QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
JAGUAR PRIDE
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
2
Introduction to Southern University at Shreveport Louisiana (SUSLA)
Historical Background
Southern University at Shreveport (SUSLA) is a unit of the Southern University System,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Shreveport campus was created by ACT 42 of the ordinary
session of the Louisiana Legislature on May 11, 1964 and designated as a two-year
commuter college to serve the Shreveport-Bossier City area. The institution was granted
its full status as an autonomous unit of the Southern University A & M College System in
March 1977 under the leadership of a Chancellor as the chief executive of the campus.
The institution was opened for instruction on September 19, 1967. In October of 1974,
the Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education (now known as Board of
Regents) granted its approval of six associate degree programs in Business, Office
Administration, Natural Sciences, Medical Office Assistance, Social Sciences and
Humanities. Today, accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools,
SUSLA offers twenty-three (23) associate degree programs and nine (9) certificate
programs. SUSLA currently occupies ten buildings on a 103-acre campus at 3050 Martin
Luther King, Jr. Drive. There is also an additional office-classroom building at 610
Texas Street and an Aerospace Technology Center located at the Downtown Shreveport
Airport on 1500 Airport Drive.
University Vision, Mission and Goals
The vision contained in the SUSLA 2008-09—2012-13 Strategic Plan is for SUSLA to
be committed to being recognized as a leading institution that provides opportunities for
its students to actively participate in a global society. To realize this, SUSLA will
provide an environment conducive to achieving excellence through academic, cultural
and social services. This will involve creating an institutional culture that is responsive
to changes in higher education, global economy and lifelong learning thereby enhancing
the quality of life for its students and the community as a whole.
The University’s primary mission as the comprehensive community college primarily
serving the Shreveport/Bossier City metropolitan area is to serve the educational needs of
this population mainly through a select number of associate and certificate programs.
These programs are designed for diverse groups with specific purposes: for students who
plan to transfer to a four-year institution to pursue further academic training, for students
planning to enter the workforce, and for employees desiring additional training or
retraining. The institution has an open enrollment policy that provides equal access to all
and encourages cultural diversity. The institution provides developmental education to
strengthen the basic academic foundation of students in need, and continuing education to
promote life-long learning. The institution seeks partnership opportunities with business
and industry to enhance work force training and economic development within its service
area. Southern University at Shreveport is committed to excellence in instruction, student
services, and programs relevant to the needs and interests of the Shreveport-Bossier City
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
3
communities. All these activities are designed to accomplish the university goals to
increase opportunities for student access and success, ensure quality and accountability
and enhance services to the Shreveport-Bossier community and the state of Louisiana at
large.
In pursuit of these goals, the University is committed to the following:
1. Providing university parallel college transfer programs designed to meet the
requirements for the lower division of four-year college and university
programs;
2. Offering one, two and possibly three-year career programs designed to meet
the demand for technicians, semi-professional workers, and skilled craftsmen
for employment in industry, business, the professions, and government,
including associate degrees in art, sciences, applied sciences, as well as
diploma and certificate programs;
3. Providing instructional foundation or developmental education programs
designed to prepare individuals for admission to an occupational-technical
curriculum or to a university parallel college transfer curriculum;
4. Conducting continuing education programs carefully designed to meet the
lifelong needs of the communities serviced by the college, whether for college
transfer credit, associate degree credit, occupational upgrading, and personal
satisfaction, or experiences necessary for a change in vocation;
5. Operating comprehensive student development programs such as counseling
and advising designed to facilitate educational, vocational, personal, and
social decision-making growth;
6. Conducting research of the type appropriate to a comprehensive community
college, especially the development of new enhanced educational programs,
and offerings based on community needs; and
7. Providing specialized community service programs, which are designed to
improve the quality of life and to meet identified cultural and educational
needs within the institution’s service area.
