Viceprovost.eku.edu



Part V: THE IMPACT REPORT OF THE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLANSection 1. Title and brief description of the QEP as initially presented Theme Title. Eastern Kentucky University will develop informed, critical and creative thinkers who communicate effectively. Description. The primary focus of the QEP is the development of students who use higher-order thinking skills to explore, evaluate, expand, and express ideas, which is encapsulated as E4.Quality Enhancement Plan FocusExplore (identify, discover) and use relevant information in order to gain knowledge and solve problems.Evaluate (analyze) information and ideas using appropriate methods.Expand (develop) and generate ideas and express them effectively.Express (clearly articulate) a point of view and develop it with awareness of alternatives.EKU is achieving its goal of developing informed, critical and creative thinkers through a wide variety of activities and projects. Originally, three levels of initiatives were identified: university-wide (broad based) initiatives, individual or unit-specific initiatives, and strategic planning initiatives. Level 1: University-Wide Initiatives A New First-Year Course: The Critical and Creative Thinking Foundation was created to develop an effective first-year experience course that will aid in the transition to college for all first-year students entering EKU. The goal is to provide foundation knowledge and skills in critical and creative thinking that address the QEP to all first-year students, and to integrate the development of problem-solving skills into both the academic and social lives of all first-year students.Thinking and Communicating Across the Curriculum (TCAC): A Writing Intensive Program was created to achieve both the QEP and the General Education goals through a systematic program of developing skills in critical and creative thinking, written communication, and oral communication throughout a student’s baccalaureate experience.The Studio for Academic Creativity: Developing Critical and Creative Thinking through Development of Writing, Speaking, and Research: An academic help center was created to help students become more articulate, learning to communicate clearly and mastering the art of critical and creative thinking.The Service-Learning Project was created to promote faculty and staff engagement in projects with external partners in order to enhance student development as informed, critical and creative thinkers who communicate effectively, through service learning activities.Critical and Creative Thinking in General Education: Revision of EKU’s General Education (GE) Program and the development of the QEP occurred in the same time period, and information gathered from faculty, staff, and students informed the development of both the QEP and GE Goals. The GE Program helps students to become informed, independent thinkers by developing competencies in communication, quantitative analysis, and critical thinking. All GE learning goals focus directly on critical thinking and written/oral communication.Level 2: Unit-Specific InitiativesThe CACTUS Project (Citizens’ Assembly for Critical Thinking about the United States) is a course that was created by faculty in the Department of Government to provide an arena in which students could develop the skills of critical and creative thinking, specifically as it relates to their roles as engaged citizens in American democracy. The Science in Society Project: Promotion of Critical Thinking with a Thematic Interdisciplinary Focus: This cross-disciplinary, team-taught course was created to promote student critical and creative thinking through the development of lesson plans, learning activities, and campus events that would encourage students to discover, interpret, and analyze scientific and technological information, as well as produce creative solutions to societal problems caused by scientific and technological progress.Level 3: Strategic Plan Initiatives When EKU adopted the QEP its mission statement was “EKU is a student-centered, comprehensive public university dedicated to high-quality instruction, scholarship, and service.” EKU’s strategic plan required academic departments with educational learning objectives to have a student learning outcome for either critical/creative thinking or communication.General Education: EKU’s Strategic Plan requires every GE course to include learning outcomes for critical thinking, and many GE courses include learning outcomes for written/oral communication. Additionally, these outcomes must be assessed every two years, using standard rubrics for each GE Block; these rubrics include EKU’s written and oral communication rubrics, and customized critical/creative thinking (CCT) rubrics, developed from EKU’s generic CCT Rubric. Other Major InitiativesFaculty Development: A professional development plan was implemented to provide faculty and staff opportunities to hone their knowledge and skills, in order to help them establish an ideal environment for students to become informed critical and creative thinkers who communicate effectively.QEP Management Plan: The Office of Quality Enhancement Programs was created and staffed to oversee and manage the QEP implementation, public relations, and