Testing Continues Following Water Main Break; Schedule Adjustments Announced

Southeast Missouri State University

April 28, 2006

AQIP Steering Committee Meeting - UC University Room

In Attendance: Co-Chairs Jane Stephens and Dennis Holt, Rick Althaus, Jim Ermatinger, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Adam Hanna, Dane Huxel, Crystal Kaufman, Carolyn Rainey, David Starrett, and Susan Swartwout

Absent: Bruce Skinner

Recorder: Christie Renner

Handouts e-mailed prior to the meeting: Examiner Criterion Rank, Examiner Rank, draft application and 4/21/06 minutes

Minutes: A change was made to the minutes concerning the deadline date to submit the AQIP application. The deadline date is May 8.

Consultant for Examiner evaluation update

Discussion was held on when to have the consultant on campus. The consultant should work with the AQIP Steering Committee before the Strategy Forum held in late fall. D. Holt suggested Jeanie Crain as the consultant.

Application update

A draft application was e-mailed to the committee. Provost Stephens asked the committee to review the draft and submit any changes or additions to the writing subcommittee by next week. A draft copy will go to President Dobbins on Tuesday for his review.

The flowchart will be included as Appendix A.

Provost Stephens pointed out into reference of “Criterion Five”, that during the last Mission Review held two years ago, no stakeholders outside the campus participated in the review.

Examiner Results Discussion

Discussion was held on the Examiner Feedback Report Summary. Comments and major themes that were discussed include:

  • The “other” population may include community colleges and may explain why ranks 1 and 2 for “other org mean” are lower than “SEMO mean”.
  • Relatively, the rankings are close.
  • Quality improvement “pops” out at the top.
  • The last four ranks are the same for both “SEMO mean” and “other org mean”.
  • Southeast’s top three ranks center around students.
  • What is good teaching and how do you assess it?
  • Once major themes are identified from the summary, the comments need to be reviewed.
  • Strengths – assessment and collecting data
  • Weaknesses (Opportunities) – pursuing University goals, are we really following the University mission?
  • Another approach, instead of focusing on weaknesses, is identifying strengths and making them better.
  • Are annual priorities centering on the University mission? Link strategic goals to the mission of the University.
  • It was noted the largest negative difference is the item “building collaborative relationships with other educational organizations, including those that send us students and those that receive our graduates”. A comment was made that this is very important for community colleges and if the “other org” comprises of several community colleges it may explain the high mean.
  • Southeast’s mean rank regarding item “ensuring that our faculty members have the skills and resources they need to teach well” is significantly lower than other organization’s mean rank.
  • Southeast’s mean rank regarding item “determining what distinctive strategic initiatives to pursue” is significantly lower than other organization’s mean rank.
  • The committee noted Southeast’s overall mean rank on the following three items:

“aligning our distinctive strategic initiatives with our institutional mission, vision, and philosophy” – Southeast’s overall mean rank 16
“determining what distinctive strategic initiatives to pursue” – Southeast’s overall mean rank 34
“communicating the goals of our distinctive strategic initiatives to our internal and external constituencies” – Southeast’s overall mean rank 41

  • The committee noted Southeast’s overall mean rank on the following three items:

“keeping our students aware of our learning and performance objectives” – Southeast’s overall mean rank 9
“ensuring that our faculty members have the skills and resources they need to teach well” – Southeast overall mean rank 24
“defining good teaching” – Southeast’s overall mean rank 44

Discussion was held on the Examiner Feedback Report Summary broken down by employee category. Comments and major themes that were discussed include:

  • Leading and communicating are low, valuing people is low
  • A big gap exists between administrators and faculty

The brief discussion held by the committee identified the following themes that stood out from the summaries:

  • Appears to be issues with communication and mission
  • Need to define teaching
  • A difference exists between administrators results and the other groups

It was suggested to organize the first summary by each criterion and re-rank. The committee will continue to review the summaries and identify major themes.

Next Steps and Next Meeting

A draft copy of the application will go to the President on Tuesday. The committee can continue to provide feedback through next week.

The steering committee will meet again when a response on the application is received from AQIP. The committee agreed to meet in the summer with members who are available on campus.

C. Frazier will post the Examiner Results, along with the summaries, on the Provost and Vice President for Administration and Enrollment Management websites. Communication will be sent out to the campus letting them know that the Examiner results have been posted. Summaries will be distributed to Faculty Senate.

APPLY VISIT DONATE