1. Establishing Coherent Partnerships
between Institutional Research and
the Quality Enhancement Plan
Dr. Ghazala Hashmi, Coordinator of the Quality Enhancement Plan
Dr. Jackie Bourque, Director, Office of Institutional Effectiveness
J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College, Richmond, Virginia
SACS Annual Conference  Orlando, Florida  December 2011

2. The Session’s Goals
• Present J. Sargeant Reynolds Community
College’s use of institutional research to
1) identify, develop, and implement its QEP, and
2) bring a variety of college units into effective
partnerships.
• Share the challenges and the successes the
College has encountered in gathering data and in
making effective use of data to improve student
learning in distance education.

3. Outcomes of this Session
By the end of this session we hope you will be able to
• Identify best practices in effectively gathering and using
institutional data points for the selection, development,
and implementation of a QEP topic.
• Develop effective, collaborative partnerships between
the QEP Team and the Office of Institutional Research.
• Share with your colleagues templates for gathering the
grounding institutional data that helps
 to guide QEP selection teams towards an effective QEP topic,
 to develop the substance of the QEP, and
 to assess the effectiveness of the QEP during
implementation.

4. The Ripple Effect: Transforming Student Success in Distance
Learning, One Student & One Instructor at a Time
The Quality Enhancement Plan at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College
Student
Orientation
& Student
Support
Student Faculty
Readiness Training
Student Success
The Ripple Effect in
Distance
Learning

5. QEP Topic Selection
Digging into Data

6. Data Profile Template

7. Growth in Number of
Distance Learning Enrollments
1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Summer 751 856 984 1079 1282 1529 1979 2132 2437
Fall 1049 1140 1223 1584 1814 2175 2524 2817 3414
Spring 1085 1189 1463 1680 2086 2462 2710 2802 3393
TOTAL 2885 3185 3670 4343 5182 6166 7203 7768 9244
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000 Summer
4000 Fall
3000
2000 Spring
1000 TOTAL
0

8. Growth in Number of
Distance Learning Sections
1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
142 144
Summer 65 75 83 80 97 109 136
193
176
Fall 83 108 111 115 138 148 167
198
185
Spring 95 103 119 121 139 166 172
502 534
TOTAL 243 286 313 316 374 423 475
600
500
400
300 Summer
200 Fall
100
Spring
0
TOTAL

9. Increasing Numbers of Faculty
Teaching Distance Learning Sections
120
100
80
60 Full-Time
Part-Time
40
20
0
2003 - 2004 2006 - 2007 2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010

10. Student Success Rates in DL Classes
Original Template

11. Student Success Rates in Face-to-Face Classes
Original Template

12. Student Persistence Rates in
Face-to-Face versus Distance Learning Classes
An Example of the New Data Template
On-Campus, Face-to-Face Distance Learning
Discipline/
Domain Persisted Withdrew Persisted Withdrew
N % N % N % N % p< .10 Disadvantage
ACC -
Accounting
ACC 115 86 88.7% 11 11.3% 57 76.0% 18 24.0% * Online
ACC 211 382 85.3% 66 14.7% 147 90.2% 16 9.8%
ACC 212 272 95.4% 13 4.6% 131 94.9% 7 5.1%
ADJ –
Administration
of Justice
ADJ 100 33 100.0% 0 0.0% 33 97.1% 1 2.9%
ADJ 105 31 86.1% 5 13.9% 60 89.6% 7 10.4%
ADJ 201 33 100.0% 0 0.0% 29 93.5% 2 6.5%
ART - Art
ART 100 57 89.1% 7 10.9% 330 88.7% 42 11.3%
ART 101 37 92.5% 3 7.5% 29 70.7% 12 29.3% * Online
ART 102 17 70.8% 7 29.2% 55 93.2% 4 6.8% * Regular
ART 106 17 94.4% 1 5.6% 41 97.6% 1 2.4%
ASL – American
Sign Language
ASL 201 38 90.5% 4 9.5% 8 100.0% 0 0.0%
BIO - Biology
BIO 101 1051 91.9% 93 8.1% 98 91.6% 9 8.4%
BIO 106 113 91.1% 11 8.9% 53 82.8% 11 17.2% * Online

13. QEP Development
Defining a Data-driven Plan

14. Growing the Plan
External Research
Best practices: Identifying national standards
relevant to our QEP Topic
Other institutional efforts: Identifying other
institutional efforts, particularly at compatible
colleges, similar to our own
A review of the literature: Developing annotated
bibliographies in order to present an academic
review of the material

15. Growing the Plan
Internal Research
Evaluating topical data:
Distance Learning Student Survey and Report – what do our students think about
course design; who are our online students; what are the barriers to their success?
Discipline Review of Online Courses demonstrating broad gaps between face-to-face
and online student success rates
Consulting faculty:
Distance Learning Faculty Focus Group – what are their perceptions; what do they
consider to be the barriers to student success?
Faculty training needs – evaluating needs in technology training and instruction in
pedagogy, course design, assessment of student learning.
Evaluating general college data:
Continued evaluation of general college data: enrollments, success rates, persistence
rates

16. An Example of Data Collected and Evaluated:
FTES Comparison - Fall 2009 with Fall 2008
by campus
Campus Fall 2008 Fall 2009 FTES %
10/20/08 10/19/09 Change Change
Campus One 3,060.93 3,375.27 314.33 10.27
Campus Two 1,692.20 1,867.67 175.47 10.37
Campus Three 228.93 250.87 21.93 9.58
Off-Campus 12.00 9.60 -2.40 -20.00
Off-Campus 830.60 482.27 -348.33 -41.94
Virtual 792.00 1,056.20 264.20 33.36
Unknown 12.40 0.00 -12.40 -100.00
Total 6,629.07 7,041.87 412.80 6.23

17. QEP Implementation
Driving, Detouring, and Documenting

18. The Driver:
the QEP Assessment Plan
Using the Emerging Data to Drive the Plan
Student Readiness –
1. A student profile emerges through SmarterMeasure.
2. We evaluate the relationships between this profile and
student success.
3. We construct our distance learning orientation around
institutional data.
Student Orientation –
1. Students and faculty provide qualitative feedback.
2. We evaluate success of orientation by measuring impact on
students.
3. We modify the orientation based on data

19. The Driver:
the QEP Assessment Plan (continued)
Faculty Training –
1) Faculty provide self-assessments of their own skills and
understanding of course design and online teaching
2) Ongoing peer-to-peer reviews provide qualitative and
quantitative data.
3) We evaluate student success and student persistence rates
of trained and untrained faculty.
4) Faculty provide feedback about the impact of the training.
5) We assess our own training services through the modules
that have been designed and delivered.
6) The QEP Team makes modifications based on the results of
the data.

20. Partnerships in Institutional Research
Executive
Vice President
QEP Office of
Center for Coordinator Institutional
Distance Faculty Member Effectiveness
Learning with online • Research Analyst
experience
Office of
Office of Student Affairs
Academic
Affairs QEP Assistant
Coordinator
Office of
Technology Professional
Training
Development

21. The Detours
Assessments leads into new sprouts.
Leaving room for growth and expansion
into new territories has been both
challenging and rewarding.
Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) Program
Rewards and Recognitions Program
New Faculty Certification for Distance Learning Policy
New Communications Tools
The New Faculty Development Database

22. Peer Academic Leaders (PALs) Program
Although PALs developed from the QEP and from
a limited, on-campus program, it presented new
challenges:
• Funding
• Recruitment and Training of Peer Leaders
• Administrative Oversight
• New Marketing
• New Assessment Tools and Activities

23. New Communications Tools
The
QEP
Blog

24. A New Faculty Development Database
that also integrates HRMSIS and the Knowledge Center
Fall 2010 Statistics
Number of Current Number of Current Number of Current
Distance Learning Faculty Distance Learning Faculty Distance Learning Faculty
who have completed who have not completed
either Tier One or Tier Two either Tier One or Tier Two
Training Training
153 48 105
120
100 Number of Current DL
80 Faculty who have
completed either TOP or
60 IDOL
40 Number of Current DL
Faculty who have not
20
completed either TOP or
0 IDOL
Current Distance Learning Faculty

25. The Documentation
using data to support QEP initiatives
• Reporting to College Executives: WEAVE
Online
• Reporting to Broader QEP Team: SharePoint
• Annual Reports to general college audience
• Regular summaries and reports of ongoing
assessment efforts and results on public blog
• Ongoing presentations to internal audiences

26. Digging, Driving, Documenting
In summary, we have found that the ongoing
effectiveness of and enthusiasm for the QEP is
built upon three primary factors, and they all
relate to the research of the QEP:
Digging into the data (gathering, evaluating, discussing)
Driving with data as the guide (building, daydreaming,
detouring)
Documenting the data (communicating and sharing)

27. for more information
Jackie Bourque
Director, Office of Institutional Effectiveness
jbourque@reynolds.edu
Ghazala Hashmi
Coordinator, Quality Enhancement Plan
ghashmi@reynolds.edu
www.reynolds.edu/qep