QEP Transition Plan (07/13)
Drafted by Dr. Tom Marcinkowski
Context, Need and Purpose
Over 2004-2005, Dr. Bob Fronk oversaw the preparation and submission of Florida Tech’s first Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP-1). In 2005, I worked with Dr. Fronk as a member of the committee that
developed that Plan (QEPAC), assisted him in the preparation of Florida Tech’s clarifications and
responses to SACS regarding that Plan, and then on the establishment of the university-wide committee to
assist with the implementation of that Plan (QEPIC). Over 2005-06, I served on that Committee, and was
then asked by Dr. Fronk to Chair it, as well as to coordinate implementation of QEP-1. Over 2010-11, I
drafted a 10-page report of this implementation reflected the three major elements of enhancement:



(1) courses: the modification and/or addition of one or more courses within each undergraduate
degree program that addressed established QEP outcomes in critical thinking (and problem
solving) skills and communication skills. Each course endorsed by the QEPIC and approved by
the UGCC has been included in the University Catalog (i.e., designated with a Q);
(2) assessments: the implementation of annual internal assessments and periodic external
assessments to allow the gathering of sufficient assessment data to document and determine the
effects of QEP course implementation. Scoring rubrics were developed for these assessments; and
(3) evaluation and improvement (‘closing the loop’): the periodic review of accumulated
assessment data as part of the evaluation of each course/course sequence and associated portions
of that degree program, as well as the use of the results of this review as the basis for
improvement planning and activities. I developed the chart for accumulating assessment results
over AYs, while Dr. Baloga developed the review and improvement plan form.
This report was submitted as part of the university’s Five-Year Review Report to SACS in March 2011,
and was accepted by SACS in late 2011.
Now that QEP-1 has been fully implemented and approved by SACSs, and planning for QEP-2 will soon
begin, it is time to ensure that implementation of QEP-1 will continue with a reasonable degree of
attention to these three dimensions of enhancement, and with a reasonable degree of fidelity to guidelines
and procedures associated with each. As I will soon become immersed in QEP-2, a transition plan is
needed to support the continued implementation of QEP-1, as expected by SACS and as supported by the
Florida Tech Administration.
No single entity will become responsible for all three dimensions of enhancement; rather, these
responsibilities will be folded into ongoing university operations, and overseen by the entities responsible
for those operations. The responsibility for (1) course review and approval is to be folded in to ongoing
course and program review/approval procedures overseen by the UGCC, and as described below, will
serve as the primary focus of this Transition Plan. The responsibility for (2) assessment and (3) periodic
evaluation has, at least in part, been absorbed into the University Assessment Program (e.g., in many
degree programs, outcomes and measures in critical thinking and communications have been tied to their
QEP or Q courses).
The primary purpose of this document is to suggest steps and timetables for the UGCC’s assumption of
responsibility for the review and approval of QEP courses for undergraduate degree programs offered on
campus, off campus (Extended Studies), and online.
Overview of the Course Review, Endorsement, and Approval Process for QEP-1 (2005-2013)
As described in the 2011 QEP report to SACS, modification of existing courses and/or development of
new courses for QEP-1 was undertaken in two ways: (a) it was undertaken in more-or-less annual cycles
for the university’s Colleges (Year 1: Engineering; Year 2: Science; Year 3: Business and Psychology;
Year 4: Aeronautics, Extended Studies and Online); and (b) following the completion cycle for each
College, it was undertaken as new undergraduate degree programs were being developed. Following
QEPIC endorsement, members of the UGCC became involved in QEP course approval for (a) and then
(b). In this Transition Plan, primary emphasis will be placed on (b), and secondary emphasis will be
placed on modifications to existing courses and degree programs (e.g., as has been needed in the College
of Business and School of Psychology).
The general sequence associated with the review of a proposed QEP course was as follows:








I was notified about the development or refinement of one or more existing courses to serve as
the QEP (Q) course(s) for a given undergraduate degree program, and advised the responsible
faculty member(s) about QEP guidelines, procedures, and materials (e.g., QEP Objectives/
Outcomes; the Course Summary Form);
If and as needed, I worked with those faculty members during the design, development, and/or
review of syllabi and other materials (e.g., assignments and rubrics) for their QEP course(s);
Once a full draft was ready, faculty sent me a completed Course Summary Form, syllabus and,
if/when applicable, other course materials, for each course as e-mail attachments;
Dr. Baloga and I conducted a preliminary review of the files for each course. After discussing our
separate reviews, I notified the submitting faculty member (a) with a summary of our questions,
comments, and questions, and/or (b) of our preliminary approval and my plan to circulate these
materials to QEPIC members for their review [(a) requires recycling until (b) is reached];
Once the materials were ready for QEPIC review, I circulated the materials to QEPIC members as
attachments to an e-mail message in which I explained our review procedures (i.e., either
preparation for a meeting of the QEPIC at which questions and concerns would be discussed, or a
discussion of questions and concerns via e-mail on which all QEPIC members were cc’d);
Once all questions and concerns had been addressed, QEPIC members were asked to vote in a
confidential manner to endorse, not endorse, or abstain from endorsing the proposed course(s)
(i.e., either in person during a meeting, or via e-mail); and
Once a voting quorum had been reached, QEPIC members’ votes were tallied, and a
determination made as to whether the course(s) had or had not been endorsed [if not endorsed,
questions and concerns must be revisited and resolved to the satisfaction of QEPIC members];
Once the QEP course has been endorsed, all appropriate parties were notified of the results of that
vote (i.e., the submitting faculty, Dr. Baloga, QEPIC members, the UGCC, and Ms. Liz Fox for
designation in the University Catalog).
A copy of the QEP Objectives/Outcomes and the Course Summary Form will be provided to UGCC
members, as described in the Transition Plan in the next section.
Transition Plan for Shifting Oversight of QEP-1 to the UGCC: Suggested Steps and Timetables
Phase
Suggested
Timeframe
1
08/ – 09/13
2
09/ – 10/13
3
10/ - 11/13
4
12/13
5
01/14
Activities
Milestones
Comments
* Present, review and discuss this
Transition Plan, and UGCC
responsibilities for QEP-1
* Present, review and discuss QEP
review process, including QEP
Objectives/Outcomes, Course
Summary Form, and its placement
in new program review process
* UGCC discussion and decisions
regarding: (a) where QEP course
review belongs in the program
review process; (b) how UGCC
wishes to undertake the QEP course
review; and (c) whether UGCC
wishes to designate a sub-group to
oversee portions of this review up to
the point where full UGCC review
and vote is warranted
* Piloting of QEP Course review
process using (a) existing course for
7035/7037/7038, and/or (b) new
course(s) proposed by Psychology
* UGCC understands
and accepts
responsibility
for QEP-1 course
review and approval
I will be present to
present and discuss
this Transition Plan
and these QEP
materials with the
UGCC.
* UGCC arrives at
decisions for (a), (b),
and (c)
(1) Whether the
current Course
Summary Form
will work or will
need to be revised
should be decided.
(2) If/as needed, I
will participate in
these discussions.
* UGCC completes
the pilot(s) of its QEP
review process
* UGCC completes
review of pilot
procedures/results,
and decides if /where
adjustments are
needed
* UGCC discusses and finalizes QEP * UGCC approval of
review placement, processes (new
operating procedures
and existing degree programs),
and, if applicable,
responsibilities, and materials
policies, pertaining to
(a) its review of QEP
courses for new UG
programs, and (b) its
review of proposed
changes to QEP
courses in existing
UG programs
* UGCC begins full-scale
implementation of QEP review
process for courses in new and in
existing degree programs
If/as needed, I will
provide UGCC
and/or its
designated
sub-group with
background
information
pertinent to each
proposed course.
If/as requested, I
will work with
UGCC members to
prepare and present
this information
and/or these
materials.