• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 List of tables and figures
 Executive summary
 I. Context and background
 II. Focus of plan
 III. Institutional capability
 IV. Assessment of the plan
 V. Institutional participation
 VI. Appendices














Title: Florida Gulf Coast University Quality Enhancement Plan
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/GC00000001/00001
 Material Information
Title: Florida Gulf Coast University Quality Enhancement Plan
Series Title: Florida Gulf Coast University Quality Enhancement Plan
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Florida Gulf Coast University
Publisher: Florida Gulf Coast University
Place of Publication: Fort Myers, FL
Publication Date: 2005
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: GC00000001
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Florida Gulf Coast University
Holding Location: Florida Gulf Coast University
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

QEP-2005 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    List of tables and figures
        Page i
    Executive summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    I. Context and background
        Page 5
        Page 5a
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    II. Focus of plan
        Page 15
        Page 15a
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    III. Institutional capability
        Page 35
        Page 35a
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    IV. Assessment of the plan
        Page 45
        Page 45a
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
    V. Institutional participation
        Page 59
        Page 59a
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    VI. Appendices
        Page 63
        Page 63a
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
Full Text




CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures .................................................... .................................... i

Executive Sum m ary ................................................................................................... 1

Section I: Context and Background ............................................ ........................... 5
In tro d u c tio n ......................................................................................................... 5
Institutional Context ................... ...................................... 8
Environmental Education at FGCU .................................................... 10
Civic Engagement and Service-Learning at FGCU ....................................... 11
K ey Term s and D definitions .................................................. ....................... 12

Section II: Focus of the Plan ................................................................................... 15
Q E P mission ................................................................................ 15
D efining Principles for the Q EP ........................................... ....................... 15
D discussion of Student L earning ......................................................................... 16
R relevant L literature .......................................................................... 18
Literature Related to Environmental Education ............................................. 19
Literature Related to Service Learning ................................... ..................... 26
R elevant L literature: Sum m ary .......................................................................... 32

Section III: Institutional Capability ............................................................. 35
Implementation and Continuation Activities ........................... .................... 35
Adm inistrative Oversight ...................................... ..... ...................... 41
Financial R sources ........................................................... .................... 42

Section IV: Assessment of the Plan ........................... .................................... 45
Program E valuation ............................................. ........................... 45
Scope of the Plan ......... ........................................... ......... .................... 47
Student Learning Assessment ......................... ................................. 47
Curricular R review ........................................................................................... 50
Summary ... ................................................................... 53
Internal System for Evaluating the QEP and Monitoring Progress ................... 53

Section V: Institutional Participation ...................................................................... 59
C conclusion ....................................................... 6 1

Section VI: A ppendices ........................................................ ................................. 63
Appendix A: FGCU Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles ...................... 63
Appendix B: Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcome ............... 65
Appendix C: FGCU Student Characteristics .................................................. 67
Appendix D: Course Descriptions .......................... ...... .................... 69
Appendix E: Service-Learning Courses at FGCU ........................................ 70
Appendix F: Summary of QEP Development Activities ................................... 71
Appendix G: Overview of QEP Process ....................... ........................... 74
Appendix H: List of Acronyms ................. ............................................. 75
Appendix I: References ............................................. ................. 76








LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables
T able 3.1 F iv e Y ear P lan .................................................................................... 36
Table 3.2 Q EP Phase I ...................................................... ..................... 37
Table 3.3 Q EP Phase II .................. ..................................... ................. 38
Table 3.4 Q E P Phase III ...................................................... ......................... 39
Table 3.5 Q E P Phase IV ..................................................... .......................... 40
Table 3.6 Q EP Phase V ............................................... ............................ 41
'Table 3.7 Q EP B budget ....................................................... ..................... 44
Table 4.1 Methods Used To Access ............................................................. 46
Table 4.2 Timeline for Implementation ....................... ............................. 50


Figures
F igure 1.1 F ocus of Q E P ....................................................... ... ............... 7
Figure 1.2 Developmental Approach ....................... ....... ........................... 7
Figure 3.1 QEP Organizational Chart ....................... ......... ............... 42
Figure 4.1 C ontext D iagram .............................................. ......................... 54
Figure 4.2 D ata Flow D iagram ......................................... ....... .... ................ 55
F igure 4.3 Process M odel .................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.4 Q EP Feedback Lopp ........................................ ........................... 57








EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Quality Enhancement Plan Title: Develop in students an ecological perspective and
foster community involvement through experiential learning, scholarly dialogue, and
interdisciplinary engagement.

The founding mission statement for Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) noted that
"study of the environment" would be a central focus and that "student volunteer service"
would complement the teaching and service missions of the university. These two
concepts-ecological perspective and civic engagement have become integral parts of
the university's identity and were reaffirmed when a new mission statement was adopted
in December 2002.

The ultimate goal ofFGCU's Quality EnhancementPlan (QEP) is to improve studentlearning
in two of the university's Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes, specifically #3 "An
Ecological Perspective" and #9 "Community Awareness and Involvement" by employing
teaching and learning strategies that emphasize experiential learning, scholarly dialogue.
and interdisciplinary engagement. The QEP provides an opportunity to systematically
evaluate student learning in these areas and develop strategies to refine curriculum and
enhance student learning as part of an on-going plan of continuous improvement.

The topic for FGCU's QEP was selected following review of the university's mission
statement analysis of SACS criteria for selecting the focus for a QEP. focus group
interviews with faculty and administrators, and consultation with the academic community.
A topic focusing on ecological perspective and community involvement was selected for
the following reasons: This topic has broad university support; reflects the interests of
the entire academic community and beyond; is consistent with the university's Guiding
Principles, which are deeply embedded in the institution's culture; is congruent with the
university's mission and strategic plan; provides opportunities to incorporate evidence-
based practice into successful student learning activities and educational processes that are
already in place; and provides a framework for addressing goals and outcomes in multiple
settings. In addition, this topic is forward-looking in that it will focus attention on how a
new institution with a unique mission can maintain and improve quality as it grows and
matures.

Campus-wide support and input have been and will continue to be important factors in
the development and implementation of the QEP Over the past few months, the QEP
Committee has reviewed evidence-based literature in environmental education, service
learning, experiential learning, and innovative pedagogy. The QEP Committee is proposing
a five-year plan that involves five overlapping phases focusing on curricular development,
faculty and student research, faculty development, assessment, and evaluation activities.
The proposed QEP will build on current university planning and evaluation strategies and
benchmarking to develop assessment instruments and processes to systematically evaluate
student learning. Knowledge gained as a result of this systematic evaluation will be used
to inform curricular and administrative decisions and practices.


Executive Summary 1








The Quality Enhancement Plan
for
Florida Gulf Coast University
10501 FGCU Boulevard
Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565

February 2005

On behalf of the entire Florida Gulf Coast University community, we thank the members
of the On-Site Review Conunittee for their time and expertise in evaluating our Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP) and for all suggestions that may be offered as a means of
strengthening the QEP and enhancing overall institutional quality and effectiveness.


William C. Merwin
President


Bonnie Yegidis
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs


The QEP Committee

Gray-Vickrey, Dr. Peg
QEP Committee Chair
Professor
College of Health Professions


Andrews, Dr. Christine
Assistant Professor
College of Business

Bevins, Dr. Sharon Irish
Associate Professor
College of Health Professions


Bevins, Thomas
Assistant Professor
College of Health Professions

Corcoran, Dr. Peter Blaze
Professor
College of Arts and Sciences

Duff, Ms. Cathy
Assistant Dean
Planning and Institutional Performance

Everham III, Dr. Edwin M.
Associate Professor
College of Arts and Sciences


Hobbs, Dr. Bradley
Associate Professor
College of Business

Pieterson, Ms. Corrie
FGCU Alumna
Accounting Coordinator
College of Arts and Sciences

Ravelli, Dr. Joseph
Interim Director of General Education
Academic Affairs

Summers, Ms. Linda
Director
Center for Civic Engagement

Warren, Ms. Amber
Student
College of Education

Zager, Dr. Mary Ann
Associate Dean and Associate Professor
College of Professional Studies


Gonzales, Dr. Maria
Assistant Professor
College of Education


2 Executive Summary








The SACS Steering Committee

Carter Dr Cecil
Steering Committee Co-Chair
College of Education

Bielen, Dr Al
Facilities Services
Dobbert, Dr Duane
College of Professional Studies
Donlan, Ms Rebecca
Library Services
Duff, Ms Cathy
Accreditation Liaison
Gray-Vickrey, Dr Peg
College of Health Professions
Hall, Mr Matthew
Student Government

The SACS Leadership Team


Merwmn, Dr William
President
Shepard, Dr Joseph
Vice President for Administrative Services

Anderson, Ms Audrea
AVP Marketing & Community Relations
Bullock, Mr Curtis
Executive Director FGCU Finance Corp
Carter. Dr Cecil
SACS Steering Committee Co-Chair
Duff, Ms Cathy
Accreditation Liaison
Evans, Ms Susan
University Spokesperson


Gray-Vickrey, Dr Peg
QEP Committee Chair


The Florida Gulf Coast University Board of Trustees


Snyder, Dr Paul
Steering Committee Co-Chair
Planning and Institutional Perform ance

Hess, Dr Debra
College of Arts and Sciences
June, Dr Vincent
Student Affairs
Rogers, Dr Hudson
College of Business
Vazquez, Mr David
University Budget Office
Volety, Dr Aswani
College of Arts and Sciences


Yegidis, Dr Bonnie
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Magiera, Mr Steve
Vice President for University Advancement

McAloose, Mr Carl
Director of Intercollegiate Athletics
Morris, Ms Wendy
General Counsel
Price, Ms Mary
Staff Advisory Council President
Price-Henry, Dr Donna
Faculty Senate President
Snyder, Dr Paul
SACS Steering Committee Co-Chair


Lutgert, Mr Scott F
Chair
Hall, Mr Matthew
Trustee
Hart, IMr Larry D
Trustee
Henry, Dr Donna Price
Trustee


Lester, Dr W Bernard
Vice Chair
Lucas, Mr David
Trustee
Moon, Dr Harry K
Trustee
Morton, Mr Edward A
Trustee


Cobb, Mr Brian
Trustee
Starkey, Mr Jerry
Trustee
Villalobos, Mr P Michael
Trustee
Vhitcomb, Ms Jaynie M
Trustee


Executive Summary 3



























This Page Intentionally Left Blank.










*!I -'-,-. ,
AX
CQNT XTAN1
:8C GROUNDD
1^ 1 I I "I '.









FLORIDA
GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY










Introduction

From its inception. Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) has been a "different kind
of institution" (McTarnaghan, 2003, p. 20). The history of the university's mission and
the fonnation of the institutional culture illustrate this point. In 1992, a year before the
university's president and any faculty or staff were hired, the Florida Legislature approved
the institution's founding mission statement, which had been developed by a group of
professionals from within the State University System of Florida and the Florida Community
College System. This mission statement would serve as a blueprint for institutional planning
and decision making for years to come.

In 1993, Dr. Roy McTarnaghan, one of the chief architects of the new university's mission,
was selected as the institution's first president. In the years that followed, President
McTarnaghan set about the process of building a university and creating an institutional
culture. He carefully assembled a leadership team that would come "together to take the
Mission and put ideas to work" (McTarnaghan, 2003, p. 75). During the early years,
new hires were selected not only for competence, but also for their "understanding and
commitment to the approved Mission Statement" (p. 103). Applicants were "given a copy
of the mission and asked to study it before the visit and interview. Later, if offered a position,
each candidate was asked to commit to that mission as an integral part of employment" (p.
204).

The 1992 Mission Statement and two additional documents adopted prior to the institution's
opening in fall 1997 (the Guiding Principles and the Undergraduate Student Learning Goals
and Outcomes), provided the foundation for the development of curricula and programs at
FGCU. The mission called for an institution that focused on undergraduate education, the
teaching-learning process, and other "themes" such as "faculty public service involvement
applied research to support teaching, student commitment to service projects, a focus on
environmental studies, and a senior thesis or capstone project to integrate the learning
experience" (McTarnaghan, 2003, p. 64). In 1996, a year before FGCU opened, the
vice president for academic affairs and the deans, with support from the faculty, created
and approved the Guiding Principles, "which sought to develop a bridge from Mission
to operations and support the long-term planning process with philosophy and principles
that would serve students, faculty, and staff well as successive generations populated the
university" (p. 77). The Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes provide
an additional link between the university's mission and academic programs and serve as a
foundation for lifelong learning and effective citizenship. 'The Guiding Principles and the
Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes are as valued today as they were
when initially adopted.

In 2002. during the tenure of current president, Dr. William Merwin. the FGCU Board of
Trustees adopted a Vision Statement, approved a new Mission Statement, and reaffirmed
the Guiding Principles. The new mission, which was the product of extensive dialogue
and consideration by the wider campus community, emphasizes the future of the university
while retaining many of the essential elements of the founding mission including a focus
on teaching and learning, civic responsibility, and service to the community, as well as an
emphasis on environmental sustainability.


Section I: Context and Background 5








The history of FGCU in years is brief, but the institutional culture is strong and the
commitment to ideals represented in the mission statements, the Guiding Principles, and the
Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes runs deep. A Quality Enhancement
Plan (QEP) focusing on these ideals is natural for FGCU. The QEP described in this
document is intended to enhance student learning in two of the nine areas covered by the
Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes. The QEP addresses ecological
perspective and community awareness and involvement.

Both ecological perspective and community awareness and involvement are central to
the identity of Florida Gulf Coast University. The specific terminology may vary; but, as
illustrated by the following excerpts from institutional documents, these two themes have
been a part of the university since its inception.

1992 Mission Statement:
The region in which the university will be located combines rapid population
growth in a geographically constrained area, the Gulf of Mexico to the west and
Lake Okeechobee to the east, with a unique and sensitive environment.... The
university, therefore, will be ideally suited to emphasize study of the environment.
Complementing the public service mission will be a student volunteer service
designed to provide each student with exposure to a planned community project,
thus developing in the student a commitment to public service after graduation.

2002 Mi&sion Statement (see Appendix A):
Florida Gulf Coast University continuously pursues academic excellence, practices
and promotes environmental sustainability, embraces diversity, nurtures community
partnerships, values public service, encourages civic responsibility....

Guiding Principles (see Appendix A):
Infonned and engaged citizens are essential to the creation of a civil and sustainable
society. The university values the development of the responsible self grounded
in honesty, courage, and compassion, and committed to advancing democratic
ideals. Through Service Learning requirements, the university engages students
in community involvement with time for formal reflection on their experiences.
Integral to the university's philosophy is instilling in students an environmental
consciousness that balances their economic and social aspirations with the
imperative for ecological sustainability.

Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes (see Appendix B):
Goal 3: Ecological perspective. Know the issues related to economic, social
and ecological sustainability. Analyze and evaluate ecological issues locally and
globally. Participate in collaborative projects requiring awareness and/or analysis
of ecological and environmental issues.
Goal 9. Community awareness and involvement. Know and understand the
important and complex relationships between individuals and the communities
in which they live and work. Analyze, evaluate and assess human needs and
practices within the context of community structures and traditions. Participate
collaboratively in community service projects.

The Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes are addressed in numerous
courses and experiences throughout the undergraduate curriculum. For the purposes of the


6 Section I: Context and Background








In Fall 2001, FGCU President William Merwin appointed a committee to address long-range
planning. 'his committee, formerly referred to as the Long Range Planning Committee
and now referred to as the Long Range Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee
(LRPIEC), determined that a new strategic plan would need to do the following: (a) remain
grounded in the demand for higher education in the immediate five-county service area; (b)
reflect the demographic changes in Southwest Florida that have brought more young people
to this region: (c) continue to emphasize student-centered learning, and (d) emphasize
the need for appropriate training and employment opportunities for the residents of the
region.

As an initial step in the process of updating the University's current strategic plan, a
comprehensive review of the founding Mission Statement was conducted. This led to
the adoption of a Vision Statement and a new Mission Statement by the FGCU Board of
Trustees in December 2002. Based on the revised Mission Statement the Long Range
Planning Committee (LRP) then conceived a set of five key strategic directives to guide
the development of FGCU during the next five years. The five strategic directives were
broadly discussed throughout the University during the 2002-03 academic year, and then
formally adopted by the FGCU Board of Trustees, in September 2003.

In August 2004, members of the University's faculty and administration participated in
a leadership retreat to consider the Strategic Plan. They discussed plans and projected
resources for their implementation andreviewed an organizational frameworkfor completion
of the new strategic plan with associated timelines. A new organizational framework to
oversee the completion of the strategic plan, coordinate its implementation, and monitor
its progress was announced, and the Long Range Planning and Institutional Effectiveness
Committee (LRPIEC) was created to provide oversight and ensure the integration of
planning, budgeting, assessment, and accountability to foster continuous improvement.
This committee is co-chaired by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, and
the Vice President for Administrative Services. 'lhe initial draft of the strategic plan was
produced by LRPIEC in October 2004, and then shared with the University community for
comment through public forums co-sponsored by the Faculty Senate and the Staff Advisory
Council, and a workshop of the FGCU Board of Trustees before final adoption in January
2005.

This strategic plan will guide the university in making budgetary allocations over the
next five years. Three of the seven goals of the Strategic Plan (excerpted below) include
references to the QEP, thus ensuring that it will receive priority allocation for funding.

Goal 1: High Quality Education

Pursue academic excellence to achieve national prominence in
undergraduate education and expanding recognition for selected graduate
programs.
Utilize the Quality Enhancement Plan as an integrated model of curriculum
revision, faculty development, faculty/student research, and assessment
leading to student learning gains.
Implementation of the University Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) for
student learning goals related to ecological perspective and community
awareness and achievement of goals set forth in the QEP.


Section I: Context and Background 9








Goal 7: Community Leadership


Position FGCU in a leadership role to address the educational, cultural,
social, and economic interests of Southwest Florida. Strengthen civic
engagement through course-embedded service learning.
Course embedded service learning will become the norm for fulfilling
student service learning requirements.
o Student service learning hours will grow from 80,541 in 03-04 to
92.541 hours.
o The number of credit-bearing service learning courses will grow
from 38 to 43.
o Implementation of the Quality Enhancement Plan.

Goal 8: Ongoing Quality Improvement

Implement and sustain an institutional effectiveness model for the
University that is based on a culture of assessment, results in continuous
improvement, and supports the IUniversity in effectively accomplishing its
mission
Systematic evaluation of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) to foster
improvement in student learning.



Environmental Education at FGCU

An institutional commitment to make environmental education an integral part of the
identity of the University evolved from the early and complex environmental history of
FGCU. The university realized its environmental mission through one course, IDS 3920
"University Colloquium: A Sustainable Future" (the Colloquium). The Colloquium is an
upper-division course that all students take as a graduation requirement. The Colloquium
examines the diversity of the local and global communities including cultural, social,
political, economic, and ecological differences. Italso examines ethical, historical, scientific,
and health issues related to sustainability (See Appendix D for course descriptions).

Consistent with the guiding principle of interdisciplinary learning, faculty from all colleges
are involved in the development and implementation of the course. From fall 1997 through
fall 2004, the College of Arts and Sciences contributed by far the largest number of faculty
(34%). Other colleges contributed as follows: College of Business (3%); College of
Education (5%); College of Health Professions (15%); and. College of Professional Studies
(2%). During the same period, approximately 40% of faculty teaching the Colloquium
were adjunct faculty from the external community.

Since 1998, pre-test/post-test survey data have been collected for Colloquium. Preliminary
analysis of data suggests student attitudes towards the Colloquium were initially unfavorable;
however, attitudes towards the Colloquium appear more positive after completion of the
course. Students have reported much greater understanding of environmental issues and
an increased level of participation in activities in the natural environment. Perhaps the most
striking student response is the substantial numbers of students who moved from virtually
complete environmental ignorance to a deep concern about the environment and a desire


10 Section I: Context and Background








to change their personal behavior.
The Colloquium has been a required course for all undergraduate students for the past
seven years. While the course has made small changes in terms of student enrollment caps,
field trip options, and texts utilized, there have been no substantial changes fundamentally
altering the course from its original philosophy. There is, however, variety in the way
instructors teach the course and the level of 'curriculum drift' has not been evaluated.

While beginning data suggest that this course provides a promising beginning for enhancing
student learning in ecological perspective, new research in environmental education and
in pedagogy suggest that one course alone, offered at the end of a student's educational
experience, may not be sufficient. The QEP offers an exciting opportunity to employ a
developmental approach to the curriculum to enhance student learning in ecological
perspectives throughout the undergraduate experience.


Civic Engagement and Service-Learning at FGCU

The philosophical underpinnings of FGCU are based on a commitment to civic engagement
and service-learning. In planning for this new institution during the 1990s, founders
incorporated the latest research information, which highlighted the value of active
engagement in the learning process and in the development of students as citizens. Service-
learning pedagogy supports the mission, underlies several of the guiding principles, and is
the basis for one of the nine undergraduate University learning goals.

FGCU opened its doors in 1997 with an Office of Service-Learning and an hour-
based service-learning graduation requirement, 80 service-learning hours for students
matriculating as freshmen/sophomores or 40 service-learning hours for students entering
FGCU as juniors/seniors. Service-learning experiences are designed by students to meet
one or more of the university learning goals. These experiences are independent from the
academic curriculum and are not connected with the actual courses that they are taking.

Over the past four years, faculty have become increasingly interested in linking service
experiences with learning in the classroom. The first service-learning courses were offered
in 2001, with beginning discussion of institutionalizing service-learning through courses
coming in 2002. At present, there are 37 service-learning courses that are regularly
scheduled (See Appendix E).

FGCU established the Center for Civic Engagement in 2002. The Center for Civic
Engagement provides faculty development activities related to service-learning, program
management, fund raising, and community links. A Service-Learning Task Force was
created to examine the possibility of moving from an hour-based to a course-based service-
learning requirement for graduation. In 2003, the Faculty Senate authorized the Service-
Learning Task Force to develop a transition plan for course-based service learning. The
Service-Learning Task Force continues to meet and discuss the issues inherent in moving
to a course-based graduation requirement. The QEP provides an exciting opportunity to
enhance student learning in environmental perspectives and community involvement by
integrating environmental service learning experiences into relevant courses (IDS 1301L
Styles and Ways of Learning. IDS 2110 Connections, and IDS 3920 Colloquium).


Section I: Context and Background 11








Key Terms and Definitions


Civic Engagement
Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our
communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and
motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a
community, through both political and non-political processes.

A morally and civically responsible individual recognizes himself or herself as a member
of a larger social fabric and therefore considers social problems to be at least partly
his or her own; such an individual is willing to see the moral and civic dimensions of
issues, to make and justify informed moral and civic judgments, and to take action when
appropriate.

Community Involvement
Community refers to a group of individuals who share an interest in cultural, social,
political, health, or economic issues. Community involvement is mutually agreed upon
action taken by community members to achieve long-term benefits for the community
and to develop an overall stronger sense of community. 'This notion is expanded to
include a land ethic; enlarging the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters,
air, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

Ecological Perspective
An ecological perspective recognizes the interconnectedness among diverse ecological,
social and economic contexts. While rooted in a sense of place, this perspective
is developed by examining issues on both local and global scales. An ecological
perspective attempts to balance economic and social aspirations with the imperative for
environmental sustainability.

Experiential Learning
Experiential learning is purposeful engagement of learners in direct and meaningful
experiences that include focused reflection. Past experiences are linked to current life
experiences in order to develop meaning, construct new knowledge, and provide learners
with the skills necessary for informed decision making and acting on those decisions.

Environmental Education
The goals of environmental education are to foster clear awareness of, and concern
about, economic, social, political, and ecological interdependence in urban and rural
areas; to provide every person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values,
attitudes, commitment, and skills needed to protect and improve the environment; to
create new patterns of behavior of individuals, groups and society as a whole towards the
environment (United Nations, Tbilisi, 1977).

Interdisciplinary Engagement
Interdisciplinary engagement occurs when individuals from different disciplines
strive for mutual understanding, knowledge, and awareness in pursuit of common
goals and objectives. In interdisciplinary engagement, integration of knowledge and
application and synthesis of ideas are encouraged, leading to the development of deeper
understanding through critical thinking.


12 Section I: Context and Background








Scholarly Dialogue
Scholarly dialogue occurs through a respectful exchange of ideas, based on research,
from a variety of perspectives. It is a transactional discussion in which individuals work
toward understanding by critically reflecting upon their own positions and those put forth
by others.

Service-Learning
Service-learning is an educational experience designed to meet mutually identified
community and university needs. It is integrated into the classroom for an enhanced
understanding of course and discipline content. Service-learning is a reflective activity
that increases knowledge and skills, and provides an enriched learning experience that
contributes to personal and career growth. In addition, service-learning facilitates civic
engagement and responsibility through reciprocal learning and sensitivity to cultural,
economic, and social differences. (Florida Gulf Coast University, n.d.)

There is inconsistency in the literature regarding the use of a hyphen in the term service-
learning. The use of a hyphen helps convey the interconnectedness between service and
learning as it connects two separate activities into a unified object. In this document, the
term service-learning will be used to reflect the philosophical belief that there must be
interconnectivity between service and learning.

Sustainability
"Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on
Enviromnent and Development, 1987).

Sustain ability Education
Education for sustainability, sometimes known as education for sustainable development,
is an emerging field based on the concept of sustainability. Sustainability is commonly
defined as meeting the "needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987). Sustainability education is learning and working to secure a future
that is economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable.


Section I: Context and Background 13



























This Page Intentionally Left Blank.












PLAN


1N.


FLORIDA
GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY


f











QEP Mission

Early in its deliberations, the QEP Committee determined that a clear and concise mission
statement was needed to inform university discussions and guide the QEP planning
process. The following statement, which supports the FGCU mission, guiding principles,
and student learning goals and outcomes, represents the philosophical underpinning of the
university's QEP.

The mission of the QEP is to develop in students an ecological perspective and foster
community involvement through experiential learning, scholarly dialogue, and
interdisciplinary engagement.



Defining Principles for the QEP

Consistent with the mission of the QEP the QEP Committee developed the following
Defining Principles to provide direction for the planning, implementation, and evaluation
of the QEP To ensure broad awareness and acceptance, the principles were shared with
the university community and were refined based on recommendations from faculty and
administrators. They serve as an adaptable framework that guides future decisions and
supports the goal of enhancing student learning in two of the FGCU student learning goals
- ecological perspective and community awareness and involvement

QEP Focus: The main focus of the QEP is on undergraduate student learning with
respect to two university undergraduate learning outcomes ecological perspective
and community involvement.

University Commitment to Student Learning: The QEP engages the entire
university community to ensure university-wide commitment to student learning.

Pedagogy: Because the university considers experiential learning, interdisciplinary
engagement, and scholarly dialogue as fundamental to enhancing student learning,
these guide and infonn curricular development.

Student Learning: The QEP addresses achievement of the two learning
outcomes-ecological perspective and community involvement-throughout the
entire undergraduate experience.

Linkages: The QEP defines linkages between university educational activities,
including general education, to ensure the coherency of its efforts to enhance
student learning.

Assessment ofStudent Learning: Assessment is necessary for improvement and
continual renewal. The QEP provides strategies and mechanisms for assessing
student learning in two learning outcomes-ecological perspective and community
involvement.
Assignment ofResponsibilities: The QEP designates responsibility for oversight of


Section II: Focus of Plan 15








the proposed activities of the plan, including assessment, and identifies budgetary
requirements.

Faculty and i nt Development: The QEP establishes opportunities for faculty
and staff development activities designed to ensure successful achievement of the
goal of enhancing student learning.

Diversity of Perspectives: The QEP recognizes that diverse perspectives with
respect to the two learning outcomes ecological perspective and community
involvement need to be covered in the University Colloquium as well as in other
courses and activities that are linked through the learning outcomes.

Evaluation of the Impact of the QEP: The impact of the QEP is evaluated
periodically and the QEP must be sufficiently flexible to allow modifications as
identified through assessment.

SACS: The QEP must be developed in accordance with SACS guidelines and,
therefore, must be designed above all to enhance student learning.


Discussion of Student Learning

Learning theory describes the link between observed changes in performance and what is
thought to bring about those changes. Most learning theories share the following basic
definitional assumptions: (a) learning is a persistent change in human performance or
performance potential, and (b) in order to be considered learning, the change in performance
must come about as a result of the learner's interaction with the environment. "Learning
requires experience, but just what experiences are essential and how these experiences are
presumed to bring about learning constitute the focus of every learning theory" (Driscoll,
1994, p. 9).

Collectively, the educational objectives described in the QEP are intended to lead to student
learning in the following categories or domains:

a. The cognitive domain, which refers to the recall or recognition of knowledge
and the development of intellectual abilities and skills.
b. The affective domain, which refers to changes in interest, attitudes, values, or
dispositions, or the development of appreciations and adequate adjustment.
c. The psychomotor domain, which refers to the use of motor skills, coordination,
physical movement, or directly observable physical behaviors.