marketing activities to inform and engage the campus community. The office included a full-time director, administrative assistant, professional development/service learning coordinator and assessment analyst. Additionally, multiple teams of QEP personnel, faculty, and staff provided guidance on implementation and assessment issues for all of the University-wide initiatives. A budget of close to $1 million annually has been sustained for the EKU QEP from 2007 to present, and the University is committed to this level of funding. Section 2. initial goals and intended outcomes of the QEPThe over-arching goal of the EKU QEP is to improve students’ critical/creative thinking and communication skills. To capture comprehensive evidence of student learning, summative and formative assessment processes are being implemented, using direct and indirect assessment methods. Formative assessment is conducted during a program or course and provides immediate information for improving student learning at the course and individual levels. Summative assessment is used to check the level of student learning at the end of the program. Direct methods ask students to demonstrate their learning through tools such as objective tests, essays, presentations, classroom assignments, and cooperative supervisor/employer evaluations. Indirect methods ask them to reflect on their learning through tools such as surveys and interviews. The original outcomes of the initiative are described below: Planning Objectives: Tracking Program ProgressA.Identification of QEP-related student learning objectives and assessment measures in every department B.Provide funds for and help develop six initiatives to help students achieve the QEP goals:First-year course (University-wide)Communication-intensive courses (TCAC Program) (University-wide)Studio for Academic Creativity (University-wide)Service Learning Project (University-wide)CACTUS Project (Unit specific)Science in Society Project (Unit specific)Establish The Center for Quality Enhancement to assure effective implementation, coordination, and marketing of the QEP Create a professional development plan to help faculty/staff support the QEPFollow the developed assessment plan to evaluate QEP activitiesIntended Student Learning OutcomesAbbreviationAssessment MeasureCCT RubricCritical / Creative Thinking Rubric developed by a multi-discipline team of facultyWC RubricWritten Communication Rubric developed by a multi-discipline team of facultyOC RubricOral Communication Rubric developed by a multi-discipline team of facultyGE RubricsGeneral Education Rubrics, developed from EKU’s CCT and WC/OC Rubrics, and customized for each GE Block by multi-discipline teams of faculty NSSENational Survey of Student EngagementA.Summative Assessment of Critical/Creative Thinking and Communication 1.Freshman-Senior Task. A University-developed freshmen and senior written task evaluated with EKU’s CCT and WC Rubrics would show (a)improvement in CCT and WC from freshman to senior year (longitudinal data)(b) higher senior than freshman scores (cohort comparisons)(c) improvement of seniors’ scores over time (cohort comparisons)2.NSSE. Items related to the QEP from the NSSE would show(a) more positive scores from seniors than freshmen, and more positive scores from seniors over time (cohort comparisons)(b)more positive scores from seniors than freshmen, and an increase in these differences (change scores) over time (longitudinal data)(c) more positive scores from seniors than from transfer students at the time of transfer to EKU, and an increase in these differences over time (cohort comparisons)C.Formative Assessment of Critical/Creative Thinking and Communication 1.GE Courses. Student work in GE courses evaluated with EKU’s GE Rubrics would show at least 85% of students achieved the assessed learning objectives for that course. 2.TCAC (Communication-Intensive Courses). Student work evaluated with EKU’s CCT and WC/OC Rubrics would show at least 70% of students achieved at least a “competent” rating on CCT and WC/OC.3.New First Year Course. Student work evaluated with EKU’s CCT Rubric would show at least 60% of students achieved at least a “developing” rating on critical thinking.4.The Studio for Academic Creativity. Student work evaluated with assessment instruments customized for each project would show that students significantly improved critical thinking, written, and/or oral communication skills. 5.Service Learning Courses. Student work evaluated with EKU’s CCT and WC Rubrics would show at least 85% of students improved critical thinking and written communication skills.6.Employer Survey. Items related to the QEP from a University-developed employer survey would show at least 70% of seniors rated at least “very good” in both critical thinking and communication by their employers.Section 3. Changes Made to the QEPA.Infrastructure. The plan allowed for The Center for Quality Enhancement to be established. That was changed to the “Office of Quality Enhancement Programs” and the goal to assure effective implementation, coordination, and marketing of the QEP remained the same. After 5 years QEP tasks were made a permanent part of the duties of Associate Dean of University Programs.B.QEP Programs/Initiatives. Originally there were six main