Quality Enhancement Plan
Ethical Decision Making: Student Education within the
Professional and Pre-Professional Majors
Commission on Colleges
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Submitted: February 2007
Table of Contents
I.
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………… 4
II.
Introduction: Selection and Development of the QEP Topic…………. 5
1. Descriptive Title of the Plan ……………………………………………… 5
2. The Importance of the QEP to the University’s Mission ……………… 6
3. Institutional Planning, Evaluation and Selection of the QEP ………… 7
4. The Selection and Development of the QEP ………………………….. 8
5. Definition of Student Learning …………………………………………...11
6. Summary of Student Learning Outcome Goals ………………………..11
III.
Literature Review and Best Practices…………………………………….. 12
IV.
Actions to be Implemented: QEP Goals ………………………………… 15
1. Summary of Actions to be Implemented ………………………………. 15
2. The QEP Goals …………………………………………………………... 16
a. Goal 1 ……………………………………………………………….. 16
b. Goal 2……………………………………………………………….. 17
c.
Goal 3………………………………………………………………… 17
V.
Timeline for Implementation ………………………………………………... 18
VI.
Organizational Structure ……………………………………………………. 22
VII. Budget …………………………………………………………………………. 22
VIII. Assessment Plan ……………………………………………………………... 25
IX.
Conclusion and Ancillary Projects ……………………………………….. 28
X.
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………. 30
Appendix A: Documents from the “Practice” QEP ………………………..31
Appendix B: QEP Proposal Selection Committee Membership List …… 34
Appendix C: Sample Documents Relevant to Selection of QEP ………. 35
Appendix D: Various Board and Organization Minutes and
the Selection of the QEP ………………………………………….… 40
Appendix E: Professional and Pre-Professional Undergraduate Majors
Involved in the QEP and the QEP Steering Committee Membership
List …………………………………………………………………….. 45
Appendix F: Sample Ethics Curriculum Reviews ……………………….. 46
Appendix G: Library Holdings Related to Ethics and Ethics Education .. 56
Appendix H: QEP Steering Committee Minutes …………………………. 58
2
Appendix I: Summer Ethics Education Faculty Development
Workshops ……………………………………………………………. 71
Appendix J: QEP Timeline………………………………………………….. 73
Appendix K: Resume of Dr. William Morris Tillman, Jr. …………………. 77
Appendix L: QEP Five-Year Projected Budget …………………………... 80
Appendix M: Review of the Defining Issues Test ……………………….. 81
Appendix N: QEP Assessment Timeline………………………………..... 84
XI.
Selected Bibliography ………………………………………………………. 90
3
I. Executive Summary
Quality Enhancement Plan, Executive Summary
“Ethical Decision Making: Student Education within the Professional
and Pre-Professional Majors”
QEP Director: Dr. Bill Tillman, T.B. Maston Professor of Christian Ethics
(btillman@hsutx.edu)
Description and Focus of the Plan
While ethical decision making is an implicit part of much of the university’s curricular
focus as a private, Christian university, we recognize that ethics should be more
explicitly integrated into our undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs.
The QEP engages every aspect of our campus community, including the training and
collaboration of faculty members in the development of ethics curricula across the
campus, the allocation of budgets for new courses and related activities, and the
reinforcement and application of ethical decision-making education through student life
activities.
Rationale for the Plan
As a faith-based institution of higher learning, ethical and moral education is central to
our university mission; therefore, focusing our QEP in enhancing and expanding such
training in our curriculum and campus activities is appropriate. Further, given the recent,
well-publicized failures of some of our society’s leaders to make appropriate ethical
decisions, our QEP is timely, even critical, for the education of the next generation of our
nation’s leaders. Consequently, we are developing or enhancing ethical decision-making
content in all of our undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs. The
proposal also calls for the university to develop a minor in ethical studies, available to all
majors. The minor would be offered by the Logsdon School of Theology.
Goals of the Plan
To develop or strengthen ethical decision-making education in the undergraduate
professional and pre-professional programs, the university will focus on accomplishing
three goals, each with specific initiatives for achieving the goal.
Goal I: Students will deepen their knowledge and understanding of the discipline of
ethical studies.
Goal II: Students will develop and utilize skills in ethical decision making.
Goal III: Students’ capacity for self-examination will be heightened through learning
environments that encourage critical thinking and self-assessment in matters of morality
and social integrity.
Goal IV: Students will internalize a commitment to life-long ethical leadership in their
careers and communities.
Execution of the Plan
The QEP will be initiated in the spring of 2008 by planning the development of an ethics
minor within the religion program. Between 2008 through 2011, individual schools and
colleges will each, in turn, review its curriculum and determine the extent of ethics
education within the current curriculum. The faculties of each school or college will
attend summer workshops for faculty development and collaboration relating to
developing and enhancing ethics education within the curriculum. Faculties will
determine appropriate student outcome goals, and initiate and implement curricula
changes designed to enhance ethics education for their students. They will develop and
4
initiate appropriate assessment tools and processes to determine the success of
students in meeting student outcome goals. In support of the ethical education
curriculum, the university will create an organizational structure to ensure both support
for and evaluation of the QEP. An Ethics Education Council will be created and will have
the primary responsibility to oversee the execution and assessment of the QEP.
II. Introduction: Selection and Development of the QEP Topic
While ethical decision making is an implicit part of much of the Hardin-Simmons
University’s curricular focus as a private, Christian university, we recognize that
ethics should be more explicitly integrated into our undergraduate professional
and pre-professional programs. The QEP will engage every aspect of our
campus community, including the training and collaboration of faculty members
in the development of ethics curricula across the campus, the allocation of
budgets for course development and related activities, and the reinforcement and
application of ethical decision-making education through student life activities.
1. Descriptive Title of the Plan
“Ethical Decision Making: Student Education within the Professional and PreProfessional Majors”
2. The Importance of the QEP to the University Mission
Given the commonplace nature of corporate scandals, it is imperative that
corporations and organizations must embrace ethics as a primary element of
their core philosophies and values. Higher education owns a critical
responsibility to inculcate the skills of sound ethical decision making in
tomorrow’s leaders. Current scandals evidence the cost of not preparing future
business executives and other professionals. The Journal of Business Ethics
estimated in March 2005, “[L]osses from [recent] financial frauds total
approximately $200 billion dollars. On Enron alone those losses are more than
two times the aggregate losses when the stock market crashed in 1920.”1
A recent survey conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education further
emphasizes the need for value-centered education. According to the survey,
81% of the public believe “help[ing] students develop good values and ethical
positions” is one of the ‘important’ or ‘very important’ roles for colleges to
perform.2 In addition, George Kuh found in a study of values development at
general liberal arts colleges and various types of large public universities that
1 Howard Rockness and Joanne Rockness, “Legislated Ethics: From Enron to SarbanesOxley, The Impact on Corporate America,” Journal of Business Ethics 57 (March 2005): 35.
“The Chronicle Survey of Public Opinion on Higher Education,” Chronicle of Higher
Education 50, no. 35 (May 7, 2004): A12-A13.
2
5
“[T]he institutions with the most distinctive impact on character were the
evangelical Protestant schools.”3
From the time of Aristotle, ethics education has been an integral and essential
part to the whole of education enterprise. In the 1960s and 70s, however, moral
education became marginalized from the curricula of colleges and universities
because of a number of factors including “the fragmentation of knowledge and
the disciplines, the increased elevation of scientific or other forms of knowledge,
and the growing importance placed upon a researcher or teacher being objective
or value free.”4 Today, responding to the complexities of a postmodern world,
the pendulum appears to be moving back toward a more integrated model as our
culture exhibits an increased interest in teaching ethics and doing so from a
normative perspective rather than a merely descriptive one.
As a faith-based institution of higher learning, Hardin-Simmons University
endeavors to provide an education in which ethical decision making establishes
the foundation on which students build their education. This goal is further
illustrated in the mission statement of the university: “The mission of HardinSimmons University is to be a community dedicated to providing excellence in
education enlightened by Christian faith and values.”5 Ethical decision making is
at the very core of the university mission. However, the QEP selection process
led the faculty and administration to recognize that ethics education needs to be
even more explicit as a part of the curriculum in the professional and preprofessional programs as it might be. Therefore, through Hardin-Simmons
University’s QEP, “Ethical Decision Making: Student Education within the
Professional and Pre-Professional Majors,” the university strives to become more
intentional about implementing the value focus of its mission statement through
an explicit emphasis on ethics education.
William E. Brock in the “Chairman’s Preface” of An American Imperative: Higher
Expectations for Higher Education stated the following:
We must not forget that no nation can remain great without developing
truly well-educated people. No nation can remain good without
transmitting the fundamental values of a civil society to each new
George D. Kuh, “Do environments matter? A comparative analysis of the impress of
different types of colleges and universities on character,” Journal of College and Character,
(2002): 2.
3
4 Perry L. Glanzer and others, “The Teaching of Ethics in Christian Higher Education: An
Examination of General Education Requirements, “ JGE: The Journal of General Education 53
(July 2004):185.
5
Hardin-Simmons University, Undergraduate Catalog: 2005-2006, 6.
6
generation. No nation can remain strong unless it puts young people at
the forefront of its concerns.6
Given the evidence of serious failures of ethical behavior in our culture and
society and the general public’s conviction that higher education should address
values, a Christian university focus on Christian ethics is essential. Dr. T. B.
Maston, renowned Baptist ethicist, defined Christian ethics as “critical reflection
on the moral decisions and actions of individual Christians and of the Christian
community.”7 Consequently, the aim of Hardin-Simmons University’s QEP is to
foster the ability of students to engage in critical reflection, moral decisions and
moral actions consistent with Christian faith and values.
3. Institutional Planning, Evaluation and Selection of the QEP
While the university considered numerous QEP topics, the ideas and issues
related to the need for ethics education have been topics of concern and
consideration for several years. In his 2001 Presidential Inauguration Address,
Dr. Craig Turner articulated among his goals for the university a belief that the
institution had an ethical responsibility to be actively engaged in enhancing the
communities around the campus. Toward that end, several neighborhood
programs are presently in operation and an increased awareness of the
importance of integrating ethical and social concerns into the college experience
has been growing within the campus community for six years.
During the 2002 University Board of Trustees Retreat, Dr. William Ellis, then Vice
President for Academic Affairs, brought a suggestion that the university should
consider at a future date creating an ethics center, given the importance of the
discipline and the university’s unusual position of having three terminally degreed
ethicists on its faculty. The trustees responded with support and encouragement
for the idea. Additionally, the work and presence of the three ethicists on the
Logsdon School of Theology faculty provided grist for conversations across the
university faculty and with the university’s administration regarding the potential
impact of Christian ethics education throughout the university and beyond.
Further, the Logsdon School of Theology has an endowed professorship, the T.
B. Maston Chair of Christian Ethics, which is funded from gifts to the university
honoring T. B. Maston, the renowned Baptist ethicist. Dr. Bill Tillman, who holds
the professorship, has provided a reference point for the development of
Christian Ethics courses for graduate and undergraduate level degree plans,
some of which are directed beyond theology students. Through Dr. Tillman’s
efforts, the Logsdon School of Theology presents the T. B. Maston Christian
Ethics Lectures each academic year, with nationally and internationally known
scholars and ethicists presenting lectures to students, faculty, and the
6 Wingspread Group on Higher Education, An American Imperative: Higher Expectations
for Higher Education 1st ed. (Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation, 1993), i.
7
T. B. Maston, Why Live the Christian Life?, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974), 11.
7
community. Because of these emphases and resources, Dr. Tillman and his
colleagues were engaging the university administration and faculty in dialogues
regarding the need to increase and enhance ethics awareness and education on
the campus.
Therefore, while the university considered numerous possible topics for the QEP,
the development of a plan focusing on ethics education developed as the natural
outgrowth of university resources, interests, and educational concerns.
4. The Selection and Development of the QEP
In the spring of 2003, the Administrative Council of Hardin-Simmons University
began the process of exploring an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan for the
university. Each of the Vice Presidents was asked by the President to consider
strategies to involve faculty and/or staff in his area in such an exploration. Dr.
William Ellis, then Vice President for Academic Affairs, began conducting a
series of workshops and small group sessions on the requirements of the Quality
Enhancement Plan. These sessions were first held with the university deans and
key staff personnel. Dr. Ellis asked the deans to discuss with their faculties
possible topics for the QEP. The faculties of the schools were asked specifically
to evaluate proposed topics in light of needs and concerns delineated by their
annual assessment plans and their Five-year Program Reviews. Ideas surfacing
from each of the Vice President's areas were collected and ultimately distributed
to all of the various university entities for discussion.
During the 2003-2004 academic year, President Craig Turner and Dr. Ellis led
the university through the process of developing a "practice" Quality
Enhancement Plan. The administration selected a "Practice" QEP Committee
composed of individuals from every area of the university. Following a review of
the proposed topics stemming from the discussion described above, the
committee settled on the subject of “Enhancing Student Learning through
Increased Retention.” The committee spent the entire academic year developing
a “practice” Quality Enhancement Plan. The various members of the committee
were able to provide information to the administration and later to the QEP
Steering Committee regarding struggles, successes, and concerns discovered in
the trial process. The information gained through the process proved helpful in
evaluating the feasibility and viability of the topics which had been proposed, thus
far, for the QEP (see Appendix A: “Documents from the ‘Practice’ QEP”).
The primary task of the 2004-2005 academic year with regard to the QEP was to
settle upon a topic which would be embraced by every element of the university's
constituency. Topics initially proposed for consideration for the QEP included:
enhancing ethics education; expanding technology resources and technology
education across the curriculum; developing remedial education programs;
enhancing students’ first year experience; improving faculty teaching through
various faculty hiring, faculty development, and student engagement projects;
8
enhancing fitness education and a commitment to life-long fitness; and
redesigning university curricula in accordance to theories on student learning
styles.
All constituencies of the university, including faculty, staff, students, trustees, and
alumni, were consulted for input on and evaluation of proposed QEP topics. Each
vice president held formal discussions of potential QEP topics among their
personnel, reporting the results of the deliberations to the Administrative Council
at the end of the spring semester. The Vice President for Academic
Affairs appointed a Quality Enhancement Plan Proposal Committee, composed
of four representatives from the faculty, two academic deans, a development
officer for the Advancement Office, the Associate Vice President for Technology
Services, and the Dean of Students (see Appendix B: “QEP Proposal Selection
Committee Membership List”). The QEP Proposal Committee narrowed the
proposed topics to three options and met in formal settings, such as school,
departmental, and area meetings, small group meetings, and individually with
students and faculty members, soliciting input and recommendations. In 2005,
presentations and discussions were held with the Board of Trustees regarding
the proposed topics for the QEP during both its spring meeting and its annual
retreat. Presentations and open discussions were also held with alumni during
the annual meetings of the Board of Development, the Academic Foundation,
and the Board of Young Associates.
By the spring of 2005, a general consensus across the campus community
emerged in support of the topic of increasing the teaching of ethics in
professional and pre-professional programs (see Appendix C: “Sample
Documents Relevant to Selection of QEP”). During its August 2005 Summer
Retreat, the faculty members of the entire university held several discussion
sessions and open forums on the QEP, focusing primarily on the selection of
ethics education in the undergraduate professional and pre-professional
programs as a final topic. Through the appropriate deans, the professional and
pre-professional programs were engaged in discussions regarding the viability
and necessity of developing or enhancing ethics education within their programs.
As a result of these investigations and discussions, the QEP Proposal Committee
recommended to the Administration that ethics education in the professional and
pre-professional programs be identified as the university’s QEP.
In the spring of 2005, the University Student Congress voted its support of the
topic focusing on teaching ethical decision making (see Appendix C: “Sample
Documents Relevant to Selection of the QEP”). The Deans Advisory Council
officially endorsed the ethics topic for the QEP (see Appendix D: “Various Board
and Organization Minutes and the Selection of the QEP”). The University Staff
Council also recommended the same topic. During its 2005 summer retreat, the
Administrative Council voted to endorse the ethics education topic. In its first
meeting for fall 2005, the Academic Committee voted unanimously to
recommend to the faculty that the topic of "ethical decision making" become the
9
subject of the university's QEP (see Appendix D: “Various Board and
Organization Minutes and Selection of the QEP”). The faculty of HardinSimmons University unanimously voted to adopt the topic, "Ethical Decision
Making: Student Education within the Professional and Pre-Professional Majors"
as the focus of the university's 2007 QEP (see Appendix D: “Various Board and
Organization Minutes and Selection of the QEP”). In its regular fall meeting,
October 14, 2005, the University Board of Trustees unanimously voted its
approval of "Ethical Decision Making: Student Education within the Professional
and Pre-Professional Majors" (see Appendix D: “Various Board and
Organization Minutes and the Selection of the QEP”). In the fall of 2005, the
President appointed the Quality Enhancement Plan Steering Committee and
charged the committee with developing and writing the final Quality
Enhancement Plan, "Ethical Decision Making: Student Education within the
Professional and Pre-Professional Majors" (see Appendix E: “Professional and
Pre-Professional Undergraduate Majors Involved in the QEP and the QEP
Steering Committee Membership List”).
The QEP Steering Committee began its work early in March 2006 by reviewing
the ethics education curriculum of the undergraduate professional and preprofessional programs across the campus (see Appendix F: “Sample Ethics
Curriculum Reviews”). The Committee also reviewed Library holdings relating to
ethics education (see Appendix G: “Library Holdings Related to Ethics and
Ethics Education”). Based on these reviews, the QEP Steering Committee, in
consultation with appropriate faculty, staff, administration, and alumni, designed
and produced the QEP document (see Appendix H: “QEP Steering Committee
Minutes”).
5. Definition of Student Learning
The goal of the QEP is to enhance the climate for student learning through the
explicit integration of ethical decision making in the curricular and extra-curricular
collegiate experience. The following changes in knowledge, skills, and
perspectives are anticipated outcomes if student learning specific to the QEP
focus occurs:
A. Students will deepen their knowledge and understanding of the discipline of
ethical studies.
B. Students will develop and utilize skills in ethical decision making.
C. Students’ capacity for self-examination will be heightened through learning
environments that encourage critical thinking and self-assessment in matters
of morality and social integrity.
D. Students will internalize a commitment to life-long ethical leadership in their
careers and communities.
These changes related to student learning in ethical decision making are the
goals of the QEP. Additionally, it is anticipated that a curriculum that challenges
10
students to engage in the dialectic of moral and civic responsibility, assess the
ethical dimensions of their decisions, and practice ethical decision-making skills
has the potential to enhance learning across the curriculum.
6. Introductory Summary of the Student Learning Outcome Goals
The purpose of the Quality Enhancement Plan is to develop or strengthen ethical
decision-making education in the undergraduate professional and preprofessional programs. In order to achieve the QEP goals, the university will
implement four initiatives focusing on faculty development, extracurricular
activities, curriculum design and organizational structure. Each initiative requires
specific actions. (For a detailed description of the specific initiatives and
accompanying actions, see Section IV, “Actions to be Implemented: QEP
Goals.”)
Initiative A centers in faculty development and faculty collaboration relating to
ethics education and the development of a minor in ethical studies.
Initiative B calls for the development of extra-curricular activities across the
campus to support student learning in ethics education.
Initiative C focuses on the review, development, and enhancement of specific
ethics education curriculum in the undergraduate professional and preprofessional programs across the campus. This initiative anticipates students
having the opportunity to demonstrate, through course work, various projects,
real-world applications, and assessment instruments, their mastery of the ethical
decision-making curriculum.
Initiative D will address an organizational increment added to the HSU structure.
This increment will be called an Ethics Education Council which will mark the
continuing evolution and implementation of the QEP.
III. Literature Review and Best Practices
Can ethics, specifically Christian ethical decision making, be taught? Though the
question can be debated, significant statements and actions indicate an
affirmative response is in order. Several prospective courses and pedagogies
have been developed to indicate research and application toward an ethical
decision making process. Some of these follow illustratively (see Bibliography for
additional articles and books):
“Ethics Across the Curriculum and the Nature of Morality: Some Fundamental
Propositions,” an article in Teaching Ethics by Bill Rhodes of the United States
Air Force Academy, puts forth a proposal intended “to harmonize with the
pervasive nature of ethical concerns in the professions rather than to reduce
11
them to fit within the confines of any one academic specialty or curriculum
content area.8
David T. Ozar, the Chair of the Center for Ethics and Social Justice and
Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of Chicago, outlines reasonable
learning-outcomes in the article “Learning Outcomes for Ethics Across the
Curriculum Programs”, which is also featured in Teaching Ethics. He explains
the Learning Outcomes approach, application of such in an ethics program, and
finally discerns the outcomes as either those that reasonably achievable or those
lacking dependability.9
In a consortial effort, Raritan Valley Community College and The New Jersey
Center for Advanced Technological Education with “Teachable Moments:
Practical Suggestions for Teaching Ethics across the Curriculum” gave extensive
attention across a liberal arts curriculum to the integration of ethics.10
Peter Vallentyne and John Accordino at Virginia Commonwealth University in
“Teaching Non-Philosophy Faculty to Teach Critical Thinking about Ethical
Issues” addressed matters for faculty education in ethics. “Most faculty members
in other disciplines have neither the theoretical knowledge of moral theory, nor
the practical knowledge of how to design courses/modules on controversial and
murky issues. Faculty development programs can vary widely in their scope…a
minimal program might consist of just three two-hour sessions.”11
In the Pilot Project at Clemson University concerning ethics across the
curriculum, Daniel E. Wueste, Kelly C. Smith, and David Alverson state the
critical need for students to be fundamentally rooted in ethical decision making.
They identify the goal as one properly regarded as central to a university’s
education and thus, taught across the curriculum.12
The Association for Psychological Science developed teaching tips in “Teaching
Ethics across the Psychology Curriculum.” Deborah Ware Balogh of Ball State
University writes “When ethics content is seamlessly integrated across the
curriculum, students come to understand that adhering to ethical principles is the
8
http://www.rit.edu/~692awww/seac/Vol3.2.html, Orem Utah.
9
http://www.luc.edu/ethics/03150outcomes_teaching.shtml, Chicago, Illinois
10 http://rvcc2.raritanval.edu/~scieng/tmintro.html, Trenton New Jersey, North Branch
New Jersey.
11 http://www.missouri.edu/~klinechair/on-line%20papers/teaching%20philosophy.doc,
Richmond, Virginia.
12
http://www.sc.edu/sustainableu/2000FundedReports/2000wuestefinal. pdf, and
http://www.clemson.edu/caah/rutland/ Clemson, South Carolina.
12
responsibility of all members of the profession and they come to expect to be
confronted with ethical dilemmas in many professional contexts.”13
Mercer University offers a constructive reference point for Hardin-Simmons
University’s proposed QEP. In Mercer’s QEP, a cross-curriculum ethics program
is implemented as the university seeks to increase moral judgment, increase
moral commitment, increase moral integrity, and increase the climate of student
engagement within the realm of ethics. To achieve such lofty standards Mercer
has begun a series of events including university-wide ethics seminars,
faculty/staff reading circles, seminars and workshops on case-based instruction,
service-learning courses, volunteer opportunities, and student-run volunteer
clearinghouses. Mercer’s assessment process involves three to five
outcomes/objectives per year over three years.14 In an interview with a member
of the QEP Steering Committee Dr. Jesse Barry, Associate Provost at Mercer
University, he indicated that their university’s QEP had progressed well, but that
the plan was “too grandiose in their original approach.” He recommended a
more narrowed student population for Hardin-Simmons University’s QEP and
noted that Mercer’s greatest success has come in realizing its QEP in their
professional and pre-professional programs.
Rivier College attempts to incorporate ethics across the curriculum. Instead of
simply offering a single course in business ethics and corporate values, the
college utilizes an approach whereby students are introduced with ethics material
at specific points. Each required course for a particular major has ethics material
woven through the semester’s course load, the goal hereby being a more
realistic and practical understanding of ethics’ application to every facet of
business.15
Utah Valley State College uses another approach to educate their students
regarding ethics. They require a course specific in ethics. This core course
added to the curriculum, entitled “Ethics and Values,” is an interdisciplinary
humanities course. At the heart of UVSC’s ethics program are five “goals”: 1)
Discussion of ethics is important and timely; 2) An interdisciplinary approach is
integral to the student’s education (disciplines used are philosophical, religious,
literature, and historical); 3) Strong writing components; 4) Self confrontation and
classroom discussion; 5) Critical thinking. Outcomes for students include the
ability to recognize ethical issues; developing the critical thinking and selfconfrontation skills necessary to engage issues; cultivating tolerance toward
13
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/tips/tips_0902.html, Washington, D.C.
14
http://www2.mercer.edu/default.htm, Macon, Georgia.
15
http://www.rivier.edu/accelerated/programs/default.asp?id=1917, Nashua, New
Hampshire.
13
disagreement and inevitable ambiguities of ethical problems; and eliciting a
sense of moral obligation and development of a personal code of ethics.16
Emory University offers a multi-departmental minor designed to complement a
student’s major program. One must complete five courses in ethics for the minor
(15 hrs). The required foundational course is an “Introduction to Ethics,” but
beyond that requirement, the field is open to fit the need of the specific students.
Courses include the fields of business ethics, biological ethics, environmental
ethics, journalism ethics, philosophical ethics, religious ethics, and social ethics.
Almost any degree can have an accompanying ethics minor specific to the
particular field of study. 17
Harvard University does not offer any degree concerning ethics, but such
courses are available across their campus. However, these courses are not
rooted in an ethics center, nor does the university seek for those classes to be
the end point of ethics education. Rather, seminars and workshops seek to
educate the students and faculty more so than required courses. Several syllabi
demonstrate the goal toward development of ethics over many courses and
areas of study.18
The Center for Ethics and Social Justice at Loyola University Chicago offers
ethics education to individuals within and outside of the university as well as to
organizations to provide them with the specialized skills for greater ethical
awareness and judgment that will lead to making ethically-centered decisions.
The program fosters a faculty-development program to educate professors in
leading courses on ethics in their particular field. Loyola thus emphasizes that
while constructed, required courses are beneficial, a professor in a particular field
who models and teaches a course of ethics is a far better enhancement for the
learning environment of a student. Ethics Across the Curriculum Workshops
bring together faculty from various schools of study and allow ‘products’ to be put
in their hands and minds for use in the classroom, as each school of learning on
the campus sees fit. ‘Products’ are usually a fully prepared unit for a course or a
set of case-studies with a strategy to use them. 19
Considerable review by the QEP Committee revealed segments of the HardinSimmons University QEP theme under research and application in a wide variety
of settings. None of these settings, however, mirror the Hardin-Simmons
University plan in the whole or even a major portion. For example, some
organizations which develop testing instruments have done so with specific
disciplines and ethics in mind. Several major universities sponsor ethics centers
16
http://www.rit.edu/~692awww/seac/Vol3.2.html, Orem Utah.
17
http://www.ethics.emory.edu/, Atlanta, Georgia.
18
http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
19
http://www.luc.edu/missionandministry/index.shtml, Chicago, Illinois
14
which develop curricula, provide faculty education, and even offer degree
minors. Other free standing ethics centers have developed resources for ethics
education over the last few decades. Through selectively synthesizing these
aforementioned research and education resources, however, Hardin-Simmons
University realizes these endeavors form a solid basis from which the HardinSimmons University QEP can develop.
IV. Initiative Implementation For the QEP Goals
1. Summary of Implementation Process
The QEP will begin in the spring of 2008 by initiating the development of an
ethics minor within the religion program. First, between 2008 and 2011,
individual schools and colleges will each review curriculum and determine the
extent of ethics education within the current curriculum. Second, the faculties of
each school or college will attend summer retreats for faculty development and
collaboration relating to developing and enhancing ethics education within the
curriculum. Third, faculties will determine appropriate student outcome goals and
initiate and implement curricula changes designed to enhance ethics education
for their students. Finally, fourth, they will develop and initiate appropriate
