Referral Report
Narrative

QEP Impact Report

The QEP Impact Report, submitted five years prior to the Palo Alto College's next decennial review, is a report demonstrating the extent to which the QEP has affected outcomes related to student learning. It is part of the College's Fifth-Year Interim Report. A copy of the Executive Summary of Palo Alto College's QEP submitted to the Commission following the College's  recent reaffirmation is provided. The report itself address the following elements:

 

  1. A succinct list of the initial goals and intended outcomes of the Quality Enhancement Plan;
  2. A discussion of changes made to the QEP and the reasons for making those changes;
  3. A description of the QEP's impact on student learning and/or the environment supporting student learning, as appropriate to the design of the QEP. This description should include the achievement of identified goals and outcomes, and any unanticipated outcomes of the QEP; and
  4. A reflection on what the institution has learned as a result of the QEP experience

 

Overview

In Fall 2011, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) approved Palo Alto College’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) entitled “Make It RREAL!  Problem-Based Learning in High Risk Courses.”  The QEP presented an opportunity to design a comprehensive, systematic plan to address both of these needs simultaneously. The College captured this dual focus by adopting “Make it RREAL!” as its official QEP slogan, using RREAL is an acronym for “Relevance Reflection Engagement = Active Learning.” The College’s Quality Enhancement Plan originated with two distinct yet complementary needs:1) An overwhelming interest by faculty and students in creating more interactive classroom environments; 2) An institutional commitment to decrease the number of high risk courses college-wide (i.e., courses with more than 100 students and a success rate of less than 70%). Problem-based learning (PBL) was selected as the strategy that could best 1) operationalize active learning with its components of relevance, reflection, and engagement and 2) enhance students’ critical thinking skills to promote success in high risk courses and subsequent success in course retention and degree completion.

  

Palo Alto College committed non-labor institutional and grant funds in support the “Make it RREAL!”totaling $126,500 over five years. The initial institutional budget for professional development, advertising, and supplies for the first year of the QEP was $44,500. The QEP institutional budget for FY 14, FY 15 and FY 16 was $10,000 for each fiscal year. Federal grant programs, Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI) and HSI STEM and Articulation, were awarded to the college and provided additional $41,000 in funding over five years to support QEP activities such as professional development/conference travel for PBL faculty, funding for PBL consultants from the University of Delaware and from the University of Texas- Arlington, and purchase of educational resources for PBL instructors. Consequently, a total of 41 faculty members from across the disciplines were trained in the design and implementation of problem-based learning pedagogy which uses a team approach to solve “real world” problems germane to course content. Approximately 30 PBL sections were offered each semester from Fall 2012 through Spring 2016 when the QEP project ended.  PBL faculty primarily taught high risk courses such as mathematics, chemistry, biology, accounting, and English. Over 7,000 Palo Alto College students experienced problem-based learning in their courses.

 

The following sections serve as the QEP Fifth Year Report which details the College’s QEP process, presents results, and reflects on the implications of the QEP within the context of the current trajectory of Palo Alto College. Per SACSOC requirements, specific narrative is provided: 1) A succinct list of the initial goals and intended outcomes of the Quality Enhancement Plan; 2) A discussion of changes made to the QEP and the reasons for making those changes; 3) QEP Impact on Student Learning.

 

Section1:  Initial Goals and Intended Outcomes of the QEP

Initial QEP Goal 1: 

Palo Alto College’s overarching QEP goal is to improve students’ critical thinking through the implementation of problem–based learning, an active learning strategy in which students work collaboratively to find solutions to authentic, open-ended problems. 

Initial Intended Outcome 1: 

Students will learn to think critically.

 

Initial QEP Goal 2: 

High risk courses present an often insurmountable hurdle to students that prevents them from accomplishing their academic goals.  In designing the QEP, faculty and administrators agreed that intervention in courses identified as “high risk” (courses with more than 100 students and less than a 70% success rate) would have a broad college-wide impact and, thus, reach a maximum number of students.  Consequently, high risk courses, both developmental and college-level, were targeted for the instructional innovations implemented as part of the QEP.

