Sunday, 12 August 2007.

Today we submit a draft version of our Compliance Certification Reports for review by a group of officials at The Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.  The submission consists of a memo detailing instructions for navigating the documents, a single 3 MB file that is a .pdf version of our entire certification report (including all the principles and responses), and, possibly today or tomorrow, a submission about our QEP (the review exercise).

Putting this together has been an interesting experience.  People have suddenly gone into high gear to identify the problems that “must be fixed.”  Let’s see:  All those document descriptions that we list with each report (or response to each principle or standard) needed to be reviewed for misspelled words.  Hmmm.  Then some of those descriptions didn’t make any sense.  (HB254 removal?  Uh, no.  That’s HB 254, legislation that removes a restriction on UT Dallas’s student population.  Oh, yes, that.)

Serenity has done yeoman’s service here - editing and re-editing until her eyes seemed permanently glazed over.  Simon turned out new tools and software at rapid pace, breaking even his own land-speed record.  Metta worked into the night to prepare a usable document.  Robert found that there are limits which even he cannot escape in life.  JoyLynn, Rhonda, and  (Mr. QEP himself) John worked and worked to finalize responses to the “review exercise.”  Ben has developed fat fingers from all the last-minute data entry work.  Mona has struggled to keep the rest of us sane while managing to keep her own projects on a steady path.  Abby’s been rewriting text on a couple of major areas.  Hey!  It’s been a rough week!
Alas, we’re about to press the “send” button and ship this stuff off into the ether that is the internet.

Good grief! There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but the tunnel still seems awfully long from my vantage point.

It’s all hands on deck for reviewing narratives and editing narratives and supporting documents. Summer syllabi are still hovering around 90% - but 2nd session has just recently begun for summer, so it’s not as bad as it might seem on the surface. (Hey, some of the fall syllabi are already in - like 4% or so!) Ben and Justin (our wonderful grad students) are tagging documents for the dox library and for the reports. Dianne is still pulling transcripts for grad students. Org charts. TA Orientation. Faculty orientation. Sheesh.

AT6 was opened for FY08 within the last few days. That’s a good thing (and a bad thing). It means folks who are already seriously planning FY08 can proceed while some folks are still trying to finalize their reports for FY07 with analysis of data and evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in outcomes.

We canned the mock review (happy happy, joy joy); that means we just keep writing and editing and cleaning and scrubbing and ….

Oh yes, that SACS QEP thing is the 22nd through 25th. Sibert, Kane, Metcalf, Montgomery, and Coleman.  Wow, what a group!  Sibert leads the QEP.  Kane is our tech guru who keeps building programs that keep everyone moving along at a clip.  Metcalf will shift some duties to include supporting QEP.  Montgomery is currently involved in the UTeach initiative, and there are some interesting potential tie-ins with the QEP, and Coleman remains out guy with the data that helped get us where we are in QEP planning.

And now it’s kinda official:  We’re doing some kind of review with our SACS rep from Atlanta on 14 August!  (Gotta look at that principle list again to see if I’m missing something.)

The 20 June Executive Committee meeting gave folks a chance to talk about their own progress on each of their various (and myriad) projects.  The gist:  tagging documents, collecting summer syllabi, wrapping up assessment processes for a cycle, AT6, retreats are over (!!!), and corrupted documents.  Whew!

We’re still hoping to hold a mock review in July, but the deadlines are close and we may not be as ready as we’d like.  We’ve targeted 16 and 17 July with five reviewers.

JoyLynn Reed reviewed her ideas about needed improvements in the next assessment cycle. [Hey, we've been doing assessment stuff for years, but trying to broaden the participation base hasn't exactly been a cake walk.  (And for those of you too young to know what a cake walk is, ask someone with grey hair.)]  It’s clear our focus has to shift slightly so that we’re really talking more about improvement rather than accountability.  Some folks are completely turned off by anything that sounds like “No Child Left Behind.”  Everyone’s more engaged with improvement (at least, that’s the way it seems today).  John Sibert added that we need to consider more emphasis on curricular alignment so as to tighten some of the “maps” in some disciplines.

Document security arose again.  What about Academic Program Review documents?  What about the President’s response to the review team?  It seems the answer is much as you might expect:  Some of it is “classified” and some of it isn’t.  (Hey, those CV’s are in there again.)

GEMS!  (No, not the little do-nuts.)  Gateways to Excellence in Mathematic and Science.  Catchy, huh?  The QEP Council continues to meet twice weekly.  Current “plans” will be presented to the President and Provost shortly.

Hey, we’re making headway here.

Yes, the QEP team continues to move forward, with meetings and more meetings.  More importantly, however, the team has narrowed its focus to look at gateway courses–and some very specific gateway courses, at that.

The discussion continues to revolve around one central theme:  Improving student achievement, specifically in the gateway courses, so as to improve student success, student retention, and student persistence to graduation.  (Sounds like that’s exactly what the QEP is supposed to do to me.)

