2013 Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success
June 11 – 14, 2013  University of Wisconsin  Madison, Wisconsin
Action Plan
Georgia Perimeter College
This template is offered to help you shape your campus action plan. It is not meant to be
prescriptive and should be adapted to your specific project goals and institutional context.
BACKGROUND
Georgia Perimeter College (GPC) is a two-year branch of the University System of Georgia that
serves over 22,000 students at five campuses in the Atlanta metropolitan area and online. GPC is
primarily a transfer institution that draws students from diverse ethnic and economic
backgrounds.
GPC participated in the Phase I of the Roadmap Project. Phase I of our Roadmap Project took
the form of a pilot study that investigated how a tailored student educational program including a
First Year Seminar, a Learning Community, and project-based learning modules can affect
critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, teamwork and problem solving,
and measures of academic success such as GPA and academic persistence. Overall, students
reacted positively to the program, expressed increased knowledge of academic life, increased
engagement with others on campus, and increased critical and creative thinking skills—all of
which lead to an increased expectation that students will complete their two-year degree and
advance to further undergraduate study.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GOALS
During Phase I, GPC also established a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) based on using
engaged learning practices in targeted courses to improve selected learning outcomes. GPC’s
Phase II Roadmap Project is based on our QEP and will be administered by staff in the recentlyestablished QEP Office. The QEP is titled “EDGE: Engagement Drives GPC Education.” As part
of the QEP, 9 courses have been chosen to receive EDGE interventions between fall 2013 and
fall 2016. Courses targeted for EDGE interventions were selected based on being taken by (or
required for) large numbers of students, having undesirably high non-success (grades of D or F
or course withdrawal) rates, and representing multiple disciplines and curricular areas: English
1101 and 1102, History 1111, 2111, and 2112, Communications 1201, Georgia Perimeter
College Seminar 1010, Political Science 1101, and Environmental Science 1401.
Faculty teaching targeted courses began receiving training in specific EDGE strategies starting
spring 2013 semester to prepare for implementation in their courses. Four EDGE strategies were
selected for implementation based on review of the literature and best practices: 1) two forms of
active learning: a) collaborative learning and b) problem-based learning, and 2) two forms of
community-based learning: a) service learning and b) community-based research. The degree to
which EDGE strategies are actually implemented in the targeted courses will be assessed using
multiple measures, including student surveys, faculty surveys, and review of faculty syllabi.
This QEP aims to change behaviors, attitudes, and learning outcomes. Behaviors: Students will
be more likely to persist in their courses; faculty will increase their focus and skills in making
their courses engaging. Attitudes: Students will perceive their courses as more relevant and will
report greater engagement as part of their overall college experience. Learning outcomes:
Students will improve in their ability to think critically, to make connections between course
content and real-world issues, and will perform better on assessments of course content.
Targeted outcomes will be assessed before and after implementation of EDGE strategies, with
EDGE strategies being implemented in two to three courses per year over the five-year span of
the QEP.
We also propose to use the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes in conjunction with our General
Education Outcomes to promote a common language that provides continuity across academic
and student services. Further, we plan to begin a conversation about expanding evaluation of
entering students to include skills and behavioral competencies in addition to academic
knowledge.
BARRIERS TO ACCOMPLISHMENT
1. Although the elements of our QEP are strongly supported by current college
administrators, several of GPC’s upper-level administrators – including the President,
Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Executive Vice President for Financial and
Administrative Affairs – are serving in an interim capacity, leaving some question as to
whether these efforts will be supported beyond the duration and the scope of the QEP.
2. Faculty members currently carry large course loads with limited opportunities for course
release and have multiple college service obligations. These time constraints hinder
faculty from fully participating in HIPS training opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT
1. Infrastructure has been developed to support growth, maintain oversight activities, and
assess the progress of the QEP. The QEP Office was established in June 2012 with an
Executive Director, Community-Based Learning Coordinator, and an Administrative
Assistant. Office staff mentor faculty, maintain the QEP website, implement faculty
development workshops, and direct the collection and utilization of assessment data to
make program improvements.
2. The Office of Student Life has expressed interest in directing more time and resources to
the intentional implementation of HIPS in co-curricular programming.
3. Increased numbers of faculty express interest and seek training in the implementation of
HIPS in their courses.
ENGAGEMENT PLAN FOR STAKEHOLDERS
Our stakeholders include: students, faculty, academic and upper-level administrators, ACRS
(Advising, Counseling, and Retention Services) and Student Life staff, and community partners.
 Students: Enroll in an “EDGE” class, interact with faculty outside of class, participate in
on-campus and off-campus activities like student clubs, GPC Reads, Bridging Cultures,
Democracy Commitment, and Days of Service, and respond to student surveys when
requested.
 Faculty: The QEP necessitates that faculty teaching particular courses will use HIP
strategies. Current face-to-face training will be supplemented with online professional
development opportunities. Contingent upon the availability of financial resources, the
QEP Office will offer an intensive, two-semester, incentive-based professional
development program for faculty teaching QEP courses. Department meetings will also
be used as a venue for discussing and promoting HIPS.
 Academic and upper-level administrators: This group has already approved the QEP, so
little direct engagement will be needed until a new cadre of administrators is selected.
 ACRS: Meet with staff and provide them with written material (flyers, handouts, etc.) to
explain the QEP.
 Student Life: Work with staff and student leaders to incorporate QEP outcomes into cocurricular programming.
 Community partners: As opportunities arise for partnerships to implement communitybased pedagogies, explain the goals of QEP and solicit ideas on achieving those goals
while meeting the community-identified need.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Building on the extensive QEP communication plan that includes banners, posters, t-shirts and
the website, most of the communication strategy will involve building relationships with various
stakeholders as discussed in the previous section.
EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS (How will we know we’re making progress?)
The QEP aims to change behaviors, attitudes, course-specific learning outcomes, and critical
thinking (see Project Description). Assessment of these goals will take place within the context
of ongoing assessment at Georgia Perimeter College (GPC) and will harness some of this
ongoing assessment in service of the QEP (CCSSE, CAT) in addition to developing appropriate
QEP-specific assessments. Specific QEP assessment uses multiple measures, including student
and faculty surveys to gage perceptions, and a three-fold review of faculty syllabi by QEP Office
staff, faculty, and students.