Quality Enhancement Plan

The Engaged University:
Learning Together

Mercer University's Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is the regional accrediting body for Mercer University. They require as a part of the reaffirmation process a quality enhancement plan (QEP) that will enhance student learning. The HTML version of the QEP Document that Mercer submitted to SACS in February 2005 is available below. You may also download the PDF version.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

---

Executive Summary

A. Description of Mercer's QEP

1. Service Leadership Development—Undergraduates

1.1 Training Faculty

1.2 Designing Service-Learning Courses and Preceptorships

1.3 Developing Mercer Service Scholars

1.4 Developing a Volunteer Clearinghouse

2. Applied Ethics Training—Professional Schools and Programs

2.1 Conducting Faculty Reading Circles

2.2 Training Faculty in Case-Based Teaching Materials

2.3 Developing a University-wide Ethics Seminar

B. The QEP: Focus, Implementation, Assessment, Involvement

1. Focus of the Plan

1.1 Critical Issues To Be Addressed

1.1.1 Increasing collaboration

1.1.2 Nurturing student moral development

1.1.3 Enhancing the climate for student engagement

1.2 Relationship of QEP to Student Learning

1.2.1 Paideia as an educational distinction at Mercer

1.2.2 Mercer's history of training students for ethical leadership

1.3 Goals and Objectives

1.4 The Importance of the Plan for Improving Learning

1.4.1 The tradition of teaching virtue in liberal education

1.4.2 Best practices

1.5 Benefits of the QEP

2. Institutional Capability for the Initiative and Continuation of the Plan

2.1 Timeline for Implementing and Completing the QEP

2.2 Leadership

2.3 Financial and Physical Resources

2.4 Academic Resources and Systems

2.5 Maintaining the QEP Progress

BUDGET

 

3. Assessment of the QEP

3.1 Means of Assessment

3.1.1 Defining Issues Test

3.1.2 National Survey of Student Engagement and other student surveys

3.1.3 Critical incident narrative reflection

3.1.4 Student portfolios

3.2 Internal and External Measures

3.3 Internal Evaluations

3.4 Use of Results

4. Institutional Involvement in Developing the QEP

4.1 Soliciting and Reviewing QEP Proposals

4.2 Refining and Choosing a Focus for the QEP

C. Appendices

Appendix 1—Bibliography

Appendix 2—Glossary

Appendix 3—List of Acronyms

Appendix 4—Analysis of Best Practices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

---

The goal of Mercer University’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), The Engaged University: Learning Together, is to provide collaborative, interdisciplinary opportunities that nurture student moral development and enhance the climate of student engagement. To this end, 5 academic units and 5 co-curricular programs of the University will work together to foster and coordinate new opportunities for service-learning and leadership training across the undergraduate units of the University. And, 10 academic units of the University will collaborate to strengthen student training in professional and applied ethics.

The institution seeks to enhance student learning by broadening its relevance to the complex, multi-disciplinary moral issues in today’s culture. The University will measure the following learning outcomes:

1. Increasing students’ capacity for perceptive moral judgment
2. Increasing students’ capacity for faithful moral commitment
3. Increasing students’ capacity for integral moral action

For an overview of Mercer’s QEP, please refer to the Logic Model: A Guide to the QEP. Terms for the Logic Model are defined in the Glossary included in Appendix 2.

The development of the QEP involved many members of the University community, including faculty, staff, and students. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will provide oversight for the QEP, while the QEP committee of the University Planning Council will monitor the Plan’s implementation. Assessment methods and evaluation include measures of effort and measures of effect, as well as annual performance reports, planning retreats, and outside consultants (refer to the Assessment Matrix). The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will report annually to the President and the Mercer community on the QEP’s success and the use of results.

A. DESCRIPTION OF MERCER'S QEP

---

The goal of Mercer University's Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), The Engaged University: Learning Together, is to provide collaborative, interdisciplinary opportunities that nurture student moral development and enhance the climate of student engagement. The QEP centers around the students who are enrolled in specific courses and programs; however, the University community will be engaged in seminars, service activities, and group discussions that will occur outside of class.

1. Service Leadership Development—Undergraduates

---

The undergraduate QEP initiative seeks to foster among Mercer students, faculty, and staff collaborative experiences that nurture moral development. Those involved will include students, faculty, and staff from the following units:

• College of Continuing and Professional Studies
• College of Liberal Arts
• Office of Campus Life
• Office of Housing and Residence Life
• Office of Service-Learning
• School of Engineering
• Stetson School of Business and Economics
• Tift College of Education
• University Admissions
• University Libraries

This initiative will undertake the following activities: 1) training no less than 25 undergraduate faculty to incorporate reflective service-learning into their courses, 2) developing consistent criteria for designating service-learning credit, 3) developing a scholarship-based, multi-year service learning leadership program for at least 50 students—Mercer Service Scholars, and 4) implementing a student-led, volunteer clearinghouse serving the Macon undergraduate campus.

1.1 Training Faculty

---

Administrative support and training for undergraduate faculty to incorporate service-learning into their instruction will be provided by the Office of Service-Learning, established by the Executive Vice President and Provost in July 2004, as a unit of the Mercer Center for Service-Learning and Community Development (MCSCD). As part of the QEP initiative, an Assistant Director of Service-Learning will be hired and appointed in 2005 as a tenure-track member of the Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts, with half-time responsibilities in the Office of Service-Learning to work closely with faculty who are planning to incorporate service-learning into their teaching. The Department of Political Science has taken the lead in the College of Liberal Arts in introducing and supporting service-learning as an integral teaching tool in its disciplinary curriculum and has agreed to act as a resource and model for faculty in other disciplines who are interested in incorporating service-learning in their teaching.

In addition to the annual summer service-learning workshop that has been offered the past 2 years to introduce interested faculty to service-learning as a teaching and learning strategy, financial support for faculty development will be offered as part of the QEP initiative to selected undergraduate faculty to develop reflective service-learning as an element in courses that they teach. Five faculty members a year for 5 years will each receive a total of $2,000 over 2 years ($1,500 in the first year and $500 in the second) to design and offer a new service-learning course at least twice. The financial support can be used for released time, summer research, travel and training, student work-study support, or service-related project costs.

As part of the QEP, the Office of Service-Learning will sponsor Dr. Patti Clayton, Coordinator of Service Learning at North Carolina State University, to introduce to the University in the Fall of 2005 the concepts and practices of using guided reflection as a learning and assessment tool with students engaged in experiential learning. Subsequently, the Office of Service-Learning will regularly offer workshops for faculty to develop their ability to use guided reflection as a teaching tool.

1.2 Designing Service-Learning Courses and Preceptorships

---

To recognize and certify the quality of service-learning courses in the undergraduate curriculum, each college/school will develop consistent criteria for determining service-learning credit. In addition, colleges/schools will be encouraged to develop a credit-bearing service-learning preceptorship for students who have successfully completed the course. These curricular changes will be effective no later than 2006-2007.

