Southeast Missouri State University

March 29, 2006

AQIP Meeting - UC Indian Room

In Attendance: Co-Chairs Dennis Holt and Jane Stephens, Rick Althaus, Jim Ermatinger, Allen Gathman, Adam Hanna, Crystal Kaufman, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett, and Susan Swartwout

Absent: Chris Frazier and Dane Huxel

Recorder: Christie Renner

Examiner Feedback Report Update

D. Holt stated that there was a fantastic response rate from the campus community who participated in the survey.

A correction should be made to the minutes from the 3/17/06 meeting. In the paragraph under the Examiner Update heading, the last sentence should be corrected to say “The report includes comparative data.” However, discussion was held on the validity of the comparative data on page 4 of the AQIP Examiner Feedback Report after it was noticed that the respondent percentages for the different characteristics didn’t add up to 100%. Contact will be made with the Higher Learning Commission (Chuck Dull or Steve Spangehl) to clarify.

General thoughts were shared about the feedback report. Comments are summarized below:

  • Administrators are more upbeat
  • Instructional needs - faculty rated low
  • Southeast results are very similar to other organizations
  • Internal communication is low
  • Disjunction between numerical results and comments

- Discussion was held on exactly how many respondents made comments.

D. Holt stated that Frank Adams, the external consultant, can be contacted and invited to visit campus.

D. Holt stated two major items that can come from the Examiner results:

  • Identify area of action(s)
  • Are we prepared to be AQIP school? There is strong evidence that we are.

Provost Stephens pointed out that 43.2% of Southeast faculty responded. 43% of all Southeast respondents have been employed for 10 years or more. 89.9% of all respondents are full-time. These are higher percentages than the other organizations. (*Note – clarifying the “other organizations” listed percentages.)

Discussion was held on how to evaluate the results of the Examiner. The committee agreed that the focus should be on the internal differences in views. A comment was made that sometimes responses reflect the time period of the survey. (There could be a positive or negative event(s) that impacts responses.) But, overall the committee should accept the results as is.

The following comments were made during the discussion of coming to conclusions from the report:

  • Communication appears to be an issue.
  • “Define good teaching” has a lower mean than other organizations (page 19)

(The Provost made a reference to discussions of IDEA being a good instrument.)

  • Motivation and morale appear to be an issue.
  • Professional development has a strong score.

D. Holt suggested identifying the top 10 and bottom 10 criterions and he would prepare a non-evaluative summary. The summary will be sent to the committee for consideration.

The Examiner Feedback Report should be posted for campus viewing.

Review of Revised Draft Questions 6, 7, & 8

The writing subcommittee will bring back changes at the next meeting.

Provost Stephens spoke to D. Holt about the discussion at the last meeting concerning the Assessment Review Committee’s involvement in the Action Project development process. They both agree that the University Assessment Review Committee can serve as a consulting body. The AQIP Steering Committee can make the recommendation if the Action Project should be sent to the UAR Committee for feedback. The UAR Committee should not serve the role of choosing Action Projects.

Review of Draft Question 1 Criteria 1 & 2

The writing subcommittee will bring back changes at the next meeting.

Provost Stephens added that on page 2, last paragraph, the words financial exigency should be bolded in the first sentence. An additional sentence should follow stating, “A policy regarding a financial exigency is defined in the faculty handbook and states that a vote will be taken by Faculty Senate before the President or the Board can declare such a state exists.”

Next Meeting

Many members of the committee will be attending the Higher Learning Commission annual meeting March 31 – April 4. An e-mail will be sent to the committee confirming the next meeting time.

APPLY VISIT DONATE