Initial Intended Outcome 2: 

Decrease the number of high risk courses. 

 

Section 2: Changes Made to the QEP

Change in Original QEP Titles

The QEP was originally titled “Make It RREAL!  Problem-Based Learning in High Risk Courses.”  After our SACS site visit, the College altered the assessment focus of the QEP based on the recommendations of our evaluators and re-named the QEP “Make It RREAL!  Problem-Based Learning Across the Curriculum.”  The new title reflected the College’s impetus to implement problem-based learning (PBL) across the curriculum. However, as an institution, the College remained committed to decreasing the number of high risk courses, especially in the STEM disciplines which account for 85% of the College’s 13 high risk courses. Throughout the four-year QEP implementation phase, science and math faculty were intentionally recruited to join the cohort of problem-based learning instructors.  In addition, faculty who taught in non-STEM areas but whose courses were routinely designated as “high risk” (e.g., College English, Developmental English, Art and Speech), were encouraged to join a PBL cohort. 

Change in Assessment Focus

The most significant change to the QEP occurred as a result of the recommendations made by the SACS evaluators after their site visit to Palo Alto College in October, 2011.  Although the evaluators lauded the implementation of problem-based learning, their recommendation indicated that the goals for the QEP were too diffuse.  Initially, four student learning outcomes were associated with PBL:  collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and reflection.  In order to strengthen the QEP and sharpen the research focus, the evaluators recommended that the College hone in on a single student leaning outcome (SLO) and develop a single overarching goal for our QEP project.  Consequently, College leaders and members of the QEP Committee developed in February 2012 the following modification:  Palo Alto College’s over-arching QEP goal is to improve students’ critical thinking skills through active learning experiences that incorporate relevance, reflection, and engagement. Critical thinking was chosen as the focus of the QEP for the following reasons:

  1. Critical thinking is a competency that is already included in the College’s cross-curricular General Education Assessment.  The assessment process is well-established and part of the institutional rhythm of continuous improvement.
  2. According to institutional data, critical thinking was a competency that needed improvement. The General Education Assessment of Critical Thinking[1] conducted in Spring 2011 measured critical thinking skills by assessing embedded course assignments using a common rubric[2]. Of the three critical thinking outcomes that were assessed, only 70% of students met or exceeded the Creative Thinking/Innovation outcome which pertains to students applying creative ideas or approaches to achieve solutions or complete a project. This baseline measure presented the greatest area of need for improvement out of the three critical thinking outcomes.
  3. The College considers well-developed critical thinking skills a priority because they are essential to graduates’ ongoing success at both transfer institutions and in the work force. The institution’s focus on critical thinking necessitated a refinement of the assessment plan for the QEP to ensure that both direct and indirect assessment strategies were unambiguously linked to measuring critical thinking.

Changes in Assessment Measures

Changes to the measures originally intended to assess PBL included eliminating the Self- and Peer-Assessments and the Student Attitude Survey.  The QEP Implementation Committee, in consultation with College administrators and the Director of Institutional Research, concurred that the locally developed General Education Assessment rubric for Critical Thinking would provide more reliable evidence of students demonstrating critical thinking skills than the low-stakes Self- and Peer-Assessments.  Similarly, the Student Attitude Survey was eliminated because of its redundancy with both the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and the reflection papers required from students at the conclusion of their PBL experience.

Change in Critical Thinking Assessment Instrument

The instrument selected for direct assessment of critical thinking skills was the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT), a nationally normed instrument.  In spring 2013 and spring 2014, the CAT was administered to PBL-sections and comparable non-PBL sections.  Performance on the CAT is based on a 38-point composite score.  In spring, 2013, both the PBL sections and the control sections scored approximately 12 out of 38 on the pre-test and 13 out of 38 on the post-test.  These findings showed no statistically significant differences in the scores between PBL and non-PBL groups. 