Student Demographics
The 2009 Fall enrollment at SUSLA is 3014 students, of which 63.17% are full time and
represent FTE’s of 2718.75. Students receiving financial aid represent 77.26%, 83.51%
of the overall student population is African American, 14.83% White, .76% Hispanic and
other, 1.66%
Institutional Effectiveness
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
4
In 2003, Lumina Foundation for Education introduced a national initiative called
Achieving the Dream: Community College Count, to help students stay in school and
succeed. This initiative focuses primarily on students of color, low-income students and
those who have the most barriers to success. Lumina has identified a substantial number
of institutions to participate in this multiyear initiative, all of whom must commit to
collect and analyze data to improve student outcomes --- a process referred to as
“building a culture of evidence”. While SUSLA is not one of these participating
institutions, it is especially interested in the findings and best practices that are likely to
come from this initiative. The majority of SUSLA students are found to be under
prepared for college and socioeconomically disadvantaged, highly similar to those on
whom the Achieving Dream initiative is focused. Accordingly, SUSLA embraces the
practice of building a culture of evidence and uses data analysis to identify problems and
to enhance student success.
The SUSLA Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment and Research (PAR) prepares
Institutional Report Cards to comply with the Louisiana Act 1465 of 1997 (Louisiana
Government Performance and Accountability Act). This act requires each state agency
receiving an appropriation in the general or ancillary appropriation act to produce a series
of progress reports that track actual progress toward achievement of annual performance
standards. The state’s twenty year strategic plan for economic development, Louisiana
Vision 2020, recognizes the need for highly coordinated and efficient learning
enterprises. As overseers of these enterprises under the act, the Board of Regents (BOR)
and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) require strategic planning
goals and objectives directed toward vision attainment. For SUSLA, the following goals
(each of which has statewide objectives and accompanying strategies) are recognized:
1. Increase Opportunities for Student Access and Success
2. Ensure Quality and Accountability
3. Enhance Services to Communities and State.
At the Spring 2007 Faculty\Staff Institute, PAR presented its findings regarding the
average time it took SUSLA students to complete their certificate\associate degree
program (time-to-degree or TTD) as compared to students in two-year colleges
throughout the state of Louisiana.
Generally, PAR found that SUSLA students
compared favorably to other students completing certificate programs but not so for the
associate degree completers.
In September of 2007 PAR introduced the SUSLA Five Year Strategic Plan which covers
fiscal years 2008/09 through 2012\13. This plan represented PAR’s first report card,
which contained a more in-depth data analysis to identify problems and enumerated
objectives and strategies to enhance student learning. In August, 2008 at Fall
Faculty\Staff Institute, PAR presented the details of the institutional effectiveness
strategy it would implement to gather assessment data. The presentation was
appropriately entitled, “The Journey to Reaffirmation A Critical Crossroad”. These data
analyses and other institutional effectiveness reports and findings formed the empirical
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
5
data platform from which the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Steering Committee
would launched its broad-based institutional process to identify key issues it would focus
on in developing the QEP.
Development of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
Broad–based Institutional Process
Shortly after forming the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Steering Committee in April
2008, its newly selected members attended a workshop arranged by the previous Vice
Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Dr. Raymond Hicks. This workshop was conducted on
SUSLA campus and facilitated by Dr. Terry McConathy, Executive Vice President &
Dean of Graduates Studies at Louisiana Tech University. She also served as QEP chair at
her institution. The discussions provided the committee members with the opportunity
for a clear understanding of the importance of the QEP and need to involve all
institutional constituencies.
The chair of QEP Steering Committee, Ms. Rosalyn Holt had performed a lead role in the
SUSLA 2000 reaffirmation and as such worked with the Leadership team to insure that
the Committee membership represented a broad-based pool of SUSLA faculty, staff,
students and community stakeholders. The initial members were as follows:
Ms. Rosalyn Holt – Chair
Ms. Burnadine Anderson – Community (Education)
Mr. Omar Aziz – Community (Business)
Dr. Iris Champion – Leadership Team/Web Master
Ms. Beverly Barnett – Nursing
Ms. Barbara Bobo – Division of Academic Affairs
Mr. Major Brock – Division of Student Affairs
Ms. JoAnn Brown – Allied Health
Ms. Stephanie Graham – Division of Community and Workforce Development
Ms. Shelia Hamilton – Behavioral Sciences/Education
Dr. Barbara Hollis – Science and Technology
Mrs. Sophia Lee -- Accounting
Mr. Nathan Manning – Business Studies
Mr. Rodney McFarland – SGA President
Ms. Eula Greenwood – Student Representative
Ms. Joslin Pickens – Humanities
Ms. Rose Powell – Library
Mr. William Strother – Institutional Advancement
Ms. Angelia Turner – Academic Outreach
Following the introductory workshop with Dr. McConathy, the QEP began to meet
weekly to understand its responsibilities and how it would meet them. In its very first
meeting on May 15, 2008, after a brief introduction, the committee members were
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
6
provided with a copy of “The Principles of Accreditation: Foundation For Quality
Enhancement” and an undated copy of the Quality Enhancement Plan to be included in
the Revised Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation. The committee covered five
areas that a QEP must include to meet the “Core Requirements” to be accredited with the
Commission on Colleges and Schools. The members were assigned to the following list
of sub-committees:
Publicity
Budget/Finance
Assessment
Student Liaison
Community Liaison
Technology
Survey
Archive
Clerical
Research
Curriculum Enhancement
Editing
Each member was encouraged to conduct their independent inquiry of Quality
Enhancement Plans and student learning\success research and practices, particularly in
the community colleges industry. It was noted that the QEP teams or sub-committees
were subject to change as the QEP process unfolded.
