Author(s): Kevin Lindsay

Email Address(s): klindsa6@uncc.edu

Revision History:

Draft status:
o This is the first version of Chapter 2, Section B of the PFS eBook. (2/5/16)

Draft changes:
o As this is this first version, no changes have been made based on a prior
revision. (2/5/16)

Material to be added:
o I am currently awaiting additional information from PFS professors to add
to the Instructor Practices section. This is the last section of this
document. (2/5/16)

DOING PFS:
IMPLEMENTATION AND
EXECUTION
SECTION I:
INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION
UNC Charlotte saw the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) as an opportunity to re-think,
and re-imagine, and re-engage in its re-imagine its core commitment to undergraduate
education by responding to the challenges inherent to opening doors that are essential for
undergraduates seeking higher education. The initial development of Prospect for Success
(PFS) as UNC Charlottes QEP for SACS reaccreditation occurred in three phases.
Phase I, Foundations, began in 2009 and consisted of the analysis of four initiatives to
provide a framework of survey and student performance. These initiatives included the
National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE), the Evaluating Academic Success
Effectively (EASE) survey, an evaluation of the UNC Charlotte Learning Community
program, and an analysis of results from the academic success intervention program, 49er
Rebound.
These initiatives showed student engagement as a key element for academic success and
retention. As such, Phase II, Topic Selection, occurred over 10 months spanning 2010 and
2011, and involved the submission of proposals which, when filtered by UNC Charlotte
faculty, staff, and students, resulted in the selection of student engagement as the QEP topic
of focus.
In, PhaseIn Phase III, Topic Development and Implementation Planning, topic refinement and
detailed implementation development took into consideration the varying curricular needs
of the colleges within the university, while allowing for a centrally coordinated and
uniformly implemented program. This would ultimately allow for the development of
college specific implementation strategies that were then confirmed to fit within a common
structure to ensure consistency in approach, language, and intent. The final stages of
implementation planning occurred in the execution of three pilot programs within the
Colleges of Education, the College of Engineering, and the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences. These pilot programs were implemented during the fFfall 2012 semester with the
expectations to test that the QEP curricular models modelswould be tested, and generate
examples of instructional activities to support the QEP outcomes. would be generated.

The assessment of the PFS Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) is based on a students
work, self-report data, and eventually on retention, graduation, and employment statistics.
The SLOs, Commitment to Success, Inquiry, and Self & Culturaland Cultural Awareness,
resulted from the goal of operationalizing initiating the concept of engagement. PFS course
design based on these SLOs should then result in a students ability to set realistic goals and
goals, to pursue strategies to achieve those goals, goals, to understand inquiry as an openended process possessing curiosity as the foundation for life-long learning, and to
understand and appreciate the variation in paths that has have shaped themselves and
others in developing the awareness to navigate social and cultural differences.
Four standard performance metrics are reported to the University of North Carolina
system to gauge the success first-time full-time freshman. These include:
Oone-year retention rate
Ffour-year graduation rate
Ssix-year graduation rate
Aattempted hours per baccalaureate degree
Additional first-time full-time freshman measures reported to the Student Success Working
Group include:
Average GPA
Academic probation and suspension rates
Earned to attempted hours ratio
DFW rates in Top 40 freshman classes
The semester in which students declare the major in which they graduate
PFS engagement curricula should have sufficient variety, scale, and scope to accommodate
the unique needs and interests that shape how students learn about, and and understand,
commitment to success, inquiry, and self and cultural awareness. Latitude Flexibility has
been given within an overarching framework. The components of this frame work have
been defined such that each PFS curriculum mustmust include:
Curriculum Structure
Be centered around on a curricular experience involving, but not limited to, formal
instruction for academic credit
Includes some an extension of activities into the spring semester even if formal
academic credit is only offered in the fall
Include opportunities for small group interaction (ideally 25 students or fewer)

Student Learning Outcomes

Directly address the QEP student learning outcomescommitment to success,
inquiry, and self and cultural awareness -by including content coverage, activities,
and assignments that develop students capacities vis--vis those outcomes
Generate student work most commonly responses to reflection prompts that can
be used to directly assess student mastery of the student learning outcomes

Connections
Reference a common language of Prospect for Success messages and expectations so
as to make manifestto manifest the connections between the classroom experience and
university-wide efforts such as summer orientation, academic Week of Welcome,
and academic-year programs focused on student success
Create intentional connections between the curriculum students experience and the
advising process
Include co-curricular experiences designed to help students become aware of the
value of the many opportunities available to them for academic, professional, or
community involvement
Include at least one close partnership with support units campus resources such as J.
Murrey Atkins Library, the University Center for Academic Excellence, and the
University Career Center in order to facilitate students effective and efficient
pathways to connect students to the university resources that can support their
success

INITIAL CURRICULUM STRUCTURE EXAMPLES

General
The College of Arts and Architecture adapted fall semester foundations courses in
each of its majors, all of which have a faculty student ratio of less than 1 to 30.
Exposure to the Prospect for Success Curriculum expanded into academic advising
meetings.
The College of Computing and Informatics created a fall semester freshman
engagement course that introduceds students to the profession. The class meets in a
large group setting to hear from to listen to working professionals and learn about
support services and engagement opportunities. Students also meet in small groups
and work with peer mentors who are active in the colleges upper division
engagement curriculum. In the spring semester, engagement is maintained both in
a required programming class and through academic advising.
The College of Health and Human Services has developed a new fall semester
freshman seminar (enrollment of ~approximately 25) that uses on-line modules
created around the QEP student learning outcomes. This expanded into a CHHS
general education course taught by the colleges faculty.
Standard Learning Outcomes

Commitment to Success:
Students in Engineering are assigned a two-part reflection assignment on their
passions and pathways that is used for assessment assessmentpurposes. Part one iswas
due early in the semester and asks students to explain what problems they want to
solve as engineers and what skills and aptitudes they will need in order to do so. The
second part is completed toward the end of the semester and involveds reflection

and research to link their proposed passion to the impact they would like to make in
their careers.
Students in Business completed an online career/leadership portfolio that includeds
a resume, a career path plan, and a reflection on how the semesters activities have
helped them better understand how they will have to plan and act in order to be
successful.how to plan and act for success. Again, this assignment is collected for
assessment purposes.