assessment tools and processes to determine the success of students in meeting
student outcome goals. (For a more detailed description of the implementation
process, see Section V, “Timeline for Implementation.”)
The review of literature and best practices, discussed above, has provided
strategies and evaluation instruments which have informed and directed the
planning of the QEP. The testing strategies and instruments employed by other
universities have been studied and, in multiple instances, are adaptable to and
suitable for the university’s needs. The QEP Steering Committee, with the
research presented above, is confident that it has appropriately focused HSU’s
QEP goals and assessment strategies for the pre-professional and professional
programs to result in successfully meeting the purpose of the QEP project. This
research and planning has also led to the creation of a coordinating and
organizing structure which will oversee the implementation and execution of the
QEP over the next five years.
Therefore, in support of the ethical education curriculum, the university will create
an organizational structure to ensure both support for and evaluation of the QEP.
An Ethics Education Council will be created and will have the primary
responsibility to oversee the execution and assessment of the QEP (see Section
V, “Organizational Structure”). Additionally, specific extra-curricular activities will
be developed and initiated in support of the ethics education programs. Ancillary
to the QEP, the university will pursue funding and implementing an ethics
institute (see Section IX, “Conclusion and Ancillary Projects”).
15
2. The QEP Goals
As identified on page 9 in the definition of student learning, the QEP goals will be
operationalized through initiatives and actions designed to increase curricular
awareness and knowledge in the area of ethics for courses in pre-professional
and professional programs and enhance student potential to integrate ethical
codes and principles of ethical decision making in their respective professional
programs and careers:
Goal I: Students will deepen their knowledge and understanding of the discipline
of ethical studies.
Goal II: Students will develop and utilize skills in ethical decision making.
Goal III: Students’ capacity for self-examination will be heightened through
learning environments that encourage critical thinking and self-assessment in
matters of morality and social integrity.
Goal IV: Students will internalize a commitment to life-long ethical leadership in
their careers and communities.
3. Strategy Initiatives
a. Initiative A will require HSU to increase collaboration among the university’s
faculty. A critical component in implementing ethics curriculum in preprofessional and professional programs, this faculty collaboration is expected to
result from three focused actions.
Action I calls for the facilitation of inter and intra-school discussions focused on
current ethical issues as a means for educating faculty on potential topics for
incorporation into the classroom and for offering faculty the opportunity to learn
more about identifying, analyzing, and teaching ethical issues.
Action II requires, as part of the construction of the ethics minor, one or more
interdisciplinary ethics courses be developed, and an enhancement of the ethiccentric connection between different academic areas.
b. Initiative B will require support of student learning in the ethics curriculum
through the teaching and encouragement of ethical behavior in various
extracurricular activities offered at Hardin-Simmons University. In keeping with
its mission, the University expects each student to act in a mature manner and to
exercise good judgment in conducting his/her life both on and off campus. The
University also encourages students to participate in sponsored activities outside
16
the classroom as a significant part of their learning experience. Targeted student
groups will include: Baptist Student Ministries, Student Congress, Student 2
Student Mentoring Program, Greek Council, Fellowship of Christian Athletes,
Intercollegiate Athletics, New Student Orientation, Intramural programming, and
Neighborhood Outreach.
To implement this initiative, Action I calls for training faculty and staff sponsors in
how to help students develop and demonstrate ethical behavior in the various
activities.
Action II calls for developing a council of sponsors and students whose
responsibilities would include overseeing the training of student groups, serving
as a judicial council in matters involving ethical questions, and determining ways
of measuring the effects of ethical training on the behavior of students in these
activities.
c. Initiative C will require selected courses in HSU’s pre-professional and
professional programs as well as in HSU’s future ethics minor to enhance ethics
curriculum already in place or, in those programs absent such curriculum, to
incorporate ethics curriculum into selected courses.
To accomplish this enhancement or incorporation, Action I will identify ethics
curriculum already in existence within pre-professional and professional
programs in each of HSU’s schools and colleges and modify selected courses
within each to include or enhance attention to ethics.
Consequently, Action II expects students in pre-professional and professional
programs to demonstrate knowledge in ethical philosophy through completion of
a discipline-specific project to be determined by each discipline.
Additionally, Action III requires HSU’s pre-professional and professional
students to evaluate real-world context ethical scenarios by means which
demonstrate each student’s ability to analyze ethical questions; to discuss
strategies for addressing ethical issues in professional practice; to use critical
thinking, problem solving, and decision-making models as such relate to ethical
standards in the practice of his or her profession; and to examine the student’s
own values and belief systems in relation to those ethical standards expected by
that profession. To provide a measure of these abilities, each discipline will
require pre-professional and professional students to take the Defining Issues
Test 2 [DIT-2] as part of the discipline’s capstone course. Supplementary
measure will be provided by nine ethics-centric questions to be incorporated into
already extant general education testing.
Finally, Action IV would enhance ethics curriculum in the classroom by requiring
those pre-professional and professional students participating in field-based
17
learning projects through selected courses to complete an ethics component in
which they reflect on ethical issues relevant to that experience.
d. Initiative D entails the creation of an Ethics Education Council which will over
see the execution of the Quality Enhancement plan.
Action I to implement this initiative will be the naming of the chair of the Ethics
Education Council by the President. This person will be a faculty member and
will report to the Provost.
Action II will be the work of this Council in planning and coordinating the
summer, faculty workshops toward development of ethics education curriculum
and faculty development toward those ends.
Action III will be the ongoing work of the EEC toward coordinating assessment
through the respective facets of the university toward ethics education.
V. Timeline for Implementation
Assuming approval of the university’s QEP by the Commission on Colleges
during the 2007 annual meeting, the implementation of the QEP will begin in the
spring 2008 and conclude with the Five Year Report to the Commission on
Colleges in 2013.
Spring 2007 – Fall 2007
The Quality Enhancement Plan will be submitted for approval by the Commission
on Colleges.
Year One (2008 – 2009)
Spring 2008
Following approval of the university’s QEP, the chair and members of the Ethics
Education Council (the QEP implementation and oversight committee) will be
appointed and charged with initiating discussions with individual school faculties
and deans to develop strategies for testing students in the undergraduate
professional and pre-professional programs with the appropriate assessment
instruments to establish benchmarks for evaluating student learning.
The faculty of the Logsdon School of Theology will develop a proposal for
establishing an interdisciplinary minor in Ethics. The resulting proposal for the
minor will serve as a guideline for each of the other schools as they develop their
ethics curriculum within their programs. The minor may not be fully realized until
all of the schools have developed their ethics education curricula because the
intent will be to incorporate ethics courses from as many disciplines as possible
into the minor.
18
The Patty Hanks Shelton School of Nursing and the Kelley College of Business
at Hardin-Simmons University will conduct a review and analysis of their current
curricular elements related to ethics education.
Summer 2008
An Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshop will be held for the faculties
of the Patty Hanks Shelton School of Nursing and the Kelley College of Business
at Hardin-Simmons University. Ethics Education Council representatives from
the Holland School of Sciences and Mathematics and the Cynthia Ann Parker
College of Liberal Arts will also attend. Presenters and speakers will be experts
in ethics education, ethicists who are external invited guest speakers and faculty
members from the campus community. The focus of the workshop will be to
develop a common understanding of ethics education, to define goals and
outcomes appropriate to the individual discipline, to examine current ethics
education curriculum, and to lay a foundational plan for improving ethics
education within the major. (See Appendix I: “Summer Ethics Education Faculty
Development Workshops” for goals and proposed schedule of events.) A survey
will be conducted at the conclusion of the workshop to assist the Provost and
Chair of the Ethics Education Council in planning future workshops.
Fall 2008 – Spring 2009
The faculties of the Patty Hanks Shelton School of Nursing and the Kelley
College of Business at Hardin-Simmons University will develop or redesign the
curricula of their majors to enhance or incorporate effective ethics education for
their students. They will establish learning outcomes and appropriate
assessment instruments. The curricular changes should be incorporated into
their programs no later than fall 2009.
Faculties from the undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs in
the Holland School of Sciences and Mathematics and the Cynthia Ann Parker
College of Liberal Arts will conduct a review and analysis of their current
curricular elements which are related to ethics education.
Year Two (2009 – 2010)
Summer 2009
An Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshop will be held for the faculties
from the undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs in the
Holland School of Sciences and Mathematics and the Cynthia Ann Parker
College of Liberal Arts. Ethics Education Council representatives from the Irvin
School of Education and the School of Music and Fine Arts will also attend.
Presenters and speakers will be experts in ethics education, ethicists who are
external invited guest speakers and faculty members from the campus
19
community. The focus of the workshop will be to develop a common
understanding of ethics education, to define goals and outcomes appropriate to
the individual discipline, to examine current ethics education curriculum, and to
lay a foundational plan for improving ethics education within the major. (See
Appendix I: “Summer Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshops” for
goals and proposed schedule of events.) A survey will be conducted at the
conclusion of the workshop to assist the Provost and Chair of the Ethics
Education Council in planning future workshops.
Fall 2009 – Spring 2010
The faculties of the Holland School of Sciences and Mathematics and the
Cynthia Ann Parker College of Liberal Arts will develop or redesign the curricula
of their majors to enhance or incorporate effective ethics education for their
students. They will establish learning outcomes and appropriate assessment
instruments. The curricular changes should be incorporated into their programs
no later than fall 2010.
The Irvin School of Education and the School of Music and Fine Arts will conduct
a review and analysis of their current curricular elements which are related to
ethics education.
Year Three (2010 – 2011)
Summer 2010
An Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshop will be held for the faculties
from the undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs of the Irvin
School of Education and the School of Music and Fine Arts. The Ethics
Education Council representative from the Logsdon School of Theology will also
attend. Presenters and speakers will be experts in ethics education, ethicists
who are external invited guest speakers and faculty members from the campus
community. The focus of the workshop will be to develop a common
understanding of ethics education, to define goals and outcomes appropriate to
the individual discipline, to examine current ethics education curriculum, and to
lay a foundational plan for improving ethics education within the major. (See
Appendix I: “Summer Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshops” for
goals and proposed schedule of events.) A survey will be conducted at the
conclusion of the workshop to assist the Provost and chair of the Ethics
Education Council in planning future workshops.
Fall 2010 – Spring 2011
The faculties of the Irvin School of Education and the School of Music and Fine
Arts will develop or redesign the curricula of their majors to enhance or
incorporate effective ethics education for their students. They will establish
20
learning outcomes and appropriate assessment instruments. The curricular
changes should be incorporated into their programs no later than fall 2011.
The Logsdon School of Theology will conduct a review and analysis of their
current curricular elements which are related to ethics education.
Year Four (2011 – 2012)
Summer 2011
An Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshop will be held for the faculty
from the undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs of the
Logsdon School of Theology. Presenters and speakers will be experts in ethics
education, ethicists who are external invited guest speakers and faculty members
from the campus community. The focus of the workshop will be to develop a
common understanding of ethics education, to define goals and outcomes
appropriate to the individual discipline, to examine current ethics education
curriculum, and to lay a foundational plan for improving ethics education within
the major. The ethics minor will also be examined for efficacy. (See Appendix I:
“Summer Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshops” for goals and
proposed schedule of events.) A survey will be conducted at the conclusion of
the workshop to assist the Provost and Chair of the Ethics Education Council in
planning future workshops.
Fall 2011 – Spring 2012
The faculty of the Logsdon School of Theology will develop or redesign the
curricula of its majors to enhance or incorporate effective ethics education for
their students. The Logsdon faculty will establish learning outcomes and
appropriate assessment instruments. The curricular changes should be
incorporated into their programs no later than fall 2012.
Year Five (2012 – 2013)
Summer 2012
The university will host a university-wide faculty retreat to discuss and evaluate
the effectiveness and efficacy of ethics education across the campus within the
undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs. Presenters and
speakers will be experts in ethics education, ethicists who are external invited
guest speakers and faculty members from the campus community.
Consideration will be given to expanding ethics education into the general
education curriculum.
21
Fall 2012 – Spring 2013
The university will prepare its Five Year Report on the QEP for presentation to
and review by Commission on Colleges.
VI. Organizational Structure
The President of the university will give the Provost the administrative
responsibility to oversee the execution of the Quality Enhancement Plan. All
normal university processes and policies will be followed, including submission
and approval of curricular changes, submission and approval of the creation or
revision of degrees and degree requirements, institutional assessment policies,
and institutional reporting procedures.
The President intends to appoint Dr. Bill Tillman as the Chair of the Ethics
Education Council (See Appendix K: “Resume of Dr. William Morris Tillman,
Jr.”). The Council membership will be composed of a representative from each
of the schools and colleges to be appointed by the appropriate dean in
consultation with the Provost, and a student representative appointed by the
Dean of Students in consultation with the Provost. The Chair and Council will
report directly to the Provost.
The Ethics Education Council will be charged with directing the implementation of
the Quality Enhancement Plan. Under the direction of the Council Chair, the
Council will coordinate and conduct the summer faculty development workshops,
review outcome and assessment materials from the academic undergraduate
professional and pre-professional programs (see Section VIII, “Assessment
Plan”), assist the Student Development staff in development and implementation
of extra-curricular ethics education activities and projects, provide resources and
expertise to schools’ and colleges’ faculty members as they develop their specific
ethics curricula, and evaluate the success of the QEP in annual reports to the
Provost. Additionally, the student member of the Council will give regular reports
to the Student Congress. The Chair of the Ethics Education Council will have
primary budgetary responsibilities and will assist the Provost in making
adjustments to the plan or to budget allocations in accordance with
recommendations resulting from the assessment processes.
The Provost will make annual reports to the President on the progress of the
university in meeting the goals of the Ethics Education QEP.
VII.
Budget
The resources for implementing the Quality Enhancement Plan will be provided
through the university’s annual budget.
22
Expenditures for the QEP fall generally into three categories: faculty
development expenditures, testing and associated assessment costs, and
miscellaneous costs such as travel funds, supply and operations, and consulting
costs for implementing curricular changes.
Based on annual assessment results and recommendations from the Ethics
Education Council and the Council Chair, the Provost and Chief Operations
Officer will be responsible for making any required adjustments to the budget
allocations in support of the QEP project.
The following is a year by year explanation of projected costs (see Appendix L:
“QEP Five-Year Projected Budget,” for a concise chart):
Year One, 2008-2009
Participants in Summer Ethics Education Workshop
Kelley College of Business
Patty Hanks Shelton School of Nursing
Representatives from the Ethics Ed Council
Faculty Presenters
Provost and Council Chair
Guest Lecturer
Travel @ $100 per person
Workshop Facilities and meals
Faculty stipends
Stipends for faculty presenters
Travel and honorarium for guest lecturer
Total Expense for Workshop
Supplies and Operations
2008-2009 Total
37
15
15
2
2
2
1
$ 3,600
$18,500
$16,000
$ 4,000
$ 5,000
$47,100
$10,000
$57,100
Year Two, 2009-2010
Participants in the Summer Ethics Education Workshop
Holland School of Sciences & Mathematics
Parker College of Liberal Arts
Representatives from the Ethics Ed Council
Faculty Presenters
Provost and Council Chair
Guest Lecturer
Travel @ $100 per person
Workshop Facilities and meals
Faculty stipends
Stipends for faculty presenters
Travel and honorarium for guest lecturer
23
31
15
9
2
2
2
1
$ 3,000
$15,500
$13,000
$ 4,000
$ 5,000
Total Expense for Workshop
Supplies and Operations
2009-2010 Total
$40,500
$10,000
$50,500
Year Three, 2010-2011
Participants in Summer Ethics Education Workshop
Irvin School of Education
School of Music and Fine Arts
Representatives from the Ethics Ed Council
Faculty Presenters
Provost and Council Chair
Guest Lecturer
Travel @ $100 per person
Workshop Facilities and meals
Faculty stipends
Stipends for faculty presenters
Travel and honorarium for guest lecturer
Total Expense for Workshop
Supplies and Operations
2010-2011 Total
Year Four, 2011-2012
Participants in Summer Ethics Education Workshop
Logsdon School of Theology
Representatives from the Ethics Ed Council
Faculty Presenters
Provost and Council Chair
Guest Lecturer
Travel @ $100 per person
Workshop Facilities and meals
Faculty stipends
Stipends for faculty presenters
Travel and honorarium for guest lecturer
Total Expense for Workshop
Supplies and Operations
2011-2012 Total
Year Five, 2012-2013
University Faculty Retreat
Council Chair Travel and S&O
Travel and Honorarium for Outside Evaluator
2012-2013 Total
24
33
19
7
2
2
2
1
$ 3,200
$16,500
$14,000
$ 4,000
$ 5,000
$42,700
$10,000
$52,700
19
12
2
2
2
1
$ 1,800
$ 9,500
$ 7,000
$ 4,000
$ 5,000
$28,300
$ 5,000
$32,300
$10,000
$ 8,000
$ 5,000
$23,000
2008-2013 QEP Grand Total
$215,600
VIII. Assessment Plan
1. Assessment of the Initiatives
The evaluation of the initiatives will include three types of assessment.
Diagnostic assessment will be used to examine existing programs and establish
a base point for student performance. Ongoing formative assessment will inform
and guide the development process. Summative assessment strategies will be
implemented to examine the impact of the QEP initiatives on student learning
outcomes. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to assess and
improve the effectiveness of the initiatives.
In order to assess Initiative A, increased collaboration among faculty and
between disciplines, evidence of attaining Action 1 will require written
documentation of the time, place, attendance, and subject of faculty discussions
regarding ethical issues or pedagogy. Such documentation is to be housed in the
school or college hosting the discussion. This evidence will be measured by
means of a Feedback Survey, the results of which will be examined by the
university Provost and members of the Ethics Education Council. Evidence of
Action II, developing one or more interdisciplinary ethics courses as part of the
new ethics minor, will consist of documentation of course development meetings,
of course proposal consideration beyond the development stage, of syllabus and
actual course offering post approval as well as number of students enrolled,
different disciplines involved in the teaching of each of these courses, and
specific modes of participation by each of these disciplines. These materials are
to be housed in the Logsdon School of Theology in conjunction with records
concerning the development of the minor in ethics. To accomplish Action III, the
university President intends to appoint Dr. Bill Tillman as the Chair of the Ethics
Education Council (See Appendix J: “Resume of Dr. William Morris Tillman, Jr.”).
The appropriate dean in consultation with the university Provost will appoint a
representative from each of the schools and colleges while a student
representative will be appointed by the Dean of Students in consultation with the
Provost. The Chair and Council will report directly to the Provost. Evidence of
these steps will be available in the Provost’s office.
To fulfill Initiative B, Action I will develop an Extracurricular Assessment Plan
(EAP) which will initiate a two-fold approach. First, a record will be kept of each
training session, along with a record of those attending, to ensure that all faculty
and staff sponsors receive the training. Second, the effectiveness of the training
will be assessed by observing the results of external surveys (described in
assessment for Action II) regarding the ethical behavior of students in actual
situations. Action II will be assessed in several ways. First, after the council of
sponsors and students is selected to serve (the selection will be done by the
25
Senior Vice President for Student Development, the Dean of Students, or their
representatives), the charter and roster of the council will be maintained in the
Dean of Students office. Second, the SVPSD and the Dean will review any
decisions made by the council regarding ethical questions regarding student
behavior, and a record of such decisions will be maintained by the Dean. Finally,
the council will oversee the development and administration of surveys to be
administered to groups and persons who regularly observe the behavior of
students during their activities. The surveys will focus on the issue of ethical
student behavior, and the SVPSD and the Dean will work with the council in
determining any action to be taken as a result of the surveys.
Assessing the enhancement or incorporation of ethics curriculum into selected
courses, Initiative C, will begin with a comprehensive curriculum review as a part
of Action I. This review will result in documentation identifying ethics curriculum
in existing courses for pre-professional and professional programs and identifying
those programs with little or no current ethics components. In response to this
review, individual schools and colleges will be asked to develop plans for
addressing the enhancement or incorporation of ethics into the curriculum of
each pre-professional and professional program in that school or college. These
plans are to become an additional section on each area’s annual Institutional
Effectiveness Committee [IEC] report and must be submitted to the appropriate
school or college dean, the Ethics Education Council, and the university Provost.
The Ethics Education Council will respond where appropriate.
Evidence of attainment of Action II, asking for student demonstration of
knowledge in ethical philosophy, will be written record of the completion by each
pre-professional and professional undergraduate program of a discipline-specific
project requiring demonstration of knowledge in ethical philosophy. Each
discipline will determine its own measuring device for this project and must
record this assessment strategy as well as an annual report of the students’
demonstration of knowledge reflected in these projects as part of the added QEP
section of the area’s annual IEC report. In addition, the IEC report must contain
the discipline’s evaluation of overall demonstration results and indicate any
resulting curriculum changes. Copies of this report should be submitted to the
appropriate school or college dean, the Ethics Education Council, and the
university Provost. The Ethics Education Council will respond where appropriate
The quantitative testing of ethical ability might be characterized as still
undergoing healthy developmental discussion and resulting alterations. The
Measure of Moral Orientation [MMO], for example, while affirmed as a reliable
“standardized assessment of moral voice” by Debora L. Liddell in The Journal of
College Student Development, is unable to gage “the specific nature and context
of students' moral dilemmas” unless “educators…engage in meaningful, direct
26
dialogue with students” outside the quantitative testing process.20 To the degree,
however, that such testing has developed up to the present time, HSU’s QEP
Steering Committee decided to examine external testing as a means for
assessing Action III, students evaluating real-world context ethical scenarios.
Three possible measuring devices were investigated: the National Survey of
Student Engagement [NSSE], the Measure of Moral Orientation [MMO], and the
Defining Issues Test [DIT].
The NSSE’s focus, according to its published objectives, 21 centers on
“obtain[ing], on an annual basis, information from scores of colleges and
universities nationwide about student participation in programs and activities that
institutions provide for their learning and personal development” in order “to
estimate… how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from
attending college.” Although growing in usage by universities across the country,
the NSSE’s concentration on measuring student activities and leadership
development encompassed too broad an area of evaluation and lacked the
ethics-centered measure HSU sought.
The MMO, though directly exploring moral judgment, was eventually removed
from consideration because of its current unavailability; a new version of the
MMO is not expected to be ready for initial pilot testing for at least another year.
The DIT then became the central consideration for external testing. The DIT-2,
developed by the Center for the Study of Ethical Development at the University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, is the newly revised version of the original DIT and
attempts to assess moral reasoning by asking students to choose from a list of
potential answers to a set of hypothetical dilemmas. Based on Kohlberg’s theory
of moral development, as is the MMO, the DIT-2 offers each student a set of four
moral dilemmas, each followed by 12 questions. Scoring is based on the
student’s ranking of the top 4 of these 12 questions in relation to significance to
making a decision regarding that dilemma. (See Appendix L: “Review of the
Defining Issues Test” for evaluations of the DIT’s initial test by Burrows Mental
Measurements.)
Thus, each applicable discipline at HSU will require pre-professional and
professional students to take the Defining Issues Test 2 [DIT-2] as part of the
discipline’s capstone course or a course specified by the discipline. No grade will
be assigned for the DIT; however, its completion will be necessary for the student
20
Liddell, Debora L. “Comparison of Semistructured Interviews with a Quantitative
Measure of Moral Orientation.” Journal of College Student Development 39.2 (Mar-Apr 1998):
169-78. Compares the MMO “to semistructured interviews with college students. Results support
the validity and reliability of MMO as a standardized assessment of moral voice.”
21
http://nsse.iub.edu/html/quick_facts.cfm
27
to receive credit for the course. 22 Results of the DIT-2 will be made available to
all of the participating pre-professional and professional programs, the Ethics
Education Council, university administration, and the student test takers.
Additional external testing will adjunct the DIT-2 when the Ethics Education
Council develops at least nine ethics-centric questions for incorporation into the
research sections of the College Assessment of Academic Proficiency [CAAP]
and the College Basic Academic Subjects Examination [CBASE] already given
as part of HSU’s general education testing during the senior year. These
supplementary questions are to include queries regarding extra-curricular and
field-based reinforcement of ethics curriculum.
Results of each of these forms of external testing will be reported to the areas
involved. In turn, those results, consideration of those results, and any action
implemented in response to that consideration should annually appear in the IEC
report under the new QEP section. Copies of this report should be submitted to
the appropriate school or college dean, the Ethics Education Council, and the
university Provost. The Ethics Education Council will respond where appropriate.
Action IV, an added ethics component in field-based learning, will be
substantiated through documentation of each pre-professional and professional
student’s completion of a designated feedback opportunity, preferably written
reflection or individual presentation. Measuring this component will be achieved
by documenting participation in field-based learning within pre-professional and
professional courses as well as the type and location of student responses.
Further, the faculty within each involved discipline is to regularly review student
response and report this evaluation and action resulting to the Ethics Education
Council by means of the QEP section of the IEC report. The Ethics Education
Council will respond where appropriate
22
More information may be obtained by examining the following printed material and
websites:Rest, J.R.. DIT Manual.., Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press, 1990.
Rest, J. R., Darcia Narvaez, Muriel J. Bebeau, and Stephen J. Thoma. Postconventional Moral
Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1999.
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/medschool/OIG/documents/2003-10-22%20J%20Club%20%20Rest's%20Defining%20Issues%20Test.doc. http://cstl-cb.semo.edu/cherry/Research/DIT_
Four_Scenario2.htmhttp://www.prenhall.com/whetten_dms/chap1_2.html; http://wbarratt.indstate.
edu/dragon/saroi/sa-dit.htm. http://www.prenhall.com/whetten_dms/chap1_2.html.
http://wbarratt.indstate.edu/dragon/saroi/sa-dit.htm
28
2. Assessment of Student Outcome Goals
Summative assessment strategies will be implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the QEP in achieving the identified goals. Both qualitative and
quantitative methods will be used to assess the impact of QEP actions on
student learning.
Goal I: Students will deepen their knowledge and understanding of the discipline
of ethical studies. Departmental assessment plans will be developed to measure
student learning in ethical studies. The plans will identify evaluation criteria
based on student performance on coursework in ethical studies. Performance
outcomes based on these criteria will provide quantifiable data for analysis of the
first goal. Additionally, the first goal will be assessed using data from the ethicscentric items included in the general education testing.
Goal II: Students will develop and utilize skills in ethical decision making. The
second goal will be evaluated using the DIT. Additionally, departmental
assessment plans will identify quantifiable criteria for evaluation of ethical
decision making in the discipline specific project. Qualitative survey instruments
will be developed to assess student and faculty perceptions of the effectiveness
of QEP actions. External surveys related to extracurricular activities will also
provide data for assessment of the second goal.
Goal III: Students’ capacity for self-examination will be heightened through
learning environments that encourage critical thinking and self-assessment in
matters of morality and social integrity. The third goal will be quantitatively
evaluated using the DIT. Qualitative data used to assess this outcome will
include external and internal survey instruments and assignments containing
student reflection on QEP actions,
Goal IV: Students will internalize a commitment to life-long ethical leadership in
their careers and communities. The fourth goal will be evaluated using data from
an online survey sent to alumni graduating in professional and pre-professional
programs. The survey will include quantitative and qualitative items designed to
assess ethical leadership in career and community contexts.
3. Mechanisms for QEP Assessment