The subsequent weekly meetings were primarily focused on understanding the value of a
broad-based institutional process. This point was made very clear during the May 21st
meeting, where a mock exercise was conducted to illustrate how the perceptions of a
diverse group of individuals could produce common interests. Members were asked to
give their separate perceptions in writing of the same issue without the benefit of
knowing how others felt. Several members gave the exact same perception even though
they represented different groups in the university. It was emphasized that the QEP seeks
broad-based participation in its efforts to find common ground and the broader the
process the more likely diverse groups will feel involved in the development of the plan
and as such, be more willing to accept its mandated practices and policies. Yet, members
were cautioned that common perceptions alone will not substantiate a focus or topic
selection. The broad-based perceptions must be supported with institutional assessment
data and best practice research before a QEP topic selection can be confirmed.
Preparing for Broad-Based Data Collection
The committee continued to meet weekly to discuss institutional assessment data and
QEP documents from other institutions. Fortunately, the committee had the benefit of the
research and reports of the Achieving the Dream initiative, which had been in operation
since June of 2004 and had compiled findings highly appropriate for the broad-based
processes contemplated by the QEP committee. One such document, “The Resource
Guide for Institutional Transformation to Improve Student Success at Community
Colleges”, contained tools and models for data gathering, analyzing current situations and
developing strategies to achieve goals. (Brock, Jenkins, Elliwein, Miller, Gooden,
Martin, MacGregor, and Pih, May 2007)
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
7
Development and Administration of Surveys
Following review and discussions of this information, the committee decided that during
this process it would administer surveys to faculty, staff, students, churches, community
members and other stakeholders. There would be town hall meetings for community
stakeholders and focus groups for faculty, staff, and students. The aim of the Committee
at this point was to have broad-based participation. In the process of drafting the survey
and crafting the cover letter to accompany the survey, information was shared among
committee members that gave them a wealth of knowledge about SUSLA. The cover
letter explained the accreditation process, the purpose of self-evaluation, and described
the QEP.
The final draft of the survey was approved by the Leadership Team. (See a list of
Leadership Team members in Appendix H) The results of this survey gave the
Committee the opportunity to assess the stakeholders’ familiarity with the role, scope,
and mission of SUSLA. It also gave the Leadership Team the opportunity to see how the
institution is viewed in the community. A printed survey was first administered at a
community forum on August 11, 2008, and to faculty & staff on August 25, 2008 (See
appendix A). On October 29 -November 5, 2008 an electronic survey was launched to
the student body via e-mail. (See appendix B). The raw data collected from the printed
surveys were keyed into an electronic Zoomerang file.