Each domain includes elements that represent the "intended behavior of students--the ways
in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit
of instruction" (Bloom, 1956, p. 12). Some authors (Posner, 1995) argue that classifying
objectives into separate domains is difficult. It can be argued that it is not reasonable to
attempt to completely separate thinking and feeling, and that learning objectives may need
to allow for some overlapping of domains. Possibly the greatest benefit of identifying the
affective and psychomotor domains is that it forces educators to at least consider that one
might want to also measure the changes in attitude or physical behavior that may result
from educational experiences.


16 Section II: Focus of Plan








The main focus of the QEP is on undergraduate student learning with respect to two
undergraduate learning outcomes-ecological perspective and community awareness
and involvement. The primary task of the QEP is to facilitate and assess improvement in
student learning. As indicators of student learning, the QEP establishes two broad goals and
six objectives related to the learning outcomes of ecological perspective and community
involvement.

QEP Goal 1: Develop an ecological perspective.

QEP Objective la: Demonstrate knowledge of the issues related to
economic, social, and environmental sustainability.

QEP Objective lb: Demonstrate the ability to analyze local and global
environmental issues.

QEP Objective Ic: Participate in collaborative projects requiring analysis
of environmental issues.

QEP Goal 2: Exhibit community involvement.

QEPObjective2a: Demonstrate understanding ofthe complexrelationships
between individuals and communities.

QEP Objective 2b: Demonstrate the ability to analyze sustainability within
the context of community.

QEP Objective 2c: Participate in collaborative service-learing projects
that foster an ecological perspective.

Faculty at FGCU consider experiential learning, interdisciplinary engagement and scholarly
dialogue as fundamental to enhancing student learning. The work of Kolb (1976: 1984)
and Dewey (1938) and others are used as a framework for enhancing student learning.

Experiential learning is purposeful engagement of learners in direct and meaningful
experiences that include focused reflection. Past experiences are linked to current life
experiences in order to develop meaning, construct new knowledge, and provide learners
with the skills necessary for informed decision making and action (Mirriam & Caffarella,
1999: National Campus Compact, 2004). Dewey is considered the forefather of experiential
education with his seminal work, Experience and Education, published in 1938. "I take
it that the fundamental unity of the newer philosophy is found in the idea that there is an
intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education"
(Dewey, 1938, pp.19-20). According to Kolb, experiential learning offers a foundation for
lifelong learning. Experiential education, as conceptualized by Kolb, involves content and
substance as well as process and technique.

Interdisciplinary engagement occurs when individuals from different disciplines strive
for mutual understanding, knowledge, and awareness in pursuit of common goals and
objectives. Authentic interactive connections between the disciplines can positively impact
teaching and learning. In interdisciplinary engagement integration of knowledge and
application and synthesis of ideas are encouraged, leading to the development of deeper


Section II: Focus of Plan 17








understanding through critical thinking (Burton, 2001; Snyder, 2001). Interdisciplinary
education is accomplished through class discussions, outside assignments in which each
discipline is required to learn the contribution of the other, and case examples that focus
on application and integration of theory in practice. Situations are provided that foster
collegiality, reflections, and learning in a controlled and safe environment (Cloonan, Davis,
& Burnett, 1999).

The QEP recognizes that diverse perspectives with respect to the two learning outcomes
ecological perspective and community awareness and involvement need to be presented
to facilitate critical thinking, scholarly engagement, and learning. Scholarly dialogue occurs
through a respectful exchange of ideas, based on research, from a variety of perspectives. It
is a transactional discussion in which individuals work toward understanding by critically
reflecting upon their own positions and those putforth by others (Reich, n.d.; Samples, n.d.).
Understanding student learning styles is critical in the support of student learning. Kolb's
work on learning styles has been seminal in this area (1976; 1984). The role of learning
or cognitive styles in successful mastery of information and the impact of learning styles
on the development of critical thinking abilities has been examined by many researchers
(Watson & Glaser, 1980; Miller, 1987; Dunn, 2001; Zhang, 2003).

Finally, to solidify the educational experience in ecological perspective and community
involvement, the QEP has defined linkages between university educational activities,
including general education, to ensure the coherency of its efforts to enhance student
learning. The QEP encompasses student learning in ecological perspective and community
involvement throughoutthe entire undergraduate experience, beginning in general education
with IDS 1301L Styles and Ways of Learning and IDS 2110 Connections and culminating
in IDS 3920 Colloquium.


Relevant Literature

The focus of any QEP is, by its nature, on student learning and assessing student learning
outcomes. In particular, the student learning outcomes of ecological perspective and
community awareness and involvement are the focus of this QEP The terminology used to
describe these areas of study has evolved over time and consequently varies in the literature.
What is referred to as community involvement in FGCU's student learning outcome, has
been variously referred to as service-learning and more recently, community engagement.
Because most of the literature refers to the activity of learning while engaged in some
type of community service as service-learning, this is the terminology used throughout
the review of the literature. The reader is advised that that community involvement and
service-learning are used interchangeably.

Equally varied are the terms used to describe learning about the environment through either
formal or informal educational activities. While FGCU's student learning outcome speaks
to developing an ecological perspective, ecological literacy and environmental education
for sustainabihty are terms more recently found in the literature. Ecological perspective
and environmental and sustainability education may be viewed interchangeably.

A survey of the literature in the areas of environmental and sustainability education in
higher education and service-learing is provided below. The purpose of the following
sections is to provide the reader with a review of salient research to identify best practices


18 Section II: Focus of Plan








in the implementation of environmental and sustainability education and service-learning
in order to improve student learning outcomes. A survey of current and best practices in
these two critical areas of student learning follows.


Literature Related to Environmental Education

In order to better understand the current status of environmental education in higher
education settings, it is necessary to gain a thorough understanding of the history of
environmental education in a broader sense. Although there is significant environmental
literature available to the interested reader, much of the literature is focused on topics other
than outcomes-based research related to environmental education. Still less is dedicated
to the efficacy of environmental education in higher education settings. To be thorough,
an examination of both international and national legislative and policy initiatives is
necessary. Additionally, review of higher education initiatives and practices is warranted
as this directly relates to the focus of the QEP.


International Initiatives

For more than three decades, there has been a concerted effort by international groups
to raise awareness of environmental issues and the need for education of the public
about environmental issues. Beginning in 1972 with a conference in Stockholm, several
international meetings, gatherings, and conferences have occurred (UNESCO, 1977).
These seminal events resulted in significant recommendations and declarations that shaped
the future of environmental education.

In 1972, theUnitedNations Conference ontheHumanEnvironmenttookplace in Stockholm.
The purpose of this conference was to consider the need for a common vision and guiding
principles for preservation and protection of the environment for future generations.
Proclamation Six stated in part, a point has been reached in history when we must
shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental
consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible
harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well-being depend. Conversely,
through fuller knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity
a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes". During this
conference, concern was expressed that there was a need for an international framework
for the development of environmental education. Recommendations from this conference
included a series of regional and local workshops that were organized throughout the world
(UNEP, 1972).

The original Stockholm conference, followed by regional and local meetings, culminated
in the International Workshop on Environmental Education in Belgrade in 1975 and
the beginning of the International Environmental Education Programme (IEEP), jointly
developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) and the United Nations Education Programme (UNEP) (UNESCO, 1977).
From the Belgrade Charter, key objectives of environmental education were identified as
follows:


Section II: Focus of Plan 19








a. Awareness: to help individuals and social groups acquire an awareness of and
sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems
b. Knowledge: to help individuals and social groups acquire basic understanding
of the total, its associated problems and humanity's critically responsible
presence and role in it
c. Attitudes: to help individuals and social groups acquire social values,
strong feelings of concern for the environment and motivation for actively
participating in its protection and improvement
d. Skills: to help individuals and social groups acquire skills for solving
environmental problems
e. Evaluation ability: to help individuals and social groups evaluate environmental
measures and education programmes interms of ecological, political, economic,
social, aesthetic, and educational factors
f. Participation: to help individuals and social groups develop a sense of
responsibility and urgency regarding environmental problems to ensure
appropriate action to solve these problems (Belgrade Charter, 1975)

In addition, a major recommendation of this conference was to convene an international
conference on environmental education whose expressed purpose was to address
environmental policy. Such a conference occurred in 1977.

The Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, jointly organized by
UNESCO and UNEP, took place in Tbilisi in 1977, with a declaration following in 1978.
Environmental education was defined as follows: "Environmental education is a learning
process that increases people's knowledge and awareness about the environment and
associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges,
and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take
responsible action" (UNESCO, 1977; The Tbilisi Declaration, 1978).

It became clear during this conference that although some progress had been made in the
increasing awareness of issues surrounding the environment and environmental education,
all of the hopes of the Stockholm conference had not been met. There was consensus
that environmental issues were much more complex than simply that of their physical
or biological components. Conference participants identified other components of the
environment including social, cultural, political, and economic components and determined
that analysis of environmental issues must include these essential elements (UNESCO,
1977; The Tbilisi Declaration, 1978).

Such a holistic approach to environmental education, by its very nature, demands that
education be interdisciplinary in its approach to understanding and solving problems.
Environmental education therefore means learning from the environment in addition to
learning about the environment. This also implies a more hands-on, problem-oriented,
field-based approach to understanding problems and has necessitated curricular reform
in formal education. The General Report from the conference stated that environmentall
education should be integrated into the whole system of formal education at all levels to
provide the necessary knowledge, understanding, values, and skills needed .. .in devising
solutions to environmental problems". Recommendations were made to UN Member States
to assist them in adopting their own national environmental education policies (UNESCO,
1977; The Tbilisi Declaration, 1978).


20 Section II: Focus of Plan








In 1987, the ULNESCO-UNEP Congress was held in Moscow to analyze progress made in
environmental education since the Tbilisi Conference ten years before and to develop an
international strategy for the environmental education and training that would be necessary
in the 1990s (UNESCO, 1977; Secretariat, 1987). The report from this conference
documented numerous gains made since the Tbilisi Conference, including the works of
several educational and research groups such as the International Geological Correlation
Programme, the International Hydrological Programme, the International Oceanographic
Commission, and the Progranime on Natural Resources. All of this work, supported
by UNESCO and UNEP, included a training and environmental education component
(UNESCO, 1977; Secretariate, 1987). The interdisciplinary nature of these programs thus
served as a model for future endeavors.

Twenty years after the original Stockholm conference, the United Nations organized the
Conference onEnviromnent and Development (UN CED) in Rio de Janeiro. This conference
was also known as the Earth Summit. The outcome of this conference was summarized
into a document known as Agenda 21. The document's Chapter 36, "Promoting Education,
Public Awareness, and Training," detailed a reorienting of education towards sustainable
development. Further, the document stated that education was crucial for promoting
sustainable development and for providing people with the tools to address issues of
environment and development (Promoting Education, 1992).

In September 2002, the UN organized the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa. This meeting prioritized environmental education,
and its newest iteration, education for sustainable development. The WSSD recommended
a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development- 2005-2014. The General Assembly
of the United Nations quickly agreed. Events throughout the world are planned with
particular emphasis on education for sustainable development in higher education.


National Initiatives

Concurrently, environmental education and policy were taking shape in the United States
through important legislative imperatives, policy initiatives, and crucial citizen grassroots
efforts. In 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson's seminal work, Silent Spring,
public awareness of widespread pesticide poisoning markedly increased. Although the
Clean Air Act was originally passed in 1955 and several fragmented groups had addressed
environmental concerns, there was no single agency or group to coordinate and focus
environmental preservation, conservation, and education efforts (EPA, 1999a).

The National Environmental Policy Act became law in 1969 (PL. 91-190). One of its
major initiatives was to require Environmental Impact Statements as part of the permitting
process for a variety of development activities. However, it was not until 1970 that the
National Environmental Education Act (P.L. 91-516) was passed and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was formed. Also in 1970, the Pollution Prevention Act became
law. This was followed by passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. In 1974, the
EPA and General Mills kicked off a public awareness/service campaign to improve public
awareness of environmental problems, concerns, and issues (EPA, 1999a).

In 1990, the National Environmental Education Act (P.L. 101-619) was signed into law,
reiterating and expanding earlier initiatives. This was the first time that the EPA had been


Section II: Focus of Plan 21








given a Congressional mandate to strengthen environmental education as an integral part
of its overall mission for protection of the environment. The Pollution Prevention Act was
also signed into law. The National Environmental Education Act (EPA 171-R-96-001)
became law in 1996, essentially reauthorizing previous mandates (EPA, 1999a).

In 1999, the EPA presented a paper with specific recommendations to improve the quality
of environmental education. The paper stressed the importance of providing a real world
context in which learning is connected to issues that affect communities. Learning should
occur through a hands-on, student-driven investigative learning process. The paper asserted
that environmental education enables learners to develop critical-thinking, problem-solving,
and decision-making skills. The authors recommended replacing a traditional and more
compartmentalized curriculum with one that consists of an interdisciplinary approach,
connecting multiple fields and domains of knowledge (EPA, 1999a).

In another release in 1999, the EPA promoted environmental education as a means of
improving everyday lives and ensuring the health and welfare of the nation, by protecting
human health, advancing quality education, creating jobs in the environmental field,
promoting environmental protection along with economic development, and encouraging
stewardship of natural resources (EPAN 1999b).


Higher Education Initiatives

At nearly the same time that the National Environmental Education Act of 1990
became law, another group was meeting with a more specific agenda. University leaders
came together because of a commitment to sustainability in higher education settings
(University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2004).

In 1990, a group of 22 university presidents and chancellors gathered in Talloires, France
to discuss their concerns about defining, promoting, and demonstrating a commitment to
sustainability in higher education settings. More specifically, they delineated key actions
that higher education institutions must take in order to create a more sustainable future.
They further defined the role of the university as follows: "universities educate most of the
people who develop and manage society's institutions. For this reason, universities bear
profound responsibilities to increase the awareness, knowledge, technologies, and tools to
create an environmentally sustainable future" (The Talloires Declaration, 1990).

Further, the Talloires participants recognized that universities are uniquely situated to
bring together all disciplines to move forward towards sustainability. They specifically
agreed to take the following actions: increase awareness of environmentally sustainable
development, create an institutional culture of sustainability, educate for environmentally
responsible citizenship, foster environmental literacy, practice institutional ecology, involve
stakeholders, collaborate for interdisciplinary approaches, enhance primary and secondary
schools' capacity, broaden national and international service and outreach, and maintain
the momentum (The Talloires Declaration, 1990). The University Leaders for a Sustainable
Future organization serves as the Secretariat for signatories of the Talloires Declaration
(University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2004).

Evaluation of environmental education in the United States has been both formal and
informal. A Congressionally mandated evaluation was conducted by the National


22 Section II: Focus of Plan








Environmental Education Advisory Council and was summarized in a formal report
(EPA 171-R-96-001). Although the report broadly examined the status of environmental
education throughout public school experiences, the most salient information comes from
post-secondary or higher education settings.