1.3 Developing Mercer Service Scholars

---

The present Servant Leader Scholars (SLS) program will develop into the new Mercer Service Scholars (MSS). SLS was established in 1999 as part of the University match for a Community Outreach Partnership Center award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This full-tuition, scholarship program for 4 highly qualified, low-income graduates of Bibb County public schools has been successfully continued beyond the grant period as part of the University’s outreach strategy in Macon and has been administered by MCSCD. The focus of the University’s QEP offers the opportunity to expand the reach of this program to impact undergraduate education on the Macon campus more strongly, while at the same time strengthening the service experience and leadership training for participating students.

Beginning in 2006, the University will enroll 15 new MSS a year on the Macon undergraduate campus. Students will be selected on the basis of scholarship interviews, income qualifications, and evidence of commitment to service and civic engagement. The scholarships, in an amount to be determined, will supplement financial awards made on the basis of merit or need to these students.

First-year, MSS students will enroll in the Freshman Leadership Experience (FLEX), a credit-bearing living/learning program offered through the Stetson School of Business and Economics and the Office of Housing and Residence Life. The 4-year MSS program will require a substantial service obligation and focus on leadership development. The specific expectations for student participation and the subsequent training opportunities after the first-year FLEX program will be designed by an advisory committee that includes representatives from the Division of Student Life, MCSCD, the Stetson School of Business and Economics, the Program in Leadership and Community Service in the College of Liberal Arts, University Admissions, the Student Government Association, and current SLS students. In 2005, the advisory committee will consult with well-developed leadership and service programs at sites such as Davidson College, Guilford College, Rhodes College, and the University of Richmond to develop the details of the program.

The MSS program will be under the direction of the Director of Campus Life, and will become a signature program for the Division of Student Life. In 2005-2007, Campus Life will hire a graduate assistant with leadership program experience to assist in developing the MSS program, including the volunteer clearinghouse described below.

1.4 Developing a Volunteer Clearinghouse

---

In the spring of 2004, an informal inventory projected that Mercer students contributed 29,000 volunteer hours to over 50 agencies and institutions during 2003-2004. The QEP will develop a mechanism by which student interest in volunteerism can be efficiently served, while maintaining quality control and documenting this community contribution. Modeled on Emory University’s 20-year success with a student-run volunteer clearinghouse, the Office of Campus Life, which is a part of the Division of Student Life, will work with third-year Mercer Service Scholars, with the support of MCSCD, to introduce “Mercer Volunteers” in 2008. The responsibility for organizing and supervising Mercer Volunteers will become an important part of the leadership training for the Mercer Service Scholars. In the meantime, volunteer coordination will continue to be the responsibility of the Office of Service-Learning with the support of the Community Service Intern in MCSCD.

2. Applied Ethics Training—Professional Schools and Programs

---

For the professional schools and programs, the QEP initiative seeks to strengthen training in applied ethics through cross-disciplinary and collaborative learning opportunities. Those involved will include students, faculty, and staff from the following units:

• College of Continuing and Professional Studies
• Georgia Baptist College of Nursing
• McAfee School of Theology
• School of Engineering
• School of Medicine
• Southern School of Pharmacy
• Stetson School of Business and Economics
• Tift College of Education
• University Libraries
• Walter F. George School of Law

This initiative will undertake the following activities: 1) conducting cross-disciplinary reading circles involving over 100 faculty and staff from across the University, 2) training approximately 15 professional school faculty in the transformative case-method of teaching, and 3) engaging the University community in an ethics seminar.

2.1 Conducting Faculty Reading Circles

---

The QEP fosters several cross-disciplinary reading circles during 2005-2007 to encounter together critical texts, such as Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics), Donald Schon (The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action), Darrell Reeck (Ethics for the Professions: A Christian Perspective), Rushworth Kidder (Moral Courage), William Sullivan (Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America), and William May (Beleaguered Ruler: The Public Obligation of the Professional).

In January 2005, a Working Group on Ethics was formed to provide direction for the QEP as it pertains to the professional schools and their participation in the focus on ethical leadership. In preparation for the initial ethics seminar (described in 2.3), professional school faculty from across the University will read Kidder’s text and meet as a group during fall of 2005 for an overview of Kidder’s concept of “energetic self-reflection” and a presentation on case-based pedagogies, followed by break-out sessions where interdisciplinary groups of faculty will brainstorm possible case studies and discussion questions to be developed for the ethics seminar in spring of 2006. During this phase, the faculty will develop common learning outcomes for their ethics courses and criteria for success.

2.2 Training Faculty in Case-Based Teaching Materials

---

Case-based pedagogies in American higher education were originally introduced over a century ago at Harvard University School of Law and were perfected by the Harvard School of Business. In the 1970s, with funding from the Ford Foundation, these pedagogies were adapted to a broadly interdisciplinary approach to seminary education through the Association for Case Teaching (ACT) with the support of the Association of Theological Schools. ACT annually offers during the summer a week-long Case Teaching Institute in which a diverse group of faculty, administrators, and laity from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds teach a case, debrief a case session, and write a case, as well as participate in discussion of a number of cases drawn from the broad repertoire that ACT has developed over the years. During the 1980s, a number of faculty from Mercer’s College of Liberal Arts were trained in case teaching through the Case Teaching Institute as part of professional development for teaching in Senior Capstone courses. From 1999-2003, the Chair of the QEP committee of the University Planning Council was an instructor at the Institute, serving as its director in 2003. In 2002 and 2003, staff from the Mercer Center for Community Development and neighborhood leaders from the Macon community participated successfully in the Case Teaching Institute at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary and Harvard Divinity School.

As preparation for the ethics seminar described below and as a means of realistically incorporating within existing courses, in William Sullivan’s phrase, “the moral and social ecology within which students will practice” (Sullivan 2004, p. 2), 3 to 5 Mercer faculty a year will participate in the annual Case Teaching Institute, beginning in the summer of 2005. Materials prepared there will be incorporated in their courses and will serve as the teaching focus of the ethics seminar. Over the course of the QEP, these 15 to 25 cases will constitute a substantial and continuing teaching resource for the University in ethics courses.

2.3 Developing a University-wide Ethics Seminar

---

A University-wide ethics seminar will become a centerpiece of existing courses on applied ethics in the professional and graduate programs of the University. The seminar will be offered each spring and will utilize the concepts of “energetic self-reflection,” as analyzed by Rushworth Kidder in How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. The initial ethics seminar, offered in spring 2006, will feature a nationally-known speaker on ethical decision-making. Seminars during the next 4 years of the QEP will use Mercer faculty as keynote speakers on the topic. The seminar will include break-out sessions where cross-disciplinary focus groups of students and faculty will engage in facilitated discussion of broadly interdisciplinary case-studies of ethical dilemmas. Subsequently, students currently enrolled in courses in ethics and professionalism will continue the case discussions within in-discipline focus groups, including graded case-briefs requiring them to explain and defend a course of action in the dilemmas. Kidder’s text will be required reading in all these courses.