During the period in which the surveys were being administered, the committee
considered digging a little deeper to understand how residents of other sections of its
geographical service area viewed the university. Ms. Burnadine Anderson, a community
representative committee member, who has extensive experiences in conducting such
meetings for the local Caddo Parish School Board, advised that this would likely yield
more “customer service” issues than information relative to what the university should be
doing to improve student learning outcomes. In reviewing one of the Achieving the
Dream tools, “A Framework for Understanding Student Success” [Based on the article,
Developing Local Models of Minority Student Success, Journal of College Student
Development (1997)], members noted that qualitative data were necessary to understand
what is happening on or off campus that prevents students from successfully completing
courses and degrees. Hence, the committee decided that the focus group data gathering
method was more research based and would likely provide more meaningful and useful
information than another community survey. Moreover, during October 18-21, 2008,
several staff and faculty, one of whom was a member of the committee, attended the
Southern Association for Institutional Research (SAIR) 2008 Conference to learn more
about developing the QEP. Following the conference, the committee had several sessions
on QEP data gathering practices, one of which was focus groups. The committee learned
that focus groups are recognized by institutional researchers as an excellent research
method. After a thorough review of the conference materials and related research data
concerning the planning, guidelines, logistics and personnel of focus groups, the
committee decided to gather additional qualitative data through campus-wide focus
groups.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
8
Developing and Implementing the Focus Group Method
The committee spent the first meetings in November 2008 carefully formulating the focus
group method for campus-wide involvement. It held several committee work sessions to
familiarize its members with the more intimate aspects of focus group moderation, data
recordation, and group composition and selection. The central goal of the focus group
exercise appropriately became to insure that the data gathered represented the most
accurate depiction of what stakeholders actually felt about the issues raised. That is,
more specifically, the integrity of the process had to be one that encouraged and
supported an open and honest discussion of student learning and how best to foster and
improve it on Southern University’s campus.
The QEP committee requested that each member recommend persons not directly
associated with the university to be moderators for the focus groups and QEP steering
committee members were assigned to assist them as recorders of group discussions. It
was decided that recorders would be provided with a portable recorder to aid in insuring
that the discussions of participants were accurately recorded. During its work sessions,
the committee had resolved that focus group participants must feel comfortable and not
feel pressured to make decisions or reach consensus. The participants must be
encouraged to express their different points of view without the perception of supervisory
oversight or institutional reprisal. Accordingly, all institutional personnel were identified
and sorted by job classification, (i.e. deans, directors, administrators, executives,
maintenance, so on) and randomly assigned to a focus group so that each would be
represented by a diverse group of persons on similar classification levels across unit lines
within the institutional hierarchy. Care was taken to insure that persons would not feel
threatened as noted earlier.
To support the activities of committees that were preparing for the accreditation
affirmation review, the university designated “blackout days”, Tuesdays and Thursdays
of the first and third week of each month, for their use. The QEP committee decided to
use these days for its focus group meetings. The overall plan for the QEP focus group
meetings was composed of two phases. On November 11, 2008, phase one began and
consisted of the introduction and conduct of the focus groups sessions. This specifically
included a special session for the moderators and a general assembly of all university
personnel, where the Chancellor covered the highlights of preparing for an accreditation
affirmation review and the relative importance of the QEP.
Specifically, the moderators’ session addressed some guiding principles and the specific
role they were expected to play as well as the challenges they would likely encounter
(See Appendix C). The assistant moderators (recorders from the QEP steering
committee) were assigned. There were 15 (fifteen) separate groups, whose average size
was 10-12 persons, all of whom were assigned to a classroom. Each group had about two
hours to discuss carefully planned issues regarding student learning on campus. During
the general assembly following the focus group sessions, the Chancellor recognized the
QEP committee and expressed the university’s gratitude for the moderators’ willingness
to join Southern University in this very important venture.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
9
Narrowing the Focus of the Topic Selection
Two days later on November 13th, following the collection and analysis of all group
discussions, phase two was held, where the findings were summarized and presented to
the same general assembly of individuals who had participated in the first phase. The
findings indicated the following common interests among faculty and staff (See
Appendix D)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Accountability (this included students, faculty and staff)
Early Engagement – to address advisement and career planning
(collegiate and vocational)
Technology- classroom integration, introduction of Blackboard
Communication Skills- improve writing skills development
across disciplines
Critical Thinking - improve evidence learning, data analysis and
transfer of knowledge across disciplines
Underutilization of Institutional Resources – better use and
expansion of existing technology data collection and analysis
resources
Afterwards, these findings and recommendations were formally submitted to the
Leadership Team for their review and subsequent advisement regarding the additional
steps the committee should take to identify the focus topic(s) for the QEP.
