TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I: Executive Summary ...... 1 Section II: Process Used to Develop the QEP ...... 3 QEP Topic Selection Process ...... 3 QEP Planning Process ...... 3
Section III: Identification of Topic ...... 5 Liberty University Profile ...... 5 Students ...... 5 Faculty ...... 6 Mission, Purpose, and Strategic Plan ...... 6 Broad-Based Participant Feedback ...... 6 Topic Proposals ...... 6 Focus Groups ...... 7 Research Surveys ...... 7 Research and Scholarship Survey (RSS) ...... 7 Research Training Environment Scale – Revised (RTES-R) ...... 9 Review of Institutional Data ...... 10 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) ...... 10 Faculty Research & Scholarship Survey ...... 11 Identifying Curricular and Co-Curricular Existing Research Opportunities ...... 11 Existing Curricular Opportunities Supporting Student Research ...... 11 Existing Co-Curricular Opportunities Supporting Student Research ...... 12 Final QEP Topic Selection ...... 13 Conclusion ...... 14
Section IV: Desired Student Learning Outcomes ...... 15 Identification of University Goals ...... 15 Key Definitions: Inquiry, Research, and Scholarship ...... 15 Student Learning Outcomes ...... 15 Actions in Support of the University Goals and QEP Student Learning Outcomes . 16 Student Dissemination of Research and Scholarship…………………………………17
Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices ...... 19 A Need for a Focus on Research and Scholarship...... 19 Undergraduate Research Curriculum Framework ...... 19 The Benefits of a Research and Scholarship Focused QEP ...... 21 Best Practices for Developing Liberty University’s QEP ...... 22 Literature Supporting the Inclusion of the SLO #1 ...... 22 Literature Supporting the Inclusion of the SLO #2 ...... 23 Literature Supporting the Inclusion of the SLO #3 ...... 24 Dissemination: a QEP Objective ...... 25 Supporting Faculty and Building Research Infrastructure...... 26 Technology Supporting Faculty Engagement of Students in Research and Dissemination ...... 26
Table of Contents i | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs ...... 27 University Goal 1: University Infrastructure ...... 27 Action 1.1: Establish Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) . 27 Action 1.2: Establish Collaborative Relationships across the University ..... 28 University Goal 2: Faculty Training ...... 30 Action 2.1: Provide Faculty Development and Recognition ...... 30 Faculty Development Focused on Successful Engagement with QEP Student Learning Outcomes...... 31 Faculty Recognition ...... 31 University Goal 3: Curricular and Co-Curricular Opportunities Supporting Student Success in Achieving QEP SLOs ...... 31 Curricular Actions ...... 32 Action 3.1: Develop Inquiry 101 ...... 32 Action 3.2: Develop Research 201 ...... 33 Action 3.3: Designate Research-Intensive Courses in the Disciplines ...... 34 Co-Curricular Actions ...... 35 Action 3.4: Conduct an Annual Research Week ...... 35 Action 3.5: Support Student Travel ...... 36
Section VII: Timeline ...... 37
Section VIII: Organizational Structure ...... 39 Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) and Description of Director’s Position ...... 39 Associate Director ...... 39 Administrative Assistant ...... 40 Graduate Student Assistant ...... 40 Undergraduate Student Intern ...... 40 CARS Advisory Board and Committees ...... 40 Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies ...... 41 Collaborative Partnerships ...... 42
Section IX: Resources ...... 43 University Infrastructure ...... 43 Faculty Development ...... 43 Curricular and Co-Curricular ...... 43 Curricular ...... 44 Co-Curricular ...... 44 Assessment ...... 44
Section X: Assessment ...... 47 Student Learning Outcome Assessment ...... 50 Direct Assessment: Timeline and Plan ...... 50 Baseline Years: Year 0 and Year 1...... 50 SLO #1: Inquiry 101 Baseline Data ...... 51 SLO #2: Research 201 Baseline Data ...... 52
ii | P a g e Table of Contents LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
SLO #3: Research-Intensive Course Baseline Data ...... 52 Treatment Years: Year 2–Year 5 ...... 53 Analysis of Curricular Assessment Data ...... 54 Collection and Storage of QEP Curricular Assessment Data ...... 55 Direct Assessment Metrics ...... 55 QEP Indirect Assessments ...... 57 The RSS, RTES-R, and the NSSE ...... 57 University Alumni Survey ...... 57 Assessment of QEP Goals #1 and #2 ...... 57 CARS Effectiveness ...... 58 Faculty Professional Development Survey ...... 58 Continuous Program Review ...... 58
References ...... 61
List of Tables
Table 1: Student Research and Scholarship Survey (RSS) Results ...... 8 Table 2: Student Research Training Environment Scale – Revised (RTES-R) Survey Responses ...... 9 Table 3: Faculty and Scholarship Survey Results...... 11 Table 4: SLO #1 Knowledge and Values ...... 22 Table 5: SLO #2 Knowledge of Research Processes and Skills ...... 24 Table 6: SLO #3 Research Skills ...... 25 Table 7: University Infrastructure Actions ...... 27 Table 8: QEP Collaborators ...... 29 Table 9: Faculty Support and Recognition Actions ...... 30 Table 10: Curricular Actions ...... 32 Table 11: Co-Curricular Actions ...... 35 Table 12: QEP Timeline, Year 0 (2015) – Year 5 (2021) ...... 37 Table 13: CARS Advisory Board and Committees...... 41 Table 14: QEP Budget ...... 45 Table 15: QEP Direct Assessment Processes ...... 47 Table 16: QEP Direct Assessment Metrics ...... 48 Table 17: QEP Indirect Assessment Processes ...... 49 Table 18: QEP Baseline Assessment Data Collection ...... 50 Table 19: Value of Research Attitude ...... 51 Table 20: Differences in Focus Areas of Basic Research Knowledge ...... 51 Table 21: QEP Year 2 Treatment and Assessment ...... 53 Table 22: QEP Year 3 Treatment and Assessment ...... 53 Table 23: QEP Year 4 and Year 5 Treatment and Assessment ...... 54 Table 24: Growth in Research Week undergraduate student participation from 2014 to 2016 ...... 56 Table 25: Undergraduate Student Dissemination, 2015-2016 ...... 56
Table A1: QEP Leadership Committees ...... 65 Table A2: QEP Topic Development Committees ...... 66 Table A3: QEP Steering Committee Task Forces ...... 67 Table A4: QEP Implementation Committees...... 69
Table of Contents iii | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Table G1: RSD Rubric (Creative Arts) ...... 80 Table G2: RSD Rubric (Sciences) ...... 81 Table G3: RSD Rubric (Humanities) ...... 82
List of Figures Figure 1: Comparison of 2013 NSSE data for Liberty University, Carnegie Class, and National Survey average agreement with 2 items ...... 10 Figure 2: Percentages of undergraduate students participating in the Spring 2015 Research Symposia ...... 13 Figure 3: Alignment of Liberty University’s QEP SLOs with the research curriculum framework presented by Healey and Jenkins ...... 20 Figure 4: Coordination of University Entities for the QEP ...... 42
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Committees Tasked with the Selection, Development, and Implementation of the QEP ...... 65 Appendix B: QEP Timeline ...... 70 Appendix C: List of Meetings and Events for Information Gathering (Internal and External), University Outreach and Planning ...... 72 Appendix D: Liberty University Mission, Purpose and Strategic Plan Key Themes Supporting the QEP Topic ...... 74 Appendix E: QEP Overview ...... 75 Appendix F: Inquiry 101 Pre- and Post-Evaluation (SLO#1) ...... 77 Appendix G: Research Skill Development Rubrics (SLO #3) ...... 80 Appendix H: QEP Marketing Timeline ...... 85 Appendix I: QEP Budget Justification Detail ...... 86
iv | P a g e Table of Contents LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section I: Executive Summary
Liberty University’s mission focuses on the development of “Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge and skills essential to impact the world.” One way the institution seeks to fulfill this aspiration is through ensuring “competency in scholarship, research and professional communication.” Liberty has selected a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), entitled “Illuminate: Cultivating a Community of Research and Scholarship,” that is consistent with university goals and reflects its determination to improve student learning outcomes related to the development and design of research and to provide greater opportunity for dissemination of research in venues internal and external to the University.
The institutional process employed to identify a QEP topic revealed the need for greater attention to the development and support of an undergraduate research program for residential students. Through the QEP, Liberty aspires to foster increasing levels of undergraduate residential students’ engagement in research by establishing learning outcomes that provide a systematic progression in research training. To begin, all first-year undergraduate residential students will participate in a course designed to increase their appreciation for the value of research and scholarship and its role in the life of a University student. Next, all second-year undergraduate residential students will participate in a course designed to equip them with the knowledge and skills required for engaging in research and scholarship. Finally, third- and fourth-year undergraduate residential students will participate in courses that will provide them with the opportunity to design research proposals/projects in their field of study. In addition to these learning outcomes, the QEP rewards students who demonstrate both desire and excellence with opportunities to share their research and scholarship in venues both internal and external to the University.
Liberty University has formed the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) and charged it with oversight of the QEP. Initially, CARS will give attention to the development of the infrastructure needed to implement, maintain, and sustain the QEP. In addition, CARS will coordinate the involvement of academic and co-curricular units throughout the University that are necessary for the success of the QEP.
At the culmination of the QEP, Liberty University anticipates that its undergraduate residential students will have increased both the quality and quantity of research they produce. Liberty expects to demonstrate this increased research ability in its students through a robust, focused assessment plan utilizing pre- and post-evaluations and a rubric designed to measure student achievement of the QEP learning outcomes within the curriculum. Beyond this, CARS has established a high-level annual QEP evaluation process to steer the adjustments needed to increase the QEP’s effectiveness University- wide.
In conclusion, Liberty University believes that enhancing student learning in the area of research and scholarship furthers the University’s mission and its ability to achieve it. Through the establishment of CARS, the development of goals and actions based on best practices, a commitment of resources sufficient to attain the student learning outcomes, and a comprehensive assessment plan, the QEP aspires to successfully develop in undergraduate residential students the research values, knowledge, and skills needed to impact the world.
Section 1: Executive Summary 1 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
This page is intentionally blank.
2 | P a g e Table of Contents LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section II: Process Used to Develop the QEP
Liberty University’s QEP is the result of University leadership (see the Executive Leadership Team listed in Appendix A, Table A1) asking the question, “What initiative could be undertaken by the University that would result in significant advancement of learning for undergraduate residential students?” Answering this question required seeking information from all stakeholders (faculty, students, and staff) through a multi-layered, broad-based process that gathered informal feedback and collected indirect and direct assessment data. What follows is a description of the process and the constituents engaged.
QEP Topic Selection Process The QEP topic selection process commenced in the fall of 2013, when a faculty team appointed by the Provost initiated a call for potential QEP topic ideas from faculty, staff, and students. An invitation was extended to all of these constituencies to submit their ideas using an online proposal submission form. Students and faculty were encouraged to evaluate their academic programs and, where appropriate, review existing assessment data to inform the rationale for topic selection. The focus of the selection process was on the identification of topics that would strengthen student learning and the learning environment. Over the course of 60 days, more than 130 potential QEP topics were proposed.
Next, in the spring of 2014, the QEP Topic Selection Committee (see Appendix A, Table A2) placed the 130 QEP proposals into multiple clusters to facilitate its review of the proposals. At the conclusion of the Committee’s work, six potential QEP topics were identified. Each of these topics aligned with Liberty University’s Mission and Strategic Plan and focused on potential areas for improving student learning. The Committee then forwarded the results of its work to the Executive Leadership Team for its consideration (see Appendix A, Table A1).
During the summer and early fall of 2014, the Executive Leadership Team met several times with the QEP Topic Selection Committee to discuss the merits of the recommended QEPs for improving student learning. A tentative commitment was secured from the Provost and the President’s Office for a QEP focused on research and scholarship. The QEP Key Stakeholders Committee (see Appendix A, Table A2), then guided the formation of focus groups across the colleges and schools to gather feedback from faculty and students on the suggested QEP. Focus group participants (N > 175 faculty and students) were asked several questions designed to assist in evaluating the appropriateness and acceptability of the tentative QEP topic for the University. Findings from the focus groups and follow-up meetings supported the choice of research and scholarship as a topic for the QEP (see Section III). The results of the focus group findings were evaluated by QEP leadership and the findings shared with the appropriate stakeholders, including the Offices of the Provost and the President. Following these briefings, the Provost appointed a Director for the QEP. The QEP Director was charged with the responsibility to formalize the QEP and to provide direction and oversight for the development of a formal plan and proposal that would meet all SACSCOC requirements.
QEP Planning Process In February 2015, the QEP Director formed the QEP Steering Committee, which consisted of administrators and faculty from various colleges and schools (see Appendix A, Table A1), to begin the process of planning and providing preliminary oversight for the initial design and implementation of the QEP. This committee was divided into special task forces, each focused on the development of a specific element in the QEP planning process (see Appendix A, Table A3 for a list of task forces). Each task force was charged with the responsibility of forming a team, to include faculty, students and staff from across the University as needed, to investigate best practices in their assigned area and to identify the contribution that they could make to the construction of a successful QEP. Additionally, the QEP
Section II: Process Used to Develop the QEP 3 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Director consulted with several other institutions and QEP Directors on best practices related to undergraduate research programs.
A QEP Steering Committee task force created and administered two survey instruments recording student perceptions of opportunities in the area of research and scholarship. In addition, they considered carefully the student responses to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The results of these assessments will be further explained in Section III. This data collection and analysis was instrumental in confirming to the Executive Leadership Team that a QEP focused on providing greater opportunity for undergraduate residential students to participate in research activities would indeed result in a significant improvement in student learning opportunities for Liberty undergraduate residential students.
In the spring of 2015, members of the QEP Steering Committee presented their initial findings and proposed concepts to representatives from each of the University’s Schools and Colleges, who in turn provided feedback that helped to guide further development of the QEP plan, including its specific curricular interventions and ideas for support of student/faculty research. In Summer 2015, an initial working draft of the QEP plan was presented to the Executive Leadership Team and approved for distribution to the Deans for additional review and feedback within the schools and colleges.
Having completed several cycles of pursuing and incorporating feedback from various constituencies within the University, the QEP Steering Committee began to gather feedback on a more limited basis, making some initial decisions and putting official plans in writing over Spring, Summer, and Fall 2015. For instance, the Curriculum and Assessment Task Force (1) identified the Research Skill Development Framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2008) as a core assessment tool and (2) distributed the QEP Faculty and Research Scholarship survey in order to gain a deeper understanding of faculty perceptions about the importance of research in the disciplines, the breadth of research opportunities on the campus, and students’ ability to complete research.
During Fall 2015, several strategic meetings occurred between the Executive Leadership Team and the QEP Steering Committee. The preliminary QEP was then sent to a consultant, who was asked to provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the QEP proposal. Following the consultant’s review, the QEP Steering Committee met on a regular basis for the purpose of revising the proposed QEP based on the imparted feedback.
A final phase in the process of the development of Liberty’s QEP occurred when Liberty submitted its proposed QEP to SACSCOC as part of the 10-Year Reaffirmation of Accreditation. Recognizing both the opportunities and weaknesses in the initial version of the QEP, in March 2016, the SACSCOC On-Site Reaffirmation Committee provided direction for changes in two areas that urged the University to simplify its plans in order to have a greater impact on student learning. Specifically, they recommended that the University should demonstrate (1) the capacity—in human and fiscal resources—to support the QEP plan and (2) an appropriate assessment plan. The QEP Director then began a focused initiative, involving the QEP Steering Committee and the Executive Leadership Team in the spring and summer of 2016, to revise the QEP and to gather additional baseline data in order to address these recommendations.
The SACSCOC Handbook for Institutions Seeking Reaffirmation (2011) states that “developing a QEP is a recursive rather than a linear process” (p. 42). Liberty University’s journey in arriving at the final version of its QEP topic and plan attests to the validity of this assertion. Liberty’s QEP has been spoken into by a multitude of constituencies both in the University and beyond. The University believes that the plan in its final form will contribute greatly to the achievement of student learning outcomes for residential undergraduates at Liberty University. A timeline of the process undertaken to develop the QEP is provided in Appendix B and a record of QEP-related meetings, demonstrating involvement from a broad-base of University constituencies in the QEP’s development, is provided in Appendix C.
4 | P a g e Section II: Process Used to Develop the QEP LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section III: Identification of Topic
The University selected the QEP topic of research and scholarship through broad-based solicitation of input from all University constituencies. As summarized in Section II above, the identification of a tentative QEP topic emerged out of topic proposals solicited from the entire University community, then was confirmed by evaluating the topic’s alignment with the University’s mission and strategic plan, examining existing assessment data, and implementing a series of new direct and indirect assessments (i.e., review of capstone projects, surveys, and focus groups). Findings consistently pointed to a QEP topic that would improve student knowledge, values and skills in the area of research and scholarship. This data helped the University—and specifically the QEP Steering Committee and its task forces (see Appendix A, Table A1 and Table A3)—to 1) identify areas of improvement related to students and 2) guide the development of the QEP learning outcomes and corresponding curricular and co-curricular initiatives using best practices from peer institutions and literature.
While the broad topic remains unchanged from the first iteration of the QEP, after the on-site visit in March 2016, the scope of the QEP was revised to focus on undergraduate residential students only, with an eye toward developing a more impactful QEP. A fresh look at the data gathered in the initial planning process was useful for focusing and sharpening the QEP student learning outcomes, the curricular interventions for accomplishing them, and the process and instruments for assessing them.
Liberty University Profile A brief introduction to Liberty University’s students, faculty and mission is useful in framing the QEP topic identification process that led to a final focus on improving undergraduate residential students’ learning in research and scholarship.
Founded in 1971, Liberty University is a Christian institution in Lynchburg, VA. Liberty University’s campus extends over 7,000 acres and contains 314 buildings, with 5.8 million square feet of space. The University enrolls over 100,000 undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate students in online (distance education) and residential programs, ranging from the certificate to the doctoral level. The student body consists of 14,776 residential students and 98,579 online (distance education) students.
Students Students at Liberty have the choice of 163 certificate, associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, specialist’s, and doctoral academic programs across 17 colleges and schools: the School of Aeronautics, the School of Behavioral Sciences, the School of Business, the School of Communication & Creative Arts, the School of Religion and Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary merged to form the Rawlings School of Divinity in Fall 2015, the School of Education, the School of Engineering and Computational Sciences, the School of Health Sciences, the Helms School of Government, the School of Law, the School of Music, the School of Nursing, the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Applied Studies and Academic Success, the College of General Studies, and the College of Osteopathic Medicine. During the 2014-2015 academic year, the student body was comprised of 47,707 graduate students and 65,990 undergraduate students, of which 13,121 were undergraduate residential students. Input from the undergraduate student body through topic submissions, focus groups, and surveys provided invaluable information on the QEP topic, student learning outcomes, and potential actions, demonstrating that these students are ready to embrace the QEP’s initiatives.
Section III: Identification of Topic 5 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Faculty The Liberty University faculty are committed both to teaching excellence and to engagement in scholarly activities. Of the 3,030 faculty members, 1,804 are full-time faculty, teaching in one of the University’s residential (n = 641) or online (distance education) (n = 1,163) academic programs. Liberty faculty, during 2014-2015, were actively involved in scholarship, giving approximately 800 presentations at professional conferences and meetings; publishing peer- reviewed journal articles, books, and book chapters; and participating in exhibits and productions. They obtained 64 internal and external grants, and include three Fulbright winners. Like students, Liberty faculty were instrumental in the development of the QEP and by providing feedback and participating in the process have demonstrated a desire to play an essential role in the QEP.
Mission, Purpose, and Strategic Plan The QEP focus on research and scholarship directly aligns with Liberty University’s mission and purpose, which emphasizes the importance of helping students to develop the values, knowledge, skills, and behaviors needed to impact their workplaces, their communities, and the world (see Appendix D). To assist in accomplishing this the QEP is designed to develop in Liberty’s undergraduate residential students’ competence in research and scholarship.
The University’s 2014-2017 Strategic Plan provides a clear pathway toward accomplishing its mission. Two of its six themes, “Advancing Academic Reputation” and “Capitalizing on Human Potential,” directly align with the student learning outcomes in the QEP. In advancing its academic reputation, the University strives to “increase the quality of curriculum, instruction, academic scholarship and research.” As this is accomplished, the students benefit by experiencing a higher level of learning and academic achievement and the University’s reputation improves. The QEP student learning outcomes (see Section IV) and associated curricular actions (see Section VI) build on this goal by developing an effective research training curriculum. The QEP university goal to support and train faculty to enact the QEP directly aligns with the University's commitment to "investment in professional development" as identified in the “Capitalizing on Human Potential” theme of the strategic plan. The QEP topic of research and scholarship supports efforts directed at the fulfillment of the University’s mission.
Broad-Based Participant Feedback As explained in Section II, a broad sampling of University constituencies participated in the selection of Liberty’s QEP topic.
Topic Proposals Topic ideas and proposals were submitted from students, faculty, staff, and all university offices. Students and faculty were encouraged to evaluate their program, college or school, and the institution, and to develop ideas, informed by existing assessment data if applicable, that would strengthen the learning environment. Over a course of 60 days, the QEP Topic Selection Committee received approximately 130 QEP proposals from these constituencies, which were then sorted into multiple topic themes. Out of the 130 proposals, the Committee felt that six of these topic themes aligned well with Liberty University’s Mission and Strategic Plan. These themes included civil discourse, faith and learning initiatives, study abroad, motivational mentorship, problem-based learning, and research and scholarship. The QEP Topic Selection Committee submitted their recommendations to the Executive Leadership Team. The Executive
6 | P a g e Section III: Identification of Topic LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Leadership Team reviewed the recommendations and proposed that the QEP focus on the topic of research and scholarship.
Focus Groups The combined recommendations of the QEP Topic Selection Committee and the Executive Leadership Team were followed up with the gathering of formal feedback from focus groups composed of stakeholders from within the departments, schools, and colleges across the University. Focus group participants (N > 175 residential and distance faculty and students from all levels) were asked several questions designed to evaluate the appropriateness and acceptability of the tentative QEP topic for the university.
Evaluation questions were as follows, though group leaders had the freedom to expand and elaborate on them as necessary to spark substantive conversation:
How is the QEP topic understood and defined within the discipline? How could the QEP topic be conceptualized and practically implemented in the discipline? Is the topic tied directly to the school/department/college purpose and objectives, especially those related to student learning? What are the perceived needs within the school/department/college related to the QEP topic? How acceptable and appropriate is the topic for the QEP?
Findings from the focus groups and follow-up meetings supported the choice of research and scholarship as a topic for the QEP. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts and facilitator notes identified prominent themes that drove further conversation about the QEP. These themes included (a) the lack of research opportunities existing on the campus, and (b) lack of support services for research projects and courses (e.g., statistical and methodological tutoring, funding). For example, one undergraduate math major expressed a desire to see “research in action,” while another undergraduate student in the Psychology Department expressed frustration with the lack of opportunities for practical experience with research. This connection between research and professional practice emerged as a major concern, especially among students facing anxiety about their future roles in the workplace.
Research Surveys In addition to the QEP Topic Selection Committee’s work and the information gained from the focus groups, the QEP Steering Committee undertook several surveys for the purpose of collecting further data on undergraduate students’ perceptions of research and scholarship activities and opportunities at the University. Two self-report surveys were administered to undergraduate residential students: (a) the Research and Scholarship Survey (RSS) and (b) a modified (for applicability to each discipline) version of the Research Training Environment Scale – Revised (RTES-R) (Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Judge, 1996).
Research and Scholarship Survey (RSS) The RSS was developed by the QEP Steering Committee and sent to a random sample of undergraduate students. The survey was completed by 649 residential undergraduate students. Student responses to survey items provided support for the QEP focus on research and scholarship and identified areas for needed action (see Table 1).
Section III: Identification of Topic 7 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
The RSS indicated that the majority of students valued engaging in research and scholarship (see item 1). However, the survey also showed that many students lacked confidence in their discipline-specific research skills, and that few of them believed they had the opportunity to complete research, much less to present it in an external venue such as a conference or publication.