 

In fall 2013, the QEP Oversight Committee reviewed the CAT results[3] after its initial administration.  Because the CAT failed to detect differences in critical thinking skills between PBL and non-PBL groups, the committee members raised two questions:  1) Was there in fact no difference between the two groups or 2) Was the CAT unable to detect an existing difference between the groups? In addition, the committee noted that the CAT was costly in terms of both class time and scoring.   Although the committee debated choosing a different instrument to measure critical thinking, for consistency in the QEP research methodology, committee members opted to give the CAT a second try in spring 2014.

 

However, just as in the previous year, the 2014 CAT data comparing PBL and non-PBL sections showed no statistical difference.  At this point, the QEP Oversight Committee recommended that the CAT be replaced by the ETS Proficiency Profile[4], another nationally normed instrument used widely in higher education to assess critical thinking. The ETS Proficiency Profile, which was administered online and scored electronically, was used for the final two years of the QEP implementation.

 

Section 3:  QEP Impact on Student Learning

QEP OUTCOME 1 — Students will Learn to Think Critically

Two direct and four indirect assessment measures were employed to evaluate whether the integration of PBL assignments improved students’ critical thinking skills.

 

Direct Measures Used to Assess Critical Thinking

The two direct measures were a nationally normed assessment of critical thinking and a local, college-wide assessment of critical thinking which is one of the state mandated general education competencies for community college graduates. 

 

1. Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) and ETS Proficiency Profile:  The CAT is a measure of critical thinking used by colleges and universities nationwide.  Faculty administered the CAT to a representative sample of students in PBL-sections and non-PBL sections in both Spring 2013 and in Spring 2014.  Results were inconclusive and showed no statistical difference in critical thinking between students in PBL sections and those in non-PBL sections.  In an effort to adhere to the QEP assessment plan and obtain more meaningful data, the QEP Oversight Committee recommended that the CAT be replaced by the ETS Proficiency Profile, another nationally normed instrument widely used to assess critical thinking.  In Spring 2015 and Spring 2016, PBL students took the ETS Proficiency Profile. Sample sizes were not sufficiently robust (i.e., above 50), and, as a result, findings were inconclusive just as with the CAT.

 

2. General Education Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking:  First implemented in Fall 2013 and continuing each semester thereafter until Spring 2016, the general education assessment rubric for critical thinking was used to evaluate students’ PBL assignments.  The rubric used by the College was adapted from the University of Minnesota at Duluth and based on the critical thinking rubric from the Association of American Colleges and Universities LEAP Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) Rubrics. The rubric is scored on a 4-point scale with 4 being the highest and indicating “Highly Competent.” The average score of PBL students during the 4-year project was a 3.0 which indicates “Mostly Competent.”  This score is slightly higher than the college-wide 2015-2016 General Education Assessment of Critical Thinking[5] that resulted in an average score of 2.9. 

 

Indirect Measures Used to Assess Critical Thinking

The four indirect measures used to assess critical thinking were achievement data, Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) data, student reflection papers, and student focus groups.  Each measure is detailed in the following sections.

 

1. Achievement Data:  Productive grade rate (PGR) measures the percentage of students earning an “A,” “B” or “C” in a course.  The PGR for PBL[6] students was consistently higher than for non-PBL students. Problem-based learning was implemented primarily in “high risk” courses which are distinguished by having greater than 100 students enrolled and a PGR of less than 70%.  In PBL sections of high risk courses, the PGR often exceeded 70%. Table QEP-1[7] and Table QEP-2[8] illustrate the difference in the success rate in PBL and non-PBL sections of the same course in Fall 2013 and Spring 2014.

 

 2. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE):  The CCSSE is done in the spring of odd years at Palo Alto College.  In 2013 and 2015, the CCSSE was administered to the general College population and an over-sample was collected from students in PBL sections.  The PBL over-sample was compared to a control group of the general population of students at Palo Alto College not enrolled in a course involving a problem-based learning assignment. The CCSSE questions[9] addressing aspects of critical thinking provided, overall, mixed results.  Positive responses from students in PBL sections seemed also to come from experiences with the group work associated with PBL.

 

In questions pertaining to critical thinking, a higher rate of PBL students stated that they analyzed the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory (70%) compared to the non-PBL students (66.5%).  PBL students also indicated at a higher rate that they applied theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations (54.3%) compared to the non-PBL students (50.5%).  A higher rate of PBL students stated that they made a class presentation (79.2%) compared to the non-PBL students (73.6%).  Finally, more PBL students indicated that they worked effectively with others (69.9%) compared to the non-PBL students (66.5%).

 

Other survey indicators relating to critical thinking skills provided mixed results between the two groups. For example, non-PBL students stated at a higher rate that they synthesized and organized ideas, information, or experiences in new ways (65.9%) compared to the PBL students (58.3%). A higher rate of non-PBL students stated that they made judgments about the value or soundness of information, arguments, or methods (57.6%) compared to the PBL students (52.6%).  In addition, non-PBL students stated at a higher rate that they used information they read or heard to perform a new skill (61.6%) compared to the PBL students (54.7%).

 

3.  Student Reflection Papers: Utilizing a case study research approach described by John W. Creswell in Qualitative Inquiry Research and Design (2013), detailed analysis of multiple artifacts and a description of recurring major themes across four years was conducted. Every semester, faculty regularly collected reflection papers from students in courses with problem-based learning (PBL) elements. At the end of each semester from Fall 2012 through Spring 2016, students turned in written reflections[10] about their experience of problem-based learning. An indirect measure used to assess critical thinking, these reflection papers enabled faculty to gauge student feedback about the introduction of PBL assignments and their perceived learning. An outcome of descriptive coding of the artifacts, six major case themes recurred regularly when a random sample of student reflection papers were analyzed across the eight semester PBL project. Positive results from the PBL experience were not limited to critical thinking. Student comments in the following analysis are italicized:

  • Theme 1 — Collaboration: The students talked extensively about the focus on group work and group problem-solving in their problem based learning classes. The students noted the need for teamwork to complete the various PBL assignments they were given. “Working with Julia and Brandy on this project was a joy!  It was great for each and every one of us to exchange ideas and personal experiences on the subject.  I loved how we all worked as a team; this will be a great experience when we all begin our careers.”
  • Theme 2 — Critical Thinking:  PBL students frequently commented that the coursework in their PBL classes was not focused on rote memorization or regurgitation of material. Rather, the students noted that their PBL work challenged them to think more deeply about their assignments and to come up with solutions on their own. “Through problem-based learning, I have learned to take account of other perspectives and expand my thought process.  I learned that it is acceptable to seek guidance and assistance. Other students’ perspectives and ways of solving issues may differ from mine.  This helps me understand problems in a deeper essence.”
  • Theme 3 — Active Learning:  Students said that their PBL courses differed significantly from their non-PBL courses in terms of the amount of participation that was required of them. Students felt that the group work and assignments were more hands-on and that there was a certain appeal to this approach of learning as opposed to passive, lecture-based instruction.  “The problem-based learning problem was a very helpful way to fully understand job order costing.  Instead of just learning from the lecture, we actually had to contribute what we learned in the scenario which truly helped me learn the concept.  You had a group to work with.  I feel this helped me better understand the concept because of the hands-on feel the problem had.”
  • Theme 4 — Responsibility:  Students often reflected on the importance for everyone in a group contributing to solving and completing the assignment, and they commented on the necessity of holding others accountable. Some students noted that they had to negotiate disagreements in their group about how to proceed with a problem.  “The disadvantages of PBL would be if the group members do not bother to do their part in the project, leaving you with more work than you should have to do.”
  • Theme 5 — Introspection:  Students said that the PBL course allowed them to learn more about themselves, particularly about their own learning styles. Students said that they felt more invested in the work, and that they felt the PBL courses contributed positively to their overall success.  “I like the PBL assignment because it gives me the chance to reflect and understand why I appreciate accounting.  It has shown me that I understand numbers and formulas better.  I would like to share that I plan on starting a small business and accounting has helped me understand how to calculate profits and losses so that I minimize the chance of failing.”
  • Theme 6 — Engagement:  Students commented that PBL forced them out of their comfort zone and allowed them to meet their peers in class. Students noted that in other courses, their peers could remain “strangers” throughout the semester whereas a PBL course facilitated friendships and teamwork.  “I was reluctant to work in groups.  I actually ended up liking the fluid group set up.  We got to bounce ideas between group members.  Being able to work on the problem together and to compare results on items we worked on separately increased my confidence in my work.  When I doubted myself, my group members were there for support.”

 4.  Student Focus Groups:  In order to learn about students’ attitudes, opinions, experiences, and perspectives participating in problem-based learning (PBL) activities, an exploratory research approach using self-contained focus groups as described by David L. Morgan (1997) in Focus Groups as a Qualitative Method. The process of sharing and comparing provided an opportunity to collect direct evidence on how the students themselves understand their similarities and differences with regards to their experiences in class and resulting perspectives. At the conclusion of each fall semester from 2012 through 2015, students participated in focus groups to discuss their experience of problem-based learning (PBL). A total of 111 students participated in structured 30-45 minute groups discussions across nine sessions. A voluntary convenience sample was employed based on instructors who could devote 30-45 minutes of class time to a focus group.  Participants self-selected in Fall 2013 when focus groups were held outside of class time. In Fall 2012, 2014, and 2015, all students who attended the class were invited to participate in the in-class focus group. With approximately 12 participants per session, focus groups were conducted by the QEP Director or Co-director at the end of the fall term for each of the four years of the PBL project. When entire classes participated in the focus group, the discussion occurred in the students’ classroom. During Fall 2013 when students from all PBL courses were invited to participate in a focus group outside of class, sessions were conducted in a conference room in the Performing Arts building on campus. Topics of discussion in all focus group sessions included the following lines of inquiry:

  1. How would you describe the student’s role during the PBL experience?
  2. How would you describe the instructor’s role during the PBL experience?
  3. How did your group work for you during the PBL experience?
  4. What did you learn during the PBL experience besides content? 
  5. What do you believe is the main advantage of PBL?
  6. What do you believe is the main disadvantage of PBL?
  7. What advice would you give to a student who is considering enrolling in a PBL course for the first time?

 

The focus group sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed [11]by Landmark Associates, an outside agency specializing in audio transcription. The QEP Director, Co-director, and Research Analyst reviewed the transcripts for themes, applying a similar methodology used for analyzing students’ end of term written reflections on the PBL experience. Data analysis revealed a substantial intersection of themes in both the students focus groups and the student written reflections. For example, students participating in the focus groups repeatedly mentioned the value of multiple perspectives, a potent indicator of critical thinking:

I would have to say one of the advantages for me is not only being able to hear someone else’s opinion, but to know how they came to know it and why they know it and why they think that. It allows me to take a step back from my opinion and to learn why they think what they think and maybe change my perspective.”

Accordingly, the prominent themes that emerged from the conversations mirrored those in the students’ reflection papers.  Using initial exploratory, descriptive coding that was further analyzed into process codes, the following notable themes were gleaned from students participating in courses with PBL:

  • Theme 1 — Developing critical thinking skills,
  • Theme 2 — Learning to value multiple perspectives,
  • Theme 3 — Feeling increased rapport with their teammates, and
  • Theme 4 — Experiencing a heightened sense of autonomy and personal responsibility.

QEP OUTCOME 2 —  Decrease the Number of High Risk Courses

High risk courses (courses with an enrollment greater than 100 and a productive grade rate less than 70%) have gradually declined during the four-year implementation phase of the QEP and continue to decline.  Baseline data for the QEP collected in Fall 2010 identified 19 high risk courses.  Eight of these courses (42%) were in the non-STEM disciplines, and 11 courses (58%) were in the STEM disciplines.  Perhaps even more telling than the number of high risk classes was the comparison of the average Productive Grade Rate (PGR) in STEM versus non-STEM high risk courses.

 

Fall 2010:  19 High Risk Courses (Baseline pre-QEP Data)

Type of Course

Number of High Risk Courses

Average PGR

STEM

11

55%

Non-STEM

8

66%

 

Based on this data which shows a significant 11-point disparity between STEM and non-STEM PGR, the College intentionally invited science and math faculty to participate in one of the year-long PBL cohorts in order to receive intensive professional development in problem-based learning. During the 4-year QEP cycle, 8 out of 13 full-time science faculty (62%) participated in the PBL experience, and 6 out of 14 full-time math faculty (43%) received PBL training.