EEC – The Ethics Education Council will coordinate and monitor all facets
of assessment through the QEP’s implementation and assist in
development and application of specific assessment instruments. The
EEC will receive the information obtained through the instruments, collate,
and interpret the assessment with the Provost and the respective segment
of HSU which implemented the assessment. Response will be made back
to the initiators of the assessment with recommendations for continuance
or revision.
29

EAP – The Extracurricular Assessment Plan will be developed by the
council of sponsors and students formed in Action II of Initiative B, in
concert with the EEC. The assessment will focus on the following:
making records of the numbers and characteristics of students involved in
the targeted student groups, those entities and organizations named
under Inititative B; develop surveys of persons and constituencies external
to the university who not only observe the behavior of HSU students but
are affected by these student groups.

DAP – The Departmental Assessment Plan will assess student knowledge
and understanding of the discipline of ethical studies, changes in moral
judgment, and self-assessment in matters of morality and social integrity.
Each department must include the following in the DAP: (1) Curriculum
based assessment for knowledge in the discipline of ethics, (2) pre- and
post testing with DIT, (3) qualitative and quantitative assessment of
projects and student reflection papers.

Freshmen and Senior surveys.: The EEC will develop QEP-related
questions for pre and post-information for addition to these surveys
already in place at HSU and administered through Student Development
and / or Enrollment Services.

Gen Ed. Questions.: The College BASE [C-BASE) and Collegiate
Assessment of Academic Proficiency [CAAP] are currently administered
through HSU’s Office of General Educational Studies to graduating
seniors. Each of these skills assessment tools allows universities to
incorporate questions of their own. HSU’s EEC will develop a set of 9-11
QEP-related questions to be attached to these two exams. The results will
be reported to the EEC by the Office of GES prior to the beginning of each
academic year.

