COVID-19 Information

See the latest updates and information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic at

February 3, 2006

February 3, 2006

AQIP Steering Committee Meeting - UC Riverboat Room

In Attendance: Co-Chair Dennis Holt, Jim Ermatinger, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Adam Hanna, Dane Huxel, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett and Susan Swartwout

Absent: Rick Althaus, Crystal Kaufman, Carolyn Rainey, and Jane Stephens

Recorder: Christie Renner

Handouts were e-mailed prior to meeting: agenda, Writing Schedule – AQIP Application, AQIP Application: Strategy for Question 1, AQIP Examiner Order Form

Minutes: A. Gathman moved to approve the 1/27/06 meeting minutes. A. Hanna and D. Huxel seconded and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Examiner Application

Discussion was held on the Examiner application. The committee agreed to make the Examiner available to all faculty and staff starting February 13 and ending February 27. All employee groups will be asked to complete the AQIP Examiner, including part-time and temporary employees. Employees will receive an e-mail describing the purpose of the Examiner and highly encourage employees to fill out the survey. The URL to the website will be posted in the e-mail. Communication will also be sent out in other forms (e.g., Newswire). The application will be faxed this afternoon.

Writing Schedule

C. Frazier received a copy of the report addressing the team’s concerns from the last accreditation. The University’s official response to those concerns is posted on the Provost website.

Writing Strategy – Question 1

C. Frazier suggested using bullets to address Question 1 instead of listing several connected pros. (See handout.)

Brainstorming Questions 3-5

Question 3.a.: Why does your institution wish to participate in AQIP?

D. Holt stated that the committee should have a common understanding of the quality improvement process.

Key characteristics that make AQIP preferable:

  • Concentrate building on what we’ve done – strengths and moving forward
  • Practice what is already in place
  • Proactive instead of reactive
  • Ongoing with constant feedback

What specifics are already in place?

  • Assessment
  • Annual program review
  • Department review

How does it relate to the strategic planning process at the University or do we have one?

  • Room for improvement for current strategic planning process
  • Revitalize current strategic planning process
  • Invigorate current strategic planning process

(Need to reference a year ago approved revised mission statement)

3.b.: What benefits do you hope to gain as a consequence of participating?

  • Wiser use
  • Requires at least one focus on student learning
  • Allows continuation of current projects and highlighting them instead of bringing them to a halt and working on a different accreditation process
  • Stronger awareness across campus
  • Good match to University’s strategic planning process, creates more awareness and oversight to that process

Question 4.a.:Since broad understanding of, support for, and commitment to a continuous improvement approach and AQIP are essential for their success, what is the current level and extent of these elements in your organization?

In Fall 2005, meetings were held with the following campus groups to discuss the AQIP accreditation process. Provost Stephens, D. Holt, D. Starrett and C. Frazier were present as a group or individually represented the group at these meetings.

October 5, 2005 Dean’s Council
October 10, 2005 Executive Staff
October 10, 2005 Chairperson’s Forum
Fall 2005 Administrative Council
November 2, 2005 Student Development
November 2, 2005 Faculty Senate
November 8, 2005 College of Business
November 9, 2005 College of Science and Mathematics
November 10, 2005 Kent Library
November 15, 2005 CTS Council
November 16, 2005 General Education
November 17, 2005 College of Education
November 18, 2005 College of Liberal Arts
November 21, 2005 Professional Staff Council
November 29, 2005 College of Health & Human Services
November 30, 2005 School of Polytechnic Studies

Participation in the Examiner will also bring awareness to faculty and staff.

4.b.: What is the evidence that key groups in your organization (e.g., Board, CEO, senior leaders, faculty, and staff) understand the nature of continuous improvement efforts and the demands of AQIP?

  • Most groups on campus are involved in continuous improvements annually
  • Assessment process
  • Department key performance indicators
  • FFR - Funding For Results
  • Departmental review process
  • Program review process (need to clarify with Provost Stephens)
  • Institutionalized model identifying measurable goals

Question 5.a.: What are your plans for integrating participation in AQIP in your organization’s current agenda?

The AQIP Steering Committee will have oversight during the AQIP process, looking into the current review processes and determine if they are consistent with AQIP criteria. Also, the committee will look at the function of the University Planning Committee. C. Frazier suggested the committee look at the nine questions on the Systems Portfolio and identify what the University is already doing. The committee will lead the selection of Action Projects (looking at the whole campus).

5.b.: Are there major events on the horizon (e.g., a change in leadership, a major contract negotiation, budget cuts), and how are you planning to address them or integrate them into your quality efforts?

  • Regional campuses – tremendous increase in faculty and support; how to integrate into main campus and maintain quality and access
  • Changes w/River Campus addition (known)
  • Changes w/Liberal Arts (unknown)
  • Full conversion to Banner and workflow software
  • Retention – Student Success Initiative
  • Student Government is examining ways that students can be better informed when they register for classes. They have explored the idea of making course syllabi available to students as part of the registration process so that they can know what to expect from each professor.
  • Student Government is looking into developing a teaching excellence award
  • Integrating the mascot and building school spirit
  • Student Government is using student fees to bring well-known speakers to campus
  • Campus Master Plan

The writing sub-committee will draft answers to the questions and post them to the website prior to the February 17 meeting.

A suggestion was made to reference on the application the AQIP reviewers that are on campus. The include:
Christina Frazier, Director of Assessment
Pat Ryan, Director of Institutional Research
David Starrett, Dean of General Education/Director of CSTL
Adelaide Parsons, Director of International Programs

The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, February 17, at 2:30 pm, in the UC Indian Room.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.


One University Plaza, MS 4600
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701