Inquiry:
Students in Liberal Arts and Sciences and University College undertake a semesterlong inquiry project in their Prospect for Success course: posing and then refining
questions, undertaking research, and presenting their conclusions in the small-group
break out meetings. The final inquiry project that is submitted will includes a
reflection on the inquiry processthe inquiry process that will then undergo
assessment.that is then used for assessment purposes.
Students in Arts and Architecture undertakeundertook a creative project during the
fall semester. The project requires students to become familiar with the media and
forms of expression in their particular major and includes a collaborative process of
student/faculty critique and revision. As in the case of the CLAS/UCOL inquiry
project, the final assignment in this sequence will includes a reflection prompt on the
creation (inquiry) process, which is used for assessment purposes. that will be evaluated
in the end.
Self and Cultural Awareness:
Students in Education have opportunities throughout the year to visit schools and
explore the diverse populations and classroom settings. This co-curricular activity
supports their understanding of how different spheres of identity are shaped by culture
and experience an understanding essential for becoming a successful teacher. These
activities culminate with a culture and identity presentation that is submitted along with a
reflection response responding to the common prompt.
Students in Health and Human Services must develop a sophisticated grasp of both
self and cultural awareness to be successful in their chosen careers. As the a
culmination of a variety of course activities related to this outcome, students
research and then volunteer at a non-profit agency relevant to their major. Students
then reflect both on how their own background shaped their capacity to contribute
contribution to the organizations mission and on the cultural and experiential
backgrounds of the populations being taughtserved.
Making Connections
Common Language:
The College of Business holds its own Week of Welcome event that is both a
celebration of students new status as independent learners and an opportunity to
articulate expectations. Students get to learn have the opportunity to learn about the
range of business-oriented organizations and societies in which they could

participate, and they must be prepared to discuss what they have learned from the
event in their Prospect course.
Advising:
The College of Computing and Informatics has developed an on-line advising tool
that is introduced in the ITCS 1600 course and is then used when students meet with
their advisors in the fall and spring semesters. (and beyond).
Co-curricular:
As noted above, students in the College of Education will have extensive cocurricular experiences in elementary, middle, and high schools they visit. Students
in freshman seminars in Liberal Arts and Sciences and University College have cocurricular experiences in the form of will undergo the Common Reading Experience
and take visits to the Levine Museum of the New South in uptown Charlotte to
explore the history of the community.
Partnerships:
Engineering has partnered with the subject-area librarian in Atkins Library to
provide modules that allow for students to better understand research resources and
strategies appropriate for thetheir discipline. This support is particularly geared
towards students explorations of the diverse fields in which engineering is applied.
applied in engineering.

INITIAL FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Regardless of whether the engagement curriculum options available to students is based on
existing, or entirely new courses, ensuring that these courses allow the University to
accomplish the goals of the Prospect for Success QEP requires a significant faculty
development effort both in terms of developing nurturing the curriculum and ensuring its
ongoing vitality and relevance. The faculty development program for the QEP is a
centralized effort that takes place on a regular and on-going basis. The principal event
occurs in May of each year. , with theThe first of such events took place in May 2013. Follow
up activities are scheduled throughout the year. All faculty teaching Prospect for Success
courses are expected to participate. The faculty development program includes
opportunities for instructors to collaborate with others across the University, and
opportunities to work as a team to team with other instructors in the Prospect for Success
curriculum in their college. The faculty development program for the QEP provides an
opportunity for faculty who are not directly involved in delivering Prospectinstructing
Prospect for Success courses to explore opportunities for supporting and/or leveraging the
QEP efforts. Examples include instructors of introductory courses seeking to expand the
impact of the engagement curriculum beyond the Prospect for Success courses, or faculty in
a department seeking to improve the effectiveness of the curriculum in their major by building
on the QEP foundations.curriculumsthe curriculums effectiveness based in the QEP
foundations.

Some of the topics covered in the annual faculty development program vary to ensure that
the program is fresh, engaging to faculty, and responsive to issues that emerge as the
curriculum is introduced and assessment is conducted. However other topics, ones essential
to the success ofto the effort, are covered every year. These include:
Analysis of assessment results and structured opportunities to review curriculum
design in light of those results.
An outcomes-oriented approach to curriculum design to ensure that Prospect for
Success courses are developed from the ground up to address the three student
learning outcomes.
Support for creating semester-long activity/assignment complexes that develop
students competencies as regards to commitment to success, inquiry, and self and
cultural awareness.
Detailed discussion of the assignments designed to generate produce the student
products results used for assessment purposes to ensure they are authentic, and that
they reflect course content.
Approaches and techniques for developing students capacity to reflect in a deep and
meaningful fashion; essential if the reflection prompt model for assessment is to be
effective.
Opportunities to explore how best to integrate campus-wide messaging and
programming that supports the Prospect for Success QEP and how best to leverage
the services of support units campus resources.
All of the Prospect for Success curricula use students to support the instructional effort in
some form or another: graduate students serving as teaching assistants and discussion
section leaders and undergraduate students serving as preceptors and learning coaches.
Structured, centralized training takes place to ensure that these students are prepared for
work in the classroom and can fully support faculty. Graduate student training runs in
parallel with the annual program of faculty development activities and introduces joint
sessions with faculty and graduate student collaboration. includes some joint sessions where
faculty and graduate students can collaborate. Undergraduate training takes the form of
intensive workshops scheduled to coincide with the calendar on which students are
recruited for these positions. In addition, graduate and undergraduate students meet
regularly with the faculty teaching the their respective Prospect courses they are supporting to
review course content, plan classroom activities, and discuss grading.
The QEP office that is housed in University College has responsibility for developing the
agenda for the annual QEP faculty development program, and faculty development is a
significant item in the job responsibilities for the two positions the Associate Dean for the
QEP and the QEP Curriculum Director. The third position, QEP Assessment Director, was
created in the Office of Accreditation and Assessment, and is responsible for supporting the
annual program of faculty development activities. The three QEP staff positions
responsible for the faculty development program work closely with professional staff in the
Universitys Center for Teaching and Learning to develop the agenda for each years
activities.