 

Spring 2016 marked the end of four years of formal training and professional development in problem-based learning.  During that time, a total of 41 faculty participated in PBL training, and many faculty members continued to integrate PBL into one or more of their courses after the training ended (e.g., 15 faculty used PBL in their classes in Fall 2016). Thus, PBL has acquired a staunch group of faculty advocates across the curriculum and has been seamlessly woven into our institutional fabric.

 

During the 4-year QEP cycle (Fall 2012-Spring 2016), the average number of high risk courses each semester was 13, a decrease from the 2010 baseline data, and the average number of high risk STEM classes each semester was 9, also a decrease from the 2010 baseline data.

 

A review of the high risk course data for Fall 2016, the semester after the QEP implementation phase concluded, reflects the strides the institution has made addressing high risk courses during the QEP process.  Two findings seem significant:  1) most non-STEM courses have been eliminated from the high risk category (now two as opposed to the earlier eight); and 2) the average PGR in high risk STEM courses is five percentage points above the 2010 baseline – an increase in PGR from 55% to 60%. 

 

Fall 2016:  13 High Risk Courses (Data at Conclusion of 4-year PBL Implementation)

Type of Course

Number of High Risk Courses

Average PGR

STEM

11

60%

Non-STEM

2

65%

 

There is reason to conclude that the College’s QEP, its commitment to PBL interactive pedagogy, has contributed to re-shaping the landscape of high risk courses by eliminating many non-STEM classes from the “at risk” category and by prompting an upward trajectory of PGR for “at risk” STEM courses.

 

Unanticipated Outcomes of the QEP

QEP Executive Oversight Committee

By the end of the first year of implementation, it became clear to the College administration that a formal QEP Executive Oversight Committee was necessary in order to ensure, at the executive level, that the QEP was being implemented soundly and strategically to accomplish two overarching goals:  1) create a sustainable campus-wide culture of active learning and 2) maximize student success in high risk courses.  A QEP Oversight Committee was formally created in Fall 2013 for ongoing, regular discussion of the unfolding QEP process.

 

Faculty Perceptions of PBL

By spring 2014 - the end of the second year of PBL, conversations with PBL faculty during monthly teaching circles and instructors’ written end of term reflections[12] expressed a recurring theme.  PBL faculty indicated that problem-based learning integrated with their respective curricula with varying levels of success. PBL was either a good fit, a near fit or a poor fit for their courses. 

  1. A Good Fit:  Some faculty embraced PBL and found it worked successfully as a vehicle to address the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) in their courses.
  2. A Near Fit: Some faculty felt PBL worked well to convey the SLOs in their courses but felt challenged by PBL design.  Often these instructors were stymied when they attempted to construct a PBL problem that was both well-structured and engaging to students.  Ongoing coaching and support in PBL problem creation often helped faculty transform the “near fit” into a “good fit.”
  3. A Poor Fit:  Some faculty felt that the number of state-required SLOs for their courses, especially in the sciences, prevented the effective implementation of PBL.  Faculty reported that dedicating a significant amount of class time to a PBL problem interfered with their ability to address all of the state-mandated course SLOs.

Creating a Climate for Innovation

The implementation of the QEP in Fall 2012 coincided with the college’s commitment to engaging in an array of high impact practices to improve student retention and success:  learning communities for First Time in College Students, required tutoring in developmental math courses, the introduction of a case management model for advising, and active planning for a one-stop STEM Center.  In August, 2015, with the support of the College President, faculty met for the first time to discuss creating an Honors Program.  The QEP played a significant – and totally unexpected role – in shifting faculty’s focus from traditional teaching methods to innovative pedagogic strategies. The Honors Programs offered another opportunity for curricular innovation that faculty which was made possible by PBL acting as a catalyst for innovation.

Section 4:  What Palo Alto College has Learned

The QEP project is a transformative institutional journey made memorable by the many insights we have gleaned along the way.

