COVID-19 Information

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

November 2, 2007

November 2, 2007

AQIP Steering Committee Meeting - UC Board Room

In Attendance: R. Althaus, L. Fluegge, G. Gasser, A. Gathman, C. Frazier, D. Holt, C. Kaufman, D. Probst, W. Skinner, D. Starrett, and S. Swartwout

Absent: J. Stephens, A. Vandeven

Recorder: Christie Renner

D. Holt introduced Warren Skinner, Assistant Director for Career Linkages. He replaces Misty Clifton, who resigned from the University, as a representative for Professional Staff Council.

Update on Action Project Teams

A. Gathman gave an update on the Action Project Team for communication. The team is gathering information – determining what communication there is and how to collect it. Warren Skinner will serve as one of the liaisons from the steering committee for this action project, replacing Misty Clifton.

The Action Project Team for University of 1st Choice is in progress.

D. Holt submitted the updates on each action project to AQIP in September. These updates will be posted on the AQIP website.

Update on Revising the Strategic Plan

D. Holt gave an update on the President’s plans for revising the strategic plan. The outside consultant with Association of Governing Boards (AGB) will meet with the Board of Regents at their retreat scheduled for November 30 & December 1. He will return to campus in January or February to start the plans for revising the strategic plan. The steering committee will be involved in the planning meetings and what approach to take. The Planning Committee’s charge has not been determined.

Systems Portfolio Analysis

Discussion was held on the next steps for completing the Systems Portfolio. The committee needs to review the brainstorming notes and identify other departments/individuals that should be contacted for more information. The portfolio is due May 2010.

A question was raised as to what format should be used to submit the Systems Portfolio – electronic or PDF file. After discussing the pros and cons, the committee unanimously agreed that the Systems Portfolio should be submitted in the traditional format – PDF file.

Review of Brainstorming Notes

The committee reviewed the brainstorming notes for the process questions in the Systems Portfolio. Included in the minutes are the brainstorming notes from previous meetings. Comments from today’s review of the notes are bulleted with “Ø” and highlighted in blue. While reviewing the brainstorming notes, the committee also identified some opportunities that possibly could be corrected in a short time. Comments were also made that every question may not have an answer. The following comments were made:

Category 1 - Helping Students Learn Processes Questions

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
    • Get description of process
    • - General Education (US Council)
    • - departmental
    • University Assessment Committee will work on accreditation

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
    • Opportunity – no tie-in with institutional review and academic development
    • Opportunity – for academic programs
    • Talked about student learning (facilitate) and effective pedagogy??
    • Look at needs and respond
    • Don’t have institution impetus ??
    • All programs have five-year review. How are we responding to student learning?
    • University Assessment Committee could ask departments to note specific instances where department has done something to facilitate student learning
    • Make sure analysis of programming needs is implemented into the Strategic Plan
    • Incorporate into strategic planning
    • Discussed how new programs are created – starts with faculty/department, sometimes approached by other colleges, goes into a template
    • No significant opportunities identified

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
    • Banner can check prerequisites if departments want
    • Where does state guidelines fit in here?
    • Identifying markers for at-risk students - AEP Program (important strength)
    • No significant opportunity
    • Writing committee can write description

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
    • Communication to current students is poor
    • Take this question to Action Project Team on communication
    • SB389 is part of this
    • Some departments have handbooks
    • Opportunity – Better communication to students
    • No standard across campus
    • Problems with access

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
    • Career Linkages huge strength
    • Remedial program – strength
    • Career advisors working with academic advisors

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
    • Learning – go to Assessment reports
    • NESE
    • PRAXIS
    • Assessment Program (learning)
    • Student performance date – check with departments regarding number of students that go on to med school, etc.

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
    • Other portfolios talk about scheduling (most go with efficient)
    • Student ratio
    • Relates to off-campus, Southeast PM, Southeast Online
    • When faculty leave, what happens to their courses?
    • How to anticipate student needs
    • Schedules do not match student needs
    • Not all departments post when classes are offered
    • Need student roadmaps – area of improvement (opportunity)

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.
  • Strength
  • Not sure on currency in non-accredited departments ??
  • Opportunity – need to add to program review – currency curriculum
The committee will start with 1P9 at the next meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, December 7, at 2:00 pm, in the UC Board Room.


One University Plaza, MS 4600
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701