新加坡六合彩

Ensure understanding of and support for the QI among faculty/staff and students;

• Present the QI project to faculty, staff, and students and answer questions
• Use regular governance and administrative processes to implement the project
• Assign taskforce liaisons to work with involved campus groups
• Distribute annual reports to the Campus

Ensure understanding of and support for the QI among faculty/staff and students;

• Present the QI project to faculty, staff, and students and answer questions
• Use regular governance and administrative processes to implement the project
• Assign taskforce liaisons to work with involved campus groups
• Distribute annual reports to the campus

Develop eight-semester degree maps, publish maps in the catalog, and publicize recruiting, advising, and orientation materials;

Note: This activity, originally a strategic plan action item, was escalated into a matter of compliance with the state statute in the Fall of 2012. Per the Colorado Department of Higher Education, all FLC programs must comply with the degree length in the 2013-14 catalog. After the degree maps are completed, the QI will see this activity by ensuring their publication in the catalog and inclusion in recruiting, advising, and orientation materials.

Implement a degree planning and tracking technology to enhance support for student decision-making about course selection and sequencing and student self-monitoring of progress toward a degree:

• Identify and screen available products for functional and technical suitability
• Present products that meet functional and technical requirements to faculty, staff, and students for their review
• Make budget request for purchase
• Develop a request for proposals and procure the technology
• Implement the technology, followed by training for faculty, staff, and students

Develop four-year instructional plans so degree tracking technology functionality related to course sequencing can be programmed:

• Develop a scheduling policy to complement the four-year degree maps
• Enhance support for department chair decision-making about the number of sections to offer
• Develop policy and procedure for department chairs to request funds to hire temporary instructors in response to enrollment growth
• Develop policy and procedure to lengthen the current six- to nine-month instructional planning horizon to four years and re-evaluate the calendar for schedule building

Create institutional encouragement for students to graduate on time:

• Determine which form the encouragements will take, e.g., recommendations, incentives, monitoring & advising protocols, and/or requirements.
• Based on that discussion, develop encouragements related to:
  • Pace: Course loads and completion
  • Getting and staying on track for graduation: Declaration of a major at 45 credits; processes to add majors, change majors, and add minors after declaration of major; degree conferral

Clarify the roles and responsibilities of faculty and professional advisors:

Note: This activity incorporates into the QI the work by the Faculty Advising Committee on roles and responsibilities of faculty and professional advisors that began in the Summer of 2012 and which explicitly addresses the advising of students who are declared vs. those who are undeclared.

Create data reporting and data collection systems to evidence the QI;

Note: The report to the QI must be evidence-based. The Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment will be consulted about best providing that evidence using existing and new data reporting and collection systems.

Quality Initiative Tasks	Deadlines
Quality initiative explained to faculty, staff, and students. Degree maps and their policy infrastructure completed. All known degree tracking technologies evaluated for functional  suitability. Scheduling policy to complement degree maps drafted. Decision made on which institutional encouragements for four-year graduation will be recommendations, incentives, monitoring & advising protocols, and/or requirements.	Fall 2012
Degree  maps published in catalog and begin being incorporated into recruiting, advising, and orientation materials. Degree tracking technologies reviewed for technical suitability. Degree tracking technologies that meet functional and technical requirements are reviewed by faculty, students, and staff;  funds are requested; and RFP issued. Scheduling policy to complement degree maps approved. Institutional encouragements documents drafted. Statement on roles and responsibilities for faculty and professional advisors issued.	Winter 2013
Task force meets to review Year One work. Degree tracking technology implementation begins.	Summer 2013
Taskforce issues annual report. Policy and procedure to hire temporary instructors in response to enrollment growth developed. Office of Institutional Research finalizes work plans for decision support for chairs and for quality initiative data collection and reporting. Institutional encouragements documents approved.	Fall 2013
Four-year instructional plans implemented. Office of Institutional Research begins implementing work plans for decision support for chairs and for quality initiative data collection and reporting.	Winter 2014
Task force meets to review 'Year 2' work.	Summer 2014
Task force issues annual report.	Fall 2014
Task force writes final report for Higher Learning Commission and issues final report to campus.	Winter 2015

 

1. Why are we doing the Quality Initiative (QI)?

An ambitious change project aimed at improving FLC’s academic enterprise (aka a ‘Quality Initiative’) is a new requirement to reaffirm institutional accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission.  FLC is up for reaccreditation in 2015-16, so the QI's focus was taken from items already in the College’s Strategic Plan (Action items 1.a.i-iii).

2. Shouldn’t a ‘quality initiative’ focus on what students are learning?

Excavating clear paths to on-time graduation will be a quality improvement.  That said, the QI does not monopolize quality improvement projects.  Many other groups outside of the QI are working on improving the quality of the educational experience for our students.

3. How will we know if the QI was a success?

Because of the short timeline for implementation of the QI – three academic years – we will not be able to show improved four-year graduation rates for a specific cohort as evidence of the QI’s success.  Therefore, the success of the QI from an accreditation perspective will be measured by implementing the activities designed to remove institutional obstacles and create institutional encouragement for four-year graduation. We will continue to monitor four-year graduation rates after the end of the QI.

4. What happens to FLC if the QI fails?

The HLC states on its website that the QI “is intended to allow institutions to take risks, aim high, and if so be it, learn from partial success or even failure.”  For this reason, the primary evaluative criterion will be “the genuine effort of the institution.”

Specific Activity Questions  

5. Degree Maps: The QI focuses on degree maps for college-level students in reading, writing, and math who are ready to declare a major as first-semester freshmen and students who are college-level in their skills but enter undeclared.  When will the degree maps be developed for remedial students and transfer students?

Following the principle of under-promise and over-deliver, we only committed to degree maps for these two groups of students for the QI.   To truly serve our students, we must push on and develop degree maps for all major student categories.

6. Four-Year Schedules of Instruction: How will scheduling classes four years in advance be possible?  If that part of the QI doesn’t work, won’t much of the rest of the QI fail?

The development of four-year instruction schedules is the linchpin of the QI, as it will be the most significant change in current institutional practice.   We are pushing most of the QI activities out this year to work with administration, department chairs, and faculty over two years to implement this activity successfully.

7. Encouragement for Students: Will students be incentivized to finish in four? 

Probably. At this time, we are developing a conceptual map for incentives. We will be studying the various options next semester.

8. Who is responsible for encouraging students to ‘stay on track’?

All of us are responsible for articulating the institution’s/state’s perspective on four-year graduation to students and supporting them in staying on or getting back on track.

9. Is it true that all students will be required to register for 15 credits?

All students must know they must be enrolled in 15-18 credits per semester to graduate in four years, depending on their academic program and prior credits.   The student will decide whether to enroll at the recommended level or not.  Practically speaking, their financing will drive students’ decisions about load. Currently, the federal government only requires students to be enrolled in 12 credits to receive full financial aid without any institutional policy requiring a higher credit load. 

10. What happens to students who don’t want to graduate on time or cannot do this because of personal or financial constraints?

The student will decide whether to graduate on time or not.  What the QI seeks to do is to remove obstacles for students who do want to finish in four years.  The QI activities will also make more straightforward for students the possible consequences of taking longer (e.g., courses may not be available, students may accumulate more considerable debt and/or exhaust specific sources of financing) so they are making truly informed decisions on this issue.

Staffing Questions

11. Who is the activity coordinator?

Dr. Beverly Chew, Coordinator of Degree Planning Resources and Professor of Psychology.

Taskforce reports

• The Quality Initiative, a Requirement of Reaffirmation of Institutional Accreditation in 2015-16
• Frequently Asked Questions 

Articles About Degree Completion

• "The Tyranny of Choice," The Chronicle of Higher Education Review, Volume 50, Issue 20, January 23, 2004, p. B6.
• "," Change, July/August 2006.
• ," Cut By Jon Marcus, The Hechinger Report

Quality Initiative Taskforce Members

• Carol Smith, Taskforce Chair and Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management
• Jenn Wagnon, Assistant to the Chair and Director of TRiO Student Success Center
• Beverly Chew, Activity Coordinator, Coordinator of Degree Planning Resources, and Professor of Psychology
• Academic Affairs Members
  • Catalina Aguilar, Associate Professor of Spanish
  • Steve Stovall, Faculty Athletics Representative and Visiting Instructor of Marketing
  • Bob Stremba, Professor of Adventure Education
  • Deborah Walker, Associate Professor of Economics
  • Amy Wendland, Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees and Professor of Art
• Haeryon Kim, Student Affairs Member and Dean of Students

Because we could submit a formal proposal for our QI for review by the HLC staff and peer reviewers beginning September 1, the QI Taskforce was the first accreditation team formed. Faculty members were selected in consultation with the Faculty Senate, and the Student Affairs representative was chosen in consultation with the Vice President for Student Affairs.