This report indicates that there is significant variation in methods of and strategies for
preparing citizens to be environmentally literate. Commonly, environmental education
activities take place through preparing those in future environmental careers. Some
universities and colleges prepare teachers to be able to include environmental education
activities into their curricula by providing them with pre-service environmental education
opportunities. At other universities and colleges, there are opportunities for those in other
fields of study such as environmental management courses or training through business
schools. Fewer yet are the universities and colleges that not only provide all students
with environmental education opportunities but also have graduation requirements
in environmental education for all students (EPA 171-R-96-001). Florida Gulf Coast
University is one such university.

The need to learn about the issues and concepts inherent in environmental and
sustainability education in higher education settings has been discussed for many years.
Surveys have repeatedly demonstrated that most Americans have basic misconceptions
and misunderstandings about the environment (National Report Card, 1998; 1999).
Models have been proposed as frameworks for teaching about sustainability (Fien, 2002;
Ilerremans & Reid, 2002; Wright, 2002; Warburton, 2003). Proponents have discussed
the need for specific strategies that assist students in moving from simply developing an
awareness of sustainability to a deeper understanding of the complexities of the issues
(World Commission. 1987: Herremans & Reid, 2002; Warburton. 2003). Researchers have
sought to determine the availability of environmental education courses for undergraduates
in the United States (Wolfe, 2001) and have studied the effects of a single environmental
studies course on student environmental behaviors (Smith-Sebasto, 1995).

Despite acknowledging the importance of environmental education, the significance of the
issues, and a commitment by many to support sustainability in higher education settings
(The Talloires Declaration, 1990), many institutions of higher education worldwide have
not yet made significant changes to their curricula to include sustainability education
(Thomas, 2004) or remain unaware that such declarations have taken place (Ilerremans
& Reid, 2002). Implementing necessary changes has been slow. Although the focus of
Thomas's work is primarily on institutions of higher education in Australia, potential
barriers to implementation are found universally. They include difficulties in defining and
coming to agreement aboutthe definition of sustainability education (Wals & Jickling, 2002;
Thomas, 2004); concerns that the concept of sustainability is too broad; a lack of resources
and personnel equipped to teach the topic; ideological resistance to curricular change,
especially when changes require stepping outside of one's own discipline; infrastructure
barriers to support changing faculty assignments: and a lack of an organizational reward
system (Thomas, 2004).

Even when there is adequate institutional support and other barriers are removed, translating
a commitment to sustainability education into a curriculum that prepares students to be
environmentally literate citizens can be difficult. Models of understanding and teaching
about sustainability have been proposed (Sadler, 1988; Herremans & Reid, 2002; Warburton,
2003). Bronski. in his address at the 14h North American Interdisciplinary Conference on


Section II: Focus of Plan 23








Environment and Community proposed, "sustainability is a continuous process, not the
end result by which we seek to integrate environmental, social, and economic factors"
(Bronski, 2004).

Developing a concept of sustainability requires the student to understand the environment
from more than one perspective. In addition to the environmental aspect, there are
also economic and social aspects (Sadler, 1988; Newport, Chesnes, & Lindner, 2003:
Warburton, 2003). Because of this, it is often not an easily understood concept for those
with only a superficial knowledge of the environment and environmental issues. Astrategy
of "deep learning" has been proposed in order for students to understand the complexities
of environmental, social, and economic issues, requiring interdisciplinary thinking and the
ability to envision the topic holistically (Warburton, 2003).

In spite of these difficulties, there remains the imperative to strive towards the goal of
sustainability in higher education. Anthony Cortese has eloquently described the unique
opportunity, if not true mandate, that institutions of higher education have in the following
passage: "Higher education institutions bear a profound moral responsibility to increase
the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just and sustainable future.
. They have the unique freedom to develop new ideas, comment on society, and engage
in bold experimentation" (Cortese, 1992, p.5). Indeed, Corcoran and Wals state that there
has never been a greater opportunity to create the foundation for a sustainable future and
that institutions of higher education play an enormously important role in leading society
towards this sustainable future (2004a).

Further, the fact that sustainability has different meanings for different people is viewed
as a strength rather than a weakness and allows the individual to imbue meaning within
an appropriate personal context (Corcoran & Wals, 2004b) for a uniquely developed
"sense of place." Therefore, the access that students in higher education settings have to
environmental education is crucial in developing an awareness of sustainability.

Although there are nearly 1,000 institutions of higher education that offer majors in
environmental studies, environmental science, and similar courses of study, the extent to
which non-majors had access to such coursework or how many institutions required any
type of environmental literacy knowledge as a graduation requirement is not known. Chief
academic officers at nearly 1,200 institutions of higher education were surveyed about the
extent to which undergraduate students had the opportunity to enroll in or were required to
complete coursework in environmental literacy. Only 7% of responding public institutions
reported some content requirement, with slightly more than 14% of private institutions also
requiring coursework designed to improve environmental literacy (Wolfe, 2001). These
findings are consistent with previous assessments of environmental education in higher
education settings.

There has been much discussion about the amount of student exposure to environmental
education that is necessary to create a change in attitude or environmentally responsible
behavior. In one study, non-environmental study majors enrolled in either an environmental
studies course or an introductory history course (control group) atthe same institution during
the same semester. Students completing the environmental studies course demonstrated a
more internal locus of control for reinforcement of environmentally responsible behavior,
meaning that they relied less on external motivations and rewards for exhibiting such
behaviors. They also demonstrated significant gains in knowledge and skill in categories


24 Section II: Focus of Plan








of environmentally responsible behavior and in self-report of environmentally responsible
behaviors (Smith-Sebasto, 1995). This study supports the theory that exposure to a single
environmental studies course can have a profound impact on an individual's behavior.

In another study, students worked not as individuals but as a team to solve an environmental
problem. Students enrolled in a bio-environmental engineering design course were given
an authentic campus problem to solve, related to storm water treatment, which utilized a
project-based learning approach. Although students did not completely solve the problem,
the approach provided useful feedback to the university and effectively provided the
students with skills to assess social, environmental, and economic sustainability issues
(Brunetti, Petrell, & Sawada, 2003).

The most exciting and relevant research has examined projects that combine the elements
of service-learning with education for sustainability and sustainable practices. One such
study by Pike and colleagues (2003) examined students' recycling behavior in student
apartments. Professors, at the request of students, developed a specialized course that
allowed a group of interested students to design a study to test whether education about
recycling and opportunities for recycling affected students' recycling efforts.

Student apartments were divided into three groups: Group A received recycling bins and
education about recycling; Group B received recycling bins alone; and Group C (the control
group) received neither education nor recycling bins. Although there were no statistically
significant differences in recycling behaviors between Groups A and B, students in both
Groups A and B increased their recycling behaviors by the study's completion when
compared to their pre-study participation levels. These changes were not demonstrated in
Group C.

Student engagement in this study was essential on several levels. The students who
initiated and designed the study with the assistance of their professors demonstrated their
willingness to tackle a campus problem. Students participating in the study demonstrated
their willingness to recycle when bins were provided. Collaboration between the academic
and administrative sides of the university contributed to the success of the experiment.

Other researchers have studied sustainability and student environmental behaviors through
habitat restoration and other projects tied to university coursework and academic activities
(Bowler, Kaiser. & Hartig. 1999; Mitton & Guevin, 2003). Bowler and his colleagues
examined the effects of ecological restoration fieldwork and classroom instruction on
student behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions. All classes received in-class instruction.
One class of students was responsible for extensive ecological restoration on multiple field
trips. A second class made only one ecological restoration field trip. The third class made
a field trip to the restoration site but did not participate in any restoration work. This study
demonstrated that ecological restoration fieldwork positively affected students' intentions
to behave ecologically, and intentions translated into ecological behaviors (Bowler, et al..
1999).

Mitton and Guevin (2003) describe another example of habitat restoration in a higher
education setting. The authors describe a project whose main goal was to enhance
environmental awareness and stewardship through habitat restoration on land surrounding
a new campus walking trail that connected to a community park. College students, faculty
and staff, local community volunteers, and organizations including the National Wildlife


Section II: Focus of Plan 25








Federation and the National Audubon Society worked together to place nesting boxes for
birds, identify additional water sources, and plant native fruit-bearing trees. The study
demonstrated that students were able to see the impact of their efforts and continued to
conduct field research.

It has been demonstrated that students who are active participants in their own learning
are more likely to retain what they learn and incorporate learning into action. By linking
service-learning with environmental and sustainability education, there are numerous
opportunities for collaboration within and across disciplines. There is a crucial role that
service-learning opportunities play in higher education settings in the acquisition and
application of knowledge and skills. Research supporting the importance of service-
learning opportunities follows.


Literature Related to Service-Learning

Service-learning has over 100 definitions (Kendall as cited in Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 3).
Campus Compact (2004) defines service-learning as "a particular form of experiential
education that incorporates community service." Definitions of service-learning generally
include elements related to instructional methodology, personal development, and academic
goals.

The following is the definition of service-learning at FGCU:

Service-learning is an educational experience designed to meet mutually
identified community and university needs. It is integrated into the
classroom for an enhanced understanding of course and discipline content.
Service-learning is a reflective activity that increases knowledge and
skills and provides an enriched learning experience that contributes to
personal and career growth. In addition, service-learning facilitates civic
engagement and responsibility through reciprocal learning and sensitivity
to cultural, economic, and social differences.

Integration of service-learning into higher education has greatly increased over the
past 15 years. Combining community service and academic courses and successfully
accomplishing both service goals and learning outcomes can be challenging. This
relationship was illustrated by Eyler and Giles (1999) by separating the terms "service"
and "learning." Service-learning implementations can be thought of on a continuum with
a service component implemented as part of freshman orientation at one end and a two-tier
program of connected experiences at the other end of the continuum.

Another useful depiction is the tension between service-learning and academe that was
developed by Sigmon (1996). illustrating the differences between programs that emphasize
service rather than learning and vice versa. The different emphases that exist in courses
hints at the difficulty involved in matching the service need with achievement of academic
outcomes.

One method of broadly categorizing service-learning utilizes dimensions that foster
institutionalization (institutional characteristics), service-learning implementations or
programmatic features (instructional methodology), or the achievement of academic goals


26 Section II: Focus of Plan








(academic outcomes). Institutional characteristics and instructional methodologies are
reviewed because these areas are critical for effective service-learning implementation and
are illustrative of best practices in this area. Instructionalmethodology utilizes a framework
provided by Eyler and Giles (1999) and addresses program characteristics associated with
effective service-learning programs.


Institutional Characteristics

Building an engaged campus is likened to a maturation process (American Association for
Higher Education, 2004) that involves not only developing a shared language and shared
learning, but also building infrastructure, expanding collaboration, instituting policies, and
assessing impacts. Number of consistent themes emerge in this research.

The following are indicators of an engaged campus (Furco, 2004):

1. Mission and purpose that explicitly articulates a commitment to the public
purposes of higher education.
2. Administrative and academic leadership (president, trustees, provost)
that is in the forefront of institutional transformation that supports civic
engagement.
3. External resource allocation made available for community partners to
create richer learning environments for students and for community-
building efforts in local neighborhoods.
4. Disciplines, departments and interdisciplinary work have incorporated
community-based education allowing it to penetrate all disciplines and
reach the institution's academic core.
5. Faculty roles and rewards reflect a reconsideration of scholarship that
embraces a scholarship of engagement that is incorporated into promotion
and tenure guidelines and review.
6. Internal resource allocation is adequate for establishing, enhancing, and
deepening community-based work on campus -for faculty, students, and
programs that involve community partners.
7. Community voice that deepens the role of community partners in
contributing to community-based education and shaping outcomes that
benefit the community.
8. Enabling mechanisms in the form ofvisible and easily accessible structures
(i.e., centers, offices) on campus to assist faculty with community based
teaching and to broker community partnerships.
9. Faculty development opportunities are available for faculty to retool
their teaching and redesign their curricula to incorporate community-
based activities and reflection on those activities within the context of the
course.
10. Integrated and complementary community service activities that
weave together student service, service-learning and other community
engagement activities on campus.
11. Forums for fostering public dialogue are created that include multiple
stakeholders in public problem-solving.
12. Pedagogy and epistemology incorporate a community-based, public
problem-solving approach to teaching and learning.


Section II: Focus of Plan 27









Several studies support Furco's (2004) indicators of the engaged campus. Findings focus
on the importance of resources and faculty rewards. Insufficient resources and/or faculty
rewards acts as a barrier to service and service-learning partnerships. In a study of 55
institutions, Bennan (1999) examined antecedents and impediments of effective service-
learning, how institutions responded to differing challenges, common factors of successful
implementations and the key players involved. Antecedents necessary for effective
implementation included solid staffing and a tendency toward collaborative and collegial
problem solving.

Challenges to successful implementation included chaotic institutional organization, poor
staff and faculty training, and lack of faculty incentives. Key players involved in successful
service-learning implementations tended to have relationships throughout the university
with all interested parties. This finding is supported by Morton and Troppe (1996) who
state the need for a team of faculty and staff who are "organizationally literate," borrowing
from Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline (1990). Organizational literacy refers to knowing
what is going on, who's who, how to get things done, and understanding organizational
history and values. Finally, "all successful service-learning programs had congruence
with organizational goals, a clear articulation of mission, faculty driven plans for program
implementation, creative means to integrate service with study, long-term goals and plans,
and open communication systems." (in Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray. 2001).

Further support is found in a study by Bergkamp (1996) who examined service-learning
implementations in Catholic colleges and universities. This study confirmed the importance
of the link to university mission and also highlighted frustration with the lack of resources
to support program administration, the lack of connection to the faculty reward structure,
and pedagogical issues regarding service-leaming implementations within courses.

Three broad forms of service-learning implementations into universities were identified
by Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue (2003). This typification is useful in
that the placement of service-learning in the organizational structure may affect success.

a. Implementation by section where an instructor uses a community contact to
create a service experience within a course.
b. Creation of an office of service-learning that serves to connect service
opportunities with courses. This structure may be related to university goals
and may also track student and faculty involvement in service-learning.
c. Formation of a service-learning consortium that also might involve corporate
sponsorship. This form is found in large metropolitan areas where corporations
and large universities can collaborate and capitalize on synergistic efforts to
satisfy their respective community obligations.

Research regarding the effect of institutional structure related to successful service-learning
provides support for the need for appropriate staffing (Berman, 1999) and also presidential
leadership with clear goals, a structure to support programs, strategic planning that focuses
on mutual interaction between campus and community, committed faculty, and academic
support for students (Battaglia, 1995). Evidence addressing differences in service-learning
quality due to organizational structure specifically were not identified.


28 Section II: Focus of Plan








Instructional Methodology


Eyler and Giles (1999) summarize the results of two national survey research projects
that included extensive student interviews before and after the service experience. They
examined attitudes and perceptions of learning and student views of the service-learning
process. Instructional methodologies or program characteristics identified by the authors
and associated with effective service-learning include placement quality, application,
reflection, and community.

Research supports the view that many goals of service-learning depend not only on the
service experience itself but on how the experience is integrated into the course. Their
research relates specific program characteristics to personal development and to the
achievement of learning goals. Personal development outcomes include stereotyping/
tolerance, personal development, interpersonal development, closeness to faculty, and
citizenship. Learning outcomes include learning/understanding and application, problem
solving/critical thinking, and perspective transformation.

The importance of placement quality is noted in the following quote from Eyler and Giles
(1999):

Placement quality is about the service in service learning. Before any other
consideration, service-learning practitioners must pay attention to establishing
community connections that will provide productive situations for students as
well as genuine resources useful to the community. The service is where service-
learning begins. ....If the service does not work well for the student the learning
may not be productive. (p. 167)

Placement quality provides the real world setting in which to ground the experience useful
for acquiring knowledge. Placement quality was a predictor of most personal development
measures and was a significant predictor of some learning goal measures (Eyler & Giles,
1999). These results were also supported by others who found high quality service-learning
experiences to be a major factor related to effective service-learning (Batchelder & Root
1994; Kohl, 1996; Mabry, 1998).

The strength of the connection between the service experience and classroom activities
is referred to as application. Application was a significant predictor of most measures of
academic learning outcomes (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Application was often the strongest
predictor of learning outcomes including learning/understanding, problem solving/
critical thinking, and perspective transformation. These findings were also supported by
Batchelder & Root (1994). Application was also a significant predictor of some measures
of stereotyping/tolerance and personal development.

Furco (2004) supports this assertion by stating that the service and learning components
should enrich each other. The learning component of a course should be enriched by the
experience and vice versa. Papamarcos (2002) supports the use of integrative, team-based
projects to fully leverage skills of business students arguing that too often students are
involved in activities that are beneath their skills and thus do not reap the full benefits of
the service experience. Based on his experience integrating service-learning in business
education, Papamarcos states that it is critical for a faculty member to carefully consider
the fit of a project with overall course objectives, making sure there is a clear educational
purpose to the engagement.


Section II: Focus of Plan 29








Eyler and Giles (1999) described reflection as the hyphen in service-learing opportunities.
Students must pay explicit attention to the reflection process. The amount and quality of
reflection also makes a difference. Reflection includes both written reflection and discussion-
based reflection. Written reflection can serve not only as a record of the experience but can
also help students clarify their thoughts. Discussion is used to share feelings, for analysis,
and for application of service experiences to course concepts.

Eyler (1993) found that extensive reflection was a positive predictor of acquiring
curriculum-related concepts but that a modest level of reflection was not. Academic
learning was significantly associated with discussion-based reflection and problem solving
and perspective transformation was significantly associated with written reflection. Written
reflection was also significantly associated with the development of personal characteristics
including stereotyping/tolerance and personal development. Support for reflection as a
critical factor for achieving successful service-learning is widely supported in service-
learning research. Gray et al. (1998) gathered data over a 3-year period from 930 Learn
and Serve America, Higher Education institutions. Survey results confirmed the benefits
of thoughtful reflection. Similar findings are confirmed by McElhaney (1998) and Kohl
(1996).

Community refers to whether the service experience meets the needs of the community.
Community needs are frequently overlooked in favor of creating meaningful experiences
for the students (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Community voice was the most frequent predictor
of personal growth outcomes. Interestingly, students who felt that they met the needs of
the community did not feel their course was intellectually stimulating.

Effective service-learning summedup bythe 5 Cs: connection, continuity, context, challenge,
and coaching (Campus Compact, 2004). Connection: learning not compartmentalized
between classroom and world; Continuity: via Dewey learning is a lifelong process
(importance of reflection); Context: knowledge and skills are contextual, learning with real
problems in the real world; Challenge: challenge current perspectives; Coaching: adequate
support for faculty to provide adequate interaction and feedback to challenge and support
students.


Academic Outcomes

The positive impact of service-learning on academic outcomes is supported by many studies
for K-12 as well as studies in higher education. Eyler and colleagues (2001) provided a
valuable summary of research findings related to service-learning in higher education. The
following discussion uses their learning outcome summary statements with descriptions
of some of the major supporting research studies. Learning outcomes associated with
service-learning include:
a. Students or faculty report that service-learning has a positive
impact on students' academic learning.
b. Students or faculty report that service-learning improves students'
ability to apply what they have learned in "the real world."
c. The impact of service-learning on student academic learning as
measured by course grades or GPAis mixed.
d. Service-learning participation has an impact on such academic
outcomes as demonstrated complexity of understanding, problem
analysis, critical thinking, and cognitive development.


30 Section II: Focus of Plan








The effect on academic learning is measured by many studies that range from large national
studies to individual experiences in the classroom. Three studies are summarized here
beginning with a national study of 20,000 students and ending with two studies utilizing
control groups to examine the effect of service-learning on student academic outcomes.

Vogelgesang and Astin (2000) conducted a pre/post survey. Self-reported data showed
that academic skills including GPA, writing skills and critical thinking skills all changed
significantly when service-learning or community service was performed. Using a sample
size of 49, Ward (2000) found that faculty believed students showed more depth and had a
better knowledge of course content as a result of service-learning experiences. Two other
studies measured student achievement using service-learning and non-service-learing
sections of the same course (Strage, 2000: Berson & Younkin, 1998).

Strage (2000) examined the performance of 477 students over five semesters to determine
if learning outcomes differed based on involvement in service-leaming. Service-learning
students scored significantly higher than the non service-learning students, although the
increase was not evenly distributed. In addition, students showed improved analytical
ability later in the course. Journal entries indicated that students made better connections
between the service and course concepts as the course progressed.

Berson and Younkin (1998) also examined learning outcomes using service-learning
sections and control sections. Student success was measured using grades, attendance,
assignments and course evaluations. Results indicate that service-learning students
achieved significantly higher mean course grades.

The ability of students to apply what has been learned in the real world speaks to the
value of service-learning as experiential education. Bacon (1997) examined the writing
of 72 students who were writing for community organizations through a service-learning
course and analyzed students' transitions from academic to non-academic writing over the
course of two years. It was found that stronger academic writers performed better and that
learning to write in new settings involved a complex interaction of knowledge, attitudes,
and behavior.

Juhn, Tang, Piessens, Grant, Johnson, and Murray (1999) evaluated a project that provided
health education to teachers. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected pre- and post-
program for a control group as well as the service-learning group. Students participating
in the service-learing group rated their ability to communicate significantly higher than
non-participants. Participants also showed significantly increased skills, as well as comfort
with and knowledge of working in school and community settings over the control group.

Evidence of student learning as demonstrated by course grades is mixed, with some studies
indicating a positive impact on learning as previously discussed (Vogelgesang & Astin,
2000; Strage, 2000) and with other studies showing no difference between service-learning
and control groups. Studies showing no difference include Parker-Gwin and Mabry (1998)
who administered pre- and post-course surveys to 260 students enrolled in three different
types of service-learning courses, one of which required service-learning. Contrary to
expectations, the students who were required to participate in service rated the importance
of service-learning significantly less favorably. Results may have been impacted by the
quality of the placement.


Section II: Focus of Plan 31








The effect of service-learning on the complexity of student understanding, problem analysis,
critical thinking, and cognitive development shows interesting results. Batchelder and
Root (1994) compared a service-learning class to a traditional class examining the effect
of service-learning on moral cognition, reasoning, and the development of occupational
identity. Students exhibited significant gains on complex cognitive traits and a greater
awareness of the complexity involved in dealing with social problems. Both quality of
instruction and on-site supervision were important mediating variables.


Relevant Literature: Summary

The importance of the FGCU QEP is well supported by the literature. Research supports
the efficacy of service-learning and environmental education learning opportunities. While
there has been increasing attention to service-learning and environmental education in the
literature, there is a noticeable absence of evidence-based studies, particularly in higher
education.

Interpretation and comparison of research findings are challenging because of the
differences found in research methods, sampling, and focus. In spite of the presence of
some conflicting findings in these studies and the difficulties associated with generalizing
the findings of studies that use small, non-randomized samples, it is still possible to make
the following conclusions regarding best practices in environmental education:

a. Exposure to a single environmental literacy course can have profound impact on
an individual's behavior.
b. Developing an environmental awareness requires that students examine the
environment from more than one perspective.
c. Team-based applied problem-solving in environmental studies provides students
with the skills necessary to assess sustainability issues.
d. Combining environmental education with in-field experiences facilitates student
involvement in environmental activities and field research.
e. Active participation during environmental education improves learning retention
and fosters involvement in environmental activities.

Furthermore, commonalities that arise from a comparison of service-learning studies and
best practices suggest that:

a. Service-learning experiences are associated with a better knowledge of course
content, improvement in complex cognitive traits, and in some cases, higher
grades.
b. Effective implementation of service-learning requires adequate staffing,
collaborative problem solving, and a strong link to the university mission.
c. Challenges to implementation of service-learning include inadequate faculty and
staff training, lack of faculty incentives, and poor institutional organization.
d. Instructional methodology associated with effective service-learning includes
placement quality, application, extensive reflection activities, and community
involvement.

It is important to note that there are no studies that specifically explore the impact of service-
learning on enhancing ecological perspective in higher education. Thoughtful integration


32 Section II: Focus of Plan








of service-learing experiences into courses that promote environmental and sustainability
education will provide FGCU with an unparalleled opportunity to impact student learning.
Although there are barriers to implementation of environmental education and service-
learning in higher education as outlined in the review of literature, a commitment to
integrate and systematically assess student learning in these areas is critical to enhancing
student learning and meeting the unique mission of FGCU.


Section II: Focus of Plan 33



























This Page Intentionally Left Blank.










.NSITITION
S:I CAPABILITY ,

F. ** -.' /







FLORIDA
GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY











Institutional capability addresses capacity and planning issues related to (a) the
implementation and continuation of the QEP including timelines; (b) administrative
oversight including personnel and the adequacy of administrative processes to maintain the
improvement of quality; and (c) financial, physical, and academic resources to implement
and sustain the QEP.


Implementation and Continuation Activities

Implementation and continuation timelines include a five-year summary of activities from
academic year 2005/2006 through 2009/2010 (see Table 3.1) and detailed activities for QEP
Phase I (2005/2006), Phase II (2006/2007), Phase III (2007-2008), Phase IV (2008/2009)
and PhaseV (2009/2010) (See Tables 3.2-3.6). Within each ofthefive phases, QEP activities
are grouped by the categories of(a) implementation, (b) curricular development, (c) faculty
and student research, (d) faculty development, (e) assessment, and (f) evaluation.

Implementation activities are related to the initiation and administration of the
FGCU QEP. Key implementation activities include appointment of the QEP
Director and QEP Advisory Committee, establishing linkages across campus,
implementation of grant writing activities and continuously revising the QEP and
faculty development plan based on data assessment, analysis, and evaluation.

Curricular development activities relate to curricular development and revision
based on assessment data. While the QEP timeline includes specific timeframes
for curricular revision, the QEP committee acknowledges that these dates are
estimates and the actual timeframe is dependent upon how quicldy the curricular
revision process occurs. The QEP curricular revision process is complicated by
the fact that the courses are multidisciplinary in nature and including faculty from
multiple perspectives may necessitate a longer review and development process.

Faculty andstudent research activities are designed to enhance student learning in
environmental perspective and community involvement. Activities in this section
include drafting guidelines for faculty student research grants, providing financial
support to encourage this type of research, and dissemination of research findings
among campus constituents.

Faculty development is an ongoing process that centers around four key activities.
The first activity is the QEP Training Institute. The training institute involves
specific development activities for faculty that are teaching in courses that address
the two learning outcomes-ecological perspective and community involvement.
The University Engagement day provides development activities for the entire
academic community on ecological perspective and community involvement. The
goal is to increase involvement of students, faculty, staff and administration in the
QEP It also provides an opportunity for faculty and students to showcase their work.
College-based training involves funding for individual colleges to engage faculty,
staff and students in discipline-specific training related to ecological perspective
and community involvement. The Novice Instructor Training is designed to


Section III: Institutional Capability 35











Table 3.2: QEP Phase 1 (2005/2006)


Spring/Summer 2005 Fall 2005 Spring/Summer 2006
Finalization and approval of QEP
plan Coordinate faculty
Establish linkages with courses teaching and IDS 3920
and activities that foster ecological University Colloquium
perspective & community involvement
Appoint QEP Director/QEP
Coordinator/Community Partnerships
Coordinator
Implementation Coordinator
Serve as Interim Advisory Committee
providing support for QEP until
Director is appointed Disband QEP
Initiate IRB Approval Committee
-Formation of QEP Joint Curriculum
Task Force
-Appoint QEP Advisory Committee

Identity and use developmental model U C approves curricular
revisions
Sequence relevant courses within
Curricular developmental model Refine curriculum and
submit to University Implement refined
Development Meetings with General Education Undergraduate IDS 3920 University
Council Curriculum Committee Colloquium
for approval

Approval Process
Faculty &
Student Draft criteria for faculty/student team Review Applications
Research research grants

Plan QEP Training Institute Plan QEP Trainig Plan QEP Training
Institute Institute
Plan University Engagement Day
Plan University Plan University
Plan College-Based Training Engagement Day Engagement Day
Faculty
Development Plan Novice Instructor Training Plan College-Based Plan College-Based
Training Traning

Plan Novice Instructor Plan Novice Instructor
Training Traning

Establish annual goals and objectives
for the QEP Conduct assessment
of student learning and
Assessment
Conduct baseline assessments and learning outcomes
benchmarking

Finalize planning of Evaluation Process Conduct detailed
evaluation of relevant
courses
Conduct detailed
evaluation of service-
learning courses
Evaluation Analyze data
Evaluate QEP
programming
Draft annual report
Report QEP progress to
LRPIEC


Section III: Institutional Capability 37











Table 3.3: QEP Phase II (2006/2007)


Fall 2006 Spring/Summer 2007
Implement grant writing activities tor QEP

Conduct university-wide curricular
revision to move from hour-based to course-
based service-learning
Implementation








Curricular Refine curriculum and submit to University Implement refined IDS 3920 University
Development Undergraduate Curriculum Committee for Colloquium
approval

Implement Faculty and Student Research Disseminate findings to campus
Faculty & Student Grant Program community
Research


