QEP Meeting Minutes

September 23, 2005

Members Present:

Robin Haggerty, Chair 

Rick Mason

Wheeler Conover                     Peggy Conklin

David Clutts                             Joann Martin

Chuck Sturgill                           Millard Robbins

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes from both the August 26 and September 9 meetings were approved with minimal changes. QEB will be changed to QEP for Aug. 26 and for September 9, it was noted that all meetings would be via ITV until November.

David Clutts presented his adjunct faculty survey and letter to adjunct faculty.  Haggerty mentioned that in terms of professional development KADE (Kentucky Association of Developmental Educators) would be an excellent resource because membership ($10 per year) for adjunct faculty is very affordable.  Conover noted that professional development should be able to cover those funds.  Haggerty will follow up with Susan Croushorn about the Presley Fund and/or professional development funds and whether they are open to adjunct faculty.

Millard Robbins and Chuck Sturgill then presented material in regard to best practices in advising.  Sturgill began by recommending a Faculty Advising Handbook.  Haggerty noted that it might be easier to keep up with changes through a Faculty Advising Web-page and save a few trees in the process. 

Robbins continued with the findings from his surveys regarding advising.  The questions he sent out to Gateway, LCC (Bluegrass), Owensboro, and Walters State include the following:  1) How is advisor training accomplished?  2) Do developmental students have special advisors? 3) Are advisors limited in the number of advisees they can see?  4) Do you use PeopleSoft to block inappropriate enrollment?  All of the schools required various forms of advisor training, only one (the largest) had special advisors for developmental students, and all were using or planning on using PeopleSoft (or in WS’s case an internal system called SIS) to block inappropriate enrollment.  Most schools also had some limit set on the number of advisees an advisor can see.

Robbins suggested the committee develop or find an instrument to survey students about their advising experiences.  He also noted that he had contacted Bowling Green, Henderson and Big Sandy, none of whom had special advisors for developmental students.

Debate within the committee ran between suggesting Southeast have special advisors for at risk students or simply providing more training for all advisors.  Mason noted that it could be argued all of Southeast’s students are “at risk” in one way or another. Conover pointed out that advisors for students who test into developmental classes had already been identified on all campuses.  Haggerty asked Chuck Sturgill to follow up with Cookie Baker about getting those names. 

Peggy Conklin updated the committee in regards to the challenge exam given by Walter’s State.  The coordinator at WS had asked the math faculty to share one of the departmental exams, but the faculty declined to share a test.  However, they did agree to list the competencies sought and Peggy will follow up with that next week. 

The challenge exam update prompted Haggerty to note that she was working on an overall measure of student learning for developmental math students.  Her preliminary plan is to use Asset, not the computerized COMPASS.  This plan took committee discussion in the direction of the need for more advising/control over the circumstances under which incoming freshmen students take the COMPASS.  It was noted that students need to review, math in particular, before taking the exam.  Many students are likely testing into MT 055 because they simply haven’t had a review in a while.  Haggerty noted that the committee could set up an experiment which required students not take the COMPASS on the day they fill out forms for admission to see if students, given the opportunity to review, would test into more advanced levels of math.  Conover pointed out that other schools, in particular Southwest Virginia, already require students sign up to take the placement test and that we could check their results.   Haggerty agreed to look into that issue.

Rick Mason presented the tutor contact charts from January 2003-August 2005.  The question was raised whether we should mandate tutoring.  Conover noted he would have difficulty mandating tutoring but there was a developmental level course that should provide the support students need.  Clutts agreed to find out what the course is and report it to Haggerty.  Conover also shared with the committee a solution to the tutoring issue that had been presented to him by Ruby Sparkman.  Sparkman suggested that tutors go to the classes.  Although several issues/potential problems such as small numbers of tutors and what faculty response might be could pose difficulties, Joann Martin, who has agreed to take on the tutoring issue, said she would look into that possible corrective strategy. 

Haggerty asked if there were any problems collecting the student surveys.  Clutts indicated that Wilson had taken care of surveying the courses and that Haggerty should contact Wilson on Monday for that update.  Conklin noted that she had mailed the surveys from Whitesburg.  Haggerty said she had received them, but there was nothing marking which class was which.  Conklin and Haggerty agreed to get in touch later next week to clear up the slight mishap.  Sturgill had already emailed his survey results. 

Haggerty reminded everyone to review Wilson’s pilot project suggestions for the next meeting.  She also stated she would have the results of the student surveys and a “big picture” of where the QEP was heading for the next meeting.

The meeting was dismissed.