initiatives funded: All of the University-wide initiatives are still operating and going strong, with a few modifications:New First Year Course. The original plan proposed that a carefully designed and uniform course be developed to allow a specific place to introduce concepts of critical and creative thinking for all first year students. The EKU Council on Academic Affairs (CAA) did not approve it as mandatory for all first year students. From 2008 to 2011 360-574 students enrolled voluntarily in the course each year as one option for their University orientation requirement. Effective fall 2012, CAA approved the course for all first-year undeclared students, and 810 students enrolled in the course. However, students with a declared major do not routinely take this course, and additional initiatives were implemented to expose more first-year students, and all Teacher Education students, to critical thinking learning strategies:Communications (CMS) Program Faculty Development is a unit-specific program with broad impact because every student must take one CMS course as part of general education. Faculty were trained to integrate specific critical thinking and communication strategies in CMS courses. Students’ critical thinking and oral communication skills are evaluated via required assessments of general education courses; the intended outcome is that at least 85% of students achieve the learning objectives.English Department Faculty Development is a unit-specific program with broad impact because students complete two freshman composition courses as part of general education. English Department faculty are being trained to integrate specific critical thinking learning strategies in composition courses. Students’ written communication skills are evaluated in the second composition course via required assessment of general education courses; the intended outcome is that at least 85% of students achieve the learning objectives.College of Education (COE) Diversity Project is a unit-specific program with broad impact because every Teacher Education student is exposed. Critical and creative thinking was integrated into modules that focus on cultural-competence issues in education. Teacher Education candidates’ use of critical thinking skills as applied to cultural competence are evaluated with a customized rubric developed from EKU’s CCT Rubric. The intended outcome is that 100% of Teacher Education candidates demonstrate proficiency in critical thinking, as applied to cultural competence.Thinking & Communicating Across the Curriculum (TCAC) Program. The proposed program included one required communication-intensive (W) course in general education (GE), and two required W courses in each major. It became clear that the proposal was too ambitious in that degree programs were not prepared to develop W courses for a variety of reasons, such as the lack of professional development to teach W courses, and the necessary cap on enrollment in W courses. Therefore, CAA did not approve the TCAC Program, but instead required each student to complete just one W course in general education. Even this requirement proved to be problematic, and it became clear that the number of W courses approved for GE was not sufficient to accommodate student need for the courses. At that time faculty were trained to develop W courses for their majors, and students were allowed to fulfill the need for a W course in GE or in their major. Changing the requirement from three courses to one course for each student effectively eliminated the “program.” Thus, assessment of student work is at the course level instead of a programmatic level; intended outcomes did not change.Unit-Specific Programs. The two unit-specific programs were determined to be successful, but without broad impact, and so were not continued with QEP funds. C.Assessment Plan.Summative Assessment of Critical Thinking. Originally, the plan was to create a discipline-free assignment, appropriate for use in both freshman and senior courses that would prompt students to demonstrate their critical thinking and written communication skills. That student work product was to be evaluated by faculty using EKU’s CCT and WC Rubrics. The task of developing a discipline-free assignment became more difficult than expected and we discovered that Tennessee Tech University had developed an instrument that met our needs. Their NSF Grant funding allowed them to conduct validity tests well beyond what we would have been able to do in the short period of time. After carefully exploring this tool, the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) was adopted as our major assessment instrument, but the intended outcomes are the same:National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).? The original plan proposed comparing data, longitudinally, from freshmen to seniors.? However, NSSE experts recommend against this approach, and recommend instead comparing freshmen and seniors to norms from benchmarks universities.?The outcome focused on longitudinal data was deleted.Additional summative assessment instrument for critical thinking and communication. As a result of its participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability EKU currently tests freshmen and seniors with