Plan and initiate QEP training Institute Evaluate QEP Training Institute

Plan and initiate University Engagement Evaluate University Engagement Day
Faculty Day
Evaluate College-Based Training
Development Plan and initiate College-Based Training
Evaluate Novice Instructor Traning
Plan and initiate Novice Instructor Training

Establish annual goals and objectives Conduct assessment of student learning
and learning outcomes
Assessment



Conduct analysis of existing data Dratt annual report

Conduct evaluation of programming Conduct midpoint review and planning
process based on comprehensive analysis
and evaluation of data from years 1 & 2 and
Evaluation thorough review by external consultant

Refine planning phases 3 and 4 based on
evaluation of data

Report QEP progress to LRPIEC


38 Section III: Institutional Capability











Table 3.4: QEP Phase III (2007/2086)


Section III: Institutional Capability 39


Fall 2007 Spring/Summer 2008
Make revisions in QEP Plan and Faculty
Development Plan based on data analysis
and evaluation

Implementation





Refine IDS 3920 University Colloquium
Curricular and service-learning courses based on
Development evaluation of data from midpoint review

Implement Faculty and Student Research Disseminate findings to campus
grant program community
Faculty & Student
Research Report on research grant activities and
research findings

Plan and initiate QEP raining Institute Evaluate QEP Iraining Institute

Plan and initiate University Engagement Evaluate University Engagement Day
Faculty Day
Evaluate College-Based Training
Development Plan and initiate College-Based Training
Evaluate Novice Instructor Traning
Plan and initiate Novice Instructor Training

Establish annual goals and objectives Conduct assessment of student learning
and learning outcomes
Assessment



Conduct analysis of existing data

Evaluate QEP programming
Evaluation
Evaluation- Prepare annual report

Report QEP progress to LRPIEC











Table 3.5: QEP Phase IV (2008/2009)

Fall 2008 Spring/Summer 2009
Make revisions in QEP Plan and Faculty
Development Plan based on data analysis
and evaluation

Review progress to date and determine with
Implementation external consultant the programming needs
that still need to be addressed in year 5 of
QEP



Make revisions in developmental
sequencing of courses that address
Curricular environmental perspective and community
Development involvement based on data analysis and
evaluation


Implement Faculty and Student Research Disseminate findings to campus
grant program community
Faculty & Student
Research Report on research grant activities and
research findings


Plan and initiate QEP Training Institute Evaluate QEP Training Institute

Plan and initiate University Engagement Evaluate University Engagement Day
Faculty Day
Evaluate College-Based Training
Development Plan and initiate College-Based Training
Evaluate Novice Instructor Traning
Plan and initiate Novice Instructor Training


Establish annual goals and objectives Conduct assessment of student learning
and learning outcomes
Assessment



Conduct analysis of existing data

Evaluate QEP programming

Evaluation Prepare annual report


Report QEP progress to LRPIEC


40 Section III: Institutional Capability










Table 3.6: QEP Phase V (2009/2010)


Fall 2009 Spring/Summer 2010
Make revisions in QEP Plan and Faculty Submit Status Report tor QEP to SACS
Development Plan based on data analysis COC Assessment of Impact Report
and evaluation
Implementation




Curricular Begin planning tor continuation phase o
QEP
Development

Implement Faculty and Student Research Disseminate findings to campus
grant program community
Faculty & Student
Research Report on research grant activities and
research findings

Plan and initiate QEP Iraining Institute Evaluate QEP training Institute

Plan and initiate University Engagement Evaluate University Engagement Day
Faculty Day
Evaluate College-Based Training
Development Plan and initiate College-Based Training
Evaluate Novice Instructor Traning
Plan and initiate Novice Instructor Training

Establish annual goals and objectives Conduct assessment of student learning
and learning outcomes
Assessment


Conduct analysis of existing data

Evaluate QEP programming

Evaluation Report QEP progress to LRPIEC
Prepare annual report

Prepare final summative evaluation of QEP




Administrative Oversight


The university recognizes that it must have a strong administrative structure to implement
and maintain the QEP process. Therefore, it has created an administrative structure within
the organization that is reflective of the importance of the QEP Three new positions will
be created:


a. The QEP Director, reporting directly to the Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs, will be responsible for administration of the QEP
b. The QEP Coordinator, reporting to the QEP Director, will assist the director in
administration of the program.
c. The Community Partnerships Coordinator, reporting to the Director of the
Center for Civic Engagement (existing position), will coordinate community


Section III: Institutional Capability 41









service activities and placements. The addition of this position enables the
two directors to support the goals of the QEP

The organizational chart presented in Figure 3.1 shows the three new positions and their
relationship in the university organizational structure.

The Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs will appoint the QEP director in
consultation with the QEP Committee. The QEP director, in consultation with the Provost
and Vice President of Academic Affairs and the QEP Committee, will appoint a QEP
Advisory Committee comprised of one faculty member from each college and the Director
of Civic Engagement. This committee will serve the QEP in an advisory capacity to
ensure that an interdisciplinary focus of the QEP is maintained and that the QEP Defining
Principles are followed.

The university has in place an evaluation procedure for assessing the performance of all
senior administrators. Consistent with this procedure, the QEP Director is evaluated to (a)
determine achievement of expectations for the position, and (b) determine achievement
of expectations for the office including staff. In addition, an external consultant will be
utilized at the end of phase II (spring 2007) and the end of phase IV (spring 2009) to
conduct a review of the actual plan and the administration of the QEP

Figure 3.1: QEP Organizational Chart

President


Vice Resident Advancement Provost and Vice Resident Vice Resident
Academic Affairs Admilnistratve Services



iate rvost Asciate Vice Dean Director other
Acade c Affairs President Graduate Studies Lbrary Servics Academic Deans
Planning and and Coninual
Institutional Learning
Performance


Director Contnual Institute of Renaissance
Center for Civic Learning Goverment Academy
Engagement

QEP Community
Coordimat Partne'rsh
Coordinato
New positions in bold



Financial Resources

The budget for the QEP, as presented in Table 3.7, was developed by the QEP Committee
to ensure that funding will be adequate to implement and sustain the QEP over a five-year
period of time. The budget received careful consideration and has the support of the SACS
Steering Committee, the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, the President's
Executive Group, and the SACS Leadership Team. The SACS Leadership Team formally
approved the QEP budget on November 9, 2004.


42 Section III: Institutional Capability








The budget covers funding for a QEPAdministrative Director, a half-time QEP Coordinator,
a half-time Coordinator for Civic Engagement, a QEP Advisory Committee, faculty
support for teaching in QEP related courses, faculty and staff development, faculty/student
research, and assessment and evaluation of student learning, and the QEP program and
administrative oversight. Tlhe budget demonstrates university commitment to the QEP and
institutional capacity for the initiation and continuation of the QEP.

As noted previously, the QEP is linked to the budgeting process through the Strategic Plan,
which includes references to the QEP in three of seven goals. The Strategic Plan guides
the university in making budgetary allocations, thus ensuring priority consideration for
funding of the QEP.


Section III: Institutional Capability 43











'T ..* ^, ". \ .% ),
ASSESSMENT
V: THE PLAN
,- 1
H.


FLORIDA
GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY











Program Evaluation

This plan outlines how FGCU will evaluate the extent to which it is meeting the QEP mission
of developing in students an ecological perspective and fostering community involvement.
Since learning related to ecological perspective and community involvement may be
occurring throughout the entire undergraduate experience, this plan also evaluates linkages
among several of the University's educational activities, including General Education,
to ensure the coherency of its efforts to enhance student learning. Consistent with the
philosophy that evaluation is necessary for improvement and continual renewal, the plan
combines evaluation of student learning with evaluation of the administrative, academic,
and curricular processesestablished to achieve this goal of enhanced student learning.
Thus, the program evaluation requires a comprehensive, university-wide, multifaceted, an
interdisciplinary effort. The scope of the program evaluation is graphically depicted in the
Data Flow Diagram, Process Model, and Feedback Loop and will be discussed later.

This is an objectives-oriented program evaluation based on two pre-existing student
learning outcomes of the University. The objectives are clarified and expanded to encompass
the levels of mission, goals, and objectives. The impact of the QEP must be evaluated
periodically to measure how well it is meeting the stated objectives. The timeframe of
measurement and evaluation are outlined in the plan. Variety of techniques will be used
to measure how well the students are achieving the stated objectives. Methods used to
assess QEP Goals and Objectives are outlined in Table 4.1. The QEP evaluation plan also
outlines procedures for gathering, management, and evaluation of the data related to these
measurements


Section IV: Assessment of the Plan 45








The timeline for implementation of QEP plan for student assessment for 2005-2007
is summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Timeline for implementation of QEP plan for student
assessment.

Spring 2005 AY 2005-2006 AY 2006-2007
QEP-specific SAI items QEP-specific SAI items QEP-specific SAI items
Quantitative portfolio Quantitative portfolio Quantitative portfolio
assessment with rubric assessment with rubric assessment with rubric
Qualitative portfolio Qualitative portfolio Qualitative portfolio
assessment assessment assessment
Existing curriculum-specific Modified curriculum- Modified curriculum-
assessment specific assessment specific assessment
ELCAI ELCAI
Modified CSAS Modified CSAS
Triangulated Community Triangulated Community
Involvement Assessment Involvement Assessment


The evaluation plan will utilize triangulation of various external and internal, quantitative
and qualitative measurement of student learning. The QEP will utilize two external
instruments: the ELCAI and modified CSAS instruments, as well as internal, curriculum-
specific tests, surveys, questionnaires, portfolio assessment of student work (including
term papers, journals, and other products), and focus group interviews designed by
FGCU faculty. Fixed response instruments using scanner readable answer sheets can be
used efficiently for all students; however, student work that cannot be scored by scanner
will only be sampled for rubric-based data analysis. Student portfolio work will also be
sampled for qualitative data analysis. In order to evaluate the temporal aspects of student
learning, portfolio entries will be required on a regular basis throughout the semester
in order to examine changes in knowledge, attitudes or skill over time. Evidence-based
literature emphasizes that portfolios must include student reflection. A post-graduation
survey will be developed to measure attitudes about ecological perspective and community
involvement of our alumni. Measurement of learning related to community involvement
in particular will triangulate measurement by source, with assessment of student learning
being done by the student, course faculty, and community partner using a standard format
(Triangulated Community Involvement Assessment) designed at the university. This format
will combine fixed-response items that can be read by scanner, as well as open-ended short
essay questions that will be sampled for rubric-based quantitative, as well as qualitative
data analysis.

Curricular Review

To maintain an interdisciplinary perspective in IDS 1301L Styles and Ways of Learning,
IDS 2110 Connections, and IDS 3920 Colloquium, a QEP Joint Curriculum Task Force will
be formed in 2005. Membership on the QEP Joint Curriculum Task Force will include the
QEP Director, the QEPAC, a representative from the General Education Council, and one
faculty member from each of the above mentioned courses. Curricular recommendations
from the QEP Joint Curriculum Task Force will be submitted to the General Education
Council and the Undergraduate Curriculum Team for review and approval.


50 Section IV: Assessment of the Plan








The QEP Joint Curriculum Task Force will examine the curricula in IDS 1301L Styles
and Ways of Learning, IDS 2110 Connections, and IDS 3920 Colloquium to evaluate how
well these courses form a curricular developmental sequence intended to enhance learning
related to ecological perspective and community involvement. The CCE will examine the
curricula of service-learning courses to evaluate whether those courses enhance learning
related to ecological perspective and community involvement. The CCE will also gather
data on how many service-learning hours are required in each of these courses.

Faculty Self-Evaluation

Course and self-evaluation forms completed by faculty will be designed to gather data on
course quality or effectiveness from the faculty perspective. Critical self and peer evaluation
will be encouraged in an effort to refine the implementation of best practices in education.
This data will also include faculty feedback on the QEP Training Institute. University
Engagement Day, College-Based Training, and Novice Instructor Training for IDS 3920
Colloquium, IDS 1301L Styles and Ways of Learning, and IDS 2110 Connections.

Student Assessment of Instruction

The data from the Student Assessment of Instruction (SAI) will be used for measurement
of faculty/course quality from the student perspective. Student assessment of instruction
has always been carried out at FGCU. It began with the eight-item State University System
Student Assessment of Instruction (SUSSAI) that was mandated for use in every course,
every semester by the Florida Board of Regents. In 1999, the faculty expressed an interest in
a more thorough assessment of instruction. The Faculty Senate's Institutional Affairs Team
(If') worked on developing new items to add to the required eight items. The IAT submitted
recommended changes, and the Faculty Senate approved the use of a new instrument that
included the original eight SUSSAI items, added twelve new items, and has room for
faculty to add seven additional course-specific items. In 2001, the university began to use
the twenty-item instrument as standard student assessment of instruction in all courses.
The Office of Planning and Institutional Performance (PIP) is responsible for coordinating
the collection and management of SAI data. PIP will provide the QEP Director with the
analysis of this data for IDS 1301L Styles and Ways of Learning, IDS 2110 Connections,
and IDS 3920 Colloquium. As mentioned above, six additional items will be added to the
SAI for use specifically in IDS 3920 Colloquium. This data collection will start in spring
2005, and items used at that time will be used on an ongoing basis for evaluation over time.
The data from the standard items will also be analyzed for information about the quality
of learning occurring in the course. Although intended to be primarily an evaluation of
the faculty member rather than the course curriculum, some information about the quality
of the course can be gleaned from these assessments. As ecological perspective content
is added to IDS 1301L Styles and Ways of Learning and IDS 2110 Connections, the six
additional items will be added to the SAI for those courses also.

Focus Groups Interviews

Qualitative inquiry will be used to provide descriptive data in the participants own words and
observable behavior. Focus group interviews, using a semi-structured interview technique,
will be used to collect the qualitative data. Purposeful sampling, using homogenous
samples of students, course faculty, community partners, and FGCU graduates and their
employers will be used. Data will be analyzed and evaluated by the Office of the QEP


Section IV: Assessment of the Plan 51








Director. QEPAC, and CCE to provide information on the quality of learning that occurred,
the quality of learning experience opportunities provided, and to gather recommendations
for improvement.

