Doc format
Nicholls State University
Thibodaux LA 70310
Reaffirmation Committee Visit
March 22-24, 2006
Response Report to Visiting Committee Recommendations
K. Chris Rachal
Assistant Professor of Psychology & Counselor Education
Quality Enhancement Plan Coordinator
Telephone: 985-448-4350
E-mail: chris.rachal@nicholls.edu
September 20, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Although SACS Reaffirmation Committee found that Nicholls "developed an acceptable Quality
Enhancement Plan and demonstrates that the plan is part of an ongoing planning
and evaluation process in compliance with Accreditation Standard 2.12," the
visiting team made four recommendations regarding the standard:
QEP RECOMMENDATION 1: The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate
that it has named individuals to the following positions: an individual to
lead CAFÉ, an individual to coordinate internal and external assessment of the
QEP, and an individual to be Coordinator of the learning communities.
QEP RECOMMENDATION 2: The Committee recommends that the institution provide a
specific list of the library resources, both actual and virtual, which will be
available in the Faculty Development Center, CAFÉ.
QEP RECOMMENDATION 3: The Reaffirmation Committee recommends that the institution
document that it has adequate fiscal resources to support the QEP.
QEP RECOMMENDATION 4: The Reaffirmation Committee recommends that the institution
demonstrate it has a refined and comprehensive plan to evaluate the success of
the QEP.
This current report will address each of these recommendations.
The Reaffirmation Committee recommends that the institution demonstrates that it has named individuals to
the following positions: an individual to lead CAFÉ, an individual to
coordinate internal and external assessment, and an individual to be
Coordinator of the learning communities.
Under Goal 1 Increasing Faculty Engagement in Instructional Best Practices it is
stated that there will be a Center for Advancing Faculty Engagement (CAFÉ).It is not clear who will lead CAFÉ; furthermore, since there
will be a significant amount of assessment being undertaken and collected both
internally and externally related to the QEP, there is concern that no one
seems to be designated to handle this difficult and time consuming task; and
finally there is, under Goal 2 considerable discussion of a collaborative
learning environment or a learning community but no indication of who will lead
the learning community.(See page 28-29 Report of the Reaffirmation Committee)
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1
Nicholls has created and advertised the position of Director of the Center for Advancement
of Faculty Engagement (see appendix A). This individual will be responsible for
coordinating the activities associated with the CAFÉ. We have also budgeted for
a graduate assistant and clerical support person to assist the CAFÉ
coordinator.
The QEP outcome data collection, analysis, and reporting
will be coordinated by the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research (AIR). The QEP coordinator will work
closely with the director of AIR to assist with implementing the assessment
plan, analyzing the results, and communicating the findings to faculty and
administration. In addition, a graduate assistant position assigned to the QEP
Chairperson will be funded for fall and spring semesters to assist with the
collection, analysis, and reporting of assessment results.
The QEP steering committee has created a fourth subcommittee charged with developing and
implementing learning communities designed to increase critical thinking
through writing. In addition, we have budgeted for a learning center
coordinator and graduate assistant.
The Reaffirmation Committee recommends that the Institution provide a specific list
of the Library resources, both actual and virtual, which will be available in the Faculty Development Center, CAFÉ.
The institution states in the QEP that a branch library will be developed and offer an online collection of
best practices, provide access to professional journals and provide a
monographic collection of resources related to QEP efforts. The timeline that
the Institution provided does not show any funding for the Library nor does it
show any specific resources that will be available to faculty members wishing
to use the resources. (See page 29 Report of the Reaffirmation Committee)
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 2
The Ellender Memorial Library supports the Nicholls State University Quality
Enhancement Plan,s CAFÉ. The function of every university library is to support
the parent institution by identifying, evaluating, and purchasing both
monographs and serials in the areas critical to the success of the
institution,s mission. As such, we have made available five specific monograph
funds that address the areas of Faculty Development, Critical Thinking,
Student/Faculty Engagement, Learning Communities, and Higher Education
Administration. These funds include four separate education funds, which are
given at least $15,000 per year total (of an approximate $100,000 budget), and
a fund dedicated to Linguistics and Literature, which receives some $5000
annually. These can be supplemented by two General funds, which together
receive about $2500 per year.
