ASA 1/13/2006

1
QEP Meeting 7 Core Team Campus Meetings Review
Focus of the Plan
January 13, 2006
ASA 1/13/2006
2
A Review of the Open Campus Meetings

• Following the two QEP Core Team Meetings held on
  October 14th and 28th, campus-based meetings were
  scheduled.
• Each campus-based meeting was open to all campus
  employees and any employee from another campus
  unable to attend their home campus meeting .

3
A Review of the Open Campus Meetings

• Each of the campus-based meetings had the
  following four purposes
• 1. Review the accreditation process
• 2. Present the conceptual framework for the
  student success database
• 3. Review the student success data
• 4. Solicit observations, feedback, and
  suggestions that might inform the institutions
  decision on a focus for the QEP

4
1st Meeting Virginia Beach Campus

• It was held on November 10, 2005 at 1230 pm in
  the Pungo Auditorium.
• It was attended by 39 individuals.
• Comments offered fell into the following
  categories
• Suggested further data analysis
• Policy and procedure recommendations
• Observations and explanations

5
Virginia Beach Feedback

• Further data analysis
• Students who took a Student Success Skills
  course How does their performance compare to
  those who didnt?
• For developmental students Isolate the data to
  allow for the identification of ESL students.
• Class size Is that a variable to consider in
  student success?
• Students without a declared major How does their
  success compare to those with a major?
• More analysis on online courses
• Students with supplemental instruction
• Include MTH 115 with the Gatekeeper courses

6
Virginia Beach Feedback

• Policy and Procedure Recommendations
• Make the Student Success Skills course mandatory.

7
Virginia Beach Feedback

• Observations and Explanations
• The institution used to have a more robust
  continuous alert system for students who
  struggled with their coursework.
• There are significant differences among
  departments and campuses regarding student
  attendance.
• Our placement cut scores changed in 2004. How
  does that impact the data?
• There are significant differences in grading
  scales among the campuses. Perhaps that explains
  some of the differences in percentages.
• What is our policy on final exams? Some have them
  and some do not.
• Time in class is also a factor. Some faculty have
  too frequent early dismissals.

8
2nd Meeting Portsmouth Campus

• It was held on November 11, 2005 at 1100 am in
  the Campus Theater.
• It was attended by 53 individuals.
• Comments offered fell into the following
  categories
• Suggested further data analysis
• Policy and procedure recommendations
• Observations and explanations

9
Portsmouth Feedback

• Further data analysis
• Career-Technical and Transfer majors and courses
  We should have the data analyzed for these areas
  separately.
• Online course distributions We should look
  closer at course pass rates impacted by this
  variable.
• Library usage What about this as a factor in
  student success?

10
Portsmouth Feedback

• Policy and Procedure Recommendations
• We make it too easy for students to enroll
  themselves without advising.
• We need to enforce course prerequisites.
• We should have an online screening device.
• We should require students that have earned less
  than 15 credit hours to see an advisor.
• We should consider blocking enrollment in college
  courses for developmental students.
• We should do student surveys by discipline after
  they are enrolled for two weeks.

11
Portsmouth Feedback

• Observations and Explanations
• Faculty advising is a factor that needs to be
  considered.
• Faculty interaction with students is also a
  factor.
• Perhaps the academic load of younger students is
  a factor in their success.
• We need to focus on variables we can control.
• We need to encourage conversations among
  Gatekeeper course faculty.
• There need to be more disclaimers on how to
  interpret data.
• The analysis of 17 years old and younger students
  should account for a lack of support services.
• A significant factor is pedagogy and course
  content.

12
3rd Meeting Norfolk Campus

• It was also held on November 11, 2005 at 200 pm
  in the Roper Theater, rm. 4235.
• It was attended by 37 individuals.
• Comments offered fell into the following
  categories
• Suggested further data analysis
• Policy and procedure recommendations
• Observations and explanations

13
Norfolk Feedback

• Further data analysis
• The number of times that a student attempts a
  course We might need to factor this variable in.
• Declared majors versus non-declared majors We
  should look at student success for this variable.
• The number of online courses taken by students
  This is likely a factor.
• When students see a counselor Is this a variable
  we should consider?

14
Norfolk Feedback

• Policy and Procedure Recommendations
• We need to have better faculty training for
  online instruction.
• There needs to be curriculum guides for sophomore
  students.
• Student Success Skills courses should be
  mandatory.
• Orientation should be mandatory via a web portal.
• We should encourage learning communities of
  developmental classes paired with a Student
  Success Skills course.
• We need to be enforcing course prerequisites in
  SIS.

15
Norfolk Feedback

• Observations and Explanations
• Advising is an issue.
• Academic advising and counseling is an issue.
• Career counseling is a factor.
• We need to be cautious on making any major
  decision on only one semester of data.
• We need to benchmark to other institutions.
• There was concern about a QEP that would only
  focus on developmental and Gatekeeper courses.
• We should look at career centers as a focus.
• Online registration of new students is a factor.

16
4th Meeting Chesapeake Campus

• It was held on November 14, 2005 at 1230 pm in
  the Whitehurst Bldg, rm. 2057.
• It was attended by 48 individuals.
• Comments offered fell into the following
  categories
• Suggested further data analysis
• Policy and procedure recommendations
• Observations and explanations

17
Chesapeake Feedback

• Further data analysis
• Students who placed directly into ENG 111 and MTH
  158 We should compare them with those that
  didnt.
• There needs to be separation of the military
  data.
• Night students We might want to study how they
  compare with day students.
• We should check to see whether or not student
  demographic data varies significantly between
  campuses.
• Older students could be studied in more detail.

18
Chesapeake Feedback

• Policy and Procedure Recommendations
• We need to enforce course prerequisites in math.
• We should look at Student Success Skills courses
  and ways to make students enroll in them.

19
Chesapeake Feedback

• Observations and Explanations
• We could also target students that are here for
  retraining.
• What about service learning? Could that be a
  factor?
• Academic advising is an issue.
• Night students usually perform better than day
  students.

20
Brief Group Exercise

• Identify 3-4 recurring themes from the
  campus-based meetings

21
Recurring Themes

• Student Success Skills course
• Advising
• Course Prerequisites
• Online Courses

22
Brief Group Exercise

• Complete the following statement
• TCCs focus for its Quality Enhancement Plan is
  to enhance student learning by . . .

23
Next Steps

• Official statement for the focus of the QEP
• Establish working timeline
• Create Working Committees to develop components
  of the Plan
• Integration of the Plan into existing college
  planning initiatives

24
Proposed Timeline

• February 6, 2006 Working Committees formed
• April 3, 2006 First draft of QEP completed
• June 5, 2006 Second draft of QEP completed
• July 10, 2006 Final draft of QEP completed
• August 4, 2006 Camera ready document
  completed
• August 18, 2006 Creative Services produce
  copies of QEP
• September 4, 2006 QEP due to Commission on
  Colleges

25
Components of the QEP

• Literature review and best practices
• Development of strategies
• Evaluation and assessment of the Plan
• Institutional capability and the
  initiation/continuation of the Plan
• Integration of the Plan into existing and future
  planning initiatives