ASEL – The Alumni Survey of Ethical Leadership will assess the impact of
the QEP on alumni ethical leadership behavior. Items will assess HSU
graduates’ perceptions of the impact of the QEP and identity specific roles
and activities related to ethical leadership in professional and community
contexts.
30
IX. Conclusion and Ancillary Projects
The Quality Enhancement Plan projected through this document is the result of
an in-depth, long-termed reflection process. The Plan evolved over several
years and emerged from multiple dynamics and facets of the university
community, converging in the context of the university’s mission.
Some of the earliest of these ingredients can be found in the formation of the
current faculty of the Logsdon School of Theology, specifically in the hiring of
three terminally degreed ethicists. The work and presence of these faculty
members provided an early impetus for conversation across the university faculty
and with the university’s administration, regarding the importance and potential
impact of Christian ethics education for students, for the university as a whole,
and, ultimately, for the larger community.
Dialogue began six years ago between faculty, administration, and the university
trustees, concerning the development a Christian ethics institute, which could
potentially present conferences, publish a journal, sponsor lectures, and engage
the larger society in discussions of ethical issues and ethics education. As a
result of the work done on the Ethics Education QEP, the administration has
committed to pursuing funding to endow the T. B. Maston Ethics Institute, as a
project ancillary to the QEP project. The plan for the Institute has been
presented to the administration, and the University Advancement Office is
presently constructing an endowment campaign.
Additionally, as a result of discussions of the importance of ethics education in
the professional and pre-professional undergraduate programs, members of the
faculty have already initiated informal discussions concerning the possibilities for
expanding the ethics education into the Foundation Curriculum of the general
education program. Further, many of the undergraduate curricular changes
resulting from the QEP will prompt similar changes in the aligned graduate
curricula.
In conclusion, while the QEP project has been necessarily limited to
undergraduate professional and pre-professional programs as a consequence of
time and resources, the project already has and will continue to have a significant
and long-lasting impact on the university.
31
Appendices
32
X. Appendices
Appendix A: Documents from the “Practice” QEP
[Practice” QEP Committee Membership List]
Bill Ellis, Vice President for Academic Affairs (Chair)
Joanne Roberts, Associate Professor of Sociology and Dept. Head (Cynthia Ann
Parker College of Liberal Arts)
Robert Ellis, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew (Logsdon School of
Theology)
Mindy Wheeler Flowers, Housing Chair (Student Development)
Roy Vogtsberger, Assistant Professor of Biology (Holland School of Sciences
and Mathematics)
Don Ashmore, Associate Vice President for Finance and Management and
Controller) Business Office
Gracie Carroll, Associate Vice President for Academic Advising and Retention
(Advising Center)
Don Williford, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
Charles Walts, Associate Professor of Business and Accounting and Associate
Dean (Kelley College of Business at HSU)
Forrest McMillan, Dean of Students (Student Development)
Pam Williford, Professor of Education and Dean (Irvin School of Education)
Michael Whitehorn, Vice President for Student Development
Linda Grover, Chair of Institutional Research
Joella Michael, Chair of University Communications
[Sample QEP Practice Committee Minutes]
QEP Practice Committee, February 18, 2004
Attendance: Bob Ellis, Mindy Wheeler, Joanne Roberts, Roy Vogtsberger, Don
Ashmore, Bill Ellis, Gracie Carroll, Don Williford, Charles Walts, Forrest McMillan,
Pam Williford, Mike Whitehorn, Linda Grover
I. Prayer Requests
II. Old Business
Report from Title and Learning Definition Sub committee (Charles Walts, Roy
Vogtsberger, Mindy Wheeler and Gracie Carroll) Gracie presented the following
which was accepted with minor revisions shown in brackets.
Title: Increasing student retention through the enhancement of the HSU
[learning] environment
Learning definition: Learning is a process whereby the student experiences
academic, social and spiritual maturation. An instrumental component of this is
the student’s acceptance and development of personal responsibility and
accountability. The university’s responsibility is to provide an environment
conducive to student learning in all [these] aspects.
III. New Business
33
a. Revamped sub-committee memberships
i. Goals & Context Sub-committee.
1. Need for additional input in academic area. In addition to
Joanne Roberts, Bob Ellis will serve on this sub-committee.
2. Academic Committee will also be asked for input.
3. Mike Whitehorn will serve as Chair; members are Forrest
McMillan, Mindy Wheeler, Gracie Carroll, Joanne Roberts,
and Bob Ellis
ii. Timeline, Resources, and Allocation Sub-committee
1. Don Ashmore will serve as Chair; members are Don
Williford, Charles Walts, Joella Michel, and Linda Grover
2. Anticipate that Joella Michel will be out on maternity leave
iii. Evaluation/Assessment Sub-committee
1. Pam Williford will serve as Chair; members to be decided
at a later date
b. Timeline for Goals & Context Sub-committee
i. Present their report on March 26, 2004 NOON
c. Questions addressed
i. What are the starting and end dates for this QEP? Fall 2003 to
end of Spring 2004 semesters
ii. What context should be used? Institutional (see page 26 of QEP
handout)
iii. Clarification of the finished product. The report should be
finished by the end of the semester; the committee will discuss the
process for areas to improve upon; the document will then be taken
to the Admin Council and President for their review.
QEP Practice Committee Minutes, March 26, 2004
Attendance: Bob Ellis, Mindy Wheeler, Joanne Roberts, Roy Vogtsberger, Don
Ashmore, Gracie Carroll, Don Williford, Charles Walts, Forrest McMillan, Pam
Williford, Mike Whitehorn, Bill Ellis, Linda Grover
I. Old Business
a. Report from Goals & Context Sub-committee (Mike Whitehorn, Forrest
McMillan, Mindy Wheeler, Gracie Carroll, Joanne Roberts, and Bob Ellis)
b. Mike Whitehorn reviewed the document that his committee put together.
Most of the goals came from documents prepared in the past year or two
(Gracie’s retention study and the Strategic Plan for 2005).
c. The term “best practices in higher education” was used in the
document. A comment was made that there are several good sites dealing
with this subject. Using your internet search engine: type in “best practices
in higher education”
II. New Business
a. Timeline, Resources, and Allocation Sub-committee
34
i. Needs replacement for Joella Michael, who is moving. Mike
Whitehorn agreed to serve and provide helpful input from Goals
and Context Sub-committee
b. Don Ashmore will serve as Chair; members are Don Williford, Charles
Walts, Mike Whitehorn, and Linda Grover
c. Sub-committee report to be presented Friday, April 9
i. Evaluation/Assessment Sub-committee. Pam Williford (Chair)
members to be determined at next meeting
QEP Practice Committee Minutes, April 23, 2004
Attendance: Mindy Wheeler, Joanne Roberts, Roy Vogtsberger, Don Ashmore,
Bill Ellis, Gracie Carroll, Don Williford, Charles Walts, Forrest McMillan, Pam
Williford, Linda Grover
I. Old Business
a. Handouts –
i. Updated goal sheets for QEP booklet
ii. Summary for Timeline, Resources and Allocation Subcommittee
b. Discussion – There will be 3 levels of assessment:
i. Departmental – each department will assess the goals listed for
their area in the QEP booklet
ii. Assessment of Fall 2003 to Spring 2004 retention
iii. Assessment of Fall 2003 to Fall 2004 retention
c. Two “hot ideas” were suggested for looking at assessment:
benchmarking and evaluating “best practices”
II. New Business - Assessment Subcommittee
a. Designation of Members: Pam Williford, Chair, Mike Whitehorn, Joanne
Roberts, Bob Ellis, Gracie Carroll (Don Williford and Linda Grover will sit
in)
b. Timeline – Bulk of assessment should be completed before school
starts. The only area that can’t be addressed before school starts is the
Fall to Fall retention (information available after 8th class day)
c. Pam Williford will send forms along with a cover memo, defining
assessment terms to the appropriate chairs to assess each of the goals
for their respective area. If department chairs have questions regarding
assessment of their area, questions should be addressed to assessment
subcommittee members.
d. There was discussion regarding how to address resource allocation.
Once we’re in the “real” QEP, it will be easier to identify the needs to
implement the plan, such as release time, extra funds required, surveys to
be administered.
35
Appendix B:
Membership
Quality Enhancement Plan Proposal Selection Committee
List (Fall 2004 – Spring 2005)
Bill Ellis, Provost and Chief Academic Officer (chair)
Mike Monhollon, Associate Professor of Business Law and Dean (Kelley College
of Business at HSU)
Pam Williford, Professor of Education and Dean (Irvin School of Education)
Mark Beasley, Associate Professor of History (Parker College of Liberal Arts)
Travis Seekins, Associate Vice President for Technology Services (Information
Management Office)
Russell Leavenworth, Development Officer (Advancement Office)
Mark Puckett, Professor of Piano (School of Music and Fine Arts)
Forrest W. McMillan, Dean of Students (Student Development)
Diana Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Biology (Holland School of Sciences and
Mathematics)
Travis Frampton, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies (Logsdon School of
Theology)
36
Appendix C: Sample Documents Relevant to Selection of the QEP
[Excerpted section from the Minutes of the Deans Retreat, July 23, 2004]
Agenda Item: QEP
Dr. Ellis asked for input on the topic for next year’s QEP.
Jan Noles suggested the plan that AISN uses to determine student
learning styles. AISN requires their faculty to address different learning
styles in the course syllabus and deliver information and challenge
students to learn in different ways.
Pam Williford suggested that we explore education with technology
resources which could include our implementation of Oracle and Distance
Learning.
[Sample email, dated 3/15/2004, to the Provost, listing proposed QEP topics from
the Parker College of Liberal Arts]
Good afternoon,
I have been assigned the task of working on the QEP goals for academics. I am sending you a
copy of previously used goals that might be appropriate for our QEP. I am asking for your
feedback to determine if you think they are appropriate, or if you have any additions, deletions,
suggestions, etc. Thank you for your help.
Joanne Roberts
Associate Professor of Sociology
QEP GOALS: ACADEMICS
Goals:
1.
Attract and retain a diverse faculty of exemplary teachers.
a.
Increase faculty salaries to at least 90% of peer averages in each rank.
b.
Hire more women and minorities on faculty and in leadership positions.
c.
Create new faculty development budget under control of the chief
academic officer for the purpose of teaching, course and curriculum
improvement and development.
d.
Revise rank, tenure, and reward policies to reflect greater valuing of
teaching and teaching improvement efforts.
2.
Align academic programs with broad skills core curriculum and purpose
statement.
a.
Design and implement core curriculum to emphasize broad skills and
integrate them with major curriculum.
b.
Explore issues of faith and ethics and address opportunities for service
related to the fields of study.
37
c.
3.
Integrate student development activities and services with academic areas
where appropriate.
Strengthen commitment to student achievement.
a.
Establish institution wide policy of high academic expectations and
student responsibility for learning.
b.
Adopt “best practices for teaching and learning” as basis for university
instructional policy.
c.
Design freshman year curriculum and instructional practice for successful
transition from high school to college learning environment.
d.
Establish experiential learning component (internships, student teaching,
volunteer service, etc.) in each major.
[Sample email, dated 7/28/2004, sent to the Provost and SACS Liaison]
There are several articles in this month’s journal [TechLearning News, July 28, 2004] that may be
of interest, particularly if HSU considers a tech-related QEP. The article provided me some ideas
for improving power point presentations. Other professors may benefit from this sort of
information.
Pamela K. Williford, Ph.D.
Dean, Irvin School of Education
[Excerpted section of President’s Notes from the March 17-19, 2005, Board of
Trustee Annual Retreat]
Agenda Item: SACS and QEP
Bill Ellis brought a report on the selection of the QEP topic. Presented several
options: technology, ethics, remedial programs, first year experience.
Discussion focused on ethics. Minor in Ethics. “Teaching Ethics” in our
professional and pre-professional courses. Several expressed particular interest
in business ethics and ethics in sciences.
Discussion about accreditation. Danger of Federal Government controlling
accreditation and importance to HSU for financial aid for students.
Reaccredidation Report on (1) Compliance Report (Aug. 2006) and (2) Quality
Enhancement Plan.
Agenda Item: Dreams for HSU from BOT
1. B Stahl: Ethics
2. C Wolf: Endowment
3. N Shaffer: “Education Enlightened by Faith” – spiritual appeal to parents
in recruiting
38
[Sample School/College Report, dated 3/30/2005, sent to the Provost,
documenting the faculty members’ discussions of proposed topics for the QEP]
School of Education Faculty Discussion Regarding Quality Enhancement Plan
March 30, 2005
Dr. Pam Williford requested that SOE faculty submit ideas regarding the university QEP.
The faculty discussed a list of suggested focus areas including technology, general
studies, remediation for marginally prepared students, the honors program, and ethics.
Dr. Williford indicated that, among those areas listed, ethics appears to have the strongest
potential for becoming the focus of the HSU QEP. The faculty members present were
reminded that the QEP will evaluate student learning.
Dr. Bob Barnes noted that the COHD graduate program has a required course called
Legal and Ethical Responsibility in Counseling.
There was a discussion regarding how student learning in ethics would be measured. An
instrument currently being used in the School of Business was suggested as well as the
use of TExES professional development scores.
Dr. Ron Rainwater requested more information on the model for developing and
implementing the QEP and Dr. Williford described the pilot study involving
representatives from across campus. It was noted that there are few models from other
schools that can be examined for comparison in this early stage of QEP development.
Several SOE faculty members indicated that the area of ethics was the best choice from
the suggested list. Two additional topics were suggested – wellness and writing across
the curriculum.
Dr. Williford encouraged faculty to send their ideas directly to Dr. Ellis.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Copeland, Ph.D.
[Sample School/College Report (email), dated 5/20/2005, sent to the Provost,
reporting the support of the Parker College of Liberal Arts for Ethics Education as
the topic for the QEP]
Dr. Ellis:
The lack of comment on the proposed QEP topics at last week’s faculty meeting prompts this
note. In mid-March I sent out a memo explaining our options, but I received little response.
Realizing you needed additional feedback I roamed the campus this week and talked to a number
of my liberal arts colleagues. As a result of my wanderings (and after chatting with over 30
individuals) I can state with a reasonable degree of accuracy that the liberal arts faculty is
39
overwhelmingly supportive of using ethics as the QEP subject. Several expressed concern about
how the assessment would work, but trusted that any such concerns could be worked out.
As an aside, I would recommend that J. L. Cole and Tim Maddox be included in future
discussions about the ethics QEP.
I hope this information is helpful in documenting consultation with faculty about the QEP.
Mark Beasley
History Department
[Sample email, dated 4/27/2005, sent to the Provost, reporting the support of the
Student Congress for Ethics Education as the topic for the QEP]
Dr. Ellis,
Thank you so much for coming to Student Congress last night and informing us
and asking our opinions on the issues. We as a student body are really excited about the
direction Hardin-Simmons is headed in. There is a huge difference in ethics, character
and integrity in young people comparatively speaking from a private Baptist university to
a state supported school. I think that these additions to HSU and our staff will be very
beneficial to us as a prestigious university, but will help with our recruiting prospects.
The rest of the Executive Council and I had a meeting at 8:15 last night to kind of toss the
subject around and be prepared for your lecture, but you did a great job answering all our
questions. HSU Student Congress has a new email address so we can better stay in
contact with our students and faculty. Please email me back on my email address or
Student Congress's if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you so much for laying
down the goals that the faculty has. I hope to see you soon or next semester. Thank you
again and good luck!
Chris Garner
- Parliamentarian, Executive Council
- Hardin-Simmons / Student Congress
[List of Breakout Sessions, University Faculty Summer Retreat, August 16-17,
2005, and excerpt description of QEP Breakout Sessions]
Concurrent Breakout Sessions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Program Assessment: What SACS Wants from You, P Williford and
Recruiting and Financial Aid: What Departments Can Do to Build Numbers,
Davidson and Tragessor
QEP: Ready or Not, It’s Coming, Ellis and Tillman
Investing and Financial Planning or I Want To Be a Millionaire, Matt Preston
Fund Raising and Grant Writing: What Departments Can Do To Get Money, Roy
and Leavenworth
Scholarly Publication: The Ins and Outs, Hamner and D O’Connell
40
7.
8.
Online Courses: Who Wants To Do One? D Williford and M Christopher
Student Advising: When Freshmen Cry,
Concurrent Breakout Sessions Descriptions:
# 3.
QEP: Ready or Not, It’s Coming (Bill Ellis)
This session will describe where we are in the process of developing our Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP), a requirement for the SACS re-accreditation. The probable
topic for the QEP will center in developing or enhancing ethical decision-making
curriculum within the professional and pre-professional majors. We will discuss
timelines, projects, and organizational structures for the plan.
41
Appendix D: Various Board and Organizational Minutes and the Selection
of the QEP
(Relevant portions of the following minutes from the Deans Advisory Council, the
Academic Committee, the University Faculty, and the Board of Trustees are in
bold text.)
Deans Advisory Council
March 24, 2005
Minutes
The Deans met in the Moody Center, Room 120. Present were Chris McNair,
Gary Stanlake, Pam Williford, Don Williford, Bill Ellis, Alan Stafford, Lawson
Hager, Michael Monhollon, DeLys Mitchell, Jan Noles, and Alice Specht. Tommy
Brisco was absent.
After a discussion of prayer concerns, Mike Monhollon led in prayer.
The minutes were approved as distributed.
Old Business:
The Deans discussed various issues with the Faculty Evaluation System: Dr.
Stanlake, based on concerns he has heard, asked for a check list for completion
by department heads to ensure that all steps are completed properly. Dr. Ellis will
ask the TEC to formulate such a check list.
Dr. Pam Williford asked for clarification as to the statement in the directions that
the evaluation should occur in the fall. Dr. Ellis clarified that the process needs to
be concluded by the fall, but student and peer evaluations could be done in the
spring or fall.
Dr. P. Williford asked if the language could be changed from “at the end of the
calendar year” to “by the end of the calendar year.” DeLys will make this change
on the form and forward it to the Deans.
Mrs. Specht asked if peer evaluator training will be available. Dr. Ellis plans to
talk with the TEC committee, but suggested that Mrs. Specht conduct her training
for the librarians since it will be different from other faculty members.
New Business:
New Program Review Responses: A suggestion has been made that the
department chairs of those areas that were reviewed under the new process and
the chairs of the subcommittees should evaluate the new process. Dr. Pam
Williford is working on this and will have a report at the next Deans Council.
Program Review Responses to the 2003-2004 Program Reviews: The VPAA’s
office has received responses from the Library and the Kelley College of
Business. Other areas that still need to submit a response include the Social
Sciences, Theology, Art, and Communication.
Registration: Advance Registration begins on Monday. The Registrar’s Office will
not be in a training situation with Oracle as in the Fall; therefore, students may be
sent to their office for schedule input if needed. However, Dr. Ellis stated that
since registration went well in the fall with the schedules being entered in the
advisor/Deans office, it would be helpful to continue that plan.
42
Dr. Pam Williford made a request that in the future, when motions/proposals are
presented in faculty meetings and in Academic Committee meetings for a vote,
those motions/proposals should be clearly written and in front of the group before
a vote is taken. Dr. Ellis plans to talk with the faculty president about this.
Career Carnival: Dr. Ellis encouraged faculty participation in this event.
Dean of General Education Studies: Dr. Ellis announced that Dr. Laura Pogue
will be the new Dean of General Education Studies. This will be publicly
announced at the April faculty meeting.
Communication Area: The Deans are requested to send a copy of any requests
sent to the Communication area to Mr. Roy and the Dr. Ellis.
QEP: Dr. Ellis asked for the Deans input on the topics that have been
discussed for our QEP. The Deans unanimously approved the topic of
Ethics for our QEP for our upcoming SACS visit.
The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by DeLys Mitchell.
MINUTES
Academic Committee Meeting
September 14, 2005
Bill Ellis called the Academic Committee meeting to order. Committee members
present were Eric Coleman, Bill Ellis, Lawson Hager, Omer Hancock, Ed Hewett,
Diana Higgins, Dorothy Kiser, Chris McNair, Delys Mitchell, Mike Monhollon, Jan
Noles, Laura Pogue, Paul Potter, Bernard Scherr, Terry Sergeant, Ron Smith,
Alice Specht, Gary Stanlake, Don Williford, and Pam Williford.
The meeting was opened with prayer led by Bill Ellis.
Minutes from the April 13, 2005 meeting were submitted and approved.
Items of Old Business:
A. Gary Stanlake was elected secretary for the 2005/2006 academic year.
B. Laura Pogue made a motion that the Academic Committee support
the adoption of “ethical decision making” as the university’s quality
enhancement plan for meeting the SACS core requirement # 2.12. Mike
Monhollon seconded the motion. After discussion and changes to the
Executive Summary document, the motion was approved.
Items of New Business:
A. Dorothy Kiser requested that the Registrar’s Office be allowed to remove
the listing of “Other Awards” from the Academic Programs and Policies
section of the Undergraduate Bulletin. The request was approved by
consensus agreement.
B. Dr. Ellis led the Academic Committee in a review of fall 2005 enrollment
information. Highlights included total hours enrolled exceeding 30,000 for the
first time in school history, an all time high student enrollment of 2423, and an
improvement in freshman enrollment compared to fall 2004.
Following announcements the meeting was adjourned at 4:04 p.m.
43
William Ellis, Chair
Gary Stanlake, Secretary
Minutes
General Faculty Meeting
September 28, 2005
Dr. Ron Smith called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm.
The invocation was given by Dr. Dan Stiver.
Britt Jones made announcements related to homecoming.
Minutes from the August 31 meeting were considered and approved.
Dr. Craig Turner gave the university president’s remarks:
· HSU has a record enrollment. Congratulations to all who helped with recruiting.
· We have once again made the top tier ranking in US News.
· Renovations are to begin on Hunter Hall for a new Welcome Center with a
resulting loss of parking spaces.
· A new field has been put to use by the soccer teams, and the volleyball team is
having a successful season.
· An encouragement for all present to begin taking vitamins.
Dr. Bill Ellis gave the academic affairs report:
· He first called upon Dean Laura Pogue who announced Dr. Bob Fink as a
finalist for the 2005 Violet Crown Book Awards for his collection of poems,
Tracking the Morning.
· For the first time HSU has topped 30,000 hours in a semester, and there is an
all time high fall enrollment of 2,345. A demographic profile of our enrollment was
distributed.
· The possibility of new legislation to cut student loans by $11 billion was noted,
and the faculty was asked to call and e-mail congress in regard to this possibility.
Dr. Turner gave an explanation about the situation.
· Faculty members who want a “clean” copy of the rank and tenure policy can
contact DeLys Mitchell.
· A restructuring of the personnel handbook is in progress.
· Following discussion of a waiver for terminal degree requirements in the rank
and tenure process, Dr. Ellis made comments and entertained questions
concerning the new faculty evaluation system. He emphasized that alterations to
the process would be considered after the first year or two based on that
experience and that the administration would not “hammer” anyone during this
trial period.
New business – Dr. Ellis brought a recommendation from the Academic
Committee concerning the addition of an ethics component as the focus of
the QEP for the SACS evaluation as set forth in the attached proposal. This
was followed by discussion and several questions related to creating and
implementing this plan. A vote was taken, and the proposal was
unanimously approved.
44
Dr. Ron Smith discussed the process adopted by the Faculty Council for
selecting an HSU nominee for the Piper Professor award. Faculty members may,
with the consent of the potential nominee, submit to Dr. Smith a brief (no more
than one page) statement in support of the person being nominated. Nominations
received on or before October 15 will be distributed with the agenda for the
October 26 meeting of the Faculty Assembly at which time the faculty will elect
the HSU nominee.
Announcements were made for the musical “All American” in the Van Ellis
Theater.
Dr. Laura Pogue moved for adjournment, the motion was seconded, and the
meeting ended at 5:00 pm.
Attachment: QEP Proposal
[Excerpted section of the HSU Board of Trustees Minutes]
HARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Full Board Meeting
October 14, 2005
Minutes
TRUSTEES HSU
Mr. Jud Powell (Chair), President Craig Turner, Dr. Ron Blevins, Dr. Bill Ellis,
Mrs. Mary Bryan, Mr. Harold Preston, Mr. Jimmie Cantrell, Mr. Wayne Roy, Mr.
Danny Fisher, Dr. Michael Whitehorn, Rev. David Garza, Vicki Ehrie, Mr. Hilton
Hemphill, Mrs. Tina Hunter, Hon. John Hyde, Dr. Jerry Joplin, Mrs. Inez Kelley,
Rev. Kelvin Kelley, Rev. Joe Martinez, Mr. Allan Meador, Mr. Bobby Moody,
Mr. James Parker, Mrs. Lila Senter, Dr. Bubba Stahl, Dr. Rob Wiley, Mr. Will
Wilkins, Dr. John Wilson, Dr. Clinton Wolf, Mr. Tom Womble, Mrs. Mertie Wood
After a joint meeting with the Board of Development, the meeting of the Board of
Trustees was called to order by Chairman Jud Powell at 10:15 a.m.
The minutes were amended to include Mrs. Inez Kelley as being present at
February 2005 meeting. Minutes were then approved.
Committee Reports
Academic Committee – Dr. John Wilson
Dr. Wilson brought recommendations before the Board:
The Academic Committee recommends that the Board grant authority for
awarding the appropriate degrees to those who have fulfilled the respective
requirements at the December 2005 Commencement.
Passed.
The Academic Committee recommends the adoption of the Ethical
Decision Making Plan within the Professional and Pre-Professional Majors,
as the university’s Quality Enhancement Plan as required by the SACS.
Passed.
45
The Academic Committee recommends authorization to move the Department of
Theatre and the Department of Art from the Cynthia Ann Parker College of
Liberal Arts to the School of Music and to change the name of the School of
Music to the School of Music and Fine Arts.
Discussion.
Passed.
Chairman Powell began the Open Forum.
Items of discussion were:
Bubba Stahl asked Dr. Ellis to share how the quality enhancement plan
might benefit from using the new endowment funds, especially for the
Ethics Center. SACS requirement. Dr. Ellis listed the 3 parts of the project:
1. Enhance or development of ethics courses and curriculum in
professional and pre professional courses.
2. Look at putting minor in ethics in theology school. Business major
may go to Logsdon to get minor in ethics.
3. Center for ethical studies. Create institute here. 3 faculty members
with doctorates in ethics. We have faculty resources.
Additionally, the T.B. Maston Foundation sent all their materials to the
university as a resource for premier Baptist ethicists. The center would be
founded through external funding. It will free up other monies since it will
pay faculty salaries. This will be a resource for our community.
Suggestions of consulting with students, alumni boards, and faculty all
resulted in the unanimous approval for the quality enhancement plan.
Meeting adjourned.
46
Appendix E: Professional and Pre-Professional Undergraduate Majors
Involved in the QEP and the Quality Enhancement Plan Steering Committee
Membership List
Majors:
Cynthia Ann Parker College of Liberal Arts: Social Work/Sociology and Criminal
Justice
Holland School of Sciences and Mathematics: Biology, Geology, Chemistry/
Physics, and Speech-Language Pathology
Kelley College of Business at HSU: Accounting, Computer Science, Economics,
Finance, Management, and Marketing
Irvin School of Education: Early Childhood-Grade 4, Grades 4-8 Middle Grades,
Grades 8-12 Secondary Grades, Early Childhood-Grade 12, and Athletic Training
Logsdon School of Theology: Bible, Theology, Missions, Youth Ministry, and
Ministry
School of Music and Fine Arts: Music Business, Church Music, Music Education,
Art, and Theatre
Patty Hanks Shelton School of Nursing: Nursing
Committee Membership, (Fall 2005 – Present)
Bill Ellis, co-chair, Provost and Chief Academic Officer
Bill Tillman, co-chair, Maston Professor of Christian Ethics (Logsdon Seminary,
Logsdon School of Theology)
Mike Monhollon, Dean, Kelley College of Business and Associate Professor of
Business Law (Kelley College of Business at HSU) –Mr. Monhollon replaced
Charles Walts.
Laura Pogue, Professor of English and Dean, General Education Studies (Parker
College of Liberal Arts)
Diana Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Biology (Holland School of Sciences and
Mathematics)
Lynnette Chambers, Associate Professor of Voice (School of Music and Fine
Arts)
Lori Copeland, Assistant Professor of Education (Irvin School of Education)
Sharon Souter, Assistant Professor of Nursing and BSN Program Chair (Patty
Hanks Shelton School of Nursing)
Teresa Ellis, Assistant Professor and Theology Librarian (Richardson Library)
--Mrs. Ellis replaced Mr. Scott Jeffries.
Russell Leavenworth, Development Officer (Advancement)
Forrest McMillan, Dean of Students (Student Development)
Don Ashmore, Associate Vice President for Finance and Management and
University Controller (Business Office)
Jordy Bernhard, student with an Accounting/Finance double major
Megan Van Cleave, student with an Athletic Trainer major
Lauren Williams, student with a Biology major
47
Appendix F: Sample Ethics Curriculum Reviews
1. Cynthia Ann Parker College of Liberal Arts
Pre-professional Programs Incorporation of Ethics into Curriculum as of
Fall 06: Criminal Justice and Social Work
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAM
Information from syllabi Spring 06.
CRIJ 1301 A Introduction to Criminal Justice
No mention of Ethics
CRIJ 1304 A Correctional Systems
Includes a presentation on Correctional System Reform: “Each student will be required to
choose a side on the issue of prison reform. Present from the perspective of a prison
warden either advocating for change or justifying the status quo. Include…your informed
decision regarding philosophy and policy implementation or direction you would plan to
take the institution….”
CRIJ 2301 A Criminal Investigation
Under “Student Outcomes:” …; develop conceptual value appropriate to the conduct of
ethical and legal investigations.
Reading Assignments include “The Investigator: Responsibilities and Attributes,”
“Surveillance:… Legality and Practice,” “Interrogation: Purpose and Principles,” and
“Miscarriages of Justice.”
CRIJ 4305 A
Correctional Counseling
No mention of Ethics
CRIJ 4307 A Contemporary Issues In Corrections
Includes four-part study on “What’s Wrong with Correction?”
CRIJ 4351 A Crime and Delinquency
(xlisted as SOCI 4351)
No Mention of Ethics
CRIJ 4360 A Senior Seminar
Course description includes “professional conduct and development.”
Includes a three-part study on “Ethical Considerations in Criminal Justice.”
CRIJ 4399 A Terrorism
(xlisted as POLS 4399)
Includes class topics of “How Terrorist Groups Justify Behavior,” “Trying to Walk the
Walk,” “The Logic of Religious Terrorism,” “Why Civil Liberties Interact with Civil
Defense,” etc.
48
SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM
As a part of an 2005-06 accreditation report, Social Work provided a 10+ page narrative
for the section Integration of Values and Ethics into the Curriculum recounting each
course’s participation in meeting Social Work’s Program Objective #2: “To understand
the value base of the profession and its ethical standards and principles and practice
accordingly.”
For each course in the program [11 total], at least one course objective is to be linked to
Program Objective #2. Four courses exceed the minimum number of course objectives
tied to this Program Objective.
Nine of the 11 courses specifically mention ethics:
SCWK2360 Human Behavior and the Social Environment I
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values & Ethics)
4. Demonstrate through written assignments and discussion a beginning
recognition and appreciation of social work values, including:
a. Individual worth and dignity, and potential for
change and growth.
b. The essential nature of human support systems.
Examples of course elements supporting program objective 2 (Values & Ethics)