Because the librarian who acts as the liaison for six of these seven funds is Dr.
Anthony Fonseca, who also serves on both the QEP Committee and the Faculty
Development Subcommittee, much of the funding in the last fiscal cycle, equal
to some $25,000-30,000 (the regular funds plus a one-time windfall) was
allocated towards the purchase of such monographs. The library is committed to
relocating as many of these monographs to the CAFÉ. The library will continue
to purchase monographs in these areas, and will continually update the CAFÉ
collection by moving more recent titles there, while assimilating older titles
back into the regular library collection. The library will also be in charge of
keeping inventory, which it will do on a weekly basis, to monitor the
circulation of titles and to assure upkeep. The library is already researching
the possibility of creating a self-serve automated checkout workstation in the
CAFÉ. As of March 2006, Ellender Memorial was housing potential satellite
location titles in the following subject areas (recent titles only, published
from 2000-2006): Faculty Development: 71 titles; College Teaching, 131 titles;
First Year Experience, 41 titles; Critical Thinking, 70 titles; Academic
Achievement, 109 titles; Learning Communities, 39 titles; and Higher Education
Administration, 128 titles. In addition, the library currently houses titles in
the following educational series: New directions for teaching and learning,
58 titles; New directions for higher education, 66 titles; New
directions for institutional research, 69 titles; New directions for
community colleges, 69 titles; and The Jossey-Bass education series,
376 titles.
The library will also offer some 85 databases (as of March, 2006), most of which allow for
full-text access to articles from tens of thousands of professional journals.
Among those databases are two dedicated to education: ERIC and The Professional
Development Collection, both of which allow full-text access. It is equally
propitious that Dr. Fonseca is the Head of the Serials Department and doubles
as the Electronics Resources Librarian, for this means that the faculty
development needs in the area of serials will be prioritized. Because the CAFÉ
will contain computers, journal articles and white papers will be easily
accessible to faculty in the CAFÉ. The computers will be purchased with QEP
funding and will be supported by Nicholls, IT department.
The Reaffirmation Committee recommends that the institution document that it has
adequate fiscal resources to support the QEP.
In both Goals 2 and 3 the utilization of standard testing is planned and site licenses are
contemplated. The utilization of such testing is believed to be an appropriate
administrative technique to evaluate the progress of the QEP. The
Reaffirmation Committee, however, believes it is unrealistic to assume that the
site license costs will remain static each year. The Reaffirmation
Committee advises that a 10% increase per year in each site license would be an
appropriate consideration in the allocation of funds in the timeline budget.
The Reaffirmation Committee is concerned that the fiscal resources the institution
lists in the financial timeline are not adequate to sustain and complete the
QEP. The Reaffirmation Committee is also concerned that the funding for
the QEP is contingent upon receipt of $225,000 in "performance" money that is
anticipated from the government of Louisiana before the close of the FY 06 fiscal
year. Evidence of receipt of these funds is necessary. (See page 29 Report of
the Reaffirmation Committee)
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 3
The budget has been updated to demonstrate the institution,s commitment of financial support for the QEP. The budget has also been
adjusted to reflect a 10% growth in costs of QEP-related initiatives each year.
The budget as provided in our original report ($271,908.00) has increased to
$780,859.00. (See Appendix B for revised budget)
A copy of the mid-year budget adjustment of $225,000.00 referenced in reviewer comments is included for review. (See "State
of Louisiana Division of Administration Office of Planning and Budget Request
for Mid-Year Budget Adjustment dated June 2, 2006 - also Appendix B). Note the
transfer of these funds to the QEP budget for Fiscal year 2005-06. This
account also demonstrates the use of funds for salary/benefits and purchasing
of tests.
The revised budget includes an increase in overall QEP
funding by $488,007.00. This was the result in an increase in funding for
personal services, professional services, travel, capital outlay, and supplies
and operating services (which includes fees for site licenses).
The Reaffirmation Committee
recommends that the institution demonstrate that it has a refined and
comprehensive plan to evaluate the success of the QEP.
Beyond assessing the goals of the QEP, the university should apply summative
evaluation methodology to judge the success of the QEP. A means of external
evaluation would be helpful in this regard. (See page 29-30 Report of the
Reaffirmation Committee).
Within the assessment and evaluation process, the reaffirmation committee advises the
institution to ensure that it will be able to determine the success of the QEP.
(See page 29-30 Report of the Reaffirmation Committee).
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 4
Several lines of data will determine the success of
the QEP. First, we will examine the effects of individual QEP initiatives.
Second, we will examine the effects of the value added to the institution by
the collective QEP initiatives. (See Appendix C for revised assessment chart)
We have attempted to develop an assessment plan that
will examine the efficacy of each QEP initiative. For example, we are using the
Learning and Study Skills Strategy (LASSI) before and after Univ. 101 students
complete on-line learning modules designed to improve their general learning
ability. We are also using the Career Self-efficacy scale before and after
Univ. 101 students are exposed to the ACT DISCOVER career development
curriculum, which will hopefully demonstrate that including this in the
curriculum improves students, confidence regarding career decision-making. With
respect to incorporating rubric-guided instruction into our general education
writing courses, we have developed formative and summative assessment plans.
These assessments will provide us with information to determine whether or not
these QEP strategies are having an impact in specific areas and with specific
students.
In addition to these targeted assessments, our assessment plan also includes a
means of determining whether the success of the QEP can be generalized to the
institution as a whole. This value-added assessment will be achieved by using
the Academic Profile (AP)/ Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress
(MAPP-Brief) and the College Student Engagement Questionnaire (CSEQ). The
General Education curriculum has collected data using the AP and CSEQ, which
will provide a baseline of our students, critical thinking, writing, and
engagement prior to the QEP. Because our General Education curriculum will
continue using the MAPP-brief and CSEQ, these data will be compared with the
baseline data to assess the overall impact that the QEP has had on the
institution.
Together, the targeted assessments evaluating the specific QEP initiatives and the value
added assessment of general educational outcomes will provide a means to
determine the success of the QEP. What follows is a description of how learning
outcome data will be collected, evaluated, and "fed back" to the departments,
programs, and faculty to ensure the success of the QEP.
Faculty will be asked to report how they are contributing to the QEP
goals in the classroom through an already established annual planning cycle (See Appendix D for revised QEP Timeline). Each
faculty member is required to submit an annual common form to his/her
Department Chair by January 25th. A QEP section will now be included on the common form for faculty to document a formative
assessment of QEP-related classroom initiatives. For example, faculty will be
asked to provide how they are (a)
implementing QEP-related strategies (e.g., using CT rubric, learning
communities, techniques learned in CAFÉ) (b) measuring student learning
outcomes in critical thinking through writing and (c) using the data (e.g.,
rubric scores, teaching evaluations, pass rates) to make on-going changes in
instruction. Having QEP-related initiatives associated with the annual planning
cycle will provide a means of identifying where QEP is having its greatest
impact and where more efforts need to be focused. (See Appendix E for revised University
Assessment Planning Budget Process Chart)
The annual planning procedures now in place require each department to conduct a meeting by the end of March. This
meeting provides faculty with the opportunity to present, discuss, and evaluate
annual assessment data related to departmental goals. The Director of AIR
provides data from the previous calendar year to departmental assessment
coordinators to facilitate these meetings. This annual data will now
include QEP student-learning outcomes (e.g., rubric scores, Collegiate Learning
Assessment: CLA, Learning and Study Strategies Inventory: LASSI) related to the
department. At the same time, Department Heads will have access to the common
form QEP data submitted by faculty to promote discussions of QEP-related classroom assignments, goals, and
student learning outcomes. The Department Head is then responsible for
submitting a completed annual plan to Administration by April 15th,
which will now include documentation of department plans to improve QEP-related
student learning outcomes in writing and critical thinking at the classroom,
program, and department levels.
In March the departments will receive their QEP-related assessment data from the Director of AIR/QEP assessment
coordinator. By April 1, each QEP subcommittee chairperson will receive student
learning outcome data (e.g., summary of common form data, CLA, rubric scores,
pass rates). This information will be used by each subcommittee to monitor the
implementation of their respective QEP strategies, evaluate learning outcomes,
and make recommendations. Each subcommittee chairperson will be responsible for
providing the QEP coordinator with written recommendations based on these data
by April 15th. The QEP coordinator will be responsible for producing
a summative report that will (a) evaluate how well the institution has met QEP
goals, (b) identify the overall effects of QEP on the university, and (b) make recommended changes or additions to QEP
goals and strategies. This report will be provided to Assistant Vice
President for Academic Affairs (AVPAA) by the last day of the spring semester.
The AVPAA will receive two streams of QEP-related assessment data and
recommendations. The first will be from the department annual plans, which is
already in place as part of the institutional general planning cycle. The
second will be the above-mentioned report provided by the QEP coordinator. Together,
these two streams of student learning outcomes will provide a mechanism of
monitoring the effectiveness of the QEP initiatives as well as a way of making
strategic planning decisions.
The APAA will next provide the Planning Advisory Group with relevant QEP recommendations. The
Planning Advisory Group will then submit recommendations to Dr. Carroll Falcon,
our Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs, and Dr. Stephen Hulbert, our
President, who will in turn communicate QEP-related planning and recommendations
to Academic Deans.
In addition, the university may wish to consider the direct assessment of critical
thinking and writing after two years of intervention and in the senior year
prior to graduation. (See page 29-30 Report of the Reaffirmation Committee)
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 4 (part 2)
We have refined our assessment plan of critical thinking and writing as it
pertains to General Education writing courses to provide a summative evaluation
of our English 101 and English 102 composition sequence.
The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), published by the Council for Aid to
Education and the RAND Corporation, will be used to provide a standardized
assessment of students, critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving,
and written communication skills. The Performance Task subtest will be used to
evaluate student,s ability to integrate and use these skills to answer a
hypothetical but realistic problem. Students will be provided with a realistic
scenario, sources of information (e.g., letters, memos, research reports,
newspaper articles, maps, photographs, diagrams, tables, charts, interview
notes, and/or transcripts) and questions. Students will use the information and
then provide written answers to questions. Questions will ask students to weigh
different types of evidence, evaluate the source credibility, identify bias or
inconsistencies, and describe questionable or critical assumptions.
The assessment design will include:
|
1.
|
A pretest-post control group quasi-experimental research design will be
used to determine whether or not training faculty to implement critical
thinking rubrics into English 101 and English 102 will improve students,
critical thinking through writing.
|
|
2.
|
The student learning outcome will be based on an analysis of data from
the (a) CLA Performance Test and (b) Critical Thinking Rubric.
|
|
3.
|
The experimental group will consist of rubric writing courses (RW), and
the comparison group will consist of non-rubric writing courses (NRW).
|
|
4.
|
The educational intervention will involve the following:
|
a.
|
Training a sample of Languages and Literature faculty to implement
critical thinking rubrics in English 101 and 102 English courses. The maximum
number of experimental writing courses will be contingent on faculty interest
and willingness to participate. Training will be open to all English faculties
but a minimum of 7 instructors will be trained to implement the rubric. A group
of faculty, who do not teach English 101 or 102, will also be trained and serve
as reviewers. These reviewers will use the rubric to blindly evaluate student
papers.
|
|
b.
|
Through QEP teaching enhancement grants, we have included a $500.00
stipend for each faculty member who completes the rubric training,
implementation, and assessment in the budget. This will be distributed as
$250.00 at the beginning of rubric training and $250.00 once the data has been
collected.
|
|
c.
|
Critical thinking rubric training will begin in October 2006 with
consultation from Gary Brown, Director Center
for Teaching, Learning, and Technology at Washington State. English faculty will be taught to implement the
rubric as an instructional guide by learning how to evaluate and revise
student learning goals, assignments, and teaching strategies. The training will guide instructors through the
process of using rubric scores to align their student learning expectations
(e.g., what instructor expects students to learn) with how they teach and
develop writing assignments. This essentially establishes a formative
assessment procedure that requires instructors to use ongoing "feedback-loops"
of learning outcomes (i.e., rubric scores) throughout the semester and helps
guide changes in how and what they teach (i.e., match future writing
assignments to past student performance as demonstrated with rubric scores).
The CT Rubric model as an instructional intervention relies heavily on the assumption
that (a) instructors need to require and foster critical thinking, (b) student
critical thinking through writing depends on the nature of the writing
assignment, (c) students know what is expected of them, and (d) instructors
reflect upon the rubric scores to align their teaching practices (and
assignments) with learning outcomes and expectations.
|
|
|
5.
|
Data collection will include the following:
|
a.
|
The 2007-2008 student sample will be all first-time freshmen who have not taken English 101 or its equivalent.
|
|
b.
|
Each student will complete a pre-test CLA Performance Test in fall 2007 prior to English 101.
|
|
c.
|
Each student will enroll in an English 101 section that is either a Rubric Writing Course (RW) or a Non-Rubric Writing Course (NRW). A minimum of 100 students will be enrolled in RW as well as NRW English 101 courses.
|
|
d.
|
After completing English 101, students will enroll in an English 102 section that is either a Rubric Writing Course (RW) or a Non-Rubric Writing Course (NRW). A minimum of 100 students will be enrolled in RW as well as NRW English 102 courses. This will allow for flexibility in student schedules while also providing us with multiple comparison groups and examine rubric-dose effects through the following combinations:
|
i.
|
English 101 RW + English 102 RW
|
|
ii.
|
English 101 RW + English 102 NRW
|
|
iii.
|
English 101 NRW + English 102 RW
|
|
iv.
|
English 101 NRW + English 102 NRW
|
|
|
e.
|
Post-test CLA Performance Test will be collected at the end of spring
2008 after students have completed English 102.
|
|
|
6.
|
Following the same procedures outlined above, a second cohort will be sampled at the start of fall 2008. The CLA pre-test will be administered to all fall 2008 first-time Freshmen prior to taking English 101, and the CLA post-test will be administered at the end of English 102 spring 2009. For this 2008-2009 cohort, the rubric writing courses will be considered for participation in linked learning communities.
|
In addition to using standardized
(CLA) learning outcomes for summative evaluations, the QEP critical thinking
subcommittee will use the critical thinking rubric for formative evaluations.
Instructors, writing assignments and students, essay samples in the RW and NRW
courses will be collected, and faculty trained to use the rubrics will provide
ratings that will be evaluated at various times within and between courses. For
example, the following comparisons will be available:
|
a.
|
Within 101 and 102 courses, rubric scores will be analyzed for growth over time.
|
|
b.
|
Between 101 and 102 courses, rubric scores will be analyzed for RW and NRW group differences
|
|
c.
|
Rubric scores will be analyzed for the various groupings (e.g., 101 RW & 102 RW; 101 RW + 102 NRW) that will result between English 101 and English 102 as a result of student scheduling needs.
|
|
d.
|
During the senior year, random samples of RW and NRW student writings from capstone courses across the curriculum will be analyzed to determine whether or not the effects of taking writing courses enhanced with critical thinking rubrics will generalize well beyond the general education writing sequence.
|
As the institution continues to refine its assessment structure, further attention
should be paid to the assessment/evaluation of learning communities (see page
29-30 Report of the Reaffirmation Committee).
Based upon the available research, learning communities can play a significant role in
helping the Nicholls community become better critical thinkers through reading
and writing.
Because we are aiming to introduce QEP initiatives in a step-wise fashion to better examine
the additive effects each strategy has on critical thinking and writing, we
have developed a plan to launch the learning community phase of the QEP in fall
2007. Given this date, the QEP has taken steps to further refine and develop
the LC initiatives. First, Dr. Stephen Triche was named to lead a fourth QEP
subcommittee—Learning Communities (LC). Second, this subcommittee has been
seated with faculty, administrators, and students from across campus. Third, Drs.
Allen Alexander (Student Engagement subcommittee) and Stephen Triche (Learning
Community subcommittee) along with Mrs. Renee Hicks (QEP Assessment
Coordinator) attended the Summer Institute on First-Year Assessment in
Asheville, N.C. Fourth, Ms. Erica Callais (a member of the LC subcommittee and
Nicholls Coordinator of Minority Recruitment) did research with Stephen Triche
over the summer on the LC models, in particular those being used at Ohio
University and Appalachian State University, which has contributed greatly to
this report. As a result, we have developed a good network of consultants from
Appalachian State University who provide a good model for us to follow.
Most first-semester freshmen at Appalachian State
participate in a learning community. In order to participate, students must
self-identify themselves and they then have the option of choosing between
seven (7) different communities. The freshman learning communities in General
Studies is the most popular of the learning communities.
There are two options of learning communities for students
to choose from. The major-specific freshman learning communities are designed
for those students who have tentatively chosen a major and want to explore that
major with some degree of commitment. Typically, these learning communities
contain at least one major-specific course and a freshman seminar or freshman
studies course. The special topic freshman learning communities are
designed for those students wanting to explore a particular interest at a deeper
level of learning. Typically, these learning communities contain at least one
special-topic course and a Freshman Seminar course.
Based on this model, learning communities at Nicholls will be organized for first-year
students around a cluster of linked courses. Our primary QEP goal is to
determine whether or not a linked-course LC improves students, critical
thinking through writing.
While the specifics will be the focus of the LC subcommittee over the next academic year,
several ideas that have already emerged include creating (a) residential
learning community which will align with the Nicholls current plans to develop
new housing, (b) major learning community to facilitate critical thinking about
career choices and goals, (c) Learning strategy LC for first-year students that
would focus on retention and becoming college completers, and (d) LC that would
be developed around Service Learning initiatives. In addition, still other LC
could be established based upon students, own interests to allow us to take
advantage of existing campus organizations from which we could draw peer
mentors.
Based on these issues, Nicholls has decided to initiate linked learning communities in the
2008 spring semester. Between fall 2006 and fall 2007, faculty interested in
learning communities will be provided with faculty development in the design,
implementation, and assessment of learning communities.
The community will include one English 102 and one general education content course. Students will
self-select into the learning community. No more than two English 102 courses
will be used in the learning communities during the spring 2008 semester, since
many of these courses will be needed to examine the effects of adding critical
thinking rubrics to the general education writing sequence. English 102
learning community courses will not incorporate the rubrics in spring 2008.
Two essential components for these learning communities will include (1) developing faculty
teams and (2) documenting improvement in students, critical thinking through
writing. The first component will rely on interested faculty organizing a
collaborative team to improve students, critical thinking through writing about
a linked theme or issue. For example, faculty who teach English 102 and Business
Administration 101 may form a community to improve critical thinking about the
effects of Hurricane Katrina on coastal business and industry and whether this
would impact student career decision-making.
The second central component of our LC initiatives will include documenting an increase in
students, critical thinking through writing assignments. While rubrics will not
be included in the LC as an instructional intervention, they will be used to
document learning outcomes. In terms of documenting outcomes, student writing samples at the beginning and end of
the semester will be sampled from LC courses and non-LC courses. Rubric–trained faculty will use the rubrics and blindly rate these
papers. Rubric scores can be used to track and changes in critical thinking
within a LC as well as identify any differences in critical thinking between LC
and non-LC students. In addition, the College Student Engagement Questionnaire
(or similar measure of student engagement) will be administered to identify
differences between LC and non-LC students, level of engagement in the learning
process. Finally, all English 102 students will complete the CLA at the end of
the course which will allow us to compare LC and non-LC student,s critical
thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication
skills.
Again, these are tentative plans that will become progressively focused as our LC subcommittee and QEP Steering Committee
considers student learning needs based on QEP outcome data now being collected.
NICHOLLS STATE UNIVERSITY
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
POSITION:
Director of the Center for Advancement of Faculty Engagement
RESPONSIBILITIES:
The Director of the Center for Advancement of Faculty Engagement, an important element in furthering Nicholls' academic plan as established in its 2006 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), is a key member of the faculty development team at Nicholls, working with the Faculty Development Committee to provide vision and leadership in the development and delivery of strategic educational resources that emphasize engagement/active learning and critical thinking. As such, the Director will head the Center for the Advancement of Faculty Engagement (the CAFÉ), proactively identifying and nurturing a network of teachers dedicated to educational improvement through the sharing of innovative and proven methods of active teaching and adapting those methods at the discipline, course, and unit levels. The Director will sustain an environment that encourages research, collaboration, and community, concentrating on issues of teaching, learning, and assessment, utilizing to their fullest Nicholls' available facilities: the CAFÉ itself, the Faculty Development (satellite) Library, seminar rooms, computerized learning areas, and large group meeting areas.
The Director will design and sponsor programming to this end, identifying and hosting leading speakers in the scholarship and application of active learning, critical thinking, learning communities, and assessment, both in-house and out-of-house. The Director will also create and maintain The Virtual CAFÉ, a website which will act as an online faculty development resource. The Faculty Development Center will by its nature support not only academic enhancement, but will also support the Faculty Mentoring Program, also integral to Nicholls' Academic Plan. The Director reports to the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs.
QUALIFICATIONS:
The Director will possess a demonstrated commitment to academic excellence, scholarship and research and the following:
|
•
|
An earned doctorate from an accredited institution with a minimum entry level rank of Assistant Professor preferred.
|
|
•
|
Proven quality of teaching and research experience in higher education.
|
|
•
|
Strong skills in facilitating collaboration and innovation in interdisciplinary educational programming with the goal of optimizing active learning/teaching with an emphasis on critical thinking.
|
|
•
|
Evidence of familiarity with learning technologies.
|
|
•
|
Demonstrated ability to foster an environment of continuous improvement of teaching and learning by nurturing teaching expertise through sharing knowledge in various methods.
|
|
•
|
Demonstrated record of productive relationships with external partners.
|
|
•
|
Demonstrated ability with assessing learning outcomes.
|
|
•
|
Familiarity with the principles of operating a budget.
|
|
•
|
Evidence of excellence in written and oral communication skills where academic, professional, and general audiences are the demographic.
|
|
•
|
Commitment to the principles of affirmative action.
|
It would also be desirable for the Director to possess some of the following skills and/or attributes:
|
•
|
Administrative experience with a record of effective leadership.
|
|
•
|
A familiarity with the maintenance and reaffirmation of accreditation procedures. Distinguished record and evidence of scholarly research with publications in juried journals.
|
|
•
|
Record of active participation in the profession at the regional and national levels.
|
COMPENSATION:
The individual chose for the position will receive a minimum of a 25% reduction in teaching load plus stipend to be determined.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER:
Nicholls State University is an EOE/AA/ADA employer. Women and ethnic minorities are encouraged to apply.
APPLICATION PROCESS:
Each applicant must send a letter discussing relevant experiences and accomplishments, a curriculum vita, and three letters of references with telephone numbers to:
Dr. Laynie Barrilleaux
Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs
Nicholls State University
P. O. Box 2002
Thibodaux, LA 70310
CLOSING DATE:
Review of the applications will begin September 1, 2006 and will continue until the position is filled. It is anticipated that the position will be filled effective January 9, 2007.
Revised Budget
|
NICHOLLS STATE UNIVERSITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN
BUDGET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR FISCAL YEARS
2005-2006 TO 2009-2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