Even better, we have lots (and I do mean LOTS) of data that show how students have been doing in math and science courses, in particular, and what impact prior enrollment, high school coursework, and classroom particulars can have.  For example, Undergraduate Education has now run a couple of cycles of comparing “You WILL be held accountable for your attendance” and “We’ll be checking attendance” in classes.  You know what?  If students come to class regularly, they perform better.  (Who’d have thought?)

Dr. Sibert has been working on the research end of this project and has looked at several potential angles to play in the QEP proposal.  He’ll be attending the upcoming QEP conference in Kentucky in July and should be able to nail it down for a “final” proposal in mid-August.

Cool.

Good grief! Who’d have thought this would be so difficult?

With faculty, you show a degree in the area, you have a good idea the person can teach the material. Better still, the person has research, publications, and presentations that back up a claim of expertise…Snap! You have a qualified faculty member!

Okay, now you look at an–for example–accounting clerk. Degree required? Probably not, but would be nice. Experience required? Probably, but how much? Do you look at past personnel evaluations? Not me. So, do we “credential” an accounting clerk? Nope. We don’t. At least not for this review. We chose to “credential” directors and above - and people whose jobs require some kind of special certification. Whew!

Uh, so what about the person who is a programmer or analyst or technical support staffer? Degree? Maybe? Experience? Yes. Where do you draw the line?

We’ve moved toward using the documents (transcripts, certificates, etc.) when they are appropriate, but we also include some discussion on a lot of the folks - mostly to show that we actually looked at these folks enough to realize we like their work and believe they’re doing a good job.

Just to give you a really personal example…look at my record. Assistant Provost. Hmmm. No PhD. Problem? Not if the job doesn’t require it. The experience? Not a problem. I’ve been there, done that, so many times, I earned the title Generalist (and fire-fighter, mr. fixit, and hey, you!).

The bottom line: We just didn’t find anyone who wasn’t qualified to do the job s/he is doing. Could some of US improve our qualifications? Certainly. (But do you honestly think I’m going back to school at 55 to get a doctorate? Dream on.)

It seems we continue to visit this topic from time to time.  We have to ask ourselves, “If that were my file, would I want it secured or open to the world?”  My view is generally conservative; I like personal information to be locked down as much as possible.

For example, a CV is a relatively public document.  Faculty members use them to apply for jobs, to support a request for promotion, etc.  If, however, I see an address or the family members’ names, I want to lock it down.  Sure, you can find a faculty member’s home address; it’s not impossible.  Even so, I’d rather err on the side of caution in such a case.

Transcripts?  Easy.  Lock ‘em down.  Too many of us have the old kind of transcript–you know, where the social security number is visible.  Hated that!  Lock ‘em down!

The other stuff is all up for discussion.  A budget document without names and salaries?  Public.  A budget document with SSN’s?  Behind the firewall and a password.  Course evaluations?  Public.  Supervisor’s evaluation of an employee?  Private.

Hey, you want more?  Go file a Freedom of Information request.

The meeting began with a round of progress reports.

SAK noted he’s preparing for the migration from Assessment Tool 4 (AT4) to AT 6.  He identified a problem with a lack of historical netid files and will pursue this issue further for the ISO.

The group noted the redundancy in some of the principles’ responses and suggested alternatives for handling cross-references among the documents.  Serenity will handle on a case-by-case basis in editing.

Another principle “retreat” is scheduled for 10 May from 9 to 5 in ECCS 3503.  Included will be Student Affairs, Undergraduate and Graduate Education, and some historical view of policy and procedure.  Invited are Donna Rogers, Sue Sherbet, Michael Coleman, Austin Cunningham, Wanda Trotta, Lawrence Redlinger, Murray Leaf, Priscilla Beadle, John Wiorkowski, John Ferraris, and the team.

Dr. Reed discussed a handout on “improving progress assessment processes.”

Random bits included tagging documents in the dox library, smart-tags for the CCR documents, and the search tool for AT6.