B. THE QEP: FOCUS, IMPLEMENTATION, ASSESSMENT, INVOLVEMENT

---

This portion of the document provides more information on Mercer’s plans for the QEP. Section 1 describes the QEP’s focus, including goals, objectives, and benefits. Section 2 discusses the actual implementation plans with details about the timeline, budget, and resources, as well as internal evaluation. Assessment plans and measures are in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 discusses the involvement of the University community in developing the QEP topic.

1. Focus of the Plan

---

The framework of the QEP creates collaborative experiences, while the content for the QEP is moral development. By building on Mercer’s comprehensive nature, the University will create interdisciplinary experiences to enhance student learning. The institution will use the available resources within its 10 colleges/schools and co-curricular programs to achieve these interdisciplinary experiences. Additionally, the University’s seeks to more fully realize its mission to “achieve excellence and scholarly discipline in the fields of liberal learning and professional knowledge... while affirming religious and moral values that arise from the Judeo-Christian understanding of the world” (Mercer University Mission Statement).

Most student learning will occur in the ethics and service-learning courses and programs that will be developed or improved for the QEP. As the QEP progresses, more courses will involve applied ethics and service-learning components. Although the QEP will center mainly around the students who are enrolled in these courses, the University community will be invited to participate in the seminars, service activities, and group discussions that will occur outside of the classroom.

1.1 Critical Issues To Be Addressed

---

The QEP addresses the following critical issues:

1. Opportunities for collaborative, interdisciplinary student learning should be expanded to take advantage of the rich resources of a uniquely comprehensive, small university.
2. The University’s mission to affirm “religious and moral values” should be more intentionally embodied in student learning.
3. Student engagement should become one of the University’s educational distinctions.

1.1.1 Increasing collaboration

---

The first issue for the University is to take advantage of its comprehensive nature. Under the leadership of President R. Kirby Godsey, the University has expanded from 3 colleges/schools to 10. Mercer now offers academic programs at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional level. The institution is unique in that it has a small student body, approximately 7,200 students, with comprehensive academic programs. However, the rapid expansion of the University, as well as its multiple locations, has led to a silo mentality (see Figure 1).

The opportunity for collaboration between colleges/schools and co-curricular programs exists to enrich students’ learning experiences. However, the strength of the boundaries between disciplines, colleges/schools, and co-curricular programs remain strong. Using the QEP as the vehicle, the University will begin to permeate these boundaries by building collaborative learning experiences for students, faculty, and staff. The emphasis upon collaboration across colleges/schools and co-curricular programs will establish another model based on the atom, which denotes interaction of all components (see Figure 2).

1.1.2 Nurturing student moral development

---

Mercer has been selected as one of 70 colleges and universities in the nation in the 2005 Campus Compact/Princeton Review guide to Colleges with a Conscience (Colleges with a Conscience Plan; Mercer University Mission Statement). However, the University lacks an intentional, assessable approach to “affirming religious and moral values.” The QEP provides the institution with the opportunity to better nurture student moral development.

1.1.3 Enhancing the climate for student engagement

---

The final issue that Mercer University addresses in this Plan is the importance of student engagement as a University distinction. When compared to peer institutions, Mercer rates in the top 10% in each of the National Survey of Student Engagement’s (NSSE) 5 benchmarks of effective educational practice (Student Engagement at Mercer). Mercer’s ratings in this survey position it very competitively with selective institutions; however, the University desires to build on that distinction.

1.2 Relationship of QEP to Student Learning

---

The institution seeks to enhance student learning by broadening its relevance to the complex, multi-disciplinary moral issues in today’s culture. Early in the 26 years of his presidency at Mercer University, Dr. R. Kirby Godsey articulated his vision of the mission of the University. Disseminated in June 1981, this landmark document affirmed that “The mission of Mercer University is about learning and the unfolding of the human spirit, operating within the conviction that the pursuit of learning and the consideration of faith can strengthen the human capacity for judgment in addressing the problems that complicate our world” (“The Mission of Mercer University,” p.7, emphasis added). In identifying 10 aims of education “that govern the educational processes of Mercer University” (p. 8), Dr. Godsey’s eighth aim concerned moral judgment: “The University addresses as a primary goal the issues of moral value and personal decision making as well as matters of meaning and integrity within the social order” (pp. 10-11). Addressing the role of the College of Liberal Arts in particular, Dr. Godsey identified 3 educational distinctions characterizing the College’s programs, each of which reaffirmed the centrality of personal and moral development to the learning process:

1. Goals for Personal Development
“The College’s understanding of its liberal arts character includes the goal of developing the whole person. By virtue of being an academic institution the primary emphasis is placed on academic growth through the attainment of knowledge and the development of skills of reading, writing, and thinking, but the College is also concerned for other areas of personal growth: the development of skills in personal relations and social awareness, and growth in ethical and religious sensitivity....

2. Basic Values and Beliefs
“[Five] beliefs that undergird the College’s activities include the following: ...

c. The value of the individual and his or her personal development....

e. The necessity of an informed citizenry in both church and society....

3. Teaching/Learning Process
“The College assumes that the teaching/learning process has an essential personal component which must be accorded its legitimacy. This means that the quality of student-teacher relations, attention to questions of value and meaning, and the creation of programs that foster personal development are as important as the communication of intellectual knowledge” (pp. 19-20).

Twenty years later, in his President’s Report to the Trustees (April 17, 2003), Dr. Godsey highlighted “ten dimensions of the University’s endeavors that must be woven together in order to assure the achievement of the University’s highest goals” (pp. 1-2). The tenth and final dimension was “sustaining a clear sense of mission”:

“I believe that every institution must have a generative idea. Every institution must have an idea that inspires and compels its work. After all, the University is not mostly about course work and GPA’s. We are not chiefly about scores and final exams. We are mostly about people. From the day of our beginning in 1833 on a red clay farm and two rough-hewn log cabins and 39 students, to a comprehensive major University of 7,500 students, over 200 buildings, and a budget of $175 million, we are a University built around the belief that every person matters. Every person counts. And our mission is to strengthen the intellectual stamina of each student and heighten that student’s capacity to make morally discriminating and principled judgments. Our mission is to enable young people to gain a higher civic consciousness, to become more effective and thoughtful leaders, and, ultimately, to become better stewards of their own talents. We want every student’s presence in the world to make the difference that only that one student can make” (p. 14, emphasis added).

