Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

SPRING 2019

As detailed below, the critical consensus is that the job landscape is in the process of changing dramatically due to the increased use of automation, Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) by businesses, companies and institutions likely to employ current and future graduates of colleges and universities. One of the strategies that can ensure that graduates are able to compete and thrive in this environment is to focus their educational experiences on those skills that are immune this increased use of ML/AI in the workplace—skills that are not currently available on a widespread basis. Kentucky State University's QEP, "Learning that Works," is intended to have students acquire learning that will be more relevant for their lifetimes and to prepare them for the work environment of the 21st century. The aim of "Learning that Works" is to teach students skills that will aid them in career readiness and advancement. As part of teaching them the concept of Design Thinking, students will acquire skills in problem-solving, teamwork, oral and written communication, and cultural agility.

This QEP is designed to fit the particular attributes of Kentucky State University, a midsized HBCU/1890 Land Grant institution located in Frankfort, Kentucky: the University seeks to produce students who will be tomorrow's leaders and possess skills that will allow them to compete and thrive in the contemporary and future workplace, particularly in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the smallest of the state's regional universities by far, KSU is uniquely positioned to be agile enough to make relatively quick and sweeping improvements to curriculum and instruction, and we have a history of doing so. For example, within the past three academic years, we successfully established Corequisite programs in Math, English and Reading, we instituted a University College and completely revised our University Orientation classes, and we are currently piloting classes that combine English and Reading instruction.

“Learning that Works,” will create a “signature program” that will set Kentucky State University apart from the other of the state’s regional institutions, particularly the two largest state institutions, University of Kentucky and University of Louisville, both of which are located within 50 miles of KSU. This QEP is intended to have the students acquire skills that will make them competitive in the workplace while still allowing the advantages in career flexibility and advancement of a liberal studies education, the University’s other distinction. This QEP addresses the University’s institutional priorities that deal with on improving recruitment, retention and graduation rate; the distinction brought by this QEP will allow us to recruit and maintain a student body that values innovative learning.

“Learning That Works” uses as its theoretical framework Joseph E. Aoun’s forward-thinking study Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2017). Aoun argues that colleges and universities need to reconsider their focus to produce graduates with “robot-proof” skills to deal with the continued and increased use of automation and ML/AI in the workplace. While Aoun’s theories seem sound, to date no attempt has been made to put them into practice in a manner that will result in students who matriculate with these “robot-proof” skills. “Learning that Works” has as its starting point the attempt to implement a practical “solution” to this automation/AI problem, which is only being predicted to intensify, so that Kentucky State University produces graduates with the skills needed in this workforce environment.

“Learning that Works,” taps into the burgeoning field of Design Thinking, which offers a framework by which students can acquire the skill of what Aoun calls Systems Thinking early in their coursework. Doing so reinforces essential secondary attributes that have been identified by Aoun and others, such as teamwork and cultural agility, while also making the most of KSU’s new highly structured University College system. As Kentucky State University is in the midst of revising and reforming its general education core, this QEP will begin the process of having these “robot-proof” skills pervade all of the courses taught

as part of University College. As a starting point for future instructional transformation, the proposal calls for the creation of a three-course sequence, required of all students as part of the core, and culminating a general education capstone course that would assemble students into teams and, through applying creative and critical thinking processes like Design Thinking, tackle existing problems in communities, institutions, or businesses. By beginning the “robot-proofing” process with required, general-education classes, this QEP will eventually impact the education of the entire undergraduate student body.

While the focus of the QEP is on future workforce needs, to get a sense of current outcomes, Kentucky State University, as a state-supported institution, participates in research conducted by the Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics, which issues an annual Post-Secondary Feedback Report. The Postsecondary Feedback Reports take a deep look into what happens to Kentucky graduates after they leave college. Each report provides in-depth data by institution about which degrees are pursued, the employment of graduates as well as information about students who go on to pursue advanced degrees, average wages for various degree categories, and some insights into what happens to students who leave without a credential and do not continue their education elsewhere. Reports are created for each of the commonwealth's public 4-year, public 2-year and independent institutions. KSU's report, which can be accessed through the Center's website, shows that wages and employment of our graduates, and across the state in general, tend to lag behind national averages, indicating a need to adjust the skills being taught. The Office of Institutional Research at KSU also conducts outcomes-based surveys to give us a picture of employment after graduation: the Alumni Career Success Survey combines the results of graduates from multiple years in one chart, and the Graduating Survey also offers statistics on the preparations and post-graduate plans of our graduates. As with the statewide instrument, there are also indications that there is room for improvement in wages and career success in our graduates.

As a state-supported university, Kentucky State University has as an institutional priority serving the needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The proposal for this QEP builds on the intent of HB 3: recent legislation passed by the State Legislature that mandates teaching the skills (grouped under the umbrella of workforce "ethics") that students in the public education system will need to possess in order to join the 21st century workforce in Kentucky: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/18RS/HB3/bill.pdf. Of particular note is the first point on the list: "Adaptability, including an openness to learning and problem solving, an ability to embrace new ways of doing things, and a capability for critical thinking." It is this adaptability that is one of the key components of "Learning that Works." In a very recent study conducted by the Brookings Institution, Kentucky placed second in the nation in the likelihood of having animation and artificial intelligence adversely impact the workforce (Muro, Maxim and Whiton, 2019), making these "robot-proof" skills particularly pertinent at an institution that sends 72% of its graduates into the Kentucky workforce, according to our most recent data. In recent years, Kentucky State University has been increasing its involvement with P-12 education in our service area, primarily through expansion of our dual credit courses, so this fits well with the emphasis on the skills learned in P-12 in the higher education classes taken by these students. This QEP, particular the group project in the capstone class, also reinforces the first goal of the Kentucky Skills U Employability Standards: "Effectively contribute to a team through cooperation, leadership, and giving and accepting critical feedback to work toward a common goal." For the students of Kentucky State University, the common goal will be enabling them to see how their learning will work, does work and can work in their careers and professional pursuits.

“Learning that Works,” with its emphasis on career skills, supports the goals of the University's 2016-2021 Strategic Plan. For example, the Vision Statement references the University becoming “known for providing students and graduates with the skills necessary to thrive in life and career.” The QEP also supports the second of the University's five strategic goals, “Achieve academic excellence across all programs and colleges, increase student general education skills, degree persistence, career readiness

and graduation rates," since it focuses on both general education skills and on career readiness, the latter of which is referenced in goal 2.e.:

2.e Link every academic program to occupation outlook data and review curricula to ensure programs are supporting career readiness. Utilize outside advisory committees to assist in evaluating curricula especially courses that are targeted to include internships, and research and employment opportunities.

Faculty professional development, as part of the process of shifting pedagogy and making Design Thinking a cornerstone of the curriculum, also fits goal 2.m: "Develop a plan to enhance faculty professional development opportunities with a focus on developing teaching skills and engaging students through high-impact teaching and learning strategies."

As described below, the University has created a new three-course sequence to serve as a “launch pad” and “proving ground” for integrating teaching of Design Thinking throughout the curriculum. The nature of these classes fit goal 2.s of the Strategic Plan: “Develop processes to bolster the University’s General Education Core in order to foster cross-disciplinary, experiential, and inquiry-based learning.” In creating a project-based, general education capstone as a culmination of this new three-course “launch pad” sequence for the Design Thinking approach, this segment would fulfill another key aspect of one of the institutional priorities contained in the University’s Strategic Plan:

2.ee Form a group of faculty and research supervisors in charge of capstone courses to develop multidisciplinary, cross functional projects. Teams of seniors from across disciplines will form the Capstone Project teams. Team members with different interests and skills will contribute to various aspects of the project such as business aspects, environmental impact, community impact, aesthetic aspects, technical requirements, and the like.

As a mid-sized university with teaching as its core mission, Kentucky State University is well poised to undertake this kind of fresh approach. As noted in its Mission Statement, the University seeks to enable "productive lives" that contribute even beyond local or regional interests to the "diverse global economy":

Kentucky State University is a public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy.

Kentucky State University is also currently reviewing its Liberal Studies Core in order to make it more effective and to reduce the number of credit hours required to 33-36 so that students have more room in their schedules for classes in their majors and can keep on track to graduate in four years. In order to avoid working at cross purposes, the new courses in Humanics will replace the current required sequence in Integrative Studies with classes in Humanics, described below, rather than on adding required classes to the Core. The new courses will introduce the core concept of Design Thinking and show them traditions in intellectual history, allowing them to trace the ideas of progress, change, innovation, through multiple cultural and social lens, and then applying what they have learned in solving community-based problems.

As indicated in the University's Mission Statement, one of the institutional priorities of Kentucky State University is education in the Liberal Studies. This broad approach to learning allows students to be exposed at multiple levels to essential communication skills, quantitative competencies, and critical thinking methodologies associated with the production of artistic works, innovations in science, computational reasoning, and trends and transformations in intellectual and social history. As a result of this liberal studies aspect of the mission, our General Education sequence focuses on the Liberal

Studies, and “Learning that Works” is intended to meet this institutional priority by teaching essential critical thinking, inquiry, analysis, teamwork, and communication skills that are seated in the Liberal Studies core curriculum. This QEP is intended to keep some of the same foundational goals that fulfill the University’s mission while also adding as goals the outcomes for the QEP, as detailed below. While teaching a new set of skills in Design Thinking, the course sequence in Humanics that is being added to the Liberal Studies Core (to replace classes in Integrative Studies that are currently core requirements) also reflects the and builds upon the broad Liberal Studies goals of the institution rather than seeking to supplant these mission-critical skills. For example, the QEP builds upon the following Liberal Studies outcomes, as found in the University Catalogue:

Through study in the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories, languages, and the arts, the KSU student will engage with big questions, both contemporary and enduring, through study of core texts and primary source material.

The interdisciplinary nature of the QEP will build upon this goal, which will also be reflected in the outcomes of the rest of the general education courses as they are revised and refined. For the new course sequence that supports the QEP, in particular, the emphasis will be on “big questions” involving the development of the contemporary world and the future implications of the continuing development of the technologies that surround us. The QEP will also entail the acquisition of crucial “literacies and skills,” as described below, and the proposed capstone project will allow students to engage groups outside the University and to try to help solve pressing problems.

The KSU student will develop multiple literacies and skills, including reading comprehension, inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative literacy, information literacy, technological literacy, and teamwork and problem solving. The KSU student will practice these skills extensively, across the curriculum, in the context of progressively more challenging problems, projects, and standards for performance. The student will judge reasonably the validity of information gained through the research process, including use of digital resources.

