Post on 28-Dec-2015
WHAT’S YOUR QEP?…toolbox for broad-based participation
Queens University of CharlotteProfile Located in Charlotte, North Carolina Private, co-ed, masters-level university founded in 1857 Commitment to liberal arts and professional studies Serves approximately 2,300 undergraduates Five North Carolina professors of the year 16 NCAA Division II men’s and women’s athletic teams Award winning international study and internship programs
QEP Reaffirmation in 2011 QEP process began in 2009
QEP Timeline
February 2009
March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 Summer 2009
Determine topic selection strategies with team #1
Gather topic ideas from the entire community
Collect feedback; hold community discussions to narrow topic choices
Announce three topic choices; assemble faculty team #2 to write white papers
Faculty team writes white papers
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
2010
Present white papers; arrange community discussions
Advance papers through necessary committees and councils
Collect and organize campus-wide input
Announce topic; generate enthusiasm
Guide team #3: Implementation
Guiding Questions
How can we encourage the entire community to participate?
How can we generate enthusiasm for topic selection?
How can we accomplish these goals using our resources wisely?
COMMUNITCOMMUNITYY
Timeline for Campus-wide input
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5
Brainstorming & Outreach
Brainstorming & Outreach
Narrowing Narrowing Narrowing
Set ballot boxes Ice Cream Stations
Conduct focus groups
Gather and condense ideas
Use rubric to narrow to 3 topics
Recruit student orgs Encourage online discussions
Lunchroom Blitz
Survey to rank ideas
Announce topics in Week 6
Set up Intranet site
Student Involvement
Ask the right questions. Meet students where they live, work,
and play. Make use of high traffic areas where
students normally congregate. Recruit student organizations to help. Encourage peer-to-peer communication. Feed them.
Idea Ballot boxes were spread around campus, so students could submit ideas wherever they gather: Center for Academic Success, dining
room, residence halls, etc.
Lunchroom Blitz
Colorful bags, QEP descriptions, conversation prompts, and ballots to offer ideas were pre-arranged on each table. For 3 days students discussed and submitted their ideas while dining.
Lunchroom Blitz
Student and staff volunteers approached students in the dining room to stimulate conversation and to encourage idea submissions.
Eating lunch. Offering ideas.
North Carolina Teaching Fellows discussing the QEP.
Ice Cream For Your Thoughts
One day during the lunch and dinner hours, we set up a student-run ice cream station in a high traffic area.
Students received a free ice cream cone for offering a QEP topic idea.
Student Organizations
Recruiting the help of student organizations promotes peer-to-peer communication, generates ownership and energy, and is FREE!
The Latin American Club hosts “A cookie for your thoughts” in the student center.
Faculty & Staff Involvement
Divide work among three committees to prevent burnout and ensure maximum participation.
Invite a cross-section of faculty and staff to serve on committees.
Use technology: intranet & survey tools. Keep it low-tech too; develop opportunities
for face-to-face discussions. Communicate widely. Work with Faculty Council and the Center
for Excellence in Teaching & Learning. Feed them.
Generating Topic Ideas: Committee #1
Director of Career & Internship Services Vice President of Enrollment Management University Librarian Associate Professor, Nursing Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies Director of Athletics Dean of Students Associate Professor, Psychology Associate Professor, Education Director of Academic Advising Associate Professor, Communication Associate Professor, Business 5 student representatives
Use Technology
Reserving a space through the university’s intranet system allows a space for vibrant discussion, a one-stop shop for relevant information, and a timeline.
Setting up a QEP “class” in Blackboard or Moodle could be a good alternative for schools without an intranet.
Use Technology
Electronic survey tools are available through intranet systems, course management platforms, or via the web (e.g. www.surveymonkey.com). Electronic surveys are useful for instantaneous data, point of contact response, and easy to use interfaces.
Faculty, staff, and students were invited to thoughtfully discuss possible QEP topics.
Discussion Groups
Next, faculty and staff were invited to a reception to discuss the completed white papers and to offer feedback about which topic generated the most enthusiasm.
Discussion Groups
Administration & Board of Trustees President’s Council Executive Council Dean’s Council Academics Committee of the Board of
Trustees
What’s Our QEP?
White Paper Topics
Student-faculty InteractionWe would create an intentional structure for different types of academic collaboration between faculty and students, perhaps emphasizing research opportunities but also potentially including advising and mentoring.
Sustainability in a Global ContextWe would think critically about the stewardship role of the U.S. and other countries in the world and our duty to create a sustainable global environment, encouraging the campus community to “act locally but think globally.”
Diversity and Civic EngagementWe would frame diversity so that it is not thought of as a problem to be solved but as an opportunity to explore the creative tension that diverse backgrounds and cultures can bring, emphasizing the power of action and communication to build community and make positive change happen.
Smart Moves
Avoided competition; vote language. Made it fun and relaxed. Very affordable; virtually no money. No burnout – the work was spread over three
committees, which had the benefit of getting more people involved.
Faculty led discussion during administrative meetings.
Kept it focused on student learning. Invited students to participate in decision-
making.
Less Smart Moves
Should have been more clear about final decision making process
Could have allowed more time for white papers; for the authors it seemed to feel like a “hurry up and wait” situation.
First student “ballot” was more complicated than it needed to be.
Should have had a focus group for staff only.