The President’s reaffirmation of the centrality of personal and moral development to student learning at Mercer University not only reflected his personal convictions and the immediate past history of the institution and its educational programs, it also represented the outcome of careful work to reexamine and affirm the central educational mission of an institution that had undergone unprecedented change and growth over the previous 2 decades. Beginning in 2001, the University deans met a number of times to refine the sense of Mercer’s core values that could best characterize the University to itself and to its constituencies and public—and to identify common learning outcomes for all of the University’s schools and colleges.

1.2.1 Paideia as an educational distinction at Mercer

---

On July 29, 2002, the deans collectively affirmed that Mercer University, rooted in the liberal arts tradition, stands within a broad classical framework of education that embraces paideia as its educational aim. They further identified that this ideal was “consistent with Mercer’s history and the aims of Jesse Mercer” (“Paideia,” p. 1). They adopted the following definition of paideia: “Paideia connotes the sort of education that uniquely prepares individuals to lead virtuous and responsible lives as free citizens within a democratic society. It thus addresses the character as well as the mind of the learner” (p. 1).

The deans described Mercer University as “A community of learning, shaping the character of tomorrow’s leaders” (p. 2). And, in support of this vision, they articulated 3 broad Common Learning Outcomes for the institution’s educational programs:

• Fostering Learning
• Developing Character
• Preparing Leadership

The Board of Trustees approved the following information to be included in every bulletin and catalog of the University to buttress the mission statement:

     “The Foundation of the Mercer Education: Mercer’s Mission,
Common Outcomes, and Defining Values

     “Consistent with its mission, Mercer University is a community of learning that shapes the minds and spirits of tomorrow’s leaders. As a community of learning, Mercer is a student-centered university, committed to the Baptist heritage in higher education. Together, the schools and colleges at Mercer pursue three outcomes they hold in common: fostering learning, developing character, and preparing leaders.
     “This commonly held ideal is rooted in the history of higher education and can be traced to the formative influence of 'paideia,' the philosophy of education birthed in ancient Greece. Paideia connotes the sort of education that uniquely prepares individuals to lead virtuous and responsible lives within a democratic society. It addresses the character as well as the mind of the learner and celebrates the ideal of educating the whole person. At Mercer, teachers committed to their students, their disciplines, and the vocation of teaching inspire students to share in a passionate quest for knowledge and the wisdom that transforms knowledge into power.
     “Mercer promotes the principles of free and critical inquiry, excellence in teaching and learning, responsibility for civic engagement, and the importance of diversity and inclusiveness. Consequently, a Mercer education prepares students to expand their horizons, enjoy a 'well-stocked mind,' find their vocation, establish a high standard of ethics, appreciate the fine arts, and find fulfillment in enriching and improving the lives of others” (Macon Campus Bulletin 2004-2005, p. 12).

Mercer University’s QEP focuses on 2 of these broad common learning outcomes that are considered essential to a Mercer education: Developing Character and Preparing Leaders.

1.2.2 Mercer's history of training students for ethical leadership

---

Mercer’s QEP builds on the University’s long-demonstrated commitment to developing students’ character to prepare them for ethical leadership in their professions, careers, and/or communities. Every college and school in the University incorporates elements of training in ethics, vocation, or leadership. The College of Liberal Arts is notable for a 30-year history of interdisciplinary innovation supporting engaged learning and civic engagement. The Walter F. George School of Law is home to the nationally-recognized Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism. The Southern School of Pharmacy and the School of Medicine both strongly incorporate problem-based learning into their curricula and have exceptional outreach programs in the community. The McAfee School of Theology and the Tift College of Education feature careful formation of professional vocation and leadership. The Mercer Commons and the Mercer Center for Service-Learning and Community Development (MCSCD) are recent additions to the University. The Commons enriches students’ educational experience and enhances faculty development through a focus on faith, learning, and vocation. MCSCD coordinates University resources in partnership with community agencies and institutions to spark the revitalization of inner-city neighborhoods in Macon. If the reader is interested in the history of training students in ethical leadership, please refer to the Web-based narrative (History of Training Students in Ethical Leadership).

1.3 Goals and Objectives

---

The goal of Mercer’s QEP is to provide collaborative, interdisciplinary opportunities that nurture student moral development and enhance the climate of student engagement.

Mercer believes that the objectives described below have the potential to transform student learning by broadening its relevance to the complex, multi-disciplinary moral issues in today’s culture:

• Increasing support and training for faculty to incorporate reflective service-learning in undergraduate courses;
• Designating undergraduate service-learning courses in the curriculum and offering course credit to qualified undergraduate students to act as preceptors in service-learning courses;
• Expanding and enhancing the present Servant Leader Scholars program as a scholarship-based, competitive, 4-year service leadership program with a significant academic component: “Mercer Service Scholars”;
• Developing, with the participation of Mercer Service Scholars, a student-run clearinghouse for student volunteer service as a unit of the Division of Student Life;
• Forming faculty reading circles from across the University to discuss ideas of practical reason, reflective practice, moral self-reflection, civic professionalism, and professional identity;
• Training selected faculty from across the University’s professional and graduate programs to teach and develop multi-disciplinary, case-based teaching materials that address the moral dimensions of ethical dilemmas of contemporary professional practice; and
• Developing a University-wide ethics seminar focused on the moral resolution of ethical dilemmas and incorporating it in existing courses on professionalism and applied ethics.

1.4 The Importance of the Plan for Improving Learning

---

As discussed in Section 1.2, Mercer is unique in that it has a small student body, approximately 7,200 students, with comprehensive academic programs. By engaging the University community in interdisciplinary, collaborative experiences, student learning will be enhanced by an enriched curriculum. The framework of the QEP, creating collaborative opportunities, will better prepare students for the real world when they move from discipline-centric environments in their college/school into diverse populations in their professions, careers, and communities.

The profound need for moral development in this rapidly changing, bewilderingly complex, bitterly divided world is undeniable. Surely, almost everyone—from trustees to faculty and staff—must expect that liberal and professional education at Mercer University will incorporate student moral development. At the same time, the institution may question its ability to genuinely accomplish or assess this “ineffable” effect (as Jon Dalton, Director of the Center for the Study of Values in College Student Development at Florida State University and the editor of the Journal of College and Character, calls it)—and this diffidence may reduce the willingness to take on the project of character development.

The question whether morality is teachable is ancient—and remains controversial. Mercer is a diverse university, not a church or military school, with a strong post-World War II history of religious and intellectual freedom. Therefore, the institution is uniquely situated to nurture student moral development through interdisciplinary, collaborative opportunities.

1.4.1 The tradition of teaching virtue in liberal education

---

Virtue—behavior showing high moral standards (Oxford American Dictionary)

The issue of formally and intentionally educating for character development and virtue is as old as liberal education itself. Advances in liberal education have almost always been in response to social crises in a well-established culture, precipitated by forces of democratization, secularization, and individualism and the rapid social changes they produce.

The birth of university education in the West in The Academy was a direct response to the Athenian experience memorialized by Plato in those aporetic dialogues in which he reflects on the meaning of Socrates’ prophetic dialectical practice. The problem is put bluntly in Laches, for example. The fathers complain that their sons are not inheriting the virtues and power of the grandfathers. These parents are hopeful that some of the new, itinerant teachers of excellence or arete may help inculcate these missing virtues.

Teachers of “virtue” will need to have a reflective, rational grasp of the aim of their instruction. To teach it effectively, if mere imitation and rote training seem no longer to be working across the generations, the teachers will have to know what it is. Otherwise, “education” will be, as Nietzsche complained long afterward, a mere experiment practiced on the young.

Liberal education to this day has been the faith that training in critical reflection, philosophy in the broadest sense, will set men and women free to choose the good. Reflecting on one’s definition of good is crucial to doing the good in cosmopolitan society.

Mercer University, as “affirming religious and moral values that arise from the Judeo-Christian understanding of the world,” has a stronger rationale than most institutions of higher education to challenge students to rise to the best of what they have learned about the human condition, human hope, and human reason. The challenge to Mercer is how best to elicit a critical conception of the good in its students. Beyond that, the University will work to strengthen students’ motivation to do the good they conceive and, also, to develop students’ capacities to make their moral commitments effective in the world.

1.4.2 Best practices

---

The Best Practices Matrix connects the best practices research with the QEP’s 4 learning outcomes and 7 objectives. A more in-depth analysis is provided in Appendix 4, which explores current research-based, best practices in the area of developing students’ capacities for ethical leadership.

1.5 Benefits of the QEP

---

The benefit of Mercer’s QEP for students is that they will have the training in moral development to help them adjust to the complex issues and complicated, ethical dilemmas of today’s society. As a result of working in interdisciplinary, collaborative settings, students will be better prepared for diversity in the environments of the real world. Mercer expects graduates who were involved in the QEP to have an increased ability to apply interdisciplinary knowledge, an improved ability to solve complex problems, and a stronger sense of vocation.

For the institution itself, the primary benefit of the QEP is that the University will be engaged as a community. During the next 5 years it is expected that educational experiences will have occurred between academic programs in various colleges/schools and/or co-curricular programs to begin a culture of collaboration distinctively unique to Mercer. The success of the University’s QEP will ensure that learning is enhanced by its comprehensive nature and by the educational experiences in moral development.

Mercer expects to experience ripple effects that also benefit the institution. The University has identified a few possible outcomes. For example, student retention could increase as more students become involved in the QEP. Communication and collaboration may increase across colleges/schools and/or co-curricular programs outside of the QEP. Additionally, the University expects to see an impact on the community as a result of the service-learning opportunities. Perhaps students involved in volunteer and service activities will gain a sense of civic responsibility, and they will continue their efforts for the benefit of society after they graduate.

2. Institutional Capability for the Initiative and Continuation of the Plan

---

The implementation plan that Mercer has developed for its QEP includes efforts to sustain it after the 5-year report has been submitted. For example, curriculum changes have been established to incorporate collaboration and ethics components into existing courses and future courses. The University believes that once faculty, staff, and students have reached across the boundaries of colleges/schools and co-curricular programs, relationships will be formed to nurture more collaboration beyond the realm of the QEP. Furthermore, activities and/or positions that would exist regardless of the QEP will be funded out of current operating budgets and not by “new” monies reserved specifically for the QEP over the next 5 years.

The QEP is a dynamic Plan that will evolve as it progresses. It is meant to be flexible and changeable to ensure that it meets the needs of the University and its constituents. Much of the QEP is experimental and relies on assessment results to continue, make improvements to, or end some of its programs. In addition, the University expects ripple effects of the QEP, which Mercer will document in the 5-year report to SACS.

The following sections discuss the timeline, leadership, resource allocation, and assessment process of Mercer’s QEP.

2.1 Timeline for Implementing and Completing the QEP

---

Mercer’s QEP process began in 2003 with its development, although its implementation will occur after fall of 2005 (pending SACS’s approval). To meet SACS requirements, Mercer will provide a report after the fifth year of implementation in 2010. A timeline of what has occurred up until the submission of this document in February 2005 is provided on the following page. The shaded areas distinguish the 2 phases of the QEP development: gathering ideas and proposals for the QEP (gray) and selecting and refining the QEP topic (orange).

The following table provides an implementation timeline for QEP future activities.

2.2 Leadership

---

The Leadership Team for Mercer’s QEP includes representatives from every constituency in the University—students, faculty, staff, administration, and trustees (see QEP Leadership Team Organizational Chart). The Committee on the QEP of the University Planning Council (UPC) will monitor the progress of the QEP and will report to the UPC on a regular basis. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) will provide oversight of the Quality Enhancement Plan and will be in communication with the UPC’s Committee on the QEP. In addition, faculty members will be established as initiative leaders for the service-learning opportunities in the Macon undergraduate Campus and training in applied ethics in the graduate and professional schools.

2.3 Financial and Physical Resources

---

The QEP budget outlines the proposed expenditure for the development year of the QEP and the next 5 years. Since the QEP is dynamic, so too is the budget for the Plan. By necessity, the budget will be flexible and subject to change as yearly assessment of the activities of the QEP demand.

During the course of the QEP, Mercer will spend approximately $700,000 on the Plan not including the extensive human resources committed. Control of the budget will reside in the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost with the assistance of OIE. Please refer to the budget charts for more information.

2.4 Academic Resources and Systems

---

All of the Schools and Colleges have contributed and will contribute to the QEP effort. Some of the schools/colleges and co-curricular units have already contributed human and financial resources to the development of the QEP. For example, the Executive Vice President and Provost’s Office has contributed over $17,000 for UPC expenses directly related to the Plan’s development. This amount has not been included in the 2004-2005 Developmental QEP Budget.

Academic systems such as Technical Support have been cooperative in the Developmental Phase of the QEP and will continue to be. All Deans of the Schools and Colleges and their faculty, as well as the co-curricular programs, such as Student Life and the Mercer Center for Service-Learning and Community Development have thus far contributed hundreds of hours to discussions, written proposals, small group sessions, and faculty and staff meetings relating to the QEP. Such contributions will continue to be made to the QEP by the entire University community.