Progress Reports

1. Ms. King reported that there are 175 support documents waiting to be tagged. She reported on the status of the narratives for the Compliance Certification Report (CCR).
2. Ms. Metcalf reported that she has received 91% of the syllabi. The last round of emails went out and syllabi are coming in. She also reported on the Credential Tool: All files are in and entered. This week she has primarily been working on subsequent steps which involve clean up and refinement of the file for the next phases. She has also been assisting with dox duties. Ms. Metcalf reported that she met with Simon and Dr. Buhrmester regarding options for document storage.
3. Dr. Coleman reported that he has turned in his material.
4. Mr. Huckaba continues reviewing documents.
5. Ms. Griffith is completing work on her Access database.
6. Ms. Alsobrook reported that she has been checking documents for credentials, cleaning up documents and helping Mr. Gaddis re-tag documents with the correct tag information. She has been checking the credential tool and sending e-mails to those who has not submit their documents. She met with Aaron Simpson and Mary Dziorny regarding the e-learning website to discuss the work that is being done. She is checking the Assessment Tool 6 (AT6) daily and so far not many people have started their plans. She has sent the AT6 link to people who have to write their assessment. Most of her time has been spent working with the distance learning website. She has spent a lot of time doing research in preparation for writing the distance learning report for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) (locating the policy, supporting documents, etc) and doing the actual writing of the report
7. Mr. Gaddis has continued to tag credential material as needed. He also converted to .pdf and tagged supporting documents for u209, u337, u338, u339, u325, u326, u328, and u329.
8. Dr. Reed attended the American Education Research Association (AERA) conference from Wed through Friday in Chicago. She was on the program as an author of a paper on online learning: Exploring Computer-Mediated Discussion With Different Theoretical Lenses: What Can Be Learned From a Complex, Adaptive Systems Perspective? She continues work on program assessment and has developed a method of charting progression. She contacted most of her program heads and conducted a core course assessment workshop for Dr. Elliot. Through the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) she has responded to department heads about faculty client reports.
9. Dr. Bernardin attended the SACS Steering Committee meeting last Wednesday. He spoke with Bob Glosser and Xinchou Lou from the Physics Department to relay Dr. Nelsen’s answer to their question about the budget in their annual reports. He made additions to his section of (U320) of the CCR. He reports using AT6 to view the latest 2007 Program Plan inputs. There is not a lot of activity happening yet. He has modified the Program Plan permissions of Joanne Owens, Cy Cantrell, Sandi Wilson and Mary Chaffin in AT6. He has learned to “APE” users in AT6. This is very useful if you want to see an individual’s current permissions in AT6.
10. Mr. Kane reported the AT6 is flowing along. He will meet with our team of reviewers to discuss the functions.

Summer Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Conference

The Summer QEP Conference will take place July 22-25, 2007 and will be held in Louisville. There was discussion of who will attend. Dr. Nelsen, Dr. Sibert, Ms. Metcalf, Dr. Coleman and Mr. Kane will attend. Mr. Huckaba may also attend.

QEP Committee

Dr. Sibert discussed the formation of the QEP Committee. The committee will represent all schools across our campus. This will be a dynamic group open to new ideas. Committee members from the UTD Faculty, Staff, Administration and Student Body were proposed for discussion.

Program Assessments and May 30 deadline

The committee discussed the approaching deadline for program assessments. Dr. Reed and Dr. Bernardin continue to meet with several school and programs.

July 16-18 Viability

The committee discussed the upcoming mock review. There was a discussion regarding the amount of documents that have been received and a discussion of what should be ready by the date of the mock review. The committee then discussed having a group review process, a group discussion of where does the document exist, what is missing, and locating the information. Mr. Huckaba suggested having the key players come together to review what is needed and the location of the needed information, a sort of mini retreat .A list of names was created of those to invite to this “mini retreat”.

Program Objectives and Progression

Dr. Nelsen discussed the checklist Dr. Reed has created to show progression of the program objectives. The checklist will be handed out at the Dean’s Caucus meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 19th.

Program Objectives on the Web

There was a discussion of the program objectives on the web. These objectives are what will be assessed in the next assessment cycle. The Graduate Dean and the Undergraduate Dean are owners of the web page.

…Julie Allen

Executive Committee Meeting - 7 March 2007

Liaison Nelsen indicated we needed to focus on the bottlenecks and try to find ways to break through. Serenity talked about the documents for certification reports (CCR’s). Pete discussed program assessment progress. Mont talked about the credentialing tool master file. Abby mentioned trying to finalize faculty credentials with General Studies. Metta talked about her work on credentials for support service teams. JoyLynn mentioned ongoing work with EPPS and AH. Diane mentioned finalizing a list of graduate TA’s who needed documents for credentialing as faculty. Simon continues to work on the new assessment tool. The remainder of the meeting included a review of the calendar and deadlines that need adjustment.

The group gathered again this morning. Topics included:

1. Staff Credentials: What degrees and/or certificates are required for the different staff positions? Group agreed that using the job description(s) and job announcement(s) would provide the best guidelines. For Follow-up: What process (and who gets involved) in keeping staff credentials current? Need to discuss with HRM.
2. Assessment Tool: Clearly the current subscription tool is not meeting our specific needs. We’re able to use it, but we’re having to make decisions based on functionality rather than true assessment need and protocol. SAK will modify new tool alpha for further testing and development. We’ll need to clean up data during transition between tools.
3. AT rollout: Potentially 3rd week of March for full bang-on-it testing. User access 26 March?
4. Core Curriculum Assessment: Discussion re: how to handle sections not assessed in a timely manner.
5. System Course Re-Design: Sibert provided update on meeting.