the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) critical thinking and essay writing modules.? Scores show the performance of each cohort, the expected performance based upon ACT scores, and a value-added score referring to the gains made by seniors as compared to freshmen (by ACT).? The critical thinking portion of the CAAP measures students' skills in clarifying, analyzing, evaluating, and extending arguments.? The essay writing portion of the CAAP measures students’ skills in formulating assertions, supporting assertions with appropriate evidence, organizing and connecting major ideas, and expressing ideas in clear, effective language. We will report CAAP scores as one of our assessment measures for as long as the University can support the costs. The intended outcomes are (a) seniors will score at or above the expected mean based upon entering ACT scores; (b) the gain in EKU CAAP scores from freshman to senior year?will be at or above expected levels.Graduates in the Workplace. Instead of creating a survey for employers of EKU’s alumni, instruments and processes that were already in use are being used to collect similar data. All students employed through EKU’s Co-op Program are evaluated by their employers every semester. Data are being used to assess employers’ perceptions of the critical thinking and communication skills of seniors in the workplace. The outcome remained the same.SECTION 4. IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING / UNANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Impact on Student LearningSUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING / COMMUNICATIONIntended OutcomesCAT (Critical Thinking Assessment Test).(a) Critical thinking would improve from freshman to senior year (longitudinal data); (b) Seniors’ scores would be higher than freshmen’s (cohort comparisons); (c) Seniors’ scores would improve over time (cohort comparisons)Process /MeasureThe CAT was given to freshmen (2007, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12) and seniors (2008, 09, 10, 11, 12). Short answer/essay responses were scored by multi-discipline faculty teams. Data for the five years were aggregated for the first two outcomes.Results(a) Longitudinal data (n = 45) show that critical thinking improved from freshmen to senior year (F = 15.72; S = 19.53); (b) Cohort data collected from seniors (n = 1089) and freshmen (n = 622) show that seniors had higher scores than freshmen (F = 14.74; S = 18.59); (c) Seniors’ scores show variability over time (2008: 17.46; 2009: 19.88; 2011: 17.80; 2012: 19.08).Intended OutcomesNSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement). (a) Seniors would have more positive scores than freshmen; (b) Seniors would have more positive scores over time; (c) Native seniors would have more positive scores than transfer students at the time of transfer to EKU; (d)The difference between native seniors’ and transfer students’ scores would increase over time.Process /MeasureThe NSSE survey is completed on a voluntary basis (native students: 2007, 09, 11; transfer students: 2010, 11, 12). Ten items measure student perceptions of EKU’s focus on issues related to critical thinking/communication. “More positive” is defined as statistical significance.Results(a) For all years seniors had more positive scores than freshmen; (b) In 2009 seniors’ scores were more positive than in 2007, but leveled off in 2011; (c) For all years, native seniors’ had more positive scores than transfer students; (d) In 2011 the difference between native seniors’ and transfers’ scores was greater than in 2010, but leveled off in 2012.Intended OutcomesCAAP (Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency). (a) Seniors will score at or above the expected mean based upon their entering ACT scores; (b) the gain in EKU CAAP scores from freshman to senior year?will be at or above expected levels.Process/MeasureThe CAAP Critical Thinking Module was given to freshmen and seniors 2009-10, and the Writing Module in 2010-11. Students in randomly selected courses completed the assessment.ResultCritical Thinking: (a) Senior scores were lower than expected by .45 standard deviations; (b) Student learning gain from freshmen to senior was at the expected level based on ACT.? Writing: (a) Senior scores were higher than expected by .63 standard deviations; (b) Student learning gain from freshmen to senior was above the expected level based on ACT.Use of ResultsCAT, NSSE, CAP. Results of all summative assessments are shared with the University community through QEP events and publications. The best use of data is in the CAT scoring sessions, which serve as professional development opportunities for faculty. Faculty across multiple disciplines score student responses, and discuss expectations, students’ misunderstanding/weaknesses, and pedagogical strategies. Faculty are not sure how to use NSSE/CAP data. We are exploring whether reporting data by program is feasible, which would allow for comparisons across programs and might engender some competition to be “better than others.” However, sample size for programs is typically small.FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING / COMMUNICATIONIntended OutcomeGE Courses. at least 85% of students will achieve the critical thinking and/or communication learning objectives in each courseProcess/MeasureGE Rubrics are applied to students’ work in every GE course (≈ 170 courses) every two years. Several criteria on each rubric focus on critical thinking/communication. Students are categorized as “beginning,” “developing,” “competent,” or “accomplished” on each criterion. Achieving the learning objectives is defined as “developing” or above. Data from 4-year cycles are aggregated.Result2006-2010 (two assessments per course): Percent of students who achieved learning objectives in critical thinking: 70—91%; written communication: 80%; oral communication: 86%. 