Table 1 Student Research and Scholarship Survey (RSS) Results Undergraduate Residential Survey Item Students Who Strongly Agree or Agree 1. Engaging in research and scholarship is an important aspect of being a good citizen and steward within the 86% community and world. 2. I currently have the discipline specific skills to conduct 60% research and analysis needed for employment. 3. I have (or had) the opportunity to work on a research project (other than a thesis) with a faculty mentor. 26% (Percent Yes) 4. Published a peer-reviewed journal article. (Percent 12% Yes) 5. Presented at professional state, national, or 12% international conference. (Percent Yes)
The survey revealed that students value engaging in research and scholarship for the purpose of serving the community and the world. Yet, many are not confident in their discipline-specific skills, and they have struggled to disseminate such work in the past.
The RSS also included an open-ended question that provided the QEP Steering Committee with additional insight into undergraduate residential students’ perceptions on research and scholarship at the University. The open-ended question asked: “How can the University improve in the area of scholarship and research?” Responses to this question resulted in the emergence of the following identified needs: Early, minimally threatening experiences with research and analysis (e.g., orientation or introductory courses and faculty presentations of their research). Curriculum that prepares students to conduct capstone research projects and independent research (e.g., advanced research and analysis courses and course opportunities to improve academic writing). Communication about available research and scholarship resources at the University.
Opportunities for research and scholarship collaboration/community among peers and faculty, especially opportunities to publish and present. Visible infrastructure and services to support research and scholarship. A more knowledgeable faculty, equipped and enabled to facilitate effective research instruction. Repeated themes in these responses included the need for both basic and high-level curriculum focused on research, plus increased communication and collaboration with peers, faculty, and
8 | P a g e Section III: Identification of Topic LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
the larger community about the research process. In addition, undergraduate residential students expressed a need for increased infrastructure and services that could support a research and scholarship program. This feedback further supported the QEP topic of research and scholarship and helped to clarify the eventual formulation of student learning outcomes and corresponding actions.
Research Training Environment Scale – Revised (RTES-R) Undergraduate residential students also completed a modified version of the RTES-R (Gelso et al., 1996). It was completed by 692 undergraduate residential students and respondents were part of a different sample than the sample that completed the RSS.
Results from the RTES-R (Gelso, et al., 1996) survey provided results similar to the RSS. In particular, the survey indicated that students needed help with the following (see Table 2):
Developing an appreciation for the value of research and self-efficacy early in their academic experience (see Items 1 and 5).
Learning to design research projects in a systematic and developmental manner throughout their academic careers (see items 2-4). Additionally, students expressed deficiencies in support available for their involvement in research (Item 6).
Table 2 Student Research Training Environment Scale – Revised (RTES-R) Survey Responses
Undergraduate Residential Survey Item Students Who Strongly Agree or Agree 1. During their first year in the program, students take a research course aimed at developing research skills, 41% interests, and confidence. 2. During our coursework, students are taught a wide range of research methodologies (e.g., field, laboratory, 59% survey approaches). 3. Students in my program receive sound training in how 50% to design and logically analyze research studies. 4. Faculty members often invite students to be responsible collaborators in the faculty members’ own 39% research. 5. There is a sense around here that being on a research 54% team can be fun, as well as intellectually stimulating. 6. My program provides concrete support for student research (e.g., access to computers, travel money for making presentations, research supplies, or free 56% postage for mailing surveys).
This survey indicated among other things that academic programs needed to provide undergraduate residential students with exposure to research training earlier in their educational program as well as a systematic curriculum designed to promote research knowledge and skills with support for research projects.
Section III: Identification of Topic 9 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Review of Institutional Data As part of the topic identification process, the QEP Steering Committee evaluated existing data, collected through regular institutional assessments such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), to corroborate the RSS and RTES-R surveys’ findings or provide additional insights. This review confirmed that undergraduate residential students’ were not engaging in opportunities for research collaboration with faculty but desired to do so.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) The 2013 NSSE examined undergraduate research and professional experiences. Liberty University’s data (N = 9,617) was compared with the national average and the Carnegie Class peer group. Liberty University seniors reported a significantly lower level of engagement than the University’s Carnegie classified peers and the NSSE average in designing and conducting a research project under guidance from a faculty member and completion of courses providing a "culminating senior experience." These survey results align with student comments in the research surveys, indicating that undergraduate students desire more opportunities to engage in research alongside faculty members. The data is summarized in the bar graph below (see Figure 1).
NSSE UNDERGRADUATE DATA (2013)
44.20% 45.10%
23.10% 20.30% 14.30% 5.60%
ITEM 1 - RESEARCH WITH FACULTY ITEM 2 - SENIOR RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Liberty University National Carnegie
Figure 1. Comparison of 2013 NSSE data for Liberty University, Carnegie Class, and National Survey average agreement with 2 Items. The two items are as follows: 1. Working “with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements.” 2. Completing “a culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, portfolio, etc.).”
In conclusion, the QEP Steering Committee’s investigation of the institutional data, from the new and pre-existing direct and indirect assessments discussed above, confirmed that undergraduate residential students desired additional opportunities in research and scholarship, including research experiences early in the curriculum, training in stronger research skills for designing a research project, opportunities to collaborate with faculty on a research project, and experience with disseminating their research to others.
10 | P a g e Section III: Identification of Topic LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Faculty Research & Scholarship Survey In addition to the students’ perspective, the QEP Steering Committee wanted to better understand faculty’s overall attitudes toward student research and scholarship, given that the QEP would be heavily dependent on curricular actions for its success. The QEP Faculty and Research Scholarship survey was distributed in October 2015 and completed by 842 (26.7%) online and residential faculty. Faculty were asked to rate the importance of research and research opportunities as well as their perceptions of students’ research skills and abilities. The results presented in Table 3 demonstrated that undergraduate faculty place a high value on research and deem research skills important for students to develop during their academic careers. This indicates that faculty are supportive of a research curriculum within the undergraduate academic programs; it also suggests existing support for the proposed QEP university action of providing faculty professional development in research-focused instruction.
Table 3 Faculty and Scholarship Survey Results Survey Item % of Undergraduate Faculty Preceding statement: Indicate your level of agreement with the who following statements regarding student activities in research Strongly Agree or Agree Integration of research knowledge and skills across the curriculum 94% is important. It is important for students to acquire research knowledge and 86% skills during the academic program in which I teach. Within the program that I teach, research is: Valuable 87%
Identifying Curricular and Co-Curricular Existing Research Opportunities After the QEP Steering Committee had received student and faculty feedback through the RSS and RTES-R surveys and reviewed the institutional assessment data, they decided to investigate what opportunities for research and scholarship actually existed for students. This inquiry included a review of institutional reports and data and a short questionnaire for the Deans of the Colleges and Schools in order to determine what curricular and co-curricular research opportunities presently existed on the University campus.
Existing Curricular Opportunities Supporting Student Research Curricular opportunities to engage in research were limited. While a successful effort has been undertaken in the general education curriculum to develop students’ basic information literacy, fewer opportunities for higher-level research are present on campus, as evidenced by the limited presence of research-related PLOs in the undergraduate curriculum in some programs and small-scale opportunities to participate in research alongside faculty.
As part of its survey of research opportunities in the curriculum, the QEP Steering Committee reviewed the 2012-2013 student learning data from the College of General Studies’ general education core competency assessment report, which demonstrated that the residential undergraduate students met the targeted percentage for students earning a score of “Proficient” or higher on the post-test assessment for the Information Literacy competency. Undergraduate residential students receive early training in information literacy skills through a module placed in required 100-level courses. This was of specific interest to the QEP Steering Committee
Section III: Identification of Topic 11 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
because information literacy is an essential research skill (Exner, 2014). The QEP Steering Committee recognized the success of this early intervention design within the general studies curriculum and saw it as a foundational research training practice that was a building block for a research and scholarship focused QEP.
However, a limited percentage (28%) of undergraduate programs go on to include learning outcomes that require students to demonstrate research and scholarship-related skills. This discovery aligned with students’ statements that the opportunities to interact with the faculty in research and to develop research knowledge and skills were limited.
In addition, the QEP Steering Committee learned that only a small number of discipline-specific opportunities, both formal and informal, exist for undergraduate students to engage in faculty- guided research. This confirmed feedback received from the focus groups and surveys, which had indicated that students were not satisfied with the number of faculty-guided research opportunities available to them. It also supported the NSSE finding that Liberty University undergraduate seniors were less engaged in research projects than the University’s Carnegie classified peers and the NSSE average.
Nevertheless, some examples of student research in action do exist, and serve as a model for the QEP moving forward. In the 2015-16 academic year, 72 students in the Department of Biology and Chemistry conducted faculty-guided research through independent study and/or directed research courses (e.g., BIOL 495 or CHEM 495). Similarly, over the past two years, the Department of Psychology’s Daniels Program has provided more than 30 residential undergraduate students co-curricular experiences in guided research. The Daniels Program, which will transition to a curricular initiative beginning in Fall 2017, represents an example of the sort of structured and effective research training program that will be implemented across undergraduate programs as part of the QEP.
Existing Co-Curricular Opportunities Supporting Student Research In addition, the questionnaire completed by the Deans in the spring of 2015 revealed that various co-curricular opportunities for acquisition of research knowledge and skills, participation in research activities, and opportunities for showcasing research do exist on campus, but in a very disjointed way. These opportunities include the following:
Each semester, the Jerry Falwell Library offers more than 25 Research Smart Workshops to residential students seeking to develop research skills through instruction in information literacy. In the Spring 2015 semester, the School of Health Sciences Biology and Chemistry Department established a Student Research Society (SRS) through the Student Affairs Division that has grown to 80 participants now involved in peer-to-peer collaboration and networking. Students in the Honors Program have the opportunity to present at the Big South Undergraduate Research Symposium, and those who are selected to present receive University sponsorship for their travel expenses. The journal Montview: Liberty University Journal of Undergraduate Research affords undergraduate symposium participants the opportunity to gain experience in the process of publishing their research by submitting to a digital open access publication, which published six outstanding articles in its inaugural 2015 issue.
12 | P a g e Section III: Identification of Topic LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
The Honors Program, with over 700 residential undergraduate students, provides opportunities to either conduct reviews of disciplinary literature or to produce creative or research projects to complete the Honors Thesis requirement. A few of these students disseminate their work in The Kabod, an online journal.
Among the opportunities described above, the Undergraduate Research Symposium emerged as a focal point of collaboration between academic units for the furthering of undergraduate student research and scholarship, with the potential for expansion as part of the QEP. A collaborative effort between the Jerry Falwell Library and various colleges and schools, the research symposium for undergraduate students was initiated in 2012 and includes oral presentations, documentary videos, and scholarly posters in traditional print and digital formats. Seventy-five students participated in 2015 and Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown of participation by academic program. Because this event occurs in tandem with a graduate symposium and as part of the Library’s Research Week activities, it offers students a high-profile venue to showcase their work to a variety of listeners beyond their classmates and faculty. The QEP five-year plan (Section VI, Action 3.4) details additional expansions to the newly established Research Week.
Undergraduate (n =75) 1% 4% 1% 11% 4% 32% 3%
44%
Nursing Psychology Biology and Chemistry Sign Language English Religion History FACS
Figure 2. Percentages of undergraduate students by academic program participating in the Spring 2015 Research Symposia.
Final QEP Topic Selection The various assessments and analyses that were part of the QEP topic selection process demonstrated that undergraduate residential students would benefit from a focus on research and scholarship. Initially, the Executive Leadership Team and QEP Steering Committee considered a QEP for students, regardless of residential or online format or program level. However, after much reflection and feedback, the Executive Leadership Team and the QEP Steering Committee chose instead to focus only on developing research and scholarship knowledge and skills in undergraduate residential students in all
Section III: Identification of Topic 13 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY bachelor’s-level residential programs of study. This decision results in the expansion of the limited research training available within the undergraduate residential programs, based on the model provided by the strong seminal research programs in the Schools of Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences. Limiting the QEP to an undergraduate residential population allows the University to follow a best practice precedent of building a strong foundation for new academic initiatives residentially before attempting to enact them for online programs.
Conclusion The process of collecting and analyzing data from a broad base of constituents evidenced a need expressed by students and faculty for improvement in undergraduate residential student learning in the area of research and scholarship. Additionally, it was determined that this QEP emphasis would support Liberty University’s Mission and Strategic Plan by improving student knowledge and skills in research and scholarship for the purpose of enabling higher levels of engagement within their chosen vocations and to prepare them to impact the world. Having identified the QEP topic, the QEP Steering Committee began to investigate what would be required for building a successful five-year QEP around the theme of undergraduate research and scholarship.
14 | P a g e Section III: Identification of Topic LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section IV: Desired Student Learning Outcomes
After identifying the QEP topic, the QEP Steering Committee, appreciating the fact that development of a successful QEP depended upon its grounding in best practices, began a thorough review of the literature. Through this review, the Committee identified key elements that would be essential to the success of the QEP. These elements included a statement of the overarching University Goals to be achieved, definitions of terms, formulation of student learning outcomes, and, finally, a set of actions required for the successful achievement of the QEP goals and student learning outcomes. An illustration of the relationship between these key QEP elements is located in Appendix E, and the narrative below explains each element in greater detail.
Identification of University Goals The QEP Steering Committee stipulated three overarching goals for the QEP that provided a framework for achieving the University’s aspirations by fostering an environment that would contribute to the successful achievement of the envisioned student learning outcomes. The following goals delineate the University’s commitments to:
1. Increase the focus on the development of the infrastructure required for the expansion of undergraduate residential student research and its dissemination. 2. Increase training and support for faculty in the skills required for mentoring students in the development and design of research. 3. Increase funding and allocation of University resources for the creation of additional curricular and co-curricular opportunities for undergraduate residential students’ engagement in research and scholarship.
Key Definitions: Inquiry, Research, and Scholarship With the overarching goals identified, the QEP Steering Committee began to search the literature to sharpen definitions for inquiry, research, and scholarship. Drawing from Boyer (1990) and other university QEP models, the QEP Steering Committee developed definitions for inquiry, research and scholarship—a cluster of terms that inform the research process. Inquiry is defined as a process that focuses on investigating in a rational manner. Research is inquiry that harnesses knowledge, skills, and values to produce new knowledge or to make a new contribution to the discipline. It is recognized that this concept varies across disciplines; “[r]esearch…deals with designing or running new experiments; collecting, analyzing, or interpreting fresh data; composing and critiquing new symphonies; proving or disproving original theorems; testing new techniques to create images on canvas or molding structures…” (Hakim, 2000, p. 44). Shulman (1999) adds to the definition by stating that while research can be a type of scholarly activity or scholarship, not all research is scholarship. In order for research to be considered scholarship, it needs to meet the following criteria: (a) the work must be made public, (b) the work must be available for peer review and critique according to accepted standards, and (c) the work must be able to be reproduced and built upon by other scholars. Scholarship is defined in the literature as a work that is disseminated in order to further knowledge and practice within the professional or scholarly field.
Student Learning Outcomes The QEP Steering Committee, once having identified the topic, established goals, and surveyed the literature for definitions of terms of importance to the QEP, then moved forward to develop student
Section IV: Desired Student Learning Outcomes 15 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY learning outcomes that would clarify the aspirations for the QEP as well as provide the foundation for determining the success of the QEP (see Section V for a review of the literature illustrating the importance of a research training program that proceeds from a basic to advanced research curriculum). Following best practices drawn from the literature, three student learning outcomes (SLO’s) were established that encapsulated the University’s desire to enhance student learning by equipping undergraduate residential students to:
1. Demonstrate the ability to articulate the value of research and a basic understanding of the role of research and scholarship in the life of a university student.
2. Develop the knowledge and skills required to engage in research and scholarship.
3. Design a research proposal/project that is discipline specific.
The University’s commitment to these student learning outcomes led to a thoughtful consideration of what corresponding University actions would be necessary for their success. These actions were designed to support the achievement of both the goals and the student learning outcomes cited above.
Actions in Support of the University Goals and QEP Student Learning Outcomes
As stated above, the commitment to the achievement of both the University-adopted QEP goals and student learning outcomes necessitated the University’s commitment to a set of actions that would assist in ensuring the success of the QEP. These actions were determined in part as a result of a review of the literature, institutional best practices, assessment data, and similar QEPs. The planning of these actions was also informed by the guidelines for excellence in undergraduate research (Hensel, 2012; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Rowlette, Blockus & Larsen, 2012; Willison & O’ Regan, 2008) (see Section V).
The following outline serves to indicate what action steps were planned for the achievement of University Goals 1 – 3. The action steps specified below were designed with the intent of ensuring the successful achievement of both the University goals for the QEP and the chosen student learning outcomes. The goals create the environment that is necessary for the success of the QEP, while the action steps clarify the pathway to achieving the identified student learning outcomes.
University Goal 1: Increase the focus on the development of the infrastructure required for the expansion of undergraduate residential student research and its dissemination.
Action 1.1: Establish Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) Action 1.2: Establish Collaborative Relationships across the University
The QEP Steering Committee believed that Actions 1.1 and 1.2 were necessary to ensure the success of SLOs #1-3.
University Goal 2: Increase training and support for faculty in the skills required for mentoring students in the development and design of research.
Action 2.1: Provide Faculty Development and Recognition
The QEP Steering Committee believed that Action 2.1 was necessary to ensure the success of SLOs #1-3.
16 | P a g e Section IV: Desired Student Learning Outcomes LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
University Goal 3: Increase funding and allocation of University resources for the creation of additional curricular and co-curricular opportunities for undergraduate residential students’ engagement in research and scholarship.
Curricular Actions Action 3.1: Develop Inquiry 101 Action 3.2: Develop Research 201 Action 3.3: Designate Research-Intensive Courses in the Disciplines
The QEP Steering Committee believed that Action 3.1 would contribute to the success of SLO #1; Action 3.2 would contribute to the success of SLO #2; and, Action 3.3 would contribute to the success of SLO #3.
Co-curricular Actions Action 3.4: Conduct an Annual Research Week Action 3.5: Support Student Travel
The QEP Steering Committee believed that Action 3.4 would contribute to the success of SLOs #1-3 and Action 3.5 would contribute to the success of SLO #3.
Student Dissemination of Research and Scholarship Although not a QEP student learning outcome, the QEP Steering Committee identified in the literature the importance of providing students with opportunities for the dissemination of outcomes of their research. Thus, the University will provide funding to ensure that undergraduate residential students have increased opportunity to disseminate their research in University and public settings through participation in the co-curricular actions of Research Week (Action 3.4) and funding for student travel to professional conferences (Action 3.5). And, as research in the workplace and world in general is not communicated solely—or even frequently—in conventional styles of academic discourse, an emphasis has been placed on technology integration in these co-curricular opportunities.
Section IV: Desired Student Learning Outcomes 17 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
This page is intentionally blank.
18 | P a g e Section IV: Desired Student Learning Outcomes LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices
A Need for a Focus on Research and Scholarship To become professionals who impact their world, Liberty University undergraduate residential students must develop the knowledge and skills necessary for engagement in their chosen professions, including investigative problem solving and communication. Yet the literature on the topic of research and information literacy in particular suggests that these basic skills and knowledge are lacking. Researchers focusing on undergraduate students have consistently documented that they often leave the university without skills necessary to be successful in the workplace (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; Crowe, 2007). The Boyer Commission on Reinventing Undergraduate Education identified deficiencies of learning experiences that produce skills in critical thinking and communication (Fechheimer, Webber & Kleiber, 2011). In summary, national trends show that graduates of undergraduate programs are not developing as critical consumers of knowledge in a manner that positively impacts their lives and practice. As a result, they are not fully prepared to develop, demonstrate, or design their research in a way that will allow them to engage in their professions in a manner that impacts the world.
Even at institutions focused more on teaching than research, the process of introducing undergraduate students to research and scholarship enhances student learning. The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998) suggested that learning through research must be made the standard in educational institutions, charging universities with developing innovative strategies for integrating research into their missions and curriculum. The Commission further recommended a plan for institutions aiming to integrate a research ecosystem into their undergraduate programs. This plan includes promoting opportunities, beginning in the freshman year, to develop research and scholarship skills throughout the entire academic experience (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates, 1998). Similar recommendations are made in Rowlett, Blockus, and Larson’s (2012) “Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research (COEUR),” which outlines best practices to support undergraduate research and inquiry, and in literature proposing models for undergraduate research and scholarship (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Willison & O’Regan, 2008). COEUR notes that undergraduate students need to be provided with research training and experiences that (a) begin early in the curriculum with appropriate scaffolding throughout the students’ academic careers, (b) provide the opportunity for students to develop an appreciation for the value of understanding methods and research results, and (c) break training in both research and scholarship into steps that faculty model for the students.
Undergraduate Research Curriculum Framework The QEP Steering Committee spent a significant amount of time surveying the literature available on the topic of undergraduate research and scholarship. The Committee found three research-focused curriculum frameworks in the literature that proved helpful to them as they identified the expectations for student learning.
First, Griffiths (2004) developed a framework that relates research and teaching and informs the design of a research-focused curriculum. Griffiths (2004) identifies three research-teaching nexuses:
1. In research-led learning experiences, students are research consumers and the “curriculum is structured around subject content.” Information is transmitted, not discovered, and there is an “emphasis on understanding research findings rather than the processes.” (p. 722).
Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices 19 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
2. A research-oriented course emphasizes “understanding the process by which knowledge is produced in the field” and students undergo research training with a focus on “teaching of inquiry skills” (p. 722). 3. In research-based instruction, curriculum is centered on the practice of inquiry based activities in which the student acts as a researcher with a less distinguishable division between the roles of the teacher and the student (p. 722).
Second, Healey and Jenkins (2009) utilized Griffiths’ configuration to frame four types of research- focused coursework. An effective research training plan moves the undergraduate student from a foundational research-led course, where students focus on understanding research content, to understanding and demonstrating research skills in a research-oriented course, to finally applying the acquired knowledge and skills to design and conduct research in a research-based course (Healey & Jenkins, 2009). In addition to the three categories identified by Griffiths (2004), this model includes a fourth category of research-tutored experiences in which students participate in small group research- focused discussions. Each method of engaging students is valuable and the QEP learning outcomes align with this scaffolded training approach, taking undergraduate residential students from an entry point of participating only as consumers of research to actively applying research skills by designing a research proposal/project. The components of the framework presented by Healey and Jenkins (2009, 7; amended from Healey, 2005, 70) are aligned to the associated QEP learning outcomes in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Alignment of Liberty University’s QEP SLOs with the research curriculum framework presented by Healey and Jenkins (2009, 7: amended from Healey, 2005, 70).
Third, the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2007) provides insight into the knowledge and skills needed to design and conduct research. Based upon Bloom’s taxonomy
20 | P a g e Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
(Bloom, Engelhardt, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) and the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework (ANZIIL) (2004) Standards, Willison & O’Regan (2007) identify the following six dimensions of the research process:
Drawing together elements from these two models led us to specify six facets of the research process, namely, that students: embark on inquiry and so determine a need for knowledge/understanding; find/generate needed information/data using appropriate methodology; critically evaluate information/data and the process to find/generate them; organise information collected/generated; synthesise and analyse new knowledge; communicate knowledge and understanding and the processes used to generate them. (p. 5)
In a research-focused curriculum, undergraduate students participating in an introductory research- oriented course begin to value the need for generating knowledge and start to understand and demonstrate various facets of the skills listed above. Upon entry into a more advanced research-based course, students more fully develop proficiency in these skills and apply them at varying levels to design and/or conduct research (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Willison & O’Regan, 2007).