Finally, during November 16-20, 2008, except for students, the entire university
community was given the focus group satisfaction survey (See Appendix E). Generally,
the results indicated that a significant majority of university personnel felt that the focus
groups sessions were informative, moderators were effective in conducting them and that
everyone was given an opportunity to participate. As a follow-up to the faculty and staff
focus groups findings, the leadership team requested the then Interim Vice Chancellor of
Academic Affairs to set-up an ad-hoc committee of faculty and staff to review these
results and recommend topics for the QEP. The ad-hoc committee identified nine (9)
focus topics for the QEP and submitted them to the Steering Committee on November 25,
2008. (See Appendix F)
The QEP committee reviewed those nine (9) topics on February 10, 2009 and discussed
the assessment data and programs currently in placed that addressed some of the key
issues found during the data collection phase. The student focus group meeting was held
on February 27th with SGA representatives and the results were included and compared
with those of the faculty and staff. The student focus group key issues were as follows:
1. Early engagement – advisement during registration should continue
through graduation/transfer.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
10
2. Class schedules need to be available more timely and be consistent
with website and catalog class schedules.
3. SUSLA needs to be involved in bookstore to ensure affordability.
4. Assure SUSLA courses are transferrable at least throughout the state
of Louisiana.
5. The same coursework being taught by different teachers needs to
cover basically the same material.
6. Faculty availability --need to be more readily available particularly
after class hours.
According to the 2007 findings of community college survey of student engagement
(CCSSE) one proven strategy for improving student success is to “Focus on the Front
Door”. The front door in this instance refers to programs of early engagement such as
those used by Santa Ana College (CA) and Valencia Community College (FL) requiring
new students to participate in special orientation or new student programs as a means of
better enforcing prerequisites and college prep course sequences. (Zeidenberg, Jenkins,
& Calcagno, June 2007) The committee reviewed similar best practices literature and
QEP plans from other institutions of higher education with a focus of early engagement.
As for institutional assessment data, the committee reviewed the ACT scores of entering
students from Spring 2005 through Fall 2008 and disaggregated these scores on the basis
of students who were required to take developmental coursework (DEP) and all students
entering. These average scores were compared to the state and national averages for
students entering colleges during that same time period. In practically all cases the
composite ACT scores of SUSLA students were four to six percentage points lower than
the state and national averages yet there were slight differences between all SUSLA
entering students and those who had to participate in DEP. Further comparisons were
made between the English, math and reading scores. Therefore, the committee concluded
that there were significant numbers of entering freshmen who had ACT scores that
indicated that they were academically under prepared for collegiate coursework.
Subsequently, the QEP committee recommended an overarching strategy of early
engagement to represent a comprehensive approach to enhance student learning
outcomes.
As noted earlier in this plan, early engagement specifically addressed
intentional academic planning for entering students through intrusive and holistic
advising, special orientation courses and “early alert” for students in academic trouble.
Following its review, the Leadership Team requested the QEP committee to narrow the
focus to a more manageable topic that the institution had the capacity of supporting. To
ensure that the guiding principle of broad-based institutional process for the selection of
the QEP topic, the QEP committee designed a survey whose purpose was to narrow the
focus to a specific topic(s) and decided to target all persons (students, faculty and staff)
who had participated in the focus groups. This survey was submitted electronically
through Zoomerang. The results were compiled and analyzed by the committee and
submitted to the leadership team for its review and recommendations. Based on the
results of this survey the top three issues selected by the respondents were as follows:
(See Appendix G)
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
11
1. Enhancing student oral and written communication (76)
2. Engage in progressive student advising (academic and career) (68)
3. Enhancing technology in the classrooms (53)
Selection and Validation of the Topic:
After reviewing the committee’s survey results, the Leadership team recommended that
the QEP focus topic would be “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success
through Structured Advisement.” The QEP research and assessment sub
committee was given the assignment to team with the Office of Institutional Planning,
Assessment and Research (PAR) to insure that the theme selection evolves from issues
related to student learning in the institutional effectiveness process, is based on empirical
data and analysis whenever possible, and is fully validated by appropriate institutional
assessment data. As for the latter issue, validation of the theme, the sub committee and
PAR decided that they would use a research design similar to that done in a 2006 study
funded by the Achieving the Dream initiative. (Jenkins, D., Community College Research
Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, October 2006). This was a study of
institutional effectiveness of state of Florida community colleges, where significant
numbers of students targeted by the Achieving the Dream initiative were in attendance.
The purpose of this study was to compare the practices, policies, and cultural
characteristics of high impact institutions that had experienced successful educational
outcomes of minority students and other students deemed to be at risk, with those of low
impact institutions, that had relatively much lower levels of success. This study used
longitudinal , transcript level data to determine the effect that target colleges has on the
probability of its student completing a certificate or degree, transferring to a four year
institution, or persisting at the colleges. Accordingly, the research team randomly
selected the transcript of students who had completed a certificate/degree program
between academic years 2003 and 2008. Based on the related research data and best
practices reviews, the team developed a set of five hypotheses about the expected
outcomes of students who had been guided by “structured advisement” programs that
contained the special features of an institution-wide early engagement initiative. More
specifically, the team created a transcript evaluation rubric that was designed to rate the
transcript against each hypothesis. The team hypothesized that the transcripts of students
who had participated in structured advisement program would have the following:
1. Declared Major and Obtained Degree Alignment-- Early engagement
provides the student with an opportunity to discover what he or she is best
suited for before academic/career goals are selected. The review of academic
placement test scores and career discovery results with the entering student
builds the intentional learner framework that is grounded in individual
interests and capability. Based on these results a student declares a major and
takes courses as prescribed by the appropriate catalog for that major. The
highest rating in this category would be a transcript that shows that the
courses a student took began with the declared major in mind and continued
throughout to completion.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
12
2. Logical Sequence of Coursework According to Degree Plan (Catalog
Curriculum-- The focus of this category is to review the sequence of courses
taken and their compliance with the prescribed sequence in the appropriate
catalog. Proper sequencing of coursework will require frequent
communication between student and advisor. The literature suggests that the
more frequent contacts between student and advisor, the more likely the
student’s actual course sequence will be aligned with that prescribed by the
institution. The highest rating for this category is that transcript shows that
the sequence of prerequisite courses and subsequent courses were in line with
the declared degree plan prescribed by the institution.
3. Course Outcome data (Course grade) Support Subsequent Course
Selection-- The literature suggests that an effective student services program
will have a student tracking effort designed to provide timely intervention at
the onset of a problem. One type of timely intervention would be an early
alert program that detects the signs of students who are at risk of failing a
course or dropping out of school. At risk students, who had shown problems
with a prerequisite course must meet with an advisor before taking a
subsequent course. To obtain the highest rating for this category the transcript
would have to indicate ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ in all core (prerequisite) and
subsequent courses.
4. Timeframe Within Which all Coursework Should be Completed-- In
reviewing the literature we found that most effective student advisement
efforts stressed time to completion as a measurement of institutional
effectiveness. The more well-designed, well-aligned and proactive these
efforts are the more likely students will persist toward their academic\career
goals. To be rated high the transcript would have to show that the required
coursework was completed in the time specified in the degree plan.
5. Number of Credit Hours do not Jeopardize Present and Future
Academic\Career Goals (Satisfactory Academic Progress) -- A student’s
success initiative must consider the studen’s’ ultimate academic\career goals.
Student success is just as important as student access (levels of enrollment).
Institutional focus on student retention and outcomes, rather than just
enrollment will not allow the student to deplete valuable credit hours
unnecessarily to maintain enrollment levels. This could be very costly to the
student and could in the case of students who rely entirely on financial aid to
continue their education be extremely detrimental to ultimate academic goals.
As an open admission institution, about 78% of SUSLA student population
receives financial aid. Students receiving financial aid must comply with the
Department of Education guidelines and make satisfactory academic progress
throughout their educational pursuits. The highest rating was given to
transcripts that indicated that attempted hours were equal to hours earned and
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
13
these hours represented only those sufficient enough to meet and support the
degree plan requirements.
The team reviewed 832 transcripts and presented their findings to the Leadership team
and other selected student services personnel on August 21, 2009. The Leadership team
accepted the validation of the topic and requested that the QEP and other reaffirmation
committees present their processes and findings at the Fall 2009 Faculty and Staff
institute. This complete process is displayed in the following graphic chart of the “Topic
Development Flowchart”.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Topic Development Flowchart
14
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
15
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix A
Analysis for
Community, Faculty, Staff
16
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
17
QEP Community Survey
Analysis
QEP Steering Committee
December 09, 2008
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
18
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
19
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
20
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
21
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
22
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
23
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix B
Analysis for
SUSLA Student Body
24
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Student Survey Analysis
QEP Process
December 12, 2008
Dr. Iris Champion
25
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
26
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
27
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
28
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
29
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
30
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
31
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix C
Focus Group Discussion
Questions
Moderator and Assistant
Moderator Guide
32
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Southern University at Shreveport, Louisiana
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
FOCUS GROUPS
Faculty, Staff and Students
November 2008
Moderator and Assistant Moderator Guide
SEATING CHART—Include name, division, department
Left side is for recording key points; right side is for direct quote and body language
Opening Question: Examples: Tell us your name, where you work and how long
have you been at SUSLA?