2010--2012 (one assessment per course): critical thinking: 76-98%; written communication: 85%; oral communication: 88%.Use of Results In 2006-2010 the criterion was met in only three GE areas. Critical thinking was weakest in written communication, natural sciences, and mathematics. In 2010—12 the criterion was met in eight GE areas. Critical thinking was weakest in written communication, natural sciences, and social science. These data are used by the department offering the course. During the first 2—3 years the focus was on using data to develop and refine meaningful and valid instruments. Then the focus shifted to improving student learning. Faculty in each department discuss data, modify course content/processes/teaching strategies to address weaknesses (and keep strengths), and write a “use of results” report for the University Strategic Plan. Intended OutcomesCMS Project. At least 85% of students will achieve the learning objectives in GE CMS courses.Process/MeasureEKU’s OC Rubric is used to evaluate students’ oral communication skills in CMS courses as part of required GE assessment. (See GE Courses for process.) ResultThe percent of students who achieved the learning objectives in CMS courses: 2009 (before the CMS Project): 86%; 2010 (after the CMS Project) 89% Use of Results CMS faculty continue to emphasize professional development for all faculty, and have prepared standardized syllabi and course materials that integrate the Paul/Elder Model of critical thinking in lesson plans, activities, and assignments. These materials are used in every course section. Intended OutcomesEnglish Department Project. At least 85% of students will achieve the learning objectives in general education English Composition courses.Process/MeasureEKU’s WC Rubric is used to evaluate students’ written communication skills in ENG 102 as part of required GE assessment. (See GE Courses for process.)Result2006-2010 (two assessments conducted before the project): 80% of students achieved the learning objectives. ENG 102 will be assessed again in 2012-13.Use of Results Data are not yet available to demonstrate the efficacy of this project. Department is continuing to provide professional development to as many faculty as possible. Intended OutcomesTCAC Program. At least 70% of students will achieve a “competent” rating (or higher) on critical thinking and written/oral communication.Process/MeasureFaculty who teach communication-intensive courses evaluate random samples of student work products using EKU’s CCT and WC/OC Rubrics (2009, 10, 11). Data are aggregated.Result30—69% of students achieved competence on critical thinking criteria; 20—78% achieved competence on written communication criteria.Use of Results The intended outcome has not been met. Student work products are evaluated by faculty who teach the courses, and each scoring session includes discussion of results, and how to modify courses to improve student learning. Individual faculty benefit from the evaluation process by better understanding their students’ strengths and weaknesses, but faculty also learn from others in different disciplines. Also, assessment results are used to customize professional development in order to target areas of student weaknesses and faculty needs. IntendedOutcomeFirst Year Course. At least 60% of students will achieve at least a “developing” rating on critical thinking.Process/MeasureFaculty/professional staff evaluate random samples of student work products using EKU’s CCT Rubric. The first time the course was offered, fall 2008, the assignment did not elicit the type of responses expected. The revised assignment requires students to compare and contrast two articles on the same topic, and to integrate the information to draw reasonable conclusions. ResultsFall 2008: Failed attempt to apply rubric. 2009-11: 72.1—83.0% of students were evaluated as “developing” or better.Use of ResultsThe criterion has been met each year, but continual improvement of teaching and learning is the goal. Course instructors evaluate students’ work in teams, and scoring sessions provide opportunities to discover weaknesses in students’ thinking, discuss reasonable expectations for students, and share pedagogical techniques. After each scoring session instructors develop new/revised assignments and techniques to improve students’ understanding of CCT issues. IntendedOutcomeThe Studio for Academic Creativity (The Studio). Student participants will improve critical thinking, written, and/or oral communication skills.Process/MeasureA variety of projects employing both indirect and direct measures are used in multiple on-going assessments of student learning in The Studio. As examples, results for three projects are reported. Psychology Research Project: In beginning research courses students read, analyzed, synthesized, and applied research findings presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Students’ research papers were evaluated by faculty using the criteria on EKU’s WC Rubric.Oral Communication Project: Various types of Studio consultation sessions were evaluated with regard to students’ perception of feedback they received, and their subsequent confidence regarding oral communication projects. Measures were pre and post student perception surveys, and Studio consultation records. Teacher Education Project: Education majors prepared ePortfolios to provide evidence of teacher readiness and potential, and reflections on professional strengths and weaknesses. ePortfolios included videos, static images, text, and sound. Evaluators designed a rubric to assess creativity, aesthetic quality, digital presentation, writing, formatting, sources/citations, and accessibility. ResultsPsychology Project: Students who had one consultation scored significantly higher than control students on four criteria on the WC rubric: comprehension of the overall purpose of their research proposal, organization of literature review, synthesis of previous research to create an original prediction, and application of previous literature to develop a rationale for their prediction.Oral Communication Project: Students who participated in group consultations reported that they received more feedback than those who participated in individual consultations, but this difference was not statistically significant. Two findings were statistically significant: students who met in smaller rooms with their group members felt more prepared for their oral presentations than students who met in larger rooms with only a consultant, and the amount of feedback was positively correlated with students’ confidence about their oral presentations.Teacher Education Project: Compared to students who did not work with consultants, the ePortfolios of students who participated in two consultations were significantly better.Use of ResultsPsychology project. Results were shared with other faculty. More faculty now encourage or require Studio consultations for students. Faculty also learned that asking students to seek guidance for specific issues, and preparing the Studio consultants for those issues, is a better approach than a generic “seek help for writing” approach. Communication Project. This project is continuing into the next phase, which will include the direct assessment of students’ oral presentations. Faculty intend to continue collaborations with The Studio and now have another “selling point” about the Studio for students, specifically, it’s not just about improving the presentation, but also about improving students’ confidence.Teacher Education Project. The project impacted students’ work, but also influenced faculty’s perspectives on how to teach ePortfolio design. The success of this project also led to discussions of other peer-to-peer feedback processes that can be used in other contexts. Peer feedback is often used for written work (Studio consultants are peers), but this project demonstrated that peers can provide helpful guidance in non-written work, as well, such as creativity, aesthetic appeal, and digital presentation, areas in which faculty are not necessarily the “experts.”IntendedOutcomeService Learning Project. At least 85% of student participants would improve critical thinking and written communication skills.Process/MeasureStudent work products (pre-post essays) were evaluated by faculty/professional staff using EKU’s CCT Rubric (2008, 09, 10, 11). “Improvement” was defined as a statistically significant increase. Also, student and community partners completed perception surveys about students’ performance.ResultsEssays: Virtually all students had higher posttest than pretest evaluations on critical thinking, but only about 70% had a statistically significant improvement. Survey data showed that both students and community partners perceived an improvement in students’ skills for critical thinking and written communication, and especially for oral communication.Use of ResultsPerception survey data encourage instructors to find additional ways for students to practice skills, especially oral communication, in projects. The pre-post assignment, originally an “extra” assignment, has been meaningfully incorporated into every service-learning course as an authentic assessment tool. Pre responses allow faculty to adjust lessons as needed to address issues, and post responses inform future lesson plans and choice of future community partners.IntendedOutcomeEmployer Survey. At least 70% of seniors would be rated at least “very good” in both critical thinking and communication by their employers.Process/MeasureEmployers of senior students in Co-op positions were evaluated on several items related to critical thinking and communication (every semester 2009, 10, 11). Scale was “Outstanding, Very Good, Acceptable, Poor, & Unacceptable.” ResultsFor all years 87—100% of students were rated as at least “Acceptable” on the items. Use of ResultsBecause of the high scores data have not been used in any meaningful