Data Management and Analysis

The collection and management of some of the data will be a shared responsibility between
the QEP Director and the Office ofPlanning and Institutional Performance (PIP). PIPcollects
course evaluation data (SAI) for all courses, including courses that address ecological
perspective and community involvement. Initially, program evaluation will focus on IDS
1301L Styles and Ways of Learning, IDS 2110 Connections, and IDS 3920 Colloquium. It
is possible that other courses may be evaluated in the future, but these courses have not been
selected for inclusion in the QEP at this time. PIP will analyze the data from the SAI and
share the analysis of this data with the Office of the QEP Director. PIP will also collect data
from the ELCAI, modified CSAS, and course specific tests, surveys, and questionnaires
using fixed-response instruments with scanner readable answer sheets from IDS 1301L
Styles and Ways of Learning, IDS 2110 Connections, and IDS 3920 Colloquium. PIP has
the capacity for collecting, scanning, storing, and analyzing data from scanner readable
answer sheets and the QEP Director's office will outsource that work to PIP

The Office of the QEP Director will be responsible for coordinating the sampling,
management, and analysis of student work that cannot be scored by scanner. This student
work will be analyzed using a scoring rubric for quantitative data analysis; however, the
QEP will also sample student work for qualitative data analysis. Considering the paucity of
research that has been done on the assessment of student learning related to service-learning
focused on the environment the theory generating nature of qualitative data analysis will
be very valuable. The themes that develop from qualitative analysis can be used to evaluate
the quality of student learning as well as formulate the basis of additional approaches to
program evaluation and/or research.

The office of the QEPDirector, with assistance from PIP, will gather, clean, collate, and store
all data that demonstrate evidence of student learning related to ecological perspective and
community involvement in a universal database. The student identification (ID) numbers
will be used to identify all individual student data. Institutional Review Board approval
will be secured in relation to using student ID numbers on student assessment instruments.
Confidentiality will be assured. Measures will be taken to ensure that student ID numbers
are not on SAI feedback given to faculty.

Linkages between relevant university data sets (including student demographic information
in Banner) will be identified and documented. All of these activities will be coordinated
through the office of the QEP Director; with assistance of PIP, Information Systems, and
the Registrar's Office. The Office of the QEP Director and PIP will collaborate to analyze
qualitative and quantitative data showing evidence of student learning related to the
chosen student learning outcomes, and whether the amount of learning that was projected
as a goal can be demonstrated. Qualitative and quantitative data related to evaluations of
faculty, courses, curricula, and training programs, and feedback from other sources will be
analyzed for use in the evaluation of how effectively the QEP Plan is being implemented.
The Office of the QEP Director will synthesize all of this data analysis in order to evaluate
QEP programming to determine the effectiveness of FGCU's efforts to enhance student
learning in the two chosen undergraduate student learning outcomes.


52 Section IV: Assessment of the Plan








Recommendations to the QEP Director


The Office of the QEP Director will seek recommendations pertaining to enhancing
student learning related to ecological perspective and community involvement from the
QEPAC, CCE. General Education Council, QEP Joint Curriculum Task Force, Faculty
Senate, Student Government Association, Jndergraduate Curriculum Team, StaffAdvisory
Council, Provost's office, community partners, and faculty who teach in courses that
address ecological perspective or community involvement. Recommendations will be
sought in the areas of curriculum, measurement of student learning, and data collection,
storage, or analysis. For any areas where learning objectives are not being met or where
QEP evaluations demonstrate deficiencies in the QEP Plan, recommendations will be made
for revisions in the Implementation Plan. The Office of the QEP Director will write an
annual report, set annual goals and objectives, and propose the Implementation Plan for the
following year. A midpoint and end review of the QEP will be conducted by an external
consultant.

Implementation Plan

The implementation plan is revised on a yearly basis. The Office of the QEP Director
will propose curicular revisions to the General Education Council and the Undergraduate
Curriculum Team (UCT). Curricular revisions approved by the UCT are reviewed with the
QEPAC and the CCE, and then curricular revisions are made to the appropriate courses.
Recommendations for faculty development are reviewed with the QEPAC and the CCE,
and then are implemented by the QEP Training Institute.


Summary

The evaluation plan that has been developed for the QEP is both appropriate and feasible.
It achieves a balance between the use of external measurement instruments and those
instruments that are internal and tailored more specifically to FGCU. It informs through
the use of both quantitative and qualitative data, is organic in nature, and designed to be
flexible enough to meet unforeseen challenges and has the ability to respond to future
opportunities for data collection and analysis.



Internal System for Evaluating the QEP and Monitoring Progress

These diagrams represent the planned implementation of the Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP); they do not include the dynamics of the development of the QEP. Figure 4.1 is
a Context Diagram that illustrates all of the external entities that interface with the QEP
Process and the data flows between the QEP Process and those entities. Figure 4.2 is a Data
Flow Diagram. The Data Flow Diagram explodes the Context Diagram and illustrates the
processes within the QEP. All entities and data flows represented in the Context Diagram
are represented within the Data Flow Diagram. Figure 4.3 is a Process Model, which is
distinguished from the data flow diagrams in that it assigns responsibility for processes.


Section IV: Assessment of the Plan 53








Figure 4.1 illustrates the data flows between the QEP Director, QEPAC, and other FGCU
departments and outside entities related to the QEP Both the QEP Director and QEPAC
are located within the QEP Process bubble. It shows flows of information to and from the
QEP, excluding connections between entities that do not involve the QEP. Information
flows include data, analysis, recommendations, approvals, and revisions.


Figure 4.1: Context diagram


S / Key
Undergraduate
Curriculum O Process being modeled
Team -- Data flow lines
SExternal entities


54 Section IV: Assessment of the Plan









Figure 4.2 shows the process by which data is transformed within the QEP and the flow of
data between participants. This diagram is also known as a "Level 0 Diagram" and shows
only the top-level processes. Each process bubble within the Level 0 Diagram can be
further exploded into sub-processes. For example, process bubble 1.0 Prepare Data could
be further exploded into three processes including 1.1 Collect Data, 1.2 Input Data, and 1.3
Prepare Reports. Again, the QEP Director and QEPAC control the steps within this process.
QEP data flows in from target audiences including faculty and staff, students, General
Education Council, service-learning task force and community partners. Data preparation
and analysis is handled internally, with analysis and recommendations provided by PIP
The QEP Director, QEPAC, and Director of Civic Engagement use the results to evaluate
the QEP, and recommend curriculum revisions and training modifications. Revisions to the
curriculum follow the curriculum approval process through the General Education Council
and the Undergraduate Curriculum Team. Note also that this diagram is a snapshot of an
ongoing process. At the completion of Process 5.0 Implement Revisions, the QEP process
would restart at Process 1.0 Prepare Data.

Figure 4.2: Data flow diagram.


OEP data
Faculty/
Staff


Community OEP data
Partners


General
QEP data Education
Council


Revisions


Course change


5.0
Coordinate
Training
Revisions


Key
Entities
Processes
Data Stores
Data Flows


Section IV: Assessment of the Plan 55









Figure 4.3 is designed to show the same processes diagrammed in Figure 4.2 with the
responsible entities indicated at the top of each column. The Data Files column indicates
the data that is being stored and the specific names of the files. The process originates
with the QEP Director who coordinates analysis of QEP data. QEP data is collected
from faculty, staff, students, the General Education Council, community partners and the
Center for Civic Engagement at FGCU. Planning and Institutional Performance (PIP) also
supplies analysis and recommendations. Program evaluation and resulting curriculum
revisions originate with the QEP director, QEPAC, and Director for the Center for Civic
Engagement. Recommended curriculum revisions are sent to the General Education
Council and the Undergraduate Curriculum Team for approval. Once curriculum revisions
are approved, changes in training programs are coordinated by the Office of the QEP
director and implemented.


Figure 4.3: Process model.
Faculty/
Community
Partners /
Students / Gen.
Ed. Council /Ctr
For Civic Office of the QEP


assessment process is not part of the QEP, this assessment data will be used by the QEP
Key
Swimlanes areas of responsibility
D Process
* End
O Start
r Process Flow
Data files
] Documents
Document flow
- Data flow


56 Section IV: Assessment of the Plan








Quality enhancement is at the heart of the FGCU Quality Enhancement Plan. The QEP
Feedback Loop (Figure 4.4) is a graphic representation of the systematic and coherent
feedback processes that will be used in the QEP The feedback loop is used to inform,
modify, and improve student learning related to Ecological Perspective and Community
Involvement.


Figure 4.4: QEP feedback loop


42


0 ]>

Linkages with LRPIEC,
Strategic Plan
development and
Budget Process



is Quar
Qual
OlauQ


Section IV: Assessment of the Plan 57


Baseline
Assessments
Quantitative Measures
Qualitative Measures
Benchmarking


Evaluation
Program Evaluation
Evaluation of Student
Learning
Recommendations for
revision of Plan


Implementation
Plan
Curricular Revision
Faculty Development
LRPIEC/PIP


Data Analys
QEP Director
PIP
QEP Advisory
Committee
Consultants


I-
Assessment
ititative Measures
itative Measures
markingg


Benc


4!



























This Page Intentionally Left Blank.











STI CIPATION1

i 12 1 :







FLORIDA
GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY








and the SACS Steering Committee, the QEP Committee proposed the following refined
QEP working title:

Develop m students an ecological perspective and faster community involvement
through experiential learning, scholarly dialogue, and interdisciplinary
engagement.

This revised working title is based on two of the university's Undergraduate Student
Learning Outcomes, specifically Goal 3: An Ecological Perspective and Goal9: Community
Awareness and Involvement. This subtle change in wording kept the focus on student
learning, facilitated assessment of outcomes, made it easier to link the QEP with the
university's mission statement and strategic plan, and provided a framework for addressing
relevant goals and outcomes in multiple settings. On April 27, 2004, the SACS Leadership
Team approved the refined QEP working title.

Throughout the remainder of 2004, the QEP Committee met weekly to discuss development
of the QEP. 'The QEP committee worked on creating a transparent process where every
member of the community felt free to engage in open and candid discussion of the QEP
and QEPProcess. Strategies used to facilitate the campus engagement plan included using
multiple avenues of communication, reaching out and going to constituents, maintaining
early and continuous communication, posting QEP documents and minutes on the FGCU
SACS Website for public review, and purposely seeking out multiple viewpoints to ensure
that all voices were heard.

The QEP Committee members also served as informal channels of communication with
the wider campus community. The QEP Chair is a member of the SACS Leadership Team
and the SACS Steering Committee and provided regular progress reports to those groups.
The President and Provost updated the FGCU Board of Trustees on reaffirmation activities
on several occasions. As the QEPbegan to take shape, QEP Committee members attended
numerous unit meetings and also hosted two open forums in October 2004 in order to
solicit feedback on the draft plan from the wider campus community. Throughout the entire
process, the QEP was endorsed by relevant campus groups and the final draft was approved
by the SACS Steering Committee and the SACS Leadership Team. Appendix G provides
an overview of the QEP process and graphically represents the Campus Engagement Plan
from Exploration and Topic Selection to the Refinement and QEP Development.


60 Section V: Institutional Participation








CONCLUSION


The ultimate goal of FGCU's Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is to improve student
learning in ecological perspective and community involvement by employing teaching
and learning strategies that emphasize experiential learning, scholarly dialogue, and
interdisciplinary engagement. This topic has received strong support from all campus
constituencies and is congruent with the FGCU Mission.

Research supports the inclusion of service-learning and environmental education in the
higher education curriculum. Thoughtful integration of service-learning experiences into
courses that promote environmental education will provide FGCU with an unparalleled
opportunity to impact student learning. Sufficient human and fiscal resources have been
allocated to the QEP. These fiscal resources will provide opportunities to implement
creative strategies designed to address barriers that have been identified in the literature.
The QEP provides a framework to systematically evaluate student learning using internal
and external instruments. Strategies to refine curriculum and enhance student learning will
be developed as part of an on-going plan of continuous improvement.


Section V: Institutional Participation 61

































This Page Intentionally Left Blank.







wN



APPENDICES ,


I ,
j
-S








FLORIDA
GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY








Appendix A FGCU Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles


VISION STATEMENT

Florida Gulf Coast University will achieve national prominence in undergraduate education
with expanding recognition for selected graduate programs.


MISSION STATEMENT

Established on the verge of the 21st century, Florida Gulf Coast University infuses the
strengths of the traditional public university with innovation and learning-centered spirit,
its chief aim being to fulfill the academic, cultural, social, and career expectations of its
constituents.

Outstanding faculty uphold challenging academic standards and balance research, scholarly
activities, and service expectations with their central responsibilities of teaching and
mentoring. Through these efforts, the faculty and University transform students' lives and
the southwest Florida region.

Florida Gulf Coast University continuously pursues academic excellence, practices
and promotes environmental sustainability, embraces diversity, nurtures community
partnerships, values public service, encourages civic responsibility, cultivates habits of
lifelong learning, and keeps the advancement of knowledge and pursuit of truth as noble
ideals at the heart of the university's purpose.


GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The founding of Florida Gulf Coast University at the advent of a new century is a signal
event. It comes at a moment in history when the conditions that formed and sustained
American higher education are fundamentally changing, and at a time when rapid shifts
wrought by technology and social complexities are altering the very nature of work,
knowledge, and human relationships. As a public institution, Florida Gulf Coast University
eagerly accepts the leadership opportunity and obligation to adapt to these changes and
to meet the educational needs of Southwest Florida. To do so, it will collaborate with its
various constituencies, listen to the calls for change, build on the intellectual heritage of
the past, plan its evolution systematically for the twenty-first century, and be guided by the
following principles:

Student success is at the center of all university endeavors. The university is dedicated to
the highest quality education that develops the whole person for success in life and work.
Learner needs, rather than institutional preferences, determine priorities for academic
planning, policies, and programs. Acceleration methods and assessment of prior and current
learning are used to reduce the time it takes to earn a degree. Quality teaching is demanded,
recognized, and rewarded.

Academic freedom is the foundation for the transmission and advancement of knowledge.
The university vigorously protects freedom of inquiry and expression and categorically
expects civility and mutual respect to be practiced in all deliberations.


Section VI: Appendices 63








Diversity is a source of renewal and vitality. The university is committed to developing
capacities for living together in a democracy whose hallmark is individual, social, cultural,
and intellectual diversity. It fosters a climate and models a condition of openness in which
students, faculty, and staff engage multiplicity and difference with tolerance and equity.

Informed and engaged citizens are essential to the creation of a civil and sustainable
society. The university values the development of the responsible self grounded in honesty,
courage, and compassion, and committed to advancing democratic ideals. Through Service
Learning requirements, the university engages students in community involvement with
time for formal reflection on their experiences. Integral to the university's philosophy is
instilling in students an environmental consciousness that balances their economic and
social aspirations with the imperative for ecological sustainability.

Service to Southwest Florida, including access to the university, is a public trust. The
university is committed to forging partnerships and being responsive to its region. It strives
to make available its knowledge resources, services, and educational offerings at times,
places, in forms and by methods that will meet the needs of all its constituents. Access
means not only admittance to buildings and programs, but also entrance into the spirit of
intellectual and cultural community that the university creates and nourishes.

