position as QEP Director.
Table of
Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 7
Introduction
to
Vision........................................................................................................................ 8
Students’ Economic and Educational Attainment Demographics.................................. 9
History of the College.............................................................................................. 11
Chapter One: QEP Foundations...................................................................................... 14
Methodology........................................................................................................... 14
Critical Issues to be Addressed................................................................................ 17
Early Development.................................................................................................. 20
Rationale................................................................................................................. 22
QEP’s Role in Institutional Effectiveness................................................................... 23
Chapter
Two: Community Involvement.......................................................................... 31
Development of the QEP......................................................................................... 31
Marketing the Message............................................................................................ 31
Chapter Three: A Review of Related Literature........................................................... 35
Introduction............................................................................................................. 35
Teaching/Learning Styles.......................................................................................... 35
Engagement............................................................................................................. 38
Chapter Four: Implementation Plan............................................................................... 42
Implementation of QEP Pilot Courses...................................................................... 42
Implementation Beyond the Pilot.............................................................................. 43
Implementation Timeline........................................................................................... 46
Chapter Five: Assessment.............................................................................................. 47
Selection of Learning Styles Instrument..................................................................... 47
Outcomes Measurement.......................................................................................... 48
Engagement Measurement....................................................................................... 55
Assessment in QEP Expansion Classes.................................................................... 56
Chapter
Six: Faculty Development................................................................................. 59
Chapter Seven: Institutional Capability ........................................................................ 63
Narrative................................................................................................................. 63
Budget ................................................................................................................... 67
Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 68
References........................................................................................................................ 69
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 76
Appendix
1,
Appendix 2, WSCC Student Focus Group Comments............................................. 79
Appendix 3, CCSSE Institutional Research Update 11-20-06.................................. 82
Appendix 4, 2001-06 Student Achievement, General Education............................... 86
Appendix 5, 2005-06 THEC Performance Funding Report...................................... 87
Appendix 6, 2006 Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)............ 88
Appendix
7, 2005
Appendix 8, Soloman-Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire..................................... 90
Appendix 9, 2005 Student Cohort Data................................................................... 92
Appendix 10, Faculty Development Library Resources............................................. 94
Appendix 11, Teaching Styles Library Resources..................................................... 95
Executive Summary
The faculty, staff,
and students of
The focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan, “SLATED for Success,” is to increase student learning and engagement through faculty and student recognition of diverse student learning styles and incorporation of multiple modalities of teaching methods in an effort to engage students more fully in their educational environment, thus increasing student learning.
Introduction to
To facilitate student learning and transfer, the college maintains articulation, collaboration, and partnerships with public schools, technology centers, colleges, and universities. Service to business and industry is facilitated through the utilization of partnerships, networks, and customized programs and courses supporting the development of competitive products, services, and operations. The college provides faculty and staff of the highest quality dedicated to excellence in teaching, student learning, and service (Walters State Community College 2006-2007 College Catalog and Student Handbook, p. 7, par. 2 and 4 omitted).
Students’ Economic and
Educational Attainment Demographics
As a comprehensive
community college,
Higher than
average poverty, dropout, and unemployment rates are predominant
characteristics of rural mountainous counties in
Table 1. Educational Attainment: WSCC Service Area for 1980, 1990, and 2000.
County (%)
High School Degrees (%)
College Degrees
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
State 56.2 67.1 75.9 12.6 16.0 19.6
Cocke 40.1 50.4 61.2 5.3 5.5 6.2
Claiborne 38.8 50.8 60.3 6.9 8.0 8.9
Grainger 34.4 46.3 60.1 4.1 4.8 7.8
Greene 47.5 58.1 69.6 8.9 10.3 12.8
Hamblen 51.0 61.6 69.3 9.2 11.2 13.3
Hancock 28.6 42.4 55.9 4.2 5.1 10.2
Hawkins 47.1 58.0 70.4 6.7 8.4 10.0
Sevier 50.9 63.0 74.6 9.3 10.8 13.5
Union 36.2 45.6 56.3 2.8 4.5 5.8
(Source:
Table 2. Percent
of State Average for High School and College Degrees for WSCC Service Area--1980,
1990, and 2000.
County High
School Degrees College
Degrees
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
State 84 89 96 81 80 83
Cocke 71 75 80 38 38 30
Claiborne 70 76 79 54 50 45
Grainger 61 69 79 31 31 40
Greene 86 87 92 69 63 65
Hamblen 91 87 91 69 69 65
Hancock 52 63 74 31 31 50
Hawkins 84 87 92 54 50 50
Sevier 91 94 99 69 69 70
Union 64 68 74 23 31 30
(Source: Appalachian Regional
Commission)
History of the College
In
1957, the Pierce-Albright Report on Higher Education in
In
1969, the General Assembly authorized three more community colleges:
The
sixth community college in
Over
6,000 students were enrolled at
Programs
of study at
Chapter One: QEP Foundations
Methodology for
Selection of QEP Topic
In Fall 2004,
Question
1: If you could identify one issue
that seems to hinder student learning at
Question
2: What can
Answers to these questions widely varied, yet one thing remained constant: the enthusiasm generated in those focus groups by faculty who were given the time to speak about their greatest concerns regarding student learning, including the perception that they “spoke one language” while their students “understood another,” and their recommendations for how student learning could be stimulated and strengthened[WSCC1] , including stronger study skills and students’ knowledge of how they learn best.