2.5 Maintaining the QEP Progress

---

The OIE will provide oversight of the QEP and report its progress to the Mercer community and SACS. Beginning in 2006, each initiative will assess its progress and complete the assessment forms on Mercer’s Web-based Assessment Record (Assessment Record). These reports will be sent to the OIE, who will use the completed forms to develop an annual QEP report for the entire Mercer community. The annual reports will be available on the OIE Web site as well as disseminated through University-wide e-mails, press releases, and the QEP newsletter (First QEP Newsletter). Annual reports will be presented at each December Board of Trustees meeting. In 2010, Mercer will compile a 5-year report for SACS to discuss the effects of the QEP on student learning and the overall success of the QEP experience.

BUDGET

3. Assessment of the QEP

---

Mercer acknowledges that assessment of ineffable effects, such as moral development, is extremely challenging. The 1990s saw a remarkable growth in the development of educational programming that had civic responsibility or character development as its aim. Research into the effectiveness and assessment of these programs is just now beginning to catch up with this burst of interest. As Robert Bringle, Director of the Center for Service and Learning at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, observes with respect to service-learning, “Interestingly, this growth in service learning has occurred with only a rather meager knowledge base to persuade educators and administrators about its benefits” (Bringle, Phillips, and Hudson, p. 7). Terrance Russell argues that the problem of assessing character-building educational activities is compounded by widely different institutional definitions of character, by an initial methodological focus in the research field on attitudes, values, and beliefs (surveys and self-reports) rather than on behaviors or actions, and by “bias in recruitment and selection, including self-selection” (p. 106).

Mercer acknowledges that its QEP results will be affected by selection and self-selection bias. The students enrolled in designated service-learning courses, the Mercer Service Scholars, the student volunteers, and the professional school students in applied ethics and professionalism courses will be chosen (and self-chosen) for these programs because they are predisposed toward civic engagement, moral self-development, or ethical professionalism. As has been discussed in the analysis of best practices (see Appendix 4), selection is a viable alternative to development for ethical practitioners (Illingworth); a prior commitment to serve is a prerequisite for developing servant leaders (Greenleaf); students are most likely to develop morally when their development is reinforced by other students who share their commitment to engagement (Sax); and one of the best predictors of character development is a prior involvement by students with volunteerism and civic engagement (Astin and Antonio). Mercer University expects that its QEP educational programming will itself have a strong effect on student moral development. But, the institution certainly intends to select and attract students who are most likely to respond and benefit from the commitment to developing character and preparing leaders. Coaches do not select players who have no aptitude for a basketball and a hoop; the music department does not select musicians who cannot carry a tune; and Mercer University does not seek to enroll morally tone-deaf students.

Disentangling a selection bias from the results of the QEP will, thus, be impossible—and unnecessary. The institution is trying to be effective: to know—as reliably as feasible—when and why it is effective, to use data to improve its efforts, and to tell its story persuasively and honestly to vital constituencies. Thus, Mercer will need to be canny about its assessment and evaluation strategies. Given these cloudy epistemic circumstances, Robert Bringle urges “triangulation,” using 2 or more measures whenever possible to gauge the effectiveness of an initiative (private communication, December 16, 2004). Mercer will follow his advice in its approach to assessment and evaluation. Wherever possible, the University will gauge the results (1) of scaled, quantitative assessment instruments in course formats (2) against qualitative and longitudinal assessments of student growth, and triangulated finally (3) with institutional survey results of student engagement, particularly the NSSE.

3.1 Means of Assessment

---

Mercer follows the Logic Model, which is based on the Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP Performance Measures). This model distinguishes 2 performance measures as outcomes to be assessed. Measures of effort are the direct outputs of program strategies and activities. Outputs are the countable products of the program that point to what and how much the program accomplishes in quantity not quality. Measures of effect address student learning and are the desired changes in the target population.

Measures of effect on student learning and measures of institutional effort will be used in assessing achievement of the QEP goal. Only measures of effect will be used to measure the learning outcomes:

1. Increasing students’ capacity for perceptive moral judgment
2. Increasing students’ capacity for faithful moral commitment
3. Increasing students’ capacity for integral moral action

For a comprehensive chart listing the QEP goals, learning outcomes, objectives, assessment measures, and criteria for success, please refer to the QEP Assessment Matrix. Please note that the faculty responsible for the courses and programs involved in the QEP will identify additional learning outcomes and means of assessment. The following 4 sections provide a brief description of the data sources and methods the University will use to measure effect.

3.1.1 Defining Issues Test and Measure of Moral Orientation

---

The Defining Issues Test (DIT), based on Kohlberg’s theory of moral development and offered by the Center for the Study of Ethical Development, is a widely used measure of moral development, particularly moral judgment. The Measure of Moral Orientation (MMO), based on the work of Kohlberg and Gilligan, was designed to also measure the moral orientation for care and is geared more toward traditional-aged college students than the DIT. These instruments are external measures and will be used to assess the QEP goal of moral development.

3.1.2 National Survey of Student Engagement and other student surveys

---

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and other external and internal student surveys will be used to assess student engagement and leadership development. The NSSE is an annual survey of college students from across the country that measures the degree to which students are engaged in educationally purposeful activities. NSSE, as well as the UCLA’s Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) and Your First College Year (YFCY) surveys, have been identified by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities as tools for measuring student engagement, civic engagement, and leadership (Campus Assessment Tools). Mercer participates in all of these surveys and will continue to use the results in assessing these issues. Further, to gain a better longitudinal perspective on these issues, Mercer will investigate adding pertinent questions to its internal Graduating Student Survey and/or administering additional external surveys that will provide follow up to the CIRP and YFCY surveys.

Use of external surveys allows Mercer to benchmark with other institutions. For example, NSSE results allow Mercer to compare its students to all NSSE participants and/or to student respondents from institutions in its Carnegie Classification. To further enhance the value of NSSE, Mercer plans to join with the other colleges in the Associated New American Colleges (ANAC) organization to form a NSSE consortium. Being part of a consortium will allow the institution to ask additional mission-specific questions and share aggregated results. (ANAC is a group of small to mid-sized, private comprehensive colleges and universities dedicated to the integration of liberal and professional studies.)

3.1.3 Critical incident narrative reflection

---

Narrative reflection is an assessment method that uses the writing process as a means to facilitate critical thinking about the learning experience. Students reflect over a period of time and consider the meaning and significance of course content, seminars, projects, etc. Narrative reflection will be used as means of assessing moral commitment and moral integrity.

3.1.4 Student portfolios

---

Portfolios are a widely used assessment tool intended to provide a coherent story of a student’s learning experience. The students use a portfolio to capture evidence of their learning experiences over time. The evidence includes items such as tests, journal entries, case studies, and guided reflections. Portfolios will be used as means of assessing changes in moral judgment, moral commitment, and moral integrity.

The University will use LiveText as the portfolio software. LiveText is a commercial, Web-based portfolio program that allows students to enter their materials in their own format. It permits the aggregation of data when common instruments/items are utilized.