Assignments: Through written assignments, such as the Malcolm X paper,
and class discussion students demonstrate their level of understanding and
recognition of social values related to the dignity and worth of the individual,
the client’s potential for change and growth, and the knowledge and respect
for human support systems.

Reading assignments: Green, J. W. Cultural Awareness in the Human
Services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Petr, C. G. "The
worker-client relationship: a general systems perspective". Social Casework,
69(10): 620-26, Dec.1988; Zastrow, C. & Kirst-Ashman, K. (2004)
Understanding Human Behavior in the Social Environment. 6th ed. Belmont,
CA: Brooks Cole; and the Chess & Norlin text Chapter
SCWK 1350: Introduction to Social Work
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)
3. Demonstrate knowledge of basic social work knowledge, values, and
skills.
7. Demonstrate understanding and awareness of one’s own beliefs, values,
and attitudes about human diversity and analyze own values in relation to those
of social work
Examples of course elements supporting program objective 2

One major course assignment is a minimum of 40 hours service in a local social
welfare related agency. During this experience, the student keeps a journal
49




which reflects experiences including the student’s value system as compared to
the agency program and its clients value systems.
From the volunteer experience the student writes a major paper which includes:
“Describe how knowledge of social work values affected your understanding
and work in the agency. Describe any conflict you recognized between your
own value system and those of the profession.” This helps the student solidify
their own concepts, beliefs, and values compared to the social work profession.
Another written assignment for students involves reflecting on the NASW Code
of Ethics and how the Code shapes social work practice. This assignment gives
insight to the student on how the profession acts on its Code of Ethics.
An exercise used in the class during the emphasis on social work values is based
on a handout: “Values Clarification: Issues in Social Work”. The students, in
small groups, discuss the several questions posited and then share their
discussions with the whole class. Issues such as abortion, busing, affirmative
action programs, etc. are brought out.
Reading assignments: NASW Code of Ethics for the 10th class period with
ensuing class discussion. Article by Helen Harris Perlman: Believing and
doing: values in social work education.” Social Casework. The main textbook
for the course, Segal, Elizabeth A, Gerdes, Karen E. and Steiner, Sue (2004).
Social Work: An Introduction to the profession, Brooks/Cole is assigned for
reading in its entirety. Values and ethics are discussed in every chapter after a
major discussion of the overall concept in chapter 1.
SCWK 2303: Social Work Practice I
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)
1. To develop knowledge and skills related to ethics and multicultural
competence in communication.
Examples of course elements supporting program objective 2 (Values and
Ethics)

As part of the foundation of the course, before beginning study and practice of
interviewing techniques, a reading assignment from the text, Ivey, Allen E. and
Ivey, Mary Bradford (2003). Intentional Interviewing and Counseling. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, is made concerning ethics and multicultural
competence in communication. Class discuss ensues concerning how the
NASW code of ethics pertains to the interview/counseling situation including
such areas as competence, informed consent, confidentiality, power differentials,
social justice, and diversity and multiculturalism.

Another reading assignment from the textbook and ensuing discussion involves
how value systems impact the communication and work with clients. Students,
in role play, practice how to draw out values from clients to help them
understand the impact of their values on their thinking and behavior.

A major course assignment involves an interview with a person of another
significantly different culture or race/ethnicity. Students are required to learn the
values of that person and the differences between themselves and that person in
order to better understand themselves and to appreciate the values and
differences of another person.
50
SCWK 3370: Social Work Practice II
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values & Ethics)
Sequence Objectives:
1. To understand how social work knowledge, skills, and values pertain to
one’s
work with individuals, families, small groups, organizations, and
communities;
4. To understand the ethical issues of social work as they relate to practice
General Objectives:
This course will emphasize the basic knowledge, skills, and values necessary
for
the generalist practice of social work. It will provide an opportunity for
students
to gain competence in the following:
I. Knowledge
h. Awareness of ethical issues relating to practice.
II. Skills
a. Ability to utilize interviewing concepts to engage a client and
develop a helping relationship:
1. Individualize
2. Purposeful expression of feeling
3. Controlled emotional response
4. Acceptance
5. Non-judgmental attitude
6. Client self-determination
7. Confidentiality
f. Ability to consider ethical issues in planning interventions
II. Values
a. Awareness of and sensitivity to diverse cultures, backgrounds, and
races.
b. Awareness of the dignity and worth of each individual regardless of
race, gender, identity, or status.
c. Recognition of the need for a democratic and caring society for all
members.
d. Recognition of own role in society to promote functioning of
societal and environmental systems.
e. To identify and thoughtfully consider areas of conflict between own
values and ethics and those of the profession.
f. Recognition of the value of research contributions to the profession.
51
SCWK 3375: Social Work Practice III
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values & Ethics)
Sequence Objectives:
1. To understand how social work knowledge, values, and skills pertain to
one’s work with individuals, families, small groups, organizations, and
communities.
4. To understand ethical issues of social work as they relate to practice.
General Objectives:
I. Knowledge
8. Awareness of ethical issues relating to practice and understanding of
ethical decision making models used to address ethical dilemmas.
II. Skills
3. To identify social work values as they relate to the client and to make use
of the appropriate intervention techniques to promote change.
7. To identify and utilize appropriate ethical decision making skills that lead
to effective problem solving of ethical dilemmas.
III. Values
Demonstrate an ability to integrate these stated values into practice:
1. Awareness of and sensitivity to diverse cultures, ethnic backgrounds and
races.
2. Awareness of the dignity and worth of each individual.
3. Realistic recognition of one’s role in society to create a democratic and
caring society.
4. Realistic identification of one’s own values, ethical code, and moral
standards.
5. Realistic plan for one’s continued growth and development both
personally and professionally.
6. Recognition of specific contributions of social work to the enhancement of
social-role functioning as evidenced by research.
7. Commitment to activities that promote development of individual
capacities and societal resources for all populations at-risk.
8. Identify and thoughtfully consider areas of conflict between own values
and ethics and those of the profession.
Examples of course elements supporting program objective 2 (Values & Ethics)

Seminar course with skill building activities related to facilitating change in
multi-client systems. Class discussion, role-play, and a group project
enhance students’ ability to apply critical thinking skills, essential
interviewing skills, and utilize models of community organizing and ethical
decision making.

Readings: Johnson, L.C. (2001). Social Work Practice: A Generalist
Approach (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
52
SCWK 3380: Social Research Methods
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values & Ethics)
3. Have knowledge of critical social work related research issues such as, how
values and ethics relates to women and minorities of color.
Examples of course elements supporting program object 2 (Values & Ethics)

When students analyze research reports they are trained to identify the
issues of values and ethics and propose solutions to problems. Class
lectures and discussions also highlight these issues.

Reading assignments from the textbook cover sensitivity to values. For
example from the text, pages 133-134 discuss the issues of conducting
survey research among a Muslim population that was being discriminated
against. Also numerous reading from the text deals with the ethical issues
of conducting various kinds of research, i.e. experiments, field research
each carry their own ethical awareness.
SCWK 4190-4290: Senior Research Seminar
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2(Values and Ethics)
2. Have a working knowledge of quantitative and qualitative research methods and of the
social work values and ethics critical to these methods.
Example of course elements supporting program objective 2(Values & Ethics)

Students must show awareness and sensitivity to the collection of data
relative to any minority groups involved in the research and must address
these issues in the write up of their reports.
SCWK 3360: Social Welfare Policy I
Sequence Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)
2. Acquire knowledge of the fundamental values and ethics of social work and
develop skills to clarify and analyze services and policy in relation to values and
ethics
Examples of course elements supporting program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)

Reading about and study of the major welfare programs (TANF, Social
Security, etc.) all have information concerning how our society’s values
and ethics are involved and these are compared to the values and ethics
of social work.

A major course assignment is a paper based on an interview with a single
parent. Data is collected and analyzed and in the evaluation piece, the
student describes what was learned about own biases, values and beliefs
and how will this help increase empathy skills.

Class lecture and discussions include the area of values reflected in social
welfare historically in other countries, particularly in England as
reflected in the Poor Laws. Also included are the American experience
in social welfare values and the major values changes leading to the
current welfare situation.
53

Relevant course readings include the major class textbook, Dolgoff,
Ralph and Feldstein, Donald (2004). Understanding Social Welfare,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004. Assigned reading include pages 20-33,
36-57, Chapter 4: Social Values and Social Welfare: pages60-84, pages
88-106 related to American history and values implied in social welfare
approaches and programs.
SCWK 3365: Social Welfare Policy II
Sequence Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)
2. Acquire knowledge of the fundamental values and ethics of social work and
develop skills to clarify and analyze services and policy in relation to values and
ethics
Course Objectives linked to program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)
1. Demonstrate general understanding of the alignment of service delivery
systems with social work values and ethics
Examples of course elements supporting program objective 2 (Values and Ethics)

Letter to the Editor assignment requires the student to choose a policy
area of interest, research it, and write a letter to the editor to address the
concerns about the policy. The concerns expressed about the impact on a
particular at risk population group come from stated social work ethics
and values.

Letter to a Legislator assignment is based on a NASW Policy Statement
which reflects social work values and ethics. The student states the
impact of legislation on an at risk population and asks for remedies to be
made.

Social Policy Analysis assignment is a major paper for the semester.
This paper incorporates a policy from Social Work Speaks: NASW
Policy Statements and demonstrates skills in analyzing and/or proposing
a social policy or program.

Lecture and class discussion on managed care and impacts on client
confidentiality

Class discussion of ethics involved in evaluation of policy—evaluation
cannot be ethics-free but policy is heavily value laden.

Lecture/discussion of social values related to social welfare problem
areas which are being analyzed in the broad area of social/economic
analysis.

Relevant course reading include the major class textbook, Popple, Philip
R. and Leighninger, Leslie (2004), The Policy-Based Profession, Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 2004. Assigned readings include pages 92-99 which
discusses how social values affect policy development and then policy
analysis.
54
2. Holland School of Sciences and Mathematics
Pre-professional Programs Incorporation of Ethics into Curriculum as of Fall 06:
Courses
Ethics in Course Description
Ethical Issues Discussed in
Class
BIOLOGY
1301
Modern Concepts
1401
1320
1120
1321
1121
2101
2402
Life Science
General Zoology
General Zoology Lab
Plant Biology
Plant Biology Lab
Introduction to Physical Therapy
Human Anatomy and Physiology I
Human Anatomy and Physiology
II
Public Health Microbiology
Essentials of Human Anatomy
and Physiology
Introduction to Cell Biology
2403
2405
2410
2420
3307
3312
3313
Bioethical Issues--stem cells,
cloning, what is life?
Bioethical Issues--stem cells,
animal rights, therapeutic vs
reproductive cloning, genetic
privacy, etc
Discussion of who is a
nutritional expert, investigate
bogus health claims
Nutrition
Statistical Methods
Kinesiology
3410
General Ecology
3411
3416
3417
3418
3420
3424
4104
4223
4302
4330
4411
4422
Genetics
Advanced Vertebrate Biology
General Physiology
Advanced Anatomy
General Microbiology
Cell Biology
Seminar in Biology
Microscopic Anatomy
Immunology
Molecular Biology
Natural History of Southwest
Advanced Environmental Biology
Environmental Issues-endangered species, humans
and the environment, human
population growth
Bioethical Case Studies and
Debate
CHEMISTRY
1401
1402
1410
1411
3401
3402
3410
3411
4105
4301
4304
4310
Discussion of research ethics,
drug testing, food labels and
advertising
Essentials of Chemistry I
Essentials of Chemistry II
General Chemistry I
General Chemistry II
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Quantitative Analysis and
Electrochemistry
Spectroscopy and
Chromatography
Chemistry Seminar
Biophysical Chemistry
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry
Biochemistry I
55
4311
4312
4401
4402
4405
Courses
Biochemistry II
Ethical Issues Discussed in
Class
Ethics in Course Description
Student papers on genetic
engineering, cloning, stem cells,
RU46, genetic screening
Biochemical Techniques
Physical Chemistry I
Physical Chemistry II
Environment Chemistry
Ethical Issues Discussed in
Class
Ethics in Course Description
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
4311
4340
Stewardship is emphasized.
Papers written to explore
environmental issues focusing
on causes and solutions
Environmental Science
Environmental Laws and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
4144
4308
4314
Environmental Science Seminar
Water Resources Management
Environmental Science Field
Experience
X
GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
1301
1401
1411
2301
2410
3301
3305
3310
3311
3405
3410
4312
4315
4410
Environmental Geology
Introductory Geology
Historical Geology
X
Stewardship and living
responsibly on earth--how
humans have modified the
earth, either poorly or well, are
discussed
Principles of Geography
Mineralogy/Petrology
Oceanography
Volcanoes and Earthquakes
Applied Environmental Geology
Field Methods I
Invertebrate Paleontology
Structural Geology
Field Methods II
Hydrogeology
Stratigraphy and Sedimentation
MATHEMATICS
1301
1310
1311
1315
1320
1321
2302
2305
2306
2320
Course stresses responsibility to
environment--hazardous waste,
water quality, air quality, and
regional planning, population
growth, and exploitation of
geological resources
Aspects of Modern Math
College Algebra
Trigonometry
Discrete Mathematical Structures
Calculus I
Calculus II
Topics for Mathematics Teacher I
Mathematics for Elementary
Teachers I
Mathematics for Elementary
Teachers II
Calculus III
56
2321
3302
3305
3310
3312
3315
3320
3350
4301
4310
4340
4350
Courses
Differential Equations
Topics for Mathematics Teacher
II
Linear Algebra
Computer Applications in
Mathematics
Statistical Methods
Mathematical Structures
Abstract Algebra
Special Topics in Mathematics
College Geometry
Numerical Analysis
Senior Project
Seminar in Mathematics
Ethics in Course Description
Ethical Issues Discussed in
Class
Ethics in Course Description
Ethical Issues Discussed in
Class
PHYSICS
1410
1411
2401
2402
2405
General Physics I
General Physics II
Physics for Scientists and
Engineers I
Physics for Scientists and
Engineers II
Introduction to Acoustics
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
2350
2351
2352
2356
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3358
3359
4352
4353
4355
4358
4159,etc
4171
4271
4179,etc
Sign Language I
Introduction to SLP and
Audiology
Normal Speech, Language, and
Hearing
Anatomy, Physiology, Neurology
of Speech
Sign Language II
Clinical Phonetics
Audiology
Aural Rehabilitation
Articulation, Voice, Fluency
Disorders
Advanced speech-language
pathology courses routinely
discuss privacy, patient
confidentiality and
procedures for appropriate
evaluation, counseling,
treatment
Neurogenic Speech-Language
Disorders
Diagnostic and Treatment
Methods
Language Disorders
Speech, Language, Hearing
Programs in Schools
Development and Design of
Therapeutic Resources
Augmentative & Alternate
Communication Systems
Observation of Clinical
Procedures of Disorders
Clinical Procedures and
Documentation
Clinical Internship
Advanced Clinical Procedures
X
57
Appendix G: Library Holdings Related to Ethics and Ethics Education
Abilene Library Consortium
Hardin-Simmons University belongs to the Abilene Library Consortium. In addition to
Hardin-Simmons University, the consortium includes Abilene Christian University,
McMurry University, Howard Payne University and the Abilene Public Library. Members of
the consortium share their resources with one another and have a common online catalog
comprising approximately 1.5 million items.
All Abilene Library Consortium Libraries
5098 titles
HSU
1972 titles
ACU
2802 titles
HPU
1234 titles
MCM
1366 titles
APL
616 titles
Hardin-Simmons University Titles Arranged By Subject
There may be considerable overlap among these subject headings. For example, a title
shown under Professional Ethics may also be found under Business Ethics. Also, some
resources may be in electronic form or on microfiche.
Business (Economics, Finance, etc.) - 121 titles
Education -153 titles
English Literature -109 titles
Environmental Science - 28 titles
Ethics, Social Usages, Etiquette - 698 titles
Family, Marriage, Women - 59 titles
History - 32 titles
Philosophy -161 titles
58
Political Science/Law - 88 titles
Professional Ethics - 281 titles
Science (Bioethics/Medical Ethics, General Science, etc.) - 257 titles
Sociology/Psychology/Social Work/Criminology - 96 titles
Theology - 292 titles
Miscellaneous - 34 titles
59
Appendix H: QEP Steering Committee Minutes
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 3-9-06
The first, called meeting of the QEP committee was called to order at 9:30 am
March 9, 2006, with Dr. Bill Ellis as chair/moderator of the meeting in Moody 120.
Committee members present: Don Ashmore, Lynnette Chambers, Lori Copeland,
Bill Ellis (co-chair), Diana Flanagan, Scott Jeffries, Russell Leavenworth, Laura Pogue,
Sharon Souter, Bill Tillman (co-chair), and Charles Walts.
BE noted he wished the first meeting to be faculty and staff particularly, but
students members will be appointed at a later time.
BE provided an overview of the Quality Enhancement Plan which the committee
will develop in response to the SACS review of the HSU. BE has discussed the
Executive Summary with Donna Wilkinson, the SACS liaison with HSU on QEP.
Wilkinson was enthusiastic of the general plan with the advice to make ancillary the
Center for Ethical Studies proposed.
BE reviewed in detail the QEP guidelines from SACS. Particularly matters
beginning on p. 25 will form the Table of Contents for the written report from HSU to the
SACS.
BT made suggestions for the committee to examine the SACS website in order to
contextualize the QEP idea more clearly. Also, since Mercer University is in the midst of
its own QEP and is using ethics as a theme, he suggested an examination of that
university's website toward how it can assist the HSU QEP committee's work.
BE made assignments toward a division of labor regarding the development of
HSU's QEP:
BT will be responsible for: researching and suggesting best practices in ethics
curricula emphases (to be assisted by SF); making suggestions with regard to two
friendly reviewers who will participate later in the process; and work with LP toward
finding assessment instruments appropriate, or which can be made appropriate, to HSU's
QEP.
LC will develop a definition of student learning
BE will work on timeline, and resource allocation with DA.
Faculty from all schools represented on the QEP committee will look at syllabi
for where ethics is being taught--the Nursing School is the best example at HSU for they
have a considerable amount of ethics emphases in their curriculum already.
60
RL will research articles, such as from The Wall Street Journal, Chronicles of
Higher Education, and The New York Times, regarding themes, ideas, implementations
of ethics emphases beyond educational institutions.
The committee will be expected to report with a draft of findings on their
particular assignments for a middle-of-April meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 4-17-06
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm in Rm 203 of the Kelley College of
Business by BE. Committee members present: Lori Copeland, Bill Ellis, Diana
Flanagan, Scott Jeffries, Russell Leavenworth, Sharon Souter, Bill Tillman, and Charles
Walts.
Student representatives for the committee were introduced: Lauren Williams, biology
major; Megan Van Cleave, athletic training major; and Jordy Bernhard. BE noted he had
provided an orientation session for the students toward the work of the committee.
BE gave a quick review of the minutes from the 3-09-06 meeting.
BT gave a report on the early review of best practices offered by selected universities and
ethics centers around the US. Examples were given of Harvard, Loyola, and Mercer.
Further review to arrive at six best practices examples will be done by BT, SJ, and LP.
BT also suggested Rick Wilson of Mercer University as a possible outside reviewer for
the HSU QEP.
Attention was given to current school ethics curricula at HSU:
CW provided a handout relating a significant number of courses in the Kelley
College of Business with ethics content. Kelley has a required business ethics course, eg.
BE noted a timetable of implementing ethics courses in the various schools is
needed. The timetable will reflect where a school is in regard to developing courses or
what needs to be developed. Likely a summer retreat for faculty development will be
included. Also, two schools at a time would be on track to develop their ethics
curriculum. This time frame will allow the development of pre-tests and post-tests for
assessment of the curriculum development. The time table will reflect a five year time
frame before a SACS follow up review, thus allowing time for all the schools to have at
least begun on their curriculum development.
DF presented a handout related to HSSM ethics content. There are no courses
specifically dedicated to ethics; but, several courses have ethics components.
A handout was made available reflecting course content in courses from the
School of Music and Fine Arts. Ethics elements are spread through several courses.
61
SJ gave a library resources handout describing ethics resources of several kinds
through the library consortium. SJ will continue analysis of these resources, eg. for
datedness, as well as develop in concert with Alice Specht a purchasing plan for
enhancing the ethics library resources.
BE distributed and reviewed a timeline handout reflecting matters of address to
the SACS related to the QEP. With the timeline in mind, BE and BT will develop a 2030 pp, plus addenda, narrative this summer describing the HSU QEP. In the fall, a final
draft will be developed, no later than Thanksgiving, for review by the SACS. The QEP
project will be instituted in Fall, 2007.
BE asked the committee to reflect on a protocol for when the respective HSU
schools will begin creating and implementing their ethics curriculum. In the first year,
2007-08 academic year, Logsdon will create the ethics minor portion of the QEP. In the
summer of 2008, will occur faculty development retreats for the Nursing and Business
schools toward implementation of their curriculum. They will proceed first since each of
these, especially nursing, is much farther down the road toward ethics curriculum
development. They can provide paradigms for the next schools’ developments.
Some specifics related to the developments were extended. The course work will
be school and discipline specific. A rationale will need to be developed across the
university curriculum for the QEP, but also a rationale will need to be developed which is
course specific. The Education school will likely develop and “ethics thread,” since there
is no room for further course development in their required curriculum. HSSM courses
could be foundational for nursing students. The assessment instruments developed can
help determine the content and protocol of courses. School specific courses can be part
of the ethics minor. Scholarship money might be available for ethics minors with money
developed for the envisioned HSU ethics center.
In the summer, 2009, HSSM and Liberal Arts (selectively social sciences, social
work, and criminal justice) will begin their process with QEP implementation. In the
summer of 2010, Education and Music will begin.
Working off the timeline, the respective schools will need to be able to give
faculty numbers and budget requirements with which BE can work.
The faculty development retreats could include student majors. Thus, there is
need to bring Student Life emphases into the process. So, Forrest McMillan and Kelly
Pigott will have input, eg with chapel planning which could include a chapel ie about
business ethics.
LC reported that she had reviewed several universities’ QEP programs and from
those developed a handout with a definition of student learning. This definition will be
the first item of the agenda for the next QEP Committee meeting, slated for early fall.
RL reported upon published resources from Lexus Nexus on ethics resources. He
discussed matters of funding related to the QEP; and, though tangential to the QEP now,
he related that development work is beginning immediately on the ethics center.
With no further agenda items, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
62
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 9-22-06
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm in Rm 120 of Moody. Committee
members present: Don Ashmore, Lynnette Chambers, Lori Copeland, Bill Ellis, Teresa
Ellis, Diana Flanagan, Russell Leavenworth, Forest McMillan, Laura Pogue, Sharon
Souter, and Bill Tillman.
Prayer requests were taken by Bill Ellis who led the group in prayer.
BE distributed materials previously given out to the committee, particularly to
those who had not been able to make other meetings of the QEP committee.
LC led the group discussing a definition of student learning. See the handout
distributed. Discussion followed regarding how the language of the statement was to be
perceived and used; for example, how could assessment procedures be developed around
this definition. The decision was made to change the last statement to read
“appreciation” in the place of “passion.” “If student learning occurs, the following
changes” was added to the last sentence of the first, full paragraph.
A “Survey of Ethics in the Undergraduate Curriculum” from the School of
Education was distributed for information.
A brief report was given from the charge given to Scott Jeffries, Laura Pogue, and
Bill Tillman regarding a review of the Mercer QEP program. LP noted specific
dimensions of the Mercer approach which needed to be supplemented by HSU’s
perspectives; for example, Christian ethics/biblical ethics will be HSU’s foundational
premise for the ethics sought through the QEP implementation.
Another handout was given listing the elements needed to be a part of the QEP
program according to the criteria stated by SACS. Discussion followed as to more
specific wording of the items so as to be used more directly by HSU. Lori Copeland was
asked to work with the second line item—A topic that is creative and vital. . .” Sharon
Souter will work with Lori on this item.
B E will work with appropriate constituencies.
With the appropriateness to the institution, BE asked for a collection of articles.
Russell and Forest said they would work on that item. As well, TE will help. HSU’s
mission will be tied to this item.
Well defined goals will be considered by LP
Careful analysis will be examined by LP; and BT will examine the best practices
portion of that item. Diana Flanagan will help too.
Implementation—timeline will be addressed by BE;
63
BE will consider Leadership
Resource allocation-BE and Don Ashmore
The Assessment schedule will be addressed by LP with Lynnette and Mike
Monhollon. Standardized testing and appropriateness to disciplines will need to be
considered.
The next meeting will be in about a month. BT and BE will begin working on
producing the document. The suggestion was for all on the committee to look at QEP
sites for other schools.
The limits of the narrative for SACS will be 75 pages. BE considers this should
be easy to get done. A practice QEP on retention was done not long ago. The materials
from that study are available to be a part of the QEP document. The ethics center is
ancillary to the QEP enterprise. That will be accompanying information.
With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:47 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 10/17/ 2006
The meeting was called to order by Bill Ellis at 9:36 AM in Room 120 of Moody Center.
Those present were: Don Ashmore, Jordy Bernhard, Lynnette Chambers, Lori Copeland,
Bill Ellis, Teresa Ellis, Diana Flanagan, Russell Leavenworth, Forest McMillan, Mike
Monhollon, Laura Pogue, Sharon Souter, Bill Tillman, Megan Van Cleave, and Lauren
Williams
Bill Ellis noted all the school reports are in, and a time table is roughed out for the Plan’s
reporting and implementation.
Bill Ellis distributed a first draft of the QEP narrative. With that, Teresa Ellis, Russell
Leavenworth, and Forrest McMillan contributed a selected bibliography of books and
articles and a statement demonstrating why this project is important. Shorter documents
need to be included with the final narrative as appendices.
Bill Ellis noted that Rex Tillerson, a CEO for EXXON, spoke at a recent gathering of the
Abilene Chamber of Commerce. Tillerson noted that the most important thing to say was
teaching ethics in business school.
Bill Ellis asked that everyone read the preliminary draft of the QEP narrative, and he will
continue to work on the executive summary. The Ethics Center will not be a part of the
QEP, but ancillary, so that paragraph is to be deleted.
64
A necessary Introduction to the narrative will be done by Bill Ellis. The development of
a website is also yet to be included.
A review of items coming into place for the narrative began. It was noted that the
Definition of Student Learning is ready for inclusion. Bill Tillman had prepared a first
draft of Best Practices.
Laura Pogue reviewed at length the goals for the QEP which she and her group have
developed. Diana Flanagan and Laura Pogue produced the goal statements. Lynnette
Chambers and Mike Monhollon reviewed assessment ideas. Lynnette’s definition of
student learning was used as a reference point. Attention was given to the matter of
including “professional” as qualifier of academic programs, as well, in these statements.
This inclusion will be made through the rest of this portion of the larger document On
Goal One, Initiative A, Attainment, the suggestion was made as to how to evaluate
faculty gatherings on ethics education. Feedback surveys were suggested as the
evaluative instruments. The Interdisciplinary Initiative will depend on how Logsdon
develops an ethics minor.
Goal 2 asks to incorporate ethics across the curriculum. Discussion followed as to how
this should be stated and implemented. Under Initiative A, the consideration was to use
selected courses as the qualifier. “Enhanced or incorporated” was suggested as a wording
change in the Goal 2 statement.
With Initiative, the decision was made to change the phrase from “increase knowledge”
to “demonstrate knowledge.” This change would consider student ethical competence no
matter the level of that competence.
Under the item, Measure Device, a pre/post test protocol can be developed. Bill Tillman
will work on a testing instrument. This testing can be discipline specific. The Nursing
School already has such. Others examples can be found.
With the review of Initiative C, discussion was given especially to the merits of external
testing instruments, especially those listed: DIT, which comes from the Center for the
Study of Ethical Development; MMO which has critical thinking questions; and the
NSSE bearing leadership emphases.
The HSU General Education testing has a section for the school’s own questions. There
are nine slots and fill in bubbles, which could be ethics related. The limit of nine might
not be helpful. If an area has an exam dealing with ethics education, the respective
school can continue to use it. Sharon Souter, Mike Monhollon and Lynnette Chambers
will look at which test (DIT/MMO) to use. They will make their best guess as to which
would work well for HSU. Turnaround, cost, and as many factors as possible will be
considered. Sharon suggested that capstone courses could be used as a point of
implementation of tests. Some kind of external evaluation is needed on whatever is
chosen.
65
Bill Ellis noted that courses will be defined, and will, by the way this plan is developing,
by necessity include case studies. This needs to be communicated cordially to the faculty
as individual faculty’s pedagogy may not mesh comfortably with case studies.
Goal 3 was discussed as service learning projects which can be developed in part or as a
whole of an ethics project. One possibility is that students would make a documented
response to the participation in a project. This response could be evaluated. Jordy
Bernhard noted the project immersion would enhance the whole program.
Laura Pogue suggested hour requirements per semester for each student which could
move toward service projects. Bill Ellis noted that a few programs at HSU do not have as
a natural part a service project dynamic.
Bill Ellis asked if the service project should be a requirement for graduation. Laura
Pogue noted the faculty would need to vote on such an idea. Lynnette Chambers noted a
service project element is part of the PE majors. The ethics dynamics will come in with
the curriculum; thus, an extracurricular element would affect that curriculum. So, “field
based” could be added as a qualifier. Jordy Bernhard suggested that the minor will need
to include a service based project.
Lynnette Chambers stated that if a discipline’s curriculum does not have a field based
element, it needs to be built it in. Internships could be included in this service project
idea. Music-business has such.
Laura Pogue suggested that with regard to the statement of Goal 3, the qualification
related to professional and pre-professional students should be changed to “will” from
“who” participate.
Mike Monhollon noted that the Business School does not have a service project element.
Bill Ellis suggested that schools could let the university neighborhood program
accompany such a development.
Megan Van Cleave and Lauren Williams drew attention to the matter that the Fitness and
Sport Science major has a point based element included.
Laura Pogue suggested that a student needs to demonstrate evidence that involvement
with an ethics component is done with a documented write up. The minimum hours of
the service project should be left with a specific course and school. Further, Laura added
that these comments/feedback will be edited and built into the next draft of her section.
Bill Ells asked Sharon Souter to add to the assessment group.
Bill Ellis directed that Bill Tillman give attention to the faculty development dimension
of the plan. For instance, what needs to be done and can be done with the HSU faculty?
BT will work with BE on the delineation.
66
Sharon Souter distributed a handout on how the QEP will enhance the learning of every
student’s learning experience.
The next meeting of QEP committee will be on Friday afternoon, November 10 at 2 pm.
With no further business being put forward, the meeting was adjourned at 10:41 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 11/10/06
The meeting was called to order by Bill Ellis at 1:34 PM in MC 108 E. Those present
were: Don Ashmore, Lori Copeland, Bill Ellis, Teresa Ellis, Diana Flanagan, Russell
Leavenworth, Forest McMillan, Mike Monhollon, Laura Pogue, Sharon Souter, and Bill
Tillman.
Prayer concerns were related, and we were led in prayer by BE.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved unanimously.
BE distributed a revised version of the developing QEP packet/narration. He drew
particular attention to the draft of the Conclusion prepared by BT and asked for revision
suggestions from the committee.
BE reported on the funding for the QEP. He has visited with Harold Preston. BE’s
suggestion is for summer faculty development necessary for the QEP implementation be
set in a retreat setting—possibly a resort. An outside expert would be brought in for
leadership regarding the respective areas. For example, an expert in education would be
brought to address the education faculty. BE is suggesting that to increase attendance,
the faculty be offered a $500 stipend. One location HP has suggested is The Cliffs; for, a
reasonable rate has been offered. Meals, lodging, necessary a-v material are available.
The total could be $1000 per person with a $5000 honorarium for the speaker. The
largest of the groups is the education faculty. The expectation is that BE and BT would
attend each of these. The maximum attendance would be about 40 persons.
With the retreat component in mind, BE will begin to project costs and necessary
budgeting to implement the QEP. Possibly respective schools will allocate funding
allocated to them to be arranged toward the retreat idea.
BE began leading the committee through the document-in-draft. The committee
discussed briefly the merits of the plan as titled.
TE initiated discussion regarding the importance of the QEP to the University Mission.
BE suggested the text of this section could be fuller but is certainly on track for what is
needed. LP noted there was nothing in the introduction regarding persons beyond
67
academia recognizing the need and importance of the QEP. BE suggested sections noting
the importance of the QEP for the university and for the society beyond the university.
BE asked that TE and her committee prepare some particularly helpful articles to be
appended to the document.
BE asked that LC add another paragraph, for visual support, after the listing under the
Definition of Student Learning.
BE asked that BT decide on which of the Best Practices listed might be best for HSU.
How will these fit HSU’s plan best? BE asked that another paragraph be written to
answer that question.
LP was asked that her committee begin working on the Goals section to turn the current
format to narrative. LP noted that the current hand-out reflected changes suggested in the
last committee meeting. From sub-committee discussion, the DIT testing instrument will
be used in that the MMO will not be developed in time for HSU use. The final narrative
will reflect that the committee has reviewed other instruments and can provide rationale
why the usage of the final choice. For the next draft the phrase “by random selection”
under Initiative C, Measure Device, i, will be deleted. The idea of a discipline-specific
project with an external evaluator will be removed from the same section.
A QEP council will be appointed by the President. This entity will continue
coordination, monitoring, and assessment of the implementation of the QEP. BE will
work on the wording of the job description of what the council does. Hereafter “QEP
Committee” nomenclature will become QEP Council. The Assessment Plan will be
reworded to include the development of a QEP council as one of the assessing goals.
Possibly another goal may be developed regarding extra-curricular matters, as stated in
the Definition of Student Learning, but falling specifically under the Dean of Students
office, which would require an accompanying assessment statement. These elements
could be descriptive of activities involved with students as they arrived on campus,
through BSM, the dorms, and in other student activity areas under FM’s office. If not
another goal statement, then include under Goal 3.
With assessment, LP reviewed the development of the current-draft statements. BE
suggested that “faculty meetings” be more specifically qualified as to the nature of the
group meeting. The construction, ownership, and location of minutes of these meetings
were discussed.
With I, D, BE noted that course development would likely be housed with the envisioned
ethics minor. BE’s idea is that perhaps nine hours would be offered through Logsdon,
nine other hours (including an interdisciplinary ethics course), and a course in business
ethics or bio-ethics would be offered from other university schools. The interdisciplinary
course would be housed with Logsdon.
68
LP reviewed Assessing Goal 2 with the larger committee. A and B sections can be
initiated in the summer workshops. The plan for such curriculum development will go to
the respective dean, the QEP Director, and the Provost.
With II, C, reporting will be needed. LP will draw up a sample report, which will be
collected by the QEP Council and Provost.
Under II, D, “random selection” will be deleted. As well, D, b will be deleted.
Concerning III, a sample list will be developed regarding the kinds of field based projects
which might be attempted. Discussion followed with ideas of how FM’s extra-curricular
kinds of experiences can be included with this III. These would form reinforcement
activities for classroom learning. Kinds of assessment of such activities were also
discussed. MM suggested that the goals be developed in a progressive fashion which
demonstrates the unfolding of the plan.
BE suggested that he and BT discuss further the development of the ethics minor.
Assessment on that would entail whatever assessment is applied to any minor. This
minor would be considered under a LP sub-committee goal to be developed.
Also, BE and BT will work on ethics center ancillary projects.
The next meeting of the QEP committee will be researched and an announcement will
come from BE.
With no further business being put forward, the meting was adjourned at 2:56 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 12/07/06
The meeting was called to order by Bill Ellis at 9:36 AM in the Technology Room in
Richardson Library. Those present were: Don Ashmore, Jody Bernhard, Lori Copeland,
Bill Ellis, Teresa Ellis, Russell Leavenworth, Mike Monhollon, Laura Pogue, Sharon
Souter, Bill Tillman, and Lauren Williams
We were opened in prayer by Mike Monhollon after prayer concerns were raised.
Minutes from the previous meeting were distributed for review with one need for
correction raised—last sentence, “meting” to be changed to “meeting.”
BE distributed the budget related to the summer retreats, especially. BE and DA worked
on this budget statement. The facilities, The Cliffs at Possum Kingdom, will be
$500/participant for two days’ room and board. The faculty will each receive a stipend of
$500. Recreation time will be included in the schedule. Two faculty presenters will be
69
considered. BT will be included in the coordination of these retreats. A guest lecturer
will be invited. An account in ensuing years will be set up with $10,000. The budget
needs to express an additional $3000 for mileage reimbursement. An item also needs to
be included to cover examinations. A miscellaneous category will also be included to
cover possible faculty groups meeting on Saturdays, etc. and their meals, eg. BE’s
contention is that the SACS will recognize that this amount of money will be sufficient
and understand HSU’s seriousness regarding the project. Other review will likely follow
regarding the budget.
Scheduling of the retreat will be during one of the latter two weekends just before the fall
semester begins. This will give the respective faculties a year for planning and
implementation of their ethics emphases.
Schools attending the retreat will be criminal justice and social work from the liberal arts
school. In Holland, everyone but math will be included for the retreat. Education will
have every one. Church music, music business, music education, and art/music will
represent the Music School. The university portion of Logsdon will be attending.
The QEP document was reviewed. A chart will be prepared to reflect the schedule and
budgetary considerations. TE’s committee is still working on the introduction. LC
reported on some minor changes regarding the Definition of Student Learning.
Discussion followed regarding wording of that portion of the document. “Attitudes” in
the third line will be changed to “perspectives.”
The goals were given particular attention. LP led the group through the “Goals of the
QEP” section. The current version is the result of LP moving earlier outline statements
into narrative form. Attention was drawn to Initiative C in Goal 1 that “The Director of
the QEP Council will be a faculty member and will be named by the President and will
report to the Provost.” The Council will be considered an Ad Hoc committee assignment
made by the Provost.
LP gave special attention to the testing instruments considered and suggested for
evaluation of students’ levels of learning in ethics. Further narrative will be developed
explaining why and how the DIT-2 will be used.
Review of the Assessment Plan followed. The narrative described the flow of the
development of assessment plans with respective schools, as these will become part of
the annual IEC report, and evaluation by the QEP Council. It was noted that the QEP
Council will be responsible for developing the nine ethics-centric questions added to the
DIT-2. LP will be developing further narrative for the Initiative C section.
LP noted her sub-committee still needed to develop portions of this section regarding
student volunteer hours and projects. BE reflected that the SACS review group will find
this section to be well considered and functional.
70
LC raised the matter of the Burro’s Mental Measurements instrument, available on-line
but must be purchased. The instrument reflects validation of testing examinations.
BE and RL will work further on the chart matters. BE will work on the whole document
during the holiday break. His hope is that into January, the narrative will be completed.
With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:32 AM. The next meeting
time and place will be in January and will be announced from BE’s office.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
HSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee Minutes, 1/19/07
The meeting was called to order by Bill Ellis at 1:33 PM in MC 120. Those present
were: Lynnette Chambers, Bill Ellis, Teresa Ellis, Diana Flanagan, Russell Leavenworth,
Forest McMillan, Mike Monhollon, Laura Pogue, Bill Tillman, Megan Van Cleave, and
Lauren Williams
BE distributed copies of the QEP with elements discussed and edited to this point. Then,
he distributed a Table of Contents revision sent out by SACS. HSU will adapt the new
Table of Contents to the table of contents worked upon to this point. Under Introduction
#1, #3 will be revised with additional material drawn from the new Table of Contents
from SACS. A “Summary of Student Learning Outcome Goals” will reflect a summation
of the HSU goals stated later in the HSU plan.
BT has written two paragraphs which BE has added under the III: “Literature Review
and Best Practices.” BE added a paragraph from narrative which LP had developed.
A new paragraph introduces the Timeline section. The VI: Organizational Structure is
new for the HSU table of contents. There will be further material added. For instance,
the QEP will become the Ethics Education Council. This title will work under a bigger
umbrella later. BT will serve as the chair of that council.
The Budget item is presented as an appendix with details reviewing the QEP work.
In IX, Ancillary Projects will include the Ethics Institute idea. Also, informal discussions
occurring among the faculty will be related in principle regarding bringing ethics
education into the larger curriculum. The QEP is shown as obviously leading us to other
kinds of conversations across the campus.
BE asked the committee to do a careful reading of the document looking for not only
semantic matters but also content which reflects the new Table of Contents.
A relatively detailed review was made by the committee of the text of the narrative.
Forest McMillan gave a detailed synopsis regarding Goal 2.
71
Attention was given to the VI item, Organizational Structure. Editorial suggestions were
made from the committee. Consideration was given to student participation on the Ethics
Education Council. FM will be given responsibility to appoint a student who can
represent the student body on the Council.
Review was made of the summer workshops. Budget itemization, participants
(respective schools, etc.), faculty stipends, stipends for presenters and outside lecturer.
Publications and other set up costs are listed as well. Appendix K, currently p. 59,
demonstrates the projected budget for the summer retreats. It was noted an outside
evaluator will be included with the last year. Possibly that could be the first year lecturer
or one of those who comes with the SACS review committee.
LP, with regard to goals and assessment (VIII), noted assessment records will be kept
with the Provost’s office. The Council will report annually to the Provost and the Provost
will report to the President annually. FM elaborated upon the assessment of Goal 2.
Some procedures are already in place; others will be developed to appropriately evaluate
student progress with regard to this goal. Procedures already in the Student Handbook
will be included with the QEP report. Assessment data moving through FM’s office will
be reported to the Education Council. LP continued the assessment conversation and
reviewed Goal 3 as it now reads. The role of the Ethics Education Council was
discussed, particularly with regard to timely, appropriate response to assessment
concerns. The Council will coordinate/monitor the DIT evaluation instrument.
The Appendices came under review. Rationale for those were provided by BE.
Description of content was given in detail in some cases. For example, the Appendix
relating library holdings will get further examination by TE. As well, the summer
workshop was given review.
BE wants to send the report to SACS no later than February 7, a week earlier than their
deadline calls for. The committee’s report will be sent out to the faculty fyi a week or so
before that deadline. BE asked the committee to continue editorial reading and get such
details to him as quickly as possible.
With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:53 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Tillman
72
Appendix I: Summer Ethics Education Faculty Development Workshops
(Sample schedule, Year 2008, is for faculties of the Patty Hanks Shelton
School of Nursing and of the Kelley College of Business)
Goals:
By the end of the workshop each faculty person will be thinking and working
toward:
1) finding the "good" in one's discipline and recognizing ways such virtues and
character development have been internalized;
2) considering appropriate pedagogies for teaching value concepts;
3) becoming more adept at assisting students in applying their sense of values
in their lives and vocational pursuits.
Tentative Schedule of Events:
First Day
1:00-1:20 pm--welcome and purposes of Workshop--Bill Ellis
1:30-2:15 pm--teaching virtue, the good, and character development in context
(the larger context of liberal arts education to the context of HSU)—Bill Tillman
2:20-2:50 pm--teaching out of who you/we are--so who are you/we?—Bill Tillman
3:00-4:00 pm--ethics and the professions (outside speaker who will develop the
framework of ethical perspectives implied in the disciplines explored in a
university setting)
4:15-5:15 pm--case study review by nursing school and how the case would be
used (response and dialogue with the larger group)
6:00-6:45 pm--dinner
7:00-8:30 pm--ethics education and nursing (panel dialogue between outside
speaker and especially selected nursing faculty, moderated by Bill Tillman)
Second Day
8:00-8:45 am--breakfast
9:00-10:00 am--ethical theories and the professions
10:00-10:30 am--break
10:30-12:00--case study review by business school and how the case would be
used, response/dialogue with the larger group
12:00-1:00 pm--lunch
1:00-2:00 pm--ethics education and business (panel dialogue between outside
speaker and especially selected business faculty, moderated by Bill Tillman)
2:15-3:15 pm--merging theory and practice (outside speaker)
R and R
6:00-6:45 pm--dinner
7:00-8:30 pm--ethics and education at HSU (exploring the teaching of ethics with
resources at HSU, moderated by Bill Tillman)
73
Third Day
8:00-8:45 am--breakfast
9:00-10:00--breakout sessions with respective schools reviewing how they have
emphasized ethics heretofore and tentative plans for the future
10:15-10:45--report back from breakout sessions
11:00-12:00--consolidating efforts toward the new academic year--suggestions
from the outside speaker—assessment survey
12:00--lunch and departure
74
Appendix J: QEP Timeline
75
QEP Timeline
Activity/Event/Meeting
2004
1
2
1
SACS Orientation Meeting in
Atlanta, Georgia

