Southeast Missouri State University

October 11, 2006

AQIP Steering Committee Meeting - UC Board Room

In Attendance: Rick Althaus, Christopher Davis, Jim Ermatinger, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Adam Hanna, Dennis Holt, , Carolyn Rainey, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett, Jane Stephens, Susan Swartwout, Alissa Vandeven and President Ken Dobbins

Absent: Crystal Kaufman

Recorder: Christie Renner

D. Holt welcomed Alissa Vandeven to the committee. She is representing the Division of Business & Finance.

The writing subcommittee will start drafting a response to the homework from the committee’s discussion today of additional brainstorming ideas that were received from constituencies and the open forum.

Discussion of Strategy Forum Homework Questions

Discussion was held on integrating new brainstorming ideas from the open forum that was held on September 27. Comments made on question #8 concerning opportunities include:

  • Technology is an important opportunity that should be bulleted.
  • Combine “collaboration with schools”, “promoting value of education in high schools”, and “career awareness/modeling as college is possible”
  • Can we combine River Campus and New Farm under one heading titled “Expansion of physical locations/facilities”? Add online.

On question #8, discussion was held on narrowing the opportunities down to three. They include:

  • Technology
  • Reaching out to the community
  • Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) (e.g., career awareness, strategic awareness, tuition guarantee)

On question #8, discussion was held on narrowing the vulnerabilities down to three. They include:

  • Budget constraints
  • Increasing competition during a time when the market is not expanding
  • Lack of marketing strategy or identifying a self-image that a marketing plan can be based on (lack of coherent focus, who are we?, what’s our self-image?)

Additional comments made:

  • Frustration in the graduate program – there are not as many graduate students in the MBA program as there used to be. Big competition with William Woods College and RPDC programs. This can be added to the competition section.
  • Shocked with the number of high school dropouts or low level of high school graduates. This can be added to question #1 – defining feature of our service area - the number of rural counties and the poverty level.

Discussion of Potential Action Projects

It was stated that there should be a long list of potential Action Projects so that as one is completed, another AP is moved to the list.

One Action Project must focus on student learning.

D. Holt distributed a document giving updates on the Student Success Initiative. Many of these projects would make good Action Projects.

Discussion was held on “defining good to great” as a potential Action Project. It was suggested “University of First Choice for Students, Faculty and Staff” would be a better descriptive title. A comment was made that we can’t be everything to everyone and that we need to identify who we are targeting, including students, faculty and staff. There are measurable goals that can be identified to determine if we are the “first choice”. Potential Action Project is to define and develop measurable indicators of being a University of first choice for students, faculty and staff (approximate time 1 year). A whole series of Action Projects could be developed. Also discussed was conduct evaluation of faculty and staff compensation and benefits, set a target, and determine a plan. (This could be a three year plan.)

Discussion was held on “developing a wireless campus”. Comment was made to combine distance learning and web course evaluation into one item. We could look into the quality of online courses - is it working?, what kind of students are taking online?, where do we go from here? Also, we should look at blended and hybrid classes. How do we deliver technology to faculty to teach these courses? Look at maintaining quality while decentralizing. Is ITV too expensive? Need to evaluate the learning outcomes with the cost and faculty time. The technology component should focus on web course and distance learning evaluation instead of becoming a wireless campus. We could use “becoming a wireless campus” as a measure. Potential Action Project (first part is to evaluate web course and distance learning. Second part is to evaluate delivery (e.g., effectiveness and cost). Develop a process of delivering quality education in a diverse environment.

Discussion was held on “Student Success Initiative” (e.g., retention). One area to look more closely into is the Student Transitions program. We need to make sure we are developing the right review in data collection and implementing it through all four years. Potential Action Project is to evaluate Student Transitions program.

Other ideas or comments from committee members include:

  • Concerned that students are not excited about coming to Southeast MO State University
  • Define good teaching
  • Establish a system so that a student can learn more about the courses that they are interested in taking before actually enrolling in them. Make a class profile available. Banner can support some form of this.
  • Dean of Students should serve a more active role as a student advocate.
  • Student retention – provide education and direction. Identify how to retain students and be consistent.
  • Concerned with the cost of education. Tuition Guarantee Program is a good step.

President Dobbins talked about the Student Financial Services initiative and stated that there will be an evaluation of Financial Aid (what are students getting and how is it being offered?). Also, he is very interested in setting up a way for students (particularly beginning freshmen) to see what classes they should take in the following spring when enroll for fall classes.

Next Meeting

The next meeting will be scheduled on Wednesday, October 11 at 4:00 pm.

APPLY VISIT DONATE