2106 Reaffirmation QEP Resources Sub-­‐Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 23, 2015 CAB 112 Provost Conference Room Members Present Kathy Crisp, Marva Lucas, Rebecca Smith, Patti Miller, Dianna Rust Others Present Lexy Denton Call to Order Dianna Rust, committee chair, called the meeting to order at 2:45 p.m. in the Provost Conference Room. Roll was taken upon arrival. Review of Founding Director’s Position Description Members were asked to offer suggestions for changes to the job description for the Founding Director’s position. Suggestions included: a. Change wording from ‘Write 5th Year report for SACSCOC’ to ‘write annual reports for SACSCOC’ b. Change ‘Academic credentials to secure tenure in an MTSU department’ to reflect the requirement of a PhD or other terminal degree c. Add requirement of ‘prefer tenure at this or another institution’ d. Add minimum of 5 years teaching experience e. As part of the ‘record of commitment to undergraduate teaching and learning, could ask applicants for: •
Samples of work •
Copies of evaluations – both student and administrative •
Teaching philosophy •
Proof of teaching experience •
Examples of activities that show commitment to education f. Monitoring the scholarship process should be added to the duties Review of List of Potential Resources Members were asked to review the current proposed expense items, which were sent out before the meeting, to determine necessity and suggest additions or deletions. Suggestions included: •
New items listed in red on the table o
MT Engage can sponsor an event on campus to create awareness; could possibly work with student affairs. One week of funding was added. o
Pay 4-­‐5 student to create an exemplar ePortfolio to use as a basis to show students; Could do one per college. •
•
Change 2/3 course release to 3 course reassign Positions that might be needed but may not need to fall under the MT Engage umbrella have been moved outside the QEP budget o
A full-­‐time assessment position was recommended 
Could it be a GA or a ½ time position? 
Would this person be in place to do the surveying in SU16? 
Need to have consistency and continuity. Would that be lost with a GA? 
Who will compile and report on rubric data? 
If it is a part of IEPR, they can always support the QEPs, not just this one. Would have to make responsibilities for reporting clear so they are not pulled to another task. o
Could need a digital media librarian which would fall under Dean Allen o
An instructional designer was recommended. 
When would we need this? 
Would it need to be full time? Space needs –need to try and keep on campus •
Scholarship Incentive Dianna met with the VP Council to discuss the request for scholarship dollars. They were supportive of the program and recommended looking at other scholarships to determine how they are awarded to formulate the request. The Council felt that they could find a donor who shared the story of our applicants. Ideas included: • Prize would be awarded after the sophomore year and carried through the senior year • Award $3000 per year which would be slightly above the Provost Scholarship but less than others • Award two scholarships per college per year plus one extra for a total of 15 Criteria need to be set for application. Ideas included: • Set GPA component at 2.75 • Should have at minimum of 4 classes/12 hours MT Engage coursework • Should have full-­‐time, continuous enrollment • Application should be made in the semester when they have 48-­‐72 hours or in the semester when they are completing their 60th hour Other thoughts/questions were: • What about transfer students? Will they be excluded? The Promise Law may change the first two year enrollments significantly • Where do you stop the range for application? Do you let seniors apply if they have the 12 hours? • Do we need to have an appeal review board? If so, ask for 3 faculty reviewers. Next Steps The full committee review will be held on Monday, April 27 at 9 a.m. in the Faculty Senate Chambers. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:37 p.m.