2
Deans Retreat

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
74
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Meetings of the Vice
Presidents with Area
Personnel
Attended Annual SACS
Conference
Input on Proposed QEP
Topics
Academic Committee Meeting
on QEP Topic Selection
Board of Trustees Meeting on
QEP Topic Selection
Appointment of QEP Proposal
Selection Committee
Faculty Meeting on QEP Topic
Selection
Campus Communications
Council Meeting on QEP
Topic Selection
Administrative Staff Council
Meeting on QEP Topic
Selection
Student Congress Meeting on
QEP Topic Selection
Faculty Meeting on QEP Topic
Selection
Deans Council Retreat on
QEP Topic Selection
Provost Attends SACS
Enhancing Student Learning
Conference
Faculty Retreat with Sessions
on QEP Topic Selection
Topic Endorsed during
Administrative Retreat
Topic Endorsed by University
Faculty
Topic Endorsed by Board of
Trustees
Selected Faculty Attend SACS
Conference
Presentation to University
Staff
QEP Steering Committee
Appointed and QEP Writing
Begun
3
2005
4
1
2
3
2006
4
















1
2
3
2007
4
1
2
3
2008
4
1
2
3
2009
4
1
2
3
2010
4
1
2
3
2011
4
1
2
3
2012
4
1
2
3
4
2004
QEP Timeline (Continued)
Activity/Event/Meeting
23
24
Provost Attends Center for
Academic Integrity
Conference
Selected
Faculty/Administrators Attend
SACS Conference
1
2
3
2005
4
1
2
3
2006
4
1
2
3
2007
4
1

26
SACS On-site Review
Committee on Campus

27
SACS Vote on QEP
29
30
31
32
75
33
34
35
36
37
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3

QEP Submitted to SACS
28
3
2009

25
Ethics Education Council
Appointed
Ethics Education Council
Begins Discussion with
Schools/Colleges
Logsdon School of Theology
Develops Preliminary
Proposal Ethics Minor
Patty Hanks School of Nursing
and Kelley College of
Business Review and Analyze
Current Curriculum
Summer Ethics Education
Faculty Development
Workshop for Nursing and
Business
Shelton School of Nursing and
Kelley College of Business
Develop or Redesign
Curriculum
Holland School of Sciences
and Mathematics and the
Parker College of Liberal Arts
Review and Analyze of
Current Curriculum
Summer Ethics Education
Faculty Development
Workshop Sciences and
Mathematics and Liberal Arts
Holland School of Sciences
and Mathematics and Parker
College of Liberal Arts
Develop or Redesign
Curriculum
The Irvin School of Education
and the School of Music
Review and Analyze Current
Curriculum
2
2008



2010
4
1
2
3
2011
4
1
2
3
2012
4
1
2
3
4
2004
QEP Timeline (Continued)
Activity/Event/Meeting
38
39
40
41
42
43
76
44
Summer Ethics Education
Faculty Development
Workshop for Education and
Music and Fine Arts
Faculties of the Irvin School of
Education and the School of
Music Develop or Redesign
Curriculum
The Logsdon School of
Theology Review and Analyze
of Current Curriculum
Summer Ethics Education
Faculty Development
Workshop for the Logsdon
School of Theology
The Faculty of the Logsdon
School of Theology Develop
or Redesign Curriculum
University-wide Faculty
Summer Retreat to Discuss
and Evaluate Ethics Education
within the Professional and
Pre-professional Programs
The University will prepare a
five-year report on the QEP for
SACS
1
2
3
2005
4
1
2
3
2006
4
1
2
3
2007
4
1
2
3
2008
4
1
2
3
2009
4
1
2
3
2010
4
1
2
3
2011
4
1
2
3
2012
4
1
2