Technology is a fundamental tool in achieving educational quality, efficiency, and
distribution. The university employs information technology in creative, experimental, and
practical ways for delivery of instruction, for administrative and information management,
and for student access and support. It promotes and provides distance- and time-free
learning. It requires and cultivates technological literacy in its students and employees.

Connected knowing and collaborative learning are basic to being well educated. The
university structures interdisciplinary learning experiences throughout the curriculum
to endow students with the ability to think in whole systems and to understand the
interrelatedness of knowledge across disciplines. Emphasis is placed on the development
of teamwork skills through collaborative opportunities. Overall, the university practices
the art of collective learning and collaboration in governance, operations, and planning.

Assessment of all functions is necessary for improvement and continual renewal. The
university is committed to accounting for its effectiveness through the use of comprehensive
and systematic assessment. Tradition is challenged: the status quo is questioned; change is
implemented.


Note: The Vision Statement and the Mission Statement were approved by the Florida
Gulf Coast University Board of Tiustees, December 2, 2002. The Guiding Principles were
approved by the Deans Council, June 18, 1996.


64 Section VI: Appendices








Appendix B: Undergraduate Student Learning Goals and Outcomes

Florida Gulf Coast University is committed to the following learning goals and educational
outcomes, believing they provide a foundation for lifelong learning and effective
citizenship. The specific outcomes involving knowledge, understanding, analysis.
evaluation and collaboration provide the basis on which the University and the learner,
sharing responsibility, can measure progress toward reaching these goals.

Goal 1. Aesthetic Sensibility
A. Know and understand the variety of aesthetic frameworks that have shaped, and
continue to shape, human creative arts.
B. Analyze and evaluate the aesthetic principles at work in literary and artistic composition,
intellectual systems, and disciplinary and professional practices.
C. Collaborate with others in projects involving aesthetic awareness, participation and/or
analysis.


Goal 2. A Culturally Diverse Perspective
A. Know and understand the diversity of the local and global communities, including
cultural, social, political and economic differences.
B. Analyze, evaluate andassess theimpactofdifferences in ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic
status, native language, sexual orientation and intellectual/disciplinary approaches.
C. Participate in collaborative projects requiring productive interaction with culturally-
diverse people, ideas and values.


Goal 3. An Ecological Perspective
A. Know the issues related to economic, social and ecological sustainability.
B. Analyze and evaluate ecological issues locally and globally.
C. Participate in collaborative projects requiring awareness and/or analysis of ecological
and environmental issues.


Goal 4. Effective Communication
A. Know the fundamental principles for effective and appropriate communication,
including reading, writing, speaking and listening skills.
B. Organize thoughts and compose ideas for a variety of audiences, using a full range of
communication tools and techniques.
C. Participate in collaborative projects requiring effective communications among team
members.


Goal 5. Ethical Responsibility
A. Know and understand the key ethical issues related to a variety of disciplines and
professions.
B. Analyze and evaluate key ethical issues in a variety of disciplinary and professional
contexts.
C. Participate in collaborative projects requiring ethical analysis and/or decision making.


Section VI: Appendices 65








Goal 6. Information Literacy
A. Identify and locate multiple sources of information using a variety of methods.
B. Analyze and evaluate information within a variety of disciplinary and professional
contexts.
C. Participate in collaborative analysis and/or application of information resources.

Goal 7. Problem-Solving Abilities
A. Understand the multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of knowledge.
B. Apply critical, analytical, creative, and systems thinking in order to recognize and
solve problems.
C. Work individually and collaboratively to recognize and solve problems.

Goal 8. Technological Literacy
A. Develop knowledge of modern technology.
B. Process information through the use of technology.
C. Collaborate with others using technology tools.

Goal 9. Community Awareness and Involvement
A. Know and understand the important and complex relationships between individuals
and the communities in which they live and work.
B. Analyze, evaluate and assess human needs and practices within the context of
community structures and traditions.
C. Participate collaboratively in community service projects.


66 Section VI: Appendices









Appendix C: FGCU Student Characteristics
Source FGCU Board of Trustees Quarterly Report


Headcount Enrolled bv Class. Fall Terms


* Undergraduate Gaduate Nondegree


Fall Term
Undergraduate
Graduate
Nondegree
Tctal
*as of 12/12)D4

Dearees Gra


1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-


1 2001-02 2002-03


IBaccalaureate Masters


Term 1997-98 1998-99 1
Baccalaureate 18 282
Masters 31 80
Total 49 362

Source ROF Ftudent Data Onurse Files


Section VI Appendices 67






























1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*
Undeclared Arts & Sciences Z Business Health Professions

Professional Studies Education 0 Nondegree


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004"
Undeclared 1 2 0 306 334 407 435 458
Arts& Sciences 400 548 60 584 769 956 1,187 1,414
Business 519 675 783 913 1,111 1,381 1,435 1,521
Heath Professions 178 267 327 382 503 739 835 833
Professonal Studies 790 840 382 319 375 473 563 726
Education 0 0 535 591 602 666 684 690
Nondegree 636 696 637 558 541 636 686 539
Total 2,54 3,028 3,284 3,653 4,235 5,258 525 6,181


68 Section VI Appendices








Appendix D: Course Descriptions


IDS 1301L Styles and Ways of Learning

Introduction to the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature of the curriculum in the
General Education program at Florida Gulf Coast University. A mechanism for establishing
a shared understanding of the mission of the university and the intention of and approaches
to the curriculum. Provides students with training in the basic skills necessary to perform
well in the university setting (e.g., time management, intergroup skills, facilitative and
interactive learning, effective utilization of technology). Required of all entering freshmen.
The students will gain insight into various learning styles and ways of knowing and will
have the opportunity to identify and learn more about their respective learning styles in
their first semester at Florida Gulf Coast University.


IDS 2110 Connections

Capstone interdisciplinary experience for general education. Summarizes major points in
the bodies of knowledge acquired while participating in the General Education Program;
illustrates the integration of the Program; and provides opportunities for the students to
utilize the knowledge and skills gained from the General Education experience in an
applied manner. Involves research, application of theoretical models, and utilization of
learned skills.


IDS 3920 University Colloquium

The University Colloquium brings together students from all five colleges in a series of
interdisciplinary learning experiences. These experiences are designed to address the
ecological perspective outcome in relations to other university outcomes and guiding
principles. Critical thinking and communication skills will be enhanced through field trips,
discussion, projects, and a journal to be maintained by each student.


Section VI: Appendices 69









Appendix E: Service-Learning Courses at FGCU


Faculty Discipline College Course(s)
Margaret Bogan Science Education Science Methods
Education
Dee Burgess Accounting Business Fminanrcial Reporting and Analysis II
Linda Beutiner Gerontology Health Professions Pnnciples and Practices in Recreation
Therapy
Foundations of Therapeutic Recreation
Jon Braddy Arts & Sciences Political Campaign Rhetoric
Richard Coughhn Political Arts & Sciences Foundations of Civic Engagement
& Science
Donna Pnce Ilemry Biology
Peter Blaze Arts & Sciences Environmental Literature
Corcoran & Jim
Wohlpart
Robert Diotalevi Legal Studies Professional Advanced Legal Research
Studies Real Estate Law
Lee Duffus Marketing Business Marketing Analysis and Strategy
Marketing Research
Ehzabeth Elhott Special Education Teaching Childien with Moderate/Seveie
Education Disabilities
Charles Fornaciari Management Business Business Ethics
Charles Fornaciari Management Business Ethical Issues
& Charles Management
Mathews
Tina Gelpi Occupational liealth Professions Pnnciples of Development
iTherapy Community Practice
Debra Gianibo Education Education Secondary Language Acquisition,
ESOL Community
& Culture
Pamela Halsman Health Health Professions Inteigenerational Interaction
& Halcyon St Hill Sciences
Health
Sciences
Craig Heller Arts & Aits & Sciences Marginality and the Experience of Other
Sciences
Karen Landy Gerontology IHealth Professions Intro to Ilealth Professions
Mike McDonald Anthropology Arts & Sciences Methods i Anthropological Research
Ingnd Martnez- Spanish Arts & Sciences Advanced Oral Expression
Rico Intro to Oral Translation
Interpreting
Oral Skills
Spanish Composition
Days Meona Social Woik Piofessional Intro to Human Services
Studies
Ehzabeth Munay Nursing Health Professions Community Based Practice
Kristin Nail Arts & Sciences Public Relations Tactics
Nonprofit Public Relations
Maria Roca Arts & Sciences Styles and Ways of Learning
Connections
Integrated Core Senior Semi ar
Speech Senior Seminar
Eha Vazquez- Special Education Young Children with Special Needs
M ontilla Education
Eleanor Wei gartt Education Education intro to IEducation planned)
teachingg Diverse Populatons


70 Section VI: Appendices








Appendix F: Summary of QEP Development Activities


Date Activity Lead Individual/Group

March 11 Presentation to SACS Accreditation Liaison
Leadership Team regarding
reaffirmation and QEP process
March 20 Presentation to Long Range Accreditation Liaison
Planning Committee regarding
reaffirmation and QEP process
March 21 Presentation to Faculty Senate Accreditation Liaison
regarding reaffirmation and QEP
process
March 27 Presentation to Administrative Accreditation Liaison
Services regarding reaffirmation
and QEP process
April 10 Update FGCU Board of President
Trustees on new reaffirmation
process including QEP
April 22 Email message to all faculty, President
staff, and students regarding
new reaffirmation process
including the QEP and open
forums scheduled for April 24
and April 29
April 24 Open forum to provide Accreditation Liaison, Deans Council,
information on QEP process and Faculty Senate President
solicit input regarding potential
QEP topics
April 29 Open forum to provide Accreditation Liaison, Deans Council,
information on QEP process and Faculty Senate President
solicit input regarding potential
QEP topics
April 30 Presentation to Unversity Accreditation Liaison
Advancement on reaffirmation
and QEP process
May 12 QEP website activated Accreditation Liaison, Office of
including Planning and Institutional Performance
Description of the QEP process
Directions for submitting QEP
proposals
Materials from the open forum
May 12 Email message to all faculty Faculty Senate President
encouraging submission of QEP
topic proposals
May 13 Email message to all staff Staff Advisory Council President
encouraging submission of QEP
topic proposals
May 15 Charge to QEP Task Force Provost
(provide Deans Council
and Executive Group with
recommendations regarding
QEP proposals)


Section VI: Appendices 71









May 21 -July 25 Consideration of the QEP QEP Task Force
proposals and identification of
issues, strengths, and challenges
July 29 Retreat to discuss Deans Council
recommendations of QEP Task
Force
September 9 QEP topic selection Leadership Team
September Appointment of QEP Provost
Committee
October 29 First QEP Meeting (minutes QEP Committee Chair. QEP
of meetings and pertinent Committee
information included on FGCU
SACS Review website for
public access)

February 24 Meeting with Dr David Carter, SACS Leadership Team, SACS
Associate Executive Director, Steering Committee, QEP Committee
Commission on Colleges, and
staff institutional contact
March 1, 2, and 4 Focus group interviews with QEP Committee Chair, Accreditation
three groups of faculty and Liaison
administrators
March 31 Meeting with Deans Council QEP Committee Chair
April 2 Meeting with Faculty Senate QEP Committee Chair
April 22 Discussion of topic refinement SACS Steering Committee
April 27 Approval of refined QEP topic/ SACS Leadership Team
title
June 8 Informational QEP report sent QEP Committee Chair
to Provost
June 15 Development of QEP budget QEP Committee
June 17 Informational e-mail sent to QEP Committee Chair
Deans regarding QEP
June 18 QEP definitions developed QEP Committee
June 18 Informational e-mail sent to QEP Committee Chair
faculty regarding QEP and
requesting feedback on QEP
definitions
June 29 Meeting with SACS Leadership QEP Committee Chair
Team
August 31 Meeting with SACS Leadership QEP Committee Chair
Team
August- College Meetings (Professional QEP Committee representatives
September Studies, Health Professions,
Arts and Science, Education,
Business)
September 16 Meeting with Styles & QEP Committee Chair
Ways/Connections Faculty
Coordinator Jim Wohlpart
September 17 Meeting with Senate QEP Committee Chair
September 24 Meeting with Staff Advisory Accreditation Liaison
Council
October 5 Presentation of QEP budget to QEP Committee Chair
Provost
October 6 Update FGCU Board of Provost
Trustees on reaffirmation efforts
includingg QEP


72 Section VI: Appendices










































































Section VI: Appendices 73


October 9 Approval of QEP budget Leadership Team
October 15 Campus wide email update on
QEP
October 16 Meeting with consultant (Dr QEP Committee
Tom Marcinkowski)
October 20 University f orum (all faculty, President, Provost, QEP Committee,
staff, students invited) to review Office of Planning and Institutional
plan, definitions, executive Performance
summary, and definition of
student learning
October 21 Meeting with Grants and QEP Committee Chair
Research team
October 22 University Forum (all faculty, President, Provost, QEP Committee,
staff, students invited) to review Office of Planning and Institutional
plan, definitions, executive Performance
summary, and definition of
student learning
November 9 Approval of QEP budget by QEP Committee Chair
SACS Leadership Team
November 16 Meeting with General Education QEP Committee Chair
Task Force
December 5 Campus wide e-mail updates on QEP Committee Chair
QEP
December 9 FGCU Board of Trustees Provost, Associate Vice President for
Workshop on Strategic Plan Planning and Institutional Performance
(includes items related to
reaffirmation and the QEP)

January (various Fmalization and Approval of the QEP Committee Chair
dates) QEP Plan (review by Executive
Group. Deans Council, Faculty
Senate, StaffAdvisory Council,
Student G government, SACS
Steering Committee, and
Leadership Team)
January 18 Update FGCU Board of Provost
Trustees on reaffirmation efforts
including QEP








Appendix H: List of Acronyms


American Association for Higher Education (AAHIE)
Center for Civic Engagement (CCE)
College of Arts & Sciences (CAS)
College of Business (COB)
College of Education (COE)
College of Health Professions (CHP)
College of Professional Studies (CPS)
Community Service Attitudes Scale (CSAS)
Environmental Literacy and Citizenship Assessment Instrument (ELCAI)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Florida Gulf Coast I university (FGCU)
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)
Institutional Review Board (IIB)
International Environmental Education Programme (IEEP)
Long Range Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee (LRPIEC)
Long Range Planning Committee (LRP)
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Other Personnel Services (OPS)
Planning and Institutional Performance (PIP)
QEP Advisory Committee (QEPAC)
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges (SACS)
State University System Student Assessment of Instruction (SUSSAI)
Student Assessment of Instruction (SAI)
Undergraduate Curriculum Team (UCT)
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UN'CED)
United Nations Education Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)


Section VI: Appendices 75




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs