Living and Learning

University of Houston-Victoria

1

Engaging First-Year Students in Residential Learning Communities at UHV

Living & Learning

Teaming up in Jaguar Village

Quality Enhancement Plan

February 17, 2014

Dr. Philip Castille, President

Dr. Jeffrey Cass, SACS Liaison


2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary 4

II. Components of the QEP 7

III. Development of the QEP 11

IV. Identification of Topic 15

V. Literature Review 19

VI. Rationale for Student Learning Outcomes 29

VII. QEP Activities 38

VIII. Benchmarks 51

IX. Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment 53

X. Phases of the QEP 56

XI. QEP Implementation Timeline 58

XII. QEP Organizational Chart 60

XIII. Resources, Marketing Plan, and Budget 62

XIV. Bibliography 66

XV. Appendices 69

A. First Year Seminar sample syllabus 69

B. Core class sample syllabus 73

C. Leadership and QEP Committees 82

D. Focus Groups and Survey Questions 84

E. Mini-Prospectuses of the QEP 85

F. Table of NSSE teamwork items below national average 90

G. Teamwork Pre-Post Survey 92

H. Teamwork VALUE Rubric 93

I. US History pilot syllabus 96


3

Glossary of Definitions, Terms, and Acronyms:

Co-curricular Activities —Assessed events, programs, and learning experiences that are separate from

courses but are connected to or mirror the academic curriculum.

Community—a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share

common perspectives and interests, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings

(MacQueen, 2001).

CTI—Center for Teaching Innovation, the activities of which will be subsumed into the Learning and

Teaching Institution with QEP implementation.

Downward Expansion—The expansion of University’s mission to include first- and second-year

students. UHV downwardly expanded in 2010.

E-portfolio—Electronic portfolio of student work for Core specific classes to assess designated

performance course indicators

FIGs—Freshman Interest Groups

Intrusive Advising—Method employed by student success coaches to intervene regularly with first-year

students

Linked classes – two classes tied together as co-requisites which enroll the same students, share out-

of-class experiences, and explore the same themes from different disciplinary perspectives.

Jaguar Suites—Location of Living and Learning Commons and QEP office

Jaguar Village—Umbrella term for 3 residential halls: Jaguar Court, Jaguar Hall, and Jaguar Suites

Living and Learning Commons—Space for residential learning communities to interact andcomplete

teamwork exercises

LTI—Learning and Teaching Institute—Entity overseeing faculty development for QEP

NSSE—National Survey of Student Engagement

Pilot Projects—UHV had two QEP pilot projects. The second, which links Core classes with the

freshman seminar, is the template for QEP activities

Residency at UHV— UHV requires first- and second-year students to reside in Jaguar Village, a

student community consisting of three residence halls: Jaguar Hall, Jaguar Court, and Jaguar Suites.

Each of these residence halls offers fully furnished student units, individual liability leases, and cable

and internet connections. Amenities in Jaguar Village include a computer center, study lounges, a

social recreation lounge, a tutoring center, a swimming pool, and an outdoor kitchen.

Residential Learning Community —a residential education unit in a college or university that is

organized on the basis of an academic theme or approach and is intended to integrate academic

learning and community living (http://pcc.bgsu.edu/rlcch/ The Residential Learning Communities

International Clearinghouse).

Rubric—Scoring instructions for the evaluation of student work


4

Student Engagement—a function of the amount of time and effort students invest in educationally

purposeful activities and the institution’s deployment of resources to facilitate student participation

(http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm).

Teamwork—Central component of QEP learning assessment; new assessment requirement

embedded into Texas Core Curriculum by THECB, which defines it as “the ability to consider different

points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal”

(http://ctl.utexas.edu/ctl/thecb_req).

THECB—Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

VC—Victoria College

I. Executive Summary

The purpose of the Quality Enhancement Plan at the University of Houston-Victoria is to

improve first-year student teamwork skills and enhance their learning outcomes in core classes through

the formation of residential learning communities. The identification of the topic resulted from a bottom-

up process that included cross-campus constituencies and interested off-campus parties. The final

topic formulation demonstrates an iterative process that had broad support across the campus.

The need for this QEP starts with the recent changes in institutional culture that began in the

Fall 2010 semester, introducing first-year and second-year students into the mix of UHV’s student

populations. Accustomed as it had been since its founding in 1973 to providing academic programs for

commuter students at the upper undergraduate and at the graduate levels, the University quickly

mobilized faculty and staff to furnish residential spaces, provide student life experiences, establish a

Texas Core Curriculum, and implement a First Year Academic Experience program that would assist

students transitioning to college life.

The characteristics of these new groups are markedly different from UHV’s typical student

populations of the past. The new students are frequently from underserved minority groups and first-

generation families, they require need-based student aid assistance, and they live on campus. While

UHV’s initial efforts at aligning the learning experiences of these new students with our mission, goals,

and history have yielded many success stories, the University has recognized that retention of first-year

students has become an issue for this new four-year institution. One of the clear causes of low


5

retention figures has been a lack of engagement, more specifically, the dimension of teamwork. And

most participants in the development of the QEP—students, staff, faculty, administration, and

community members— felt that effective learning could not take place without such engagement.

Greater engagement is linked strongly with greater satisfaction, greater retention, and higher levels of

learning. After a lengthy process that involved internal and external research, as well as frank

discussions among campus constituencies about the details of a project as large as the QEP, the

University decided that the best way to address the interrelated issues of learning and engagement was

through the establishment of learning communities; however, given the newness of the residential

spaces, UHV has also decided to embed learning communities within the residential environment. The

QEP focuses not only on the academic work of learning communities, but as well in their extension into

the living spaces of students and the co-curricular activities they crave and need.

Hence, UHV wishes to address the interlinked issues of student engagement and learning

through the development of residentially based learning communities, a well-documented and highly

successful strategy. UHV’s Quality Enhancement Plan—Living and Learning—constructs Residential

Learning Communities by providing first-year students a cohort experience centered on a pair of linked

classes (First Year Seminar and Core class). Living together, learning together, learning teamwork

skills, and taking linked classes will enable students to make meaningful connections that are essential

to greater levels of student success. UHV commits itself to this project because it believes that by

working with faculty and with each other in residential learning communities, students will not only be

more fully engaged with their academic and social experiences, they will perform better as well in their

courses. As a result, they will be retained in greater numbers and will graduate at higher rates. Thus,

Living and Learning represents a quality enhancement plan that “focuses on learning outcomes and the

environment supporting student learning.”

To accomplish this program of learning and engagement, UHV has connected the student

learning outcomes of core classes with teamwork skills, and co-curricular activities that extend

engagement into the residential space and the community. The following graphic illustrates the process


6

of focusing our efforts on student learning and increased engagement leading not only to greater

learning and engagement, but also to greater satisfaction.

Living and Learning in

Residential Learning Communities

By working with faculty and with each other in residential learning communities, students will be more

fully engaged with their academic and social experiences, and they will learn more effectively and

efficiently. Faculty members seeking to engage more meaningfully with our students are enthusiastic

about the opportunities afforded by what the QEP, Living and Learning, represents.

UHV anticipates that the activities planned for Residential Learning Communities will produce

the following results:

1. Students within residential learning communities will learn to work together and acquire

teamwork skills.

2. Students within residential learning communities will achieve higher grade point averages

than those not so enrolled.

3. Students as well as faculty and student affairs staff will be more engaged with each other

and academic work.

4. Students will persevere in their studies, with a growing percentage being retained at the

Student Learning

- Teamwork

- Core Class

Student Learning

Outcomes

Civic

Engagement

Co-curricular

activities

- Participation

- Reflection

- Greater Learning

- Greater Engagement

- Greater Satisfaction


7

sophomore and junior levels across disciplines

In the first year, the QEP will offer four Living and Learning residential learning communities with

the aim of increasing cohorts an additional thirty percent the following year and the remaining fifty

percent the third year.. When first-year students join UHV in 2016, there will a sufficient number of

residential learning communities for all incoming first-year students. The tagline for the QEP—Living

and Learning—incorporates the best practices for teaching courses within a learning community

context, an intensive program of student learning and engagement consistent with UHV's Mission

Statement which, in part, is to provide students the "opportunity to make meaningful connections

between their classroom experiences and their lives in an ever-changing and increasingly complex

world."

II. Components of the QEP

Living and Learning integrates a number of important university functions into an intentional and

coherent structure designed to enhance the student learning experience and produce improved student

learning outcomes. The graphic below illustrates this integration.


8

UHV’s QEP calls for the establishment of Residential Learning Communities that combine a pair of

linked classes with student life and student success elements in classroom and residential settings.

Each Residential Learning Community will be coordinated by a Living and Learning Support Team

consisting of the faculty teaching the linked classes, a Student Success coach, a librarian, and a

Student Life advisor to help create a coherent and unified academic and residential experience for the

students. Each residential learning community will include the following elements:

1. Two Linked Classes – Faculty members teaching the First Year Seminar class and the core

class in each Residential Learning Community will collaborate on linked assignments and

activities that extend beyond the classroom and engage with the community.

a. First Year Seminar class (UNIV 1200)

With the expansion of the university from an upper-level institution to a full four-

year institution came the need for offering a college success course. At the

recommendation of a committee formed to study the options, the First Year

Seminar was originally offered as a non-credit course. After student and faculty

feedback indicated general dissatisfaction with the content and format of the

course, the committee met again to consider changes. Currently, the First Year

Seminar is a two-credit course required of all incoming first-year students in the

fall semester focusing on strengthening students’ academic skills, introducing

students to college life, and helping them to develop social relationships. The

First Year Seminar is housed in Academic Affairs and is overseen by the Director

of the First Year Academic Experience. As a linked class, the First Year Seminar

will also focus on helping students develop the particular skills needed in the

Core class with which it is linked (see Appendix A for a sample syllabus).


9

b. Core Class

UHV’s core classes are taught by full-time faculty who have worked on a major

revisioning process to bring the classes into alignment with the new standards

set in place by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board effective Fall

2014. The core classes in the learning communities will pay special attention to

developing skills related to teamwork (see Appendix B for a sample syllabus).

2. Student Life

Co-curricular activities – these activities are an extension of the learning that takes place

in the classroom into the residential space (primarily in the Living and Learning

Commons) and beyond into the larger community. Co-curricular activities aim to enrich

student learning and development through non-classroom activities which connect to

their in-class learning outcomes. In addition to connecting to the curricular material of the

linked classes, co-curricular activities have the aim of increasing participation in and

reflection on civic engagement. Faculty and students in Residential Learning

Communities will be aided by the newly-created Office of Civic Engagement whose

mission is to “promote volunteerism, and provide community service, civic engagement,

and service-learning opportunities for UHV students.”

3. Student Success

a. Intrusive Advising

The newly established Student Success Center will have in place three student

success coaches during the Spring 2014 semester. The coaches will not only

advise students on which courses they need to take but also on general matters

to do with navigating the college experience.


10

b. Tutoring

The Student Success Center will assign peer tutors to each Residential Learning

Community to help with assignments and projects. Most of the tutoring will take

place in the Living and Learning Commons.

4. Learning and Teaching Institute

With regards to its role in the QEP, the primary aim of the Learning and Teaching

Institute is to help faculty who are selected to teach in the Residential Learning

Communities become more aware of the issues connected to creating successful

learning communities. A series of workshops with the participation of the Center for

Teaching Innovation will be offered to help faculty develop strategies to help students be

more engaged, work toward a higher GPA, learn teamwork, and be more satisfied.

Faculty will also be aided in designing and deploying e-portfolios and assessment tools

that measure the student learning outcomes associated with Residential Learning

Communities at UHV.

5. Living and Learning Commons

The Living and Learning Commons is a space set aside in Jaguar Suites (UHV’s newest

residential hall) for members of Residential Learning Communities. It is in this space that

students will come to work together on their assignments, receive tutoring, and take part

in co-curricular activities such as watching films and participating in discussions with

invited speakers, for example. It is also here that faculty interested in teaching in

Residential Learning Communities will take workshops on pedagogical matters

associated with learning communities. The Living and Learning Commons will offer a

mix of high technology and traditional work spaces designed to make teamwork easier

as well as social spaces for ease of interaction among students and between students,

faculty, and staff.


11

III. Development of the QEP

In August of 2011, UHV’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness, a direct report to the Provost,

began to organize the University’s continuous improvement measures in preparation for the SACS

Reaffirmation visit in the spring of 2014. At the same time, the Institutional Leadership Team was

formed under the direction of President Philip Castille. One of the initial tasks of the Institutional

Leadership Team (see Exhibit 1 and Appendix C) was to begin the process of QEP development.

The team emphasized stakeholder involvement in topic selection. Furthermore, because the QEP is

integral to the continuous improvement measures the University has instituted, the Institutional

Leadership Team took steps to inform the university community about the nature of the QEP and the

necessary steps to take for its creation.

Just prior to the fall semester 2011, the OIE developed a Website (http://www.uhv.edu/oie/),

which provided information on the nature of the QEP and the processes for its selection. The QEP

Institutional Effectiveness Steering Committee during this period provided a series of PowerPoint

presentations about the nature and scope of the QEP. These introductory sessions would set the stage

for specific development activities to come in academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

Fall 2011 Semester – Initial Explorations of QEP Options

A total of twelve introductory sessions that examined possible QEP topics were conducted

during the fall of 2011. These included meetings of the President’s Cabinet, the President’s Cabinet

retreat, the Academic Council, faculties of the four academic schools (Arts & Sciences, Business

Administration, Education & Human Development, and Nursing), the Faculty Senate, the Staff Council,

Student Affairs staff, Human Resources and the Student Government Association (SGA). While these

sessions successfully introduced various constituencies to the concept of the QEP, they were also

designed to begin discussions within and among these groups across campus about possible themes

for the QEP. UHV constructed focus groups and started sending surveys to undergraduate and

graduate students, student senate, staff, faculty, President’s Regional Advisory Board, alumni, and


12

Victoria community members in the fall to determine the possible themes for the QEP (See Appendix

D). The following stakeholders also participated in focus groups: one undergraduate student group in

Sugar Land and Cinco Ranch; four undergraduate groups in Victoria; and one staff focus group in

Victoria. The Student Senate, graduate students and alumni provided important feedback through

participation in surveys.

Spring 2012 Semester – Collecting Data Through Surveys and Focus Groups

UHV resumed its data collection with focus groups and surveys in the spring. The following

participated in focus groups: two undergraduate groups in Sugar Land and Cinco Ranch and one staff

group for Sugar Land and Cinco Ranch. The faculties were surveyed in each of the four academic

schools. In addition, members of the President’s Regional Advisory Board were surveyed. In late

spring, the Victoria community was invited to take part in a survey entitled “Imagine That”. Students,

faculty and alumni were also given a second chance at providing input by being included in “Imagine

That”. By the end of the spring 2012 term, stakeholders had been given multiple opportunities to

provide input as Exhibit 1 below indicates:

Exhibit 1: Stakeholders Who Provided Input with Data Gathering Method

Stakeholders Focus

Group

Survey

Undergraduates (Victoria) 4 1

Undergraduates (Sugar Land/Cinco

Ranch)

3 1

Graduate Students (All locations) 2

Staff (Victoria) 1 1

Staff (Sugar Land/Cinco Ranch) 3 1

Alumni (All locations) 2

Faculty (All locations) 2

President’s Regional Advisory Board 2

Community (Victoria) 1


13

Student Senate (All locations) 2

During the spring semester of 2012, the QEP Planning and Implementation Team met five

times. The responses from focus groups and surveys of faculty, staff, students, and community

members were analyzed via a quantitative method through a statistical analysis as well as a qualitative

method through a thematic analysis. Under the quantitative method the responses were coded and

analyzed by ANOVA and chi-square tests. The qualitative method required the formation of a separate

Theme Selection Committee, a team of twelve members drawn from throughout the University

community. The Committee met as a large group to read and discuss their impressions of the

responses. This activity produced a list of themes, which were then ranked individually by Theme

Selection Committee members according to perceived importance.

The qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis of the responses revealed a common set of

concerns and interests about improving the student learning experience at UHV that were organized

into three possible broad categories: increased student engagement, enhanced academic flexibility,

and greater course rigor. A mini-prospectus was developed for three possible themes: 1) “increase

engagement” focused on developing learning communities, service learning, and problem-based

learning; 2) “enhance academic flexibility” focused on offering more online and face-to-face classes in

all academic programs; 3) “greater course rigor” focused on providing a more rigorous online learning

experience (See Appendix E). In addition to the mini-prospectuses, a survey of the themes was also

conducted. The mini-prospectuses and the survey results were made available to the Institutional

Leadership Team to help it decide which theme would become the topic for the QEP. The Institutional

Leadership Team identified Residential Learning Communities as a strategy that might allow UHV to

focus attention and resources on an aspect of the university that had never before existed: first- and

second-year students. In addition to the new student population, the university also added the

requirement that all first- and second-year students live in university housing (another first for UHV). At


14

this point, the QEP Development Team was formed to begin research and development of the selected

topic.

Summer 2012, Fall 2012, and Calendar Year 2013 – Researching the Chosen Topic

During the summer of 2012 intensive research on the chosen topic was conducted. External

research was undertaken to identify Residential Learning Communities best practices in the literature

as well as in actual practice. In addition to reviewing the literature, members of the QEP Development

Team travelled to Baylor University to speak to administrators and student RAs involved in their version

of Engaged Learning Communities. Institutional Research made available institutional data in order to

ascertain a measurable need and benefit for residential learning communities. Of particular interest

were measures related to greater learning as measured by grade point averages and ETS Proficiency

Profiles, student engagement, teamwork and satisfaction, and student retention. Investigation was

undertaken of the published research on this and related topics to determine best practices and to

gather possible applications of this research to the UH-Victoria context.

During the fall of 2012 and the entire 2013 calendar year, the QEP Planning and

Implementation team and campus constituencies, drafted and revised the Quality Enhancement Plan.

In addition, a pilot consisting only of linked classes with no residential component was offered in the

spring 2013 semester. After analyzing the outcomes of the linked introductory Philosophy and US

History classes, a pilot with a residential component was designed for the fall 2013 semester creating a

First Year Seminar class of 25 first-year students who live together in Jaguar Hall linked with an

introductory Criminal Justice class. The graphic below illustrates the phased process of QEP

development that resulted in the Summer 2013 draft of the QEP. The draft was disseminated to the

campus in late summer for review and revisions in the Fall 2013 semester.


15

Exhibit 2: Process Used to Develop the QEP

IV. Identification of Topic

The following four strands have come together at this point in UHV’s history to weave the QEP

topic of Residential Learning Communities: the desire of UHV students, faculty and staff, and the

broader Victoria region community for greater student engagement (more curricular and co-curricular

opportunities to put time and effort into educationally purposeful activities); the value UHV places on

helping students make meaningful connections between their classroom experiences and their lives in

an ever-changing and increasingly complex world (as reflected in the mission statement); UHV’s recent

growth into a comprehensive, destination university through the inclusion of first-year students and

sophomores; and the strong presence in our undergraduate demographic of under-served students.