way. We are exploring whether changing the criterion to “at least Very Good” would yield data that are more useful to programs. If data were more variable comparisons among programs might show areas of weaknesses. Additionally, employers may evaluate Co-op students more leniently than alumni, and the original plan for an alumni employer survey is being further explored.Unanticipated Outcomes The implementation of the EKU QEP has demonstrated its transformative powers in a broad and comprehensive way on campus.EKU’s Mission and Strategic Plan. Since the inception of the first-ever EKU QEP, the EKU mission statement has changed from: EKU “is a student-centered, comprehensive public university dedicated to high-quality instruction, scholarship, and service” to “as a comprehensive public institution, [EKU] prepares students to lead productive, responsible, and enriched lives.? To accomplish this mission, the University emphasizes Student Success, Regional Stewardship, and Critical and Creative Thinking and Effective Communication.”? In addition, the associated goals of EKU’s strategic plan have evolved from requiring academic departments with educational learning objectives to have a student learning outcome for either critical/creative thinking or communication, to requiring every academic program to have two QEP-related student learning objectives, one for each 1) critical/creative thinking, and 2) communication. Finally, the plan requires direct assessment of these outcomes at the programmatic level.? These changes demonstrate significant University commitment to advance our QEP, and its transformative impact.? Interdisciplinary Camaraderie and Collaborations. Since the implementation of our QEP, our campus sprang into action to coordinate professional development and discussion groups, bringing faculty, professional staff, and administrators together to begin our quest to “develop informed, critical and creative thinkers who communicate effectively.” In formal and informal assessments, we consistently heard how much faculty (in particular) enjoyed the activities and working with their peers across various disciplines. It became evident that faculty are often too isolated and do not interact much with others in varying disciplines. The QEP process is changing that and this is a welcome change for our faculty. Non-Faculty Involvement. The original QEP focused on faculty development for improving student learning in the classroom. As the QEP implementation plan progressed, it became evident that there are numerous other “non-faculty” who impact student learning outside of the classroom, such as academic advisors, housing staff, tutoring centers, etc. To facilitate an inclusive environment and to attempt to impact student learning in realms outside of the classroom, a professional learning community was developed that targets professional non-faculty with the goal of developing learning activities for their student populations. Many professional staff have engaged in learning activities and developed plans for improving student learning centered on EKU’s QEP theme. Graduate Education. The original QEP was written as an undergraduate initiative. The EKU Graduate School saw the value of the QEP for graduate-level students and took it upon themselves to develop and embed six Graduate Student Learning Outcomes based on EKU’s Quality Enhancement Plan.Graduate Students are able to:Explain, discuss, and apply clearly and accurately the key concepts and central theories, and demonstrate expertise appropriate to the discipline.Formulate and express important/essential questions and issues related to the discipline with clarity and accuracy, and appropriate depth and breadth.Identify, collect, analyze, and evaluate relevant information to understand essential questions and issues and to advance knowledge in the discipline.Identify, analyze, and evaluate underlying assumptions of arguments, abstract ideas, and alternative perspectives and theories.Generate new knowledge, application, or creative expressions through the self-reflective synthesis of information, evaluation, and analysis of critical questions or issues/problems related to their municate clearly and logically using oral, written, and/or artistic forms.Focus on Creativity. Through the focus on critical and creative thinking as our QEP learning theme, a variety of activities emerged addressing the topic of “creativity” as an entity all to itself. Professional learning communities convened to explore these concepts; a minor in Creativity has been developed, in addition to a “Creativity Week” schedule of activities. New University Requirement. Effective fall 2012 an integrated critical and creative thinking experience, such as a capstone course, study abroad, or service-learning experience, is a requirement for all academic programs. This requirement gives students program-specific opportunities to integrate and apply critical/creative thinking in various situations that will help prepare them for their future careers.The QEP process has indeed invigorated our campus community, instilling a desire to improve teaching and learning on our campus and moving our culture to one that is more focused on quality and excellence. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download