QEP Team Meeting, January 5, 2012
Alan distributed three handouts:
1. QEP Outline
2. How we might use peer mentors
3. FY Programs, processes, and resources
Alan reviewed the timeline from here. January and February will be times for writing and editing, with the goal of having draft for final reading by committee on March 1.
March 15 Draft to community
July 1 Final draft complete
Summer 2012 Final draft to the Board of Visitors
September Final draft to external reviewer
Also in September, we work to ignite interest in the QEP on campus.
January 31 2013 Final draft to review team
April 15-17, 2013 On site peer review visiting team
December 2013 Reaffirmation decision by SACS COC
Implementation starts after reaffirmation decision December 2013
FYE Programs and Resources --
Student Affairs: Orientation, experiential learning, speakers, peer mentors
Academics: FSEMs, Writing Center, Speaking Center, Libraries, DTLT, Teaching Center, Peer mentors
Student Services: Advising, Career Services, STP, Peer Mentors
Using Peer Mentors
We've talked about using them in various ways. Alan presented his recommendation that we focus on using peer mentors with the Plus 1 co-curricular program. He felt that this balanced the number of people supporting aspects of the program and that it helps address the issue of having students have a common experience in the first semester.
Discussion followed on the feasibility of having all FSEMs in the first semester. As things stand now, this is not practical, but it might be something to look toward in the future. We also discussed the desirability of having a common reading experience during the first semester as part of the Plus 1 experience.
Alan discussed the role of the peer mentor. The mentor is an upper class person, who is trained to work with a set of students. The mentor works collaboratively but under guidance of faculty member, and the mentor is assigned a group of 15 or so students helps students find out what they need, coordinates their group's co-curricular activities, organizes groups of students to go to these. These students are not doing advising, but they are doing prescriptive direction -- where to find resources, where to get answers to your questions. Using the peer mentors would free faculty advisors to dig further into student needs and to help students create learning plans.
Discussion followed. Consensus seemed to be that peer mentors is an idea worth pursuing. We also discussed the ways that staff might participate in the program.
Programs and Processes
We reviewed and discussed the handout that Alan had distributed on these. Discussion continued on resources and whether this current framework is too big. How do we focus? Discussion continued. We voted on priorities, with the following results:
1. Peer mentoring 13**
2. Increase support for FY writing in the disciplines 2
3. Increase support for FY speaking across the discipline 0
4. Increase support information literacy across the disciplines 1
5. One hour (non credit, but required for graduation) course FYA +1 8**
6. Common reading experience 5
7. Develop online learning modules 9**
8. FSEM faculty Fellows program 3
9. Career Exploration program 4
(The top vote-getters are indicated in bold and with **. The numbers indicate the number of votes.)
At the end of the day, we agreed to split into three groups, focusing on these priority areas.
1. Peer Mentoring -- JoAnn, Marsha, Alan, Cedric, Christine E, Courtney Chapman
2. FYA +1 (Include common reading and career exploration)-- Terry, Rosemary B, Bradley, Katie, Katherine, Fred (also look at priorities 6 & 9)
3. Online learning modules (also priorities 2,3,4): Stephen D, Anand, Rosemary A, Gwen, Courtney Clayton, Jason
Each group is to develop a detailed outline, with some discussion of assessment, by our next meeting.
Next meeting is January 26.