Students will acquire the mentioned skills in the first two classes of the sequence, then take on a “more challenging problem” in the capstone and report their findings in a written report and in an oral presentation. They will also engage in research to try to solve their problem.

The KSU student will obtain civic knowledge and readiness for engagement—locally and globally—and become actively involved with diverse communities and real-world challenges.

By engaging communities outside the University in the culminating capstone project, students will be reminded of their place in the larger world and of their responsibility in trying to improve it.

These broad goals are supported by specific student learning objectives for the individual courses being designed to support the QEP, for the Humanics sequence, and for the QEP as a whole, detailed below.

Predictions involving the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on the workforce of the near future all reach the same consensus: these forces will profoundly alter the employment landscape that current college and university students will have to negotiate after graduation. For example, a two-year study from McKinsey Global Institute (2017) suggests that by 2030, intelligent agents and robots could eliminate as much as 30 percent of the world's human labor. This study implies that the automation revolution could rival in its impact on American workers the move away from agricultural labor during the 1900s in the United States, and more recently, the explosion of the Chinese labor economy and loss of American manufacturing jobs. Depending upon the speed and scale of adoption, automation could displace between 400 and 800 million jobs by 2030, requiring as many as 375 million people to switch job categories entirely.

While job loss to automation might impact those with college degrees, most of the impact is predicted to fall upon blue collar occupations. Of more relevance to this QEP is the other predicted effect of the increased use of automation or Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence: employers restructuring jobs for which AI and Machine Learning can take over some tasks, and having employees spend more time with higher-level tasks. In a recent conference paper, Erik Brynjolfsson and Daniel Rock, with MIT, and Tom Mitchell, of Carnegie Mellon University, (2018) pointed out that the impact of Machine Learning, the self-programming, self-adjusting core of AI, on current employment will result not so much in job loss as job transformation. "ML will affect very different parts of the workforce than earlier waves of automation." Instead, they predict, automation will occur on a task-by-task basis. "Tasks within jobs typically show considerable variability in 'suitability for machine learning' while few—if any—jobs can be fully automated using machine learning . . . .Machine learning technology can transform many jobs in the economy, but full automation will be less significant than the re-engineering of processes and the reorganization of tasks." James Manyika and Kevin Sneader, writing for the McKinsey Global Institute (2018), analyzed more than 2000 work activities across more than 800 occupations, and concurred with this prediction. They noted that "certain categories of activities are more easily automatable than others. They include physical activities in highly predictable and structured environments, as well as data collection and data processing. These account for roughly half of the activities that people do across all sectors." It is not so much entire jobs that will be automated, but activities that are currently seen as a part of those jobs. Manyika and Sneader found "that about 30 percent of the activities in 60 percent of all occupations could be automated. This means that most workers—from welders to mortgage brokers to CEOs—will work alongside rapidly evolving machines. The nature of these occupations will likely change as a result." This points to the need for career preparation that focuses on the skills that will not be among those made obsolete by Machine Learning or automation.

If we accept these predictions that Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence can take over limited tasks, we must accept that there will be tasks that simply cannot be replicated by ML/AI or automation; it is these skills that Joseph Aoun (2017) has termed "robot-proof," and that are at the heart of this QEP. There is ample research to suggest that Aoun is correct in his assumptions about some skills being "robot-proof," and that these skills should therefore be the focus of higher education. For example, Stanford professor Andrew Ng, writing for the Harvard Business Review (2016), articulated a good rule of thumb for determining which types of jobs are ripe for automation: "If a typical person can do a mental task with less than one second of thought, we can probably automate it using AI either now or in the near future," putting higher-order skills beyond the reach of AI. As Bernard Marr, writing for Forbes, (2018) has observed,

Many jobs require additional and very human qualities like communication, empathy, creativity, strategic thinking, questioning, and dreaming. Collectively, we often refer to these qualities as "soft skills," but don't let the name fool you; these soft skills are going to be hard currency in the job market as AI and technology take over some of the jobs that can be performed without people.

One potential solution to a work environment in which, according to research from the World Economic Forum (2018), by 2025, machines will perform more current work tasks than humans (compared to 71% being performed by humans today), is to teach new skills to existing workers. The World Economic Forum's report, The Future of Jobs 2018, covering 12 industries and 20 developed and emerging economies (which collectively account for 70% of global GDP), however, finds that while 54% of employees of large companies "would need significant re- and up-skilling in order to fully harness the growth opportunities offered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution . . . just over half of the companies surveyed said they planned to reskill only those employees that are in key roles while only one third planned to reskill at-risk workers." One way to cover this gap, of course, is to ensure that a future workforce emerges from institutions of higher learning already in possession of the "soft" skills necessary to reap the benefits of this continuing trend where some skills become obsolete while others become even more highly valued. The more on-target higher education becomes with teaching these "robot-proof" skills, the more immune graduates in the workforce become to the vagaries of this environment where employers might or might not take on the responsibilities for "reskilling" their employees.

This forthcoming transformation of employment calls for a different approach to higher education that emphasizes these sorts of higher-order skills in order to prepare students for what awaits them after graduation. This QEP, “Learning that Works,” is designed to institute what has been termed “21st-Century Learning”:

The latest reform movement in education, known as 21st-Century Learning, is in response to the transition from a primarily industrial-based economy to a knowledge-based one. 21st-Century Learning demands that educational organizations become more receptive to societal changes and provide educational services that can make the contributions needed to sustain our economic position in the world. (de Campos, 2014)

So Aoun offers a way to think about de Campos' call for an educational approach that is more responsive to today's needs (and those of the near future) than a more traditional approach is. Given the quickly expanding technologies of Machine Learning (ML), Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation, as noted above, Aoun calls upon colleges and universities to shift attention away from old habits of silo-based thinking to consider the skills that will prove "robot-proof." He organizes these under a field he calls "humanics," which includes human literacy, technological literacy, and data literacy. According to Aoun's theories, the "learning ecosystem" has four components: human literacy, cultural agility, critical thinking and creativity. At the course level, a curriculum which follows Auon's theories would feature:

Across the learning experience, the classes should blend with activity and be augmented by experience (content/source to creativity/problem solving to application).

The most obvious gap in the literature on the impact of automation and ML/AI on employment is that there exists no successful strategy to address the problem of producing graduates/employees that will not need to be “re- and up-skilled.” While Aoun’s theories are intriguing and provide sound theory for addressing the problem, his theories lack real-world application. “Learning that Works” seeks to address that gap that exists between a well-defined problem and a “solution” that is only theoretical.

KSU's QEP, "Learning that Works," proposes to emphasize the four components in the "learning ecosystem" in order to produce students who are prepared for not only the current workforce environment but also for a future workforce environment that will most probably feature an increasing role for automation and ML/AI. By teaching what Aoun terms "robot-proof" skills, the University's student body will be prepared to lead "productive lives within the diverse global economy," as our Mission Statement specifies. Indeed, each of Aoun's "literacies" will be touched upon in the "launch pad" sequence of classes, described below, that will serve as models for future curricular revision, particular the ongoing efforts to reform the General Education sequence required of all students. This sequence will culminate in a capstone project wherein students will work in teams and with those outside the academy (human literacy) and conduct research and synthesize information (technological literacy and data literacy). These classes, which follow Aoun's theories, will constitute a first step toward a wider adoption of this approach in other classes in the General Education core, as well as classes that support major and minor programs. The new courses will serve as a proving ground to determine "what works" in practical application, as Aoun's theories remain untested in a real-world higher education environment.

One approach in particular that the QEP will incorporate is Systems Thinking. As Aoun defines the term,

Systems Thinking is a critical cognitive capacity for anyone in a position of leadership but also for anyone attempting to discover new knowledge, launch a business, or create something original. It sees the details and the entire tableau, exercising our mental strength to weigh complexity while also testing our grasp on multiple strands of thought.

Systems Thinking thus allows one to see the bigger picture and consider how smaller parts interconnect to make up the whole. While a computer might be programmed to perform ever more sophisticated tasks, including assessing massive amounts of complicated data that it would take a team of humans weeks to process, the possibility is very far off for ML/AI to be able to look at the larger picture and apply metacognitive criteria. This is something that only humans possess at present, and by fostering these skills in its students, Kentucky State University will produce graduates who are adaptable to the ever-changing needs of the 21st century workforce.

Aoun's call for teaching Systems Thinking does not clearly specify a way to teach this skill. A concrete way of encouraging Systems Thinking in KSU students is to teach them Design Thinking, the parts of which are explained below. Design Thinking has been well-established as a successful strategy for addressing a wide range of problems, and there are ample professional development opportunities for our faculty to acquire skills in Design Thinking, ranging from forthcoming conferences to online courses to an online "crash course" from Stanford's d-school (mentioned below), in addition to other resources like inviting

an expert to campus to teach a seminar in the concepts. Because of the widespread adoption of Design Thinking, the acquisition of this skill will be applicable and relevant in a wide range of occupations that our graduates might enter.

Design Thinking is a proven strategy for leaders to assess problems and provide insights. In a complex work environment, Design Thinking helps companies to make a complex system "simple, intuitive and pleasurable," according to John Kolko (2015), vice president of design at Blackboard. Design Thinking is a "robot-proof" area because it focuses on skills that are strictly human: an analysis on users' experience, especially their emotional ones, creating models to examine complex problems, and using prototypes to explore potential solutions (Kolko, 2015).

Design Thinking encourages innovation and it reinforces another important “robot-proof” skill—creativity—which is generally difficult to teach. Design Thinking has been employed in various fields: education, industry, business, and, of course, those associated with aesthetics. Writing for Forbes, Cohen (2014) aptly calls Design Thinking a “unified framework for innovation.” Stanford University’s Hasso Plattner School of Design, known also as d.school, facilitates use of Design Thinking strategies among its students and offers training for those outside of academia. As a way of fostering creative solutions, Design Thinking identifies and investigates both the known and ambiguous aspects of a situation in an effort to discover a solution that may lead to one or more satisfactory goals. Because Design Thinking is iterative, intermediate “solutions” are potential starting points for alternative paths, allowing for redefinition of the initial problem (Kees and Nigel, 2001).

Put another way, Design Thinking is an innovative way of solving real-world problems to serve the people who use the end product (Popovic, 2016). According to Popovic (2016), design thinking is a process, undertaken in a predefined order, in order to solve problems according to a plan. The plan involves the following six steps or modes:

As a pedagogy, the essence of design thinking is to put learners into contexts that make them think and work like an expert designer. Design thinking can be applied to any subject area that creates innovative products to address people's needs, including engineering, architecture, medicine, computer programming, website production, and creative writing. The principles and practices of design thinking are being adopted for industrial and media design courses in college and vocational education (Dam & Siang, 2018).