In Summer 2005, Todaro and Kington conducted focus groups with all professional and support staff of the college from each campus, asking them the same two questions that they had asked faculty. Many focus group meetings extended longer than the one-hour time period simply because staff felt that they had much to share from their observations of students and learning that differed from the faculty’s perspective[WSCC2] . Because they saw the students outside of the classroom and listened to their concerns, worries, and life responsibilities, all of which served to distract the students from their studies and from forming social ties to the college and their peers, these staff members felt that faculty who could make the time in the classroom more meaningful and targeted more directly at the students instead of just at the material would be more successful in improving student learning. In short, these staff members called for student-centered learning environments.
In Fall 2005, Todaro
and Kington conducted eight separate focus groups for students at the
Question 1: If you could identify one issue that would improve your learning, what would it be? Or, what seems to hinder your learning?
Question 2:
What can
Just as faculty and staff quickly grew interested in the questions, so did the students. They had strong opinions about both questions once they were able to move beyond their skepticism regarding why they were being asked these questions in the first place. Students took responsibility for their learning (“I hinder my own learning because I have no discipline”; “I never learned how to learn”) and also laid responsibility at the door of the instructors and the institution (“My instructors move through the material too quickly for me to absorb it, and they never consider that I might have been left behind two chapters ago”; “Walters State could improve my learning by making our schedules more flexible and by offering student services at night and online”). They were eager to share their concerns, and they expressed a desire to “learn how to learn.”
After completion of the focus groups, Kington compiled the individual responses and grouped them into seven categories:
1. Teaching/Learning Styles: Student learning can be improved by assessing and matching instructor teaching styles to student learning styles.
2. Motivation: Student learning can be improved by motivating students to learn.
3. Personal Responsibility/Accountability: Student learning can be improved by encouraging students to take responsibility for active learning and by holding them accountable for results.
4. Advising and Counseling: Student learning can be improved by streamlining and enriching the advising process.
5. Life Responsibilities: Student learning can be improved by the college facilitating coping strategies to assist students in balancing school work and classes with personal obligations.
6. Lack of Preparation for College: Student learning can be improved by preparing them for college-level work before they enroll in college-level courses and by increasing their awareness of “what it means to be a college student.”
7. Valuing Broad Education: Student learning can be improved by increasing their awareness of the relevance of all courses, not just those in their major or study.
8. Raising Standards and Quality: Student learning can be improved by raising performance standards and expectations in all courses and by maintaining consistency in quality across the disciplines.
During this time
period of the focus groups, Todaro and Kington conducted staff and faculty
forums to keep everyone apprised of the progress of the QEP topic selection
progress and to solicit further suggestions.
The SACS Leadership Team met monthly, and Carla Todaro provided periodic
updates to
Critical Issues to be
Addressed
As the faculty, SACS Leadership Team, and Executive Council began to discuss the focus group response categories, they found that a number of concerns overlapped. The faculty’s and staff’s deepest academic concerns included:
· They knew that they wanted their students to succeed for the students’ sake and to boost the institution’s retention and graduation rates.
· They knew that their students seemed uninterested, lacking motivation to stretch their thinking in their classes.
·
They recognized that many students came to
college underprepared to meet the content and study challenges imposed upon
them by college-level work. Indeed, many
students did not enter at college level: while the average ACT score in
· They realized that students brought “life” with them: work and family challenges that were very real and looming factors in their attempts at academic success.
After deliberation,
In November 2005, faculty members were given the opportunity to vote for one of the two QEP topics that had been formalized into statements of action:
1. Assess instructor teaching styles and student learning styles for one course or a common group of courses. Educate instructors and students about and direct them toward learning strategies suited toward their preferences, resulting in deeper, more relevant educational experiences and appropriate academic advising for the students. Match teaching styles to learning styles and measure learning success. Expectations and additional positive effects of this action could include increased student motivation, active learning, and personal responsibility for learning.
2. Determine
the life responsibilities that seem to negatively
impact student achievement in one course or a common group of courses. Instructors and students would co-design
course plans that address lack of preparation for college and meet the course
objectives and high standards of the class while working with, rather than in
opposition to, the other obligations and responsibilities of the students. Expectations and additional positive effects
of this action could include increased motivation, active learning, in-depth
advising practices, and personal responsibility for learning.
Faculty members were reminded to keep the tenets of the QEP in mind regarding SACS expectations:
· The plan of action must target an area of student learning that we can document as a need on our campus.
· The plan of action must focus on students: we must do something to students, for students or with students that positively affects their learning.