IMPLEMENTATION FOR AY 2013-14

For the 2013-2014 academic year, the PFS target was not met. The data showed that
students in PFS courses were most likely to demonstrate achievement of the inquiry SLO,
with 61.7% of the scores meeting the desired outcome. Students were slightly less likely to
demonstrate achievement of commitment to success (58.1%), and much less likely to
demonstrate achievement of cultural awareness (36.8%). Colleges were asked to describe
the changes or improvements they would implement in the next academic year to improve
student learning. Examples are below.
In the College of Engineering (COEN)COEN, the implementation team made two distinct
recommendations for improvement.
First, in fall 2014 the reflection essay was moved from mid-term to later in the
semester.
o Most COEN students did not adequately demonstrate any of the cultural
awareness criteria. It was expected that assessment later in the semester
would give students an opportunity to experience more teamwork and reflect
on how those experiences helped them learn to deal with diversity.
o With regard to commitment to success, students were given time to learn
more about specific engineering disciplines and the engineering profession in
general., andAlso, they to reflectwill reflect on their academic performance
and fit of major based on mid-term grades.
Secondly, students were asked to write more in reflection prior to the essay for the
experience and practice of writing reflection itself.
The College of Computing and Informatics implementation team felt that there was a
mismatch between the students ability to actually do inquiry, cultural awareness, and
commitment to success, and their ability to effectively write about it in response to the
assessment reflective essay prompts. To address this, fall 2014 instructors and team leaders
were trained in reflective writing, what it is and how to help students write it well. In turn,
instructors incorporated more reflective writing into class activities. In addition, they added a
peer draft review step to the reflective essay writing process. It was expected that these changes
would lead to student essays that accurately represented the learning that students have done over
the course of the semester with regard to all SLOs.
In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS), the implementation team felt that
the main issue to improve on was helping faculty make an explicit link between the
instructional activity of each PFS course, the common SLOs, and the assignments used to
assess SLOs. The 2013-14 general education CLAS courses tended to layer outcome
information on top of existing curricula rather than embedding it into the general fabric of
each course. To address this, the fall 2014 PFS faculty met regularly to discuss their
understanding of each of the SLOs, and the activities and assignments each faculty member
would include in their course. The intent was to ensure that faculty design their courses
using the benefit of the groups collective expertise along with an understanding of the
practices and orientations of their colleagues. It was expected that greater integration and

attention to Prospect SLOs in these courses would improve student learning across all
SLOs and provide a basis for comparison among diverse CLAS Prospect courses.
The above examples describe the steps that the colleges would take to ensure continuous
improvement with regard to student learning. The Prospect Steering Committee took
action during 2014-15at the level of program policymaking.
During the spring 2014 semester, while discussing the instructors experiences and the
direct SLO assessment results, the Steering Committee identified a need to further specify
how SLOs are interpreted within colleges. Different interpretations of the dimensions
terminology, and strict adherence to written reflections for assessment, could have
impacted students abilities to demonstrate learning. In spring and early summer 2014,
members of the Prospect Steering Committee and the PFS administrative team discussed
the following questions:

What alternatives to the common reflection prompts are acceptable? Are there
artifacts other than written reflection essays that might be evaluated for SLO direct
assessment?
In what way can/should the criteria in the rubrics be refined so that the scoring
process would better reflect the goals of the overall program and the needs of
individual colleges?

In summer 2014, revised rubrics for each of the three SLOs were prepared by the PFS
administrative team and submitted to Steering for approval by early August. The revised rubrics
were distributed to all fall 2014 PFS instructors, along with an expanded list of assessment
suggestions, explications, and examples.
PROCESS OUTCOMES FOR AY 2013-14
This section reports on activities related to the effective implementation of Prospect,
and to the practices of continuous improvement based on assessment data and experience
obtained during AY 2013-14. This includes faculty professional development and activities
of the administrative team and Steering Committee.
Faculty Development, 2013-14 events:

In August 2013, all fall 2013 PFS instructors were invited to participate in a one-day
workshop covering the topics of reflective writing, the SLO assessment process, and
campus partnerships.
In the fall 2013 semester, 3 Brown Bag lunches were held for current and future
PFS instructors (topics were reflective writing, SoTL opportunities for PFS, and
supporting LGBT students in the first year).
In January 2014, all fall 2013 PFS instructors, representatives from campus partner
organizations, other members of college implementation teams, and the Prospect
Steering committee participated in a one-day session to discuss preliminary ideas

about future changes based on the fall 2013 teaching experiences.

In May 2014, all instructors who were new to PFS for 2014 participated in two full
days of faculty development. They were trained in designing syllabi for significant
learning and in incorporating learning activities and authentic assessments for each
of the three SLOs into their courses. The two-day workshop also included a 2-hour
session where all PFS instructors, campus partners, and other members of college
implementation teams and Steering participated on reflective writing.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT: SPRING 2014 CURRICULUM CONSULTATIONS

Early in the spring semester, the PFS administrative team contacted Virginia Lee, a
nationally recognized expert in inquiry-based learning, about expanding the inquiry
discussion on campus. Dr. Lee contracted with the PFS team to provide consultation and
speaking services as described below:

April 30th events

o On April 30th Dr. Lee presented a 90-minute workshop titled Inquiry as a
Way of Living and Learning, open to all instructors of first-year students.
o Also on that day, Dr. Lee met with teams from UCOL, CCI, and COB to
address planning and implementation issues specific to each colleges
curricular design. Prior to April 30th, the PFS administrative team collected
materials from UCOL, CCI, and COB Prospect courses (syllabi, assignments,
and examples of student reflection essays) and forwarded them to Dr. Lee to
aid her preparation of questions and comments for the implementation
teams.

May consultations
o Jean Coco, the Acting Communication Across the Curriculum (CxC)
director, worked with Dr. Lee between April 30th and May 12th to develop
additional ideas to present to college implementation teams. During the week
of May 12th, Coco met with teams from COEN, COED, COB, and CCI.
o Each of the five college teams that worked with Dr. Lee and Jean Coco
reported that they would make substantive changes to their SLO-related
assignments during fall 2014 based on the experience .

Professional development changes for 2014-15

o The model of working intensively with individual colleges was proposed and
received positively. The PFS administrative team, at the direction of the
Steering Committee, proceeded with this consultative model during AY 201415.
o Consultations supplanted the need for some of the all-instructors-present
events. However, two half-day sessions for all instructors still occurred, one

in November on the topic of preparing for SLO assessment, and one in

February to review the assessment data results. In addition, there was a full
day or more of faculty development in May 2015 for new fall 2015
instructors.