Design Thinking is especially valuable for the definition of problems and generating initial potential solutions (i.e. the ideation mode), but it does not fully address the problem of how to manage the prototype and test modes. Although it is generated from the software development world, the Agile Manifesto can be used to organize diverse, cross-functional teams to incrementally create solutions to complex problems. The Agile Manifesto (http://agilemanifesto.org) describes

The first, third, and fourth points have clear implications for student teams working with those outside the academy. Introducing students to these principles through the new Humanics sequence and having it culminate in the capstone project will allow students to keep learn the collaborative aspect of Design Thinking. Students will also be reminded by the capstone project that although they will go into a project with a sense of direction, that direction may need to change once other factors are uncovered during the search for the best solution to a problem.

The development of the QEP began in the Fall 2016 and reached its first benchmarked concluding phase in the Fall 2018. The narrative and chart below provide an overview of the major steps in the development of the QEP topic. As will be noted, Academic Affairs and faculty have worked collaboratively to identify a topic of interest and merit for the students at Kentucky State University: one that has potential to contribute to research, teaching, and society. Though some time had been spent in collecting ideas for the faculty through open and collaborative processes, the topic chosen had not gone beyond the selection phase. When the newly-hired President shared his ideas about Aoun's book, faculty members were uniformly intrigued and willing to discover its fit for Kentucky State University. The decision to use Aoun's Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence came at time in the life of the University when a new President had been hired and faculty members were engaged in supporting his leadership and vision.

Kentucky State University's planning for a new QEP project began in the fall 2016 semester. The Vice President for Institutional Assessment and the SACSCOC liaison engaged a faculty member with the task of leading the process through its first phase. A timeline was established that signified Phase I would culminate in a general topic being identified by the end of the spring 2017 semester. At that point Phase II would begin, likely with a new leader who had expertise or experience in the QEP topic and would begin implementation of the project.

A process was agreed upon in which the entire campus community (faculty, staff, students, and University stakeholders) would have an opportunity to suggest ideas and to help with their development. To that end, the Vice President for Academic Affairs announced at an October 2016 all-faculty meeting that ideas for the QEP would soon be solicited. In an October 29, 2016, email, the QEP Leader sent information about a website under development through which ideas could be submitted, and he noted that all submissions would be due by January 14, 2017. In this way submitters had ample time to develop their ideas. The email was sent directly by the QEP Leader to all faculty, and it was sent to all students through the Vice President of Student Affairs, to all staff by the President of Staff Senate, and to alumni through the Vice President of Institutional Advancement.

On November 29, 2016, the QEP Leader sent another missive, this time providing the address of the completed website for submissions. Information about the selection process going forward was included, as was a promotional flyer, which was subsequently posted around campus. The plan was for the three chosen proposals to be developed further, each into a white paper. The committee (consisting of faculty, staff, administrators, and students) would then select a topic.

An email from the QEP Leader on January 15, 2017, indicated that submissions would be taken through the 20th of January since the initial pool was small—around eight submissions. On January 17, he offered an informational meeting, attended by staff and faculty members, outlining the process going forward and answering questions. He sent another email on January 22nd, encouraging further submissions, and this sentiment was echoed in a note to all faculty from the Vice President of Academic Affairs. Overall seventeen proposals were submitted, with several from students.

The QEP Topic Selection Committee, consisting of students, faculty, staff, and administrators, as well as a similarly composed SACSCOC Reaffirmation Leadership team, met on February 15, 2017, to discuss

the submissions. It was decided that each member would select three top choices, which would be communicated to the QEP Leader and whose job it was to identify the top three overall and share these findings with the group at its next meeting. On February 22, 2017, the top three were announced to the joint committee, and it was determined that the top three were so similar in topic that it might be more profitable to invite their authors to join the Committee and all work together on an overall approach rather than select only one topic. Indeed, there were about five proposals that all dealt in one way or another with the idea of cultural competency or cultural literacy. In a February 26, 2017, email sent to the authors of these proposals, the QEP Leader encouraged their joining the group going forward.

Subsequent meetings of this enlarged committee on March 23, March 30, and April 13, 2017, found the group refining the topic down to “global citizenship” and beginning to consider ways in which this idea could be reified and implemented. Conversations included possible curricular development, especially in lower-division, general education courses. Considerable dialogue was also devoted to proposing study away projects or courses, particularly since this aspect of the University had been dormant in recent years. One committee member had recently been working on study abroad opportunities for students in the Honors program, and she was eventually chosen to lead Phase II of the project.

During summer 2017, the new QEP Leader named a Co-Leader (both of whom retired after the 2017-18 academic year). These two faculty members generated a draft of a QEP project on the concept on cultural competency. This document was posted to the KSU website, and feedback was solicited. The feedback was mixed, with some respondents feeling like the plan needed more development. Others felt the plan did well to pick a topic that had already been a subject of study at the University in areas such as Education. During this time, the two new QEP Co-Leaders, as well as the Phase I Leader, all attended the SACSCOC meeting in July to gain further insight into the development of the QEP.

At the Encampment held in January of 2018, attended by all KSU faculty and staff, the current QEP Committee chair proposed that the concept of "global citizenship" be broadened to include the premises of Joseph E. Aoun's Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, following President Brown's presentation of an overview of Aoun's theories. Since Auon names cultural agility as one of the key "literacies" in his text, this approach was seen as a positive direction in which to broaden and develop the initial QEP concept. An augmented committee, composed of faculty, administrators, and staff, including a number of members from the previous committee, began work on developing the broadened concept. The Vice President of Graduate Studies led the group through a number of meetings where three general areas were identified for exploration: in addition to the cultural competence that was the initial focus of the QEP, the group added transferable skills and Design Thinking. A literature review was undertaken in these areas by smaller groups within the Committee. During summer 2018, the group narrowed the topic down to focus on Design Thinking, which offered a concrete pedagogy to reify Aoun's general idea about the importance of teaching "Systems Thinking" in higher education. Aside from feedback generated by this group, which was composed of faculty, staff, administration, and student representation, feedback was solicited from chairs and deans at the fall 2018 Academic Affairs retreat, held on August 9, 2018.

In Fall 2018, the scope of the initial phase of the QEP was broadened to include a three-course sequence to introduce students to Design Thinking and act as a starting point for the other QEP outcomes. This sequence would eventually supersede the current required three-course sequence in Integrative Studies. As part of the approval process needed for all new courses, a wider group of faculty was made a part of course development for the sequence by submission of new course proposals for the three courses in

the sequence to the Senate Curriculum Committee for approval on November 19, 2018, and afterward to the full Faculty Senate for approval on November 26, 2018, which is broadly representative of all of the University's academic units. At both phases of the process, faculty from across the University were given opportunity to comment upon and suggest revisions to the three courses, and both approvals included discussion of the three-course sequence by the Senate bodies. Most of the questions and concerns focused on the logistics of implementing the courses and having them cross-listed with the existing IGS sequence rather than on the content and approach of the courses. The proposals passed both bodies unanimously. The approvals were then followed by the official "roll out" of the QEP on November 29, 2018, where the entire University community was invited to a question-and-answer session on the QEP and where copies of this proposal were made available.

The President was formally presented with the QEP proposal in November of 2018 and sent his written approval of the content of the QEP. President Brown has also been of help in presenting the proposal to both the Board of Regents, to disseminating the topic of the QEP at the January 2019 Encampment (attended by all faculty and staff), and, most recently, by presenting the QEP to the student body at the February 2019 "Town Hall Meeting" for their reactions and feedback.

The table below summarizes the steps that led to the selection of the QEP and to future steps for implementation. Additional details on implementation of the QEP appear at the end of the Budget section.

The QEP Development team continues to work on considering details of the plan, particularly on logistical, budgetary and assessment concerns. Feedback will continue to be solicited from the wider University community as well. Assessment plans the new course sequence appear in Appendix A, and assessment plans for the QEP appear in section VII, below.

As stated in the Introduction, above, the ultimate goal of the QEP, “Learning that Works,” is to teach students skills that will aid them in career readiness and advancement. By transforming the learning climate at the University, students will acquire “robot-proof” skills in problem-solving, critical thinking, teamwork, oral and written communication, and cultural agility.

"Robot-proofing" is an umbrella term for integrating employable skills for the next century with a heightened sense of what it means to be a person and what is unique about personhood in an increasingly digital and automated age. The work of Joseph Aoun is seminal in this arena as he articulated from his perspective as the President of Northeastern University what the tension points are in the national dialog about "progress" and personhood. Kentucky State University, in adopting this QEP, will be concentrating on the conceptual framework of "humanics" tied to principles of Design Thinking, which will provide our students two solid benefits: the ability to think and act differently when faced with ethical and practical questions about what it means to be a person today, and, simultaneously, the practical skills and experiences needed to provide far-reaching, flexible, and innovative solutions and responses to global and local needs within society. As such, our QEP will be among the first in the nation to apply Aoun's concept of "humanics" to a university curriculum and will be the first among HBCUs to tackle the philosophical questions associated with how to privilege humanity and humanity within an increasingly automated global environment. Importantly, our QEP will provide public dissemination opportunities of our efforts at Kentucky State University, which will be the first in the nation to report on actual application of Aoun's ideas in an active university setting with practical learning and institutional learning goals, as well as anticipated outcomes. Faculty, student, and stakeholder research and publications will advance the literature associated with critical thinking and the broader social constructs of progress and human endeavor. We look forward to the opportunity to "ground" national conversations on the role of the liberal arts in contemporary American society, the nature of the skills and competencies associated with career readiness and career success, and the implications of systems thinking, cultural agility, and humanity in a broader sphere of influence through publications and presentations in such venues as the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), the National Association of Student Personnel Administration (NASPA) and other venues where our story, especially as an HBCU, will be valued and have specific impact on socio-cultural dialogs.

There are two places in the University curriculum where all students are impacted sequentially with specific content. One is the KSU student transitions curriculum, a series of three courses on orientation to learning and college and professional life, which lead to students' selection of their major. The second site in the currently sequenced courses in the Liberal Studies/General Education core through the three Integrative Studies courses. These courses function in the General Education core as additional university degree requirements, which provide students with coursework on global, cultural and social themes. The creation of three new courses in Humanics, to replace these Integrative Studies courses, will introduce students to Systems Thinking, Design Thinking, cultural agility, and humanics as part of the learning experiences of all undergraduates, who are required to complete the General Education core. As all freshmen entering in Fall 2019 and beyond will be required to take the Humanics sequence, this QEP will have a wide-ranging impact on the entire student body at KSU. Under the Transfer Articulation Agreement established by the Council on Post-Secondary Education, transfer students are able to transfer their general education courses from the Kentucky community college system and other state related schools in the Commonwealth. As a program of institutional reach and impact, other sites in the curriculum will be relied upon to provide scaffolded learning of the equivalent of the Humanics core.

among the transfer population (at present the number of transfer students is about 100 per academic year).

The first appendix provides a detailed look at the content of three new courses in Humanics, created as a first step in introducing and disseminating the new learning approach of “Learning that Works.” These courses will provide the basis for critical thinking, inquiry and analysis, teamwork, and applied problem-solving for first time full-time students who make up the majority of each entering class at Kentucky State University. Because this sequence will be taken by all students, we will have the broadest possible sample for assessing outcomes to see what works in practical application before these concepts spread to the rest of the curriculum.

As a smaller liberal arts University (approaching 2,000 students), the institution is nimble enough to be able to measure efficiently the effect of curricular change. It is also small enough to make adjustments for improvements relatively swiftly. The "liberal studies" cited in the Mission Statement reflects the long tradition of KSU's general education program in being steeped in the traditional liberal arts. This is most evident, perhaps, in the Integrative Studies courses that almost all students must take. These courses strive to offer students a glimpse of the way traditionally separated fields can work together to offer a more complete picture of human achievement, and it will be with the intent of combining this overarching goal with Aoun's theories, above, that the current Integrative Studies (IGS) classes will be superseded by courses in Humanics (see below). The proposed QEP will build further on this already integral part of the KSU education experience by offering students a framework by which they will be able to "see the bigger picture" of any situation they encounter. Since the General Education coursework is traditionally and remaining the "hardest" curriculum to "sell" to students, the Kentucky State University faculty have elected to transparently and specifically incorporate the content of "Learning that Works" into the nine additional credits currently required for graduation located in the Liberal Studies core. The University faculty members posit by combining essential education in intellectual history, with applied learning opportunities in a team-based setting, students will experience, realize, and adopt the philosophy of liberal learning as preparation for any career, personal or professional goal. The skills sets provided in broad-based liberal learning intersect with communication, multiple literacies (cultural and knowledge-driven), and an education marked by depth and breathe across the curriculum. The innovation we are offering in "Learning that Works" is actually grounding the amorphous concept of "critical thinking" in habits of mind that promote systems thinking and intellectual agility that will encourage students to take risks, think differently, and respond confidently to the challenges of life through the lens of life-long learning.

A large part of the institution's capacity for successfully carrying out the QEP lies in the infrastructure that has already been put in place to help get the QEP started: the newly-instituted University College structure and the three new courses in Humanics that have been designed and approved. University College

During the 2017-2018 Academic Year, Kentucky State University undertook the first step in revision of its general education program (Liberal Studies Core) by designing University College. This program offers first and second year students a greater sense of community and better integrate various aspects of student support. It also offers a more structured curriculum. A QEP in Design Thinking would add further to this approach by helping the University College experience the skills outlined in Auon's text, initially through a three-class sequence that is part of the students' common University College experience before they move on to advanced coursework for their majors. The Capstone course will

serve the same function for University College that capstone classes in the individual majors serve for those majors: it will put to use skills students will work on throughout their University College experience, including problem-solving, time management, critical thinking, team building, and the acquisition of academic skills and knowledge essential to a successful college experience.

A major component of the University's capacity to successfully carry out the goals of the QEP is the design and approval of the courses in Humanics that provide a first step toward introducing the concept of Design Thinking and teaching the "soft skills" that will help the students in career preparation. These courses will provide a helpful "proof of concept" of Aoun's theories that will aid us in wider dissemination of the core concepts of the QEP.

As the first step toward wider implementation of the Design Thinking framework, the QEP proposal initially entails creating a three-course sequence for the general education program, through which all students would pass, ideally taking the capstone during the second semester of their second year, where the capstone project would be used to assess skills acquired in the Liberal Studies/General Education Core. In this capstone course, students will work in teams on a specific social problem, harnessing their disparate skills and acquired knowledge to offer a possible solution for the problem. The capstone course sections would be team-taught so students would have access to a variety of professional expertise while they follow the steps of Design Thinking. Groups would report their findings in a written report and an oral presentation at the end of the term. In completing the project, the students will acquire skills in ethical reasoning, civic engagement, and teamwork. They would also be making a positive impact on the larger community to which the University (and therefore each student) belongs.

The purpose of the new course sequence in the initial phase of the QEP is to lead students to an understanding of how the contemporary world developed and to lead them in a process that will culminate in a capstone project focused on a practical application for problem solving: Design Thinking. The approach will be: here's how we got to the problems of the contemporary world—and here's how to work toward a solution for one of those problems. From an access and equity standpoint, our "Learning that Works" QEP begs the question why students at Stanford and other elite institutions should be the primary groups who have the opportunity to engage in Design Thinking experiences. As completers of "Learning that Works," Kentucky State University students will live the mission of the University by bringing their best thinking to the complex problems that face and will continue to face our region. They will emerge as valued leaders in the community.

Humanics 101, 201, 301 is designed to be a sequence of three courses that introduce the development of human literacy, cultural agility, critical reasoning and creativity to support the broader goals of the QEP. Since all students will be required to take this sequence as part of their University College experience, these courses will be the first step in acquiring the employability skills that is the focus of the QEP. The courses are arranged to create an intellectual narrative beginning with close study of the industrial world and how thinkers and practitioners solved problems through the development of multiple creative literacies. The second course in the sequence analyzes the technological world and the post-technological world with an emphasis on cultural agility and critical thinking as students design and complete a project on a topic related to an aspect of our world with varied layers of history, interpretation, cultural resonances, and problem-solving opportunities. The third course is the Humanics capstone, which provides students opportunities to work in teams from across the disciplines to identify, articulate and solve a real world problem in an experiential learning setting. All three courses emphasize students' ability to direct their own learning, recognize reasoning and action patterns across time and cultures, and evaluate how the then has informed the now of human cultures and experiences.

Additional course descriptions, as well as a listing of outcomes and assessment tools, appear in Appendix A. Appendix B has the “sample” syllabi that were constructed as part of the process of having the new courses approved by Faculty Senate.

As the below budget projection indicates, the cost to the University to implement the QEP will be very modest, as the QEP will require no additional hiring, so the funding for the QEP should be well within the capacity of the University's operating budget, even if no existing or new grant funding can be found to finance the QEP. The University also has adequate physical facilities to implement the program: classrooms large enough to accommodate the largest of the classes (the Humanics Capstone classes) are available in Hathaway, Carver and Bradford halls, as well as in the Academic Services Building, and additional capacity is being added with the renovation of other buildings on campus. Additionally, the Bradford Auditorium is large enough to accommodate all sections of the Capstone class plus additional audience for the presentations of the Capstone projects. For computer and research resources, multiple computer labs exist in Hathaway, Carver and the Blazer Library. Since research teams for each Capstone project will consist of five students conducting research, there will be no need for a computer facility large enough to accommodate the entire class section. The only physical facility budget item is for renovation of an existing space to use as a "flex space" for the QEP (see Budget section), the cost for which should be modest. Blazer Library maintains subscriptions to multiple electronic data resources, which should be sufficient to allow for research and literature review for the Capstone projects. As is the case with all other General Education classes, including the Integrative Studies classes being superseded, the HUM 101 and 201 classes should be limited to 20-25 students per section and be able to use the regular classrooms and computer labs used by the other classes in the General Education core.

Our best resource for implementing the QEP is a faculty that is skilled and willing to teach these new supporting classes and to engage in further curricular revision, as detailed above. Due to the existence of the interdisciplinary courses (Integrative Studies) at the University for decades, we have a cadre of instructors with teaching experience in the kind of interdisciplinary courses like the Humanics courses. The reception for the concept of the QEP has been generally enthusiastic, so we do not anticipate any problems in recruiting the current IGS teachers and faculty from other disciplines to both teach in the Humanics sequence and to alter current pedagogy for other class offerings to eventually incorporate the kinds of skills that are at the core of the QEP.

As an example of the willingness of the University faculty to adapt instructional methodology, we can consider the changes that came about to our freshman classes in English, Reading and Mathematics as a result of the Corequisite program that has existed since 2016 and has been enthusiastically embraced by the faculty, staff and administration of the University (see the report on this program in Appendix C). Focusing on Inquiry-Based Learning and requiring each instructor to work with an Instructional Counselor in a teaching team analogous to the HUM 301 team, the program required a radical transformation to the curriculum (with the elimination of developmental classes that did not count toward graduation) and to the instructional approach, and the adaptation was made both swiftly and effectively, with the corequisite classes having student pass rates that are above those that were being seen in the "traditional" version of these classes. The success of the corequisite program speaks to the University's faculty, staff and administration possessing the will and having a willingness to commit time, effort and funding to seeing a new approach to student learning implemented.

The aim of “Learning that Works” is to teach students skills that will aid them in career readiness and advancement. As part of teaching them the concept of Design Thinking, students will acquire skills in problem-solving, teamwork, oral and written communication, and cultural agility.

Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate effective and informed Design Thinking reasoning skills associated with career advancement.

Outcome 2: Students will understand how to organize small- and large-scale projects in teams and develop skills in team membership and team leadership.

Outcome 3: Students will refine their ability to express ideas, pose and describe solutions to problems, and make effective inquiries through enhanced oral and written communication strategies.

Outcome 4: Students will gain knowledge and skills in assessing the impact of decision-making and communicating ideas through the lens of diverse cultures.

Finally, as a result of these learning outcomes, students will exceed their own expectations of career choice, career readiness, and transform their ideas of success from the point of entry to the point of exit in the educational opportunities of Kentucky State University.

QEP

Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate effective and informed Design Thinking reasoning skills associated with career advancement. Assessment Goal: 75% of students will recognize and articulate the principles of design thinking as measured by tests, quizzes, and essays on the principles alone and as associated with career advancement.

Outcome 2: Students will understand how to organize small and large scale projects in teams and develop skills in team membership and team leadership. Assessment Goal: 90% of students will experience multiple team-based projects through which they can be evaluated on organization, time management, team leadership, and team followership as measured magnitude-scaled team-based projects.

Outcome 3: Students will refine their ability to express ideas, pose and describe solutions to problems, and make effective inquiries through enhanced oral and written communication strategies. Assessment Goal: To demonstrate content knowledge of design thinking and cultural agility, 80% of students will show enhanced communication skills, document design and presentation skills associated with advanced inquiry and analysis skills and competencies housed in eportfolios.

Outcome 4: Students will gain knowledge and skills in assessing the impact of decision-making and communicating ideas through the lens of diverse cultures. Assessment Goal: 75% of students will consistently demonstrate cultural awareness through comparative reasoning and evaluation of choices and decisions relative to cultural diversity as measured by examinations, essays, and employer/internship mentor evaluations.

The following chart outlines the assessment plan for the QEP:

“Learning that Works” will promote career-readiness conversations through emphasis on Design Thinking within a human’s approach. Students will create an e-portfolio and, at regular intervals, report on their progress in developing their skills and understanding of both of these core concepts. In the fall 2018, the faculty QEP committee designed three new courses associated with the QEP, described below. This will be the initial point of purchase for the idea and for acquainting students with the ideas of robot-proofing. The three courses will expose them to ideas of progress and the outcomes of notions of progress across time. Progress is a part of the decision-making process and has specific outcomes which students will be asked to evaluate and assess for efficacy and impact. As discussed below, the third class will center on a student-led applied project with teams composed of students from varying majors with the purpose of measuring their levels of learning, ability to apply key concepts, and design and complete a project of meaning to an external or an internal stakeholder, depending on the project selected. For pre- and post-testing, students will complete the CliftonStrengths Finder assessment in the first semester for their enrollment at Kentucky State as part of their mandatory BREDS college-transitions coursework. The results of these will be integrated into the newly created human’s courses to enable students to better grasp their emerging senses of self. At the end of the first year, students will complete the Entrepreneurship Readiness Assessment offered by the Small Business Association with the results integrated into the second course in the human’s sequence. The third course in the human’s sequence involves the capstone project. At the end of their capstone course, students will take the American School of Entrepreneurship Aptitude Questionnaire (or an equivalent assessment). These will be triangulated to determine students’ understanding of and ability to apply and recognize the concepts of human’s and Design Thinking for robot-proofing the future.

Between years one and two, faculty members will collaborate on assignments and integrated opportunities to promote and enhance Design Thinking opportunities in classes. Assessment of these efforts may include common examination or writing prompts across courses; design and implementation of learning communities and linked cohort courses to better track student achievement and learning gains; and, ultimately in the junior year, students will take the Myers-Briggs Inventory and complete a career portfolio that includes a letter of application, resume and work sample that expresses their grasp of how Design Thinking and humanics can transform the career opportunities associated with the their discernment of a career goals and types. It is our expectation that the courses in writing, speech, natural sciences, mathematics, and social sciences will intersect with the humanics courses to allow for alignment and repetition of applied learning opportunities as well as reflective writing on intellectual

growth, discernment, and decision-making as students progress through their General Education core, degree curriculum, and co-curricular learning opportunities.

Aside from the positive effects on student learning, we are hoping for additional benefits that will be assessed independently of the QEP as part of larger assessment processes at the University, as these lie beyond the purview of the QEP Steering Committee. In particular, we are anticipating that the QEP will be used as the central alignment principle for future curriculum review and that all academic programs will review their curricula and map the humanities and Design Thinking points to their program offerings. We also envision the QEP as stimulating research and publication into the practical application of the principles of the "robot-proof" in higher education, as well as an increase in grant applications to support both the QEP and faculty research. Since the QEP will improve career and professional development training for students; we are hoping that this more effective career preparation will not only increase the student retention and graduation rate but also position Kentucky State University as a "destination university" and establish Kentucky State University as "think-tank" for equitable employment and access conversations.

The proposed QEP needs adequate support—financial and administrative—to be successful. The University administration is committed to ensuring that funds are available to run the QEP. Since the nature of the QEP does not call for new facilities, new equipment or new hiring, but mostly for deploying existing human resources in new roles, the focus of the budget is on incentivizing and supporting participation in the instructional transformation brought about by the QEP. The University already has a budget line to support faculty travel and research, so the QEP will not require additional funds for those purposes. Instead, much of the spending will be on professional development involving the concept of Design Thinking and effective instructional delivery. Below are the human resources and proposed budget items essential to the program's success.

The project will need a QEP Director who will facilitate faculty professional development, oversee the mechanics of running the new courses (scheduling and staffing sections), offer regular meetings for participating faculty, and work with individuals and institutions outside the University. The QEP Director will report to the QEP Steering Committee on the project's progress and solicit feedback on obstacles that arise. The QEP Director is responsible for overall management of the program. This person is the Chair of the Steering Committee and serves on the Advisory Group. The QEP Director is the liaison between the QEP team (faculty, the Advisory Group, etc.) and the administration. He or she is responsible for the following: assessing the QEP; recruiting faculty, scheduling courses, and arranging for effective and cost-efficient professional development for faculty teaching in the new course sequence; chairing meetings; establishing relationships and working with community partners; managing the budget; working with University partner programs (particularly University College); working with the community and industry; and writing grants, among other possibilities. The Director would thus be a person of high profile at the University and in the community and should be compensated at the level of similar employees. Based on analogy with the work of a Chair and by recommendation of the Committee, the Director should be given two course releases per semester as well as approximately $20,000 stipend per year if the Director will be under a twelve-month contract (Chairs get a 1/3 addition to their base salaries for serving as a twelve-month employee). If the Director remains as a nine-month faculty member, there will be release time but only additional monetary compensation for limited summer duties involving assessment, professional development, and curriculum development. As part of the Director's duties, particularly in the first year of the QEP's implementation (AY 2019-20), the Director will be expected to seek internal and external funding sources and write grant proposals, with the goal of making the QEP as close to self-funding as possible.

A QEP Steering Committee, comprised of individuals drawn from the administration, the faculty, the staff, and the student body, will offer assistance to the QEP Director. This group will meet at least once a month to assess the project's progress and to identify areas of improvement. Some members might be directly involved in teaching the HUM courses or some other component of the project. This would allow first-hand experience with the project to supplement the QEP Director's findings. While service on the Steering Committee will count as a part of the members' usual service expectations and not come with additional compensation, members of the Steering Committee will be afforded the opportunity to participate in professional development activities.

An Advisory Group consisting of P-12 educators, community members, and business and industry professionals would be created by the QEP Steering Committee. The QEP Director and the participating faculty would work in consultation with this Group to generate ideas for projects for the capstone course and for developing methods to attain the broader employability goal of the QEP. The QEP Director would share information with QEP Steering Committee gleaned from this Advisory Group. The establishment of the Advisory Group would help further strengthen the University's connection with the community and could provide student opportunities, such as internships, that will aid in future employment.

The QEP Steering Committee, which will have members from across the disciplines, will develop a process to choose faculty to teach in the HUM sequence that supports the QEP and also ensure that there is "buy in" from the academic units from which faculty will be selected, so that these units see the value in "releasing" their faculty from part of their usual teaching duties to teach in the program. The QEP Director will solicit faculty applicants with substantial teaching experience, preferably those with teaching experience and/or research experience or interest in interdisciplinary studies and/or the principles of Design Thinking. In the first year of the program (AY 2019-20), faculty will be recruited to offer pilot sections of HUM 101 and 201, and these faculty will be offered a stipend of $1500 each for course development, as well as being compensated for participating in professional development prior to the beginning of the semester in which they will be teaching. The budget for professional development will vary based upon project year, type of professional development activity, and the number of faculty and Steering Committee members engaged in professional development. For the capstone class, HUM 301, which will be piloted in fall 2020, the budget is based on a projected student enrollment of 100 per semester and five students per project team. There will be twenty project teams, although faculty and assistants will be able to mentor more than one set of students in any given semester. With each faculty/assistant team mentoring four projects (20 students), there will be five teaching teams (one faculty and one graduate teaching assistant or instructional counselor per team), so initially there will be stipends for five teams. Each team member will also receive a $1500 stipend prior to the beginning of the course, due to the time commitment of attending several meetings and undergoing professional development training. If course development will involve a time commitment equivalent to teaching a class, the faculty involved could also request release time. After the capstone course has been developed and established, it will count as a regular part of each faculty member's teaching load, so no further course development stipend will be necessary, although there will still be funds available for ongoing professional development.

The teaching teams will meet before each semester starts to consider approaches to teaching as well as to devise a common syllabus and rubric. During the semester, the team will meet regularly to assess what has gone well and what has not and to consider the next steps.

Professional Development opportunities for both the new course sequence and for the QEP as a whole could include training in pedagogy, design principles, course content, and team teaching. Consultants could be brought in to facilitate these sessions from such venues as the Stanford institute for Design Thinking. Faculty might also be sent to attend workshops there or elsewhere.

Some general supplies might be needed to carry out projects. The program will need to make copies and need general office supplies to produce training packets. Giveaways or prizes might also be procured to incentivize student involvement in the pilot capstone course and for the eventual day of student research event.

The budget also includes funds for purchase of software. Handshake is a National Association of Career Educators (NACE) endorsed software for job and internship postings, resume building and cover letter creation that will be used to enhance student success and awareness of careers in fields in which Design Thinking, cultural agility, teamwork and advanced communication skills are valued by employers.

While physical facilities are generally adequate, a flex space is needed on campus for students to use tools that will enhance their understanding of Design Thinking, have designated spaces for team projects, and become a center for applied learning projects. The room would be furnished with moveable furniture, wi-fi enhanced flooring and soundproofing, computer equipment and other tools needed to enable students to design and practice communication, inquiry and team skills related to improved career readiness.

As of this writing, grant funding sources for the QEP have been and are being identified, and the goal is to have most or all of the pilot phase of the QEP project funded through grant funds.

Potential Costs for QEP:

The QEP Development team continues to work on considering details of the plan, particularly on logistical, budgetary and assessment concerns. Feedback will continue to be solicited from the wider University community as well. In spring 2019 the plan will be reviewed SACSCOC reviewers and further revisions will be made in accordance with this feedback. By the end of the term, planning will be undertaken to begin a pilot of the project in fall 2019 beginning with the initial offering of a pilot section of HUM 101. During summer 2019 training will be offered to participating faculty. Professional development will continue to be offered as the other sections of the sequence are piloted.

Implementation will initially focus on offering pilot courses for the three-course sequence that will introduce the students to the skills mentioned in Aoun's theoretical framework. Lessons learned from offering these courses will be applied toward a broader transformation of learning in other classes, particularly those in the General Education core. These Humanics courses will serve as a required, general education focal point for instruction in and practice of these skills. The sequence will commence in fall 2019 with the initial pilot run of the first course in the three-course sequence, HUM 101, to be followed with HUM 201 in spring 2020, along with at least one additional section of HUM 101. The classes will eventually supersede, and initially be cross-listed with, existing required classes in Integrative Studies: IGS 200 and IGS 201. HUM 301 will be cross-listed with IGS 300 and will first be offered in fall 2020. With the cross-listing, students who are under the "old core" requirements will still be able to fulfill those requirements by taking the HUM sequence. At the end of the spring 2020 term, the program will be assessed for effectiveness so that the full implementation of the program in fall 2020, to include the capstone class (HUM 301), will reflect a year of development. Assessment will again be undertaken in spring 2021 to continue to monitor success of the program, including the project component and team-teaching aspect of HUM 301. Adjustments would be made as necessary.

HUM 101 would be offered as a pilot elective in fall 2019 and both HUM 101 and HUM 102 in spring 2020 before it is launched as a requirement the following fall, with each class counting as an equivalent course for its corresponding IGS class (HUM 101 would count for IGS 200; HUM 102 would count for IGS 201). HUM 301 would be offered for the first time in the fall and spring of 2020-21. For the first year, the University would offer both the new classes and their IGS counterparts; going forward, only the HUM classes would be offered. This would allow the University to make changes to the project based on actual data drawn from the student experience. Professional development would be offered to participating faculty prior to the launch of the courses in fall 2019.

The first two courses in the sequence would be taught by faculty from any discipline willing to engage in the faculty development necessary for developing the new approach. For instance, faculty who currently teach one or more courses in the Integrative Studies sequence might be interested in teaching one or more of the Humanics classes instead. Each HUM 301: Capstone class would be team-taught by a group of faculty with expertise in various fields, including STEM (sciences, math, agriculture, and computer science), business, humanities, social sciences, criminal justice, social work, or other fields. As with building teams of students with different abilities, this approach would offer know-how for diverse projects. Four to five faculty members would teach each course, perhaps spending two to three weeks on instruction in their respective fields. An English faculty member, for example, could help students with the necessary skills to write a strong final report, or a speech communications faculty member could help the students with the course's oral presentation of its findings. Faculty

should be able to count the course as part of their load, and other incentives to participate might be offered, such as providing a course development stipend (see below). Faculty would be expected to meet regularly to work together to help the students complete their projects. This will help build a campus community of learners and deepen the mentoring that goes on informally already.

Topics for the capstone groups can be drawn from ones proposed by the students themselves, drawn from suggestions made by the ongoing QEP Steering Committee, or drawn from the QEP Director's work with the Advisory Group described below. Once the capstone course is established as a requirement, there will be several sections, and it may be the case that teams of students will tackle the same or similar problems. This could be an advantage, since the course could end with a competition amongst the groups presenting their projects. A team consisting of the outside advisory group, faculty, staff, and advanced students could judge the projects. There could be prizes for the winners or all participants. There could also be a day of student research at the end of the term devoted to showcasing the students' work. Students would benefit from seeing how their peers approached the same or similar problems from different perspectives that perhaps lead to different conclusions. The presentation would be open to the public.

This course sequence and culminating project for the capstone would clearly help students work on many of the “robot-proof” skills advocated by Aoun. Design Thinking fosters skills such as creativity, empathizing, synthesizing, collaborating, and being respectful and ethical. These skills are specific to humans and are not within the capability of technology. No matter what the jobs of the future are, these are skills that will allow KSU students to adapt and thrive in the 21st-Century workforce.

The HUM 101 and 201 classes could meet according to the regular schedule; the capstone course would meet once a week at 4:00-6:00 p.m. to facilitate the group teaching format. While the HUM 101/102 would have the usual cap of 25 students, the capstone course may have only one to two sections with 100 students each. The 100 students would be divided down into twenty teams of five students.

The first two years of the project have/will develop as follows:

In Phase One of the project, Kentucky State University faculty members, through review and evaluation of curriculum in the General Education core and the degree programs, will begin “Learning that Works” by finding the opportunities in their coursework and co-curricular activities that can be expanded upon and enhanced to address career-readiness through the robot-proof conceptual framework.

At Phase Two, the faculty members will develop and adopt scaffolded competency measures and assessments of competencies demonstrative of students' growth and development in the core desired competencies: critical thinking, inquiry and analysis, teamwork and creative problem-solution dispositions.

At the third phase, students will be afforded opportunities to expand and apply these skills through co-curricular extant experiences, such as co-ops and internships, and the resumption of study abroad opportunities.

The final phases of the QEP will finalizing the courses, coursework, and activities that will concretize the robot-proofing education we seek to develop within the framework of the QEP. At the end of the five years, we intend to have an overhauled General Education curriculum, robust and contemporized degree programs, and an established and sustainable pathway from Kentucky State University to careers of meaning for our graduates.

Aoun, J. E. (2017). Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., T. Mitchell, and D. Rock. (2018). Economic consequences of artificial intelligence and robotics: What can machines learn and what does it mean for occupations and the economy? AEA Papers and Proceedings 2018, 108: 43–47 https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20181019

Cohen, R. (2014). Design Thinking: A unified framework for innovation. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2014/03/31/design-thinking-a-unified-framework-for-innovation/#3d0078248c11

Dam, R. and T. Siang. (2018). What is Design Thinking and why is it so popular? Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so-popular

de Campos, L.R. (2014). Design Thinking in education: A case study following one school district's approach to innovation for the 21st century. Retrieved from https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/116/

Dorst, K. and N. Cross. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X01000096

Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/09/design-thinking-comes-of-age

Manifesto for Agile Software Development. (2001). Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org

Manyika, J., S. Lund, M. Chui, J. Bughin, J. Woetzel, P. Batra, R. Ko, and S. Sanghvi. (2017). Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages.

Manyika, J. and K. Sneader (2018). AI, automation, and the future of work: Ten things to solve for. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/ai-automation-and-the-future-of-work-ten-things-to-solve-for

Marr, B. (2018). Seven job skills of the future (That Als and robots can't do better than humans). Forbes. 6 August 2018.

McConnell, K., E. Horan, B. Zimmerman, and T. Rhodes. We Have a Rubric for That: The VALUE Approach to Assessment. American Association of Colleges and Universities, 2019.

Morris, H. (2015). Using Design Thinking in higher education. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/1/using-design-thinking-in-higher-education

Muro, M., R. Maxon and J. Whiton. Automation and Artificial Intelligence: how machines are affecting people and places. (2019). Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/automation-and-artificial-intelligence-how-machines-affect-people-and-places/

Ng, A. What artificial intelligence can and can't do right now. (2016). Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-artificial-intelligence-can-and-can-t-do-right-now

Popovic, K. (2016). A Primer on Design Thinking. Idea Lab. Retrieved from https://idealab.sdsu.edu/a-primer-on-design-thinking/

Stanford University, dschool. https://dschool.stanford.edu/

World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs 2018. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2018/

Humanics Courses: Descriptions, Outcomes and Assessment HUM 101: Pre-Industrialism, Creativity, and Formative Mindsets. This class will take a “how we got to now” approach, following the work of writers/hosts like James Burke and Stephen Johnson, in making connections between innovations that worked in concert or built on each other to result in the foundation of our contemporary industrialized, technology-driven, “westernized” culture that even cultures that developed apart from Western influence now resemble (including the world’s two most populous non-western nations: China and India). This course would examine design and systems thinking as they were used in the past to create the pre-technological world that ultimately created contemporary culture. Topics such as inventions, mathematical and scientific reasoning, artistic products, forms of literacy and developing worldviews would be discussed. Skills incorporated would be conversations, networking, and practicing thought experiments. HUM 201: Critical Thinking, Cultural Agility and the Technological World. This class will focus on how the world went from the pre-technological world to the technology-dominated world of the 21st Century. This course would examine design and systems thinking in the technological and post-technological world. Entrepreneurship, teamwork, macro and micro-level reasoning and creative problem-solving strategies will be evaluated within a global context. HUM 301: Capstone. In addition to integrating the learning from the previous classes in the sequence, leadership will be a core skill. This will be a project-based class that will synthesize prior learning in HUM 101 and 102 to create new knowledge. The capstone course will group students to work on specific social problems. Ideally the teams will be comprised of students with different know-how, many of whom will have already taken classes in their majors/prospective majors by the time they take HUM 301, ideally in the spring of their sophomore year. For example, a group may have a student with a science background, a student with a grounding in the Humanities, a student majoring in business, and so on. This will create a multidisciplinary atmosphere that will encourage each student to step forward and share his or her skills for the benefit of the group and the benefit of the community or business associated with the problem. Initially, the pilot classes for this new sequence will be cross-listed with and serve as course substitutions for the existing IGS classes for students who are under the “old core.” Students will be required to take the classes in sequence, ideally finishing the sequence by the end of the sophomore year, although some students may take longer to complete the sequence. The sequence begins with ENG 101 and a Math class in fall of the freshman year, HUM 101 in the spring of freshman year, HUM 201 in the fall of sophomore year and HUM 301, the new capstone class, in spring of sophomore year. The University College’s new orientation courses (KSU 101, KSU 102) will be used to lay the groundwork for the capstone class by introducing first year students to the concept of Design Thinking as well as working on the skills that will make the capstone course a success (team work, problem solving, etc.). Students will begin to compile an e-portfolio of their writing in these classes as well as in their required ENG 101, 102 (Freshman Composition) classes so that artifacts can be added to the e-portfolios for the two capstone classes (HUM 301 and the capstone for their majors) to assess their progress as writers and thinkers. Students can begin thinking early on about problems they see around the University, in Frankfort, or in communities from which they come, that would benefit from further consideration. They will be encouraged to share these ideas with the QEP Director. As the program develops, the University might consider facilitating some team projects with a study away component where students use Spring Break to travel to sites outside of Frankfort for specific projects. This

might prove a productive way to integrate alumni into the program if, for example, a project takes place in a city or area where an alumni group is active.

It is clear that goodwill and positive press will be generated by KSU students working within the Frankfort community or elsewhere to help solve problems. Aside from the skills students will gain, they will be able to network and thus make professional contacts that will benefit their career goals beyond their time at the University. It may be the case that the project will be the subject of their research later when they undertake their senior capstone projects.

Upon entry to the University, every student will be required to establish an e-portfolio using Blackboard, the University's primary courseware program that is used for every course offered. This e-portfolio will house artifacts that will both serve as baseline assessment tools and as a means to assess the intellectual progress of the students. The primary means of assessing the effectiveness of the core classes and individual Humanics classes being offered will be the VALUE rubrics published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. Use of these rubrics as part of the e-portfolio will begin with the classes in English, Math and Speech that all students take as requirements for the Liberal Studies Core, usually in their first semester as freshmen. As part of these required classes, instructors will assess students using the VALUE rubrics in Written Communication and Reading (English), Quantitative Literacy (Math), and Oral Communication (Speech) and include these assessments in the e-portfolio. These assessments can be used as "baselines" and the same rubrics used again in courses further along in the Liberal Studies Core as well as in the major classes, where they can be used to gauge student progress in acquiring those skills. For example, the VALUE rubrics in Reading and Written Communication can be completed first in Freshman Composition, again at the completion of the Humanics Capstone project, and once more at the completion of the project or paper for the capstone class in the student's chosen major. At the completion of each class in the Humanics sequence, the instructor will be required to rate each student using two or more of the appropriate VALUE rubrics (see below) and to place that completed rubric in the student's e-portfolio. Since most students will take HUM 301 at the end of their time in University College and before taking most of their major classes, the assessment of the Humanics sequence will also allow us to gauge the effectiveness of the General Education Core as a whole. The e-portfolio assessments and artifacts will come initially from KSU 101/102 and ENG 101/102, with a passing grade in ENG 101 being a prerequisite for HUM 101. Student skills would be assessed again at the completion of the students' capstone projects. Aside from the artifacts from HUM 101/201 and VALUE rubrics, the courses and artifacts in the e-portfolio could include the common assessment essay in the students' ENG 101: Freshman Composition I (to assess reading and written communication); the research paper in ENG 102, the students' second year writing course (to assess information literacy); and the final speech in SPE 103, the students' speech communication course (to assess oral communication).

Assessing individual courses is a normal part of the University's "culture of assessment." Providing objectives and assessment tools is designed to help guide future instructors of these courses toward ensuring that all sections of the classes have the same outcomes and are using the same assessment tools.

For the usual class-level assessment, instructors for these classes will use the appropriate VALUE rubrics, published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, for micro-level assessment of the courses that support the QEP. The instructor will be required to rate each student on the scale of 1-4 using the VALUE rubric descriptors and to add these completed rubrics to each student's e-portfolio (see below). Instructors can also use other appropriate VALUE rubrics and will also use upload to the student's e-portfolio other assessment tools to derive the student's course grade (e.g. examinations and class writing projects). The instructor may

also rate students using other pertinent VALUE rubrics that are also being used for other classes, and these can be used to gauge the student's progress in that set of learning skills. For example, if a major writing project is required, the instructor can also use the Written Communication VALUE rubric, which will first be used in Freshman Composition (the prerequisite to the Humanics sequence), and the scores on the rubrics can be used to assess the student's progress toward mastery of the five skills on that rubric.

The knowledge, skills and dispositions acquired in these courses will be measured in the classes themselves as well as through standardized tests, discussed earlier in the proposal. In addition, the skills and content will map onto advanced coursework in the majors and minors offered at the University, with particular relevance to coursework in business, computational sciences, leadership development, public administration/public policy, and education.

For student learning outcomes, HUM 101 will have the students:

Course Assessment: at a minimum, the instructor will complete and upload to each student's e-portfolio the AACU's VALUE rubrics for Information Literacy and Inquiry and Analysis. The instructor can also complete other pertinent VALUE rubrics that address the skills taught in the class.

Though the actual syllabi for this multi-section has not been formalized, the QEP Development Committee envisions the following assessment plan for the student learning outcomes listed above:

Continued, next page

The Student Learning Outcomes for HUM 201 would focus on how aspects studied in HUM 101 have changed in the age of technology:

Course Assessment: at a minimum, the instructor will complete and upload to each student's e-portfolio the AACU's VALUE rubrics for Global Learning, Integrative Learning, and Intercultural Knowledge and Competence. The instructor can also complete other pertinent VALUE rubrics that address the skills taught in the class.

The Student Learning Outcomes for HUM 301 are:

Working in a team setting, students enrolled in HUM 301 will:

Course Assessment: at a minimum, the instructor who is responsible for mentoring the student project, in consultation with the teaching assistant for the project, will complete and upload to each student's e-portfolio the AACU's VALUE rubrics for Ethical Reasoning, Civic Engagement, and Teamwork. The instructor can also complete other pertinent VALUE rubrics that address the skills taught in the class.

In addition to the University's Student Learning Outcomes for Written & Oral Communication that have been established for the general education program, the three-course sequence in Humanics that supports the QEP also has its own Student Learning Objectives based upon the ones listed above and in the sample syllabi for each class (Appendix A). The overall learning goal of the Humanics sequence is to enable students to move from lower-level skills on Bloom's taxonomy to the highest-level skill and be able to create innovative solutions to the problems that they will eventually encounter in the workforce while working in both an individual and team environment. Students who complete the three-course sequence in Humanics will:

Upon completion of the HUM 301: Capstone class, the QEP Steering Committee will examine the VALUE assessment rubrics from each individual class that will be a part of the student's e-portfolio (see below) to assess to what degree these skills have been acquired through the completion of the three-course sequence in Humanics.

The Objectives and Learning Outcomes of this course directly support the University's mission: Kentucky State University is a public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy.

Any student who requires an accommodation due to a documented disability may contact the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at (502) 597-5076, or visit the DRC office, to arrange for reasonable accommodations. The student is required to obtain verification from the DRC and deliver the signed DRC document to the instructor specifying the accommodations. The student is encouraged to complete this process at the beginning of the semester since an approval for accommodations is not retroactive. The accommodations become effective upon receipt of the DRC approval by the faculty member from the student.

This class will take make connections between innovations that worked in concert or built on each other to result in the foundation of our contemporary industrialized, technology-driven, “westernized” culture that even cultures that developed apart from Western influence now resemble (including the world’s two most populous non-western nations: China and India). This course will examine design and systems thinking as they were used in the past to create the pre-technological world that ultimately created contemporary culture. Topics such as inventions, mathematical and scientific reasoning, artistic products, forms of literacy and developing worldviews will be discussed. Skills incorporated will be conversations, networking, and thought experiments.

The objectives of this course are intended to indicate the general level of achievement to be attained by the average student. Through progress of the course, the student will:

The student will demonstrate his or her progress toward these objectives through written examinations, written projects, class participation and contribution, and other participation as required.

Students enrolled in HUM 101 will:

For the pilot classes, the required texts will be determined by the individual instructor in consultation with the QEP Steering Committee; some possible required texts are: Edward O. Wilson, The Origins of Creativity; Stephen Greenblatt, The Swerve; Joseph Aoun, Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. After the pilot, a list of texts required for all sections will be a part of the standard syllabus for the class.

All sections will be expected to make regular use of Blackboard for class assignments

Course policies will be determined by individual instructors.

The standard KSU grading scale (A,B,C,D,F,I) will be used to record final grades.

For the pilot classes, the schedule will be determined in consultation with the QEP Steering Committee. After the pilot classes, the schedule will be determined by individual instructors; readings, viewings and discussions will focus on the pre-industrial world (through the Enlightenment/Age of Reason) and will involve cross-cultural study.

The Objectives and Learning Outcomes of this course directly support the University's mission: Kentucky State University is a public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy.

Any student who requires an accommodation due to a documented disability may contact the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at (502) 597-5076, or visit the DRC office, to arrange for reasonable accommodations. The student is required to obtain verification from the DRC and deliver the signed DRC document to the instructor specifying the accommodations. The student is encouraged to complete this process at the beginning of the semester since an approval for accommodations is not retroactive. The accommodations become effective upon receipt of the DRC approval by the faculty member from the student.

This class focuses on how the world changed from the pre-technological world to the technology-dominated world of the 21st Century. This course will examine design and systems thinking in the technological and post-technological world. Teamwork, macro- and micro-level reasoning, and creative problem solving strategies will be evaluated within a global context.

The objectives of this course are intended to indicate the general level of achievement to be attained by the average student. Through progress of the course, the student will:

The student will demonstrate his or her progress toward these objectives through written examinations, written projects, class participation and contribution, and other participation as required.

Students enrolled in HUM 201 will:

For the pilot classes, the required texts will be determined by the individual instructor in consultation with the QEP Steering Committee; some possible required texts are: Jonathan Taplin, Move Fast and Break Things; Amy Webb, The Signals are Talking; Cathy O'Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction. After the pilot, a list of texts required for all sections will be a part of the standard syllabus for the class.

All sections will be expected to make regular use of Blackboard for class assignments

Course policies will be determined by individual instructors.

The standard KSU grading scale (A,B,C,D,F,I) will be used to record final grades.

For the pilot classes, the schedule will be determined in consultation with the QEP Steering Committee. After the pilot classes, the schedule will be determined by individual instructors; readings, viewings and discussions will focus on the post-industrial world, including study of the contemporary world, and will involve cross-cultural study.

The Objectives and Learning Outcomes of this course directly support the University's mission: Kentucky State University is a public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy.

Any student who requires an accommodation due to a documented disability may contact the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at (502) 597-5076, or visit the DRC office, to arrange for reasonable accommodations. The student is required to obtain verification from the DRC and deliver the signed DRC document to the instructor specifying the accommodations. The student is encouraged to complete this process at the beginning of the semester since an approval for accommodations is not retroactive. The accommodations become effective upon receipt of the DRC approval by the faculty member from the student.

I his is a team-taught, project-based class that will synthesize prior learning in HUM 101 and 201 to create new knowledge, so leadership is a core skill. This course will group students from different majors to work on specific social problems. This course will create a multidisciplinary atmosphere that will encourage each student to step forward and share his or her skills for the benefit of the group and the benefit of the community or business associated with the problem.

The objectives of this course are intended to indicate the general level of achievement to be attained by the average student. Through progress of the course, the student will:

The student will demonstrate his or her progress toward these objectives through written assignments, verbal reports, project design and project completion.

Working in a team setting, students enrolled in HUM 301 will:

For the pilot classes, the required texts will be determined by the instructors on the teaching team in consultation with the QEP Steering Committee; some possible required texts are: Osterwalder and Pigneur, Business Model Generation; Carl G. Herndl, editor, Sustainability: A Reader for Writers; subscription to project management software (e.g. Live Plan); After the pilot, a list of texts required for all sections will be a part of the standard syllabus for the class that will be generated by the teaching team prior to the beginning of the semester in which the class is offered.

All sections will be expected to make regular use of Blackboard for class assignments

Course policies will be determined by the teaching team.

The group project will be group-graded by the teaching team using the appropriate VALUE rubrics from the Association of American Colleges and Universities. The standard KSU grading scale (A,B,C,D,F,I) will be used to record final grades.

For the pilot classes, the schedule will be determined by the teaching team in consultation with the QEP Steering Committee. After the pilot classes, the schedule will be determined by the instructors on the teaching team, each of whom will teach a segment of the class. Readings, viewings and discussions will focus on the principles of agile thinking. The primary focus of the course calendar will be on students working in groups to design and implement a group project that has a real-world impact on a community (University, local, or even further-reaching).

KSU Corequisite lead for mathematics are Fariba Bigdeli-Jahed and Karen Heavin

The Accelerated Mathematics Model for both MAT115A and MAT111 is a blend of Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) as defined by the Academy of Inquiry Based Learning at http://www.inquirybasedlearning.org/about/#/what-is-ibl/ and Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT). “Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a method of instruction that places the student, the subject matter, and their interaction at the center of the learning experience. At the same time it transforms the role of the teacher from that of dispensing knowledge to that of facilitating learning. It repositions him or her, physically, from the front and center of the classroom to someplace in the middle or back of it, as it subtly yet significantly increases his or her in involvement in the thought-processes of the students.” A culturally responsive teacher recognizes the importance of student perspective and background and participates in reflective first person learning with the students while they work together to build a safe, productive and community based learning environment. The blended accelerated model focuses on developing strong conceptual mathematical understanding instead of algorithmic memorization through the use of group work, student presentations, guided questioning and mathematical conversations, while creating a safe learning environment which encourages productive struggle, risk taking, collaboration, persistence and other 21st century skills. MAT115A has 5 hours of student contact while MAT 111 provides 4 contact hours. Both courses are co-taught by a lead faculty member and Instructional counselor (IC). The IC attends all classes and provides additional tutoring and assistance outside of class.

MAT 101, Algebraic Concepts is a three credit-hour course which is designed for students on college algebra pathway with MATH ACT sub-score of less than 19. This course meets 5 days a week and has the same structure as accelerated college algebra. Based on 2016-2017 data students who passed MAT 101 had a better success rate in MAT 115A than the overall success rate.

MAI 200, Introduction to Statistical Analysis, is newly developed. The course meets four days a week and offers an alternative to college algebra for programs such as agriculture, nursing and business. The MATH ACT requirement for the course is same as accelerated college algebra (19 or higher or completion of MAT 101). We offered a section of the course as dual credit in spring 2017. An on campus and two dual credit sections are offered in spring 2018.

"Professional development provided for faculty and staff teaching or providing services for students in the corequisite courses. Staff include advising, administrative, tutoring, mentoring, etc."

Fall 2017: Most of the professional development has been focused on designing, developing, and implementing the accelerated program. Therefore, scaling the professional development on a more extensive level will take place in the next grant cycle. The accelerated program coordinator, working for student support services, has been part of the planning and implementation cycle. This person functions as the liaison between the accelerated program and the student support services which includes advising, mentoring and tutoring. Furthermore this person also provides professional development for faculty and instructional counselors.

The group developed professional learning resources in 2016-2017, which included National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) http://learningoutcomeassessment.org/, Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) http://www.inquirybasedlearning.org, Project based learning (PBL) https://app.mysummitps.org/guest/courses, and Cultural competence and ACE (Academic Center for Excellence) resources.

IBL was piloted in 2016-2017 and the results were assessed in December of 2016. Adjustments were made in spring 2017. Then the faculty and instructional counselors had a retreat from August 7 to August 9, 2017. Worksheets were developed during the 2016-2017 academic year were compiled into a workbook for both MAT 101 Algebraic Concepts and MAT 115A Accelerated College Algebra. They were reviewed and edited during the August retreat. In addition, faculty discussed and shared their experience with IBL and growth mindset training which resulted in informal modifications and changes in pedagogy.

Two new instructional counselors participated and were trained in the teaching methodology used in the accelerated classes as well as productive struggle pedagogy.

Karen Heavin submitted an abstract to the Joint meeting of the AMS/MAA detailing the results of combining inquiry based learning, culturally responsive teaching, and growth mindset training. The abstract was accepted but due to financial constraints, the presentation was withdrawn. This presentation was going to include the research results from 2016-2017.

Spring 2018: A faculty member assumed the duties of corequisite coordinator for the spring 2018 semester and facilitated the weekly meetings to assist both faculty and Cl's in content management. A majority of the professional development continued to focus on course design and pedagogy. Contact hours for college algebra were changed from 50 minute sessions M-F to 100 minute MW and 50 minute on Friday. It became obvious it was it was essential to meet weekly and continually modify the curriculum calendar during the spring semester since the curriculum was designed for delivery in individual 50 minute sessions. Support and PD in IBL pedagogy was also discussed during the meetings.

On April 21, 2018, Hope Street Group facilitated a training workshop for IBL at the KY State Chamber of Commerce. In attendance were KSU math and science faculty, EKU and Owensboro math faculty, secondary faculty from our partner high schools and Hope Street Group Fellows. The workshop lasted from 10 – 3:30 and featured cultural competence/relationship based classroom training by Vince Mattox, Introduction to the Sandford Inspire on demand modules and IBL curriculum demonstrations and workgroup opportunities.

May 29 – 30 the math department conducted a 2-day retreat to begin the restructuring of the curriculum for MAT 101 and MAT 115A. In attendance were all math faculty, Chris Russey, Ethan Coats and Jordan Robinson. Discussions included the following:

MAT 101

The content was divided into 5 modules and each module was assigned to 1 or 2 math faculty/instructors for development over the summer.

“Communication processes and materials developed and implemented for use by your faculty and staff, students, and administrators. Were they effective in creating the awareness needed to support your corequisite program and coursework?”

In a fall 2017 faculty senate meeting which included many faculty, staff and the new University leadership, a brief explanation of the structure, importance and impact of the accelerated program was presented. The president verbally gave his support of the program. A follow up report was submitted to the President and the Provost.

During the spring faculty institute, the keynote speaker discussed the need for training students in persistence and developing growth mindset. This provided an opportunity to publicly highlight the accelerated program emphasis on developing 21st century skills along with mathematical fluency. The question of scaling was brought up. Various venues including brown bag lunch sessions were brought up and discussed.

The student support services which includes tutoring and advising continues to work directly with the math and English faculty and instructional counselors.

Accelerated college algebra continues to be offered as dual credit through the Access to Algebra Program. The program is well-established among the P-12 community.

The advising guide sheet for the accelerated program continues to be modified and disseminated to faculty and advisors throughout the University.

We continue to use instructional counselors as co-teachers. The ICs attend all the classes they co-teach and provide additional tutoring and mentorship outside of class.

EdReady program is integrated into the classes to provide further academic support.

Attendance is closely monitored. Students with poor attendance or who are struggling in the class are contacted by the professors and ICs. A learning contract was developed to increase student accountability and provide a clear plan of action. Student's advisor is kept informed.

"Overall student impacts of your corequisite coursework. What were the success rates in corequisite courses compared to students meeting benchmarks of readiness through other state or institutional measures?"

**This computation is included because a grade of D is acceptable in MAT 111.

MAT 101: The success rate for MAT 101, Algebraic Concepts, stayed consistent from fall to spring. The enrollment for spring was 1/3 of the fall enrollment. Approximately 1/2 of the students reenrolled in MAT 101 in the spring after failing to pass the course in the fall. 85% of students repeating MAT 101 in the spring successfully passed with a C or higher.

MAT 111: The success rate for MAT 111 decreased by 15%, however percentages are misleading since the number of students enrolled was significantly lower at less than 1/4 the fall enrollment. The actual number of students receiving a D or an F in MAT111 for both semesters was almost identical (Table 3).

MAT 115A: The overall passing rate for MAT 115A was higher in the spring than in the fall (Table 3). Approximately half of the 79 students enrolled in the spring MAT 115A course successfully completed MAT 101 in the fall with 77% attaining a C or higher (Table 4, row 2). 82% (33/40) of students who did not take MAT 101 in the fall, successfully completed MAT 115A for the first time during spring 2018.

The results highlighted in 4) above are worth noting. Students who completed MAT 101 (math ACT < 19) in the fall, passed MAT 115A at almost the same rate as the students who enrolled in MAT 115A without first taking MAT 101 (math ACT 19 – 24), yet had significantly lower ACT scores. This result appears to indicate that MAT 101 is successfully preparing students to be for MAT 115A. Traditionally the spring pass rate is lower than the fall.

The workbooks for MAT 101 and MAT 115A were completed and made available to students. This helped students come to class, prepared to work on the content being covered.

Some faculty implemented 10-minute bell ringer to increase on-time attendance and to continually review previous concepts covered.

Group work, mindset training, and presentations continue to be highly effective in creating a safe community-based classroom and encouraging students to stay engaged and work together.

"Challenges you have faced in implementation and how those challenges have been addressed."

Class were scheduled five days a week in times such as 3:00 p.m. or noon which created fatigue and contributed to absences. In spring 2018, we changed the class schedule to one hour and forty minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays and one hour on Fridays. This will provide sufficient time for group work and student presentations and classes meet only three days a week.

Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) is still a growth process for both faculty and students. Since faculty were more comfortable and prepared with IBL, there were fewer problems with buy-in from students in fall 2017, compared to the previous academic year.

It was observed that the new ICs, who did not have experience in the IBL method, at times reverted to the traditional teaching. We will have to provide ongoing professional development in Inquiry Based Learning.

The workbooks need editing and restructuring and will continue to be assessed and updated.

Class attendance and assignment completion was still problematic.

Spring 2018: The restructured class meeting time for college algebra from M-F to MWF created difficulties with content pacing and delivery. We will be revising the workbook, curriculum structure and teaching pedagogy to take advantage of the 100-minute MW course structure.

"Next steps you will take in the implementation of corequisite mathematics and literacy courses on your campus."

Tutorial videos to supplement student learning resources are currently being produced.

We will participate in the 2018 Students Success Summit and share our accelerated model.

We will use the "Scaling Corequisite" grant project to coordinate the efforts, assess and evaluate the program both short term and long term.

We will continue to assess and evaluate non-cognitive factors which impact student success.

The following are ongoing activities which help increase student success: