Quality Enhancement Planning (QEP)
Committee Meeting
August 4, 2005
The selected QEP committee met in the Appalachian conference room at 2:00 pm Thursday August 4th, 2005. The committee was combined to discuss the elements that contribute to student success and ways to improve student success averages in upcoming semesters.
The following members were present:
Robin Haggerty
Peggy Conklin
David Clutts
Chuck Sturgill
Wheeler Conover
Millard Robbins
Odell Wilson
Robin Haggerty called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. The following items were discussed:
The first order of business was for the committee to schedule regular meeting times, twice a month, through November 2005.
The topic of discussion involved ways to improve the success rate of students enrolled in developmental courses. Focusing specifically on students enrolled in developmental mathematics. It has been determined that the lack of skills in this area is a major contributing factor for student failure. The committee purposed to define ways the student can contribute to their success and also ways the instructor can contribute to the student’s success.
Robin Haggerty then addressed the committee with the questions “What defines student success” and “What contributes to student success”. After a thorough discussion it was determined that many factors are involved in student performance such as, instructors holding regular class meetings, attendance, ability, attitude toward learning, study skills, and engaging students in the use of supplemental materials. It was agreed that the most essential key factor to student success is regular attendance. Many social-economic issues such as, affordability, lack of reliable transportation, lack of reliable childcare, and other personal problems that prevent a student from regular attendance can therefore determine whether a student will succeed in the classroom.
Robin Haggerty also proposed classroom assessment techniques (instant assessment) that students from other systems have responded well to. This technique allows the instructor to assess the student’s progress at any time during the course of the semester. Also technology such as, the PLATO program has played a significant part in the success of students.
The discussion turned to the significance of data in determining where the college is, as a whole, concerning developmental math student success rates. The questions addressed were how to determine what areas of success we want to pursue, where we are now, and where do we want to be in the future. It was suggested that a two-part questionnaire asking the students various questions concerning their attitude toward math, their study habits, why you were placed in a developmental class, etc. be given once in the first week of class and again at midterm. Other methods considered include looking at class enrollment, test scores, and how many students follow the math sequence.
Odell Wilson engaged the group in discussion about what constitutes success regarding letter grades. The question arose of whether a D average should be considered a successful grade for the criteria in the developmental classroom. The question of pass rate vs. success rate will be revisited in future meetings.
The misplacement of students is another factor that needs to be addressed in the decision making process of placing developmental students. Inappropriate test scores and inappropriate course work may lead to students enrolling in MA 109 prematurely.
Other suggestions focusing on improving the success rate of developmental students consist of having a retest policy, developing a Developmental Studies Program, improving communication between adjunct and full time faculty, improving advising, special advisors for “at risk” students, follow-up during evaluation on advising, and communicate better the importance of the Compass.
R. Haggerty continued to stress the importance of students being appropriately placed in developmental math courses. She further suggested other qualitative data such as, interviewing students that have been successful in developmental math and those who have not been successful. Also, she advised instructors to start checking rosters for students who have inappropriate test scores and developmental course work.
O. Wilson initiated a discussion concerning pre testing and post testing to determine a student’s mastery level of specific skills. He also suggested an early exit from developmental math courses for mastering certain skills as incentive for students.
In consideration of what the QEP wants to accomplish, it is agreed that one of the best practices for developmental education is to have a centralized developmental program. R. Haggerty suggested as opposed to having a formal developmental division the program would have a coordinator that would meet with the instructors on a regular basis. This would create a high level of coordination between the coordinators, instructors, advisors, and counseling services.
On some campuses, adjunct faculty teaches all of the developmental math classes; therefore the concern for adjunct/faculty relationships brought questions of how to incorporate adjunct instructors into the mainstream processes of the developmental programs. Ideas such as, developing model syllabi for adjunct faculty, providing mentors for the adjunct, providing incentives for adjuncts to participate in professional development, provide the adjunct faculty with m a model syllabi and best practices for developmental math, and should more full time faculty take developmental positions.
Discussion concerning future plans for improving advising techniques and practices include: Helping students to understand the importance of the Compass, the need to take developmental math courses, the importance of attendance, to put in place an effective early warning system for students, a People Soft block for enrollment, improving advisor training, special advisors for “at risk” students, advisor overloads, and follow-up evaluations.
Another concern facing advisors is how to effectively communicate to a failing student the need to drop a particular class. Counseling services should also be available to students affected by social problems such as, divorce, abuse, and child care issues. It was suggested, as a project, to recommend childcare facilities for each campus.
Future issues to be addressed by the math /faculty department consist of: competencies for each math course, departmental model syllabi, pre-test and exit tests, workshops about learning styles, investigating “best practices”, communication between math department and adjunct faculty, supplemental instructions, early exit options, improving tutoring services, and requesting instructors to maintain regular attendance records for data collection purposes.
For the next meeting R. Haggerty asked Peggy Conklin to contact 3 schools for information about their placement testing policies. Also, Millard Robbins and Chuck Sturgill were asked to report on “best practices” in academic advising. The committee will also begin thinking about choosing a lead evaluator for assessing the issues and strategies that are the focus for the QEP process. They were each asked to write a paragraph explaining why they feel that a particular person would be a good candidate for lead evaluator.
The next meeting is scheduled for August 12, 2005.
Dr. Odell Wilson made the 1st motion to adjourn Dr Wheeler Conover made the 2nd motion. With no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Recorded by Denise Haynes