COVID-19 Information

See the latest updates and information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, including a list of University contact information at

May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

AQIP Steering Committee - UC Board Room

In Attendance: Co-Chair Dennis Holt, Rick Althaus, Misty Clifton, James Ermatinger, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Carolyn Rainey, David Starrett, Susan Swartwout, Alissa Davis

Absent: Co-Chair Jane Stephens, George Gasser, Crystal Kaufman

Recorder: Christie Renner

An announcement was made that Jim Ermatinger, Chairpersons’ Forum representative, will be leaving the University. Discussion was held on replacement for him on the committee. Communication will need to be made to David Probst, Moderator of the Chairpersons’ Forum. D. Holt will speak with J. Stephens.

Action Projects

Action Project – Defining Indicators of Being a University of 1st Choice and Action Project – Improving Information Distribution and Communication will be on the next Administrative Council agenda for discussion.

Systems Portfolio

The committee began discussion on the how to go about writing the Systems Portfolio. D. Holt e-mailed the committee the link to SIU-Edwardsville Systems Portfolio.

The overall context for the University’s description can be taken from part of the Strategy Forum application. There are nine categories that are part of the Systems Portfolio. Each category has four sets of questions: Context for Analysis (C); Processes (P); Results (R); and Improvement (I). The committee will first answer all the Processes (P) questions for each category. Also, the committee will brainstorm on sources of data for each category (which will help answer the Results (R) questions). Then the committee will brainstorm on the Context for Analysis (C) questions. The Improvement (I) questions will be answered last. While the committee is working on the Processes (P) questions, the group will determine if any faculty/staff should meet with the group to help brainstorm.

Category 1 - Helping Students Learn Processes Questions
Below are the comments from the committee as they brainstormed on the “processes” questions for this category.

1P1 – How do you determine your common student learning objectives as well as specific program learning objectives? Who is involved in setting these objectives?

  • Specific program – department level and University Assessment Committee
  • Some departments are driven by accreditation
  • University general – General Education objectives (currently being reviewed by a committee)
  • Describe original process and current review process

1P2 – How do you design new programs and courses to facilitate student learning? How do you balance educational market issues with student needs in designing responsive academic programming?

  • Needs analysis (market)
  • Program review (market)
  • New majors (programs) must go to CHBE for approval
  • Is anyone looking at program distribution at the University as a whole?
  • Comes from the department
  • Program Review Committee
  • ???New courses are initiated by instructors and students
  • Do not have an institutional approach – all driven by department
  • 30-day review of courses
  • Describe current process; but there is no institutional process
  • One thing to do better is a more long-term and university-wide review
  • The design of a program includes: need for program; objectives of program; curriculum for objectives
  • Make sure to use the word “design”
  • Approval process – how designed
  • But there is no tie-in with institutional review and academic development

1P3 – How do you determine the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses, and learning they will pursue?

  • English placement
  • Math placement
  • Entry-level assessment: High School courses, GPA, ACT/SAT
  • Remediation program based on need
  • Some programs have entry placement
  • Must pass certain courses to get in major (pre-requisites)
  • How do we decide what requirements to put on courses
  • D. Holt wants to see other samples of Systems Portfolios for meaning
  • Accrediting bodies
  • DESE
  • Math – Math department; English – English department
  • Who writes the course?
  • NCAA (athletes)
  • Curriculum meets the objectives
  • ???AEP

1P4 – How do you communicate expectations regarding student preparation and student learning objectives (for programs, courses, and the awarding of specific degrees or credentials) to prospective and current students? How do admissions, student support, and registration services aid in this process?

  • Catalog
  • Department web pages
  • Professional advising team charged with giving information to students
  • First Step
  • UI100
  • Southeast 101 break out sessions at the beginning of the Fall semester
  • Meet with faculty advisors

1P5 – How do you help students select programs of study that match their needs, interests and abilities? In providing this help, how are discrepancies between the necessary and actual preparation of students and their learning styles detected and addressed?

  • Career Linkages and professional advising
  • VARK (undecided majors take)
  • AEP (Academic Enhancement Program)
  • Flight program

1P6 – How do you determine and document effective teaching and learning? How are these expectations communicated across the institution?

  • 1st part of question – Promotion and tenure evidence; IDEA
  • 2nd part of question – Peer Review; classroom observation
  • inventory of evidence (how to document); evaluation, chairs, committees (determination); criteria
  • Faculty are still evaluated regardless if they go up for promotion or not
  • IDEA
  • Communicated through faculty handbook and teaching workshops
  • D. Holt wants to look at other samples of Systems Portfolio

 1P7 – How do you build an effective and efficient course delivery system? How do delivery decisions balance student and institutional needs?

  • Look at samples for meaning

1P8 – How do you monitor the currency and effectiveness of your curriculum? What process is in place for changing or discontinuing programs and courses?

  • Program Review (Phase II)
  • General Education Council
  • Departments
  • Accreditation process
  • Formal University process
  • University Assessment Committee
  • Standardized test
  • Do we have a systematic process to make sure the curriculum is current? Accreditation does that. Some programs may monitor currency. Need to add to program review – currency of curriculum. Rely on professionalism of faculty, promotion material. There is no systematic way.

1P9 – How do you determine student and faculty needs relative to learning support? How are learning support areas involved in the student learning and development process?

  • CSTL
  • Identify workshops
  • FFR
  • CSTL Teaching associates

1P10 – How are co-curricular development goals aligned with curricular learning objectives?

  • This is one of the goals for next year for the division of Administration and Enrollment Management: bringing academic goals into various student activities ( per D. Holt)
  • Student clubs and organizations build professional development and do a lot in the departments

1P11 – How do you determine the processes for student assessment?

  • University Assessment Committee
  • General Education Council

1P12 – How do you discover how well prepared students completing programs, degrees, and certificates are for further education or employment?

  • Comes out of assessment data
  • Ask all chairpersons
  • Polytech has lots of data

1P13 – What measures of student performance do you collect and analyze regularly?

  • Going through all assessment reports and making grid showing what type of assessment each department is doing (per C. Frazier)
  • IR gives departments data
  • What kind of data do departments collect? Ask departments in the fall.

Next meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 12, at 2:00 pm, in the UC Board Room.


One University Plaza, MS 4600
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701