Requirement Number 2.12: The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan and demonstrates that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process:

(Recommendation 1) The Committee recommends that the University identify specific learning outcomes for each goal and for specific strategic initiatives in the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).

Response:

The SACS Leadership Team gave serious deliberation to the comments it received at the exit interview from the on-site review team regarding the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). In particular, the reviewers recommended that the University identify specific learning outcomes for each goal and for specific strategic initiatives listed in the QEP. In a subsequent review of the QEP, the Leadership Team concluded that while the five goals identified program outcomes, learning outcomes required further development. Based upon this conclusion, and in concert with the other QEP recommendations and comments received from the SACS on-site review team, the Leadership Team opted to revise the QEP, focusing the plan on creating engaged learners and reinforcing the student learning outcomes as the desired end product. This effort began in earnest immediately following the April 20, 2005, meeting of the Leadership Team, and continued throughout Summer 2005.

At its April 20 th meeting, the Leadership Team began this discussion for revising the QEP. The Leadership Team considered each of the original goals, ultimately selecting two of the five for inclusion in the revised QEP. Those selected included engaging freshmen in the campus and community cultures and engaging students through capstone experiences in all academic programs . This decision reflects the importance the Leadership Team placed on affecting student learning early in a student's academic career as well as ensuring that students have achieved appropriate discipline knowledge/mastery before graduation. The decision also responded to the concerns raised in Recommendation 2, reducing the scope of the revised QEP. The Leadership Team then considered the intent of each of the two remaining goals and rewrote those goals as learning objectives. The first goal was broken down into three learning objectives, while the second goal became two learning objectives. A comparison of the scope of the original QEP with the revised document is shown below.

Comparison of the Scope of the Original QEP and Revised QEP

The results of the Leadership Team's effort became the QEP Objectives and Student Learning Outcomes matrix (see pp. 18-25 of the revised QEP). The first column lists the five learning objectives that most closely correlated with the intentions of the original two goals. From these objectives, the Leadership Team then identified 17 student learning outcomes (column two). These were developed through an intensive and iterative process. The final task was adding the plan and related assessments (columns four and three respectively). A brief narrative was developed to provide additional information on the thought behind the development of the five objectives and related student learning outcomes. This narrative appears on pp. 26-35 of the revised QEP.

Coinciding with these efforts, select members of the SACS Leadership Team and representatives from each college as well as non-academic representatives attended a workshop on July 13, 2005, at Texas A&M-College Station, on “Evidence-Based Decision-Making”** to assist in the development of writing student learning outcomes. The day-long workshop focused on assessment strategies, tools, and practices as well as practical applications and exercises for implementation. This information was instrumental to the development of the QEP matrix. Additional training related to student learning outcomes and assessment is planned for September 15-16, 2005, when an on-campus workshop for all department chairs, directors, and deans will be held.

The result of these continuing efforts and training is reflected in the revised QEP. The Leadership Team believes this document is much stronger, more focused, and much more likely to achieve its objectives than the original QEP and appreciates having undertaken this exercise of refinement.

**The participant list for the Evidence-Based Decision-Making workshop is as follows:

•  Ms. Kathy Albertson, Department of Writing and Linguistics
•  Dr. Pranoti Asher, Department of Geology and Geography
•  Dr. Jean Bartels, School of Nursing
•  Dr. Linda Bleicken, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, SACS Liaison, and Chair, SACS Leadership Team
•  Dr. Jayne Perkins Brown, Director of Strategic Research and Analysis, SACS Leadership Team
•  Dr. Trey Denton, Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics, SACS Leadership Team
•  Dr. Steven Elliott, Jiann-Ping Hsu School of Public Health
•  Dr. Amy Heaston, Associate Provost
•  Dr. Anny Morrobel-Sosa, Dean of the College of Science and Technology, SACS Leadership Team
•  Ms. Cindy Randall, Department of Finance and Quantitative Methods
•  Dr. Kent Rittschof, Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
•  Dr. Sonya Shepherd, Henderson Library
•  Ms. Lisa Spence, Director of Information Technology Services
•  Dr. Susan Williams, Department of Information Systems

(Recommendation 2) The Committee recommends that the University conduct an analysis of current resources applicable to the QEP, conduct an analysis of the additional costs required to implement the QEP, and compile projections of future resources pertinent to the QEP.

Response:

The SACS on-site review team stressed that Georgia Southern University conduct the analysis noted in Recommendation 2 to more fully appreciate the total costs of the original version of the QEP. Based upon this recommendation and a subsequent review of the QEP, the Leadership Team determined that implementing the original five goals was unrealistic given the full costs in terms of personnel and resources. As noted previously in the response to Recommendation 1 (p. 1), the Leadership Team immediately began an intensive effort to scale down the scope of the QEP while simultaneously refining the QEP to respond to the concerns raised in Recommendations 1 and 3.

While the Leadership Team believes that the results of this effort have produced a stronger, more focused plan that will clearly enhance student learning, many worthwhile initiatives were omitted. Most of these initiatives will continue to develop on campus, but they will not be part of the QEP. Some of the activities that were dropped include: refining and strengthening the GSU 1210 curriculum; expanding undergraduate research opportunities; increasing participation in international study; growing the number of service-learning courses; and participating in the American Democracy Project to instill the responsibilities of citizenship in students. (For a complete discussion and comparison of the scope of the original versus the revised QEP, see p. 2 of this document.)

As noted earlier (Core Requirement 2.12, pp. 1-2), the revised QEP includes only two of the original five goals which were then rewritten as learning objectives and student learning outcomes. The result is a focused plan designed to create engaged learners—specifically, to instill in students the behaviors, abilities, and skills that will lead to learning. In addition to reducing the scope of the original QEP, the Leadership Team sought opportunities for maximizing its resources. Where feasible, the plans and assessments were linked to other campus efforts already underway. For example, in developing the plans for achieving the learning outcomes, the Leadership Team determined that the second and third objectives can best be accomplished through the general education core competencies and outcomes, allowing the University to conserve resources by using those directed in the general education curriculum to also address QEP objectives.

The Leadership Team then reassessed the resources required for the revised QEP. Below is a more detailed accounting of this effort. (Appendix 13 of the revised QEP also contains a multi-year analysis of the resource requirements.)

QEP Resource Assessment

**800 freshmen represent approximately a 30% response rate.

(Recommendation 3) The Committee recommends that the University establish clear measures to assess student learning outcomes associated with the goals established for the QEP.

Response:

The SACS Leadership Team considered its response to Recommendation 3 (that Georgia Southern University establish clear measures to assess student learning outcomes associated with the goals of the QEP) in concert with its responses for Recommendations 1 and 2 (documented in the previous two sections). Once the scope of the QEP was reduced, student learning objectives and outcomes defined, and a plan for achieving these objectives in place, the Leadership Team selected the assessment measures for each outcome. As shown in the QEP matrix (pp. 18-25 of the revised QEP), the Leadership Team identified “direct assessments” and “indirect assessments” as well as “best practices” in a few cases. While many of the direct assessments need to be developed, this exercise has already begun on campus along with the corresponding training necessary to develop these measures. Specific training already undertaken and upcoming training activities have been noted in the response to Recommendation 1 (Core Requirement 2.12, pp. 2-3).