As the University community engaged in the process of identifying a topic for its Quality Enhancement Plan, from workshops involving faculty and staff, meetings with students, evaluations of QEP proposals, and evaluation of reviews conducted of the University's programs, a series of interrelated issues arose. These included
low retention and graduation rates
increasing numbers of new students requiring multiple developmental courses
worrisome failure rates in developmental and "gateway" courses
faculty concerns about poor student attitudes and excessive absenteeism from classes
KSU admits a significant proportion of students that could be considered “high risk” (composite ACT below 17, low high-school GPAs). The University has an admission policy based upon ACT scores and high-school GPA that exceeds the state-required minimum, but as the state’s only HBCU, it has long maintained the practice of accepting a larger proportion of at-risk students than other schools in the Commonwealth. More than 80 percent of KSU’s entering freshmen require at least one remedial course, and as recently as 2002 and again in 2007, half its new freshman required remediation in all three traditional areas: mathematics, writing, and reading. In addition, as revealed by data collected from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the College Student Inventory (CSI), students who enter KSU have a significantly greater than average set of personal challenges they face involving finances, family care, disruptive home environments, and a lack of confidence in their academic ability. How best to distill the complex issues facing students into a manageable topic that could be the focus of a strategy to improve student learning was the challenge faced by the University community.
The first major discussions of possible topics for a QEP took place between January and August of 2005. The University's SACS co-liaisons led breakout workshops for the faculty and professional staff to brainstorm in their groups on topics they believed would promote student learning on campus. This initial session of workshops pointed to (1) enhancing the academic climate at the University, (2) improving the curriculum, and (3) enhancing student preparedness for college-level work. (Link to QEP_Fac-Staff_Institute_S2005_Report.pdf) Those results were passed along to the Student Government Association (SGA) for discussion, and its membership was instructed to draw up its own list of topics. (Link to SGA_ExecComm_3-24_05.pdf) A follow-up session of eight break-out groups at the August Faculty/Professional Staff Conference further refined these potential topics and added a fourth: the importance of improved student advising for student success. (Link to Report_DevQEP_FACStaff_8-15-05.pdf) Those refinements were also passed along to the SGA for discussion. (Link to
6