In recognition of the research instruction frameworks and best practices outlined in the literature, Liberty University’s QEP established its student learning outcomes and supporting actions with the recommended “ingredients” for a scaffolded research curriculum, beginning with coursework beginning in the first year, then culminating in undergraduate residential students' demonstration of skills associated with the RSD framework through designing a research proposal/project. Specifically, all undergraduate residential students will learn why research and scholarship should be valued and also acquire foundational prerequisite knowledge and skills in a research-led experience (Griffiths, 2004; Healey & Jenkins, 2009). Their research training will continue as they progress to a research-oriented course, in which they will build knowledge of research process and skills across core disciplines (Griffiths, 2004; Healey & Jenkins, 2009). Finally, this student population will participate in research- based coursework, gaining experience in discipline-specific research skills and techniques at increasing levels of rigor and autonomy (Griffiths, 2004; Healey & Jenkins, 2009).
The Benefits of a Research and Scholarship Focused QEP Establishing an effective research training curriculum offers numerous benefits to an undergraduate student (Bauer & Bennett, 2003; Bussey-Jones et al., 2006; Craney et al., 2011; Hart Research Associates, 2010; Hartman, Widner & Carrick, 2013; Hu, Thomas, & Lance, 2008; Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; Laursen, Hunter, Seymour, Thiry, & Melton, 2010; Levenson, 2010; Lopatto, 2008, 2010; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, 2007; Schuster & Birdsong, 2006). Undergraduate students who are exposed to or participate in research during their academic careers reap the following benefits over those who do not have research opportunities:
Increased curiosity about self and the world More advanced analytical and critical thinking, problem-solving, technical, information literacy, and communication (writing and speaking) skills (i.e., twenty-first century skills necessary for the professional world) Better acquisition of discipline knowledge and the ability to apply college learning to real-world settings Increased confidence and professional competence Increased academic achievement Greater likelihood to integrate socially and academically into the university community Higher persistence in the initial degree enrolled Increased research self-efficacy
Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices 21 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Higher motivation to attend graduate school Greater likelihood to be accepted into graduate school (undergraduates) Greater competiveness in the job market.
Faculty also benefit from engaging undergraduate students in research and scholarship (Chapman, 2003; Elgren & Hensel, 2006; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Kuh, 2008; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009). Advantages for faculty include:
Satisfaction in their advisor relationships with students Greater job satisfaction Increased scholarly productivity Improved teaching and pedagogy Establishment of more rigorous coursework.
Best Practices for Developing Liberty University’s QEP As the QEP Steering Committee developed the QEP, its student learning outcomes (see Section IV) and actions (see Sections IV and VI) were adopted and shaped in accordance with the guidelines and frameworks for excellence in undergraduate research (e.g., Boyer Commission, 1998; Healey and Jenkins, 2009; Rowlett et al., 2012; Willison & O’Regan, 2008). The following section connects the QEP student learning outcomes to the literature and recommended best practices from peer institutions and outlines how the student learning outcomes will be accomplished through the QEP actions.
Literature Supporting the Inclusion of the SLO #1 SLO 1: Demonstrate the ability to articulate the value of research and a basic understanding of the role of research and scholarship in the life of a University student.
SLO #1 and its corresponding actions form the foundational curricular piece for Liberty University’s QEP. It provides undergraduate residential students with a research-led and research-tutored course experience, as envisioned by Healey and Jenkins (2009), which instills in students an appreciation for the value of research and some basic knowledge about it. This includes an understanding of the value and utility of inquiry, research, and scholarship in generating and disseminating knowledge, an awareness of research opportunities at the University, an ability to demonstrate basic information literacy, and a familiarity with basic research ethics. Through this, students will develop an initial level of research self-efficacy. Table 4 outlines the value of inquiry and basic knowledge of research that students should acquire as part of SLO #1.
Table 4 SLO #1 Knowledge and Values
SLO #1 Knowledge and Values Research is Valuable Understand why inquiry is valuable Understand the value of research skills and knowledge, as a consumer of information Gain awareness of opportunities to engage in research and scholarship at the University Develop an initial level of research self-efficacy
22 | P a g e Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
SLO #1 Knowledge and Values Basic Research Knowledge Understand how knowledge is generated through the research process and disseminated through scholarship Understand the practical utility of research Understand ethics related to research
Information Literacy Understand appropriate information literacy techniques for finding, choosing, summarizing and evaluating sources
Providing undergraduate students with research-led courses early in a program of study is important (Willison & O’Regan, 2007; Healey & Jenkins, 2009). To minimize the anxiety and stress students typically feel when conducting research projects, institutions should orient students to research as inquiry through first- and second-year courses (Healey & Jenkins, 2009). First-year seminars built into the curriculum are identified as high-impact practices that increase student engagement and retention (Kuh, 2008). Effective methods for a first-year inquiry based course include question-oriented lectures, seminars, online discussions, and active learning assignments, such as essays, case studies and small-scale empirical investigations (Levy & Petrulis, 2012). QEPs from other institutions also set this precedent through the creation and adoption of seminars to introduce undergraduate students to research and scholarship at the beginning of their academic journeys at the undergraduate level (e.g., Florida Atlantic University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Therefore, Liberty University’s QEP requires an introductory research course, Inquiry 101, during the first year of the undergraduate residential students’ academic experience in order to achieve the SLO #1 outcome by informing their knowledge and value of inquiry as a consumer of research (see Section VI, Action 3.1).
Literature Supporting the Inclusion of the SLO #2 SLO #2: Develop the knowledge and skills required to engage in research.
SLO #2 and corresponding actions are aimed at enabling undergraduate residential students to develop the knowledge of research processes and skills within their chosen humanities, sciences, and creative arts disciplines. After developing an appreciation for the value of inquiry and basic research knowledge in their first-year academic experience (see Section VI, Action 3.1), students matriculate towards a combined research-led and research-oriented experience, with incorporated characteristics of a research-tutored experience, where they will acquire and demonstrate a knowledge of research processes and skills (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Willison & O’Regan, 2007) in the humanities, sciences, and creative arts. Strengthening students' knowledge of research in multiple fields aligns with the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment’s (NILOA) degree qualifications profile for students graduating with a bachelor’s degree. The NILOA qualifications detail that competencies should include the ability to a) identify and evaluate how at least two fields of study contribute to solving problems in science, arts, society, human service, economics or technology, b) produce an investigative, creative or practical work using theories and skills from at least two fields of study, and c) frame a problem and proposes a solution using an approach that draws on major and core fields (Adelman, Ewell, Gaston & Schneider, 2014). SLO #2 prepares undergraduate students with the foundational knowledge of research processes and skills needed to begin to achieve these competencies, both in a way common to all academic disciplines and with application to the student’s chosen field of study. Table 5 identifies the knowledge that students should acquire through SLO #2.
Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices 23 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Table 5 SLO #2 Knowledge of Research Processes and Skills
SLO #2 Knowledge of Research Processes and Skills Research Processes Be familiar with the organization of the research process and practices, across the humanities, sciences, and creative arts disciplines
Research Skills Practice stating a problem Be familiar with methodologies used in each discipline and be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses Understand how to organize information in a clear and meaningful way
Information Literacy, as applied by each discipline Effectively gather information Evaluate sources Synthesize information and identify a research problem
To achieve SLO #2, all undergraduate residential students will participate in a Research 201 course (see Section VI, Action 3.2). The University may utilize a variety of pedagogical means to teach these skills, ranging from traditional meetings with instructional faculty and librarians to discipline-specific research trainings in curriculum or workshops (Hoffman, Rosenfield, Gilbert & Oandasan, 2008). Research 201 will focus on helping undergraduate residential students become familiar with: the processes, practices, and methodologies across disciplines; how to gather, organize, evaluate, and synthesize information; how to identify a research problem; and how to apply these skills in the student’s chosen major/program. This course thus builds a bridge from the general education-level to the major/program-level curriculum.
Literature Supporting the Inclusion of SLO #3 SLO 3: Design a research proposal/project that is discipline specific.
SLO #3 will provide undergraduate residential students the opportunity to observe, acquire, and practice research skills at an advanced level under the apprenticeship of faculty in a 300-400 level research-oriented or research-based environment, also incorporating research-tutored discussions (Hunter et al., 2007, Healey & Jenkins, 2009). The research skills acquired in SLO #3 align with five of the six facets of the RSD framework, excluding “communicate,” and equip the student to participate in a research-based project, with the goal of designing a research proposal and/or project worthy of implementation and, in some cases, dissemination. (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Willison & O’Regan, 2007). These endeavors can occur in individual or collaborative (student-to-student or faculty-to-student) faculty-led settings, depending on curriculum, best practices within the discipline, faculty expertise, and students’ abilities, preparation, and confidence levels. Involvement in research with peers and faculty provides rich and meaningful learning experiences for students and has been associated with high research self-efficacy (Kuh, 2008; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Schuster & Birdsong, 2006). Table 6 identifies the skills students should acquire to achieve SLO #3. Student acquisition of SLO #3 will be measured by a rubric based on the RSD Framework (see Section X).
24 | P a g e Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Table 6 SLO #3 Research Skills
SLO #3 Research Skills Designing a Research Proposal/Project Embark on a research proposal/project by being able to: o select an area of interest o develop a topic o identify a problem o and/or develop a research question Clarify by conducting a literature or artifact review or developing a main argument Find needed information/data by: o collecting relevant sources/evidence (including, but not limited to opposing or supporting arguments, frameworks, methodologies, and/or theories) Evaluate the information by identifying: o the credibility of sources o feedback from peers and professionals in the field to improve the proposal/project Organize the presented content and/or project timeline in a manageable, usable, and discipline appropriate format that can result in implementation of the research proposal or project. Critically analyze the strengths and weakness of the information collected, including, but not limited to: o supporting and opposing arguments o methodologies o the proposed process Synthesize by constructing or summarizing all information/data into a research proposal/project that includes rigorous, researchable questions based on new understandings.
To achieve SLO #3, the QEP will initiate and support curriculum revisions in up to four required 300-400 level research-oriented and research-based courses in each program (see Section VI, Action 3.3).
Dissemination: a QEP Objective Dissemination of research findings has long been considered an essential activity within the scientific community (Merton, 1942) and is recognized as an important component of an effective undergraduate research program (Rowlett et al., 2012). As noted by Lave and Wenger (1991), the process of professional socialization, in which a novice moves into full membership in the community, requires that the student take part in the authentic practices of that research community. As such, the dissemination of research could be considered the final step in the professional socialization of an undergraduate student into a specific field of study. As with the publication of findings in peer-reviewed journals, participation in conferences helps students integrate into the profession (Hunter et al., 2007) and increases their professionalism and confidence (Seymour, Hunter, Laursen & DeAntoni, 2004). Finally, learning to disseminate research beyond traditional venues using innovative technologies helps students develop relevant professional skills.
The QEP supports undergraduate residential students in disseminating their work both on and beyond the campus, when they demonstrate a desire to do so and their research proposal/project is judged worthy of dissemination by faculty. Dissemination will begin in the classroom; however, further opportunities will be available through QEP co-curricular initiatives, specifically the University Research Week (see Section VI, Action 3.4) and increased support for student travel (See Section VI, Action 3.5).
Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices 25 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Together, these initiatives provide the internal and external opportunities for undergraduate residential students to communicate their research to other scholars (Abraham, 2007).
Supporting Faculty and Building Research Infrastructure Faculty modeling and valuing of research are at the core of an effective undergraduate research program (Hensel, 2012). Results of the National Survey of Student Engagement indicate that participation in collaborative research with faculty is considered a “high impact” learning experience that contributes significantly to student persistence and to professional and personal gains reported by undergraduate students (Lipka, 2007; Seymour et al., 2004).
Shera (2008) notes that faculty involvement in research is increased where administration expresses their support, including the building of infrastructure and resources to support research, often in the form of a university research center or office that serves as a central hub inclusive of all students, faculty, and disciplines, for resources, information, dissemination, and organization of a university’s research efforts (Crowe, 2007; Hensel, 2012). Focus groups participating in the identification of Liberty’s QEP voiced a concern that Liberty lacked a strong administrative support system that could resource and publicize professional development opportunities specific to research and scholarship (see Section VI, Action 2.1), provide recognition of excellence in faculty involvement in undergraduate research (see Section VI, Action 2.1), and consolidate institutional support of student research initiatives (see Section VI, University Goal 1). Thus, as part of the QEP, the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) was established to serve as the central hub described above by Crowe and Hensel (see Section VI, Actions 1.1-2).
Technology Supporting Faculty Engagement of Students in Research and Dissemination
Many of the curricular and co-curricular initiatives already in existence at the University provide a limited number of students the opportunity to showcase their research. As the QEP expands these opportunities, the role of technology in dissemination of research needs to be considered. Most higher education faculty and administrators agree that education needs to reflect technological changes in our society (Bonk, 2009; Hall & Hord, 2006). Some argue that academia needs to adopt new, twenty-first century technologies as older systems used for research and its dissemination—print journals, academic presses, and face-to-face conferences—may grow obsolete (Sanders, 2008). With the rise of digital scholarship as well as the use of technology to communicate information, the QEP Steering Committee recognized that enhanced technology skills could contribute to improvement in students’ ability to more powerfully disseminate the outcomes of research. In Fall 2015, the faculty in the College of General Studies selected some residential undergraduate courses (ENGL 101, ENGL 102, SCOM 358, EDUC 240) in which to pilot the use of Adobe®’s Creative Cloud tools with the assistance of the Director for Teaching and Learning Technologies. The Director continues to expand upon the implementation of innovative technology in courses and will serve as a key point person to contribute to the achievement of SLO #3 and Actions 3.4 and 3.5.
26 | P a g e Section V: Literature Review and Best Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs
Liberty University aspires to achieve the QEP student learning outcomes by expanding existing initiatives on campus and initiating new ones to support undergraduate research and scholarship. These actions will be focused specifically on the accomplishment of the three University Goals and the three formulated student learning outcomes. The three goals are designed to:
1. Increase the focus on the development of the infrastructure required for the expansion of undergraduate residential student research and its dissemination. 2. Increase training and support for faculty in the skills required for mentoring students in the development and design of research. 3. Increase funding and allocation of University resources for the creation of additional curricular and co-curricular opportunities for undergraduate residential students’ engagement in research and scholarship.
What follows in the narrative is a restatement of the goals and student learning outcomes Liberty University aspires to accomplish and the action plans the University believes will facilitate a successful outcome for its QEP.
University Goal 1: University Infrastructure Increase the focus on the development of the infrastructure required for the expansion of undergraduate residential student research and its dissemination.
In order to support a growing undergraduate research program, the University recognized the need to build an infrastructure that would provide a central hub which could partner and coordinate with academic and service units already contributing to undergraduate research and scholarship. The corresponding actions taken are outlined in Table 7 and described in the narrative below.
Table 7 University Infrastructure Actions Corresponding Actions SLO Target Audience Assessment (see Section V) Undergraduate Residential Action 1.1: Establish Center for Students and Faculty and CARS Feedback Applied Research & Scholarship #1, 2, 3 Academic and Service Survey (CARS) Support Units Action 1.2: Establish Academic and Service CARS Feedback Collaborative Relationships #1, 2, 3 Support Units Survey across the University
Action 1.1 Establish Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS)
In February 2016, the University established the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) and charged the Center with the responsibility to oversee the expansion of student- learning opportunities in research and its dissemination. In addition to its other responsibilities, CARS leadership will oversee the coordination of academic units throughout the University in order to further the enhancement of research in undergraduate programs, in fulfillment of the
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs 27 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
QEP’s student learning outcomes. Specifically, CARS will resource, guide the development and/or expansion of, and administrate undergraduate curricular and co-curricular research initiatives by:
Championing undergraduate research at Liberty University Guiding the implementation of the curricular actions described below Conducting the annual Research Week and expanding its offerings Providing financial grants to students and faculty to support undergraduate research and its dissemination at local, regional, and national conferences Organizing ongoing professional development opportunities for faculty engaged in developing, directing and teaching undergraduate research curriculum Overseeing QEP assessments in consultation with the QEP Curriculum and Assessment Committee (see Section VIII) Consulting with the CARS Advisory Board (see Section VIII) annually to review progress of the QEP and to guide its direction and expansion Providing QEP annual reports to the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and to the Office of the Provost with recommendations for improvements based on assessment data.
It is essential for CARS to have an online presence through websites and social media for communication of its services and resources; thus, the CARS websites (public and intranet) and corresponding social media (e.g., Instagram and Facebook) sites were established. While the public website provides general information about CARS, the intranet website houses QEP reports and documents (e.g., QEP document, progress reports, meeting notes) and assessment links and instruments (e.g., RSD rubric resources, etc.) to keep University constituents informed about the implementation and progress of the QEP.
CARS will collaborate with and serve as the hub to coordinate the activities of academic and service units whose involvement is essential for achieving successful outcomes through the QEP (Figure 4).
Action 1.2: Establish Collaborative Relationships across the University
Engaging faculty and students in the actions designed to secure success with the QEP requires a centralized hub whose major responsibility involves ensuring the successful collaboration and coordination of a significant number of academic and service units across the University (see Rowlett et al. (2012). The Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) is that hub. The Director of CARS will be the person who served in the formative and final stages of the development of the QEP as the QEP Director. The committees that served alongside of the QEP Director will continue their service and function as part of the cooperative team continuing to oversee the development and implementation of the QEP. The Director of CARS and the QEP committees will work together to establish a network of partnerships involving minimally the partners listed in Table 8, which also includes a brief description of the roles and responsibilities of these partners within the QEP. Further discussion of the network of partnerships and the role of CARS in leading this coordination is presented in Section VIII, under the heading Collaborative Partnerships.
28 | P a g e Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Table 8 QEP Collaborators
Collaborator Contribution to the QEP (Action Item) Office of the Provide senior administrative oversight for the QEP. Provost Establish the Award for Excellence in Research Instruction (2.1). Jerry Falwell Provide research skill training through Research Smart Workshops Library (JFL) (2.1). Collaborate with a discipline-specific expert to develop the information literacy modules for Inquiry 101 and Research 201 (3.1). Collaborate with faculty to integrate information literacy elements in to research-intensive courses (3.1-3.3). Host the Research Symposia and support expansion efforts (3.4). Archive abstracts in the institutional repository (3.4). Institutional Review Collaborate with discipline-specific experts to develop the ethics Board (IRB) element of the research modules for Inquiry 101 (3.1). Collaborate with faculty to integrate ethics-related elements in courses (3.1-3.3). Support student research through oversight of IRB applications (3.3). Office of Assist CARS with the assessment and analysis of data (1.2). Institutional Assist with training, consultation, and evaluation for the curricular Effectiveness (IE) assessments (3.1-3.3). Support QEP assessment. Academic Deans, Support QEP actions for successful implementation within the Program Leaders, program (1.2). and Faculty Evaluate PLOs, curriculum, and courses and develop or modify select courses to support QEP SLOs (3.1-3.3). Revise 300-400 level courses to meet the SLO 3 standards (3.3). Provide feedback on areas of concern associated with implementation of the QEP. Participate in assessment of SLOs (Assessments). Director of Teaching and Provide consultation and training for use of innovative presentation Learning technology in dissemination of research (Disseminate). Technology Center for Teaching Assist with faculty development of instruction and mentoring Excellence (CTE) knowledge and skills in the area of research and scholarship (2.1). Information Develop all application, submission, and assessment systems and Technology (IT) assist with training faculty in their use (1.1, 1.2, 3.4). Provide technical support for presentation and collaboration technology (Disseminate). Marketing Work with CARS to promote QEP awareness and encourage Department participation of residential faculty and students in QEP activities. Support webpage design, social media, promotional media, and other showcases for the QEP and CARS. Undergraduate Collaborate to support faculty and student actions where writing is Writing Center concerned (3.1 - 3.3; 3.4). Offices for Admissions & Promote research and scholarship opportunities to students. Academic Advising
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs 29 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Collaborator Contribution to the QEP (Action Item) Student Affairs Collaborate with CARS and the academic programs to promote Division undergraduate research and scholarship to students.
University Goal 2: Faculty Training Increase training and support for faculty in the skills required for mentoring students in the development and design of research.
An effective Research Training Environment includes the modeling of appropriate behavior and attitudes by faculty (Gelso & Lent, 2000, pp. 121-22). Accomplishing this requires that faculty be supported, receive recognition, and participate in professional development focused on training them in effective ways to assist students in developing research values and knowledge, demonstrating a knowledge of research processes and skills, and designing research proposals or projects (Shera, 2008). The QEP includes the action, outlined in Table 9 and described in the narrative below, that provides support for faculty professional development and recognition of faculty excellence in research instruction and mentorship.
Table 9 Faculty Support and Recognition Action Corresponding SLO Action Target Audience Assessment (see Section V) Action 2.1: #1, 2, 3 Undergraduate CARS Faculty Professional Provide Faculty Residential Faculty Development Survey, Development and participation metrics Recognition
Action 2.1: Provide Faculty Development and Recognition The Center for Teaching Excellence regularly provides professional development opportunities to faculty through book clubs, workshops, networking events, and the summer Technology Boot Camp. Through the QEP efforts, CARS will join these efforts with faculty professional development offerings in the areas of technology (Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies), information literacy (JFL’s Research Smart Workshops), and research instruction, all of which play a primary role in accomplishing the QEP goals. The Faculty Professional Development Committee (see Section VIII), established in Spring 2016 (Year 0), will utilize QEP assessment data and the CARS annual reports to inform the topics and content planned for the professional develop opportunities discussed below. These efforts have already begun, with a Spring 2016 faculty needs assessment to inform planning for future QEP faculty workshops (see Section X). The QEP will place a heavy emphasis on faculty development in Years 1 (Fall 2016-Spring 2017) and 2 (Fall 2017-Spring 2018) in preparation for full implementation of curricular initiatives in Year 2. Offerings will include one-on-one consultations, guest speakers, and the expanded professional development opportunities described below.
The effectiveness of each of these initiatives is evaluated through metrics of participation, the CARS feedback survey, and the implementation of a Faculty Professional Development Survey, in addition to existing assessments already implemented by the Center for Teaching Excellence (see Section X). The Faculty Professional Development Committee will utilize this data to enhance the effectiveness of all QEP professional development offerings discussed below.
30 | P a g e Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Faculty Development Focused on Successful Engagement with QEP Student Learning Outcomes
In Fall 2016 (Year 1), CARS will expand professional development opportunities for residential faculty. CARS will provide Professional Development Grants (see Section IX) which support a wide range of opportunities. These include on-campus workshops, hosting national speakers and consultants, and providing selected faculty travel funds to conferences, all related to developing an effective and well-informed undergraduate research program. Further, CARS will develop and host at least one faculty workshop, symposium, or training per semester. Beginning Fall 2017 (Year 2), CARS will collaborate with the Jerry Falwell Library to extend the Research Smart Workshops.
In addition to this, and in collaboration with the Center for Teaching Excellence, CARS will expand regular faculty training opportunities offered as part of Faculty Orientation in Fall 2016 (Year 1) to include workshops that support the understanding of undergraduate research programs, the enhancement of research knowledge and skills, and best practices in research instruction. Beginning in the spring of 2017 (Year 1) and occurring each year, CARS personnel, in consultation with the Faculty Professional Development Committee and the Center for Teaching Excellence, will develop a three-part research training series based on the Faculty Professional Development Survey (see Section X). The series proposal will be submitted to the Center for Teaching Excellence between April and June each year for review and approval for presentation at the August Faculty Orientation. In addition to general best practices in an undergraduate research program, this research-training series, facilitated by the Center for Teaching Excellence, Office of Institutional Effectiveness and CARS, will provide opportunities for training on QEP assessment, QEP SLO course guidelines, course, and best practices in research mentorship (see Action 3.1-3.3). .
Faculty Recognition Building an exemplary undergraduate research program requires the public valuing and recognition of faculty efforts in research instruction (Rowlett, et al., 2012). In the fall of 2016, the Office of the Provost will establish an Award for Excellence in Research Instruction with an associated monetary award. This follows the model of existing recognition programs on the campus, including the highly touted President’s Award for Excellence in Teaching. CARS will work with the Center for Teaching Excellence to identify the criteria and the process to be followed in the nomination of faculty to receive this award. This award will recognize up to five faculty members who exemplify a commitment to best practices in guiding and teaching undergraduate student researchers, including pursuit of external dissemination and the development of leadership qualities. The Awards for Excellence are traditionally given during the University’s commencement proceedings.
University Goal 3: Curricular and Co-Curricular Opportunities Supporting Student Success in Achieving QEP SLOs
Increase funding and allocation of University resources for the creation of additional curricular and co- curricular opportunities for undergraduate residential students’ engagement in research and scholarship.
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs 31 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Curricular Actions Curricular actions occur on multiple levels in the QEP. Table 10 provides an overview of the curricular actions that will be discussed in this section including SLOs, target audience, the process of implementation, and assessment strategies.
Table 10 Curricular Actions SLOs Impacted (see Impacted Assessment Actions Section V) Audience of Impact Freshman, Pre- and Post- Action 3.1: Develop Inquiry 101 #1 Transfers Evaluation Action 3.2: Develop Research Sophomore, Pre- and Post- #2 201 Transfers Evaluation Action 3.3: Designate Research- Juniors and Intensive Courses in the #3 Seniors, RSD Rubric Disciplines Transfers
Action 3.1 Develop Inquiry 101 The University will develop and require for all first-year undergraduate residential students, including first-year transfer students, a one-credit online course entitled Inquiry 101. SLO #1 (see Section V) outlines a set of University-wide expectations for Inquiry 101, detailing course content and outcomes developed jointly by the Office of the Provost, CARS, and the faculty-led QEP Curriculum and Assessment Committee. The course will be organized around the following themes:
1. Gaining a Sense of the Value and Relevance of Research will foster in students an appreciation for the value of research, as both stewards and consumers of knowledge, in order to help students connect research and practice and to develop research self-efficacy. Students will become aware of research occurring within academic programs across the University and what opportunities are available to them. 2. Introduction to Research will introduce students to the application of research in the real-world, including how faculty are engaged in research that is already impacting the world. This module will provide an introduction to basic research terms, the research process, and research ethics. Consultants from the Institutional Review Board, the College of General Studies, and the academic programs will assist CARS in developing this material. 3. Introduction to Information Literacy will introduce students to basic information literacy skills. The module’s approach will reflect the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) new Framework for Information Literacy, which understands the research process as an iterative conversation that occurs in community—not a technical activity to be undertaken by a lone student with a checklist of tasks to perform. This module will be developed with significant input from the Jerry Falwell Library.
Beginning Fall 2016 (Year 1), the CARS Director will recruit a team of faculty experts to develop content for Inquiry 101 in collaboration with the College of General Studies, the Jerry Falwell Library, and the Institutional Review Board. The Inquiry 101 course
32 | P a g e Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
development team will receive professional development on best practices in creating a research curriculum from CARS, as needed, and ongoing consultation and support in the area of best practices for teaching and learning, instructional design, and assessment from the Center for Teaching Excellence and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. The initial launch of Inquiry 101 is planned for Fall 2017. The QEP budget (see Section IX) provides for the compensation of all faculty involved in Inquiry 101 course development and subsequent revisions based on assessment of course effectiveness in meeting SLO #1.
CARS will oversee the assessment of the Inquiry 101 course through a pre- and post- evaluation developed by the CARS Director, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, and the Curriculum and Assessment Committee (see Section X for further explanation and Appendix I for a sample of the evaluation). Using the post-test evaluation, pilot baseline data was collected in Spring 2016 (Year 0), with plans for further baseline data collection throughout Year 1 (2016-2017). See Section X for findings from the Spring 2016 baseline data collection. As an additional assessment measure, CARS will track students’ participation in SLO #1 designated courses (see Section X).
Action 3.2 Develop Research 201 The University will develop and require all second-year undergraduate residential students, including second-year transfers, to complete a three-credit-hour online Research 201 course that facilitates student achievement of SLO #2 (see Section V).
Research 201 will introduce students to the core research processes and skills needed to engage in research within the humanities, sciences and creative arts disciplines. Students will spend the equivalent of two credit hours (roughly two-thirds of the course) gaining knowledge of the characteristics of research common to all disciplines and the processes that produce it, including the similarities and differences in research between the disciplines. In addition, students will acquire a knowledge of the skills required to undertake these processes. This action provides a method for ensuring all students receive an introductory- level training to research regardless of their chosen program of study, as recommended by the degree qualification profiles of the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (Adelman et. al, 2014). In order to establish the bridge between general research knowledge and skills and those specific to an academic program, one hour (roughly one-third) of this course will concentrate on research instruction specific to one of three disciplines: the humanities, creative arts, or sciences. Students will select which discipline-specific version of Research 201 they participate in dependent upon their projected chosen degree program. Transfer students who enter as sophomores will be required to participate in Research 201 but may test out of Inquiry 101 through achieving a score of 80 or higher on the Inquiry 101 pre-evaluation. In Spring 2017, using QEP curriculum development funds, CARS will contract a faculty team with expertise in research instruction from the College of General Studies, the Jerry Falwell Library, the humanities, the creative arts, and the sciences disciplines to establish and design the Research 201 course content as part of the online curriculum in use in the College of General Studies. The College of General Studies regularly provides courses in the online format for residential students. The Research 201 course development team will receive professional development on best practices in developing research curriculum from CARS as needed and receive ongoing consultation and support in the area of best practices for teaching and learning, instructional design, and assessment from the Center for Teaching Excellence and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. Full implementation of
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs 33 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Research 201 will occur in Fall 2017 (Year 2), with plans for revision as needed. The QEP budget (see Section IX) provides for the compensation of all faculty engaged in the development of the Research 201 course and its revision in future years based on the assessment of course effectiveness in accomplishing SLO #2.
CARS will oversee the assessment of the Research 201 course through a pre- and post- evaluation developed by the CARS Director, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, and the Curriculum and Assessment Committee (see Section X for further explanation and Appendix F for an example of the evaluation). CARS will utilize the post-test evaluation throughout Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 to collect baseline data from sophomore-level students. As an additional assessment measure, CARS will track students’ participation in SLO #3 designated courses (see Section X).
Action 3.3: Designate Research-Intensive Courses in the Disciplines The QEP is designed to assist all residential undergraduate students with the development of the skills needed to design a research proposal or project, as identified in SLO #3. To facilitate this aim, the University will require academic programs to ensure that all third- and fourth-year residential undergraduate students, including transfers, participate in select 300- 400 level research-focused course(s), designated as a research-intensive course(s) whose outcomes align with SLO #3. Academic programs will need to evaluate existing 300-400 level courses in their curriculum and revise as necessary to emphasize and reinforce discipline-specific research skills necessary for designing a research proposal or project. Upon completing this requirement, somestudents will be positioned to move beyond the design phase into execution of their research proposal or project, and potentially, onto dissemination in University or professional venues. Transfer students who enter as Juniors or Seniors will be given an assessment in the first research-intensive 300-400 level designated course they complete and will be required to participate in Inquiry 101 and/or Research 201, or to complete focused remediation activities, based on the results of that assessment. CARS will support the research-intensive courses through QEP Research-Intensive Course grants. Students or faculty participating in research-intensive courses may apply for and receive a grant offered through CARS (see Section IX). Students, either as individuals or as research teams, will be awarded these grants to resource the purchase of supplies, travel, or other support services needed for the execution of research projects. Students interested in applying for these grants will need to meet criteria established by CARS, including an identified faculty sponsor. Faculty may also apply for and be awarded grants to support research projects embedded in a research-intensive course or emerging out of the course as a co-curricular project. Grants administered by CARS will resource faculty for items including, but not limited to, compensation, supplies, travel, and other support services. CARS will establish and manage the award criteria, policies, procedures, applications, and distribution for the grants. In Fall 2016, CARS will commence working with faculty from each program to map 300-400 level courses in each program to SLO #3. Based on this curriculum mapping, CARS will initiate course revisions, understanding that programs have various levels of readiness for implementation, with a goal for full implementation of SLO #3 across all programs by Fall 2018 (Year 3). Based on the assessment data and early participant feedback, CARS may adjust Action 3.3 and/or oversee additional revisions to research courses.
34 | P a g e Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Increasing recognition of student excellence in research is important to the University. The Student Affairs Division and the Office of Spiritual Development, among others, already contribute to preparing students for leadership and development through multiple activities and venues, including a weekly gathering of all undergraduate residential students; CARS will thus work with these offices to highlight research and scholarship opportunities to students at appropriate events and to showcase select students who have distinguished themselves in the areas of research and/or scholarship. During Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 (Year 0), the CARS Curriculum and Assessment Committee developed initial SLO #3 course guidelines and a corresponding rubric, based on the Research Skill Development Framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2008) (see Section X). Revisions have continued through Summer 2016. Training on these guidelines and the rubric will be offered each year at the Center for Teaching Excellence August Faculty Orientation, beginning summer of 2016. In the summer of 2016, CARS gathered pilot baseline data across disciplines through the rating of an upper-level research-type assignment (e.g. research papers, capstone projects, research proposals) with the RSD rubric (see Section X for further explanation and findings and Appendix G, Tables G1-G3 for examples of the rubrics). As an additional assessment measure, CARS will track students’ participation in research-intensive courses (see Section X).
Co-Curricular Actions
Co-curricular actions provide undergraduate residential students with opportunities to develop as professionals ready to meet the challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Through the QEP, students will take advantage of opportunities to disseminate their work at Research Week (Action 3.4) and external conferences or meetings (Action 3.5). Students will gain awareness of these opportunities through their Inquiry 101 and Research 201 courses. Table 11 provides an overview of the co-curricular actions.
Table 11 Co-Curricular Actions Corresponding Target Action SLO (see Assessment Audience Section V) Metrics (Yr. 1-2), Action 3.4: Conduct an Annual All #1, 2, 3 Competitive Research Week students Process (Yr. 3-5) Juniors, Action 3.5: Support Student Travel #3 Metrics Seniors
Action 3.4: Conduct an Annual Research Week Another way to affirm students’ research and scholarship efforts is to provide the opportunity for them to make it visible to other scholars and the community at large (Abraham, 2007; Gelso, 1993). The University provides its students this opportunity through an annual research symposium sponsored by the Jerry Falwell Library, the Graduate School, the College of Arts & Sciences, the School of Health Sciences, and the School of Behavioral Sciences (see Section III). In Spring 2016 (Year 0), the graduate and undergraduate research symposia was moved under CARS and combined into Research Week. CARS initiated the following expansions:
Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs 35 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Established a Research Week Faculty and Student Advisory Board (see Section IX) (Year 0) Invited keynote speakers to spring symposiums, beginning Spring 2016 (Year 0) Established research awards (see Section IX), beginning Spring 2016 (Year 0) Publish an abstract book in the institutional repository, beginning as a pilot in Spring 2018 (Year 2) to be fully established by Spring 2019 (Year 3) Established a performance-based exhibit for students of creative arts scholarship in Spring 2016 (Year 0) with plans for full implementation in Spring 2018 (Year 2) Provide “how to present” workshops for students prior to the symposium beginning Spring 2018 (Year 2) Transition Research Week into a competitive showcase in Spring 2019 (Year 3).
In the Spring 2016, CARS established the Research Week Faculty and Student Advisory Board (see Appendix A, Table A4) to create acceptance criteria for symposium submissions, to review submitted proposals, to compile and edit the symposia abstract book, and to select a keynote speaker. CARS intends to use Years 1-2 (Fall 2016-Spring 2018) to grow awareness of and participation in Research Week and will track participation metrics as a measure of growth, with a target to increase participation by 15% by Year 2. These years will also allow for improvement and finalization of the submission process, judging rubrics, and event logistics. Research Week will transition to a competitive showcase by Year 3 (Spring 2019), in which students participating in program-specific research showcases will be selected to apply for and compete in Research Week. In addition, the QEP budget offers $90,000 seed money to degree programs for establishing program-specific research events (see Section IX).
As Research Week grows, a graduate student assistant (GSA) will be hired to assist with its logistics and promotion. CARS will manage application, submission, and assessment systems with input from the Research Week Faculty and Student Advisory Board. The Jerry Falwell Library provides continued support through hosting and coordinating the Research Week schedule. CARS will assess the effectiveness of this action through tracking participation metrics. Initial tracking of participation statistics shows an increase in participation from undergraduate students in both the poster and oral presentations from the spring of 2014 to the spring of 2016 (see Section X).
Action 3.5: Support Student Travel Opportunity to participate in professional meetings and conferences within a student researcher’s field is an effective way to conduct professional networking and gain feedback on their research from experts in the field (Rowlett et al, 2012). Institutions should provide financial resources to support student travel for external dissemination of their work as this is an exemplary undergraduate research program practice (Rowlett et al, 2012). In 2015- 2016, the Department of Biology and Chemistry and the Department of Psychology sent 45 students to a state conference and the Department of History supported 7 students to travel to a national conferences. However, student travel is significantly limited by department funds. The QEP supports undergraduate residential students’ external dissemination through the allocation of $175,000 for student travel (see Section IX) over its five years. CARS and the University’s Grants Administration Office are collaborating to facilitate the application and dispersal of the student travel funds. CARS will assess the effectiveness of this action through tracking the number of students who travel to external events, such as conferences, exhibitions or case competitions, to disseminate their research (see Section X).
36 | P a g e Section VI: Actions to be Implemented to Achieve Goals and SLOs Practices LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section VII: Timeline
The QEP Steering Committee established a timeline for the QEP (see Table 12). The 2015-2016 academic year (Year 0) was primarily concerned with the establishment of the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship, the introduction and promotion of the QEP initiative to the faculty and students, the collection of preliminary baseline data, and the expansion of Research Week. In Year 1 (Fall 2016- 2017), actions supporting faculty professional development as well as co-curricular events will be initiated or expanded upon. Also in Year 1, actions required for the development of curriculum supporting the achievement of QEP SLOs #1-3 will begin in order that these curricular pieces will be able to commence in Year 2 (Fall 2017-2018). Baseline data for SLOs #1-3 will continue to be collected in Year 1. As the QEP is assessed over time, the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) Director will collaborate with the CARS Advisory Board, faculty, and the relevant academic units to identify any needed adjustments for improving the efficacy of all curricular and co-curricular interventions contributing to the success of the QEP.
Table 12 QEP Timeline, Year 0 (2015) – Year 5 (2021)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 SLO 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 Goal 1: Increase Focus on the Development of University Infrastructure University Infrastructure (Action 1.1-2) SLO Establish CARS and hire personnel; establish collaborative relationships across the university and #1, implement the QEP 2, 3 Goal 2: Increase Training and Support for Faculty Development Faculty Development (Action 2.1) Implement CTE Faculty Orientation Research Track, professional development grants, SLO Pilot faculty training #1, Research SMART Workshops 2, 3 Establish the Award for Excellence in Research Instruction (n ≤ 5) Curricular and Co-Curricular Actions (Actions 3.1-5) Goal 3: Create Curricular and Co-Curricular Research and Scholarship Opportunities Inquiry 101 Course (Action 3.1) SLO Develop #1 course guidelines Develop and Pre/ Inquiry 101; Require Inquiry 101 for all undergraduate residential students in their Post continue freshman year. Evaluation; baseline data collect collection. baseline data Research 201 Course (Action 3.2) SLO Research Develop #2 Modules Research 201 Develop and Pre/Post Require Research 201 for all undergraduate residential students in course Evaluation; their sophomore year. guidelines collect baseline data
Section VII: Timeline 37 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 SLO 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 Research-Intensive Courses(Action 3.3) SLO Develop Require research- Require research-intensive courses for all #3 course Identify and intensive courses academic programs, targeting undergraduate guidelines revise for select academic residential students in their Junior and/or Senior and the courses; programs, targeting year. RSD rubric; continue undergraduate collect baseline data residential students baseline collection in their Junior data and/or Senior year. Research Week (Action 3.4) SLO Establish Research Week Faculty and Student Advisory Board; invite Keynote Speakers; establish student research #1, awards 2, 3 Establish a performance-based exhibit Full implementation of performance-based exhibit for students of for students of creative arts scholarship creative arts scholarship Provide Pilot “How to Research workshops” Week Establish Research Week Abstract Book for Abstract Research Book Week Transition Research Week into a competitive showcase Student Travel (Action 3.5) SLO Establish student travel funding #3 Assessment SLO Implement the RSS and RTES-R in the graduation survey #1, 2, 3 Begin gathering and analyzing metrics; Pre/Post Evaluations (Inquiry 101 & Research 201); CARS Feedback Survey; Faculty Professional Development Survey; RSD rubric Begin use of Alumni Survey Collect and analyze NSSE data (Year 0, Spring 2016, and Year 3, 2019)
38 | P a g e Section VII: Timeline LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section VIII: Organizational Structure
The QEP is achieved through partnerships and cooperative efforts of a number of academic and service units in the University managed via a hub, the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship, and will rely heavily on existing faculty expertise and established academic and service units in the University for support. The plan calls for the enhancement of and enlarged support for existing structures and initiatives under the oversight of the newly developed Center for Applied Research and Scholarship. The Center will serve as the administrative hub responsible for overseeing the coordination, resourcing, and assessment of the effectiveness of all units and processes required for the success of the QEP.
Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) and Description of Director’s Position
To facilitate and coordinate university efforts to carry out the QEP, the Office of the Provost established the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) in Spring 2016 (Year 0). The Center will function under the oversight of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and the Director has direct access to the Provost as needed. In Spring 2016 (Year 0), the Director of the QEP transitioned into the role of the Director of CARS and all of the committees that were essential to the development of the QEP have moved with the Director of the QEP into the administrative structure of CARS. These committees are discussed in the narrative below and outlined in Table 13. The Director of CARS holds a faculty position with full administrative release. The Director’s responsibilities include the coordination, collaboration, and communication necessary for the success and sustainability of the QEP. The Director oversees all QEP committees and leads the annual CARS Advisory Board retreat. The Director collaborates with the CARS Advisory Board and the Associate Director of CARS to monitor QEP progress and coordinates with the Provost’s Office, Academic Deans, Program Directors, and support offices to assess and improve plans on an as-needed basis. The Director is ultimately responsible both for administering the QEP and for leading the University-wide strategic growth and enhancement of research activities and, in collaboration with the Provost’s Office, coordinating with various University units to enhance the University’s research infrastructure, including the acquisition of research funding; research outreach; the planning and development of research space; and formulation, development, and implementation of research policies (see Figure 4 for an illustration of this collaboration). Collaborative efforts include but are not limited to those outlined in Section VI, Table 8. The Director, with support from the Associate Director, supervises all positions situated within CARS. Finally, the Director serves as an ex-officio member of the Graduate Faculty Senate and the Undergraduate Faculty Senate.
To assist the Director of CARS with the oversight of all matters related to the QEP, several new positions have been created.
Associate Director The Associate Director assists the Director with the administrative oversight of CARS, providing administrative leadership as designated by the Director. In collaboration with the Director, the Associate Director manages the communication and scheduling of all CARS and QEP collaborations and meetings. The Associate Director manages the budget, the CARS website, and other online systems needed for assessment and reporting. The Associate Director holds the primary responsibility for the data management for assessment of all QEP actions and CARS processes, especially those related to QEP student learning outcomes and University goals. This includes coordination with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and University departments for the ongoing University-wide assessment and provision of annual progress reports on the QEP initiative to the Director, CARS Advisory Committee, Deans, Program
Section VIII: Organizational Structure 39 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Directors, and the Office of the Provost. Finally, the Associate Director coordinates and oversees the annual Research Week, working with the Research Week Faculty and Student Advisory Board, the academic program faculty, and the Jerry Falwell Library. The Associate Director reports to the Director and is a full-time faculty position with full release.
Administrative Assistant The Director of CARS has an Administrative Assistant who performs a variety of administrative functions associated with staff support, communications, and QEP planning and implementation. Functions include but are not limited to composing, editing, and proofreading correspondence; preparing reports and documents; recordkeeping and database management; coordination of meetings and events; assisting with the administration of budget and inventory; and information gathering and researching for tasks and projects related to the QEP. The Administrative Assistant assists the Director and Associate Director and reports directly to the Director. This position is a full-time staff position.
Graduate Student Assistant CARS employs one graduate student assistant (GSA) for 20 hours a week to assist with events associated with the QEP initiative and sponsored by CARS, with the primary responsibility to support the Director and to assist the Associate Director with the QEP assessment and Research Week.
Undergraduate Student Intern CARS will employ one undergraduate student intern, with prior research experience at the University, through the work study program. This intern will be responsible for assisting with Research Week and providing a student perspective on QEP initiatives to the Director and Associate Director.
CARS Advisory Board and Committees As mentioned earlier in the narrative, all QEP committees that are essential to the oversight and implementation of the QEP, and its ultimate success transitioned with the Director of the QEP to the newly formed hub, the Center for Applied Research and Scholarship. This ensures that all parties having history with development of the QEP are still in place for an informed implementation phase. These committees, including their new responsibilities, are found in Table 13. The University faculty, staff, and students of the Liberty community who have committed to serve on these committees are outlined in Appendix A, Table A4. Members from the original QEP Steering Committee form the nucleus for the newly established CARS Advisory Board. The Advisory Board meets annually to review the progress of the QEP and to guide its direction and expansion. As major QEP initiatives are still in development during Year 1 (Fall 2016-2017), the CARS Advisory Board will meet on a twice per semester basis during Year 1. The CARS Director and Associate Director will co-chair this committee.
40 | P a g e Section VIII: Organizational Structure LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Table 13 CARS Advisory Board and Committees Committee Action Item Contribution Responsibility CARS Advisory All -Guide the QEP Meet twice per Board implementation over a five semester (Year 1) year period and annually (Year -Utilize ongoing QEP 2-5) assessments to advise adjustments in the QEP plan -Perform an annual SWOTT analysis -Advise the CARS Director and Associate Director Curriculum and 3.1 Inquiry 101 -Outline the criteria for Meet twice per Assessment 3.2 Research 201 curriculum mapping and semester Committee 3.3 Designate course designation Research- -Develop resources for Intensive course guidelines Courses in the -Adapt the RSD framework Disciplines to a rubric instrument for SLO #3 -Create the Pre-and Post- Evaluations for SLO #1 and SLO #2 -Assist with assessment Faculty 2.1 Provide -Plan topics and content Meet once per Professional Faculty for faculty development, semester Development Professional specifically for the August Committee Development and Faculty Orientation Recognition Research Track -Utilize assessment (Faculty Professional Development Survey) to inform planning for faculty development -Assist with assessment Research Week 3.4 Conduct an -Set and review Meet twice in the fall Faculty and Annual Research acceptance criteria and semester and as Student Symposium judging rubric for the needed in the spring Advisory Board symposium semester -Review and edit the research symposium abstract book -Assist in selecting a Keynote Speaker
Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies The Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies is a full-time position that reports directly to the Office of the Provost and was hired in part to oversee a half-million-dollar Adobe® Creative Cloud initiative. A portion of this position’s assignment is dedicated to supporting QEP initiatives that facilitate dissemination through utilizing innovative presentation technologies. Technology that contributes to the
Section VIII: Organizational Structure 41 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY innovative presentation of student research will be introduced within the research-intensive courses (Action 3.3) and employed for presentations at the annual Research Week (Action 3.4).
Collaborative Partnerships
The organizational structure of CARS, and the involvement and coordination of the large number of academic and service units necessary for the success of the QEP, as described above, represent a significant investment of human and fiscal resources by Liberty University. Figure 4 illustrates the coordination of academic and service units through the efforts of the Center for Applied Research and Scholarship. As the University implements and assesses the impact of the QEP, it will consider usage and adoption rates to determine additional personnel in order to adequately support the ongoing effectiveness of the QEP.
Office of the Provost Information Schools/ Technology Colleges
Writing Jerry Falwell Centers Library
Marketing Institutional Department CARS Review Board
Student Center for Affairs Teaching Division Excellence
Director of Office of Teaching and Institutional Learning Effectiveness Technology Former QEP Committees
Figure 4. Coordination of University Entities for the QEP
42 | P a g e Section VIII: Organizational Structure LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section IX: Resources
The QEP represents an important aspiration for Liberty University and the learning it values for its students. The University has evidenced its commitment to ensuring the success of the QEP through the human, physical, and financial resources it has allocated. The QEP Steering Committee worked with the Provost’s Office to plan a budget that would adequately fund the QEP (see Appendix A, Table A3 for members of the QEP Steering Committee’s University Support Task Force). Throughout the QEP’s lifespan, Liberty University plans to invest over $2.6 million in order to successfully achieve its desired impact on student learning. The budget is administered and annually reviewed by the Director of the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) and the Provost’s Office to determine if levels of funding are adequate. Table 14 illustrates the budget for the QEP and the narrative below that preceeds the table explains it further.
University Infrastructure The first goal of the QEP is to increase the infrastructure at Liberty University to support student research and scholarship. This required supporting the establishment of the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (Action 1.1). Funding was provided in the budget for four new positions. A full-time Director, Associate Director, Administrative Assistant, and a Graduate Assistant were hired to support the QEP.
Funding for infrastructure supporting the QEP includes support for the on-going expenses related to operating CARS, supporting the QEP activities (e.g., office supplies, books and materials, software, event hosting), and promoting the QEP. The Spring 2016 Marketing Timeline (see Appendix H) demonstrates the types of events and promotions the marketing budget will allow. Funds will be used to create and maintain CARS websites. A basic website was created using Web Manager, Liberty University’s Web management system; however, a more robust intranet website with resources, databases, etc., has been initiated as an IT project. The website and intranet website were designed by an internal web developer from the Institutional Technology Department and are maintained by CARS.
Faculty Development Funding University Goal #2 in the QEP is directed at increasing faculty development for enhancing their ability to achieve the QEP SLOs. A Professional Development budget line item of $205,000 provides support between Year 1-5 for guest speakers, consultants, on-campus workshop materials and materials, faculty attendance at conferences or professional meetings and other activities that will grow faculty’s skills and understanding of best practices in undergraduate research instruction.
Faculty whose performance in mentoring student research is exemplary may receive recognition from the University. The Award for Excellence in Research Instruction will reward up to five faculty on a yearly basis with a monetary award of $3,000 for excellence in research-focused instruction of undergraduate residential students (see Section VI, Action 2.1).
In addition to these new initiatives, the Jerry Falwell Library and the Center for Teaching Excellence will provide in-kind support through various faculty professional development opportunities offered in partnership with CARS and that are not included in the budget.
Curricular and Co-Curricular The third and final goal of the QEP is to increase opportunities for student research and scholarship through both curricular and co-curricular actions.
Section IX: Resources 43 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Curricular Funds have been allocated for curriculum development or research proposal implementation in support of the SLOs.
SLO #1: A faculty team will be compensated to develop the Inquiry 101 course (Action 3.1). Year 1 allocates $12,500 to support this development. Funds have also been allocated for the Years 2 and 3 to support course revisions as informed by assessment data.
SLO #2: Faculty in each discipline area (humanities, social sciences, hard sciences, and creative arts) will be engaged to collaboratively develop the Research 201 course (Action 3.2). In Year 1, $20,000 has been allocated to support this development. Funds have been allocated for Years 2 and 3 to support course revisions informed by assessment data.
SLO #3: CARS will award grants to faculty and students who wish to participate in research-intensive courses (Action 3.3), with the intent of collaboratively creating research and scholarship products that demonstrate potential for dissemination. CARS has committed $425,000 over the lifespan of the QEP in support of these grants.
Co-Curricular The QEP provides for students who desire the opportunity and whose work, in the judgment of their faculty, is of sufficient quality, opportunities for dissemination of their research and scholarship, in venues both internal and external to the University. A vital component of the QEP co-curricular initiative is the annual Research Week (Action 3.4). The QEP funds this annual symposia which includes the creative arts showcase reception, student research awards, and a keynote speaker. In addition, the QEP budget funds School or College specific research showcase events. Finally, the QEP also funds opportunities for qualified students to present their research outside the University with support from the QEP student travel grant funds (Action 3.5).
Assessment Assessment is critical to the improvement of the QEP and ultimately to verify the overall impact and success of the QEP. Fifty percent of the CARS Associate Director’s time is allocated for assessment. Moreover, 25% of the CARS graduate assistant’s time will be spent supporting data collection, analysis, and reporting. These two CARS personnel will collaborate with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (IE) for the administration of assessment, data analysis, and completion of reports. Collaboration with this office is especially important as its personnel oversee the 2016 and 2019 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the graduation survey data and the Alumni Survey. Liberty provides in-kind support of the QEP through donation of IE personnel time to assist with data collection, aggregation, and analysis. Assessment systems (e.g. Qualtrics, Blackboard rubrics) used can be accessed as part of the University’s previously established contracts.
The University appreciates that a robust assessment program (see Section X) requires both human and fiscal support. The QEP budget includes funding to cover all expenses arising from the planned assessment processes, including but not limited to stipends supporting faculty involvement in assessment, external consultants, and/or the accomplishment of revisions to assessment instruments and curriculum.
44 | P a g e Section IX: Resources LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Table 14 QEP Budget
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Item (Action) (2015-16) (2016-17) (2017-18) (2018-19) (2019-20) (2020-21) Goal 1: Increase Focus on the Development of University Infrastructure CARS Operations $29,000 $60,000 $59,000 $48,000 $47,000 $44,000 $287,000 (1.1) CARS $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 $1,146,000 Personnel (1.1) Goal 2: Increase Training and Support for Faculty Development Professional Development $5,500 $50,000 $50,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $210,500 (2.1) Faculty $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000 Awards (2.1) Goal 3: Create Curricular and Co-Curricular Research and Scholarship Opportunities Curricular Inquiry 101 $12,500 $8,400 $8,400 $29,300 (3.1) Research 201 $20,000 $11,100 $11,100 $42,200 (3.2) 300-400 Research- $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $425,000 Intensive Courses (3.3) Co-Curricular Research $7,500 $10,500 $11,500 $36,500 $39,500 $47,500 $153,000 Week (3.4) Student Travel $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $175,000 (3.5) Assessment
Miscellaneous (Stipends, $13,500 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $113,500 consultation, etc.) (3.3)
Total $246,500 $454,000 $471,000 $500,000 $487,500 $497,500 $2,656,500
Note: Appendix I provides further details on how the budget will support the QEP.
Section IX: Resources 45 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
This page is intentionally blank.
46 | P a g e Section IX: Resources LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Section X: Assessment
The QEP Steering Committee Assessment Task Force (see Appendix A, Table A3) has developed a comprehensive and appropriate plan to assess the Institution’s revised QEP that includes quantifiable measures to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of each QEP action and the QEP as a whole. The series of assessments incorporated in this plan build upon and fit within the University’s current methods for institutional assessment. Assessment measures for QEP curricular actions to achieve student learning outcomes #1, #2, and #3 will be merged into both general education core competency and program-level assessment cycles. These assessments cycles will be overseen by the CARS Associate Director - with input from faculty, the College of General Studies, and the program Assessment Coordinators - to ensure full integration of QEP initiatives into the University’s assessment culture. Pre/post evaluations and student surveys will include demographic questions, allowing CARS to track student learning gains and self-reported perceptions by program, while rubrics will be mapped to courses through an online tracking system, with the ability to sort results in a variety of ways (by outcome, by course, etc.) that facilitate analysis. The Director and Associate Director of CARS will collaboratively work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to guide and implement assessments, and they will regularly monitor and evaluate the QEP implementation and progress. Annually, assessment data from the various sources will be analyzed and aggregated by the Associate Director of CARS. This annual report will be reviewed and discussed by the Director and Associate Director of CARS and the CARS Advisory Board to inform annual planning and adjustments to the QEP. The report will be given to the Provost.
This assessment plan includes formative and summative direct and indirect measures. Rubrics, surveys, and metric systems have been and continue to be developed for the collection of data across curricular and co-curricular activities, similar to other research focused QEPs (e.g. George Mason, University of Houston). Regular monitoring of the support services of the Center for Applied Research & Scholarship (CARS) will occur to ensure continuous program improvement.
Ongoing assessment processes conducted over a multi-year timespan in support of the QEP’s mission are presented in Table 15, Table 16, and Table 17. These assessment processes are then described in the narrative that follows the tables.
Table 15 QEP Direct Assessment Processes
DIRECT ASSESSMENT Assessment QEP Impact Target Location Participants Timeline Instrument SLO #1 Pre-and Post- 80% of students Inquiry 101 Freshman/1st Baseline: Impact: All Evaluation who take Inquiry (Action 3.1) Year transfer Year 0 students, drawn from 101 will score at students enrolled (2015- including transfers Inquiry 101 80% or higher on in Inquiry 101 2016) and the knowledge of Year 1 research (2016- component. 2017) Target student Annual: performance for the Year 2-5 value of research component will be determined following further
Section X: Assessment 47 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
DIRECT ASSESSMENT Assessment QEP Impact Target Location Participants Timeline Instrument baseline data collection in Yr. 1. SLO #2 Pre-and Post- Target student Research 201 Sophomores/2nd Baseline: Impact: All Evaluation performance will be (Action 3.2) Year transfer Year 1 students, drawn from determined students (2016- including transfers Research 201 following baseline enrolled in 2017) data collection. Research 201 Annual: Year 2-5 SLO #3 RSD Rubric 80% of students 300-400 Juniors/3rd Year Baseline: Impact: All *Skills to be who take one or Research- transfer students Year 0 students, assessed: more research- Intensive and (2015- including transfers Embark, Clarify, intensive 300-400 Course Seniors enrolled 2016) Find, Evaluate, level course(s) will Assignments in a research- and Year Organize, score at the intensive course 1 (2016- Analyze, Competent or (Action 3.3) aligning with SLO 2017) Synthesize higher level in the #3 Annual: RSD rubric on their Year 2-5 final design of a research proposal or project
Table 16 QEP Direct Assessment Metrics DIRECT ASSESSMENT METRICS The purpose of all metrics is to annually assess the increase in participation and/or usage over the life of the QEP Metrics Target Timeline Disseminate Metrics Number of students presenting at Research Increase by 15% up to Year 2. Week 2014-2021 Year 3 – Year 5 have research week be a competitive process. Number of student publications Increase by 15% between Year 1 and Year 5. 2014-2021 Number of students traveling to Increase by 15% between Year 1 and Year 5. 2014-2021 conferences or professional meetings Curricular Metrics Number of students participating in Inquiry Increase commensurate with enrollment 2017-2021 101 Number of students participating in Increase commensurate with enrollment 2017-2021 Research 201 Number of students participating in Increase commensurate with enrollment 2017-2021 research-intensive 300-400 level courses QEP Goal Metrics Usage numbers for CARS online resources TBD 2016-2021 (Goal #1) Number of faculty participating in QEP TBD 2016-2021 research and scholarship-focused
48 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
DIRECT ASSESSMENT METRICS The purpose of all metrics is to annually assess the increase in participation and/or usage over the life of the QEP Metrics Target Timeline professional development opportunities – trainings, workshops, events (Goal #2) Number of faculty attending professional development opportunities external to the TBD 2016-2021 University (Goal #2)
Table 17 QEP Indirect Assessment Processes
INDIRECT ASSESSMENT All indirect assessments impact QEP SLOs #1, #2, and #3 Assessment Purpose Target Participants Timeline Instrument Research and To gather data about Students will report Undergraduate Baseline: Year 0 Scholarship students’ knowledge, values, an 80% satisfaction residential (2015-2016) and Survey (RSS) skills, and experiences level for applicable graduating Year 1 (2016- related to research and survey items students 2017) scholarship in their programs Annual: Year 1- at the University 5 Research To assess students’ Target student Undergraduate Baseline: Year 0 Training perception of skills and performance will be residential (2015-2016) and Environment knowledge for, as well as a determined in Year 1 graduating Year 1 (2016- Scale – Revised positive attitude toward, students 2017) (RTES-R) research Annual: Year 1- 5 National To assess students’ self- 15% increase over Undergraduate Baseline: Year 0 Survey of report of engagement in 2016 findings residential (2015-2016) Student research freshman and Every three Engagement senior level years: next (NSSE) students administration Year 3 (2018- 2019) Faculty To assess faculty Faculty will report a Faculty Faculty Needs Professional satisfaction with research 70% satisfaction Assessment: Development and scholarship training level for applicable Year 0 (2015- Survey survey items 2016) Annual: Year 1- 5 University To explore the level of Target alumni self- Alumni Annual: Year 3- Alumni Survey impact the QEP has had on report will be 5 the professional lives of the determined following students revision of instrument for inclusion of research questions CARS To record stakeholder All constituents will Faculty, Annual: Year 1- Effectiveness satisfaction with CARS report an 80% students, staff, 5 Feedback services and offer satisfaction level for alumni Survey suggestions for continuous applicable survey improvement items Partnership To evaluate the N/A All senior Annual: Year 1- Focus Group effectiveness of all academic and 5 partnerships within the QEP CARS leadership
Section X: Assessment 49 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
INDIRECT ASSESSMENT All indirect assessments impact QEP SLOs #1, #2, and #3 Assessment Purpose Target Participants Timeline Instrument Continuous To strengthen the QEP’s N/A All QEP Annual: Year 1- Program effectiveness and impact stakeholders, 5 Review throughout its five years entities, and activities SWOTT To analyze institutional N/A The Institution Annual: Year 1- Analysis strengths, weaknesses, 5 opportunities, threats, and trends, which will inform and direct positive adjustments and improvements to the QEP
Student Learning Outcome Assessment
Direct Assessment: Timeline and Plan The following description and tables explain and illustrate the simplified direct assessment of student learning outcomes to be followed with all students, including transfer students.
Baseline Years: Year 0 and Year 1 In the revised QEP, undergraduate residential freshmen will now enter the research training curriculum through Inquiry 101 (Action 3.1) which will be a required general education course designed to instill in students a sense of the value and relevance of research in the life of a university student. Undergraduate residential students as sophomores will complete a required general education course, Research 201 (Action 3.2), where they will acquire foundational knowledge and skills required to engage in research. Undergraduate residential students as juniors and seniors will complete major/program research-intensive 300-400 level courses (Action 3.3) where they will design a discipline specific research proposal/project. (See Section VI for a full explanation of these curricular actions). Prior to initiating the Inquiry 101, Research 201, and research-intensive course treatments, pilot baseline assessment data was collected in Year 0 (2015-2016) for Inquiry 101 and research-intensive 300-400 treatments. Revised baseline assessment data will be collected in Year 1 (2016-2017) for Inquiry 101 and research- intensive 300-400 level treatments, and baseline assessment data for Research 201 will also be collected. These baseline assessment data sets will be used for comparison purposes with appropriate treatment groups. The assessment timeline detailed below in Table 18 illustrates the collection of Year 0 (2015- 2016 Pilot) and Year 1 (2016-2017 Revised) baseline assessment data. No QEP instructional treatments are administered in these years. Table 18 QEP Baseline Assessment Data Collection General Education Years Academic Program Years Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Year 0 No Treatment: No Treatment: No Treatment: 2015-2016: No assessment Research assignments from Assessed with Pilot Pilot Baseline since test did not selected 300-400 level courses Inquiry 101 Test Assessment exist assessed with pilot RSD rubrics
50 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
General Education Years Academic Program Years Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior No Treatment: Year 1 No Treatment: No Treatment: Research assignments from 2016-2017: Assessed with Assessed with selected 300-400 level courses Revised Baseline Revised Inquiry Research 201 Test assessed with revised RSD Assessment 101 Test rubrics
SLO #1: Inquiry 101 Baseline Data In Spring 2016, members of the QEP Steering Committee, the Curriculum and Assessment Committee, and Institutional Effectiveness worked together to create a SLO #1 pre- and post- evaluation, to be embedded within the Inquiry 101 course. An initial pilot of the SLO #1 evaluation assessment tool was conducted in May 2016, which allowed pilot baseline data collection from 4,143 students, at the freshman through senior levels. Both the results and the reliability of the instrument were evaluated during the summer of 2016, in advance of the release of an updated test and additional baseline data collection in Year 1 (Fall 2016-Spring 2017).
In the Value of Research Attitude component, results indicated that freshman were less likely to agree with statements indicating that research was a valuable part of academic coursework and Seniors were more likely to agree. Targets for the Value of Research Attitude component of the test will be finalized throughout Year 1 (Fall 2016-2017). Table 19 provides examples of the statements with which students were asked to agree or disagree.
Table 19 Value of Research Attitude Value Statement Freshmen Seniors 1. Research is valuable.(Likely to Agree) 84% 91% 2. Obtaining knowledge and skills in research and scholarship during my 83% 87% academic program is important.(Likely to Agree) 3. I believe that working on a research project with a faculty mentor outside of a course or program requirements is important for the 9% 13% development of research and scholarship skills.(Likely to Disagree) 4. I believe that working on a research project with a faculty mentor outside of a course or program requirements is important for building 10% 14% a curriculum vita.(Likely to Disagree)
In the Knowledge of Research Test component, the average for all respondents who completed the test was 66.8% (13.36 out of 20), with freshman scoring an average of 62% (12.35 out of 20). Overall, seniors scored higher than all other levels, and freshman scored lower than all other levels, indicating that even in advance of the QEP, students’ appreciation for the importance of research develops over their four years at the University. The results of data from questions, broken down into three focus areas of basic research knowledge, show the following differences (see Table 20):
Table 20 Differences in Focus Areas of Basic Research Knowledge
Focus Area Significant Differences
Ethical Conduct Freshmen scored lower than all other Levels.
Section X: Assessment 51 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Focus Area Significant Differences Freshmen scored lower than all other Levels. Information Literacy Seniors scored higher than all other Levels. Freshmen scored lower than all other Levels. Research Knowledge Seniors scored higher then Freshmen and Sophomores
The low average scores attained by freshman-level students suggests that they are not currently receiving significant training in foundational research knowledge, and that students’ research knowledge and skills typically build at later points in the degree program. Through Action 3.1, the QEP expects that freshmen will increase in their overall performance level and that by Year 5 over 80% of students participating in Inquiry 101 will achieve a score of 80% (16 out of 20) on the Knowledge of Research portion of the post-test.
SLO #2: Research 201 Baseline Data During the fall of 2016, CARS, the Curriculum and Assessment Committee and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness will collaborate on designing a Research 201 pre- and post- evaluation, to be embedded in the Research 201 course, designed to test students’ achievement of SLO #2. An initial pilot of the SLO #2 evaluation assessment tool will be conducted in Spring 2017 to provide baseline data for SLO #2 and its associated Research 201 course. A target performance goal will be established upon review of the baseline data.
SLO #3: Research-Intensive Course Baseline Data In the spring of 2016, the Curriculum and Assessment Committee used the core RSD Framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2008) to develop three rubrics for the humanities, sciences, and creative arts disciplines in recognition of the significant differences in research processes across the disciplines. These differences were identified by the Curriculum and Assessment Committee through a review of similar QEP reports, conversations with assessment specialists using the rubric at peer institutions, and best practice literature. These rubrics were designed to assess the student learning outcome for SLO #3. The Curriculum and Assessment Committee will oversee modification to the rubrics as deemed necessary. Examples of the discipline- specific RSD rubrics can be found in Appendix G, Tables G1-G3.
Via the University’s Blackboard Outcomes analytics tool, embedded in the University’s learning management system (Blackboard), the rubrics will be mapped to all research-intensive courses, providing for easy rating, collection, and aggregation of data within and across programs. The CARS Director and Associate Director, with input from the program Assessment Coordinators, will oversee use of the rubrics and offer faculty training and support. For reliability and validity purposes, an annual random sampling of assignments from each course aligned with SLO #3 will be taken for blind rubric assessment by the Curriculum and Assessment Committee. The CARS Director, Associate Director, and Advisory Board will have access to rubric data for review and to inform the annual QEP planning.
In order to establish a baseline for SLO #3, CARS collaborated with the administration and faculty from the Schools and Colleges to identify one upper-level research assignment from each School/College and rate it using the appropriate humanities, creative arts, or sciences version of the RSD rubric. Assignments submitted included research proposals, research papers, and research survey design projects. Ten of twelve Schools/Colleges submitted scores in August 2016, resulting in an average student score of 2.45 out of 4, indicating that students are attaining the Developing level, but not Competent or higher which would require a score of 3 to 4. Since the initial rating, the rubric has been further refined and additional baseline data
52 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
collection will occur throughout Year 1 (Fall 2016-2017). Assessment of the research-intensive courses will continue throughout the QEP’s implementation, in order to obtain the fullest picture of the impact of each successive curricular intervention.
Treatment Years: Year 2 – Year 5 Year 2 - In Year 2 (2017-2018) the three QEP instructional interventions commence. Cohort A (freshman) receives the Inquiry 101 instructional treatment and is assessed with the Inquiry 101 Test (pre/post). Cohort B (sophomores) receives the Research 201 instructional treatment and is assessed with the Research 201 Test (pre/post). Cohort C (juniors/seniors) receives the research-intensive instructional treatment in 300-400 level course(s) and is assessed with revised RSD rubrics. The assessment timeline detailed below in Table 21 illustrates the Year 2 implementation of these instructional treatments and assessments.
Table 21 QEP Year 2 Treatment and Assessment General Education Years Academic Program Years Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Cohort A: Cohort B: Cohort C: Receives Inquiry 101 Receives Research 201 Juniors and/or Seniors who instructional treatment instructional treatment receive research-intensive Year 2 and is assessed with and is assessed with instructional treatment in 300- 2017-2018 Inquiry 101 Test Research 201 Test 400 level course(s) and are (pre/post) (pre/post) assessed with revised RSD rubrics
Year 3 - In Year 3 (2018-2019) four cohorts are treated and assessed. New Cohort D (freshman) receives the Inquiry 101 instructional treatment and is assessed with the Inquiry 101 Test (pre/post). Cohort A (now sophomores) receives the Research 201 instructional treatment and is assessed with the Research 201 Test (pre/post). Cohort C (now seniors only) consists of the remaining students in the cohort who receive the research-intensive instructional treatment in 300-400 level course(s) and is assessed with appropriate RSD rubrics. Cohort B (now juniors/seniors) receives the research-intensive instructional treatment in 300-400 level course(s) and is assessed with appropriate RSD rubrics. The assessment timeline detailed below in Table 22 illustrates the Year 3 implementation of instructional treatments and assessments.
Table 22 QEP Year 3 Treatment and Assessment General Education Years Academic Program Years
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Cohort C: Seniors who receive research- Cohort D: Cohort A: intensive instructional treatment in 300-400 Receives Inquiry Receives Research level course(s) and are assessed with Year 3 101 instructional 201 instructional revised RSD rubrics 2018- treatment and is treatment and is Cohort B: Juniors and/or Seniors who 2019 assessed with assessed with receive research-intensive instructional Inquiry 101 Test Research 201 Test treatment in 300-400 level course(s) and are (pre/post) (pre/post) assessed with revised RSD rubrics
Section X: Assessment 53 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Year 4 and Year 5 - The timeline detailed below in Table 23 illustrates how new and existing cohorts will be treated and assessed throughout years 4 (2019-2020) and 5 (2020-2021).
Table 23 QEP Year 4 and Year 5 Treatment and Assessment General Education Years Academic Program Years Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Cohort B: Seniors who receive research- Cohort E: Cohort D: intensive instructional treatment in Receives Inquiry Receives Research 300-400 level course(s) and are 101 instructional 201 instructional assessed with revised RSD rubrics Year 4 treatment and is treatment and is Cohort A: 2019-2020 assessed with assessed with Juniors and/or Seniors who receive Inquiry 101 Test Research 201 Test research-intensive instructional (pre/post) (pre/post) treatment in 300-400 level course(s) and are assessed with revised RSD rubrics Cohort A: Seniors who receive research- Cohort F: Cohort E: intensive instructional treatment in Receives Inquiry Receives Research 300-400 level course(s) and are 101 instructional 201 instructional assessed with revised RSD rubrics Year 5 treatment and is treatment and is Cohort D: 2020-2021 assessed with assessed with Juniors and/or Seniors who receive Inquiry 101 Test Research 201 Test research-intensive instructional (pre/post) (pre/post) treatment in 300-400 level course(s) and are assessed with revised RSD rubrics
Analysis of Curricular Assessment Data: Inquiry 101 is an instructional treatment designed to help students gain a value for and basic knowledge of research. Multiple opportunities will exist to make intra (pre/post) and inter comparisons of data from cohorts who have received this QEP Inquiry 101 instructional intervention. It is expected that efforts will be made to improve this instructional intervention each year, which should lead to progressively higher scores on the Inquiry 101 Test.
Research 201 is an instructional treatment designed to help students acquire basic research skills. As with Inquiry 101, multiple opportunities will exist to make intra (pre/post) and inter comparisons of data from cohorts who have received this QEP Research 201 instructional intervention. It is expected that efforts will be made to improve this instructional intervention each year, which should lead to progressively higher scores on the Research 201 Test.
The 300-400 level research-intensive courses are instructional treatments designed to help students apply research skills to design research proposals or projects. As with Inquiry 101 and Research 201, multiple opportunities will exist to make inter (pre/post) and intra comparisons of data from cohorts who have received this QEP 300-400 level instructional intervention. It is expected that efforts will be made to improve this instructional intervention each year, which should lead to progressively higher scores on the RSD Rubrics.
54 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
In some instances, students who receive 300 and/or 400 level research-intensive instructional treatments may be selected to conduct the actual research project; and some of these students may be selected to disseminate research findings at internal (e.g. Research Week) and/or external venues (e.g. professional conferences). These efforts will be assessed using participation metrics, which are explained later in the narrative.
The various assessment strategies described in the timeline tables above are readily integrated in to the existing assessment culture of the University. At the general education level, QEP interventions that correspond to Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) #1-2 will be assessed in tandem with core competency assessment in areas such as information literacy already undertaken by the College of General Studies. In the 300-400 level courses, SLO #3 will be mapped to the curriculum and assessed in the same way that program learning outcomes (PLOs) are already assessed.
Collection and Storage of QEP Curricular Assessment Data The University has robust institutional assessment management systems in place to collect, analyze, and map curricular assessment data. All assessment activities at the Program level and higher are housed in Compliance Assist. At the Course level, outcomes are housed in Blackboard® and Blackboard® Outcomes, technology which will provide for the systematic collection of data required for assessment of the QEP’s impact on student learning. This technology will both facilitate faculty use of pre- and post- tests and use of the RSD rubrics to rate assignments in the 300-400 level courses, and assist CARS in gathering the rubric ratings and aggregating them as desired, by course, degree, department, or School/College.
Direct Assessment Metrics Participation in QEP SLO associated courses and activities, including Research Week and associated events with a School/College, or student travel to external presentation venues/events, will provide further information about the success of the QEP activities (e.g. accomplishment of the University’s desire to increase student opportunities for dissemination) and be reviewed yearly to inform ongoing planning. The CARS Associate Director, in collaboration with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, will be responsible for overseeing this data collection; University survey (Qualtrics) and Assessment (Compliance Assist) systems will be used to gather, and compile and aggregate this data respectively. Metrics related to curricular and co-curricular actions (Actions 3.1-3.5) and related to Faculty Development and Support (Actions 2.1) will be tabulated through subsequent reports. For curricular actions, CARS will collaborate with the Registrar’s Office to track participation in Inquiry 101, Research 201, and research-intensive courses. Increased participation over the life span of the QEP is expected, commensurate with enrollment trends. In addition, recipients of grants (Actions 3.3) for the research-intensive courses will be required to file reports that communicate progress of the research project, including the number of accepted publications and/or presentations, and any additional funding secured.
Co-curricular actions will be tracked through participation metrics collected for Research Week submissions and presentations and student travel awards. In addition, programs will self-report data reflecting research products accepted for publication or professional presentation. Research Week (Action 3.4) and student travel (Action 3.5) metrics have a baseline established from 2015-2016 participation. Examples of co-curricular data include:
Section X: Assessment 55 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Number of annual presentations by students Number of publications by students Number of students presenting at Research Week Number of students traveling to conferences or professional meetings.
Tables 24 and 25 below document a steady increase in the numbers of students presenting at Research week and/or disseminating their work externally at conferences or via publications. This action is expected to increase both the number and percentage of students disseminating their work in these venues.
Table 24 Growth in Research Week undergraduate student participation from 2014 to 2016 Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Category Presentations Presenters Presentations Presenters Presentations Presenters (2014) (2014) (2015) (2015) (2016) (2016) Posters 12 16 24 44 30 76
Presentations 15 21 17 31 30 45
Table 25 Undergraduate Student Dissemination, 2015-2016
Department Presentations Publications Digital Media & Communication Arts 4 1 Cinematic Arts 44 0 Business 2 0 Psychology 28 5 Special Education Teacher Education 0 1 Totals 78 7
CARS will also determine usage of its online resources and faculty participation in research and scholarship-focused professional development opportunities through metrics. Web and mobile usage of CARS resources is expected to increase as students and faculty grow in awareness of the services and resources provided by CARS, especially as CARS plans to continue to expand upon its services. Usage statistics will be tracked using the web manager assessment tool and Google analytics.
Additionally, CARS will closely track faculty participation in on-campus and off-campus research and scholarship-focused professional development opportunities. CARS will partner with the Center for Teaching Excellence to gather participation rates at internal opportunities, while attendance at external opportunities will be tracked using the awarded Faculty Professional Development grants and/or or a self-report form from program administrators (see Table 16 which presents an overview of the assessment of QEP participation and productivity metrics).
56 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
QEP Indirect Assessments Several University-created and validated instruments will assess the impact of the QEP initiatives on students’ perceptions related to the SLOs.
The RSS, RTES-R, and NSSE A student Research and Scholarship Survey (RSS) was developed and validated during Spring and Summer 2015. It was administered to undergraduate students to gather baseline data about their knowledge, values, skills, and experiences related to research and scholarship in their programs at the University. Also, an effective research training environment (RTE) helps students develop the skills and knowledge for, as well as a positive attitude toward, research (Gelso, 1993; Gelso & Lent, 2000). Thus, the modified Research Training Environment Scale – Revised (Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Judge, 1996) was also administered. Beginning Spring 2017, these two surveys, as well as questions about participation in QEP activities, will become part of the graduation survey for students. The survey will be hosted on the University’s Qualtrics® survey system and administrated by CARS with support from IE. The data will be collected and analyzed on an annual basis to examine growth before and after the implementation of QEP activities; correlation analyses between participation in activities and RSS scores and RTES-R scores will also be examined. Findings will inform annual QEP planning, and demographic questions built into the survey will provide insight as to data by School/College or program. CARS has established an 80% satisfaction target for applicable items on the RSS; identification of targets for the RTES-R will be established in Year 1 (Fall 2016-Spring 2017)
2016 and 2019 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results pertinent to student engagement in research will also be evaluated. Specifically, a comparison will be made using the 2016 and 2019 responses to the following questions: (a) Working “with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements” and (b) Completing “a culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, portfolio, etc.).” It is expected that an increase will occur in student engagement in research.
University Alumni Survey The Liberty University Alumni Survey is administered every year during the fall semester, typically October through January. The survey gathers alumni feedback on several matters such as employment status, preparedness for career, satisfaction with specific aspects of student experience, and program-specific questions. Several questions related to research and scholarship will be added to the University Alumni Survey in Year 3 (Fall 2018-Spring 2019) in order to explore the level of impact the QEP has had on the professional lives of the students who have participated in the QEP. These questions will be created in partnership with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.
Assessment of QEP Goals #1 and #2 The QEP assessment plan provides feedback on the effectiveness of the CARS infrastructure put in place for supporting the achievement of the goals and SLOs in the QEP (Goal #1). Additionally assessment is designed to provide feedback on the level of satisfaction with faculty professional development in research and scholarship. (Goals #2).
Section X: Assessment 57 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
CARS Effectiveness To ensure CARS services are meeting student and faculty needs (Action 1.2; 2.1), an ongoing invitation to provide feedback, comments and suggestions will be located on the CARS website. An electronic feedback system will allow constituents to record satisfaction and offer suggestions for continuous improvement. CARS will strive for all constituents to report, on average, an 80% satisfaction level for applicable survey items.
Successfully establishing and sustaining partnerships with a variety of academic and service units is an essential element of the QEP’s success (Action 2.1). Thus, CARS will evaluate its effectiveness as the central administrative hub servicing the many contributors to the QEP by holding an annual focus group with all senior academic leadership and the Provost’s Office in May of each year. The focus group feedback will be included as an appendix to the annual report presented to the Provost, Vice Provosts, and other key stakeholders each August.
Faculty Professional Development Survey Faculty participation in professional development opportunities and initiatives will be assessed using a participation metric. Faculty’s satisfaction with these opportunities and initiatives will also be assessed using the QEP Faculty Professional Development Survey. This survey will inquire about the participants’ satisfaction with the event, with a target goal of maintaining, on average, a 70% rate of satisfaction across the QEP’s lifespan. The QEP Faculty Professional Development survey will be administered within two weeks of each event. Responses from the survey, in addition to conclusions drawn from the direct and indirect student assessment data described above, will guide the Faculty Professional Development Committee (Action 2.1) in their topic selection for future faculty professional development initiatives.
In an effort to collect preliminary data on topics of faculty interest related to research and scholarship, The Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) assisted CARS in conducting a faculty needs assessment in May 2016. Undergraduate residential faculty (n=229) answered the question: “I would be interested in professional development in the following areas to enhance my ability to train students in research knowledge and skills.” Topics of high interest to those responding included: effective mentoring, publishing research, motivating students to research, and integrating research into the classroom.
Continuous Program Review Liberty University designed the QEP with the resources, structure, and collaborative partnerships necessary to attain success and sustainability. To help ensure this happens, there will be an ongoing program review aimed at providing feedback for guiding continuous program improvement. This will help to ensure the QEP’s effectiveness and impact throughout its five years and beyond. A main element in the ongoing program review is a comprehensive and systematic analysis of data collected through the administration of the established assessment instruments.
As part of the ongoing program review, during Year 1 the CARS Advisory Board will meet on a twice per semester basis to facilitate continued development and refinement of the QEP actions designed to achieve the SLOs and the disseminate objective. From the end of Year 1 through Year 5, the CARS Advisory Board will convene on an annual basis to discuss the annual report produced by the CARS Director and Associate Director, and all collected assessment data. Modelled after best practices from other QEP Plans, the CARS Advisory Board will use this
58 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
annual meeting to conduct an analysis of institutional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and trends (SWOTT), which will inform and direct positive adjustments and improvements to the QEP. The SWOTT analysis will be included as an appendix to the annual report presented to the Provost, Vice Provosts, and other key stakeholders each August. The ongoing program review will determine whether the QEP actions are facilitating the achievement of the stated University Goals and SLOs in the undergraduate residential programs (see Table 17 which presents an overview of the indirect assessment of the revised QEP).
Section X: Assessment 59 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
This page is intentionally blank.
60 | P a g e Section X: Assessment LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
References
Abraham, N. B. (2007). Facilities and Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship revisited. resources that promote a research- Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation supportive curriculum. In developing for the Advancement of Teaching. and sustaining a research-supportive curriculum: A compendium of Bussey-Jones, J., Bernstein, L., Higgins, S., successful practices (pp. 485-494). Malebranche, D., Paranjape, A., Washington, DC: Council on Genao, I., & Branch, W. (2006). Undergraduate Research. Repaving the road to academic success: The IMeRGE approach to Adelman, C., Ewell, P., Gaston, P., & peer mentoring. Academic Medicine, Schneider, C. G. (2014). The degree 81(7), 675-679. qualifications profile: A learning- centered framework for what college Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to graduates should know and be able to assessing student engagement rates. do to earn the associate, bachelor's or Practical Assessment, Research and master's degree. Indianapolis, IN: Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved from Lumina Foundation. August 17, 2016, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n ANZIL. (2004). Australian and New Zealand =13 information literacy framework: principles, standards and practice (2nd Craney, C., McKay, T., Mazzeo, A., Morris, J., ed.). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from Prigodich, C., & De Groot, R. (2011). http://www.caul.edu.au/info- Cross-discipline perceptions of the literacy/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, Bauer, K., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni 82(1), 92-113. perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experience. Crowe, M. (2007). The role of campus-wide The Journal of Higher Education, undergraduate research centers in 74(2), 210-230. supporting a research-rich curriculum. In K. K. Karukstis & T. E. Elgren Bloom, B., Engelhardt, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, (Eds.), Developing and sustaining a W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). research-supportive curriculum: A Taxonomy of educational objectives. compendium of successful practices New York: David McKay Company. (pp. 495-505). Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research. Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing Elgren, T., & Hensel, N. (2006). Undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: John research experiences: Synergies Wiley & Sons. between scholarship and teaching. Peer Review, 8(1), 4. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research Exner, N. (2014). Research information University, S. S. Kenny (chair). (1998). literacy: Addressing original Reinventing undergraduate education: researchers’ needs. The Journal of A blueprint for America’s research Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 460- universities. Stony Brook, NY: State 466. University of New York-Stony Brook.
References 61 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Fechheimer, M., Webber, K., & Kleiber, P. B. potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: (2011). How well do undergraduate Pearson Education. research programs promote engagement and success of Hartman, J. Q., Widner, S. C., & Carrick, C. students?. CBE Life Sciences (2013). Strong faculty relationships Education, 10(2), 156–163. and academic motivation as potential doi:10.1187/cbe.10-10-0130 outcomes of undergraduate research. North American Journal of Psychology, Gelso, C. J. (1993). On the making of a 15(1), 229. scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional Hart Research Associates. (2010). Raising the psychology. Professional Psychology: bar: Employers’ views on college Research and Practice, 24(4), 468- learning in the wake of the economic 476. downturn. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Gelso, C. J., & Lent, R. W. (2000). Scientific Universities. training and scholarly productivity: The person, the training environment, and Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2003). Discipline- their interaction. In Handbook of based educational development. In R. Counseling Psychology (3rd ed.). New Macdonald & H. Eggins, (Eds.), The Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. scholarship of academic development. Buckingham, England: SRHE and Gelso, C. J., Mallinckrodt, B., & Judge, A. B. Open University Press. (1996). Research training environment, attitudes toward Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and research, and research self-efficacy: teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and The revised research training the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. environment scale. The Counseling Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: Psychologist, 24(2), 304-322. New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 30-42). Gibson, P. R., Khan, A. S., & Andreoli Mathie, Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill/Open V. (1996). Undergraduate research University Press. groups: Two models. Teaching of Psychology, 23(1), 36-38. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and York, England: HE Academy. the research-teaching nexus: The case Retrieved from of the built environment disciplines. www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/do Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), cuments/resources/publications/Devel 709-726. opingUndergraduate_Final.pdf doi:10.1080/0307507042000287212 Hensel, N. (Ed.). (2012). Characteristics of Hakim, T. M. (2000). At the interface of excellence in undergraduate research scholarship and teaching: How to (COEUR). Washington, DC: Council develop and administer institutional on Undergraduate Research. undergraduate research programs. Washington, DC: Council on Hoffman, S. J., Rosenfield, D., Gilbert, J. H., & Undergraduate Research. Oandasan, I. F. (2008). Student leadership in interprofessional Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing education: Benefits, challenges and change: Patterns, principles, and implications for educators, researchers
62 | P a g e References LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
and policymakers. Medical Education, Lopatto, D. (2008). Exploring the benefits of 42(7), 654-661. undergraduate research: The SURE survey. In R. Taraban & R. L. Blanton Hu, C., Thomas, K. M., & Lance, C. E. (2008). (Eds.), Creating effective Intentions to initiate mentoring undergraduate research programs in relationships: Understanding the impact of science (pp. 112-132). New York, NY: race, proactivity, feelings of deprivation, Teachers College Press. and relationship roles. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 727-744. Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. Peer Review, 12(2), 27. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology cognitive, personal, and professional in a democratic order. Journal of Legal development. Science Education, and Political Sociology, 1, 115-126. 91(1), 36-74. Osborn, J. M., & Karukstis, K. K. (2009). The Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from high-impact benefits of undergraduate research, educational practices: What they are, scholarship, and creative activity. In M. who has access to them, and why they K. Boyd & J. L. Wesemann (Eds.), matter. Washington, DC: Association Broadening participation in of American Colleges and Universities. undergraduate research: Fostering excellence and enhancing the impact, Laursen, S., Hunter, A. B., Seymour, E., Thiry, (pp. 41-53). Washington, DC: Council H., & Melton, G. (2010). on Undergraduate Research. Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real Rowlett, R. S., Blockus, L., & Larson, S. science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- (2012). Characteristics of excellence in Bass. undergraduate research (COEUR). In N. Hensel (Ed.), Characteristics of Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated excellence in undergraduate research learning: Legitimate peripheral (COEUR) (pp. 2-19). Washington, DC: participation. Cambridge, England: Council on Undergraduate Research. Cambridge University Press. Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community Levenson, C. W. (2010). Enhancing at a distance. International Review of undergraduate research in the arts and Research in Open and Distributed the humanities. Peer Review, 12(2), Learning, 3(1), 1-16. 13. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan H. (2004). Blended Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first- learning and sense of community: A year university students experience comparative analysis with traditional inquiry and research, and what are the and fully online graduate courses. The implications for the practice of inquiry- International Review of Research in based learning? Studies in Higher Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2). Education, 37(1), 85–101. Retrieved from http:www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/arti Lipka, S. (2007). Helicopter parents help cle/view/192/274. students, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(11), A1.
References 63 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, Shera, W. (2008). Changing organizational J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate culture to achieve excellence in research experiences. Science, research. Social Work Research, 316(5824), 548-549. 32(4), 275-280.
Sanders, M. E. (2008). STEM, STEM Shulman, L. S. (1999). Professing educational education, STEMmania. The scholarship. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Technology Teacher. 68(4), 20-26. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities Schuster, P., & Birdsong, C. (2006, June). (pp.159-165). San Francisco, CA: Research in the undergraduate Jossey-Bass. environment. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the ASSE Annual Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL. in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly benefits of research experiences for known, commonly not known, totally undergraduates in the sciences: First unknown: A framework for students findings from a three-year study. becoming researchers. Higher Science Education, 88(4), 493- Education Research and 534.SACS. (2011). Handbook for Development, 26(4), 393-409. institutions seeking reaffirmation. Decatur, GA: SACS. Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2008). The Retrieved from researcher skill development http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/ framework. Retrieved August 17, 2016, Handbook%20for%20Institutions%2 from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd/ 0seeking%20reaffirmation.pdf
64 | P a g e References LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix A: Committees Tasked with the Selection, Development, and Implementation of the QEP Table A1
QEP Leadership Committees
Executive Leadership Team Name Title Department / School / College Ronald E. Hawkins Vice President for Academic Affairs and Office of the Provost Provost Kevin Corsini Vice Provost for Academic Operations Office of the Provost Douglas Mann Vice Provost for Graduate Education Dean, Office of the Provost The Graduate School William Wheeler Associate Vice President Office of Institutional Effectiveness Emily Heady Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Office of the Provost Dean, College of General Studies Ben Gutierrez Vice Provost for Academic Administration Office of the Provost
QEP Steering Committee Name Title Department / School / College Elisa Rollins, Chair Associate Dean; Director, QEP The Graduate School Brianne Friberg Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Scott Hayes Associate Dean School of Communication & Creative Arts Carrie Wilmouth Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Gary Isaacs, Jr. Associate Professor School of Health Sciences Carey Roberts Associate Dean College of Arts & Sciences Heather Schoffstall Senior Associate Dean School of Education Herman Kastroll Senior Director Office of Institutional Effectiveness Kevin Lee Rawls Department Chair School of Communication & Creative Arts Shanna Akers Associate Dean School of Nursing Terry Conner Assistant Professor School of Business Amanda Rockinson- Associate Professor School of Education Szapkiw Lucinda Spaulding Associate Professor School of Education Angela Rice Dean Jerry Falwell Library Joshua Chatraw Executive Director The Center for Apologetics & Cultural Engagement Erika Valek Graduate Student School of Behavioral Sciences Ellen Geraghty Graduate Student School of Behavioral Sciences
CARS Advisory Board Name Title Department / School / College Elisa Rollins, Chair Director Center for Applied Research and Scholarship Darren Wu, Chair Associate Director Center for Applied Research and Scholarship Brianne Friberg Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Angela Rice Dean Jerry Falwell Library Lew Weider Director, Biblical Worldview Program Rawlings School of Divinity Gary Isaacs Professor of Biology School of Health Sciences Herman Kastroll Senior Director Office of Institutional Effectiveness Carrie Wilmouth Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Aaron Traphagen Assistant Professor College of General Studies Lucinda Spaulding Associate Professor School of Education Eric Richardson Associate Professor School of Business Tad Hardin Assistant Professor School of Music Kim Little Associate Professor School of Nursing TBD Undergraduate Student Research Expertise (TBD) TBD Faculty School of Communication & Creative Arts
Appendix A 65 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Deans and Leadership Name Title Department / School / College Keith Faulkner Dean Liberty University School of Law Ronnie B. Martin Dean College of Osteopathic Medicine Ed Hindson Dean Rawlings School of Divinity Institute of Biblical Studies Gabriel Etzel Administrative Dean Rawlings School of Divinity Vernon Whaley Dean School of Music Deanna Britt Dean School of Nursing Jim Malloy Dean School of Aeronautics Brian C. Yates Dean College of Applied Studies & Academic Success (CASAS) Karen Parker Dean School of Education Angela Rice Dean Jerry Falwell Library Shawn D. Akers Dean Helms School of Government Norman Mintle Dean School of Communication & Creative Arts Ralph Linstra Dean School of Health Sciences Steve Warren Administrative Dean School of Behavioral Sciences Roger Schultz Dean College of Arts & Sciences David Donahoo Dean School of Engineering & Computational Sciences Scott Hicks Dean School of Business Sharon Wheeler Director Center for Teaching Excellence Connie Allison Director for Teaching and Learning Office of the Provost Technologies Matt Zealand Vice President and Chief Information Information Technology Officer Luke Gentala Registrar Registrar’s Office Don Moon Chief Financial Officer and Vice President Finance Administration for Investment Ron Kennedy Executive Vice President of Marketing Marketing Department
Table A2
QEP Topic Development Committees
QEP Topic Selection Committee Name Title Department / School / College Roger Schultz, Chair Dean College of Arts & Sciences Beth Ackerman Associate Dean School of Education Lisa Thomas Administrative Assistant Center for Teaching Excellence Kirsten Yurowski Graduate Student The Graduate School Douglas Mann Vice Provost for Graduate Education Office of the Provost Dean, The Graduate School Shelah Simpson Assistant Professor Department of English Brianne Friberg Assistant Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Steve Warren Administrative Dean School of Behavioral Sciences Abigail Brentner Graduate Student School of Behavioral Sciences
Key Stakeholder Committee Name Title Department / School / College Douglas Mann, Chair Vice Provost for Graduate Education Office of the Provost Dean, The Graduate School Brianne Friberg Assistant Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Amanda Rockinson- Associate Professor School of Education Szapkiw Scott Hayes Associate Dean School of Communication & Creative Arts John Kinchen, III Associate Dean School of Music Shawn D. Akers Dean Helms School of Government Kevin Lee Rawls Instructor School of Communication & Creative Arts
66 | P a g e Appendix A LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Key Stakeholder Committee Name Title Department / School / College John Cartwright Associate Dean Rawlings School of Divinity David A. DeWitt Professor School of Health Sciences Carey Roberts Associate Dean College of Arts & Sciences David Donahoo Dean School of Engineering & Computational Sciences Tess Stockslager Associate Professor and Director Center for Writing & Languages Kahlib Fischer Associate Professor Helms School of Government Shanna Akers Associate Dean School of Nursing
Table A3
QEP Steering Committee Task Forces
Research Definition and Framework Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Amanda Rockinson- Associate Professor School of Education Szapkiw, Chair Fred Volk Assistant Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Gary Habermas Distinguished Research Professor Rawlings School of Divinity Fred Milacci Professor School of Education James Zabloski Faculty Support Coordinator Rawlings School of Divinity Lucinda Spaulding Associate Professor School of Education James Swezey Associate Professor School of Education
Topic Development and Institutional Assessment Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Herman Kastroll, Chair Senior Director Office of Institutional Effectiveness Amanda Rockinson- Associate Professor School of Education Szapkiw, Chair Heather Schoffstall Senior Associate Dean School of Education Stacy R. Cannon Associate Professor School of Communication & Creative Arts David Barton (retired) Director of Analytics Office of Institutional Effectiveness Elicia Hrabal- Assistant Director of Analytics Office of Institutional Effectiveness Charlesworth Kevin King Associate Professor Rawlings School of Divinity Leo Percer Associate Professor Rawlings School of Divinity Ben Forrest Assistant Professor Rawlings School of Divinity James Zabloski Faculty Support Coordinator Rawlings School of Divinity Gail L. Collins Assistant Professor School of Education Cynthia Goodrich Professor School of Nursing James Swezey Associate Professor School of Education David Holder Assistant Professor School of Education Elgen Hillman Online Assistant Professor School of Education Russell Yocum Associate Professor School of Education Megan Cordes Director, Individualized Programs of Study College of Applied Studies & Academic Success (CASAS) Fred Milacci Professor School of Education Matthew Peele Business Data Analyst II Analytics and Decision Support Michael Shenkle Instructor of Education School of Education Jennifer Reynolds Graduate Student School of Communication & Creative Arts Dimetri Richardson Graduate Student School of Communication & Creative Arts Brianna O’Neal Graduate Student School of Communication & Creative Arts Alexandria Barnette Doctoral Student School of Education Rebecca Lunde Doctoral Student School of Education
Curricular Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Lucinda Spaulding, Chair Associate Professor School of Education
Appendix A 67 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Curricular Task Force Name Title Department / School / College James Swezey Associate Professor School of Education Melanie A. Hicks Professor School of Business Cynthia Goodrich Professor School of Nursing Mindy Damon Associate Professor School of Music Fred Volk Assistant Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Fred Smith Assistant Professor Rawlings School of Divinity Monique Maloney Assistant Professor School of Communication & Creative Arts Edna Udobong Associate Professor Liberty University School of Law Alexandra Barnett Assistant Director Center for Curriculum Development Thomas Mason Grants Administrator Grants Administration Office
Co-Curricular Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Elisa Rollins, Chair Associate Dean; Director, QEP Jerry Falwell Library Carrie Wilmouth, Chair Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Brianne Friberg, Chair Assistant Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Erin Crane Electronic Books Librarian Jerry Falwell Library Hannah Lowder Scholarship Librarian Jerry Falwell Library Katelyn Teter Customer Service Specialist Jerry Falwell Library Fred Milacci Professor School of Education Gene Sullivan Professor School of Business Sharon Kopis Professor School of Nursing Anita Knight Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Ben Forrest Assistant Professor Rawlings School of Divinity Rusty Tyron Head, Collection Management Jerry Falwell Library Anthony Bauer Associate Professor College of Osteopathic Medicine Joseph W. Brewer Associate Dean College of Osteopathic Medicine Michael R. Korn Associate Professor School of Health Sciences Jessica Matz Instructor School of Behavioral Sciences Bailee Robinson Graduate Student Assistant School of Behavioral Sciences Alan Fulp Associate Professor School of Health Sciences Andrew Fabich Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Jennifer Hutchinson Associate Professor School of Nursing Mark Myers Associate Dean School of Behavioral Sciences David A. DeWitt Professor School of Health Sciences Kyle Kennedy Graduate Student School of Behavioral Sciences Steve Warren Administrative Dean School of Behavioral Sciences Tamela Crickenberger Executive Director of Enrollment Liberty University Online
Faculty Development Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Scott Hayes, Chair Associate Dean School of Communication & Creative Arts Craig Hammond Coordinator of Academic Operations Office of the Provost Steve Warren Administrative Dean School of Behavioral Sciences Norm Mintle Dean School of Communication & Creative Arts Gary Isaacs Associate Professor School of Health Sciences Pamela Miller Assistant Professor School of Communication Sharon Wheeler Director Center for Teaching Excellence
University Support Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Shanna Akers, Chair Associate Dean School of Nursing Terry Conner, Chair Assistant Professor School of Business Kevin Lee Rawls Instructor School of Communication & Creative Arts Lisa Sosin Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Gene Sullivan Professor School of Business Cynthia Goodrich Professor School of Nursing
68 | P a g e Appendix A LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Assessment Task Force Name Title Department / School / College Carey Roberts, Chair Associate Dean College of Arts & Sciences Shelah Simpson Assistant Professor College of Arts & Sciences Ruth Ronk Secretary College of General Studies John Durden Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Megan Cordes Director, Individualized Programs of Study College of Applied Studies & Academic Success James Swezey Associate Professor School of Education Monique Maloney Assistant Professor School of Communication & Creative Arts Herman Kastroll Senior Director Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Table A4
QEP Implementation Committees
Curriculum and Assessment Committee Name Title Department / School / College Brianne Friberg, Chair Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Rusty Tyron Head, Collection Management Jerry Falwell Library Kimberly Brown Associate Professor School of Nursing Victor Hinson Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Emily Knowles Assistant Professor School of Business James Swezey Associate Professor School of Education Ron Miller Associate Dean Helms School of Government Robert Talley Assistant Professor Rawlings School of Divinity Shelah Simpson Assistant Professor Department of English Megan Cordes Director, Individualized Programs of Study College of Applied Studies & Academic Success Anita Knight Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Gary Isaacs Associate Professor School of Health Sciences Josh Chatraw Executive Director; Associate Professor Center for Apologetics & Cultural Engagement Herman Kastroll Senior Director Office of Institutional Effectiveness TBD Undergraduate Student TBD TBD Undergraduate Student TBD TBD Undergraduate Student TBD
Faculty Professional Development Committee Name Title Department / School / College Carrie Wilmouth, Chair Associate Professor School of Behavioral Sciences Sharon Wheeler Director Center for Teaching Excellence Michael Price Associate Professor, Research Coordinator School of Health Sciences Cindy Schmidt Head, Communication & Customer Services Jerry Falwell Library Tess Stockslager Assistant Professor and Director Center for Writing & Languages Eric Richardson Associate Professor School of Business Pamela Miller Assistant Professor School of Communication & Creative Arts TBD Faculty School of Engineering & Computational Sciences
Research Week Faculty and Student Advisory Board Name Title Department / School / College Carey Roberts, Chair Associate Dean College of Arts & Sciences Nicholas Aboreden Student School of Health Sciences Joshua Sellwood Student School of Health Sciences Krista Kirk Student School of Behavioral Sciences Micah Sauskojus Student College of Arts & Sciences Montana Drawbaugh Student School of Behavioral Sciences Matalie Morgan-Howard Assistant Professor College of Arts & Sciences Michael Hart Associate Professor School of Business David A. DeWitt Professor School of Health Sciences Barbara Potts Coordinator, Scholarly Communications Jerry Falwell Library Martin Sheldon Assistant Professor Rawlings School of Divinity
Appendix A 69 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix B: QEP Timeline
Date Activity Fall 2013 QEP Topic Selection: Proposals Formation of QEP Topic Selection Committee (See Appendix A, Table A2) Proposals for QEP topics were solicited from University constituents. 136 proposals were submitted and evaluated. Spring/Fall 2014 QEP Topic Selection: Proposals Six potential topic proposals were selected. Topics were identified and presented to the Executive Leadership Team (see Appendix A, Table A1). The Executive Leadership Team identified research and scholarship as a tentative topic. Fall 2014 QEP Topic Selection: Institutional Input and Assessment Formation of Key Stakeholder Committee (see Appendix A, Table A2). Key Stakeholder Committee compiles information from focus groups (N > 175) and key stakeholders from represented schools, colleges, and departments to assess the appropriateness of the tentative topic of research and scholarship. University assessment data collected and analyzed to identify potential areas of improvement regarding student learning. Key Stakeholder Committee presentation of focus group and existing University assessment data provided to Executive Leadership Team and to the President to further identify the QEP topic. Fall 2014 QEP Topic Selection: Topic Selected Based on the proposals, focus groups, and review of existing institutional data, the Executive Leadership Team selected the QEP topic of research and scholarship. January/February QEP Director Appointed and Formation of QEP Steering Committee 2015 Appointment of QEP Director to assess, develop and implement the University’s QEP. QEP Director collaborates with Key Stakeholder Committee members and University constituents to solicit feedback on the QEP topic and to assess the needs of administration, faculty, staff and students. Potential QEP Steering Committee Members identified. QEP Steering Committee established, February 2015 (see Appendix A, Table A1). Spring/Summer/Fall Data Compilation, Constituent Outreach and Planning 2015 QEP Steering committee conducts comprehensive review of literature and best research practices. Establishment of goals, student learning outcomes, action plans, assessments, budget, organizational structure and timeline to improve student learning. Interfacing with task forces and broad-based constituents regularly for feedback during development of the QEP. (See Appendix A, Table A3 for task forces and other participants; See Appendix C for list of meetings and events). Regular QEP Steering Committee and Executive Leadership Team meetings (See Appendix C for list of meetings and events). Surveys distributed to students (April-October) and faculty (Fall 2015) (see Section III) to further gather feedback from students and faculty on research and scholarship at Liberty University.
70 | P a g e Appendix B LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Date Activity Working Draft QEP (Sections I to VII) presented to Executive Steering Committee (May 2015). QEP tentatively approved and action plan distributed to deans. Deans acquire feedback from key stakeholders for June 9 meeting with QEP Director and Steering Committee. Spring/Summer/Fall Marketing Plan (See Appendix H) 2015 QEP Director provides bi-monthly updates through the Newsletter and Deans meetings. QEP Director addresses the All Faculty Meeting on the QEP topic, population focus and Student Learning Outcomes (April 2015). Spring/Summer/Fall Information Technology (IT) personnel appointed to assist with QEP website. 2015 Marketing promotion in July 2015 solicited feedback for QEP slogan and logo from University students. QEP Director refocused marketing efforts during Fall 2015 and in January 2015 relaunched a Spring 2016 campaign in collaboration with the Marketing Department. Summer/Fall 2015 QEP Refined and QEP Document Written QEP refined based on feedback from Executive Leadership Team and constituents. Assessment Task Force (see Appendix A, Table A3) developed an initial assessment plan, drafted October-November 2015. First Working Draft of the QEP document completed. QEP Steering Committee, 7 University constituents (not involved in writing the QEP draft) reviewed, provided feedback, and edited the document (July 2015). Upon further review of current research opportunities at the University, undergraduate students were identified as the final target population. Meetings between the Executive Leadership Team and QEP Steering Committee continued to guide the development of specific elements of the proposed QEP. Fall 2015 Selected Consultant and Lead Evaluator Recruited QEP lead evaluator. Hired QEP external consultant. October-December QEP Document Reviewed and Edited and Target School Identified 2015 QEP document reviewed by external consultant. QEP document underwent further revisions by the QEP Steering Committee based on feedback from the consultant. QEP document presented for approval to Executive Leadership Team. December 15- QEP Document Finalized and Marketing Campaign Launched January 2016 QEP document completed and finalized with the Marketing Department. QEP director launched marketing campaign in collaboration with the Marketing Department. QEP final document sent to SACSCOC On-Site Reaffirmation Committee. Website and social media launched by Spring 2016. Spring/Summer SACSCOC On-Site Visit and QEP Revisions 2016 The SACSCOC On-Site Reaffirmation Committee visited Liberty University The QEP Steering Committee and Executive Leadership Committee furthered revised the QEP based on direction from the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee
Appendix B 71 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix C: List of Meetings and Events for Information Gathering (Internal and External), University Outreach and Planning
Date Meeting / Event Summer 2014 QEP Topic Proposal Selection Fall 2014 Key Stakeholders Meetings and Formation of Focus Group Organizations Winter 2015 QEP Internal/External Information Gathering and Collaboration January 23, 2015 Executive Leadership Team Meeting January 23, 2015 Meeting with Honors Program Representatives January 29, 2015 Executive Leadership Team Meeting February 17, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting March 12, 2015 Meeting with University Grants Administration Office Director March 16, 2015 Executive Leadership Team Meeting March 17, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 Topic Development and Institutional Assessment Task Force Meeting March 25, 2015 Meeting with Deans to Provide Updates on the QEP March 26, 2015 QEP Curricular and Co-Curricular Task Force Meeting March 26, 2015 Topic Development and Institutional Assessment Task Force Meeting March 31, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting Meetings with University Instruction and Support Center Representatives, Juris Spring 2015 Doctor and Counseling Faculty, Librarians and Doctoral Degree Directors April 2, 2015 Executive Leadership Team Meeting April 9, 2015 Executive Leadership Team Meeting April 10, 2015 Meeting with Vice Provosts to Provide QEP Updates April 14, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting April 14, 2015 Presentation of the QEP to Deans April 15, 2015 Inclusive University Faculty Meeting to Provide an Update on the QEP April 23, 2015 Topic Development and Institutional Assessment Task Force Meeting April 29, 2015 Meeting with Dean, Liberty University School of Law April 29, 2015 QEP Curricular and Co-Curricular Task Force Meeting April 30, 2015 QEP Curricular Task Force Meeting May 5, 2015 QEP University Support Task Force Meeting May 5, 2015 QEP Co-Curricular Task Force Meeting May 5, 2015 QEP Topic Selection Committee Meeting to Discuss Institutional Data May 11, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting May 12, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting May 13, 2015 Deans Meeting to Provide an Update on the QEP May 19, 2015 Meeting with University Information Technology May 19, 2015 Meeting with University Budget Representatives May 21, 2015 Executive Leadership Team Meting May 28, 2015 Meeting with University Marketing Department June 2, 2015 QEP University Support Task Force Meeting June 2, 2015 Institutional Effectiveness Team Meeting June 8, 2015 QEP Assessment Task Force Meeting
72 | P a g e Appendix C LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Date Meeting / Event QEP Update with Question and Answer for Proposed QEP Action Plan for Faculty, June 9, 2015 Staff and Students June 10, 2015 QEP Curricular and Co-Curricular Task Force Meetings June 10, 2015 QEP Curricular and Co-Curricular Task Force Meetings June 16, 2015 QEP Assessment Task Force Meeting June 16, 2015 Meeting with University Marketing Department June 24, 2015 Brainstorming Session with Marketing Department March 2016 Research Symposia Discussion with Representation from the Jerry June 25, 2015 Falwell Library, the College of Arts and Sciences, and the Graduate School June 26, 2015 Meeting to Discuss the QEP Proposed Budget June 26, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting June 29, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting July 7, 2015 Meeting to Discuss Marketing Initiatives, Preparation and QEP Website Design July 7, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting July 15, 2015 QEP Assessment Task Force Meeting July 16, 2015 Meeting with Marketing Department Managers to Provide QEP Update August 4, 2015 Meeting to Discuss QEP Technology Implementation August 4, 2015 Planning and Strategy Meeting with Marketing Managers August 5, 2015 Meeting with Liberty Analytical Staff to Discuss QEP Technology Implementation August 5, 2015 Meeting with Vice Provost and Marketing Department to Discuss the QEP Budget August 10, 2015 Dissemination of the Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Survey Meeting with University Institutional Effectiveness Managers to Discuss Results of September 8, 2015 the Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Survey September 2015 Distribution of the QEP Surveys to Undergraduate Students Fall 2015 Initiation of the QEP Draft Peer Review Process October 29, 2015 Research Symposia Team Meeting November 20, 2015 Research Symposia Team Meeting December 1, 2015 QEP Steering Committee Meeting Meeting to Facilitate Coordination with of the School of Health Sciences as a QEP December 15, 2015 Pilot Implementation Location January 6, 2016 QEP Student Focus Group Meeting with Undergraduate Students January 15, 2016 QEP Meeting with University Marketing Department for QEP Campaign Meeting with University Institutional Effectiveness Managers to Discuss January 26, 2016 Assessment for A-Day at the 2016 Research Symposia February 4, 2016 QEP and School of Health Sciences Update, Planning and Collaboration
Appendix C 73 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix D: Liberty University Mission, Purpose and Strategic Plan Key Themes Supporting the QEP Topic
Liberty University develops Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, skills essential to impact the world. Through its residential and online programs, services, facilities, and collaborations, the University educates men and women who will make important contributions to their workplaces and communities, follow their chosen vocations as callings to glorify God, and fulfill the Great Commission.
Liberty University will:
Emphasize excellence in teaching and learning. Foster University-level competencies in communication, critical thinking, information literacy, and mathematics in all undergraduate programs. Ensure competency in scholarship, research, and professional communication in all graduate programs and undergraduate programs where appropriate. Promote the synthesis of academic knowledge and Christian worldview in order that there might be a maturing of spiritual, intellectual, social, and physical value-driven behavior. Enable students to engage in a major field of study in career-focused disciplines built on a solid foundation in the liberal arts. Promote an understanding of the Western tradition and the diverse elements of American cultural history, especially the importance of the individual in maintaining democratic and free market processes. Contribute to a knowledge and understanding of other cultures and of international events. Encourage a commitment to the Christian life, one of personal integrity, sensitivity to the needs of others, social responsibility, and active communication of the Christian faith, and, as it is lived out, a life that leads people to Jesus Christ as the Lord of the universe and their personal Savior.
The University’s 2014-2017 Strategic Plan provides a clear pathway toward accomplishing its mission and identifies six themes, two of which “Advanced Academic Reputation” and “Capitalizing on Human Potential” directly coincide with the goals and learning outcomes of the QEP “Illuminate.”
Advancing Academic Reputation
The efforts a university makes to increase the quality of curriculum, instruction, academic scholarship and research. This results in higher levels of learning and academic achievement among current students and alumni, which is widely recognized by the community, prospective employers, benchmark institutions, and pertinent stakeholders. This is the foundation for developing and promoting the university as a top educational brand.
Capitalizing on Human Potential
The efforts a university makes to recruit highly qualified and innovative personnel and provide them with opportunities to achieve their full potential through training and professional development. Employees are encouraged to utilize their skills to the best of their ability by providing them with a safe and secure work environment. This utilization will provide opportunities for these individuals to fulfill their own mission in life.
74 | P a g e Appendix D LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix E: QEP Overview
Anchored QEP in University Mission, Purpose, and Strategic Plan Mission Statement: Purpose Statement: Purpose Statement: Strategic Plan theme Strategic Plan theme "Liberty University "1. Emphasize "3. Ensure competency "Advancing Academic "Capitalize on Human develops Christ- excellence in teaching in scholarship, research, Reputation" - The Potential" - The centered men and and learning". and professional University strives to University's commitment women with the values, communication in all “increase the quality of to "investment in knowledge, and skills graduate programs and curriculum, instruction, professional essential to impact the undergraduate academic scholarship development". world". programs where and research”. appropriate".
Identified QEP Topic with Involvement of All University Constituencies Illuminate: Cultivating a Community of Research and Scholarship
Identified University Goals that Would Support Successful Outcomes for the QEP Goal 1: Increase focus on the development Goal 2: Increase training and support Goal 3: Increase funding and allocation of of the infrastructure required for the designed to advance and refine faculty University resources for the creation of expansion of student research and skills required for the development and additional curricular and co-curricular its dissemination. design of research. opportunities for student research and scholarship.
Developed Student Learning Outcomes that Would Significantly Improve Student Learning Students will be equipped to: Demonstrate the ability to articulate the Develop the knowledge and skills Design a research proposal/project that is value of research and a basic understanding required to engage in research and discipline specific. of the role of research and scholarship in the scholarship. life of a University student.
Developed a Plan of Action Identifying Timelines, Key Personnel, Resources, and Assessment Strategies and Timeline Supported Supported Assessment Assessment Actions Timeline Resources Goals SLOs Instruments Timeline 1.1 #1 #1, 2, 3 -In Yr. 0 (2015-2016), CARS staffing -University wide survey -- Yr. 1 (2016-2017): Establish CARS was initiated with adequate providing feedback on CARS initiates the Center for budget support the effectiveness of survey, which Applied -In Yrs. 1-5 (2016- CARS and the QEP continues throughout Research 2021), CARS sustains -SWOTT analysis Yrs. 2-5 (2017-2021) and its role as QEP conducted by the -Yr. 1(2016-2017): Scholarship administrator CARS Advisory Board CARS Advisory Board (CARS) on an annual basis meets twice per -Annual report semester provided the Provosts - Yrs. 2-5 (2016-2021): Office CARS Advisory Board -Participation metrics meets annually to review all QEP data - Yrs. 1-5 (2016-2021): an annual report is given to the Provosts Office in September - Yrs. 1-5 (2016-2021): CARS collects annual participation metrics 1.2 #1 #1, 2, 3 -In Yr. 0 (2015-2016), CARS partnering -University wide survey -- Yr. 1 (2016-2017): Establish CARS initiated with university providing feedback on CARS initiates the collaborative partnerships across all units required for the effectiveness of survey, which relationships university units implementation CARS and the QEP continues throughout across the required to implement and sustaining of -Annual meeting of Yrs. 2-5 (2017-2021) University and sustain the QEP the QEP academic units with - Yrs. 1-5 (2016-2021): CARS leadership to CARS meets in May of
Appendix E 75 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Developed a Plan of Action Identifying Timelines, Key Personnel, Resources, and Assessment Strategies and Timeline Supported Supported Assessment Assessment Actions Timeline Resources Goals SLOs Instruments Timeline -In Yrs. 1 - 5 (2016- evaluate the each year with 2021), CARS sustains effectiveness of all academic units these partnerships partnerships
2.1 #2 #1, 2, 3 -In Yr. 0 (2015-2016), -CARS, CTE and -Survey requesting - Yr. 0 (2015-2016): Provide initial faculty CCD offer a feedback from faculty faculty suggested pro Faculty development occurred comprehensive participating in QEP dev topics related to Development -In Yrs. 1-2 (2016- faculty pro dev opportunities research and and 2018), concentrated development -Participation metrics scholarship Recognition emphasis on faculty program in pro dev events - Yrs. 1-5 (2016-2021): development -CARS fiscally focused on research CARS initiates and -In Yrs. 3-5 (2018- supports faculty and scholarship continues the survey 2021), continue development and collection of emphasis on faculty -Director of participation metrics development Teaching and Learning Technologies guides faculty use of presentation technology 3.1 #3 #1 -Develop in formative CARS - Pre/Post Evaluation -Yrs. 0-1 (2015-2017): Develop Yr. 1 (2016-2017) Curriculum.& to asses student gains CARS collects Inquiry -In Yrs. 2-5 (2017- Assessment in SLO #1 baseline data from 101 2021), implement and Committee, Dean -Participation metrics freshmen administer annually of CGS, CCD, for Inquiry 101 (Yrs. 2- -Yrs. 2 - 5 (2017- Faculty SMEs, 5) 2021): freshmen are Librarian, IRB, evaluated every fall CARS stipends, and spring semester IE 3.2 #3 #2 -Develop in formative CARS -Pre/Post Evaluation to -Yr. 1 (2016-2017): Develop Yr. 1 (2016-2017) Curriculum.& assess student gains CARS collects Research -In Yrs. 2-5 (2017- Assessment in SLO #2, baseline data from 201 2021), implement and Committee, Dean -Participation metrics sophomores administer annually of CGS, CCD, for Research 201 (Yrs. -Yrs. 2 - 5 (2017- Faculty SMEs, 2-5) 2021): sophomores Librarian, CARS are evaluated every stipends, IE fall and spring semester 3.3 #3 #3 -Develop in formative CARS -RSD Rubrics rate -Yrs. 0-1 (2015-2017): Designate Yr. 1 (2016-2017) Curriculum.& student research CARS collects research- -In Yr 2. (2017-2018), Assessment proposals/projects to baseline data from intensive partial implementation Committee, assess student gains upper-level research- courses in -In Yrs. 3-5 (2018- Program faculty, -Participation metrics intensive courses the 2021), implement fully Librarian, CARS for research-intensive -Yrs. 2 - 5 (2017- Disciplines and administer grants courses (Yrs. 2-5) 2021): research annually projects/proposals are evaluated every fall and spring semester 3.4 #3 #1, 2, 3 -In Yrs. 0-5 (2015- CARS staff, JFL -Participation metrics -Yrs. 0 - 2 (2015- Conduct 2021) staff, CARS for Research Week 2017): CARS collects an annual budgetary (Yrs. 0-2) participation metrics Research resources -Competitive process -Yrs. 3 - 5 (2017- Week supporting by Yr. 3 2021): Research Research Week, Week becomes a Program faculty competitive process 3.5 #3 #3 Initiate in Yr. 1 (2016- CARS staff, -Participation metrics -Yr. 0 (2015-2016): Support 2017) and sustain Academic for student external CARS collects Student throughout Yrs. 2- 5 Programs, CARS dissemination baseline participation Travel (2017-2021) budgetary data resources -Yrs. 1 - 5 (2016- supporting 2021): CARS collects student travel participation metrics annually
76 | P a g e Appendix E LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix F: Inquiry 101 Pre- and Post-Evaluation (SLO# 1)
Inquiry 101 Pre- and Post-Evaluation
Thank you for completing this evaluation of your knowledge of basic research values, knowledge and skills. Your responses are confidential and will be used to inform continued planning for the Liberty University Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). Please contact the QEP Office at [email protected] or 592-5939 if you have any questions or concerns.
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS:
Please provide the following information. LUID (include leading 'L' and zeros) Liberty email address
At the beginning of this semester, what was your classification by credit hours: Freshman (0-23 credit hours) Sophomore (24-47 credit hours) Junior (48-71 credit hours) Senior (72 and above credit hours)
Have you previously taken or are you currently taking a college-level research methods course for your major? Yes No
Please rate your level of agreement with the following Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree statements disagree agree Research is valuable. Obtaining knowledge and skills in research and scholarship during my academic program is important. Engaging in research and scholarship is an important aspect of being a good citizen and steward within the community and world. I understand why it is important for Christians to engage in scholarship. I believe that working on a research project with a faculty mentor outside of a course or program requirements is important for the development of research and scholarship skills. I believe that working on a research project with a faculty mentor outside of a course or program requirements is important for building a curriculum vita.
Please select the best answer to the following multiple choice questions.
1. Which of the following is the first step you should take after your Professor assigns you a research paper? Visit an online tutorial to learn how to find a peer-reviewed journal article. Ask a Librarian to help you find a list of sources for your bibliography. Review the assignment to identify what types of information you will need. Browse the Internet for information on your topic. 2. You are researching a topic and finding thousands of relevant results. What might be a next step? Use only results published in the last year. Select a different topic. Broaden your topic. Narrow your topic.
Appendix F 77 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
3. (Fill in the blanks) ______research addresses questions with practical implications; whereas, ______research addresses questions that are aimed at enhancing general knowledge in an area. Basic, Applied Applied, Translational Translational, Basic Applied, Basic
4. All of the following are acceptable ways to report the following finding EXCEPT: Research proves that smoking is linked to lung cancer. Research suggests that smoking is linked to lung cancer. Smoking is significantly correlated with lung cancer. All of these are acceptable.
5. According to the Belmont Report, which three ethical principles should be applied when conducting research involving human subjects? Beneficence, justice, and integrity Respect for persons, beneficence, and justice Respect for persons, integrity, and fairness Fairness, integrity, and honor
6. Failing to report a conflict of interest can threaten the ability of researchers to conduct research responsibly and can undermine trust in a researcher's integrity by: Introducing bias or the appearance of bias. Damaging professional or organizational reputation. A loss of funding opportunities. All of the above.
7. The IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) is responsible for providing independent oversight of the care and use of animals used in research, teaching, and testing. Which of the following is true? Only experiments using people require institutional oversight. Animal research is always allowed if it can’t be conducted with humans. Researchers using animals must demonstrate that they are minimizing pain in the animals. All of the above.
8. The effects of research misconduct on society, organizations sponsoring research, and the researcher include: Waste of valuable resources. Betrayal of public trust. Loss of reputation and credibility for the organization and researcher. All of the above.
9. Which of the following statements best defines research misconduct? A difference of opinion in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. The fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. An honest error in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. I'm not sure.
10. Plagiarism is representing someone else’s work as your own. Which of the following actions is not plagiarism: Quoting another person’s words without quotation marks and source credit. Incorporating a few phrases from an article into the paper you are writing. Using a commonly known fact without giving source credit. Using someone else’s idea, but communicating it in your words and not giving credit.
78 | P a g e Appendix F LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
11. You can protect yourself against plagiarism by: Summarizing another person's words and include a citation for that source. Including my own contributions, so I am not relying exclusively on the ideas of others. Providing my sources. All of the above.
12. You want to retrieve articles from a database that cover the topic of “human ethics” in relation to “cloning." What Boolean operator would create an effective search phrase? Human ethics ALSO cloning Human ethics AND cloning Human ethics OR cloning Human ethics NEAR cloning
13. Your Professor has assigned you to review various types of methodology prior to planning your research. In which of the following articles would you typically find a section on methodology? Case study Literature review Empirical study Theoretical study
14. You are researching the following question, “Do food commercials impact the eating habits of viewers?” Which group of keywords would work best for retrieving relevant search results in a database? Food commercials, effect, eating habits Habits, food Commercials, television, influence Eating, viewers
15. You are conducting research on the topic of autism. Which of the following resources would present the best information? What is Autism? National Library of Medicine website, April 2016 Hope for Reversing Autism, article from Time Magazine, December 2012 Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, book, 2005 NAA Blog, National Autism Association website, 2016
16. Which of the following indicates that an article is peer-reviewed? The article has been reviewed by a panel of experts on the topic to ensure scholarly standards. The article has been edited by a researcher. The article provides citations for its sources. I'm not sure.
17. The research process involves gathering relevant information that will inform your topic. You should seek out information from: Websites Your professor Scholarly sources I'm not sure.
18. On social media, you come across an article stating a statistic that seems unbelievable. How can you evaluate whether this is an accurate statistic? No evaluation is necessary, social media is accurate. Read other articles on the topic and compare statistics. Determine the origin of the statistic and its publisher. I'm not sure.
Appendix F 79 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix G: Research Skill Development Rubrics (#SLO 3)
Table G1: RSD Rubric (Creative Arts)
Creative Arts Research Skills Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) GUIDING CONTEXT A description of A description of A description of A description of what a beginning what a slightly less what a competent what an advanced student looks like. than competent student looks like. student looks like. student looks like. Embark Skill: Research Research Research Research Respond to or initiate Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Problem/Interest research Question is not Question is Question is clearly Question is clearly clearly identified identified and identified and is identified and is Students will be able to needs appropriate to the appropriate to the identify the amendments to be discipline discipline problem/interest or applicable to the according to according to develop a research discipline audience and audience and question. according to purpose. purpose within a intended audience specific context. and purpose. Clarify Skill: Research Research Research Research Clarify of determine Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Problem/Interest what knowledge is Question does not Question Question Question clearly required, heeding define the scope inadequately adequately defines and thoroughly ethical/cultural and of the project or defines the scope the scope of the defines the scope social/team creative work. of the project or project or creative of the project or considerations. Proposed project creative work. work; proposed creative work; is not feasible Proposed project project is feasible proposed project Students will be able to AND does not is not feasible OR and answers the is feasible and refine the answer the does not answer Problem/Interest/ answers the problem/interest or Problem/Interest/ the Problem/ Question. Problem/Interest research question. Question. Interest/Question. Question. Find Skill: Student conducts Student conducts Student conducts Student conducts Find needed a literature/artifact/ a literature/artifact/ a literature/artifact/ a literature/artifact/ information using creative work creative work that creative work that creative work appropriate review that is not is not relevant to is relevant to the review that is methodology. relevant to the the topic OR does topic and relevant to the topic AND does not adequately adequately covers topic and Students will be able to not adequately cover sources sources thoroughly covers conduct a cover sources appropriate to the appropriate to the sources literature/artifact/ appropriate to the discipline. discipline. appropriate to the creative work review. discipline. discipline. Evaluate/Critique Student does not Student does not Student compares Student compares Skill: compare and compare and and contrasts and contracts Determine and critique contract various contrast various various sources various sources the degree of sources within the sources within the within the review within the review credibility of selected review of literature review of literature of literature of literature/ sources, information /artifact/creative /artifact/creative /artifact/creative artifact/creative and of data generated. works AND works OR student works. work review in a student does not does not critique Student critiques discipline-specific Students will be able to critique the the credibility of the credibility of format, with no evaluate/critique the credibility of selected sources. selected sources. formatting errors. literature/artifact/ selected sources. creative work sources. Organize/Execution/ Student does not Student does not Student organizes Student organizes Delivery Skill: organize organize information in a information in a information in a information in a way that reveals way that reveals
80 | P a g e Appendix G LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Creative Arts Research Skills Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) Organize information way that reveals way that reveals patterns and patterns and and data to revel patterns and patterns and themes, and themes, and patterns and themes. themes, AND does themes, OR does presents the presents the not present the not present the literature/artifact literature/artifact/ Students will be able to literature/artifact/ literature/artifact/ creative work Creative work organize the creative work creative work review in a review in a information they have review in a review in a discipline-specific discipline-specific collected to reveal discipline-specific discipline-specific format, with few format, with no patterns and themes format. format. formatting errors. formatting errors. and present the literature/artifact/ Creative work review in a discipline-specific format. Analyze Skill: Student does not Student does not Student Student Analyze appropriately appropriately appropriately appropriately information/data analyze how the analyze how the analyzes how the analyzes how the critically literature/artifact/ literature/artifact/ literature/artifact/ literature/artifact/ creative work creative work creative work Creative work Students will be able to review informs review informs review informs review informs analyze how the their proposal their proposal OR their proposal and their proposal and literature/artifact/ AND does not does not articulate articulates how articulates how creative work review articulate how their how their project their project their project informs their proposal project will will contribute to contributes to the significantly and how their project contribute to the the discipline. discipline. contributes to the contributes to the discipline. discipline. discipline. Synthesize Skill: Student does not Students Student completes Student completes Synthesize information complete the completes the the proposal, the proposal, to develop a cohesive proposal proposal, but which presents a which presents a proposal. adequately, AND presents a cohesive plan for cohesive plan for does not present a disjointed plan for delivering the delivering the Students will be able to plan for delivering delivering the artifact/creative artifact/creative complete the proposal, the artifact/creative work. work. which will present a artifact/creative work. Proposed project plan for delivering the work. has the potential artifact/creative work. to contribute to existing knowledge/ practice.
Table G2: RSD Rubric (Sciences)
Sciences Research Skill Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) GUIDING A description of A description of A description of A description of CONTEXT what a beginning what a slightly less what a competent what an advanced student looks like. than competent student looks like. student looks like. student looks like. Embark Skill: Research Research Research Research Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Problem/Interest Students will be is not clearly is identified and Is correctly Is correctly and able to develop a articulated needs key identified and thoroughly topic. amendments in contributes to the identified and
Appendix G 81 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Sciences Research Skill Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) order to contribute body of knowledge contributes to the to the body of in the discipline, body of knowledge knowledge in the however the scope in the discipline. discipline. may be too broad or too narrow. Clarify Skill: Not able to Able to identify a Able to identify the Able to identify the generate content- gap in the gap in the literature gap in the literature Students will be specific research literature, but not and generate and generate able to refine the aims or gap in the able to generate content-specific content-specific problem/interest or literature. content-specific research aims and research aims (e.g. research question. research aims, identify the gap in testable (e.g. testable the literature (e.g. hypotheses, hypotheses, testable research questions, research questions, hypotheses, problem/purpose problem/purpose research questions, statement which statement). problem/purpose would expand the statement. body of knowledge). Find Skill: The review of the Able to provide a Able to provide a Able to provide a literature/other review of the review of comprehensive Students will be evidence provided literature/other literature/other review of able to find needed is not relevant to evidence relevant evidence relevant literature/other information using the topic/content to the topic/content to the topic/content evidence relevant appropriate area AND lacks a area, but all key area, but is missing to the topic/content techniques. foundation in the elements relevant one of the area that includes appropriate to the topic are not following: all key elements conceptual/ addressed AND - all key elements relevant to the topic theoretical lacks a foundation relevant to the topic and is grounded in framework or prior in appropriate are not addressed appropriate research. conceptual/ - lacks a foundation conceptual/ theoretical in the appropriate theoretical framework or prior conceptual/ framework or prior research. theoretical research. framework or prior research. Evaluate Skill: Sources, previous Sources, previous Sources, previous Sources, previous data, and/or data, and/or data, and/or data, and/or Students will be methodology that methodology that methodology that methodology that able to evaluate the align with the align with the align with the align with the degree of credibility research aim are research aim are research aim are research aim are of selected summarized but summarized, but summarized and summarized, able sources, previous key details are not fully compared include to compare and data, and/or missing. and contrasted and comprehensive contrast existing methodology. implications to their comparisons and studies, and able to own research are contrasts but explicate missing. implications to their implications to their own research are own research. missing. Organize Skill: Formatting does Utilizes discipline- Able to follow Able to follow not align with specific formatting, discipline-specific discipline-specific Students will be discipline-specific but lacks formatting and formatting and able to organize requirements and organization with organization, with organization, with information in an lacks organization. greater than 5 3-5 distinct errors. fewer than 3 appropriate distinct errors. distinct errors. discipline-specific manner.
82 | P a g e Appendix G LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Sciences Research Skill Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) Analyze Skill: Does not provide Able to articulate Able to articulate Able to articulate limitations of their some limitations of key limitations of key limitations of Students will be proposed research. their proposed their proposed their proposed able to critically research, but key research but did research and how analyze the elements are not address how the limitations may limitations of their missing and did not the limitations may impact potential proposed research. address how the impact potential findings. limitations may findings. impact potential findings. Synthesize Skill: Not able to Able to formulate a Able to formulate a Able to formulate a formulate a discipline specific discipline specific research design Students will be research design research design but research design and data collection able to synthesize that aligns with poorly aligns with that aligns with strategies that align information into an topic/content area. topic/content area topic/content area with topic/content appropriate and is not but is not grounded area and are research design grounded in current in current literature. grounded in current grounded in current literature. literature. literature.
Table G3: RSD Rubric (Humanities)
Humanities Research Skills Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) GUIDING A description of A description of A description of A description of CONTEXT what a beginning what a slightly less what a competent what an advanced student looks like. than competent student looks like. student looks like. student looks like. Embark Skill: Overly broad topic Topic is applicable Narrowed topic Narrowed topic and/or not to the discipline but appropriate to the appropriate to the Students will be applicable to the requires refinement discipline according discipline according able to develop a discipline. for intended to audience and to audience and topic. audience and purpose. purpose within a purpose. specific context. Clarify Skill: Research Research Research Research Problem/Question/ Problem/Question/ Problem/Question/ Problem/Question/ Students will be Goal does not Goal inadequately Goal adequately Goal clearly and able to refine topic address the scope addresses the addresses the thoroughly into a research of the project or scope of the project scope of the project addresses the problem/question proposal; or proposal; or proposal; scope of the project Goal. or proposal; Scope of the Scope of the Scope of the problem/question/ problem/question/ problem/question/ Scope of the goal is not feasible goal may not be goal is feasible or problem/question/ or cannot be feasible or cannot can be answered/ goal is feasible or answered/ be answered/ achieved. can be answered/ achieved. achieved. achieved. Find Skill: Fails to Demonstrates a Demonstrates an Demonstrates a demonstrate an limited understanding of mastery in the Students will be understanding of understanding of the location and understanding of able to articulate or the location and the location and availability of the location and demonstrate an availability of availability of sources/evidence. availability of understanding of sources/evidence. sources/evidence. sources/evidence. where to collect sources/evidence
Appendix G 83 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Humanities Research Skills Development Rubric
Level Beginner (1) Developing (2) Competent (3) Excellent (4) that support the project or proposal. Evaluate Skill: Few sources/ Some sources/ Nearly all sources/ All sources/ evidence are evidence are evidence are evidence are Students will be relevant to the relevant to the relevant to the relevant to the able to identify chosen Research chosen Research chosen Research chosen Research relevant primary Problem/Question/ Problem/Question/ Question/Goal; Problem/Question/ and/or secondary Goal; Goal; Goal; sources/evidence. Project or proposal Project or proposal Project or proposal Project or proposal incorporates a few incorporates some incorporates nearly incorporates all primary and/or primary and/or all primary and/or primary and/or secondary sources. secondary sources. secondary sources. secondary sources. Organize Skill: Formatting does Lacks discipline- Able to follow Able to follow not align with specific formatting discipline-specific discipline-specific Students will be discipline-specific or organization. formatting and formatting and able to organize requirements and organization, with organization with and/or format the lacks organization. limited errors. minimal errors. proposal or project in an appropriate discipline-specific manner. Analyze Skill: Does not identify Not fully able to Able to articulate Able to articulate the significance of articulate the significance of their significance of their Students will be their proposal or significance of their proposal or project. proposal or project able to analyze the project. proposal or project. while also significance of their demonstrating an proposal or project. understanding of its limitations. Synthesize Skill: Not able to Able to formulate a Able to formulate a Able to formulate a formulate a discipline specific discipline specific discipline specific Students will be research approach research approach research approach research approach able to synthesize that aligns with but poorly aligns that aligns with that aligns with information into an topic/content area. with topic/content topic/content area topic/content area appropriate area OR is not and is grounded in and is grounded in research project or grounded in current current literature or current literature or proposal grounded literature or sources/evidence. sources/evidence in current literature sources/evidence. AND has the or sources/ potential to evidence. contribute to existing knowledge/ Practice.
84 | P a g e Appendix G LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix H: QEP Marketing Timeline
2015 2016 Spring Summer Fall Spring QEP Update for Faculty, Staff, Students, and University Leaders QEP Update Meeting with Deans Presentation of QEP to Doctoral Degree Program Directors & Deans Presentation of QEP Update at All Faculty Meeting QEP Presentation and Marketing Feedback Elicited during Counseling Ph.D. & Graduate Intensive Classes & Ed.D. Classes Question and Answer for Proposed QEP Action Plan Presentation of Student Focus Group to QEP Update at Inform QEP Marketing All Faculty Strategies Meeting QEP Marketing Meeting with Executive Committee and Marketing Department Develop QEP Marketing Plan: Preparation QEP Marketing Plan Development QEP Website Design Meeting QEP Budget Meeting the Budgeting Representatives, Marketing Department, & Vice Provost Meeting with Marketing Department QEP Video Filming QEP Marketing/Symposia Update with Marketing Department Establish a QEP Logo & Slogan and CARS Logo & Infographic Establish QEP Social Media Marketing QEP: Launch and Engage QEP Website & Social Media Launch QEP Week (QEP kits, posters, flyers, videos, email blast, & media advertisements) QEP Research Week/Symposia (promotional activities & giveaways)
Appendix H 85 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Appendix I: QEP Budget Justification Detail
Goal 1: Increase Focus on the Development of University Infrastructure
a. CARS (Builds environment) – Action 1.1 – 1.2: $29,000 Pre Yr. 1; $60,000 Yr. 1; $59,000 Yr. 2; $48,000 Yr. 3; $47,000 Yr. 4; $44,000 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $287,000 Operating Budget: This is inclusive of postage, copies, office supplies, and other office operation material. $13,000 Pre Yr.1; $15,000 Yr.1; $14,000 Yr. 2; $13,000 Yr. 3; $12,000 Yr. 4; $11,000 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $78,000 Software and Hardware: This is inclusive of software and hardware, including qualitative research software, Camtasia/captivate for tutorials, potential storage, as well as other software decided upon. $5,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $25,000 Marketing, Event (e.g. professional development) and Assessment: This is inclusive of supplies to market all QEP-related events (e.g. Research Week, faculty development, research-intensive courses, student travel support), host research focused events and purchase assessment materials (e.g. assessment system, supplies and incentives). $11,000 Pre. Yr. 1; $20,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 2; $10,000 Yr. 3 – Yr. 4; $8,000 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $79,000 Professional Development Travel and Resources: This includes conference fees, association fees, as well as material fees (e.g. research texts) for the office and personnel. $5,000 Pre Yr. 1; $20,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $105,000. b. CARS Personnel: $191,000 Pre Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $1,146,000 Director: Salary of $80,000 Pre Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $480,000 Associate Director: Salary of $65,000 Pre Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $390,000 Administrative Assistant: Salary of $30,000 Pre. Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $180,000 Graduate Student Assistant (GSA): $16,000 Pre. Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $96,000
Goal 2: Increase Training and Support for Faculty Development
a. Faculty Development totals: $5,500 Pre Yr. 1; $65,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 2; $50,000 Yr. 3 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $285,500 b. Faculty Professional Development (Builds environment) – Action 2.1: Professional development grants will support selected faculty travel to conferences, on-campus workshops and national speaker and consultants. $5,500 Pre. Yr. 1; $50,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 2; $35,000 Yr. 3 – Yr. 5.Total all-years = $210,500 c. Faculty Research Instruction Awards (Builds environment) – Action 2.1: $15,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $75,000 Up to five faculty will be awarded $3,000 for research instruction work that results in a publication, or equivalent, with contributions from an undergraduate student(s). $3,000 X 5 participants Yr. 1 – Yr. 5.
86 | P a g e Appendix I LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Goal 3: Create Curricular and Co-Curricular Research and Scholarship Opportunities
Curricular a. Action/ Item totals: $82,500 Yr. 1; $94,500 Yr. 2; $119,500 Yr. 3; $100,000 Yr. 4 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $496,500 b. Curriculum Development Inquiry 101 Course (SLO #1) – Action 3.1: $29,300 for development of Inquiry 101 with revision in Yr. 2 and LUO development in Yr. 3. $12,500 Yr. 1; $8,400 Yr. 2 – Yr. 3. Total all-years = $29,300 Research 201 Course (SLO #2) – Action 3.2: $42,200 for development of Research 201 with revision in Yr. 2 and LUO Development in Yr. 5. $20,000 Yr. 1; $11,100 Yr. 2 – Yr. 3. Total all-years = $42,200 c. Research-Intensive Course Research Grants (SLO#3) – Action 3.3: $50,000 Yr. 1; $75,000 Yr. 2; $100,000 Yr. 3 –Yr. 5. Total all-years = $425,000 Resources for Faculty and Student Collaborative Research support faculty involved in guiding students through the design and implementation of research OR for students implementing a research project under mentorship of a faculty member, beginning in Yr. 2.
Co-Curricular a. Co-Curricular Actions totals: $7,500 Pre Yr. 1; $35,500 Yr. 1; $41,500 Yr. 2; $71,500 Yr. 3; $79,500 Yr. 4; $92,500 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $328,000 b. Research Week (Disseminate OBJ, Builds environment) – Action 2.4: $7,500 Pre Yr. 1; $10,500 Yr. 1; $11,500 Yr. 2; $36,500 Yr. 3; $39,500 Yr. 4; $47,500 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $153,000 Guest Speaker: $4,000 Pre Yr. 1- Yr. 1; $5,000 Yr. 2 – Yr. 3; $3,000 Yr. 4; $6,000 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $27,000 Event Food and Supplies: $1,500 Pre Yr. 1; $2,500 Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $14,000 Student Research Awards: $2,000 Pre Yr. 1; $4,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $22,000 School/College Research Events: $25,000 Yr. 3; $30,000 Yr. 4; $35,000 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $90,000 c. Student Travel Grants (Disseminate OBJ) – Action 2.5: $25,000 Yr. 1; $30,000 Yr. 2; $ 35,000 Yr. 3; $40,000 Yr. 4; $45,000 Yr. 5. Total all-years = $175,000
Assessment
a. Miscellaneous Expenses Supporting Assessment– $13,500 Pre Yr. 1; $20,000 Yr. 1 – Yr. 5. Total all-years = $113,500
Grand Totals = $2,656,500 $246,500 Pre Yr. 1; $454,000 Yr. 1; $471,000 Yr. 2; $500,000 Yr. 3; $487,500 Yr. 4; $497,500 Yr. 5
Appendix I 87 | P a g e LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
This page is intentionally blank.
88 | P a g e Appendix I