33
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
34
Introduction Question: What do you think a student at SUSLA should be learning?
Left side is for recording key points; right side is for direct quote and body language
Transition Question: The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is a project that is
designed to enhance or improve student learning. How are you involved in student
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
35
learning at the University?
Key Question: Tell us about the strongest features of our college that foster student
learning
Key Question: In what educational programs or subject areas do you think our
college needs to improve student learning?
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
36
Key Question: Of those areas that have been identified as needing improvement in student
learning, which do you think are the most important for the college to commit resources?
Ending Question: Of all the things we have discussed or learned from our discussion, what
single thing
is the most important to you?
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Summarize Discussion:
37
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix D
SACS QEP Focus Group
Common Interest Sheet
38
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
39
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix E
Analysis of
Focus Group Satisfaction
40
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Focus Group Analysis
QEP Process
December 12, 2008
Dr. Iris Champion
41
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
42
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
43
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
44
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix F
QEP Topics for
Consideration List
45
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
46
QEP Topics for Consideration
1. Effective oral and written communication skills in all disciplines.
2. A campus-wide program to enhance students’ values that will take them
beyond the classroom.
3. The use of technology across the curriculum.
4. Enhancing student learning through communication skills and research.
5. Ensuring student learning through early intervention – advisement, career
planning….
6. Enforcing learning via research.
7. Enhancing critical thinking skills.
8. The development of “College Preparation Programs” that will foster
educational growth and improve the educational achievement for underrepresented individuals.
9. Utilizing the art of communication both oral and written through the use
of technology across all academic disciplines.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix G
Analysis for
Final QEP Selection
47
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
QEP Topic Selection
Results
QEP Steering Committee
March 10, 2009
48
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
49
QEP – Question # 1
From the stacked column display, it is very clear
what the top three issues are that should be
addressed and developed in our Quality
Enhancement Plan.
•
Enhancing students oral and written
communication with 76
•
Engage in progressive student advising
(academic and career) with 68
•
Enhancing Technology in the classroom
with 53
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
50
QEP – Question # 1 cont.
From the chart just reviewed, stacked bard
graph, the results are represented in
percentages. Once again, it is very clear
what the top three issues are.
Let me point out that ‘Enhancing
Technology in the Classroom’ ranked
third; however, ‘Enhancing Critical
Thinking Skills’ in fourth place was very
close to third.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
QEP – Question # 2
•
What initiatives would best support and
implement your selections (based on your
prioritized responses above) on this campus?
The chart selected for this question was a little
different but it made it very easy to recognize
the tally for each initiative. The initiatives that
were most popular are most definitely in line
and supportive of the top three issues.
51
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
52
QEP – Question # 2 cont.
•
•
•
Develop student communication skills strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reform classrooms to support technology
Emphasize critical thinking across curriculums
93 82%
86 76%
Develop comprehensive academic and career programs
64%
72
67 59%
Improve capacity to facilitate developmental English
59 52%
Improve capacity to facilitate developmental Reading
56 50%
Improve capacity to facilitate developmental Math
Develop cohorts during registration
Expand orientation
55 49%
45 40%
43 38%
Implement freshman block scheduling
38 34%
QEP – Question # 2 cont.
Notice that the second most considered
initiative dealt with critical thinking which
certainly explained critical thinking being an
issue from question #1 and ranking # 4.
Based on the correlation between the two you
might need to consider enhancing critical
thinking skills instead of enhancing technology
in the classroom.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
53
QEP – Question # 3
Based on your responses, what do you
think the overall title of the Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP) should be?
•
Please refer to your word document to be
impressed with seventy-five topics or
titles for our QEP.
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
Appendix H
SACS Leadership Team
54
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
SACS
Leadership Team
55
Southern University at Shreveport QEP “Jaguar Pride: Ensuring Student Success Through Structured Advisement”
SACS
Leadership Team
56