Clear Focus

In planning for the next QEP, there will be narrowed to a single clear, over-arching goal as the focal point for the project.  Less is actually more when one well defined goal adds the clarity that is absolutely crucial to both the implementation and the assessment of the College’s next QEP project.  

 

Project Coordination

The College’s QEP was guided by two very capable co-directors. However, the QEP, the College, and PAC students would be better served with a full-time QEP Director dedicated to ensuring all aspects of the QEP run smoothly because the QEP is an institution-wide project that requires continual, ongoing coordination.

 

Documentation

Careful record-keeping through all phases of the QEP process is vital.  At the start of the project, a concerted effort to track all activities – from the names of PBL participants, to the sections where PBL was taught, to the data obtained from focus groups and from student and faculty end-of semester reflections.  Despite attention to thorough documentation, need for documentation in writing was reiterated as the multi-year project continued. Meticulous documentation is essential to deriving every possible benefit from the QEP and will be applied to the next QEP.

 

Institutional Engagement

Creating widespread College engagement in the QEP process was performed exceptionally well from the inception of the QEP until its completion. The entire college community was involved in various strategies to identify the QEP topic. The QEP Committee was responsible for designing the project and invited students, faculty, and staff to participate. Implementation involved QEP updates to the College (and often interactive mini-PBL activities) at the start of each semester.  With the help of supportive faculty, staff, and administrators, sustained institutional enthusiasm was present throughout the project. This same commitment to generating college-wide engagement is vital as we look toward the next QEP.

 

External Expertise

Help from QEP experts was sought early in the QEP process when help was needed to identify a single QEP topic. The QEP Committee researched experts in active and collaborative learning and identified Dr. David Silva, former Vice Provost for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas-Arlington.  Dr. Silva spent a day with the QEP Committee.  His insights on collaborative learning and the QEP process offered a fresh perspective and enabled moving forward as a group and selecting problem-based learning for the College’s QEP.  Dr. Silva also visited during the implementation phase of the QEP to help assess the effectiveness of implementation and evaluation processes. His guidance was invaluable and contributed significantly to the development of the QEP.

 

The other experts relied upon during the implementation phase were Dr. Jules Bruck and Dr. Mark A. Serva, distinguished PBL faculty from the University of Delaware. The University of Delaware is the home of the Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Education, which hosts the program PBL@UD and is an internationally recognized clearinghouse for problem-based learning.  Dr. Bruck and Dr. Serva traveled to San Antonio each summer for four years to provide a 3-day PBL Institute to members of the incoming PBL cohort. Their extensive theoretical and practical knowledge of problem-based learning energized and engaged new PBL faculty.  Drawing on experts can provide guidance and inspiration at critical moments in the QEP process and can inform the College’s next QEP.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

REVISED - FEBRUARY 2012

Make It RREAL!

Implementing Problem-Based Learning Across the Curriculum

Palo Alto College is a federally designated Hispanic-Serving Institution of approximately 9,000 students located on the southside of San Antonio, an area that for generations has been educationally underserved. The student population of this urban community college is economically disadvantaged, largely first generation in college, and predominantly female. 

 

Early in the QEP journey, responses from Palo Alto College faculty, staff, students, and administrators consistently indicated an overwhelming need to enhance students’ critical thinking skills and a genuine desire to create more interactive classroom environments. Through intense discussion, members of the campus community identified the institution’s overarching QEP goal as improving students’ critical thinking through active learning experiences that incorporate relevance, reflection and engagement.

 

The college captured this focus by adopting “Make it RREAL!” as its official QEP slogan.  RREAL is an acronym for “Relevance + Reflection + Engagement = Active Learning.”  Problem-based learning (PBL) was selected as the strategy to operationalize active learning because of its demonstrated capacity to re-energize the classroom dynamic and to provide students with the critical thinking skills needed to succeed in college and in the world beyond college.