Indicates Event
Indicates Ongoing Activities
3
1
Appendix K: Resume of Dr. William Morris Tillman, Jr.
Resume of William Morris Tillman, Jr.
T.B. Maston Professor of Christian Ethics
Hardin-Simmons University
Abilene, Texas
________________________________________________________________________
Education:
Southeastern State College, (now Southeastern Oklahoma State University), Durant, Oklahoma,
B.S. Ed., 1968; M.Ed., 1972
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, M.Div., 1974; Ph.D., 1978
Advanced Study: University of Texas at Arlington, 1983, Economic Institute for
Educators; Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1987-88, Department of Religious Studies
Other certification: Conflict Resolution and Mediation certification, in compliance with Texas
Mediation Trainer Roundtable Standards, 1998; Intentional Interim Training, Baptist
General Convention of Texas, 2001
Administrative:
Coordinator of Theological Education Committee, Christian Education Coordinating
Board, Baptist General Convention of Texas, 1998-2000.
Director of Research and Editorial Services, Christian Life Commission, Southern Baptist
Convention, 1977-81
Director, Southwestern Seminary in Southeast Texas, (SET) Houston, Texas, 1987-88
School of Theology Representative, Self-Study Steering Committee, Southwestern
Seminary, 1989-91
Managing Editor, Southwestern Journal of Theology, 1990-1997, Journal Board, 1984-90
Board Member, Christian Life Commission, Baptist General Convention of Texas, 19841990
Board Member, Drug Prevention Resources (Formerly Texas Alcohol and Narcotics
Education, Inc.) Board, 1989-1997
Chair, Department of Christian ethics, Southwestern Seminary, 1984-85, 1986-87, 19881997
Ethics Committee, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas, 1994-2000
Bioethics Committee, Hendrick Medical Center, Abilene, Texas, 2001-present
Texas Baptists Committed, Board of Directors, 2001-2005
Faculty Sponsor, Hardin Simmons University Habitat for Humanity chapter, 2001-present
Christian Life Commission, Board of Consultants, 2001-present
Christian Ethics Commission and Evangelism and Missions Commission, Baptist World
77
Alliance, 2001-present
Board, Habitat for Humanity, Abilene, Texas chapter, 2002-present; Board Chair, 2007
Academic:
T. B. Maston Professor of Christian ethics, Logsdon School of Theology, HardinSimmons University, Abilene, Texas, 2000-present
Associate Professor of Christian ethics, Southwestern Seminary, 1990-1997
Assistant Professor of Christian ethics, Southwestern Seminary, 1981-90
Visiting Faculty, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Spring,
1997
Visiting Professor, California Baptist College, Riverside, California,
Summer, 1990
Ph.D. Teaching Fellow, Southwestern Seminary, 1976-77
Biology and Chemistry Teacher, McAlester High School, McAlester, Oklahoma, 196872
Professional Ministry Experience:
Part-time pastor, Oklahoma, 1965-1972
Part-time minister of music, Hermitage, Tennessee, 1977-81
Theologian-in-Residence, Houston, Texas, 1987-88
Publications:
Managing Editor, LIGHT, Christian Life Commission, SBC, 1977-81
Managing Editor, Southwestern Journal of Theology, 1990-1997
Editorial Review for Bible Study for Texas, 1998-present
Books:
The Bible and Family Relations, --collaborated with T.B. Maston. Broadman
Press, 1983
Christian Ethics: A Primer, with Timothy D. Gilbert, Broadman Press, 1986
Perspectives on Applied Christianity: Essays in Honor of T. B. Maston, editor,
Mercer Press, 1986
Issues Facing Southern Baptists, Equipping Center Module, Church Training
Department, 1986
Chapter, "Society in Culture," Planning Resource for the Long Range Planning
Guide, BGCT, 1987
Understanding Christian Ethics, editor/contributor, Broadman Press, 1988
Christian Ethics Annotations, Disciple's Study Bible, Holman, 1988
Introduction to Christian Ethics: Study Guide, Seminary External Education
Division of the Southern Baptist Seminaries, 1988
AIDS: A Christian Response, Convention Press, 1990
Christian Ethics entries The Family Worship Bible, Holman, 1991
Chapter, "Religious Liberty," Has Our Theology Changed:
78
Southern Baptist
Thought Since 1845, Paul A. Basden editor, Broadman & Holman, 1994
CODEX, Fort Worth, 1998, self-published
Trees in Season, Fort Worth, 1999, self-published
Plague and Darkness, Fort Worth, 2000, self-published
Chapter, “T. B. Maston: Mentor to Southern Baptist Prophets,” in Twentieth
Century Shapers of Baptist Social Ethics, eds. Larry McSwain and Lloyd Allen,
forthcoming.
Baptist Prophets: Their Lives and Contributions, Baptist History and Heritage
Society, 2006.
Chapter, “Baptists and Race and the Turn toward Racial Inclusion: 1955,” in
Turning Points in Baptist History, ed. Walter Shurden and Michael
Williams, Mercer University Press, 2007.
Congregational Curriculum Development:
Curriculum writer for Baptist Adult, Baptist Young Adults, Baptist Youth, Single Adult
Bible Study, Advanced Bible Study, BSSB, 1983-93; Learner's Study Guide, Smyth &
Helwys, 1994; Bible Study for Texas, 2000-04.
Articles and Reviews:
More than 200 in Baptist History and Heritage, Baptist Bulletin Service, Church
Administration Magazine, Church Training Magazine, Homelife, LIGHT, Quarterly
Review, Review and Expositor, Search, Southwestern Journal of Theology, Texas
Baptist Leadership, Window , and others.
Addresses/Conferences/Lectures/Seminars: More than forty such presentations in several states
79
Appendix L: QEP Five-Year Projected Budget
Table 2: QEP Five-Year Projected Budget
Year One
2008
Summer Workshops
Travel for Faculty
Workshop Facilities
Faculty Stipends for Workshops
Faculty Presenter Stipends
Travel and Honorarium for Guest Lecturers
Miscellaneous (Assessment, Travel, S & O)
University Faculty Retreat
Travel and Honorarium for Outside Evaluator
Total Expenses
$
3,600
18,500
16,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
Year Two
2009
$
3,000
15,500
13,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
Year Three
2010
$
3,200
16,500
14,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
Year Four
2011
$
1,800
9,500
7,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
Year Five
2012
$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,000
10,000
5,000
$ 57,100
$ 50,500
$ 52,700
$ 32,300
$ 23,000
Totals
$ 11,600
60,000
50,000
16,000
20,000
43,000
10,000
5,000
$ 215,600
80
Appendix M: Review of the Defining Issues Test
Review of the Defining Issues Test by ROSEMARYE. SU1TON, Associate Professor of Education, Cleveland State
University, Cleveland, OH:
The Defining Issues Test (DIT) is an objective test of moral judgement [sic] derived from Kohlberg's theory of
moral development. Traditionally, assessment of stages derived from cognitive development theories, like
Kohlberg's, involves a clinical interview in which the subject is presented with a situation or dilemma and asked to
make a decision and give a rationale for that decision. The scoring depends predominantly on the nature of the explanation. This kind of assessment is difficult to perform because it requires trained interviewers, is time consuming,
expensive, and has been especially difficult with respect to Kohlberg's theory because the criteria for scoring were
not clear and changed over time. There is evidence that it also tends to underestimate an individual's developmental
level because it requires the subject to provide a clear rationale of her or his thinking.
The DIT is an easy-to-use and practical application of this technique. Six dilemmas that are the same or similar to
those used in Kohlberg's interview schedule, are printed on the page, along with 12 questions. Subjects are asked to
rate how important each question is in making a decision, what their decision is, and to rank the four most important
questions. From the test the researcher gains a P score (percentage of principled thinking) and a D score (a composite
needing computer scoring to calculate), as well as checks for consistency and the number of meaningless items the
subject checks. These items are written as lofty and pretentious sounding but are meaningless. Too high a score
indicates that the subject does not understand test directions. The test requires a reading age of approximately 12-13
years.
The manual contains extensive information on the reliability, validity, and norms for the test. These data appear to
have been collected carefully, and are appropriate for the stated purpose.
RELIABILITY. The reliability of the DIT is good. Test-retest correlations range from .71 to .82 for the P index,
and .67 to .92 for the D index. For a shorter three-story test version test-retest correlations range from .58 to .77 for
the P index, and .63 to .83for the D index. The values for Cronbach's alpha are .77 for the P score and .79 for the D
score. Alpha values for the shorter version are .76 for the P score and .71 for the D score.
VALIDITY. To establish criterion-group validity, mean scores for graduate students in moral philosophy and
political science, college students, senior high school students, and ninth grade students were compared. Significant
differences were found among the groups. Any developmental measure should show longitudinal change in the
direction of higher stages. Significant upward trends over 6 years and four testings (F = 17.6, P <.0001) for the P
score are reported. Research has indicated that individuals are unable to fake good on the DIT. Additional
information in the manual may be found on validation studies related to experimental enhancement, and
multidimensional scaling and latent
trait analysis.
.
NORMATIVE DATA. Normative data provided in . the manual are very extensive. They are broken : down by educational
level: junior high, high school, college, professional school and graduates, and nonstudent adults. Scores on the DIT are
positively correlated with education, IQ, and age (for student groups). No consistent relationship has been found
with DIT scores and gender, socioeconomic status, and college major. The majority of the normative examples were
drawn from the midwest and no information is provided about ethnic differences. In a recent book Rest (1986)
discusses non-U.S. cross-cultural comparisons from 15 cultures.
The problems with this test are associated with its age. Two of the dilemmas .in the test involve real issues
surrounding the Vietnam war. To high school and college students these are obviously not completely hypothetical
dilemmas, but they are not part of their personal memory (or, perhaps, interest). One dilemma is the classic case of
whether Heinz should steal to get money for drugs to save his wife's life. This dilemma has been summarized and
reprinted so widely that it may be difficult to find a group of naive college graduates, or even undergraduates. The
lack of norms and discussion of moral reasoning for U.S. ethnic minority groups, always a serious omission, appears
more glaring in the 1990s because of the increased number of minorities in the country. Finally, cognitive
developmental theory, which assumes that a stage reflects a level of reasoning that can be generalized across
situations and content, is seriously challenged with recent work. In particular, researchers are more likely to assume
that reasoning or problem solving is domain specific. Although the test developer, Rest, takes a "soft" stage position,
his test gives a summary score of principled thinking, not separate scores within domains. In contrast, separate moral
developmental histories have been proposed in rights versus conventional rules (Turiel, 1983) or friendship, justice,
fairness, obedience and authority, and social rules and conventions (Damon, 1977). However, easy-to-use tests are
not, to my knowledge, available for these newer approaches.
In summary, in many aspects this test is a model of instrument development in social sciences. It has good
psychometric properties, has a full and informative manual, is easy to administer, is inexpensive, and was based on an
established theory. There are a wealth of data on the use of the DIT including two detailed books by Rest (Rest, 1979,
1986). However, the test is dated and so should be used with caution, especially with ethnically diverse groups.
REVIEWER'S REFERENCES
Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jassey-Bass.
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Turie!, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in theory and research. New York: Praeger Press.
81
Review of the Defining Issues Test by BERT W. WESTBROOK, Professor of Psychology, and K. DENISE BANE,
Graduate Student, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC:
The Defining Issues Test (DIT) was designed to measure an individual's level of moral reasoning or moral
judgment. Moral judgment is purportedly one component of the construct of morality.
The DIT yields several different scores for each respondent. The most important scores are the stage scores and "P"
scores. Stage scores indicate different levels of moral reasoning. The stages are enumerated 2, 3, 4 5a, 5b, and 6.
Stage 2 represents the least mature response. Stage 6 represents the most mature response. The Principled morality
score, or "P" score, is the sum of Stages 5a, 5b, and 6. It indicates the relative importance an individual gives to
"principled moral considerations in making a decision about moral dilemmas" (manual, p. 5.2).
The DIT comprises six problem stories. Each problem story describes a "social problem." For each social problem
story, the respondent is asked to indicate his or her recommendation for what a person should do. Next, the respondent
is given a list of 12 statements of issues about the story and is asked to indicate the extent to which the issue is
important in making a decision. The respondent is asked to rank what he or she considers to be the four most
important issues in order of importance. These four most important items are the only items that enter into the scoring.
The manual does not discuss the source of the items or the design of the DIT, nor does it explain
how the items were classified into the different stages of moral reasoning. Also, the manual does not provide
justification for the weighting of the items in terms of degree of maturity of moral reasoning. Instead, it provides a
brief discussion of how the DIT stages differ from Kohlberg's moral reasoning stages. It also refers the reader to a
more detailed discussion in a book (Rest, 1979) published by the author.
There are four possible means of scoring the test: (a) It may be hand scored, (b) it may be computer scored by the
user, (c) it may be computer scored by mailing one's data to the Center for the Study of Ethical Development, or (d)
one may soon be able to use computer-scoring sheets currently under development.
The hand-scoring procedure can be described as involved. The manual provides detailed instructions for scoring but
the opportunity for clerical error is considerable. The manual does not present data from studies indicating the
accuracy of scoring.
The manual does not present item analysis data for any of the items. Some questions about the items can be raised.
To what extent do moral philosophers endorse the individual items? What is the relation between importance ratings of
the items and P scores? What is the relation between age of respondent and item rating of importance?
Apparently, the author has relied heavily upon the data that have been collected by others. Unfortunately, such a
procedure may compromise the integrity of the data, inasmuch as it is impossible to verity the accuracy of the data and
the test administration.
The manual provides norm tables presenting the P scores for junior high, high school, college, graduate school
students, and adults. On the average, graduate school students score higher than college students, who score higher
than high school students, who score higher than junior high students. However, one of the problems with presenting
norms in this manner is that it assumes that there are no meaningful differences between the scores of 9th and 12th
grade students, between college freshmen and college seniors, and between first year graduate students and third year
graduate students, etc. Pooling data from different levels tends to spuriously inflate the variability of the scores as
well. The effect of all this is that we really do not have norms and statistics for 9th graders, 10 graders, etc., and we
do not have means and standard deviation estimates for each grade separately.
The validity evidence presented in the manual does not provide sufficient details of the many studies that are cited
in the manual. Relying heavily upon his book (Rest, 1979), the author chose merely to ((outline the logic of our
building a case for validity and the major findings" (manual, p. 6.1). However, these major findings are not clearly
presented. Although a wide variety of different kinds of evidence are presented, they are not well described. The
validation strategy is not explained in the manual, and practically none of the typical descriptive statistical and
correlational tables are included.
Under the subheading, "Face validity," the Guide for the Defining Issues Test, a companion to the manual, states
that the DIT "does not only ask what line of action the subject favors (i.e., to steal or not to steal a drug), but is
concerned with a subject's reasons behind the choice" (Center' for the Study of Ethical Development, 1987, p. 19).
Although the manual claims the DIT task "obviously" involves making judgments about moral problems, no empirical evidence is provided to support this statement.
To provide support for "Criterion-group validity," the author describes the different groups being contrasted (Ph.D.
philosophy students, college, high school, and ninth grade students) but does not provide the necessary details of the
studies (i.e., sample sizes and relevant mean scores for the different groups). The manual states that the differences
were "highly significant" (manual, p. 6.5), but without providing the necessary statistics, this is not meaningful.
The manual states that the 1979 book reports significant changes in the direction of "higher stages" for subjects
who are retested over 4 years at three testings; this is referred to as "Longitudinal change validity," but the relevant
statistical data are not presented; nor does it state the length of the intervals between tests or the sample sizes.
Under the subheading, "Convergent-divergent correlational validity," the Guide states the DIT correlates about .50
(on the average) with "variables which are theoretically more similar to moral judgment" (Center for the Study of
Ethical Development, 1987, p. 23); and it correlates .3.6 (on the average) with variables that are ((theoretically dissimilar" (Center for the Study of Ethical Development, 1987, p. 23), such as measures of cognitive development and
intelligence. Raw data and details of these studies, such as which tests were used, are not presented in the Guide or
manual.
To provide support for what Anastasi (1988) calls ((experimental interventions," the manual refers the reader to a
82
study which found that a logic class moved subjects up on a logic test but not on the DIT, whereas an ethics class
moved subjects up on the DIT but not on the logic test. Data for this study are not presented in the manual.
Under the heading "Validation through experimental manipulation of test taking sets," the author describes a
study testing the DIT's susceptibility to faking. No difference was found between scores of subjects responding
normally and those of subjects asked to fake good. The author claims this is a positive result because it suggests that
“under usual conditions, subjects are giving their best notions of the highest principles of justice” (manual, p. 6.6).
However, is it possible that respondents' “best notions” are what is socially desirable?
The Guide presents a table showing the test-retest correlation for the six-story DIT. The highest test-retest
reliability coefficient for the P score is reported to be .82 for Sample A, based upon "123 subjects pooled together
from various moral education projects" (Guide, p. 19). However, the .82 value is practically meaningless because the
interval between testing is so variable (1 week to 5 months), the range in age is so great (16 to 56), and the
educational background is so diverse (junior high to graduate school). These kinds of data do not provide a basis for
making statements about the validity of the DIT with specific populations such as ninth graders tested over a 2-week
period.
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing stipulate that test publishers “should provide enough
information for a qualified user or a reviewer of a test to evaluate the appropriateness and technical adequacy of the
test" (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on
Measurement in Education, 1985, p. 35). The manual for the DIT points out that “the DIT is the most widely used
instrument of moral judgment and the best documented in terms of reliability and validity” (manual, p. ii). However,
we cannot judge the technical adequacy of the D IT on the basis of information in the manual and the Guide for the
Defining Issues Test. In the opinion of the reviewers, the intent of the Standards has not been satisfied by the
developer of the DIT. Future revision of the DIT should include a revised technical manual that includes detailed
technical data to support the reliability and validity of the DIT.
REVIEWER'S REFERENCES
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. American Educational
Research Association,
American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Inc.
Center for the Study of Ethical Development. (1987). Guide for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: Center for the Study of
Ethical Development. .
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
83
Appendix N: QEP Assessment Timeline
Goal 1
Initiative A
Required: 1. written documentation of time, place, attendance, and subject of
faculty discussions regarding ethical issues or pedagogy
2. Feedback Survey of participants
3. Examination of Feedback Surveys by the university Provost and
members of the Ethics Education Council.
Location: housed in the school or college hosting the discussion.
Initiative B
Required: documentation of course development meetings, of course proposal
consideration beyond the development stage, of syllabus and actual
course offering post approval as well as number of students enrolled,
different disciplines involved in the teaching of each of these courses,
and specific modes of participation by each of these disciplines.
Location: the Logsdon School of Theology in conjunction with records concerning
the development of the minor in ethics.
Initiative C
Required: 1) Presidential appointment of Dr. Bill Tillman as the Chair of the
Ethics Education Council
2) appropriate dean in consultation with the university Provost appoint
a representative from each of the schools and colleges
3) a student representative appointed by the Dean of Students in
consultation with the Provost.
Location: Provost’s office.
Goal 2
Initiative A
Required: 1) record of each training session, record of those attending.
Location: Dean of Students office.
Initiative B
Required: 1) council of sponsors and students selected by SVPSD, Dean of
Students, or their representatives
2) create charter and roster of the council
3) record of review by SVPSD and the Dean of any decisions made
by the council regarding ethical questions regarding student
behavior
4) development and administration of surveys to be administered to
groups and persons who regularly observe the behavior of students
during their activities
5) record of any action to be taken as a result of the surveys and an
annual report given to the Ethics Education Council
84
Location: Dean of Students office.
Goal 3
Initiative A.
Required: 1) comprehensive curriculum review with documentation identifying
ethics curriculum in existing courses for pre-professional and
professional programs and identifying those programs with little or
no current ethics components.
2) individual schools and colleges developing plans for addressing the
enhancement or incorporation of ethics into the curriculum of each
pre-professional and professional program in that school or college.
3) record of these plans as additional section on each area’s annual
Institutional Effectiveness Committee [IEC] report
4) submit IEC report to the appropriate school or college dean, the
Ethics Education Council, and the university Provost.
5) response of Ethics Education Council where appropriate.
Location: School/College dean, Chair of the EEC, and/or Provost’s office
Initiative B
Required: 1) written record of the by each pre-professional and
professional undergraduate of a discipline-specific project requiring
demonstration of knowledge in ethical philosophy
2) each discipline to determine its own measuring device for this
project
3) record in IEC report:
a) assessment strategy chosen by discipline
b) annual report of the students’ demonstration of knowledge
reflected in these projects
c) discipline’s evaluation of overall demonstration results
d) any resulting curriculum changes.
4) submit IEC Report to the appropriate school or college dean, the
Ethics Education Council, and the university Provost.
5) response of Ethics Education Council where appropriate
Location: School/College dean, Chair of the EEC, and/or Provost’s office
Initiative C
Required: 1) pre-professional and professional students to take the Defining
Issues Test 2 [DIT-2] as part of the discipline’s capstone course or
a course specified by the discipline.
2) Ethics Education Council develop at least nine ethics-centric
questions for incorporation into the research sections of the College
Assessment of Academic Proficiency [CAAP] and the College Basic
Academic Subjects Examination [CBASE] already given as part of
HSU’s general education testing during the senior year. These
supplementary questions are to include queries regarding extracurricular and field-based reinforcement of ethics curriculum.
85
3) Results made available to all of the participating pre-professional
and professional programs, the Ethics Education Council, university
administration, and the student test takers.
4) record consideration of those results and any action implemented in
response to that consideration annual IEC report under the new
QEP
5) submit copies of IEC report to the appropriate school or college
dean, the Ethics Education Council, and the university Provost.
6) Ethics Education Council will respond where appropriate.
Location: School/College dean, Chair of the EEC, and/or Provost’s office
Initiative D
Required: 1) documentation of those students participating in field-based learning
within pre-professional and professional courses
2) documentation of each pre-professional and professional student’s
completion of a designated feedback opportunity, preferably written
reflection or individual presentation.
3) faculty within each involved discipline regularly review student
response
4) report this evaluation and action resulting in the QEP section of the
IEC report.
5) submit copies of IEC report to the appropriate school or college
dean, the Ethics Education Council, and the university Provost.
6) Ethics Education Council will respond where appropriate
Location: School/College dean, Chair of the EEC, and/or Provost’s office
Timetable for the First Academic Year
September:
Year One:
1)Presidential appointment of Dr. Bill Tillman as the Chair of the Ethics Education
Council
2) appropriate dean in consultation with the university Provost appoint a
representative from each of the schools and colleges
3) a student representative appointed by the Dean of Students in consultation
with the Provost.
4) extra-curricular council of sponsors and students selected by SVPSD, Dean of
Students, or their representatives
5) create charter and roster of extra-curricular council
6) Ethics Education Council develop at least nine ethics-centric questions for
incorporation into research sections of CAAP and CBASE general
education testing.
7) Decide how the DIT is to be graded.
86
Timetable for an Academic Year:
October
Dean of Gen Ed reports research question results to EEC by October 15
November:
Submit copies of IEC report to the appropriate school or college dean, the Ethics
Education Council, and the university Provost:
a) individual schools and colleges plan for addressing the enhancement
or incorporation of ethics into the curriculum of each pre-professional
and professional program in that school or college.
b) assessment strategy chosen by discipline for discipline-specific project
demonstrating knowledge of ethical info.
c) report of the students’ demonstration of knowledge reflected in these
projects
d) evaluation of overall project demonstration results and any consequent
curriculum changes
e) consideration of DIT-2 results and any action implemented in response
to that consideration
f) documentation of
g) documentation of the completion of a designated feedback opportunity
by students participating in field-based learning
h) faculty review of student responses and action resulting
December
Dec. 1st: Deadline for capstone students in pre-professional and professional
programs to complete the DIT-2. Grading to proceed immediately according to
decision of EEC on whether each discipline grades independently or all exams
sent off for off-site grading.
February
Feb. 15th: Deadline for making DIT-2 results available to all of participating preprofessional and professional programs, the Ethics Education Council, university
administration, and the student test takers.
May
Last day of classes: Deadline for completion by each graduating pre-professional
and professional undergraduate of a discipline-specific
project requiring demonstration of knowledge in ethical
philosophy
87
Flowchart, Annual Program Assessment Plan and Update Report
DIT Testing,
Student Project
Assessment, and
Other Assessment Data
(with previous annual
reports and reviews data)
Program
Assessment Plan
and Update
Report
Provost Office
Review
Institutional Effectiveness
Committee (IEC) Review and
Report and
Ethics Education Council
(ECC) Review and Report
88
Flowchart, Academic Committee Program Reviews
DIT Testing,
Annual Program Plan and
Update Reports, and Other
Assessment Data (with
previous annual reports and
reviews data)
Program Review
Report
Academic Committee
Review and Report
Provost Office
Review
89
XI. Selected Bibliography
Astin, Helen S. and Anthony Lising Antonio. “Building Character in College.”
About Campus 5, no. 5 (Nov. 2000): 3-7.
________. “The Impact of College on Character Development.” New Directions
for Institutional Research 122 (Summer 2004): 55-64.
Bean, David F. and Richard A. Bernardi. “Accounting ethics courses: a
professional necessity.” The CPA Journal 75 (December 2005): 64-65.
Berkowitz, Marvin W. and Michael J. Fekula. “Educating for Character.” About
Campus 4, no. 5 (Nov. 1999): 17-22.
Boss, Judith A. “The effect of community service work on the moral development
of college ethics students.” Journal of Moral Education 23, (1994): 183190.
“The Chronicle Survey of Public Opinion on Higher Education.” Chronicle of
Higher Education 50, no. 35 (May 7, 2004): A12-A13.
Ciulla, Joanne B. The Ethics of Leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson,
2003.
Colby, A. T. Ehrlich, E. Beaumont, and J. Stephens. “Educating undergraduates
for responsible citizenship.” Change 35, no. 6 (November/December
2003): 42-48.
Dalton, Jon C. and Anita Fitzgerald Henck. “Introduction.” New Directions for
Institutional Research 122 (Summer 2004): 3-6.
Kuh, George D. and Paul D. Umbach. “College and Character: Insights from the
National Survey of Student Engagement.” New Directions for Institutional
Research 122 (Summer 2004): 37-54.
McCandlish, Laura. “Teaching To Do Right.” Daily Press (Newport News, VA). 5
October 2005: Sec. C, p. 8.
Mangan, Katherine. “Survey Finds Widespread Cheating in MBA Programs.”
Chronicle of Higher Education 53, no. 6 (September 29, 2006): A44.
Ozar, David T. “An Outcomes-Centered Approach to Teaching Ethics.”
Teaching Ethics 2, no. 1 (Fall 2001): 1-29.
90
Newman, Frank. Higher Education and the American Resurgence. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Lawrenceville,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985.
Rainey, Amy. “Professors Favor Building Moral Values in Students.” Chronicle of
Higher Education 52, no. 27 (March 10, 2006): A1, A12.
Rest James R. and Darcia Narvaez, ed. Moral Development in the Professions:
Psychology and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates,
1994.
Sax, Linda J. “Citizenship Development and the American College Student.” New
Directions for Institutional Research 122 (Summer 2004): 65-80.
Strange, C. Carney. “Measuring Up: Defining and Assessing Outcomes of
Character in College.” New Directions for Institutional Research 122
(Summer 2004): 25-36.
Survey Documents Decade of Moral Deterioration: Kids Today Are More Likely
To Cheat, Steal and Lie Than Kids 10 Years Ago.” Los Angeles:
Josephson Institute on Ethics, 2002. Available from
http://josephsoninstitute.org/Survey2002/survey2002-pressrelease.htm.
Internet. Accessed 6 October 2006.
Tsai, Catherine. “Business School Professors Take New Look At Ethics.” The
Miami Herald. 3 July 2006: Sec. G, p. 18.
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. An American Imperative: Higher
Expectations for Higher Education 1st ed. Racine, WI: Johnson
Foundation, 1993.
Yanikoski, Richard. “Leadership Perspectives on the Role of Character
Development in Higher Education.” New Directions for Institutional
Research 122 (Summer 2004): 7-23.
91