PFS administrative team

o The PFS administrative team met biweekly throughout AY 2013-14. During
that time, the team began to develop the Prospect marketing and
communication plan, prepared for Steering committee meetings, planned
faculty development in accordance with Steering committee guidance and
preferences, and discussed and acted upon other issues relevant to the
administration of the program. This model continued for the AY 2014-15.

PFS Steering Committee

o The Steering committee met 6 times during AY 2013-14. In AY 2014-15,
Steering met monthly to discuss and act upon policy matters. It was expected
that during the fall semester of 2014, in particular, discussions would take
place about the ways SLOs are interpreted within colleges, the extent to
which faculty are using assessment products other than reflection essays, and
whether this is improving the student experience.

IMPLEMENTATION FOR AY 2014-15

For the most part, across all three SLOs, student achievement from year one to year
two was about the same. On the "commitment to success" outcome, however, student
achievement dropped significantly on the third dimension in the second year. The revision
to assessment materials between years one and two, as described above, raised the
expectations around "commitment to success" to include the student's ability to describe
his/her experiences over time and reflect on what s/he had learned and would do
differently. While this higher bar is an appropriate expectation for Prospect students, not
all instructors had time to prepare for the change in their fall 2014 courses. Course
assessments were adjusted in fall 2015, making sure that the assessment was scheduled late
enough in the semester that students had the opportunity to experience the full semester's
work before reflecting on it.
Using the direct SLO assessment data, as well as other information from the team's
experience with Prospect, colleges were asked to describe the changes or improvements
they would implement during the next academic year to improve student learning. They
reported these plans in SLO Assessment Reports submitted to the administrative team in
March 2015. Excerpts from these reports are as follows:

The Belk College of Business moved its Prospect course from the Student Center for
Professional Development (SCPD) to an academic department with greater faculty
involvement. The option would remain available for SCPD personnel to provide
guest lectures to explain their services to the students, while allowing the class itself

to take on a more academic nature and to address some of the PFS dimensions in
greater detail.

The College of Computing & Informatics developed several specific ideas to improve
student learning on the "cultural awareness" outcome, including more team
building activities and low-stake team assignments. These would give students
greater opportunity for interactions with classmates that do not affect grades.

Though students in the College of Health & Human Services met the goal for
"inquiry," the team would then make changes based on student and faculty
feedback to improve this aspect of the course. In fall 2015, the college could include
its subject librarian as part of the instructional process to help students with
research techniques and synthesizing sources.

PROCESS OUTCOMES FOR AY 2014-15

This section reports on activities related to the effective implementation of Prospect,
and to the practices of continuous improvement based on assessment data and experience
obtained during AY 2014-15. This includes faculty professional development and activities
of the administrative team and Steering Committee.
PFS Administrative Team

The PFS administrative team met biweekly throughout AY 2014-15. Ongoing

responsibilities included planning faculty development activities and monitoring
college assessment and evaluation activities. Another key project included the
development and monitoring of a communications plan for PFS that would be
integrated with other New Student Induction initiatives. The most significant
development this academic year with regard to PFS implementation was the
Prospect Charrette on March 30, 2015. The administrative team devoted most of its
attention in spring 2015 to this project's planning and follow up activities.

The Provost has indicated that Prospect for Success is a signature program of UNC
Charlotte, a priority in our efforts to ensure student success.. In the course of
discussions around this, we identified the theme of integration as an organizing
principle for Prospect.. Integration refers to both "vertical" (across the academic
experiences that first year students have at UNC Charlotte) and "horizontal"
(throughout each department degree program) processes. Discussions at the
Charrette and at the Provost's Assessment Retreat formed the basis for AY 201516's course implementation and faculty development agendas.

PFS Steering Committee

The Steering committee met in-person four times during AY 2014-15. Major actions
included final approval of the 2014-15 SLO assessment rubrics, Charrette planning,
and information sharing across colleges and campus partner units.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT EVENTS FOR AY 2014-15

In August 2014, fall 2014 PFS GAs and undergraduate preceptors were trained at a
half-day workshop.
In November 2014, all instructors and implementation team members were invited
to an "All-Prospect" workshop. Results from PFS's first year were presented, and
instructors shared assignments and discussed their end-of-semester assessment
plans with each other.
Nine Brown Bag Lunch workshops were held during the year, at which PFS
instructors shared information about their instructional experiences (assignment
development, working with campus organizations, etc.) with peers.
The May 2015 faculty development sessions addressed the fact that, in their SLO
Assessment Reports, members of several college teams expressed a desire to help
students better develop in the area of "inquiry." Subject-area librarians met with
college teams to discuss resources and developing assignments that would work well
within each college's curriculum area.
The consultation model was fully implemented during AY 2014-15 through working
intensively with individual colleges. A representative from the PFS administrative
team attended at least one meeting of each college implementation team during
2014, with most colleges being visited during the implementation period in the fall
term, as well as after the distribution of direct SLO assessment results analyses.
During these meetings, team members were able to discuss and resolve collegespecific issues (about instruction, resources, or other concerns) without distraction.
Two new faculty orientation sessions were held at the end of the spring 2015
semester for new instructors teaching PFS courses in fall 2015. .

Professional Development Plans

Attendance at Brown Bag sessions this year was very low. In 2015-16, they were
discontinued and members of the Administrative Team are working to develop a
different format/method/schedule to meet the same goal of information sharing and
social support for instructors. Two roundtable discussions were conducted in the
fall semester on the two SLOs that evaluations indicate are the most challenging for
instructors (inquiry and cultural awareness).

PFS Administrative Team and Steering Committee Emphases

Attention has turned toward sustaining Prospect across the university through the
o implementation of vertical and horizontal integration ideas from the

Charrette and follow up and

o solidification of buy-in for Prospect across all colleges (ensuring resources
and attention)
SECTION II:
CHALLENGES
For the past generations, two trends have characterized the students attending
institutions of higher education in the U.S.: an increase in the percentage of 18-30 year olds
who pursue education after high school, and an increase in the diversity of the student
body. Both of these trends are expected to continue into the future and shape the challenges
that institutions of higher education face.
Specifically, the fact that in 2008 one in four college freshmen at four-year universities did
not return for their sophomore year (ACT, 2008) suggests questions about the degree to
which students are prepared for success in college. As a result, the ability of these students
to adapt to campus life will be crucial to their success (Pascarella et al, 1996). This research
suggests that the challenges UNC Charlotte is addressing through the Prospect for Success
QEP are common features of the higher education landscape in the 21st Century;
challenges that must be successfully overcome if the nation is to meet the aggressive
attainment goals that have been set.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE
One proven tool for addressing the challenges facing institutions of higher education is
a focus on the first-year experience. Scholars agree that students performance in the first
year is a strong predictor of drop out and graduation rates (Astin, 1975; Tinto, 1993). UNC
Charlottes research showed a strong correlation between participation in a first year
experience and first to second year retention rates, and subsequent graduation conformed
to the national pattern (Barefoot et al, 1998; Fidler and Moore, 1996; Shanley and Witten
1990; Simmons, 1995). Evidence indicates that the reason first year experience programs
are successful has to do with the ways they shape students mindset. Pascarella and
Terenzini, for example, found that the first year of college is the most critical year for
shaping college student attitudes towards learning (2005). In 2008, George Kuh, with the
Association of American Colleges and Universities, identified five high-impact educational
practices that increase student engagement and retention, including first-year experiences.
This study indicates first year experiences to be effective because they emphasize:
relationship building between students and faculty,
prompt and frequent feedback,
development of student success skills,
bridging out of class experiences with classroom discussions, and
exposing students to people who are culturally different from themselves (Kuh,
2008).
In practical terms, the goal of first-year programs is to help incoming students make a
successful transition into college life (Gardner, 2001; Nelson and Vetter, 2012). There are a

wide variety of first year programs developed at universities, but much of the success in the
first year of college, rests on an intentional first-year curriculum and on supportive
curricular structures (Barefoot et al, 2005). Freshman seminars are a single course which
are intended to assist with students transition to college and in some cases, to the discipline
or major (Keup and Barefoot, 1995). Barefoot and Fidler (1996) and other higher education
literature, describe first year seminars as curricular innovations and programmatic tools
designed to improve the transition experience of first year students and yield higher rates
of student retention and academic success (Barefoot, 1993; Fidler and Hunter, 1989;
Hunter and Linder, 2005). Learning Communities often leverage the learning within a
freshmen seminar-type class and expand the opportunities for student engagement by
involving more than one course and adding residential or co-curricular elements or both.
(Shapiro and Levine, 1999; Tinto, 2000). Both freshmen seminars and learning
communities are frequently cited as high-impact educational practices (Kuh, 2008) and
foundational elements of programs at schools who have achieved institutional excellence in
supporting first-year students (Barefoot et al, 2005). Therefore, UNC Charlotte adopted
nationally recognized practices (and institutional experience) by designing its QEP as a first
year experience. In particular, the Prospect for Success QEP seeks to ensure that students
acquire the requisite skills and attitudes by means of a curriculum modeled on the best
freshman seminar practices; it also seeks to extend those impacts beyond the freshman
seminar to garner some of the proven benefits of the learning community approach.
ENGAGEMENT
Studies have shown a strong and positive correlation between engagement and
academic outcomes. Analysis of survey results and student data indicate that students who
described themselves as being engaged were more likely to express satisfaction, attain
greater success, and persist in their education (Krause, 2007). Chan (2001), whose work
makes a strong connection between engagement and empowerment, suggests that choice
and control in learning leads to motivation and in turn to success. A large study conducted
by Kuh, (2008) using data from eighteen degree-awarding institutions, suggests that student
engagement in educationally purposeful activities is positively related to academic
outcomes, as represented by first year student grades and persistence between the first and
second year of college.
Student engagement entails a range of curricular and co-curricular practices to help
students succeed. These practices, when done by institutions, have resulted in positive
impacts on academic performance and retention. UNC Charlottes focus on a curriculumcentered effort to foster engagement is supported by research that identifies curriculum as
an important driver for facilitating student success from the first year onward. Specifically,
Marton et al (1997) suggests that curriculum engagement leads to deeper learning, and
White et al (1995) indicate that first-year seminars should be organized, not as a onetime
event, but as processes programmatically linked to overall student success.

In their work on what should be included in a curriculum to encourage engagement,

Kift and Nelson (2005) outlined six principles for student engagement, all of which are
evident in the Prospect for Success QEP:
developing long term strategies for programs (rather than piecemeal modifications)
considering students needs
facilitating reflection
cumulatively developing skills required after graduation
developing student independence and self-management
aligning administrative and institutional support services to these goals to ensure
consistency institution wide
Perhaps most importantly, Kift and Nelson argue that it is essential to integrate
curricular engagement principles through a systemic university-wide change, including
administrative and co-curricular programs. This finding is supported by Reason, Terenzini,
and Domingos (2005) analysis of a survey conducted in American colleges involving 6700
students and 5000 academic staff members. They found that there is an association between
coherence in first year curriculum, and student perceptions of academic confidence. To
achieve this coherent, systemic
university-wide change, UNC Charlotte has built on a variety of successful, but disparate
efforts by coordinating and expanding on them in the form of the Prospect for Success QEP.

SECTION III:
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION INITIAL PLANNED CURRICULUM STRUCTURE
The College of Education initially implemented the course, Introduction to Education
and Diversity in Schools, for their fall semester engagement curriculum. This course is four
credit hours and is a redesign of a preexisting course. All new first-time, full-time freshmen
are expected to enroll in this course. This course maintains traditional course content with
an emphasis on the QEP curriculum by including small break-out sessions, integration of
professional COED dispositions, and clinical experiences in schools. To fulfill the PFS
SLOs, this course requires students to:

Explore concepts of active learning through motivational theory, goal setting, selfregulation, reflective discourse and writing, and verbal communication skills
Map a plan for attaining professional and educational goals while articulating
personal commitment and effectively communicating goals for success
Examine culture and identity beginning with the self and proximal spheres of
influence (family, small groups/friends/organizations, campus community,
surrounding community)
Develop awareness of responsibilities associated with membership in all
communities

Develop awareness of professional dispositions expected of teachers: positive impact

on learners, leadership, collaboration, advocacy, ethics, and continuous professional
growth
Engage in intercultural/civic understanding through service learning or clinical
school experiences or both
Articulate personal rationale for becoming a teacher

In the spring semester, the freshmen who completed Introduction to Education and
Diversity in Schools continue in the progression by taking the course, Introduction to
Students with Special Needs. As in the fall semester, this course maintains traditional course
content with an emphasis on the QEP curriculum. To fulfill the PFS SLOs, this course
requires students to:

Further engage in intercultural/civic understanding through clinical school

experiences in specialized settings
Explore culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy in addressing individual
student needs through differentiation
Continue investigations of culture and identity through expanding spheres of
influence (local city/urban center, region/South, nation/USA, global society)
Examine in more detail educational dispositions and their importance in the school
context and with learners
Explore the professionalism of educators through contemporary issues
Examine educational law as advocacy for all learners
Formalize personal rationale for becoming a teacher and an educator of all students

Reflection and communication skills have been interwoven and used extensively in both fall
and spring courses.
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
INITIAL PLANNIED CURRICULUM STRUCTURE
Students in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) and University College
(UCOL) initially undertake a general course of study, detached from a career in a
particular profession. As such, it is not necessary to design a first year curriculum that
introduces students to the profession. Since a disciplinary focus is not appropriate, these
students need a first year curriculum that helps them appreciate the value of a liberal arts
education that they can engage in based on their personal interests. Three options are made
available to these students, including:

Freshman seminars (includes freshman seminars in the curricula of learning

communities)
General education courses that have been adapted to the QEP

Big Questions courses: new courses with an interdisciplinary focus on a question

that allows exploration of multiple approaches to knowledge from across the
disciplines in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Freshman seminars are traditionally offered in the fall semester and target new
freshmen; course enrollments are limited to approximately 25 students per section allowing
the development of strong relationships within the group and between students and
instructor. The QEP curriculum in freshman seminars include:

Graduation and career planning activities, culminating in the preparation of an

aspirational map; includes reflection assignments early and late in the semester to
allow students to appreciate their own development
Self-exploration and reflection, particularly in the context of developmental theory
Cultural diversity exploration, initially with respect to other students in class and
then moving outward to the university and community
Mini-service learning project to help build awareness of social and community
responsibility
Common reading experience: exploration of the common reading books topics that
support inquiry and awareness outcomes
Inquiry project

There is no formal spring semester freshman seminar curriculum. However, most

instructors for freshman seminars are advising center staff and structured advising
processes for freshmen keep students engaged with the QEP outcomes
The curricula of formal Learning Community programs not only include a freshman
seminar, but also other courses and a structured program of co-curricular activities.
Learning community curricula and activities do carry forward into the spring semester.
The general education courses adapted for the QEP in the fall are typically large lecture
classes of 100 students with weekly break-out discussions sections of approximately 25;
these courses are restricted to new first-time full-time freshmen in one of the two colleges
(unless capacity allows space for other students). The faculty member is assisted by a
graduate teaching assistant and in some cases undergraduate preceptors. While in theory
all general education courses could be adapted to the QEP, this is especially true for LBST
and social science courses. Faculty who have agreed to adapt their general education course
for the QEP have committed to including the following:

A before/after reflection exercise that asks students to outline their vision for their
university education and what will be expected of them and then reflect on how that
vision has changed at the end of the semester. This activity will be supported by
partnerships with advising staff and support units
A semester-long inquiry project related to the subject matter covered in the class:
posing and then refining questions, undertaking research, and presenting their
conclusions in a formal piece of writing. The inquiry project will make use of time

available in the small-group break-out meetings for discussion, peer review, and
presentations.
Self and cultural awareness activities pertinent for the subject matter of the course.
These activities include both an exploration of the process by which culture and
experience shape identity, and opportunities to confront and then consider the
different cultures and experiences of others.

The General Education courses adapted for the QEP are available in the spring
semester with only a slight inflection change to reflect student needs in their second
semester. Enrollment in these designated sections are limited to freshmen, but it is
impracticable to manage enrollment to ensure that students gain a second QEP experience
in the spring. In addition, these sections are valuable for students in other colleges.
Academic advising structures provide carryover into the spring semester as it relates to the
commitment to success outcome.
Fall semester Big Questions courses are specifically designed around the QEP outcomes.
They are team-taught courses with two or three faculty members and enrollments of
approximately 100 students per faculty member. As in the case of the QEP general
education courses, faculty are supported by graduate teaching assistants and in some cases
undergraduate preceptors. Courses are structured to include both large meetings and
smaller discussion sections limited to approximately 25. Enrollment is limited to first-time
full-time freshman in CLAS/UCOL (unless capacity allows space for other students).
Faculty who agree to develop a Big Questions course agree to include the same set of
activities listed above for QEP general education courses.
As in the case of the QEP general education courses, Big Questions courses are taught
in the spring for second semester freshmen, but with no effort to require students to take a
spring semester QEP course. Advising structures provide carryover into the spring
semester, particularly as it relates to the commitment to success outcome.
INSTRUCTOR PRACTICES
Cheryl Hester Academic Advisor and Assistant Director for Student Success
Q: How have specific activities, assignments, projects, classroom interactions, etc. changed
over time, and how do they relate to the SLOs?
A: My UCOL 1200 PFS course focuses on students interested in Engineering. The
assignments have generally consisted of Engineering career research, interviewing an
Engineering professional, researching an ethical or current issue in the Engineering field,
and then sharing this information with the class in presentation form. Engineering faculty
members from each discipline also visit the class and provide students insight into the
specifics of their field. The information from faculty is crucial in helping students confirm
the Engineering major they want to pursue while also pointing out differences in the
Engineering Science and Engineering Technology majors.

In week four of the semester, students are assigned a goal setting assignment. In week eight,
students reassess their goals and develop a plan of action (for example, a student may
realize he needs help in CHEM 1251 and attends SI or sees a tutor to perform better in the
course). At the end of the semester, students reflect on and reassess their semester goals
again, specifically addressing whether or not they actually made the necessary changes
needed to achieve the goals they set for themselves.
The assignments, combined with the information provided by Engineering faculty, allow
students to reflect on the work needed to reach their goal of declaring an Engineering
major and pursuing a career in the desired Engineering discipline; all of which relate to the
Commitment to Success SLO. The only change I have made is eliminating the interview
with an Engineering professional assignment due to student schedule conflicts and lack of
transportation.
Q: How have the SLO metrics that you use evolved?
A: I have attempted to revise assignments to insure they address the SLOs so that they can
be evaluated for their effectiveness. I am not sure how this has panned out.
Q: What mistakes do you feel have been made? What have you learned from those
mistakes? What process have you gone through in making changes for improvement?
A: I do not feel I have a good grasp on how to incorporate assignments that address the
Inquiry and Cultural Awareness SLOs. I have attended the PFS Faculty Development
workshops and reviewed sample assignments provided by other PFS instructors that
address the Inquiry and Cultural Awareness SLOs, but find implementation for both quite
challenging. That said, I would not say I have made mistakes but that I need more
guidance.
Vaughn Schmutz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology
Q: How have specific activities, assignment, projects, classroom interactions, etc. changed
over time, and how do they relate to the SLOs?
A: A significant change that applies to several assignments and a project is that I've added
elements that require students to reflect more about themselves and the process of inquiry.
One assignment, for example, asks students to identify how their own "social location"
(which could refer to their race, class, gender, religion, family background, neighborhood
or city where they were raised, etc.) influences their view of a specific issue we have
discussed in class (e.g., segregation, economic inequality, etc.). In terms of reflecting about
the inquiry process, I have found that this has become more useful as I divide their projects
into more discrete tasks. In other words, by breaking the inquiry process into more steps,
starting it earlier in the semester, talking about it more intentionally -- this seems to help
students identify where in the process they are likely to encounter challenges and to see
things more clearly from beginning to end. Shifting to a learning community has made it

much easier to change classroom interactions to involve more active learning and team-based
activities as well. I have also started to assign groups more often to make sure that students have
had a class-based interaction with everyone else in the class. As a result, their responses are
more meaningful when I ask them what they've learned from others in the Learning Community
and I give them a chance to give "kudos" to students who have contributed a lot to our class and
community.
Q: How have the SLO metrics that you use evolved?
A: Initially, PFS led me to make my metrics a bit more formalized and specific. This was
good because it required me to clarify what I thought "cultural awareness" involved and
how it could be demonstrated, for example. Since then, I have backed away from
formalizing my metrics too much because I think it was constraining what I was expecting
and what the students were giving. Now I try to provide diverse examples to students of
what "creativity" on a project might look like or what would signal "critical thinking" on a
given assignment, but also try to make clear that there are a number of ways to successfully
fulfill an SLO. This is still a work in progress for me, perhaps most especially with the
"commitment to success" stuff. At times, I think they are producing stuff that sounds like
what they think I'm looking for but that does not come across as very authentic.
Q: What mistakes do you feel have been made? What have you learned from those
mistakes? What process have you gone through in making changes for improvement?
A: I guess one is implied above (see #2) in terms of over-formalizing SLO metrics. I also
think that at one point I focused too much on the PFS objectives and messed too much with
things that I knew were working well. At one point, I also adopted a "commitment to
success" portfolio that was far too involved. I learned that there were a few core activities
that were most effective and that students enjoyed doing. A significant part of my process
for making changes is frequent student feedback. I ask students for specific feedback,
often anonymous, about a variety of things. This helped me identify things that they liked,
things they didn't take seriously, things that they thought were useful or not. Of course, I
don't change everything based on student popularity, but give students a chance to assess
what is going on in the class and they can get really reflective!
Jeanmarie Higgins, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Dramaturgy, College of Arts +
Architecture
Q: How have specific activities, assignment, projects, classroom interactions, etc. changed
over time, and how do they relate to the SLOs?
A: For the Commitment to Success SLO, students are evaluated on goal setting related to
their work on a running crew for a theatre department production. After students meet
with the production stage manager/supervisor, they complete a short answer writing
assignment that asks them:

1. Given what your crew assignment will entail, list 3-5 strengths that will help you to
do a god job.
2. 2 List 3-5 weaknesses that might get in the way of doing a good job,
3. List 3-5 strategies you will use to make up for those weaknesses.
After the crew assignment ended (a few weeks later), students write a reflective essay about
how they did. "Knowing what you know now, would those lists change? What did you
learn? What would they do differently?" The goal is for students to name achievable,
specific goals, and to realize that plans need to be adjusted as circumstances evolve.
Theatre Experience uses one assignment to assess two SLOs, Inquiry and Cultural
Awareness. The Performance Tradition presentation asks students to work in pairs to
research a performance tradition that is unfamiliar (for example, Japanese Kabuki, Mardi
Gras, Rabinal Achi), to make a 3-minute presentation about the tradition, and to then
reflect on the assignment (individually) in writing. Students are guided to particular
sources that are useful and peer-reviewed, including encyclopedias, books, and their
textbook for the course. We spend time talking about finding and citing images. Students
then make their presentations. On the day the presentation is made, they each hand in an
essay that charts their research/Inquiry process. Later, as one of the course's take-home
exams, they are given these essays back and asked to rewrite them, integrating answers to
the following question: Compare this performance tradition to one of the following: a
football game, a piece of musical theatre, or a cheerleading competition. How do these two
different traditions reflect the society that performs/engages in them? This second essay is
the piece that is assessed, as it asks students to contextualize the meaning that any given
performance tradition might have, as it also reinforces that different societies use
performance to reinforce different ideas.
Over time, I have actually adjusted my assignments more toward PFS goals, simply
because the SLOs really do measure valuable things. The biggest change in my assignment
for Cultural Awareness/Inquiry is that I have streamlined it, aligning the learning outcomes
with PFS outcomes. Over four years, this assignment has gotten clearer, and students do
better on it.
Q: How have the SLO metrics that you use evolved?
A: I've used more reflective writing than I normally would in a theatre class. Reflective
writing assignments do help me to see if students are processing the assignment goals. On
the other hand, I would like to develop ways to assess the artistic and scholarly products
they create without the mediation of a reflective writing assignment. There is nothing that
says I can't do that, it just makes those artifacts more difficult to grade for readers
outside my discipline.
Q: What mistakes do you feel have been made? What have you learned from those
mistakes? What process have you gone through in making changes for improvement?
A: Reliance on reflective writing is not necessarily a mistake, but it does limit what can be
evaluated. It also makes clear on writing a PFS goal. That's not necessarily a mistake

either, but if writing is a goal, it should be stated. Is there some meta-goal that is about
Communication? If so, integrate this into PFS.
In my own classroom, I adjust my assessment tools each year, if only a bit, based on results
from the previous year. I also spend more time on the areas for improvement I see in my
students' results. Over time I have also "embraced" PFS more, using its goals to shape my
own course goals. Overall, this has had positive results, but if taken too far, an instructor
might lose sight of disciplinary goals. I think it will always be a balancing act in this regard.

CITATIONS
ACT. (2008) 2008 Retention/Completion Summary Tables:
http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_trends.pdf (Accessed 27 Jan. 2013).
Association of American Colleges and Universities: Valid Assessment of Learning in
Undergraduate Education. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/value/project_description.cfm (Accessed 21 Jan. 2013).
Astin, A. W. (1975) Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barefoot, B. (1993) Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars.

(Monograph No. 11). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource
Center for the Freshman Year Experience.
Barefoot, B., & Fidler, P. (1996) The 1994 national survey of freshman seminar
programs Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum (Monograph No. 20).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The
Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition.
Barefoot, B., Gardner, J., Cutright, M., Morris, L., Schroeder, C., Schwartz, S., Siegel,
M. & Swing, R. (2005) Achieving and sustaining institutional excellence for the first year
of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barefoot, B., Warnock, C., Dickinson, M., Richardson, S., & Roberts, M. (1998)
Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars: Volume II
(Monograph No. 25). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource
Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.
Chan, V. (2001) Learning autonomously: the learners perspectives: Journal of Further
and Higher Education. 25(3).
Fidler, P. & Hunter, M. (1989) How Seminars Enhance Student Success: In M. L.
Upcraft & J. N. Gardner (Eds.) The freshman year experience: Helping students survive
and succeed in college (pp. 216-237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fidler, P. & Moore, P. (1996) A comparison of effects of campus residence and freshman
seminar attendance on freshman dropout rates: Journal of the Freshman Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 8(2), 7-16.
Gardner, J. (2001) Gardner reflects on FYE at 20. FYE: Newsletter of the National
Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 13(4), 1.
Hunter, M. A., & Linder, C. W. (2005) First-year seminars. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N.
Gardner, B. O. Barefoot, & Associates, Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 275-291). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keup, R., & Barefoot, B. (1995) Learning How to be a Successful Student: Exploring the
Impact of First-Year Seminars on Student Outcomes Policy: Center on the First Year of
College.
Kift, S. & Nelson, K. (2005) Beyond curriculum reform: Embedding the transition
experience, HERDSA, p. 225 235.
Krause, K. (2007) New perspectives on engaging first year students in learning.

Retrieved from
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/events/20070308/FYE_Engagement
_Krause.pdf (Accessed 27 Jan 2013).
Kuh, G. (2008) High Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who has Access to
Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (1997) The experience of learning (Edinburgh,
Scottish Academic Press).
National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition
(2002) The national survey of first-year seminar programs: Continuing innovations in the
collegiate curriculum (Monograph No. 35). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
Nelson, D. & Vetter, D. (2012) Thriving in the First College Year: A Research-based
Approach to College Student Success. In Schreiner et al. (Ed.) Thriving in Transitions.
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A, Hagedorn, L., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996) Influences
on students openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal of
Higher Education, 67, 174195.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005) How college affects student: A third decade of
research (vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Reason, R.; Terenzini, P. & Domingo, R. (2005) First things first: Developing academic
competence in the first year of college. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association for Institutional Research, in San Diego.
Shanley, M. & Witten, C. (1990) University 101 freshman seminar course: A longitudinal
study of persistence, retention, and graduation rates. NASPA Journal, 27(4), 344-352.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999) Creating learning communities: A practical guide
to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Simmons, G. (1995) The effects of a freshman seminar on at risk, under-, over-, and
low achievers. NACADA Journal, 15(1), 8-14.
Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2000) What we have learned about the impact of learning communities on
students. Assessment Update, 12, 1-12.

University of North Carolina at Charlotte. (2014) Prospect for Success Annual Report:
AY 2013-14,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. (2015) Prospect for Success Annual Report:
AY 2014-15,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. (2013) Quality Enhancement Plan: Prospect
for Success, http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/QEP
%20Final.pdf
White, E. Goetz, J. Hunter, M. & Barefoot, B. (1995) Creating successful transitions
through academic advising. In M. L. Upcraft & G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic
advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 2534). Columbia:
University of South Carolina.

APPENDIX
A. PFS FACULTY QUESTIONS:
How PFS has been done since its inception:
1. PFS Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) curriculum implementation and
evolution pertaining to:
a. Commitment to Success

b. Inquiry
c. Cultural Awareness
2. Documentation (assignments, syllabi, methodologies, referenced literature, etc.),
Strategies, and Metrics
3. Case Studies (Student best practices, Professor best practices, etc.)
Answer the following questions based on what I have outlined as the topical subsections above?
How have specific activities, assignment, projects, classroom interactions, etc.
changed over time, and how do they relate to the SLOs?
How have the SLO metrics that you use evolved?
What mistakes do you feel have been made? What have you learned from those
mistakes? What process have you gone through in making changes for
improvement?
B. College Prospect for Success Curriculum Plans
a. Belk College of Business
i. http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/BCOB
%20Engagement%20Curr%20Template.pdf
b. College of Arts and Architecture
i. http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/CAA
%20Engagement%20Curr%20Template.pdf
c. College of Computing and Informatics
i. http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/CCI
%20Engagement%20Curr%20Template.pdf
d. College of Education
i. http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/COED
%20Engagement%20Curr%20Template.pdf
e. College of Health and Human Services
i. http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/CHHS
%20Engagement%20Curr%20Template.pdf
f. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences/University College
i. http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/CLAS
%20UCOL%20Engagement%20Curr%20Template.pdf
g. William States Lee College of Engineering
http://prospect.uncc.edu/sites/prospect.uncc.edu/files/media/COE%20Engagement
%20Curr%20Template.pdf