 

Implementation of the QEP will occur over the next four years.  Each spring, beginning in 2012, a cohort of 12-14 faculty will be selected from across the college in arts, sciences, and career and technical education.  A special emphasis will be placed on recruiting faculty in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Cohort members will attend a summer institute on problem-based learning to facilitate curriculum design and then implement PBL in courses they offer the following fall and spring.  Cohort faculty will participate in monthly teaching circles, on-site and off-site professional development, and mentoring throughout the year-long experience.

 

Assessment of the effectiveness of the QEP to improve students’ critical thinking skills will be measured both directly and indirectly.  Direct measures are the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) and the college’s General Education Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking. Indirect measures are student and faculty focus groups and college-wide student success data.

 

The ultimate goal of the QEP is to enhance students’ critical thinking skills through the implementation of PBL pedagogy across the curriculum.  Palo Alto College is fortunate to be the recipient of two federal grant awards – Developing Hispanic Serving Intuitions (DHSI) and Hispanic Serving Institutions Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics and Articulation (HSI STEM) –  that will help support the institution’s QEP efforts, including critical areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ORIGINAL - AUGUST 2011

Make It RREAL!

Problem-based Learning in High Risk Courses

 

Palo Alto College is a federally designated Hispanic-Serving Institution of 8,965 students located on the Southside of San Antonio, an area that historically has been educationally underserved.  The student population of this urban community college is predominantly female, first generation in college, and economically disadvantaged. 

 

The genesis for the college’s QEP springs from two sources:

a) An overwhelming interest by faculty and students in creating more interactive classroom environments; 

b) A desire to decrease the number of high risk courses college-wide (i.e., courses with > 100 students and a success rate < 70%). 

 

The QEP presented an opportunity to design a comprehensive, systematic plan to address both of these issues simultaneously. The college captured this dual focus by adopting “Make it RREAL!” as its official QEP slogan.  RREAL is an acronym for “Relevance + Reflection + Engagement = Active Learning.”  Problem-based learning (PBL) was selected as the strategy to operationalize active learning and was linked to four specific student learning outcomes: collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and reflection –all attributes with the demonstrated capacity to re-energize the classroom dynamic and provide students with the skills to succeed not only in college but also in the world beyond college.

 

The heart of the QEP is a series of four, yearlong iterations of a problem-based learning curriculum in high risks courses.  By the conclusion of the Quality Enhancement Plan, most disciplines across the college will have implemented PBL activities as part of an institutional effort to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of high risk courses.

 

Implementation will occur through the annual selection of a cohort of 10-12 faculty in high risk disciplines.  Cohort members will attend a summer institute on problem-based learning to facilitate curriculum design and then implement PBL in courses they offer the following fall and spring.  Cohort faculty will participate in teaching circles, on-site and off-site professional development, and mentoring throughout the yearlong experience.

 

Assessment of the effectiveness of the QEP will be measured at the course-level and the institutional level.  Course-level assessments will involve direct and indirect measures, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and the use of local and national instruments.  Institutional assessments will include regular review of the QEP by the QEP Advisory Committee.  In addition, the QEP will be incorporated into the college’s strategic plan and, thus, become a routine element in institutional planning at both the department and the division levels.

 

The ultimate goal of the QEP is to create a college-wide culture of active learning through the implementation of problem-based learning in high risk courses.  Palo Alto College is fully prepared to allocate the necessary staffing and financial resources to ensure the success of its Quality Enhancement Plan.

Evidence
[ 1 ]   File  GenEd Assessment Critical Thinking_Findings ReportSp11CT 
[ 2 ]   File  Rubric_CriticalThinkingRubric 
[ 3 ]   File  CATResults_Institutional Report 
[ 4 ]   File  ETSProficiencyProfile 
[ 5 ]   File  2015-2016GenEdAssessmentCriticalThinking 
[ 6 ]   File  PGR for PBL 
[ 7 ]   File  TableQEP-1 
[ 8 ]   File  TableQEP-2 
[ 9 ]   File  CCSSEQuestions_PBL 
[ 10 ]   File  WrittenReflections_PBL Student Reflections 
[ 11 ]   File  Transcribed_StudentFocusGroups 
[ 12 ]   File  EndofTermReflections_PBL Faculty Reflections 
Palo Alto College