3.2 Internal and External Measures

---

Mercer University will use both internal and external measures to assess its QEP. Internal assessment measures include University tests and surveys, student reflective papers, and student portfolios, while external assessment measures include the Defining Issues Test and the National Survey of Student Engagement. Both initiatives will assess student learning either at the end of each semester or at the end of each academic year to provide an assessment report at the beginning of the following academic year.

3.3 Internal Evaluation

---

The QEP will have 3 levels of assessment. First, the faculty members responsible for the courses and programs involved in the QEP will identify learning outcomes and means of assessment at the beginning of each term. These outcomes will be assessed through Mercer’s Web-based Assessment Record (Assessment Record). Once the term has been completed, those responsible will determine if the learning outcomes and objectives have been met based on the pre-determined criteria of success. These programs will use the Defining Issues Test or the Measure of Moral Orientation, student critical incident narratives, and student portfolios to determine success (please refer to the Assessment Matrix).

The next level of assessment includes evaluating each initiative as a whole. The initiative leaders will establish baseline data and be responsible for calculating measures of effort (please refer to the Assessment Matrix). The measures of effort combined with the assessment reports of the measures of effect from each individual program will be used in developing an annual report to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), covering progress on tasks, assessment, and use of results.

The final level of assessment regards measuring the success of the QEP as a whole. The following measures will be included in this level of evaluation:

• Surveys, such as the NSSE, will evaluate whether the institutional climate of student engagement and student satisfaction has changed
• The reports of initiative leaders will provide data about the QEP efforts
• The annual reports of the academic deans will include qualitative data about the effects of the QEP, including any ripple effects
• Biennial site visits by outside consultants, as well as annual retreats, will help the University assess its progress

Based on the analysis of this information, the OIE will compile an annual report discussing the results.

Those responsible for the implementation of the QEP will include faculty and staff, the Working Group on Ethics, the Mercer Service Scholars Advisory Council, and the Task Force on Civic Engagement. At the level of assessment—including those who are generating the reports—are the initiative leaders, the Office of Service-Learning, the QEP committee (within the University Planning Council), the University Planning Council, Academic Council, and Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

3.4 Use of Results

---

The assessment and evaluation results will be used to strengthen the Plan in subsequent years. The University Planning Council’s QEP Committee, with support from OIE, will conduct retreats to discuss the Plan and its progress. Since the QEP is dynamic, the initiative leaders and program developers will be given a chance to implement changes or improvements. Closing the loop will occur at every level of the QEP.

The OIE will compile an annual report for the President. This report will be available on the Web site and will be disseminated to the entire University community via e-mail, press releases, and the QEP newsletter (First QEP Newsletter). The Board of Trustees will receive regular reports about the progress of the QEP.

4. Institutional Involvement in Developing the QEP

---

Mercer’s QEP has gone through one and a half years of intensive development involving many members of the University community. During this recursive process, Mercer has refined and more sharply focused its QEP several times. Throughout this process, the theme of engagement has persisted—and unique opportunities for collaborative, interdisciplinary learning have grown.

4.1 Soliciting and Reviewing the QEP Proposals

---

In August 2003, President R. Kirby Godsey charged the University Planning Council (UPC) with the task of developing the QEP. The UPC is comprised of members representing every academic, administrative, and support unit across the University. Membership includes faculty, administrators, staff, students, alumni, a trustee, and community leaders. The role of the UPC is to ensure that planning and visioning are comprehensive and inclusive of all constituencies of the University.

At its meeting in September 2003, the UPC reviewed the instructions for developing the QEP, as outlined in the SACS Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation. Members then initiated a plan to educate the entire University community on the nature and purpose of the QEP and to begin the process of identifying the QEP focus for Mercer University.

The Chair of the UPC emailed a request for proposed QEP topics to all faculty and staff on October 1, 2003. Proposals had to be limited to one page, address how the topic is related to student learning and on-going strategic planning, identify which students would be targeted, and indicate what resources would be required to implement the Plan (Request for Proposals).

The UPC received the following 19 proposed QEP topics from the faculty and staff:

1. Archaeology Center: Cultural and Curricular Enrichment
2. Enhancing the Undergraduate Experience
3. Electronic Resources
4. Fostering a Culture of Engagement
5. Team Learning
6. Computer Competency
7. Critical Thinking
8. Small Learning Communities for First Year Students
9. Writing Center
10. Civic Responsibility in a World of Religious Diversity
11. Cooperative Learning Groups
12. Matching Students with Programmatic Capabilities
13. Basic Training: Learning How to Learn
14. Strengthening General Education
15. Improving Student Writing
16. Improving Information Skills
17. Mercer Investment Club
18. Study Abroad: Promoting Internationalism and Multiculturalism
19. Shaping a New Student Experience

These 19 proposals were independently reviewed by a committee of 4 UPC members using an evaluation rubric designed to access each proposal’s relevance to student learning, link to on-going strategic planning, the range of students targeted, required resources, and the likelihood of producing a measurable impact of success (QEP Rubric).

When the committee members met to discuss their independent evaluations of the 19 proposals, it was obvious to them that many of the proposed topics could be linked by a common thematic thread. The committee, therefore, created 3 major categories of QEP topics and agreed that 10 of the 19 proposed topics could be incorporated into one of the 3 categories. The 3 categories were designated as (1) engaged communities of learning, (2) strategic curriculum development, and (3) improved student writing. The committee prepared a synopsis for each of the three categories and these were presented to the full UPC membership for further review, critique, and revision.

In order to obtain broad-based feedback on the 3 major QEP topic categories, the revised synopses were sent to all faculty and staff, as well as to students in Macon, Atlanta, and Mercer’s Regional Academic Centers. A separate questionnaire was prepared for faculty, staff, and students in an effort to generate the most useful and practical data.

The feedback obtained from faculty focused on the perceived strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities for implementation. Written responses were obtained from 60 faculty, representing all 10 schools and colleges of the University, a 14% response rate. The staff was asked to evaluate each proposed topic category based on the level of interest and potential for success based on available resources. The students were asked to provide comments about each proposed topic category and to rank them in decreasing order of interest. Although the response rate from staff and students was comparatively smaller, the number of responses was felt to be sufficient to draw some general conclusions.

The UPC reviewed all the feedback at its December 2003 meeting. A 3-step process was used as a means of identifying the preferred QEP topic. Step 1 was an attempt to eliminate one of the 3 topics from further discussion based on (a) faculty concerns regarding excessive weaknesses, extreme challenges, and impracticality, (b) staff concerns regarding available resources and level of interest, and (c) student input regarding level of interest. This step resulted in the removal of “strategic curriculum development” from further consideration as a potential QEP topic. However, the UPC recognized that the ideas contained in this topic are quite germane to the continuing improvement of our academic programs and should therefore be pursued, but not in the context of a QEP.

Step 2 was an attempt to determine a preference for one of the 2 remaining topics based on perceived strengths, resource capability, opportunities for broad-based implementation, and high level of interest. This step failed to identify a clear preference for either engaged communities of learning or improved student writing.

Step 3 was a lengthy discussion held by the UPC on the advantages, disadvantages, rationale, and practicality of developing and implementing either of the two remaining QEP topics. This collaborative inquiry process led to a consensus that a hybrid of the 2 remaining topics could be constructed. A straw vote of the UPC indicated that engaged communities of learning was slightly favored and could reasonably serve as the structure for improving student writing. Several members of the UPC pointed out that an obvious link between engaged communities of learning and improved writing is critical thinking. The UPC therefore recommended to President Godsey the following QEP focus for the University:

“Building engaged communities of learning to improve student writing and
enhanced critical thinking”

President Godsey approved the recommended QEP focus on January 6, 2004 (QEP Topic Announcement).

The UPC, in collaboration with the Dean and staff of University Libraries, began assembling a bibliography of QEP resources regarding critical thinking, improved student writing, and learning communities. The UPC also prepared an information piece that described different models for building engaged communities of learning.

The Chair of the UPC met with the Academic Council of the University at their March 25, 2004 meeting to review in detail the QEP focus for Mercer and to discuss how each college/school might contribute to the development of the QEP in their respective academic units. At this session, the idea of synergistic collaborations was briefly discussed.

The next phase in the development of Mercer’s QEP was obtaining from each college/school a proposed plan for implementing the QEP focus. The UPC requested that the college/school proposal include the type of engaged community of learning that would be used to improve the writing and critical thinking skills of students and how the learning outcomes would be assessed. The academic deans appointed a committee, comprised of both faculty and student representatives, to develop the implementation plan for each college/school (QEP Proposals). A summary of these implementation plans was presented and discussed at the April 14, 2004 UPC meeting.

The QEP Focus was approved by the Board of Trustees for Mercer University at the April 15, 2004 meeting.

Subsequently, the proposed plans from the schools and colleges were subjected to rigorous review by a 7-member UPC task force using a rubric for assessing the clarity, relevancy, sufficiency, precision, and scope of the proposed plan (QEP Rubric). The task force met on May 18, 2004 to discuss the independent reviewer’s evaluations and generate a composite score for each of the 10 proposals. The task force reached the following conclusions:

1. The engaged communities of learning were often not specifically defined.
2. The roles of faculty, staff, and administrators were not clarified.
3. The relationship between the proposed engaged community of learning and improved student writing and critical thinking was not defined.
4. Some proposals focused more on writing and/or critical thinking than on building engaged communities of learning.
5. There was no clearly discernible common thread connecting the 10 proposals.

4.2 Refining and Choosing a Focus of the QEP

---

After considering the UPC task force findings, President Godsey made the decision to limit the QEP focus to “Building Communities of Engaged Learners Across the University.” The President’s intent on redefining the QEP topic was not only to achieve a more narrow focus, but also to encourage collaboration between the colleges/schools and co-curricular programs as well as to increase commitment to civic engagement.

At the October 2004 meeting of the UPC, the Chair reviewed the rationale for focusing on and insisting on collaboration in the proposals for Mercer’s QEP. After much consideration and discussion, the chair appointed an ad hoc committee to develop a model for formulating specific QEP strategies, outcome measurements, and methodologies for data collection and evaluation. The ad hoc committee created a logic model that is provided on page 1. To capture more intentionally the idea of collaboration, the ad hoc committee recommended that the QEP focus be renamed “The Engaged University: Learning Together.” The UPC supported this revised title, which was subsequently approved by the President. A template, which was fashioned after the logic model, was developed by the staff in the Office of Institutional Effectiveness for receiving and evaluating collaborative QEP proposals (QEP Template).

The UPC then led a series of dialogues with the Deans of the schools and colleges and the Vice President and Dean of Students on how to create several collaborative interdisciplinary components as a comprehensive, highly focused QEP for the University. These intellectually stimulating and productive dialogues led to the development of the following 5 collaborative QEP proposals:

1. Undergraduate Programs on the Macon Campus
   Faculty in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, Stetson School of Business and Economics, the School of Engineering, and the Tift College of Education will design and implement new curricular requirements that require collaborative learning among students across college and school boundaries.
2. Law and Medicine
   Selected faculty in the Walter F. George School of Law and the School of Medicine will engage in team teaching of medical practice litigation during the first 3 years of medical school and the first 2 years of law school. Students and faculty in both schools will collaborate on practical medical malpractice litigation exercises in the final year of study for law and medicine.
3. Academic Programs on the Atlanta Campus
   Selected faculty and students from the Southern School of Pharmacy, the Georgia Baptist College of Nursing, the McAfee School of Theology, the Stetson School of Business and Economics, and Tift College of Education will collaborate on the teaching and learning of ethics through a series of workshops, seminars, and interdisciplinary focus groups.
4. Regional Academic Centers
   Faculty in the Colleges of Continuing and Professional Studies, the Tift College of Education, and the Stetson School of Business and Economics will collaborate on improving the writing skills of all adult students enrolled in the Regional Academic Centers. This will include remediation in writing, if necessary, and a series of collaborative writing activities and assessments of writing in the senior capstone courses taking by students in all 3 schools.
5. Student Life/Mercer Center for Service-Learning and Community Development
   Student Life will collaborate with various undergraduate academic programs and the Center for Service-Learning and Community Development on the Macon campus to develop an ethic of leadership and community service in the residential undergraduate setting and to incorporate service-learning into the residential undergraduate curriculum.

These 5 collaborative proposals were submitted to the President and Executive Vice President and Provost for final selection of a QEP focus for Mercer University. After a careful and thorough review of all 5 proposals, the 2 proposals that deal with ethics and ethical leadership were selected as the basis of the QEP. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness was then charged with describing a unified QEP topic based on these 2 proposals, amending the logic model as necessary, communicating the final focus for the Plan to the University community, soliciting nominations for the lead consultants for the On-Site Review Committee, developing an implementation and assessment plan for the QEP, beginning developmental steps toward implementation as necessary, and completing the QEP narrative for submission to SACS. The Executive Committee of the UPC met on January 7, 2005 to appoint a QEP Committee to monitor the implementation and assessment of the QEP for the UPC. And, on January 14, 2005, the Executive Vice President and Provost approved the 6-year budget for the QEP.

The Mercer University QEP has evolved through a collaborative process involving students, faculty, staff, administrators, trustees, and community leaders. The essential nature and substance of the QEP—building communities of learning that engage students and faculty in active, collaborative experiences—has survived every stage of development. Using the QEP as the vehicle, Mercer seeks to provide collaborative, interdisciplinary opportunities that nurture student moral development and enhance the climate of student engagement.

DOCUMENTATION

---