Through the Quality Enhancement Plan, the University of Houston-Victoria intends to increase

student engagement in educationally purposeful activities through the establishment of residential

learning communities with a focus on teamwork and core-class specific student learning outcomes. The

Institutional Leadership Team crafted the final topic based on research and clear indicators of broad

community support. The identification of the topic resulted from a bottom-up process that included

cross-campus constituencies and Victoria and regional community members. Over the greater part of a

year, a number of focus groups were held and surveys conducted in all our campus locations with

undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, staff, the President’s Regional Advisory Board members,

alumni, and Victoria community members to garner input about improving the student learning

experience at UHV. The goal of increasing student learning through teamwork best reflects the broad

Phase 1: Fall 2011-Spring 2012

•Planning and Topic Selection

Phase 2: Summer 2012

•Topic Research

Phase 3: Fall 2012-Spring 2013

•Develop, Draft, and Pilot Linked Classes

Phase 4:Summer 2013

•Analyze Pilot and Revise


16

campus discussions about student engagement and most readily captures the academic concerns

connected with student retention and student life. Faculty, students, and staff all indicated they would

like to see greater interaction and collaboration among and between each other. This finding is in

keeping with the literature on the connection between engagement and student success.

Students at UHV also perceive their own lack of engagement, not only with the institution, but

with each other as well. Of special note, analysis of the NSSE data reveals that UHV suffers from low

scores on items designed to measure teamwork. Of the various elements that the NSSE measures,

teamwork stands out for three reasons: one, learning communities foster collaboration and teamwork

between and among students, faculty, and staff; two, teamwork is one of the new core objectives

required by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and UHV is redesigning its core

courses; and three, teamwork in learning communities can be directly measured. According to Item (D)

of the Guidelines for Texas Core Curriculum Requirements, teamwork includes “the ability to consider

different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal”

(http://ctl.utexas.edu/ctl/thecb_req). Through the use of VALUE rubrics, as outlined by the American

Association of Colleges and University, teamwork can be measured as a learning outcome, and with

the inclusion of e-portfolios into the learning communities through linked classes, specific student

learning outcomes within core classes can be measured as well.

Comparing NSSE scores on teamwork to two other institutions of comparable size who have

also undergone downward expansion in recent years, it became clear that UHV could benefit from a

focus on teamwork. UHV scored far below Texas A&M International and a few percentage points above

UT at Tyler, with all three substantially below the national mean (see Appendix F). UHV scored at or

above the national mean and our Southwest Public benchmark peer institutions in only 32% of the

items associated with teamwork (and only marginally better at 36% as compared to our Carnegie Class

peers). One of the measurable outcomes for Living and Learning, which will be discussed in more

detail below, is to score at or above the national mean in 80% of the questions associated with

teamwork by the end of the QEP (2019). UHV aims to increase from having 8 out of 25 items at or


17

above the national mean to having 20 out of 25 items at or above the national mean in a five-year

period.

With the above data points and research materials in mind, the Institutional Leadership Team

decided to pursue Residential Learning Communities as the basis for the QEP in early summer 2012.

Learning Communities was one of the three strategies in the “increase engagement” mini-prospectus

that received favorable responses from all UHV stakeholders. UHV’s recent downward expansion has

impelled the institution’s need to understand and serve our newest populations (first-year and

sophomores) more comprehensively, particularly because UHV requires all first and second-year

students live in residence halls. This drive for a more complete picture of the relationship between

learning and living, the classroom and the residential space, motivated the Institutional Leadership

Team to add a residential component to the Learning Communities. In a recent study, Zhao and Kuh

(2004) found residential learning communities are “associated with greater social interaction with peers

and extracurricular involvement, higher persistence and graduations rates, and greater gains in critical

thinking and reading comprehension” (p. 118). The demographic profile of the 2012 first-year class at

UHV indicates that the majority of our students are full-time and female, under-represented students

from identified minority groups, and FTIC (first time in college). In addition, the vast majority (80%) of

our matriculated students receive need-based student aid assistance. Implementing Learning

Communities appeared, from both internal research and published literature, to be one of the most

proven strategies to enhance the learning experience for under-served students. The Association of

American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), regards learning communities as a high-impact teaching

and learning practice.

Although UHV’s facilities at the Victoria campus cannot as yet provide a separate residence hall

for residential learning communities, UHV plans for the cohorts of first-year students enrolled in pairs of

linked classes to live in proximity to each other as much as possible in Jaguar Village, the collective

name given to the residence halls at UHV. Such proximity will enable them to more easily be involved

in social and co-curricular activities that are relevant to the subject matter of their learning community,


18

as well as to take advantage of the special tutoring sessions scheduled in the Living and Learning

Commons (a technology-equipped set-aside space in Jaguar Suites). In this way, UHV hopes to

integrate living and learning, so that the classroom does not end once the classroom door is shut;

rather, learning extends into the living spaces at the students’ place of residence. The extended

classroom, in fact, is the central metaphor of UHV’s Quality Enhancement Plan. As Jeff Vredevoogd

declares, “Any space on campus can be a learning space, and that includes residence halls”

(http://www.hermanmiller.com/research/research-summaries/room-and-board-redefined-trends-in-

residence-halls.html). He continues, “The intersection where people, place, and pedagogy come

together is where possibilities for learning best take place.” According to the researchers at Herman

Miller, Inc. this “blurring of the lines between living and learning is creating opportunities for

communities to emerge that expand learning and social benefits.” The QEP establishes this

“intersection” between learning and living, creating communities in which students are simultaneously

both more engaged and better learners. Primarily due to our agreement with our local community

college to not recruit first- and second-year students in the Victoria region for a period of four years

from the date of our downward expansion, and also because of our requirement that all first- and

second-year students live in residence halls, the commuter population is overwhelmingly composed of

nd students. Over the course of the five-year plan of the QEP the commuter population of first- and

second-year students will certainly grow as we begin to recruit locally, and we look to include these

students in the Residential Learning Communities. There is no barrier to our commuter first- and

second-year students taking part in all the same activities as our residential students save actually

living in the residence halls.

UHV lays the foundation of its QEP by increasing student engagement through residential

learning communities (RLCs). Student engagement can be divided broadly into two components,

academic and social, and residential learning communities provide a framework to address both. Zhao

and Kuh’s study (op. cit.) suggests that students living in residential learning communities not only

increase their social engagement through more open campus environments, something supported by a


19

review of survey results from the National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) and by survey data

from stakeholders, but these students also retain more information and basic skills from their courses.

Moreover, with more immediate contact with faculty and staff in their residential spaces, students will

feel more at ease in accessing and making use of the support systems that the QEP envisions. Thus,

the QEP intends to implement the notion that an intentionally designed living space for first-year

students means greater academic success, then and later in their academic careers.

V. Literature Review

Studies on the effects of college on students have found that one phenomenon is crucial in

distinguishing those students who benefit from college and those who do not. "This phenomenon has

been defined using different labels, including the concepts of involvement (Astin, 1984), integration

(Tinto, 1993), engagement (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991), and quality of effort (Pace, 1984)”

(Inkelas 338). Further studies by Astin led to the conclusion that “(a) involvement with academics (e.g.,

time spent studying, etc.), (b) involvement with faculty, and (c) involvement with student peer groups”

have the greatest impact (Inkelas 339). Engagement and Astin’s three types of involvement are

essential to the concept of the living-learning program. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) recommend that

successful learning communities incorporate small-group work projects that promote collaborative and

cooperative learning. In a study of 365 four-year institutions with learning communities Zhao and Kuh

(2004) found that participating in learning communities is positively linked to engagement and overall

satisfaction with college. Their research supports what others have found in the study of learning

communities, that they are “associated with enhanced academic performance, integration of academic

and social experiences, gains in multiple areas of skill, competence, and knowledge” (130-31).

Learning Communities, in short, are successful because they provide a strategy that helps bring about

the kind of academic and social integration that Vincent Tinto’s invaluable student integration model

calls for (1975).Much of the development and dissemination of Learning Communities can be traced to

the decades-long work of a group of educators at The Evergreen State College in Washington. Their


20

1990 book Learning Communities: Creating Connections Among Students, Faculty, and Disciplines

introduces the work on learning communities that had been going on for a few years partly in response

to the dramatic shifts in higher education in the 1960s and 1970s. The number of schools that used

Learning Communities exploded in the 1990s causing the group at Evergreen State to write a follow-up

of sorts in 2004 titled Learning Communities: Reforming Undergraduate Education. It is from this text

that we take the following definition:

[Learning communities] refer to a variety of curricular approaches that intentionally link or cluster

two or more courses, often around an interdisciplinary theme or problem, and enroll a common

cohort of students. They represent an intentional restructuring of students’ time, credit, and

learning experiences to build community, enhance learning, and foster connections among

students, faculty, and disciplines. At their best, learning communities practice pedagogies of

active engagement and reflection. On residential campuses, many learning communities are

also living-learning communities restructuring the residential environment to build community

and integrate academic work with out-of-class experiences. (20)

The full definition contains elements that answer a number of our needs as a school that has

only recently started offering a full four-year undergraduate experience. Our first cohort of first-year

students joined us in Fall 2010. Until that point, UHV had been an institution offering only upper-division

and graduate master’s classes. Through a long self-study process, we discovered that our students

(lower- and upper-division), faculty, and staff all pointed to the need for greater engagement among

students, between students and faculty, and between the university and the community. The students

also expressed a desire for a greater engagement with their course offerings and studies. Our

institutional data revealed that in addition to a deficit in engagement (as measured by the NSSE), we

also needed to improve our retention rates (FTIC, Full-Time Degree Seeking students from Fall 2010 to

Fall 2011, and Fall 2011 to Fall 2012, and Fall 2012 to Fall 2013 are at 54%, 55%, and 48%,

respectively) . The literature on Learning Communities suggests that forming Learning Communities

with a residential component might help us with engagement and retention.


21

History and Foundation of Learning Communities

Learning Communities exist in large numbers and in many varieties in the American higher

education landscape. Some of the earliest learning communities can be traced back to the work of

Alexander Meiklejohn at the University of Wisconsin, Madison in the 1920s and 1930s building on the

educational and philosophical ideas of John Dewey. This is not the place for a summary of all of

Dewey’s thinking but the following quotation from his 1916 work, Democracy and Education, nicely

sums up his approach to the social dimension of learning:

As matter of fact every individual has grown up, and always must grow up, in a social medium.

His responses grow intelligent, or gain meaning, simply because he lives and acts in a medium

of accepted meanings and values. (See ante, p. 36.) Through social intercourse, through

sharing in the activities embodying beliefs, he gradually acquires a mind of his own. The

conception of mind as a purely isolated possession of the self is at the very antipodes of the

truth. The self achieves mind in the degree in which knowledge of things is incarnate in the life

about him; the self is not a separate mind building up knowledge anew on its own account.”

(Chapter 22, section 2)

Meiklejohn hoped to counter the pressure to move away from a socially inflected liberal arts

education toward a more utilitarian one by developing communities of learners. In sympathy with

Dewey’s larger claim that proper education can help individuals develop into honest inquirers into

knowledge and thus true citizens, Meiklejohn created the Experimental College at the University of

Wisconsin in 1927. He designed the college as a living-learning community where students and faculty

worked together on developing reading and writing opportunities. In order to help the “community find

its life centering about a common course of study, a common set of problems, a common human

situation” (227), Meiklejohn put into place the concept of an integrated two-year lower-division program

focusing on democracy in fifth-century Athens and nineteenth- and twentieth-century America.

Learning communities also draw upon the concept of learning as a socially constructed

phenomenon and look to the early twentieth century work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. “At


22

the core of Vygotsky's theory is the sense that children must be actively involved in teaching/learning

relationships with more competent others who both learn from children and draw them into fuller

membership in their cultural world” (Tudge 224). Although Vygotsky’s contributions play a more central

role in education at the primary school level, the social aspect of learning can be applied to a great

variety of settings. Furthermore, Clifford Geertz glosses this “social” interaction in the following

passage: “[T]hinking as an overt, public act, involving the purposeful manipulation of objective

materials, is probably fundamental to human beings; and thinking as a covert, private act, and without

recourse to such materials [is] a derived, though not unuseful, capability…. Human thought is

consummately social in its origins, social in its functions, social in its form, social in its applications” (as

quoted in Bruffee, 1984, p. 639).

Types and Efficacy of Learning Communities

Learning communities can take on myriad forms and have been used by all manner of higher

education institutions. They are found in community colleges, liberal-arts colleges, comprehensive

master’s universities, as well as large research universities. They are also found in schools with

traditional residential structures as well as in commuter schools. The curricular structures of learning

communities range widely from a cohort of students meeting together in a class that serves to tie

together two other autonomously taught classes to a cohort taking two or more linked classes and living

together in a residence. The great variety of learning community structures speaks to the strength of

the concept as well as its responsiveness to individual institutional needs. UHV’s needs seem best to

be met by a residential learning community model in which cohorts of students take two or more linked

classes together and live on campus in proximity to each other. Spending time with the same group of

students in intellectual and social settings and by working on assignments prepared by faculty in

collaboration over at least two classes, helps students have a better sense of community, engagement,

and an integrative college experience.


23

Building on the work of Shapiro and Levine (1999), Inkelas identifies 4 major types of learning

communities: “(a) paired or clustered courses; (b) cohorts in large courses or first-year interest groups

(FIGs); (c) team-taught courses; and (d) residence-based programs, also living-learning programs”

(Inkelas, 2003, 335). As Inkelas points out, the students in living-learning communities

not only partake in coordinated curricular activities, but also live together in a specific residence

hall where they are provided with academic programming and services…. Living-learning

programs were created as a means to integrate students’ in-class and out-of-class experiences

by providing a community that fosters greater faculty and peer interaction, increased

opportunities for coordinated learning activities, and an academically and socially supportive

living environment. (335).

The institutions in the study by Inkelas and Weisman offer a number of programs that can be

clustered into three groups: transition programs, academic honors programs, and curriculum-based

programs. “Transition programs typically enroll first-year students and focus on facilitating a successful

transition from home to college by providing academic support, skill development training, and

programs and classes designed to create a more intimate learning environment” (336). There are many

variations in the types of learning communities that dot the landscape of American higher education,

but they generally follow four principal curricular structures: 1) Learning Communities within unmodified,

existing courses, 2) Learning Communities of Linked or Clustered Classes, 3) Team-Taught Learning

Communities, and 4) Living-Learning Communities. UHV has taken elements from each of these

models, creating residential learning communities with linked classes.

The Director of the National Survey of Student Engagement offers the following advice to

administrators looking for ways to improve student engagement and learning: “Make it possible for

every student to participate in at least two high impact activities during their undergraduate program,

one in the first year, and one later related to their major field. The obvious choices for the first year are

first-year seminars, learning communities, and service learning.” The AAC&U’s 2007 report lists

Learning Communities as one of the ten best “teaching and learning practices [that] have been widely


24

tested and have shown benefits for college students, especially those from historically underserved

backgrounds” (53). http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf

A major 2003 study by Inkelas and Weisman found that

students in residential learning communities were significantly more likely than students in

traditional residence halls: (a) to be more involved with campus activities and interact with

instructors and peers (Inkelas, 1999; Pike, 1999); (b) to show greater gains in or higher levels of

intellectual development (Inkelas; Pike); (c) to use campus resources, seek assistance from

peers, faculty and staff (Brower, 1997) and to experience a smoother transition to college

(Inkelas); and (d) to report their residence hall communities to be academically and socially

supportive (Inkelas; Scholnick, 1996). (338)

The 2009 Report on Learning Communities at Colorado State Universities showed that a

greater percentage of students in learning communities were retained to the second year than students

who were not enrolled in learning communities. The effect was most significant for students of color

(82.58% vs. 78.87%) and for first generation students (79.88% vs. 76.57%). Learning community

students also had a higher GPA than non-learning community students (2.91 vs. 2.77) (http://www.lc.

colostate.edu/highlightsandreports.aspx).

Learning Communities and Teamwork

Perhaps not surprisingly, understanding learning as a social phenomenon has led a number of

researchers and practitioners to study more closely the process of learning together. Teamwork is the

concept of people working together toward a common goal and collaboration is the structured,

recursive process where two or more people work together toward that common goal. The term

Collaborative Learning was coined and first developed in British secondary schools in the 1950s and

1960s, and American college teachers turned to teamwork (or collaborative learning) in the 1970s to

help students who were not accustomed to the conventional college classroom. Bruffee (1984) echoes

Vygotsky’s sentiment in a more generalized vein when he states that “Students’ work tended to improve


25

when they got help from peers; peers offering help, furthermore, learned from the students they helped

and from the activity of helping itself” ( 638).

Bruffee also constructs a logical chain that leads from thought as internalized conversation to

the cultivation of communities that create the conditions most likely to promote the development of

individual thought as well as community (640). He writes, “Thus collaborative learning can help

students join the established knowledge communities of academic studies, business, and the

professions” (649). Learning communities that emphasize teamwork and collaborative learning have

thus been associated with improved grades, better retention, and increased satisfaction for

undergraduates (see Gabelnick et al., 1990).

Retention and Learning Communities

With the establishment of residential learning communities, the Institutional Leadership team

feels that increased student retention will result. UHV recognizes that there are a number of factors

over which universities have little or no control, and which can nonetheless lead to lower retention

rates. But by designing a living and learning space that makes students feel part of an academic and

social community, UHV believes it can advance both student learning and retention rates. Over a

period of ten years, for example, Iowa State has consistently found that Learning Community students

have a significantly higher retention rate than non-Learning Community students. According to a 2012

U.S. News ranking, Iowa State was among the top 1.2% of institutions with stellar Learning

Communities as selected by college presidents, chief academic officers, deans of students and deans

of admissions from over 1,500 institutions. The following table represents retention rates at Iowa State

for students in learning communities as compared to those not enrolled in learning communities.

Retention Rates One-year Four-Year

Year LC Non-LC LC Non-LC

Fall 1998 91.0% 82.1% 80.4% 66.9%

Fall 1999 90.2% 82.0% 78.8% 66.5%

Fall 2000 89.8% 80.5% 78.4% 65.1%

Fall 2001 88.1% 80.8% 75.7% 66.1%

Fall 2002 89.8% 80.4% 77.6% 66.5%


26

Fall 2003 88.1% 82.1% 77.4% 69.0%

Fall 2004 90.1% 82.3% 76.7% 65.2%

Fall 2005 87.2% 79.7% 76.6% 63.7%

Fall 2006 88.2% 80.5%

Fall 2007 87.5% 78.6%

Fall 2008 86.7% 79.1%

For a fuller look at retention rates for First-Year Learning Communities students at Iowa State see

http://www.lc.iastate.edu/pdfs-docs/University%20Retention%20Rates_LC_2010.pdf. With the five-year

plan of the QEP, we would like to match Iowa State’s eight to ten point differential between retention of

students in learning communities and those not enrolled in learning communities. Other examples of

effective use of student learning communities include efforts by the University of New England,

Australia (Muldoon) and St. John Fisher College (Arnold) to establish a version of learning communities

or modified Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs).

Learning Communities and Underserved Student Populations

The demographic profile of the 2012 first-year class at UHV shows the majority of students to be

Hispanic, full-time, female, FTIC (first time in college), and under 21 years of age. In addition, a majority

of our first-year students receive need-based student assistance, and a sizable number are first-

generation college students. The following table represents the demographics of UHV’s 2012 first-year

class (in percentages).

First -year New Student Fall 2012 %

First time student 86

Full-time 75

Male 39

Female 61

Asian 2.5

Black or African American 15

Hispanics of any race 48

White 26

Two or more races 3.2

<21 years of age 98

Need–based student aid

recipient

80


27

We expect our future first-year classes to maintain a similar profile given our service area, our

strengths, and the demographic trends in the state of Texas. Given our student profile, UHV has much

to gain from understanding how better to work with such a student body. A recent study by the

American Council on Education (ACE), “The Education Gap: Understanding African American and

Hispanic Attainment Disparities in Higher Education” (Ryu 2012), finds that higher percentages of

African-American and Hispanic students have poorer matriculation and graduation rates than members

of other racial/ethnic groups. Only 48% of African-American students and 49% of Hispanic students

who began at four-year institutions attained a credential within five years of enrolling while 70% of

White students and 74% of Asian students did so. It is apparent to us that UHV must be intentional in

creating better learning opportunities for our students. The literature shows that underserved student

populations such as ours, namely under-represented minorities, low-income students, and first-

generation students, respond positively to high-impact practices such as learning communities.

First-generation students in living-learning communities have an easier academic and social

transition to college life than those in traditional class settings (Inkelas 2007). Jehangir (2008) finds that

students of color experienced learning communities as more responsive to their needs and afforded

them a better understanding of themselves as students within the university. Hotchkiss reports that

students of color in learning communities had better grades and higher rates of persistence compared

to their non-learning community peers. The learning community programs at the University of Texas, El

Paso, designed to retain more Hispanic students as well as to encourage more Hispanic students into

STEM programs, have shown great success. The retention rate for the learning community students in

1997 was 77% compared to an overall retention rate of 68%. Learning community students also

performed better than non-learning community students as evidenced by their higher GPAs (Decker

Lardner 2).

First-generation 37


28

A longitudinal study of low-income students conducted by Tinto and Engstrom (2008) also finds

that learning communities have a positive impact on persistence rates. In addition, their study finds that

the following four conditions are important to keep in mind when designing learning communities: one,

“employ active and collaborative pedagogies;” two, collaborate with other faculty “to develop an

integrated, coherent curriculum;” three, “integrate campus support services into the learning

community;” and four, “hold students to high expectations while offering high levels of support and

encouragement” (19). It seems to us that all classes would benefit from their recommendations.

Learning communities with a residential component have been shown to help with retention by

integrating academic and social activities, addressing issues of student preparedness, and helping

students feel part of a community in a new and often overwhelming setting (Tinto 1987). Learning

communities also provide first-year students with models of what it means to be a successful college

student (Shapiro 4). Students benefit from exploring important themes alongside interested faculty and

both groups make connections between different elements of the curriculum. “The implicit curriculum in

learning communities declares that learning is integrated and that autonomous disciplines share

common concerns. The collaborative pedagogy promotes awareness of and respect for the

contributions of different individuals and different areas of knowledge” (Gabelnick 114).

It is apparent from the research that residential learning communities address some of UHV’s

biggest needs as we look to better serve our newest student population: underserved first-year

students. Linking a core class with a first-year seminar class and extending the learning into the

residential space will allow us to design learning communities that integrate subject-specific learning,

college success skills and knowledge, high-impact pedagogical practices, and co-curricular activities

that take learning outside the classroom into an integrated and intentional whole. The great majority of

our first-year students who are either first-generation, first-time-in-college, under-represented minority,

or low-income students (and often fit in more than one category) will benefit greatly from being part of a

small cohort that lives and learns together.


29

VI. Rationale for the student learning outcomes of Living and Learning,

UHV’s Quality Enhancement Plan.

Students who are given the appropriate support and opportunities to enhance and improve their

teamwork skills, class-specific learning outcomes, and co-curricular activities are more engaged and

satisfied with their university experience and thus persevere in their studies. UHV will accomplish this s

by creating living and learning opportunities through the development of residential learning

communities. Given that underserved student populations such as ours, namely under-represented

minorities, low-income students, and first-generation students, respond positively to high-impact

practices such as learning communities, and that first-generation students in living-learning

communities have an easier academic and social transition to college life than those in traditional class

settings, UHV’s QEP, Living and Learning, puts in place Residential Learning Communities for our

first-year students by academically connecting redesigned Core classes with the First Year Seminar,

and also by embedding student life and other shared activities into students’ actual living spaces.

Retention

Satisfaction

Engagement

Teamwork Learning Co-curricular Activities


30

UHV expects that students enrolled in RLCs will find an environment more conducive to learning

than a purely academic, classroom environment, and that this new hybridized learning environment will

result in greater learning, more effective engagement, increased satisfaction, and higher rates of

retention because, as Pike argues, residential learning communities “tend to facilitate students’

integration of diverse curricular and co-curricular experiences” (3). UHV has selected outcomes related

to learning (within core courses), engagement, co-curricular activities, satisfaction, and retention, which

are all measurable—directly or indirectly— and, if the QEP were successful, would triangulate positively

to demonstrate improvements in the NSSE, institutional survey data, teamwork criteria, rubric-based

assessment of core-class specific student learning outcomes, and, finally, increased retention rates.

Given the complexity of enhanced living and learning environments, as well as their interaction with one

another, UHV has adopted multiple strategies to achieve desired student learning outcomes, including

the effects of residence life on student behavior and achievement, and the ways in which residential life

buoys student success. Ultimately, the QEP plans to engage students more fully and effectively,

provide opportunities for team building, reinforce learning, achieve increased measures of students’

satisfaction at living and learning on campus, and retain students at higher levels.

1. Teamwork

Research by Vincent Tinto and others, as well as efforts by diverse institutions ranging from

Stanford University to Evergreen State College, suggests that collaborative learning assists students in

a number of ways. Stanford University suggested in one posting that of the ten reasons to support

small group instruction—the essence of teamwork and the learning community—is retention

(http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/posting.php?ID=1129). To use Vincent Tinto’s famous phrase,

students learn “better together” (http://www.nhcuc.org/pdfs/Learning_Better_Together.pdf).

The QEP takes such a premise as self-evidently true. Through collaboration and group

activities, better retention (and better learning) can take place. This is why UHV was concerned about

its rates for teamwork compared to peer institutions and the national average and why the QEP places

such a critical emphasis on providing more teamwork opportunities for its first-year students that would


31

improve students’ teamwork skills. The QEP emphasizes teamwork not only because the institution

wishes to match and improve the teamwork scores when compared with other universities, but also

because UHV wishes students, again to use Tinto’s words, to “share” the responsibility for their

learning. Teamwork skills and cooperative learning in the classroom and within residential life will

assist them in acquiring and building their academic and professional careers. Of the “soft skills” that

employers frequently cite in the list of qualities they value in prospective college graduates, teamwork

emerges as one of the most basic abilities for success perhaps because so many corporations such as

BAE Systems and Siemens, as well as professions like nursing, make use of teamwork in their daily

business. In their essay, “Assessing the College Graduate: How Employers Measure Graduates’

Possession of Skills,” Bailey Norwood and Brian Briggeman refer to an oft-cited survey from the

National Association of Colleges and Employers, in which teamwork skills rank as one of the top five

personal qualities employers look for in prospective employees. UHV’s expectation is that faculty will

collaborate with each other to link assignments and topics in their classes, staff will collaborate with

faculty and students to offer appropriate and needed social and support activities, and students will

collaborate with each other as they seek to fulfill their teamwork assignments. Students in learning

communities will have greater interaction with instructors and peers and will perceive closer

connections between academic learning and student life.

As noted above, the extended classroom becomes the model that will address learning

outcomes, both in the First Year Seminar, which will inculcate teamwork skills and will be measured

with a rubric based on the principles provided by the Liberal Education and America’s Promise Initiative

(LEAP) and in the core curriculum class. From LEAP principles, the Valid Assessment of Learning in

Undergraduate Education (VALUE) assumes: 1) Valid data are needed to guide planning, teaching,

and improvement; 2) Essentiallearning outcomes beyond those addressed by currently

availablestandardized tests are absolutely necessary; 3) Learning develops over time and should

become more complex andsophisticated as students move through their curricular and co-


32

curriculareducational pathways toward a degree, or educational goals; 4) Good practice in

assessment requires multiple assessments over time; and 5) e-portfolios and assessment of work can

inform programs andinstitutions on progress in achieving expected goals.

(http://www.aacu.org/value/). Because the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)

defines teamwork as “the ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to

support a shared purpose or goal (http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/

PDF/2809.PDF?CFID=32800626&CFTOKEN=11171857), UHV expects to measure teamwork in two

interrelated ways—1) Students consider different points of view and 2) Students work effectively with

others to support a shared purpose or goal. These outcomes are derived from AAC&U’s Essential

Learning Outcomes, which were developed as a result of a multi-year dialogue among hundreds of

colleges and universities regarding undergraduate student learning needs (AAC&U, 2007). In the

Spring 2014 semester, faculty members will develop the rubrics associated with these outcomes, using

them for the residential learning communities.

2. Learning

Just as important, however, is not merely that the extended classroom may foster greater

teamwork skills, but that such skills result in greater learning comprehension, knowledge retention, and

critical application. To measure this outcome, UHV will require e-portfolios of students designated in the

linked courses, which will demonstrate course-specific learning outcomes (that change according to the

Core course used for the linked learning community). In preparation for the THECB’s required Core

student learning objective revisions, which will be implemented in Fall 2014, UHV’s Core instructors

have worked over the 2012-13 academic year to revise the student learning outcomes of their classes.

The assignments that the instructors have developed to teach and to measure the learning of these

outcomes will contribute to the overall measurement of core course-specific student learning outcomes.

For example, SPCH 1315 instructors will design assignments that help measure the following two

student learning outcomes for the Communication and Critical Thinking core learning objectives:


33

students will demonstrate ability to outline and deliver within a specified time limit a researched speech

topic, both informative and persuasive in styles, utilizing audio-visual aid support, both individually and

within a group framework; students will be able to research informative and persuasive speech topics to

craft a speech within a defined time frame, utilizing AV aids. In short, UHV desires learning outcomes

that complement those of engagement, satisfaction, and retention. It is insufficient merely to retain the

students and for them to be satisfied with their experience with RLCs—UHV also wishes to

demonstrate that learning improves within students’ academic coursework. This is why the linkages

between the First Year Seminar and Core courses have not only an evaluation of the teamwork skills

but a rubric-based analysis of core course work contained in e-portfolios. In the Living and Learning

context, UHV desires its students to be both engaged in academic and co-curricular activities and

committed to staying at UHV because of the learning that takes place in all of the established face-to-

face, online, and hybridized learning environments.

3. Co-curricular Activities

Two recent developments at UHV have come together to lead us to focus the co-curricular

activities of students in the Residential Learning Communities on issues of civic engagement (an

important aspect of UHV’s mission): the Spring 2013 pilot of a pair of linked classes, U.S. History and

Introduction to Philosophy; and the establishment of the Provost’s Lecture Series.

In addition to exploring the theme of justice through the study of American history since the Civil

War and the philosophic exploration of the idea of justice, the two classes also included a service

learning component designed to localize and concretize their classroom exploration of justice. The

faculty members contacted and established relationships with a number of community organizations

involved in work exemplifying some aspect of justice. These organizations agreed to provide

volunteering service opportunities to students in the learning community (for more information see “First

Pilot” under section VII, QEP Activities). The same spring 2013 semester also saw the establishment of

the Provost’s Lecture Series that invites nationally renowned researchers concerned broadly with

questions of social justice to engage and educate the UHV community.


34

Participating in the activities and events afforded UHV by the community relationships

established by the faculty of the spring 2013 pilot and the Provost’s Lecture Series are not the only two

opportunities that will be available to students in Living and Learning. Through workshops offered by

the Learning and Teaching Institute faculty will be encouraged and aided in developing events and

activities appropriate to the linked classes and civic engagement so that students have more choices.

In addition to participating in at least two activities or events, students will be required to produce a

reflection paper on their personal understanding of civic engagement. Furthermore, the recently

established Office of Civic Engagement will aid students and faculty in Residential Learning

Communities in identifying service learning and civic engagement opportunities. These co-curricular

activities and events will encourage the students to situate their learning in a social context and to be

more engaged with various communities.

4. Engagement

Citing “numerous studies,” Shelley Hart, et al, have indicated in their research that linking

student engagement with “improved academic performance…has repeatedly demonstrated to be a

robust predictor of achievement and behavior” (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-268604744.html).

But they also state quite prominently, “Despite its apparent utility, student engagement remains a

nebulous construct with researchers using ambiguous or inconsistent definitions resulting in equally

nebulous measures.” In other words, “student engagement” has frequently been stretched to suit the

institution’s own perspective and pedagogical proclivities, rather than to investigate students’

connection to and with their institution. For the purposes of UHV’s Quality Enhancement Plan, the

University intends to follow the definition given by NSSE. As seen on its website, NSSE defines Student

engagement as having “two critical features of collegiate quality”:

The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other

educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its

resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students


35

to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student

learning. http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm

UHV wants its students to be emotionally and intellectually engaged, but at the level of

implementation, this implies that students must increase “time and effort” in their courses and

supporting activities, which at the very least means students must perceive that they are spending more

time and effort in their academic studies and that, in no small measure, the time-to-task efforts stem

from interactions that take place in residential life. Second, UHV’s QEP commits to “deploying” its

resources and “organizing” its curriculum in service of the plan and implementing student activities

appropriate to the residential learning communities. Following the results obtained at other institutions,

our expectation is that students’ academic performance will improve with increased engagement. We

hope to see changes for the better in our students’ social and academic behavior. Measurable

outcomes will include higher student engagement scores on the NSSE and higher satisfaction scores

for faculty on the FSSE. These two indirect measures are important because the perception of

engagement, coupled with the direct measures cited below, will point to the efficacy of the QEP as

such. Increased rates on NSSE and FSSE, particularly for specific questions on homework, time on

task, and number of assignments will indirectly measure the programmatic value of the QEP.

5. Satisfaction

Because the NSSE examines first-year and senior attitudes, UHV can over time determine

whether or not the satisfaction rates not only increase, but also whether or not the Residential Learning

Communities have had a lasting effect on the experience of its students. It will also be instructive to

measure the FSSE rates over time, to discern whether or not the faculty, especially those connected

with Residential Learning Communities, will have a greater sense of engagement with their students

through the implementation of the QEP. Further triangulation of community satisfaction lies in the yearly

satisfaction survey data collected from internal UHV instruments within Student Affairs and the Office of

Institutional Research, both of which reach out to students, staff, administration, faculty, and community

members in Victoria, and both of which can provide useful data that invites comparisons with the NSSE


36

and FSSE data. Hence, UHV will compare the data sets of these three indirect measures to determine

the perception, especially as it pertains to teamwork, of increased engagement and learning among the

stakeholders. Moreover, student satisfaction can be achieved with online collaborative learning, as

Chang Zhu recently suggests (2012), permitting instructors to transform the residential learning space

into a virtual one; traditional face-to-face interactions and collaborations, as Allen, et al, find in their

work (2010), and blended formats, which, at UHV, have long been supported by schools’ academic

programs and the university’s IT support areas.

6. Retention

There is little doubt that retention of first-year students must be a priority and that the numbers

tell the tale of why creating residential learning communities is so pertinent to the success of downward

expansion on the Victoria campus. As of the writing of the QEP, the retention numbers for the first three

first-time in college, full-time degree-seeking cohorts are as follows:

Cohort Retained

Fall 2010 to Fall 2011 54%

Fall 2011 to Fall 2012 55%

Fall 2012 to Fall 2013 48%

Undoubtedly, many reasons have contributed to the problems of first-year student retention,

from first to second year and beyond. Because UHV had been an upper-level and graduate institution

previously, downward expansion required a complete campus culture shift and a reorientation of its

student profile, from an average age of 30 and white prior to downward expansion to under 22 and

Hispanic after it. Housing issues related to on-time residence hall construction and refurbishment,

nascent but highly limited student life activities, and a dearth of adjacent city services and retail outlets

did not help, to be sure, but several cohorts into its downward expansion, UHV wishes to integrate

academic needs, students support services, and student life in such a way that these numbers can

climb to State and national averages. Externally, the residence facilities are now bordered by more

businesses relevant to students’ needs, and the University supplies transportation to and from the


37

residence halls to the campus and several points beyond, including the YMCA, where students in the

fall of 2013 began to have direct access to exercise facilities and classes. Internally, greater emphasis

has been placed on student life, and also in the fall of 2013, the Commons opened in Jaguar Hall,

which will function as a Student Center, until such time as a separate facility can be constructed. While

the University has augmented its infrastructure and access to campus and city facilities, UHV believes

that still more must be done to retain students through enhanced academics and its connections to their

residential lives. Combined efforts at improving engagement, learning, and satisfaction will lead to

greater retention. For example, Northern Arizona University reported that the first-year retention rate for

their Residential Learning Community participants was higher than the rate for those residential

freshman students who were not in learning communities and higher yet than those who lived off-

campus (81%, 74%, 61%, respectively). Research on the effect of Learning Communities on students

similar to our student body at UHV shows improved retention for those students taking part in learning

communities: first-generation students in living-learning communities report easier transition to college;

students of color find their social needs better met, have better grades, and higher rates of persistence

(please see Learning Communities and Underserved Student Populations in section V Literature

Review above).

UHV expects the retention rates for students occupying the residentially linked communities to

be higher than for similarly qualified students not participating in the QEP process. Nonetheless, by the

end of the five-year project, UHV hopes to have all first-year students enrolled in linked residential

communities in order to elevate first-year student retention levels, both in fall-to-fall retention rates and

fall-to-spring persistence rates. Within Jaguar Village—the composite name for Jaguar Hall, Jaguar

Court, and Jaguar Suites—the site for the residential communities themselves, students will have

designated spaces to work with one another in teamwork projects, technological and personnel

support, and periodic faculty access in the residence itself.

UHV firmly believes that by triangulating the data emerging from an analysis of student, faculty

and community engagement; student satisfaction at their experiences in college; student learning in the


38

actual and extended classroom; and retention and persistence rates, we will be able to demonstrate

that the institution is on target to achieve the principal aims of the QEP, meeting the expectations of its

strategic plan, the needs and demands of the Victoria campus and community, and the core

requirements of the reaffirmation process.

VII. QEP Activities

Overview of QEP Activities

The QEP depends upon faculty participation, input, and cooperation. This is especially critical

for residential learning communities. Citing Schroeder and Mable, Golde and Probbenow claim that

“Residence halls are particularly fruitful settings for efforts to integrate academic and social life by

bringing students and faculty into regular contact with one another” (2). “When faculty enter residence

halls,” they continue, “even just for an evening meal, they cross an unofficial cultural divide between

faculty-controlled academic space and student-controlled social time and space” (2). The blurring of

academic and social space is key to UHV’s model for residential learning communities. The institution

feels that greater involvement by the faculty will engage students by desegregating “academic” and

“social” spaces and extending academics into residential life. The Learning Commons (described

below) and regular faculty drop-ins will assist in these efforts. Furthermore, the presence of faculty in

Jaguar Village means that whether or not students are working within the province of teamwork or more

concrete academic assignments for their e-portfolios, students will not be able to separate easily their

academic and personal lives.

In the spring semester prior to the fall semester implementation of a set of Residential Learning

Communities, the QEP Director will coordinate efforts with the Director of First Year Academic

Experience and Core faculty to identify those who will collaborate in forming the linked classes. Each

pair of linked classes will consist of one First Year Seminar class and one Core class. Each pair of

linked classes will have a Living and Learning Support Team consisting of the linked classes faculty, a

Student Success advisor, a librarian, and a Student Life advisor to help create a coherent and unified

academic and residential experience for the students in the linked classes.


39

Another feature of students enrolled in residential learning communities will be their proximity to

one another. While UHV does not yet have the student population to support a separate residence hall

for residential learning communities, all students within those communities will be located in proximity

to each other in Jaguar Village. With the features of the QEP fully implemented, UHV hopes to

transform a mere collection of students whose common link is the pair of linked classes into a fully

functioning and mutually supportive community of learners. Geographic proximity assists with this

objective. As Zhao and Kuh argue, nearness “adds value,” because, “students taking two or more

common courses living in close physical proximity…increases the opportunities for out-of-class

interactions and supplementary learning opportunities” (Zhao and Kuh, 116). With assigned classroom

activities, faculty and staff assisting at the Living and Learning Commons, and the “supplementary”

opportunities in both living (student life) and learning (student academics), the QEP puts this notion of

added value into action.

LEARNING

Teamwork

The development of teamwork skills has become one of the crucial elements for The Texas

Higher Education Coordinating Board for a very important reason—Students not only need professional

credentials, they need to master general education “skills” that are desperately needed for workforce

training, development, and employment. On its website, THECB indicates that it has “used the Texas

Tuning process, aided by both faculty and industry experts, to outline course outcomes that include

21st-century skills such as leadership, team building, conflict resolution, communication, and applied

learning alongside clear competencies with relevance to the workplace. The goal is to graduate

students with both the right credentials and the right skills for the workplace” (THECB).

UHV recognizes that general education at its Victoria campus must be aligned with these

outcomes. Because teamwork will soon become a standard student learning outcome in a number of

Core classes, UHV is committed to helping our students learn and develop teamwork skills in both the

classroom setting and in the residential space, i.e., a workplace and life skill rather than only an


40

academic skill.

Although specific strategies and activities will depend greatly on the particular classes and the

instructors teaching the classes in the learning community, some aspects will be common. Each

Residential Learning Community will employ the Teamwork Pre-Post Survey (courtesy of the Art

Institute of Washington) immediately after the first teamwork activity and after the last teamwork activity

(see Appendix G). Through using the Teamwork VALUE Rubric developed by the AAC&U (see

Appendix H) every RLC instructor will design assignments and activities capable of being assessed

appropriately.

E-Portfolios

The use of E-portfolios has multiplied over the last decade. E-portfolios have become archiving

systems, pedagogical tools, resume sites, and assessment tools. E-portfolios can be as simple as a file

folder in which the student places selected documents or as complex as an enterprise-level dynamic

database serving as a repository for all the students’ work and activities. UHV’s QEP will phase in the

use of e-portfolios beginning with a simple collection space in Blackboard, our existing Learning

Management System. As the QEP helps Living and Learning faculty and students learn to use e-

portfolios, workshops will be developed for the wider UHV community by an E-portfolio developer and

administrator. Our aim is to have a Portfolio Process in place for all Living and Learning participants by

fall 2015, the time half of all first-year students are enrolled in linked classes. Students will learn how to

collect content, build the e-portfolio, and publish to complete the portfolio process; faculty will learn how

to help students in all parts of the process but focus primarily on using the portfolio as an assessment

tool.

Assessment portfolios, as they are used in university settings, present two primary components

for review. The first component is a collection of artifacts demonstrating a student’s efforts toward one

or more specific learning outcomes. The second component is the student’s explanation of why each

artifact was included and his/her reflection on what was learned in the creation of that artifact.

Considering both components in the light of well-developed rubrics provides experienced instructors a


41

well-developed picture of the student’s progress toward learning outcomes. In Living and Learning, e-

portfolios will help the Living and Learning Support Teams to fully assess students’ development of

teamwork skills and their understanding of the importance of teamwork in the classroom and in the

residence halls. E-portfolios will also be used to capture student thoughts on engagement in university

and civic life.

Living and Learning portfolios will be based in the linked courses that provide the foundation for

each Residential Learning Community and will ultimately be reviewed by the Living and Learning

Support Teams that will be supporting each set of linked courses. To facilitate review by both course

instructors and other team members, students will develop their portfolios electronically within

Blackboard, the learning management system currently used by UHV. Since each set of linked courses

will be unique, instructors will be encouraged to customize portfolio requirements to meet their unique

sets of learning outcomes. Artifacts for e-portfolios (e.g. reflection papers, essays, tests, rubric-scored

assignments) will generally conform to the following structure:

Section 1: Teamwork Artifacts that indicate student success in teamwork activities

Section 2: Engagement Artifacts—

Demonstrating the student’s investment of time and effort in academic work

Demonstrating the student’s investment of time and effort in student life activities

Demonstrating the student’s ability to interact positively with university personnel

(instructors, advisors, Student Affairs staff)

Student Reflections on each artifact

Section 3: Core-Class Specific Artifacts and Reflections as identified by the instructor

Section 4: First Year Seminar Artifacts and reflections as identified by the instructor

Section 5: Co-curricular (civic engagement) Artifacts indicating participation in at least two civic

engagement activities, and a Reflection paper demonstrating a personal understanding

of civic engagement.


42

Pilot Projects (Spring 2013 and Fall 2013)

First QEP Pilot – Spring semester 2013

Two faculty members, Dr. Beverly Tomek (History) and Dr. Justin Bell (Philosophy) proposed

creating a non-residential Learning Community pilot by linking her HIST 1302 class (US History since

1865) and his PHIL 1301 class (Intro to Philosophy). Their hope was that the “students would become

more engaged with the material from the class and understand the connections between how they

philosophically understand their world and the weight of their own history” (see Appendix I) for syllabi

from this pilot).

In addition to exploring the theme of justice through the study of American history since the Civil

War and the philosophic exploration of the idea of justice, the two classes also included a service

learning component designed to localize and concretize their classroom exploration of justice. The

instructors helped foster a learning community through various means: first, the instructors collaborated

with each other by taking part in discussions in each other’s classes; second, students were

encouraged to reflect on their experiences in the other class in their journals and discussions; third, all

students took part in and reflected on their service work with a pre-approved community organization

including the following: Community Action Committee of Victoria, Communities in Schools, Golden

Crescent CASA, Food Bank of the Golden Crescent, Habitat for Humanity, Head Start, Hope of South

Texas, Hospice of South Texas, Meals on Wheels, Mid Coast Family Services, United Way, Victoria

Adult Literacy Council, Victoria County Senior Citizens Association.

Each class enrolled both students who were taking only the individual PHIL or HIST class and

those who were taking both classes. This hybrid format allowed the instructors to compare student

learning of those who were in the learning community with those who were in the standalone classes.

Through a short survey the instructors found that those who participated in both classes valued the

linked course content, the participation of both instructors, and the service-learning component more

highly than those who were enrolled in only one of the two classes. An analysis of the students’ grades

in this pilot found that those who took part in the learning community had a significantly higher GPA


43

(HIST +.51; PHIL +.38) than those who did not.

Although the two instructors and students found the experience of linking the two classes into a

learning community a rewarding experience, they expressed some reservations. As might be expected,

the large class size and the inclusion of students who were not in the learning community hampered the

discussions and linkages between the two classes. It should be pointed out that those schools who

have instituted learning communities in a hybridized, large-class setting include a low enrollment class

for only those students in both classes. Such an arrangement often goes under the name of Freshman

Interest Group (FIG) and has been in use since the early 1980s. Typically, a FIG creates a cohort in

two or more large classes without necessarily thematically or pedagogically linking the large classes.

Many FIGs offer an additional community building class led by a peer tutor or advisor only for those in

the learning community. At the University of Texas, for example, “FIG students develop a sense of

community as they attend classes, study, and participate in various activities and events with their

mentor and fellow first-years” (http://www.utexas.edu/ugs/fig). UHV intends to evaluate how to

incorporate FIGs after two years of running RLCs. At that point, over 50% of the first-year students

would be in RLCs, and that number would form a critical mass of students that might share a sufficient

number of classes to enhance time management strategies, cooperative learning projects, and campus

life opportunities. This kind of specialized learning community, which does not presently include the

First Year Seminar, will require expressed faculty interest and a detailed plan for implementation. The

residential learning communities UHV is organizing will more resemble the pilot cited below.

Second QEP Pilot (Fall 2013)

In the Fall 2013 semester pilot, a First Year Seminar class was linked with an introductory

Criminal Justice class. This is the kind of residential learning community with linked classes that UHV

principally plans to support. Each class is composed of the same group of residential students and is

smaller (twenty five students) than either of the classes that were involved in the first pilot. The

instructors were encouraged to keep the following items in mind when designing the second pilot:

1. Participation in residential hall activities


44

a. Attend occasional programs in the residential hall

b. Join students for a meal

c. Hold small-group discussions and tutoring sessions in the residential space

2. Ideally, a team of five members will serve each pair of linked classes: the two faculty, a peer

mentor, a librarian, and an academic counselor.

3. The linked classes need to have a theme.

4. The curricula of the two linked classes need to be integrated with coordinated readings and

assignments.

5. Co-curricular activities such as field trips, film screenings, and guest speakers should lead

toward a stated student-learning outcome determined by curriculum of linked courses.

6. Activities and assignments should be designed so that the instructors have ample opportunities

to develop and assess student teamwork and interaction with instructors and peers.

In addition to the Teamwork VALUE rubric, the instructors also had made available to them the

following simplified teamwork rubric borrowed from Tarleton State University to help guide them in

assessment. The criminal justice instructor is still in the process of evaluating activities, the usefulness

of the rubric, and the effectiveness of teamwork.

Teamwork: Students will participate effectively in teams, committees, task forces, and in other group

efforts to make decisions and seek consensus. An example of a rubric that evaluates teamwork is as

follows:

Beginner

Joins a group cooperatively.

Acknowledge members of the group.

Listens attentively to members of the group.

Be prepared and reliable members of the group.

Contribute to the end product of the group.


45

Developing

Give input and/or recommendations confidently.

Complete assigned tasks in a timely fashion.

Respect differing points of view.

Agree on group priorities, goals and procedures.

Help to build a consensus.

Accomplished

Take an active position in group by assigning tasks and/or speaking for the group.

Take responsibility for end product that reflects the minority as well as the majority conclusions of

the group.

Encourage and acknowledge the work of other group members.

ENGAGEMENT

Learning communities and their associated activities not only promote student learning, but also

promote student success in terms of increased graduation rates and retention. While it is true that

graduation and retention rates are measures of institutional efficiency, it is equally true, from the

perspective of UHV, that these measures are integral to evaluating the success of its QEP precisely

because UHV has so recently expanded to first- and second-year classes. UHV has made residential

learning communities central to its plans, not only because of the benefits of increased retention and

graduation rates, but rather because increased engagement within these new learning environments

means increased learning. By increasing student success through engagement, UHV wants its newest

members, principally Hispanic and first-generation college students, to be retained and to graduate,

thus becoming role models for other students within the campus community and their communities at

large.

1. Living and Learning Commons

Like other programs that employ residential learning communities, UHV will domicile students

enrolled in RLCs in close proximity to one another. The Living and Learning Commons will ensure that


46

students may more easily work and socialize together in teamwork projects and other group activities,

both curricular and co-curricular. As such, UHV has established a space within Jaguar Suites (Jaguar

Suites, #106), the new residential facility, to function as a common meeting space in which to

implement curricular and co-curricular projects. The commons will help students extend learning

beyond the classroom into the residence hall.

The Living and Learning Commons is configured into three areas within the large room: student

teamwork activities, faculty and staff workshops, co-curricular activities. The area for student teamwork

activities consists of a number of workstations where students can work together on assignments and

receive tutorial aid. Two of these workstations are technologically equipped to allow the sharing of

multiple laptops (the collaboration table) and the manipulation of virtual documents in a common space

(smart board). The area for faculty and staff workshops allows small groups to come together around a

conference table to develop the academic and pedagogical strategies essential to the residential

learning communities. A number of sofas and armchairs are gathered around the third area to create a

mini-auditorium for faculty and invited speakers to hold more intimate discussions.

Furthermore, the current Center for Teaching Innovation (CTI) will become a central component

of the newly-formed Learning and Teaching Institute (LTI) which will be overseen by the QEP Director.

The LTI will conduct the majority of its activities in the Living and Learning Commons.. As an integral

part of the Learning and Teaching Institute, the Center for Teaching Innovation will continue to assist all

faculty with instructional design, online resource development, and multimedia support, but will focus

on residential learning communities. For faculty, the LTI will provide individual and group training

necessary to establish learning communities, including web-based enhancements to courses, so more

student collaboration on assignments may occur. Additionally, the LTI will present workshops on

pedagogy related to teamwork and e-portfolios, coordinate possible professional learning communities

for staff and faculty who are embedded in the work of the residential learning communities, and support

faculty drop-ins, which will be a requirement for faculty receiving a stipend to work with the linked

courses and the first-year seminars. These drop-ins will support the work done by students who are


47

completing teamwork assignments, as well as other identified assignments that will be included in the

students’ e-portfolios. UHV envisions that by taking place within the residential environment, these

academic interventions will have a multiplier effect.

The Living and Learning Commons will also provide a space for co-curricular activities

connected to the residential learning communities. Faculty will be able to conduct small seminars and

tutorials, screen films and hold discussion in small groups, provide opportunities for more intimate

discussions with guest speakers invited to campus.

2. Student Life Activities

Contributing to the deliberate blurring of academic and social space will be the advent of

additional student life activities that will be integrated into the Living and Learning Commons. By

working with faculty, staff and each other in residential learning communities, UHV students will be

more fully engaged because of the integration of the academic and social experience, resulting in

positive effects on the persistence, engagement and success of first-year students. The following

overarching goals are intended to evaluate student progress and success as participants in the QEP by

connecting students’ academic achievements with equally important professional and co-curricular

objectives. These overarching goals with sub-objectives are embedded in the First Year Seminar (a

two-credit course required of all first-year students).

While all first-year students will take part in the co-curricular activities associated with the

First Year Seminar, students in Residential Learning Communities will be required to participate in

at least two co-curricular civic engagement activities and to produce a reflection paper

demonstrating their personal understanding of civic engagement.

3. Learning and Teaching Institute (LTI): Grants, Stipends, and Faculty Development

The LTI will support faculty instruction within the residential learning communities and will

provide pedagogical and technological support for faculty who wish to participate in RLCs. The focus of

the LTI will consist of the following: 1) helping faculty devise strategies for assessing the learning

outcomes for their linked courses, 2) developing rubrics for evaluating teamwork skills, 3) constructing


48

e-portfolios for the learning outcomes within the students’ linked courses, and 4) collaborating with non-

academic units, such as Student Life, in breaking down the boundaries between academic skills and

co-curricular activities. The QEP Director, aided by an administrative assistant, will oversee the LTI and

will facilitate professional learning communities and offer workshops to faculty members who have

committed to teaching in RLCs. A number of workshops have been identified for the spring and

summer 2014 semesters including an introduction to the concept and practice of learning communities,

assessment of teamwork, e-portfolios, and identifying and developing civic engagement activities and

events appropriate to the linked classes.

A specialist in e-portfolio design, implementation, and assessment will work with faculty

participating in Residential Learning Communities. Faculty members teaching in the Residential

Learning Communities will receive a stipend in compensation for the additional work required by their

participation in the linked classes, workshops and Professional Learning Communities. Each year,

faculty and staff members will have the opportunity to attend the National Learning Communities

Conference to further develop their understanding of Learning Communities and to participate in

conference activities. In addition, two teams of faculty and staff will attend the Washington Center’s

Annual Summer Institute on Learning Communities at Evergreen State College in the first and third

years of the QEP’s implementation. Faculty members in Professional Learning Communities will also

have an opportunity to apply for Provost Professional Learning Communities Innovation Grants

(PPLCIGs) for technological innovation, research and conference presentation on learning

communities, and associated high-impact teaching practices. In addition to the stipend for participating

in the Residential Learning Community ($1,500), a faculty member could receive an innovation grant of

$1,000 for support materials and/or travel related to the project, through an application to the Provost’s

Office.

RETENTION (additional tools and tactics)

Early Warning Systems and Success Coaching

The revamping of the Core Curriculum for 2014 (based on Coordinating Board guidelines) to


49

include student learning outcomes such as teamwork is one tactic in the arsenal of achieving success

with the QEP. Another is the reorganization of the institution’s academic advising for first- and second-

year students. By fall 2014, the Student Success Center, a unit of Student Affairs, will advise all first-

year students and sophomores, regardless of whether or not students have chosen a particular major.

The Student Success Center will also implement additional methods of faculty involvement in early

warning systems, not merely to inform students of academic issues or disciplinary problems in various

classes, but to advocate so that additional resources may be identified and leveraged in order to meet

individual students’ pressing academic needs.

While students will continue to receive an early warning notice for issues related to lack of

academic progress from the Student Success Center, the addition of three success coaches by the

Spring 2014 semester will further assist first-year students and sophomores with academic and non-

academic issues related to their persistence at college matriculation. The new integration of first-year

and sophomore advising, the addition of success coaching, and a re-tooling of the Student Success

Center will aid in the advancement of QEP goals. The success coaches do not merely address

academic achievement, but, rather become colleagues with whom students can plan learning

strategies, discuss life management skills, and more readily go down the road of “self-efficacy,” the

ability to solve issues with one’s own internal resources and judgment. Ultimately, UHV hopes that all

students in RLCs will become independent thinkers, not always measurable to be sure, but vital to their

academic and professional success.

Future Directions: Sophomore Circles, Service Learning, and Workforce Development, Themed

Learning Communities, Multi-semester Learning Communities, Virtual Learning Communities.

We assume that a number of adjustments will need to be made after we launch the QEP, and we

are prepared to re-visit any and all aspects that will need fine tuning. (We have already made some

adjustments based on our pilots). In addition, most QEPs imagine not only what they will do in the early

years of implementation, but what they might do as a result of such an institutional project. For UHV,

future directions of the QEP might include an expansion of the RLC for first-year students into the


50

sophomore year, perhaps creating small “circles” of individuals who continue to read, write, and work

together within the residential setting but perhaps with expanded academic and student life scope.

Students within sophomore circles might be expected to become student leaders, peer student success

coaches, or Student Success Center tutors. It might also be the case that such circles form the basis

for service learning and service learning projects within selected courses. Such an assignment, if

overseen by the faculty, might well be turned into internship or externship possibilities for the students.

Having a clear line from RLC to sophomore circle to service learning engagement might well be an

important motivator for recruiting and, if connected to workforce development, might well be a key

metric for the University in demonstrating to the Victoria and regional communities that its graduates

meet workforce needs and that post-secondary education is not merely a theoretical exercise, but one

that has applications in the marketplace.

Surveying the literature on Learning Communities and seeing it practiced in various universities

and colleges quickly reveals an abundance of design and implementation strategies. Learning

Communities are flexible enough to respond to a great variety of educational and institutional needs.

Some schools make changes from one year to the next as the faculty, staff, and students involved in

the project learn from their experiences. Baylor University, for example, changed their implementation

of Learning Communities from a three-semester sequence to a two-semester sequence after both

faculty and student reported little interest in continuing with the same cohort of students into the

sophomore year.

UHV’s QEP calls for offering Living and Learning Residential Learning Communities only to first-

year students in the fall semester. Should we find that fall-to-spring retention rates for these students

are not significantly higher than those for students not in the communities we may decide to extend the

Learning Communities over both semesters. It may be that the spring semester is when we make our

initial Themed Learning Communities available.

While UHV’s most pressing need is to respond to the challenge we gave ourselves when we

became a four-year school with first- and second-year students on campus for the first time in our


51

history only a short three years ago, we are aware that the majority of our students are still non-

traditional commuter and online students. Furthermore, our first- and second-year students will soon be

Juniors and Seniors themselves and will, in turn, be moving out of our residence spaces. To that end,

two additional future directions recommend themselves immediately for consideration: Non-residential

Learning Communities and Virtual Learning Communities for online classes.

Non-residential Learning Communities can be designed for any combination of linked classes at

any level dependent on faculty and student interest. The great variety of concentrations available

through the schools at UHV may provide the early impetus in thinking through which courses may

benefit from being thematically linked.

Given UHV’s long history and innovation in creating and offering online classes and programs,

developing Virtual Learning Communities for online classes may present the most exciting challenges

and opportunities for our faculty, students, and staff. Two of us have already started researching the

issues most pertinent to Virtual Learning Communities, and have received good feedback to our

presentation at the National Learning Communities Conference in November 2013.

It should be noted that any changes will come only after a careful consideration of outcome

measures such as core-class specific learning outcomes, teamwork, and retention. The particular

changes we make will depend heavily upon student, faculty and staff input on problems and solutions.

VIII. Benchmarks

In order to establish a baseline for more accurate measurements, all first-year students will take

the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The scores of greatest interest from the NSSE

will be those related to interaction and teamwork. The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey will

provide a baseline measure of student satisfaction with the residential and extra-curricular experience

at UHV. The measure will also serve as a comparison point between RLC students and residential non-

RLC students.

Successful implementation of Living and Learning at the University of Houston-Victoria will be


52

indicated by several direct and indirect measures. We expect RLC students to have a higher score on

teamwork and engagement as measured by their class assignments and rubrics as well as their scores

on the NSSE. We expect RLC students to have higher GPAs. We expect RLC students to have higher

scores on the interaction elements of the NSSE. We expect RLC students to score higher on the Noel-

Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. Should RLC students prove to be more engaged, more satisfied,

and have higher GPAs, we expect to see greater retention of these students as they move from their

first year to their sophomore year and beyond.

An important institutional aim of the QEP is that all enrolling first-year students will be able to

enroll in RLC classes linked to the First Year Seminar by the third year of the plan. Given a projected

first-year class of 400 in 2014, an average cohort size of 20 students, steadily increasing enrollment to

800 first-year students in the class of 2018, and a desire to provide Residential Learning Communities

for 100% of the fall 2016 and subsequent classes, the following table shows the number of linked

classes needed each year of the QEP.

The agreed-upon benchmarks for the QEP include the following:

1. Student will score at or above the national mean in the NSSE in 80% of the items

associated with Teamwork by 2019.

Projected

class size

RLCs

for 20%

RLCs

for 50%

RLCs

for100%

RLCs

for 100%

RLC

for 100%

Year 1 (2014) 400 4

Year 2 (2015) 500 12

Year 3 (2016) 600 30

Year 4 (2017) 700 35

Year 5 (2018) 800 40


53

2. First-year students will persevere in their studies and be retained at the sophomore level at a

rate of 75% as compared to an average of 52% for the three first-year cohorts at UHV

thus far by 2019.

3. Students will score at or above the national mean in the NSSE in 80% of the items

associated with Engagement (Interaction and Time and effort), by 2019, improving at least 5%

per year of the QEP.

4. Students will score at or above the national mean in the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction

Inventory by 2019.

5. Students in RLC classes will show a 15% positive differential from students in non-RLC

classes in scores of Teamwork (with appropriate rubric) in each year of QEP implementation.

6. Students in RLC classes will show a 15% positive difference from students in non-LC

classes in e-portfolio scores (with appropriate rubric) in each year of QEP implementation.

IX. Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment

The QEP identifies three kinds of student learning outcome measures: direct, indirect, and co-

curricular. UHV has selected outcomes related to learning (within the linked core classes), co-curricular

activities, engagement, satisfaction, and retention, which are all measurable—directly or indirectly—

and triangulate positively to demonstrate improvements in the NSSE scores, institutional survey data,

teamwork criteria, rubric-based assessment of e-portfolios, and, finally, increased retention rates.

Within the Residential Learning Communities format, linked classes will have the following general

student learning outcomes:

1. Teamwork

2. Co-curricular participation and reflection

3. Core Class Student Learning Outcomes (specific to core class)

Any particular pair of linked classes will keep all three components, but will have variations in the

specific student learning outcomes for the particular core class linked with the first-year seminar class


54

(FYS). For example, a Residential Learning Community composed of an FYS class linked with ENGL

1301 will have the following student learning outcomes.

1. Teamwork


3. Core Class Student Learning Outcomes

a. Communication: Demonstrate appropriate conventions of format and structure including

various modes of expression such as writing that is descriptive, expository, narrative,

comparative, and/or persuasive.

b. Critical Thinking: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of writing and develop an

argument in response.

c. Social Responsibility: Participate effectively in groups with emphasis on listening, critical

and reflective thinking, and responding.

d. Personal Responsibility: Develop an individual writing process emphasizing multiple

drafts that includes prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading.

A Residential Learning Community composed of an first-year seminar class linked with SPCH 1315 will

have the following student learning outcomes:

1. Teamwork


3. Core Class Student Learning Outcomes

a. students will demonstrate ability to outline and deliver within a specified time limit a

researched speech topic, both informative and persuasive in styles, utilizing audio-visual

aid support, both individually and within a group framework

b. students will be able to research informative and persuasive speech topics to craft a

speech within a defined time frame, utilizing AV aids


55

Assessment Chart

Student Learning Outcomes Course-level (determined by instructors)

Internal measures (reported to QEP Director)

External measures (reported to QEP Director)

Engagement

Time and effort Student Success NSSE

Interaction UHV Teamwork survey

UHV Teamwork survey, Student life

NSSE

Teamwork

Student will consider different points of view

Graded assignments, journals, e-portfolio

AAC&U teamwork rubrics

NSSE

Student will work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal

Graded assignments, Journals, e-portfolio

AAC&U teamwork rubrics

NSSE

Linked Core Class Learning

Students will achieve higher GPAs and provide evidence of creative investigations and reflections

Graded assignments, Reflective journals, e-portfolio

e-portfolio GPA comparisons between residential learning communities and students not enrolled in learning communities

Co-curricular

Students will actively participate in at least two civic engagement events

survey e-portfolio

Students will exhibit a personal understanding of civic engagement

Reflective paper e-portfolio

Satisfaction

Students will report greater satisfaction with their college experience at UHV

Course evaluations Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory

Faculty and staff will report greater satisfaction with the RLC

FSSE

Community will report greater satisfaction with UHV’s efforts to improve student learning

Surveys by Institutional Research and Student Affairs

Retention

Students in Residential Learning Communities will be retained at

Institutional Research (IR) data


56

greater levels than those not in Learning Communities

X. Phases of the QEP

In the spring of 2014 the QEP Development and Implementation Committee, chaired by the

QEP Director, is in the process of overseeing and evaluating all QEP activities, outcomes, and

emerging data. Working with the Director of the First Year Academic Experience (who oversees the

First Year Seminar) and the Chair of the Core Curriculum Committee the QEP Director has identified

faculty who will teach in the first four residential learning communities to be offered in the fall 2014

semester. With the additional input of the Directors of Student Life and Student Success and the

Instruction and Outreach Librarian, Living and Learning Support Teams have been identified for each

residential learning community. A preliminary working schedule of workshops for faculty and staff has

been crafted and will have its first meeting in February in the Living and Learning Commons. In

addition, the student workers who will be providing technological assistance to all users of the Living

and Learning Commons will be familiarized on the technical and user aspects of the Interactive

Whiteboard, Collaboration station, digital projectors, and computers.

With the exception of the Spring 2014 semester, which is to be used to lay the groundwork for

Living and Learning, the general pattern to be followed over the course of the five year implementation

of the QEP is as follows: the fall semester is for the implementation of the residential learning

communities, the spring and summer semesters are for the evaluation of the previous fall semester

offerings and preparation of the coming fall semester offerings of residential learning communities.

The fall semester of the third year of the implementation of Living and Learning will require a

sufficient number of residential learning communities to ensure hundred percent of the in-coming first-

year students are able to be enrolled. We expect to need thirty residential learning communities to

enroll 600 students. Since the two classes that compose each residential learning community are

staffed by full-time faculty drawn from other departments, the QEP Director will work with the

appropriate schools to encourage sufficient hiring. By this time the current Living and Learning


57

Commons will have reached its capacity and a second space will need to be created – the QEP

Director will work with the AVP of Student Affairs and with Facilities staff in the second year to begin

planning for this eventuality.

Phase 1 – Identification and Formation

The QEP Implementation committee will help identify and recruit faculty hired by the Schools of

UHV interested in being part of a Residential Learning Community (RLC). At UHV all sections of the

First Year Seminar and all core classes are taught by full-time faculty and the QEP will draw from these

two groups which have a considerable overlap. Each RLC, consisting of a cohort of students living

together in a residential space and taking a First Year Seminar class linked with a Core class, will be

assigned a Living and Learning Support Team. The faculty members teaching the linked classes along

with a Student Success advisor, a Librarian, and a Student Life advisor, will form the Support Team.

We expect that the staff members will work with several pairs of faculty members to help constitute

Support Teams for each RLC. The committee will review RLC needs and make recommendations to

the Provost for necessary personnel needs and technological resources.

Phases 2 and 3 – Preparation and Implementation

The Learning and Teaching Institute will meet the pedagogical and technical needs of the RLC faculty.

Members of the RLC Support Team will familiarize themselves with the student learning outcomes and

assessments of the RLC classes and co-curricular activities. Working with faculty in linked courses,

RLC Support Teams will meet to develop common strategies in order to achieve, as close as possible,

a coherent and unified experience for each RLC cohort. Most importantly, the Support Team will

provide assistance to affected faculty as needed.

Phase 4 – Evaluation and Closing the Loop

Students are evaluated on QEP and Core class-specific learning outcomes, and their scores from e-

portfolios (using established rubrics) and retention figures are collected; students, faculty, and the

community are surveyed regarding their satisfaction with their learning experience in Living and


58

Learning. Each year RLC faculty and staff involved in the Support Teams will provide feedback to the

QEP Development and Implementation Committee.

The latter will make yearly assessments as to whether or not there were a sufficient number of RLC

classes sufficient to enroll 20% of the incoming first-year class (increasing to 50% the second year and

100% the third and subsequent years), or whether or not demand might require adjustment of the

goals, so that all first-year students are enrolled in RLCs sooner than the five-year target date. In

collaboration with the Provost, the QEP Development and Implementation committee will also review

student retention figures, NSSE engagement numbers, teamwork, outcomes, and e-portfolio scores to

determine yearly progress. RLC faculty will also be surveyed regarding their experience with the LTI. All

performance indicators and outcomes will be studied, and an annual report, written by the QEP

Director, will suggest measures that improve the specified outcome.

Phase 1

Identification and Formation

Phase 2

Preparation

Phase 3 Implementation

Phase 4 Evaluation


59

XI. QEP Implementation Timeline

Year Action Student Learning

Outcome

Measure Responsible

Agent

Year 0 2013-14

Spring

Pilot – PHIL 1301 and

HIST 1302 – social justice

Report Instructors

Summer Evaluation of Pilot Report Instructors

Fall Second Pilot – First Year Seminar

and Criminal Justice (CRIJ 1301)

2014 Spring Evaluation of second pilot

Establish the Learning and

Teaching Institute (LTI)

Faculty identified sufficient to enroll

20% of incoming Fall 2014 First-

year class in Learning

Communities

Living and Learning support teams

formed

Report Instructors

Summer Selected Learning Community

faculty and Student Life leaders

attend Summer Institute on

Learning Communities at

Evergreen State College.

LC faculty attend LTI workshops

Year 1 2014-15

Action Student Learning

Outcome

Measure Responsible

Agent

2014 Fall Enough LC classes offered to

enroll 20% of incoming Fall 2014

First-year class

Teamwork

Learning – Core

class-specific

SLOs

Rubrics, e-

Portfolio

UHV Teamwork

survey

Instructors

2015 Spring Faculty identified sufficient to enroll

50% of incoming Fall 2015 first-


Communities

Living and Learning Support

Teams formed

Evaluation of Fall 2014 LC classes

Engagement

Satisfaction

NSSE

SSI

OIE

Student

Affairs

QEP

Director

2015 Summer New LC faculty attend LTI

workshops

GPA

Retention

IR

Year 2 2015-16


Outcome

Measure Responsible

Agent

2015 Fall Enough LC classes offered to


First-year class

Teamwork

Learning – Core

class-specific

SLOs

Rubrics,

ePortfolio

UHV Teamwork

survey

Instructors


100% of incoming Fall 2016 First-


Communities


Engagement

Satisfaction

NSSE

SSI

OIE

Student

Affairs

QEP


60

Teams formed


Director

2016 Summer New LC faculty attend LTI

workshops

GPA

Retention

IR

Year 3 2016-

17


Outcome

Measure Responsible

Agent

Fall Enough LC classes offered to


First-year class in Learning

Communities

Teamwork

Learning – Core

class-specific

SLOs

Rubrics, e-

Portfolio

UHV Teamwork

survey

Instructors


incoming Fall 2017 First-year class

in Learning Communities


Teams formed


Engagement

Satisfaction

NSSE

SSI

OIE

Student

Affairs

Instructors

QEP

Director

Summer New LC faculty attend LTI

workshops

GPA

Retention

IR

Year 4 2017-

18


Outcome

Measure Responsible

Agent


enroll incoming Fall 2017 First-


Communities

Teamwork

Learning – Core

class-specific

SLOs

Rubrics, e-

Portfolio

UHV Teamwork

survey

Instructors





Teams formed


Engagement

Satisfaction

NSSE

SSI

OIE

Student

Affairs

QEP

Director

Summer New LC faculty LTI workshops GPA

Retention

IR

Year 5 2018-

19


Outcome

Measure Responsible

Agent


enroll incoming Fall 2018 First-


Communities

Teamwork

Learning – Core

class-specific

SLOs

Rubrics, e-

Portfolio

UHV Teamwork

survey

Instructors





Teams formed


Engagement

Satisfaction

NSSE

SSI

OIE

Student

Affairs

QEP

Director


61

Summer New LC faculty attend LTI

workshops

GPA

Retention

IR

XII. QEP organizational chart

The University of Houston-Victoria’s organizational structure is designed to plan, implement,

assess and institutionalize the Living and Learning QEP. As shown in the chart below, the Provost will

have the final word in matters regarding the QEP. The QEP Director will report to both the Provost and

the Deans’ Council, who will assist the QEP Director with encouraging participation from faculty in

QEP-related learning and teaching activities. The QEP Director will receive advice and guidance from

the QEP Implementation Team, which will be composed of representative faculty from each of the four

schools as well as staff from integral departments.

UHV has approved the combining of QEP Director and LTI (Learning and Teaching Institute)

Director into one position. The QEP director will work closely with various University offices and

functions and chair the QEP Implementation team. The director will also coordinate the faculty who

teach the various Learning Communities classes helping create opportunities for faculty

development through workshops, webinars and Professional Learning Communities. The director

Provost

QEP Director

QEP Implementation Team

Faculty member from each of the four Schools AVP of Student Affairs Faculty Senate Representative Director of First Year Academic Experience Director of Assessment Chair of Core Curriculum Committee Instruction and Outreach Librarian

Administrative Assistant

RLC Faculty

Deans’ Council


62

will help build partnerships with the larger Victoria community in general and also to explore service

learning opportunities. The director will be responsible for the following:

Direct the preparation of all modifications to the QEP required for continued compliance with

SACS accreditation

Direct the implementation of the QEP, ensure completion of each outcome, and review and

maintain appropriate timeline

Chair the QEP Implementation Team

Provide leadership for the Center for Teaching Innovation and the Learning and Teaching

Institute

Coordinate with Student Housing to establish and maintain the physical facilities for the


Coordinate with Student Life to identify potential Community Engagement activities for students

Work with the Offices of Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research to assess the

effectiveness of the QEP

Stay current on best practices related to the QEP

Facilitate workshops, training, and other opportunities to disseminate knowledge to campus

stake-holders

Coordinate and assess co-curricular activities related to the QEP

Manage the QEP budget, including stipends and incentives

Prepare annual reports of QEP activities for the President and Provost

Compile a five-year evaluation and report of the activities and success of the QEP for SACS

Perform other duties as assigned by the Provost.

XIII. Resources, Marketing Plan, and Budget

Resources

Resource In Place To be Implemented


63

First Year Seminar First Year Seminar sections and

instructors

The instructors will participate in

workshops on teamwork, learning

communities, e-portfolios, classroom

pedagogies, and assessment. Core Classes Core classes and instructors

Student Success Center Staff for the fall 2014 Residential Learning Communities.

Each Residential Learning Community

has two dedicated student success

coaches and two dedicated tutors.

Funding is identified to ensure the

staffing is adequate for subsequent

years at a growth rate of 20% a year.

Student Life Co-curricular activities associated

with the First Year Seminar

Co-curricular activities associated with

the linked classes: adequate funding

for invited speakers, films, field trips,

etc.

Living and Learning

Commons

A large room has been set aside in Jaguar Suites with one collaborative table, four work stations for groupwork, a conference table, computers. A portion of the room is configured for relaxed seating.

Conference table and chairs, tables and chairs for groupwork sofas, armchairs, and projector and screen for social area. A second Living and Learning Commons room will be needed by the third year as we continue to grow by 20% a year.

Learning and Teaching

Institute

Half-time technology instructor. Funding to invite speakers to conduct

workshops, to make necessary

technology purchases, and to hire an

additional full-time technology

instructor.

Civic Engagement The Provost’s Lecture Series,

volunteering opportunities with

community organizations,

Community of Readers events,

Expansion of the number of speakers invited to campus, coordination of community organizations, development of further opportunities.

Marketing Plan

The marketing and communication plan has been developed to raise awareness about the

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), to integrate it into the campus culture, and to gain strategic partners

in the community. It is important for several target audiences to have an understanding of the QEP,

including current and prospective students, faculty, staff, alums, donors, volunteer leaders, and the

community.


64

CURRENT MARKETING – Spring 2014

Medium/Venue Description Target Audience

(Advertising): To kick off the QEP, UHV will place ¼ page banner ads in the print edition of the Victoria Advocate utilizing the logo and explaining QEP. A series of different ads (featuring one student from each RLC) will run both Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 in the print edition of the Victoria Advocate.

Students, Faculty, & Staff

Press Releases in the UHV NewsWire

Occasional press releases about the QEP and RLC activities will be included in the UHV NewsWire promoting and explaining the program.


UHV Website: Hot Button on home and web pages

A hot button designed to draw attention to QEP issues and events will be placed on the homepage. When a visitor to the UHV website clicks on this hot button, it will link them to a site that explains QEP

Students, Faculty, Staff, & Public

UHV Website: Downloadable Screen saver and Wallpaper

A screensaver and wallpaper will be created for downloading from the website.

Faculty, Staff, & Public

TV & Message Board

Logo will be posted on the university’s electronic signage.


Local TV Provost Cass will ask to appear on local TV to promote and explain QEP.


MyUHV Portal Rotating banners will be placed on the landing page of the portal to draw attention to QEP. The banners are designed to match the ads in the Advocate.

Faculty, Staff, & Students

UHV Social Networks

QEP topic blog has been added to Facebook

Video Testimonials

Videos highlighting and explaining QEP featuring students will be created. Beginning in Fall 2015 these videos will be viewable on the QEP webpage as well as a rotating feature on the UHV homepage.

Donors, perspective students, their parents, current students, faculty, & staff

President’s Regional Advisory Board Meetings

President will be asked to allow a brief presentation about the QEP to the PRAB beginning Fall 2014.

Board members

Commencement QEP will be discussed at Spring Commencement to Faculty, Staff, &


65

integrate the concept into the campus culture.

Students

Specialty Advertising

A focus group determined the best way to reach the student body through specialty items. Based upon their recommendations UHV purchased the following items, all with logo: Two 8ft x 24ft banners: these will be placed in high traffic areas of campus Signs and Posters: displayed throughout the campus 1000 sticky note pads: to be distributed in the residence halls and the bookstore 1000 pilot pens: to be distributed in the residence halls and the bookstore 500 water bottles: to be distributed in the residence halls and athletic events 1000 mouse pads: to be distributed In the residence halls and the bookstore

Students

FUTURE MARKETING

Medium/Venue Description

Target Audience

UHV’s Hold Message

When anyone calling a UHV phone number is placed on hold, the caller hears a recorded message promoting upcoming programs and events. Beginning in Fall 2015, this message will include an explanation of QEP and examples of such opportunities.

Public

(Columns & articles): Victoria Advocate

UHV faculty will write columns about experiences their students have with QEP. Where appropriate, UHV faculty will encourage their students to submit similar columns or articles explaining their experiences.


Annual Report QEP will be promoted and explained in the Annual

Report and at the Annual Report dinner.

Donors

Fact Sheet Yearly the university publishes the Fact Sheet, which delivers important information about UHV to visitors (including prospective students and their parents), employees, donors, corporations, and the media. UHV will incorporate the QEP into the upcoming publication.

Public

Stories pitched to the media

UHV continues to take every opportunity to pitch positive stories about students, faculty, and programs to the media. Beginning in Fall 2015 UHV will make additional efforts to ensure that whenever possible these pitches will include QEP.

Public


66

Quality Enhancement Plan Budget

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total

Salaries QEP/LTI Director (20,000 stipend)

$90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $450,000

E-portfolio Developer and administrator

$48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $240,000

Admin Assistant ($30,000 + 28% fringe)

$38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $192,000

Office Supplies

2 Computers $2,000 0 0 0 $2,000 $4,000

Copier $3,000 0 0 0 0 $3,000

Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000

Stipends Faculty $6,000 $18,000 $45,000 $52,500 $60,000 $181,500

Workshop Speakers

$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000

Travel LC Bootcamp at Evergreen State for five faculty and administrators

$10,000 $10,000 $20,000

National Learning Communities Conference

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000

Assessment National Surveys (NSSE, FSSE)

$12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $62,500

Marketing Internal $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 0 0 $25,000

Community $15,000 $10,000 0 0 0 $25,000

LL Commons

Tech and Furniture

$64,000 0 0 0 $0 $64,000

Tech Support Student Workers $24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 $24,000 $120,000

Totals $338,900 $249,900 $234,900 $239,900 $231,900 $1,467,000

XIV. Bibliography

Allen, Mike; John Bourhis, Nancy Burrell, and Edward Mabry. “Comparing Student Satisfaction With

Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis.” American

Journal of Distance Education 16.2 (2002): 83-97. Web. 2 Feb. 2013

Arnold, J. David. “St. John Fisher College: Freshman Learning Communities for Student Recruitment

and Retention” Spear, K. et al. Learning Communities in Liberal Arts Colleges. National

Learning Communities Project Monograph Series, Olympia WA: The Evergreen State College,


67

Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, in cooperation with

the American Association for Higher Education (2003): 24-48. Print.

Association of American Colleges and Universities National Panel. College Learning for the New Global

Century. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007. Web. 21

March 2013.

Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They

Should Be Learning More. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2006. Print.

Bruffee, Kenneth A. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of

Knowledge. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1993. Print.

-----. “Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind.”” College English, 46.7 (1984): 635-

652. Web. 2 Feb. 2013.

Decker Lardner, Emily. “Approaching Diversity through Learning Communities.” Washington Center

Occasional Paper. 2 (2003): 1-12. Web. 3 March 2013.

“Director’s Message.” nsse. Annual Report 2007. Web. 3 March 2013.

Hotchkiss, J. L, R. E. Moore, and M. M. Pitts.”Freshman learning communities, college performance,

and retention.” Education Economics 14.2 (2006): 197-210. Web. 6 March 2013.

Gabelnick, Faith, Jean MacGregor, Roberta Matthews, and Barbara Smith, eds. Learning

Communities: Creating Connections Among Students, Faculty, and Disciplines. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. Print

Gabelnick, Faith, Jean MacGregor, Roberta S. Matthews, and Barbara Leigh Smith. “Learning

Communities and General Education.” General Education Revisited. Columbus, Ohio:

Association for General and Liberal Studies. (1992): 104-121. Print.

Golde, Chris M. and Dean A. Pribbenow. “Understanding Faculty Involvement in Residential Learning

Communities.” Journal of College Student Development.41.1 (2000): 27-40. Web. 22 July 2013.

Hart, Shelley R.; Kaitlyn Stewart,; Shane Jimerson,. "The Student Engagement in Schools

Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form-New (TERF-N): examining


68

the preliminary evidence)." Contemporary School Psychology. California Association of School

Psychologists. 2011. HighBeam Research. Web. 22 Jul. 2013.

Inkelas, Karen Kurotsuchi, Jennifer L. Weisman. “Different by Design: An Examination of Student

Outcomes Among Participants in Three Types of Living-Learning Programs.” Journal of College

Student Development. 44.3 (2003): 335-368. Web. 2 August 2013

Inkelas, K. K., Z. E. Daver, K. E. Vogt, and J. B. Leonard. “Living-learning programs and first-generation

college students’ academic and social transition to college.” Research in Higher Education. 48.4

(2007): 403-434. Web. 2 August 2013.

Jehangir, R. “ In their own words: Voices of first-generation college students in a multicultural learning

community.” Opportunity Matters 1 (2008): 22-32. Print.

Lenning, Oscar T., Larry H. Ebbers. The Powerful Potential of Learning Communities: Improving

Education for the Future. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 26, No. 6. (1999).

Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and

Human Development. Web. 15 June 2013.

Meiklejohn, Alexander. The Experimental College. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000

(1932). Print.

Muldoon, Robyn L. and Macdonald, Ian. “Building Learning Communities in Residential Colleges.”

Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 6.2 (2009): n. pag. Web. 17 June 2013.

Ryu, Mikyung. “The Education Gap: Understanding African American and Hispanic Attainment

Disparities in Higher Education.” ACE Center for Policy Analysis. Diversity Matters in U.S.

Higher Education. Washington, DC: 2012. Print.

Shapiro, Nancy, Jodi H. Levine. Creating Learning Communities: A Practical Guide to Winning Support,

Organizing for Change, and Implementing Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. Print

Smith, Barbara Leigh, Gabelnick, Faith, MacGregor, Jean, and Matthews, Roberta S., Learning

Communities: Reforming Undergraduate Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004. Print.


69

Smith, T. (ed.). First Annual International Conference of Residential Colleges and Living/Learning

Centers Proceedings. Kirksville: Northeast Missouri State University, 1992. Print.

Tinto, Vincent. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures for Student Attrition. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1987. Print.

Tinto, V. “Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent literature.” A Review

of Educational Research. 45.1 (1975): 89-125. Web. 5 April 2013.

Tinto, Vincent and Cathy McHugh Engstrom. “Learning Better Together: The Impact of Learning

Communities on the Persistence of Low-Income Students.” Opportunity Matters 1 (2008): 5-21.

Web. 5 April 2013.

Tudge, J. & S. Scrimsher. “Lev S. Vygotsky on Education: A Cultural-Historical, Interpersonal, and

Individual Approach to Development." Educational Psychology : A Century of Contributions: A

Project of Division 15 (educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Society eds.

Barry Zimmerman, Dale Schunk, and Lorin Anderson. Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates,

2003. Print.

Zhao, Chun-Mei and George D. Kuh. “Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement”

Research in Higher Education, 45.2 (2004): 115-138. Web.5 April 2013.

Zhu, Chang. “Student Satisfaction, Performance, and Knowledge Construction in Online Collaborative

Learning.” Educational Technology & Society 15 (2012): 127-136. Web. 5 April 2013.

XV. Appendices

Appendix A: First Year Seminar sample syllabus

F I R S T Y E A R S E M I N A R C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S

U N I V 1 2 0 0


70

Instructor: Linda L. Autry, Ph.D., LPC-S

Office: UW 148

Office Phone: 361-570-4334

Email: [email protected]

Office Hours:

Class Time: M/W 11:30 – 12:30

Classroom: UHV 121

Course Description

First Year Seminar. This course provides an opportunity to forge relationships with faculty and peers.

The student will meet once a week in a seminar format with a faculty member and a small group of

fellow first year students. The Community of Readers text and a series of multidisciplinary speakers

and experiences will serve as the content for the course. Activities centered on these experiences will

be the means for meeting the course goals.

Course Description. This is a 2 credit required course for freshman and students entering the

University with less than 30 credit hours. This course provides an opportunity for students to develop

the skills needed to succeed in college and to become engaged in the campus community. The course

will focus on the Community of Readers text, academic skills, life skills and career and major

exploration. Prerequisites: None.

Learning Objectives:

Students who successfully complete UNIV 1200 will be able to:

1. Understand the goals of a well-rounded college education and the core curriculum

2. Understand the intertwining nature of various academic disciplines and how the big questions

cross multiple fields of inquiry

3. Develop mechanisms to connect with peers and faculty on a deeper level and to begin to

develop an academic support system

4. Develop strategies to strengthen those “life skills” that are essential for academic and career

success such as time management, realistic goal-setting, money management, and their

personal health and wellness

5. Develop strategies for optimizing their academic success and an opportunity to practice those

strategies within a supportive academic environment

6. Explore various majors and related careers

Class Materials:

Required Text: The Hunger Games.

Other Materials. Further class materials including videos, video clips, readings and lectures will

be presented in class, during special scheduled activities or posted to the class web site.

Class Assignments:


71

Community of Readers Academic Events. Students will be required to attend four

Community of Reader Events over the course of the term. 3 pts. for each event = 12 pts.

possible.

Community of Readers Social Events. Students will be required to attend two Community of

Reader film presentations over the course of the term. 3 pts. for each event = 6 pts. possible.

UNIVERSITY ACTIVITIES. STUDENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THREE CULTURAL OR ACADEMIC UNIVERSITY (NOT COR-RELATED) OVER THE

COURSE OF THE TERM. THESE ACTIVITIES MAY INCLUDE SPEAKERS AT ANY OF THE COLLEGES OR THE AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW (ABR) SPEAKER

SERIES. IF YOU ARE UNSURE IF AN ACTIVITY WILL COUNT FOR CREDIT, ASK YOUR INSTRUCTOR. 3 PTS. FOR EACH EVENT = 9 PTS. POSSIBLE.

Financial Events. Students will be required to attend one financial even over the course of the

term. 3 pts possible.

Class Activities. Students will be required to participate in weekly class activities and assessments as determined by the instructor. 40 points. Class Participation. Students will be required to participate fully in all class discussions and activities. 10 Points. Career Assessment. Students will be required to undergo a career assessment at Student Services and to present the results of this assessment in their career portfolio (see below). 10 points.

Career Exploration Portfolio. Students will be required to complete a series of activities including a career assessment, interviews, and research to construct a portfolio of potential career choices. 30 points possible for entire career portfolio.

1. Take Strong Inventory.

2. Meet with Eunice Mesa to discuss the Inventory.

3. Pick a profession. Learn about it – average salary, degree needed, national organization that is involved with this kind of profession

Grade Descriptor

A Excellent; 90-100

B Good; 80-89.99

C Average; 70-79.99

D Passing; 60-69.99

F Failing; Below 60

Incomplete

Incompletes will only be given if the student has been unable to fulfill the course assignments for an unforeseen but fully justified reason and there is still a possibility of earning credit. It is the student's responsibility to bring pertinent information to the


72

instructor and request the incomplete option. Students electing the incomplete option must complete the required course work within the time designated by the instructor but not to exceed 12 months. If the student fails to complete the required course work within 12 months, the grade will be changed to an F.

CLASS POLICIES:

Statements or behaviors that display intolerance toward individuals based upon race, sex, religion, age,

handicap, national origin, or sexual orientation are NOT acceptable and may result in your removal

from the class discussions or removal from the class entirely!

Classroom Behavior. This is college course. Students are expected to conduct themselves as adults

with a responsibility for their own learning and respect for the learning of others. Making or receiving

phone calls, texting, instant messaging, emailing and other activities that may distract the instructor or

other learners are not allowed. Please turn off or silence all cell phones and put them away out of sight

before class begins.

Class Attendance. Students are expected to attend each class. Attendance will be taken at each

class meeting. Arriving to class over 10 minutes late or leaving over 10 minutes early will count as an

absence. Each unexcused absence after the first will result in a drop of one letter grade.

WEEK BY WEEK SCHEDULE

DATES WEEKLY TOPICS ASSIGNMENTS & ACTIVITIES

Week 1 Introduction & Syllabus Review; Community of Readers & FYS; Academic Discourse;

Office Hours Hunger Games, Chapter 1

Week 2 Academic Center Presentation Hunger Games, Chapter 2

SEPTEMBER 07 MUST HAVE LIBRARY CARD! CSI COMPLETED!

Week 3 Hunger Games, Chapter 3; Hunger Games, Chapter 4

SEPTEMBER 14 JAGUAR JOURNEY ORIENTATION

Deadline for completing CSI (College Student Inventory administered by Student Services)


SEPTEMBER 21 DEADLINE FOR REGISTERING FOR Strong Inventory

SEPTEMBER 23 BANNED BOOK ESSAY


Week 6 Hunger Games, Chapter 9; Hunger Games, Chapters 10 & 11

OCTOBER 5 MUST HAVE COMPLETED STRONG INVENTORY



73



OCTOBER 26 MUST HAVE MET WITH EUNICE MESA TO DISCUSS RESULTS OF STRONG INVENTORY

Week 10 Hunger Games, Chapter 21; Hunger Games, Chapters 22 & 23; Paragraph about

meeting with Eunice Mesa DUE!

November 2 Career Portfolio Due

Week 11 Hunger Games, Chapter 24

Week 12 Hunger Games, Chapters 25 & 26; Hunger Games, Chapter 27, Career Portfolio due

Week 13 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY

Week 14 Prepare for Finals

Week 15 Conclusion and Course Evaluations

Appendix B: Core Class Sample Syllabus

Course Information

Instructor Information

Name and Number: CUIN 13XX Children, Creativity and the Fine Arts

Name: Jill Fox, Ph.D.

Term and Year: Fall 2014 Office Location/Hours: UW 274 TBA

Section: Phone: (361) 570-4310

Class time, day and location: TBD Email: [email protected]

Course Description: This multidisciplinary course will provide education and other interested majors

with the experiences and tools to design meaningful arts experiences for children. Students will

develop creative capacities in visual art, music, dance, and drama by critiquing, creating, and designing

activities in fine arts appreciation and production for children. This course meets the Creative Arts

requirement in the Texas Common Core.

Prerequisites:

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-VICTORIA


74

Learning Objectives:

Through participation in this course students will:

1. Actively participate in creative activities in visual art, music, drama, and dance

2. Identify opportunities for engagement in the fine arts in and around Victoria

3. Share an informed opinion about a live performance

4. Work in teams to design developmentally appropriate experiences in the fine arts for

children

Texas Common Core Objectives

Communication (COM): Students will demonstrate effective communication of an idea by developing and organizing cogent supports and expressing these via appropriate media in competent and contextually suited presentations.

Critical Thinking (CT): Students will demonstrate the capacity to analyze and synthesize information to arrive at a conclusion.

Teamwork (TW): Students will demonstrate ability to consider different points of view and work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal.

Social Responsibility (SR): Students will demonstrate knowledge, skills and attitudes that support competent interaction and/or effective engagement in a variety of communities and cultural contexts.

Texts and Materials:

Kohl, H., & Oppenheim, T. (2012). The muses go to school: Inspiring stories about the importance of

arts in education. New York: The New Press.

Grading Criteria:

1. Opinion Paper – Students will attend a live performance of Theatre Victoria, the Victoria

Ballet, the Victoria Symphony, or another event approved by the instructor. Students will

submit a one-page written response to the experience prepared according to criteria

distributed in class.

2. Students will work in a team to develop a plan for a developmentally appropriate visual art

production or appreciation experience for a child between the ages of four and 12 years.

3. Students will work in a team to develop a plan for a developmentally appropriate music

production or appreciation experience for a child between the ages of four and 12 years.

4. Students will work in a team to develop a plan for a developmentally appropriate drama

appreciation or participation experience for a child between the ages of four and 12 years.

5. Mid-Term Exam

6. Final Exam

Grading

Opinion Paper 10 points

Visual Art Experience 20 points

Music Experience 20 points

Drama Experience 20 points


75

Mid-Term Exam 10 points

Final Exam 10 points

Teamwork Evaluations 10 points

TOTAL 100 points

Grade Scale:

A = 90 – 100 points B = 81 – 90 C = 71 – 80 D = 61 – 70 F = 60 – below Late Work/Missed Work: Class assignments are due on the date indicated on the syllabus, unless otherwise indicated by the instructor. Ten per cent of the point value of the assignment will be deducted for each day the work is submitted after the due date. Work submitted during or after the final examination will not be accepted. All assignments should be typed or word-processed in 12-point font unless otherwise indicated by the instructor. Failure to include appropriately documented citations in any assignment is considered a violation of the Integrity Policy. Evaluation and assessment activities are given only during times scheduled for the entire class. Individual students may not take evaluations either prior to or after the rest of the class.

Attendance and Participation: In this course, absences are not characterized as "excused" or

"unexcused." Students who miss more than two class meetings over the semester will have their final

grade dropped by one letter. Students who are fifteen or more minutes late for class will be counted as

absent. Students who leave class 15 minutes or more early will be counted as absent.

Course Structure and Expectations: This face-to-face course will include lectures by the instructor,

team-based assignments, and participatory activities in the arts. Students are expected to attend class

regularly, participate in class activities and discussions, and complete out-of-class readings and

assignments before coming to class.

Course Schedule:

Tuesday, August 26 Course and Syllabus Overview

Thursday, August 28 How Children Think and Learn

Tuesday, September 2 How Children Think and Learn

Thursday, September 4 Children and Motor Development

Tuesday, September 9 What is Creativity?

Thursday, September 11 Introduction to Visual Art

Tuesday, September 16 Field Trip to the Nave Museum

Thursday, September 18 Visual Art Appreciation for Children


76

Tuesday, September 23 Visual Art Production for Children

Thursday, September 25 Art Lab

Tuesday, September 30 Teamwork: Planning Art Experiences for Children

Thursday, October 2 Introduction to Music

Tuesday, October 7 Listen to and Discuss Peter and the Wolf; ***Art Experience Plan due

Thursday, October 9 Listening to Music with Children

Tuesday, October 14 Making Music with Children

Thursday, October 1 Teamwork: Planning Appropriate Music Activities for Children

Tuesday, October 21 Mid-Term

Thursday, October 23 Introduction to Drama

Tuesday, October 28 Drama through the Ages; ***Music Experience Plan due

Thursday, October 30 Dramatic Activities for Children

Tuesday, November 4 Drama Lab

Thursday, November 6 Drama Lab

Tuesday, November 11 Teamwork: Planning Drama Activities for Children Thursday, November 13 Introduction to Dance

Tuesday, November 18 Watch and Discuss Swan Lake; ***Drama Experience Plan due

Thursday, November 20 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY

Tuesday, November 25 Guest Speaker and Demonstration

Thursday, November 27 Dance Activities for Children; ***Opinion Paper due

Tuesday, December 2 Using Literature to Support Children’s Engagement in the Fine Arts Thursday, December 4 Review for Final Exam

Academic Integrity: “Students. . . have a responsibility to fulfill, and indeed an investment to protect,

in helping to ensure that academic achievement is characterized by honesty and fair play” (UHV

Student Handbook). The University takes academic integrity very seriously. It is your responsibility to

understand what behavior violates academic honesty rules and to understand the consequences for

Policies


77

such violations. Please refer to the UHV Student Handbook:

http://www.uhv.edu/HandBook/HandbookPage.aspx?ID=3

PLAGIARISM: PLAGIARISM IS AN INCREASINGLY COMMON FORM OF ACADEMIC

MISCONDUCT. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED PLAGIARISM:

turning in someone else's work as your own copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit failing to put a quotation in quotation marks giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work,

whether you give credit or not.

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. [adapted from: http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html]

ADA Accommodations: If you feel that you have a disability that will affect your performance in this course, you may wish to contact the Disability Services Office (361-570-4287) to arrange accommodations. UHV has established procedures for making reasonable accommodations for qualified students.

The University of Houston System complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, pertaining to the provision of reasonable academic

adjustments/auxiliary aids for students with a disability. In accordance with Section 504 and ADA

guidelines, each University within the System strives to provide reasonable academic

adjustments/auxiliary aids to students who request and require them. If you believe that you have a

disability requiring academic adjustments/auxiliary aids, please contact your University’s student

disability services center.

University of Houston–Victoria, Office of Disability Services, 3007 N. Ben Wilson St., Suite 133-B

University West, Victoria, TX 77901. Office phone – 361-570-4287; E-mail [email protected]; Website -

www.uhv.edu/DisabilityServices

Student Services: The Academic Center offers writing assistance, subject-area tutoring, testing

services, and information resources. For additional information: call 361-570-4288 or Toll Free: 1-877-

970-4848, ext. 288; or visit their website: http://www.uhv.edu/ac.

Grievance Procedure: If you have a non-academic grievance or complaint, please contact Student

Services at 361-470-4133. If you have an academic grievance or complaint, please contact your

school’s dean. Please refer to the UHV Student Handbook for additional information:

http://www.uhv.edu/HandBook/

Sexual Harassment: The University of Houston-Victoria (UHV) is committed to providing a professional working and learning environment free from sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and is illegal. UHV will not tolerate any form of sexual harassment. If you


78

feel you are the victim of sexual harassment, please contact the Core Curriculum Services Office at 361-570-4202.

Student Conduct: Students are expected to participate in a mutually respectful learning environment. Also, the use of cell phones, beepers, or other communication devices is prohibited during class. If you are using a computer during class, it must be used solely for note-taking or other class-related matters. You will be asked to leave class if your behavior is disruptive or if you violate these rules.

Faculty Grading Rubric for Teamwork

CATEGORY Exemplary Proficient Partially Proficient Unsatisfactory POINTS

Focus on the Task

3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points ___/3

Stays on task all of the time without reminders.

Stays on task most of the time. Group members can count on this person.

Stays on task some of the time. Group members must sometimes remind this person to do the work.

Hardly ever stays on task. Lets others do the work.

A true team member who works hard and helps others in the group.

A strong group member who tries hard!

Sometimes an active group member, but needs to try harder.

Sometimes chooses not to help out, and does not complete tasks.

Work Habits 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points ___/3

Is on time for meetings, turns in all work when it is due.

Usually on time for meetings, turns in most work when it is due.

Sometimes late for meetings, often turns in work late.

Late for all or most meetings, and late turning in work.

Completes assigned tasks and does not depend on others to do the work.

Completes most assigned tasks.

Does not follow through on most tasks and sometimes counts on others to do the work

Does not complete tasks. Depends on others to do all of the work.

Listening, Questioning and Discussing


Respectfully listens, discusses, asks questions and helps direct the group in solving problems.

Respectfully listens, discusses and asks questions.

Has trouble listening with respect, and takes over discussions without letting other people have a turn.

Does not listen with respect, argues with teammates, and does not consider other ideas. Blocks group from reaching agreement.

Research and Information-Sharing


Gathers information and shares useful ideas for

Usually provides useful information and ideas for

Sometimes provides useful information and

Almost never provides useful information or ideas


79

discussions. All information fits the group’s goals

discussion. ideas for discussion.

for discussion.

Problem-Solving 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points ___/3

Actively seeks and suggests solutions to problems.

Improves on solutions suggested by other group members.

Does not offer solutions, but is willing to try solutions suggested by other group members.

Does not try to solve problems or help others solve problems.

Group/Partner Teamwork


Works to complete all group goals.

Usually helps to complete group goals.

Occasionally helps to complete group goals.

Does not work well with others and shows no interest in completing group goals.

Always has a positive attitude about the task(s) and the work of others

Usually has a positive attitude about the task(s) and the work of others.

Sometimes makes fun of the task(s) or the work of other group members.

Often makes fun of others’ work and has a negative attitude.

All team members contributed equally to the finished project.

Assisted group/partner in the finished project.

Finished individual task but did not assist group/partner during the project.

Contributed little to the group effort during the project.

Performed all duties of assigned team role and contributed knowledge, opinions, and skills to share with the team. Always did the assigned work.

Performed nearly all duties of assigned team role and contributed knowledge, opinions, and skills to share with the team. Completed most of the assigned work.

Performed a few duties of assigned team role and contributed a small amount of knowledge, opinions, and skills to share with the team. Completed some of the assigned work.

Did not perform any duties of assigned team role and did not contribute knowledge, opinions or skills to share with the team. Relied on others to do the work.

TOTAL POINTS ___ /18

Teamwork: Assessing Your Group

Please pick the behavior that best represents your team’s experience.

Criteria 5 4 3 2 1 Score

Attendance Most, if not all, members attend all

meetings, are punctual, and stay the entire meeting

Most members are present at the majority

of meetings. When members have to be absent, they inform

One or more of the members

frequently miss meetings and

don’t inform the

1 2 3

4 5 NA


80

the team or an agreed upon team member.

team, or an agreed upon

team member. When they do come, they are

often late or leave early.

Establishing and

Documenting Goals

When appropriate, realistic, prioritized,

and measurable goals are agreed

upon and documented and team members

share a common purpose.

Individuals share some but a common

purpose may be lacking. When

appropriate, goals may be established

but some may are too general or

unquantifiable. Priorities may be

unrealistic. Documentation may

be incomplete.

Clear goals are not formulated

and documented;

thus, all members don’t

accept or understand the purpose/task of

the group

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Accountability for Results

(Work Products)

The work product is a collective effort; team members

have both individual and

mutual responsibility for the successful

completion of the work

Individuals work on separate sections of the work product and have a coordinator(s)

that ties disparate parts together (i.e., rely on the sum of

each individual’s best work).

Individuals work on separate

sections of the work product and have no coordinating

effort to put the disparate parts

together.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Team Cohesion

Team members are committed to the team and show

bonding and camaraderie. A

climate of trust and acceptance exists and they feel pride in being part of the

team.

Members feel some commitment to the team/group, but it is

not consistent. Members’ behaviors

range from competitive and individualistic to cooperative and

supportive.

Low morale exists; there is

little or no cohesion among group members.

The team is competitive

and/or individualistic.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Communication Team members communicate and treat one another with respect. All

members listen to ideas. The work of

each person is acknowledged.

Members feel free to seek assistance and information, share resources,

insights, and advice, or ask

questions of each other.

There is a general atmosphere of respect for team members, but some members may

not be heard as much as others. Some may

not feel free to ask others for help.

Members may avoid discussing some topics for fear of

disrupting the group’s work and/or hurting someone’s feelings.

Communication is limited among group members (information is not shared with

one another and/or important

topics are not discussed among the

group because a climate of open communication has not been established).

1 2 3

4 5 NA


81

Team Decision Making

Clear procedures for making

decisions are established and

documented, when appropriate. Team members tend to

make most decisions by consensus.

Decision-making procedures are

established informally, leading to some inconsistency in implementation.

Majority and minority opinions sometimes evolve during group

decision-making.

Decisions are made by

individuals and may not reflect the thinking or the desires of

the team. There is often a failure

to involve all members in the decision-making

process.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Adjusting When working to achieve goals, the

team is able to adjust plans as

issues arise. There is a clear nature to the nature of mid-course corrections and why they were

needed.

The team is not always able to adjust

as needed to meet the goals. Realization of

the need for mid-course corrections

sometimes comes too late.

The team is unfocused and seems to be

thrashing about. There is no

ability to adjust or make

corrections.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Team Assessment

Members regularly examine how their team is functioning and analyze their

findings for maintenance or improvement.

Members engage in occasional

discussions about how their team is

functioning, but it is not a regular

occurrence and all members may not be

involved.

Members avoid discussions

about how they are functioning

as a group.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Timely Work on Assignments and Reports

Team members are self-motivated and can complete work

and reports in a timely manner without being

reminded.

Work assignments and reports are

submitted but may be late.

Work assignments

and reports are frequently late

(submitted inconsistently). The team is not self-motivated

and needs constant casing to get the work submitted on

time.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Leadership Team members share the role.

Each team member feels responsible

for helping to lead.

A strong, clearly focused leader

develops. This leader sees self more

responsible for leading the team than other

team members.

The group has not leader no do

its members share the role.

1 2 3

4 5 NA

Managing Conflict

Conflicts are consistently

resolved through open discussion and compromise.

Members are generally able to resolve conflicts

through open discussion and

Conflicts that arise are either

dealt with or cannot be resolved.

1 2 3

4 5 NA


82

compromise. Members tend to hide their true

feelings and opinions.

This rubric is based on one developed by Howard Feldman at the University of Portland using some

material from Smith, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-

Performance Organization. NSF CRCD Project, Material Sciences and Engineering. Iowa State

University.

Appendix C: Leadership and QEP Committees

Institutional Leadership Team

Wayne Beran, Vice President for Administration & Finance (MEMBER) Jeffrey Cass, Provost - Chief Academic Officer and Accreditation Liaison (MEMBER) Philip Castille, President - Chief Executive Officer (CHAIR) Jill Fox, Director of Assessment (NON-VOTING MEMBER) Jay Lambert, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs (MEMBER) Denise Neill, Faculty Representative (MEMBER) Ron Salazar, Faculty Senate President

QEP Development Team:

1. Jefffrey Cass 2. Jill Fox 3. Uppinder Mehan 4. Margaret Rice 5. Lawrence Rossow

Theme Selection Committee:

1. Amy Barnhill 2. Lisette Barton 3. Emily Bergstrom 4. Paul Carlson 5. Brian Carr

6. Sandra Heinold 7. Teresa Le Sage 8. Donald Loffredo 9. Kayla Sappington

QEP Planning and Implementation Team: Chairs: Non-Voting Ex Officio Chairs: Jeffrey Cass, Provost and VPAA Uppinder Mehan, Associate Provost


83

Subcommittees: Budget

1. Wei-Chih Chiang – Business Faculty 2. Massoud Metghalchi – Business Faculty 3. Lawrence Nelson – IT Staff 4. Ziyun (Calvin)Yang –Business Faculty

Assessment

1. Sharon Bailey - Associate Director of Assessment (non-voting ex officio) 2. Jill Fox – Director of Assessment (non-voting ex officio) 3. Linda Hayes – Business Faculty 4. Mara Cooper – Director, Student Success Center Staff 5. Donald Loffredo – Arts and Sciences Faculty

Promotion/Marketing

1. Paula Cobler – Marketing Staff 2. Amy Hickner – Graduate Student 3. Melody Vecera – Marketing Staff 4. Mark Ward – Arts and Sciences Faculty 5. Moses Olukoya – Student

Academic Learning Communities

1. Justin Bell – Arts and Sciences Faculty 2. Eugenia (Ginger) Blomstrom – Nursing Faculty 3. Teresa LeSage – Education Faculty 4. Hsin-Hui Lin – Education Faculty 5. Fred Litton – Education Faculty 6. Beverly Tomek - Arts and Sciences Faculty


1. Amy Barnhill - Education Faculty 2. Dakota Doman – Director, Student Life 3. Joann Olson – Education Faculty 4. Mara Cooper – Director, Student Success Center

Academic Support and Research

1. Lissette Barton – Nursing Faculty 2. Beverley Hoerig – Instructional Design Staff 3. Ladner, Rhonda – Graduate Student 4. Tong-Ai Zhang – Institutional Research Staff

QEP Implementation Team:

1. Faculty member from each of the four Schools 2. AVP of Student Affairs 3. Faculty Senate Representative 4. Director of First Year Academic Experience 5. Director of Assessment 6. Chair of Core Curriculum Committee


84

7. Instruction and Outreach Librarian

Appendix D: Focus Groups and Survey Questions

A variety of strategies were used to pool ideas from the faculty, staff, students, alumni, the President’s

Regional Advisory Board and the Victoria community. Survey instruments used were Survey Monkey,

oral recordings of responses, online surveys, and paper surveys.

Group Questions

Undergraduate students 1. How do you perceive the learning experience at UHV for undergraduate students? 2. What do you see are the critical academic issues or concerns at UHV? 3. What do you think would enhance student success? 4. How do you think students at UHV compare with students at other universities? 5. Do you feel prepared for your career when you graduate from UHV? 6. How do you think we can improve student learning? 7. What is the one thing you think it would be important to change to improve the academic environment here at UHV? 8. Other thoughts? Upper Classmen - UHV 1. How has your learning experience at UHV affected you the most? 2. What are the pros and cons of attending a small university? 3. What do you wish was at UHV that is currently not? 4. What should students know when they graduate from UHV? 5. What should students value when they graduate from UHV? 6. What do you see as a theme in fellow students' comments about UHV? 7. Open discussion Freshman & Sophomore - UHV 1. What affected your UHV learning experience the most? 2. How do you expect to change after completing your college education? What will be different about you? 3. What are the pros and cons of going to a small university? 4. What do you wish was at UHV that is not? 5. What should students know when they graduate from UHV? 6. What should students be able to do when they graduate from UHV? 7. What would make your experience at UHV better? 8. Any other comments

Graduate students If there is one thing UHV could do to improve student learning, what would it be ?

Student Senate 1. What has impacted your learning most at UHV? 2. What would enhance the UHV experience? 3. What do UHV students need to know and be able to do? 4. What do you want to learn at UHV?

Staff 1. How do you perceive the learning experience at UHV for undergraduate students? 2. What do you see as the critical academic issues, or concerns, for undergraduate students? 3. What would enhance student success?


85

4. How do you think our students compare to students at our peer universities? 5. What would improve student learning at UHV? 6. What is the one thing that you believe is most important to change the academic environment for students? 7. Are our graduates prepared for their careers? 8. Other thoughts

Faculty 1. If there is one thing we can do to enhance student learning on the UHV campuses, what would it be? 2. If there is one barrier that can be removed to enhance student learning outcomes, what is it? 3. What do we want our UHV students to learn? 4. What kinds of educational experiences do we want our students to have? 5. How can faculty teaching enhance student learning at UHV? 6. How does faculty scholarship best enhance student learning? 7. How do faculty service activities support student learning outcomes? 8. How might we engage our students with the community(ies) and the community(ies) with UHV? 9. How might faculty and students engage together in campus life? 10. Other thoughts on enhancing student learning outcomes…

President’s Regional Advisory Board

1. How do you perceive the learning experience at UHV for undergraduate students? 2. What do you see as the critical academic issues/concerns at UHV? 3. What would enhance student learning at UHV? 4. What is one thing you believe is important to change in improving the academic environment that supports student learning? 5. Are our graduates prepared for their careers when they graduate?

Alumni If there was one thing UHV could do to improve student learning, what would it be? Community

Appendix E: Mini-Prospectuses of the QEP (Two examples of the five original mini-

prospectuses are provided. The remaining ones are available on request)

QEP POSSIBILITY # 1(A): INCREASE ENGAGEMENT – SERVICE LEARNING

PURPOSE

The purpose of the QEP is to foster greater engagement between faculty, students, and the community.

Students that are more engaged with faculty and the community will have a greater investment in

learning and applying it to the world beyond the university. Increasing student engagement by focusing

on Service Learning (SL) will enable students and faculty to develop greater understanding and

knowledge about the scholarly and academic community as well as their local community while

fostering important attitudes about civic responsibility and engagement.

SCOPE


86

In global terms increased engagement is partly a change in culture. Students, faculty, staff, and the

community will be asked to see their work and goals as being integrated. To foster such engagement

community resources and initiatives will inform the creation and development of new programs.

Campus organizations connected to Student Life, , elements of the Core Requirement and community

partners will all need to come together to make SL at UHV a success. Service learning fits in well with

UHV’s mission goal of community engagement.

QEP ACTIVITIES

The QEP suggests the following activities to help students, faculty, and the community develop a more

fully engaged campus and student learning experience at UHV:

1. Establish a Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence in which Service Learning (SL) will be housed.

2. Provide Academic Service Learning opportunities for students 3. Create incentives for student engagement in SL opportunities 4. Provide Academic Service Learning opportunities for faculty 5. Develop partnerships with community agencies to develop courses and syllabi that meet identified

community needs 6. Establish Service Learning resources for faculty such as course development leaves and stipends 7. In the pilot year identify liaison and early-adopter supervisors and develop learning contracts,

reflection prompts, and evaluation instruments

QEP ASSESSMENTS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The QEP Steering Committee will govern the implementation of the Quality Enhancement Plan. All data

and reports will be sent to the Committee for review. The Committee will send its report to the President

with analysis and recommendations. Assessments and outcomes will include data gathered using the

following sources and instruments:

1. Assessments a. Student e-portfolios b. National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) c. Annual Program Assessment d. Course/Instructor Evaluation e. Course Embedded Assessment f. Community surveys

2. Performance Indicators a. Two service courses will be developed and offered the first year and two more will be added

every following academic year for the duration of the QEP implementation b. Students enrolled in SL courses will meet or exceed the national average in 80% of the NSSE

categories on student engagement c. 80% of student e-portfolios will show satisfactory evidence of student reflection, comprehension,

and engagement with the academic and service contents of SL courses d. The majority of the community partners will show high satisfaction with the SL courses,

students, and faculty involved e.

Budget Summary 1st Year 5 Years

Director of Teaching and Learning Excellence 50,000 250,000


87

Student grants and fellowships 10,000 50,000

Secretary 30,000 150,000

Graduate assistants at 15,000 30,000 150,000

Operating expenses Travel – 4,000 Speakers – 1,000

Computers – 3,000

Travel – 20,000 Speakers – 5,000

Computers – 3,000

Stipends for faculty at $3,500 7,000 35,000

Totals 135,000 663,000

UNIVERSITIES THAT EMBEDDED “SERVICE LEARNING” IN THEIR QEP

Roanoke College (http://roanoke.edu/A-

Z_Index/Institutional_Effectiveness_Program/QEP/QEP_Topic.htm)

Angelo State http://www.angelo.edu/institutional_accreditation/qep/

Tarleton State University http://www.tarleton.edu/real/index.html

University of North Florida http://www.unf.edu/uploadedFiles/aa/IE/accreditation/SACS/QEP-7-9-09.pdf

QEP Possibility #1(b): Increase Engagement – Learning Communities

PURPOSE


Students that are more engaged with faculty, each other, and the community will have a greater

investment in learning and applying it to the world beyond the university. Increasing faculty/student

engagement by focusing on Learning Communities (LC) will provide students with structures and

opportunities to think more critically and in a more integrative manner, and work collaboratively inside

and outside the classroom.

SCOPE

In global terms increased engagement is partly a change in culture. LC addresses important concerns

regarding engagement, critical thinking, social responsibility, and retention. By enrolling as a cohort in

two or more linked classes, students will need the support of a number of campus organizations

connected to Student Life, First Year Experience, as well as those faculty and staff associated with the

Core Curriculum and their majors. Learning Communities fits well with UHV’s emphasis on scholarship

and teaching and learning.

QEP ACTIVITIES



8. Establish a Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence in which Learning Communities (LC) will be housed.

9. Establish LC resources for faculty such as course development leaves and stipends 10. In the summer of the pilot year, identify faculty interested in developing sequences of LC

courses


88

11. In the fall semester of the pilot year, identified faculty familiarize themselves on best practices and research associated with LC

12. Faculty develop LC courses in the spring semester and prepare to offer the first course in the sequence in the upcoming fall semester






1. Assessments a. Student e-portfolios b. National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) c. Annual Program Assessment d. Course/Instructor Evaluation e. Course Embedded Assessment

2. Performance Indicators a. At least two sequences of LC courses (with a minimum of three courses in the

sequence) will be developed and offered the first year. The aim is to offer ten LC course sequences by the end of five years.

b. Students enrolled in LC courses will meet or exceed the national average in 80% of the NSSE categories on student engagement

c. 80% of student e-portfolios will show satisfactory evidence of student reflection, research skills, comprehension, critical thinking, and collaborative skills.



Secretary 30,000 150,000



Computers – 3,000


Computers – 3,000


Totals 125,000 613,000

UNIVERSITIES THAT EMBEDDED “LEARNING COMMUNITIES” IN THEIR QEP

Baylor University http://www.baylor.edu/qep/index.php?id=41986

Collin College http://www.collin.edu/aboutus/qep/index.html

Eastern Kentucky University http://qep.eku.edu/Co-Curricular


89

QEP POSSIBILITY # 1(C): INCREASE ENGAGEMENT–PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

PURPOSE


Students that are more engaged with faculty and the community will have a greater investment in

learning and applying it to the world beyond the university. Increasing student engagement by focusing

on Problem-Based Learning (PBL) will enable students to work collaboratively and connect concepts

and coursework to the world at large.

SCOPE

In global terms increased engagement is partly a change in culture. PBL addresses important concerns

raised by potential employers and various educational agencies. Students learn problem-solving,

researching, collaboration, and communication skills in tackling real-world problems. Community

groups, campus organizations connected to Student Life, First Year Experience, and elements of the

Core Requirement will all need to come together to make PBL at UHV a success. Problem-Based

Learning fits well with UHV’s emphasis on community engagement and scholarship.

QEP ACTIVITIES



1. Establish a Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence in which Problem-Based Learning (PBL) will be housed.

2. Develop partnerships with community groups and agencies to identify local problems that might form the basis of PBL courses

3. Establish PBL resources for faculty such as course development leaves and stipends 4. In the summer of the pilot year, identify faculty interested in developing PBL courses or PBL

components for existing courses. 5. In the fall semester of the pilot year, identified faculty familiarize themselves on best practices and

research associated with PBL 6. Faculty develop PBL courses in the spring semester and prepare to offer them in the upcoming fall

semester






1. Assessments a. Student e-portfolios b. National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) c. Annual Program Assessment d. Course/Instructor Evaluation e. Course Embedded Assessment


90

f. Community surveys

2. Performance Indicators a. Up to four PBL courses will be developed and offered the first year (at least two in A&S). The

aim is to offer enough courses by the end of the QEP that students could take the majority of their credit hours through PBL courses by the end of five years

b. Students enrolled in PBL courses will meet or exceed the national average in 80% of the NSSE categories on student engagement

c. 80% of student e-portfolios will show satisfactory evidence of student reflection, research skills, comprehension, critical thinking, and collaborative skills.

d. The majority of the community partners will show high satisfaction with PBL courses, students, and faculty involved.



Secretary 30,000 150,000



Computers – 3,000


Computers – 3,000


Totals 125,000 613,000

UNIVERSITIES THAT EMBEDDED “PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING” IN THEIR QEP

Baylor University http://www.baylor.edu/qep/index.php?id=41986

Palo Alto College http://www.alamo.edu/pac/qep/faqs/

Southern Methodist University http://smu.edu/sacs/qepabout.asp

Tarleton State University http://www.tarleton.edu/real/index.html

West Texas A&M University http://www.wtamu.edu/quality/wtamuqep.pdf

Appendix F: Table of NSSE Teamwork Items Below National Average

NSSE item indicating some degree of teamwork

involvement

UHV UT at Tyler A&M International

1.a. Asked questions in class or contributed to class

discussions

1.b. Made a class presentation

1.d. Worked on a paper or project that required integrating


91

ideas or information from various sources

1.e. Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions,

genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing

assignments

1.g. Worked with other students on projects during class

1.h. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare

class assignments

1.i. Put together ideas or concepts from different courses

when completing assignments or during class discussions

1.j. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

1.k. Participated in a community-based project (e.g. service

learning) as part of a regular course

1.l. Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, internet,

instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an

assignment

1.t. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with

others outside of class (students, family members, co-

workers, etc.)

1.u. Had serious conversations with students of a different

race or ethnicity than your own

1.v. Had serious conversations with students who are very

different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political

opinions, or personal values

NSSE item indicating some degree of teamwork involvement

UHV UT at Tyler A&M International

2.d. Making judgments about the value of info., arguments,

or methods, such as examining how others gathered and

interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their

conclusions

6.e. Tried to better understand someone else’s views by

imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective

7.a. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op

experience, or clinical assignment

7.b. Community service or volunteer work

7.c. Participate in a learning community or some other formal

program where groups of students take two or more classes

together

8.a. Relationships with other students


92

9.a. Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, doing

homework or lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, and other

academic activities)

9.d. Participating in co-curricular activities (organizations,

campus publications, student government, fraternity or

sorority, intercollegiate or intramural sports, etc.)

10.c. Encouraging contact among students from different

economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

11.h. Working effectively with others

11.l Understanding people of other racial and ethnic

backgrounds

# below national mean 17 19 10

% below 68% 76% 40%

# at / above natl. mean 8 6 15

% at or above 32% 24% 60%

UHV goal: 80% at or above national mean To attain the goal: improvement on at least 71% or 12 of the 17 questions below national mean

Appendix G: Teamwork Pre-Post Survey from Art Institute of Washington

Survey for Teamwork

Instructions: Use the following scale to indicate how each statement applies to your team. Be sure to evaluate the statements honestly and without over-thinking your answers.

3 = Usually 2 = Sometimes 1 = Rarely

1. Team members are passionate and unguarded in their discussion of issues.

2. Team members call out one another's deficiencies or unproductive behaviors.

3. Team members know what their peers are working on and how they contribute to the collective good of the team.

4. Team members quickly and genuinely apologize to one another when they say or do something inappropriate or possibly damaging to the team.

5. Team members willingly make sacrifices for the good of the team.

6. Team members openly admit their weaknesses and mistakes.

7. Team meetings are compelling and not boring.

8. Morale is significantly affected by the failure to achieve team goals.

9. Team members leave meetings confident that their peers are completely committed to the decisions agreed upon during the meeting, even if there was initial disagreement.

10. During team meetings, the most important and most difficult issues are put on


93

the table to be resolved.

11. Team members are deeply concerned about the prospect of letting down their peers.

12. Team members know about one another's personal lives and are comfortable discussing them.

13. Team members end discussions with clear and specific resolutions and calls to action.

14. Team members challenge one another about their plans and approaches.

15. Team members are slow to seek credit for their own contributions but quick to point out those of others

Individual Scoring for Pre/Post Test of Team Assessment: Combine your scores for the fifteen

statements as indicated below.

Dysfunction 1: Absence of Trust

Dysfunction 2: Fear of Conflict

Dysfunction 3: Lack of Commitment

Dysfunction 4: Avoidance of Accountability

Dysfunction 5: Inattention to Results

Statement 4

Statement 6

Statement 12

Statement 1

Statement 7

Statement 10

Statement 3

Statement 8

Statement 13

Statement 2

Statement 11

Statement 14

Statement 5

Statement 9

Statement 15

Total:

Total:

Total:

Total:

Total:

A score of 8 or 9 indicates that the dysfunction is probably not a problem for your team. A score of 6 or 7 indicates that the dysfunction could be a problem. A score of 3 to 5 indicates that the dysfunction needs to be addressed.

Appendix H: Teamwork VALUE Rubric (for more information, please contact [email protected])

Definition Teamwork is behaviors under the control of individual team members (effort they put into team tasks, their manner of interacting with others on team, and the quantity and quality of contributions they make to team discussions.)

Framing Language Students participate on many different teams, in many different settings. For example, a given student may work on separate teams to complete a lab assignment, give an oral presentation, or complete a community service project. Furthermore, the people the student works with are likely to be different in each of these different teams. As a result, it is assumed that a work sample or collection of work that demonstrates a student’s teamwork skills could include a diverse range of inputs. This rubric is designed to function across all of these different settings. Two characteristics define the ways in which this rubric is to be used. First, the rubric is meant to assess the teamwork of an individual student, not the team as a whole. Therefore, it is possible for a student to receive high ratings, even if the team as a whole is rather flawed. Similarly, a student could


94

receive low ratings, even if the team as a whole works fairly well. Second, this rubric is designed to measure the quality of a process, rather than the quality of an end product. As a result, work samples or collections of work will need to include some evidence of the individual’s interactions within the team. The final product of the team’s work (e.g., a written lab report) is insufficient, as it does not provide insight into the functioning of the team. It is recommended that work samples or collections of work for this outcome come from one (or more) of the following three sources: (1) students' own reflections about their contribution to a team's functioning; (2) evaluation or feedback from fellow team members about students' contribution to the team's functioning; or (3) the evaluation of an outside observer regarding students' contributions to a team's functioning. These three sources differ considerably in the resource demands they place on an institution. It is recommended that institutions using this rubric consider carefully the resources they are able to allocate to the assessment of teamwork and choose a means of compiling work samples or collections of work that best suits their priorities, needs, and abilities.

Evaluators are encouraged to assign a zero to any work sample or collection of work that does not meet benchmark (cell one) level performance.

Capstone 4

Milestones 3 2

Benchmark 1

Contributes to Team Meetings

Helps the team move forward by articulating the merits of alternative ideas or proposals.

Offers alternative solutions or courses of action that build on the ideas of others.

Offers new suggestions to advance the work of the group.

Shares ideas but does not advance the work of the group.

Facilitates the Contributions of Team Members

Engages team members in ways that facilitate their contributions to meetings by both constructively building upon or synthesizing the contributions of others as well as noticing when someone is not participating and inviting them to engage.

Engages team members in ways that facilitate their contributions to meetings by constructively building upon or synthesizing the contributions of others.

Engages team members in ways that facilitate their contributions to meetings by restating the views of other team members and/or asking questions for clarification.

Engages team members by taking turns and listening to others without interrupting.

Individual Contributions Outside of Team Meetings

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished is thorough, comprehensive, and advances the project. Proactively helps other team members complete their

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished is thorough, comprehensive, and advances the project.

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished advances the project.

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline.


95

assigned tasks to a similar level of excellence.

Fosters Constructive Team Climate

Supports a constructive team climate by doing all of the following: • Treats team

members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication

• Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team and its work.

• Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it.

• Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Supports a constructive team climate by doing any three of the following: • Treats team

members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication.




Supports a constructive team climate by doing any two of the following: • Treats team

members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication.




Supports a constructive team climate by doing any one of the following: • Treats team members

respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication.




Responds to Conflict

Addresses destructive conflict directly and constructively, helping to manage/resolve it in a way that strengthens overall team cohesiveness and future effectiveness.

Identifies and acknowledges conflict and stays engaged with it.

Redirecting focus toward common ground, toward task at hand (away from conflict).

Passively accepts alternate viewpoints/ideas/opinions.


96

Appendix I: Syllabi from US History and Introduction to Philosophy linked-class pilot (syllabus

for philosophy course available on request)

U.S. History 1302

Spring 2013

Tuesday/Thursday 10:00-11:15

Jag Hall, Room 1128

Dr. Beverly Tomek, PhD Phone: 570-4363

Office Hours: Tuesday 2:30-4:00 p.m. Office: 247 UW

Thursday 2:30-4:00 p.m. E-Mail: [email protected]

Course Description and Objectives

Course description: United States History 1302 is a survey of United States history from

1877 to the Present. Topics will include: the settlement of the American West; the Industrial

Revolution; the culture of Victorian society; agrarian unrest and Progressive reform; U.S. imperialism;

the first and second World Wars; politics and culture from 1865 to today; the Great Depression; the

New Deal; foreign policy from 1865 to today; the Cold War; Civil Rights; Vietnam; Watergate; and the

Reagan, Bush and Clinton years. Social, Political, Intellectual, Economic, and Military History will all be

explored.

Learning Outcomes:

In this course students will: 1) Gain a basic knowledge of U.S. history, 2), Develop critical thinking skills

and be able to comprehend, analyze, synthesize and evaluate key events and currents in U.S. history,

3) Understand the history and contributions of various cultural groups and the issues that affected

them, 4) Develop a historical perspective so that they may understand how the past shaped the

present, and 5) Learn to read critically and write clearly.

Required Readings

Oakes, McGerr, Lewis, Cullather, Boydston, Of the People: A History of the United States (Oxford

University Press) and Young, Fitzgerald, Grunfeld, The Vietnam War: A History in Documents (Oxford

University Press).

These books are available in a package deal at the book store. Both can also be purchased online or

as e-books from Oxford University Press. If you purchase yours online, make sure to get the concise

edition of the text and if you plan to take both History 1301 and History 1302 make sure to get the

combined edition that includes both volumes.


97

Examinations and Assignments

Examinations: There will be four unit exams over the course of the semester. You will be tested on

material from the textbook and lectures. Exams will include true/false, matching, chronologies, fill-in-

the-blanks, short answers, and/or multiple choice questions.

The final exam will be comprehensive and contain the same types of questions as the unit tests.

Research and Writing Exercises: Writing is a crucial part of history. To introduce you to the art of

historical analysis I will have you read and analyze a series of primary source documents, which you

will find in your Vietnam War book. You will read the book according to the schedule below and on the

date listed below you will come to class prepared to write an analysis paper based on one of the

chapters in the book. You can bring the book and your notes to use while writing the paper, but the

paper must be written in class on the day listed below.

Service Learning Project: The major project this semester will be a service learning project that you will

design and complete in teams. I will hand out a list of organizations and projects to choose from, and

we will discuss the options further in class on the first day. You will keep a journal as a major part of

your service learning project, and I will grade it, paying attention to the merits of the project you design,

how carefully you carry it out, and how well you record your thoughts about the project in your journal.

Final Averages

Final averages will be calculated as follows:

Test I (Chapters 1-4) 10%

Test II (Chapters 5-8) 10%

Test III (Chapters 9-12) 10%

Test IV (Chapters 13-16) 10%

Historical Analysis Paper 15%

Final Exam (Comprehensive) 20%

Service Learning Project 25%

A = 90-100 B = 80-89 C = 70-79 D = 60-69 F = 0-59

Course Schedule

Lecture Topics and Reading Assignments:

January 15 Course Introduction

January 17 The Emergence of a “New South”; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 17

January 22 Westward Expansion; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 18


98

January 24 Industrialization and the New Social Order; Reading Assignment: Oakes –

Chapter 19

January 29 Populism; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 20

January 31 Preliminary Report for Service Learning Project Due

Study Skills Workshop

February 5 American Imperialism; Make sure you have completed the reading and studied

the material!

February 7 Unit I Exam; Service Learning Journal Checkpoint #1 – you must have your

project set up and describe your plans in your journal. Your entry should

include an explanation of the project as well as a breakdown of your team

and the duties/assignments of each member.

February 12 The Progressive Era; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 21

February 14 World War I; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 22

February 19 The Inter-War Period; Reading Assignment: Young – Introduction and Chapter 1

February 21 Culture in the 1920s; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 23

February 26 The Great Depression and The New Deal; Reading Assignment: Oakes –

Chapter 24

February 28 Service Learning Check-in and Meetings

Reading Assignment: Young – Chapter 2

March 5 Unit II Exam; Service Learning Journal Checkpoint #2 – make sure you are

recording all of your service hours and discussing your progress in your

journal.

March 7 Culture in the 1930s; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 25

March 11-15 Spring Break

March 19 Foreign Policy and Isolationism in the 1930s; Reading Assignment: Oakes –

Chapter 26

March 21 World War II; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 27

March 26 The Inter-War Years; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 28

March 28 The Cold War; Reading Assignment: Young – Chapter 3

April 2 Post-War Political and Cultural Climate; Reading Assignment: Young – Chap. 4

April 4 Civil Rights and The Great Society; Reading Assignment: Young – Chapter 5


99

April 9 Unit III Exam; Service Learning Journal Checkpoint #3 – make sure you are


journal.

April 11 Vietnam and the Nixon Years; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 29

April 16 The Nixon Years; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 30

April 18 The Carter Years and the Reagan Revolution; Reading Assignment: Young –

Chapters 6 and 7

April 23 Historical Analysis Paper – In-Class Writing Assignment

April 25 The End of the Cold War; Reading Assignment: Oakes – Chapter 31

April 30 The Clinton Agenda and the Conservative Backlash

May 2 Unit IV Exam; Service Learning Journal Checkpoint #4 – make sure you are


journal. This entry must include information about the outcome of your

project.

May 7 Final Exam – 10:45-12:45

Living and Learning

Documents

Transcript of Living and Learning