Example QEP Suggestion Form
Return to the QEP Suggestion Form Information page
Page 1
On the first page, you will be asked to provide basic information. Please complete this with the correct email address.
Page 2
The second page asks you to select in which topic area your idea belongs, for a summary of your idea, and for a list of references. On this page, you will also have a chance to review the SACSCOC principles and UT Dallas’ Mission Statement.
Example responses:
| Summary of Your QEP Idea | This project targets success, retention, and persistence in gateway math and science courses that play a critical role in influencing student decisions to continue their studies in degree programs heavily grounded in math and science as well as to continue their college careers. |
|---|---|
| References | 1. Adelman, C. (1998). Women and Men of the Engineering Path: A Model for Analysis of Undergraduate Careers. Washington, DC: US Department of Educations and the National Institute for Science Education. 2. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76 (4), 548-554. 3. Sinex, S.A. & Gage, B.A. (2003). Discovery learning in general chemistry enhanced by dynamic and interactive computer visualization. Chemical Educator, 8(4), 266-270. 4. Wilson, J.W. (n.d.) The History of ChemPLTL at the University of Kentucky. Web. Accessed June 7, 2007. |
Page 3
Beginning on the next page, you will be asked a series of questions. Feel free to answer all or just some of the questions. Page 3 questions are interested in how the QEP might look (what kinds of programs might it involve) and how it would specifically benefit UT Dallas.
Example responses:
| What classes, programs, etc., would UT Dallas need to put in place for this QEP? | Supplemental Instruction (SI) and Peer-led team learning (PLTL) for lower-level Math and Chemistry courses, curriculum changes in math and science courses--realign to match learning objectives of lower-level courses with the expectations of later classes, add new courses in mathematics to address the gaps, redesign lab content of CHEM 1311. There would need to be a center for the peer tutoring portion of the intervention. I also suggest adding electronic enhancements to help students, like software for tutorials and placement and interactive textbooks. |
|---|---|
| What are the intended benefits of the QEP to the institution and to its students? | Students are not performing well in introductory math and science courses that are necessary for their majors, and this proposal would address that problem by helping students succeed in these gateway courses and improving retention. |
| How does the QEP support the mission of the institution? | As part of our commitment to preparing students for rewarding lives and productive careers in a constantly changing world, we should encourage them to continue their studies. Helping students succeed after college requires helping them succeed in college. |
Page 4
The last page of the form asks you to consider the details of the QEP. What should happen when? How might it affect campus culture? What are its goals? How do we know if we are achieving those goals?
Example responses:
| What would be the timeline for implementation of the QEP? | 2008: Preparation of space on concept mapping, train SI instructors and PLTL leaders, math faculty creates 3-semester calculus sequence, focus groups, faculty development activities, GEMS center should open by Fall 2008, SI sessions for all math and chemistry gateway courses, general chemistry uses PLTL in one class; 2009: assessment of PLTL, engagement surveys, focus groups, faculty development activities continue, modification of gateway courses based on concept mapping analysis, annual report submitted, Fall 2009 chemistry incorporates GEMS-PLTL into additional classes and implements new design of general chemistry lab; 2010 begin plans to expand center into a new facility, continue training SI instructors and PLTL leaders and refining process, continue engagement surveys; 2011 construction of new facility, continued assessment and improvement |
|---|---|
| How would the QEP affect campus culture? | GEMS has the potential to improve student learning by decreasing the DFW rate in gateway math and science courses, but there is also a possibility that it will change the way students and faculty think of these courses more generally. Rather than imagining that these courses are meant to keep people out, we may begin to think of them as facilitating success in our very challenging majors that rely on good work in these classes. |
| What goals would be associated with this QEP and how might the institution go about assessing those goals? | Improved student performance in calculus and applied calculus course sequences. Improved student performance in general chemistry course sequence. Increased opportunities for student engagement in introductory math and science courses. Improved success of students in higher-level courses that depend upon general chemistry and calculus as prerequisites. Improved integration and assessment of innovative teaching strategies in math and science courses. |
| How might we evaluate the success of the QEP? | Monitor the dfw rates to see if the GEMS interventions are making a difference. Conduct regular surveys on student engagement to look for improvements there. Interview students who participate in SI and PLTL about their experiences. Keep track of the use of the success center to track its success. Analyze the numbers of students migrating out of STEM majors to see if the GEMS initiatives are making a difference. |
Once you click submit, your idea will be recorded. We would like detailed proposals, but please do not worry too much about getting your reference citations exactly right or having excellent grammar. We are interested in concrete ideas more than we are in presentation.