Proposal for

What’s Next

A QEP Topic Focused onIntegrative Learning for Professional and Civic Preparation

“The undergraduate experience can be a fragmented landscape of general education courses, preparation for the major, co-curricular activities, and ‘the real world’ beyond the campus. But an emphasis on integrative learning can help undergraduates put the pieces together and develop habits of mind that prepare them to make informed judgments in the conduct of personal, professional, and civic life.”

Integrated Learning: Opportunities to Connect(AAC&U and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary

II. Process Used to Develop the QEP

III. Identification of and Rationale for QEP Topic

IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes

V. Literature Review and Best Practices

VI. Tentative Actions to Be Implemented

VII. Timeline

VIII. Organization Structure

IX. Assessment

X. References

XI. Appendixes

2

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSelection CriteriaThe following criteria were used in the development and evaluation of topics submitted for consideration. These criteria are aligned with the requirements in the SACSCOC QEP rubric:

Basis in accessible student learning outcome data; Congruence with UCF mission, vision and goals; Level of need and relevance to undergraduate students and the UCF community; Focused description (including interest across disciplines), and; Viable avenues for potential implementation.

Vision and GoalsStudents will graduate with integrative learning experiences that have prepared them for their professional and civic goals, the ability to persuasively articulate and demonstrate their skills, and the capacity to transfer their skills and intentional learning strategies to new contexts. Consequently, graduates will be able to successfully enter and participate in the next steps of their professional and civic lives. In order to achieve this vision, the QEP has two primary goals:

1. Engaging students in an intentional process of integrative learning that involves and connects curricular, cocurricular, and career-oriented experiences.

2. Creating an educational environment to incentivize and support students’ intentional and guided integrative learning.

Why Integrative Learning?Several universities have focused their QEPs on integrative learning, which the AAC&U and Carnegie Foundation define as intentionally developing skills across multiple connected experiences and adapting these skills to new problem-solving contexts. As a process but also a capacity, integrative learning enables students to develop self-awareness about how they learn and strategies for acquiring and leveraging new learning opportunities.

What make this QEP’s focus on integrative learning unique are its additional emphases on (a) supporting students as they define and pursue their professional and civic goals and (b) a multilayered approach that enables colleges and programs to embed additional cross-cutting skills (e.g., problem solving, communication, teamwork, analytical reasoning) in learning experiences.

This QEP supports UCF’s mission of meeting the region’s economic and societal needs, including workforce and citizenry development. Its focus addresses UCF’s goal of offering the best undergraduate education in the state of Florida and the university’s commitment to improving performance metrics around academic progress and career readiness. By supporting students as they develop integrated pathways, this QEP helps UCF meet the key challenge of the next-generation university—balancing broad access with the personalized development of each student as a whole person.

3

Student Learning Outcomes 1. Students will purposefully design, actively manage, and enact personalized “3C”

(curricular, cocurricular, career-oriented) learning pathways for professional and civic preparation.

2. As they enact their pathways by applying cross-cutting skills across a range of experiences, students will identify and reflect on connections among these applications, explaining how they relate to their postgraduate goals and contexts.

3. Through “launching” materials and other products, students will persuasively demonstrate and articulate how their learning experiences and gains have prepared them to effectively participate in the professional, civic, and continued educational environments they plan to enter.

Summary of Possible QEP ActionsThis QEP’s success will depend on the simultaneous and progressive development of four types of actions: Achieving both goals will depend on creating or expanding the following: (a) resources to support students’ design, management, and documentation of integrative learning pathways; (b) faculty training and program enhancement, including pilot initiatives, and; (c) technological and instructional resources to support students’ reflection, demonstration, and articulation of learning and preparation.

Summary of Assessment Key assessment mechanisms will include but not be limited to the following:

Direct assessment of learning outcomes using relevant AAC&U VALUE rubrics to assess student pathway plans, written reflections, performance in modules and other learning objects, and “launching” materials; this can be done by linking rubrics and outcomes to student work in the e-portfolio system.

Indirect assessment of student perceptions of learning and preparation through existing or enhanced surveys (e.g., Graduating Student, First Destination, Baccalaureate Alumni).

Data about student engagement with pathway management, learning activities, and learning documentation through various tools, modules and learning objects, and the NSSE survey.

Assessment by area employers and community leaders through experiential learning provider and partner surveys, the UCF Employer survey, and job recruiter focus groups.

4

II. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP THE QEPThe planning process for this QEP began in in the Spring 2104 term, when the SACSCOC QEP Coordinating Team planned the process and assembled a QEP Planning and Development Committee to develop and recommend a 2016 QEP topic (or topics). This section provides an overview of the phases of QEP development, listed below. Because QEP planning is still underway, phase four is still ongoing and phase five will begin in the Fall 2015 term.

Phase One: Initial Planning Phase Two: Identifying a Viable Topic Phase Three: Shaping the Topic and Securing Approval Phase Four: Publicizing the Topic, Augmenting the QEP Plan, and Forming an

Implementation Committee Phase Five: Laying the Groundwork for Implementation

Section III: Identification of Topic details information gathered and refined in phases two and three and explains how a revised version of the QEP Coordinating Team leveraged this information to focus the QEP on a viable, widely valued topic anchored by clear student learning outcomes, actions, and assessment mechanisms.

Phase One: Initial PlanningThe emphasis of phase one was on involving the campus community in soliciting potential topics for the 2016 QEP. The QEP Planning and Development Committee met regularly during Summer and into September of 2014 in order to develop potential topics. This committee was comprised of 33 members, including the Coordinating Team and representatives from the academic colleges, library, Faculty Senate, Student Government Association (SGA), Regional Campuses, Experiential Learning, Student Development and Enrollment Services (SDES) (including Career Services and the Office of Student Involvement), the Center for Distributed Learning (CDL), Institutional Knowledge Management (IKM), Operational Excellence and Assessment Support (OEAS), UCF Alumni, community leaders, and area employers (see Appendix A for a list of Coordinating Team and Planning and Development Team members). Initial meetings reviewed SACSCOC guidelines, university and state priorities, assessment-determined successes and challenges of the previous QEP (Information Fluency), and other UCF assessments (e.g., Graduating Student Survey).

In early Summer, the committee created a website, containing resources and FAQs, to solicit topic ideas from the campus community. Calls for topic ideas were also made through campus-wide email and the various units represented by the Planning and Development Team. Through the website and QEP@ucf.edu address, 19 topics were suggested by various campus constituencies. Each topic was vetted by the committee through rubric evaluation and committee discussion based on clear criteria, which included 1) congruence with UCF mission, goals, and strategic plan, 2) level of need and relevance to undergraduate students and larger UCF community, 3) focused but scalable topic, and 4) potential avenues for implementation. The Planning and Development team selected six topics to move forward into fuller concept papers, which followed a template, and these

5

papers were developed by work groups consisting of committee members and additional UCF faculty, staff, and administrators who had specialized knowledge about the topics. Some working groups were asked to combine multiple submitted topics into a concept paper, and all work groups were given feedback from the full Planning and Development Committee. The topics of the six concepts papers were:

Student career planning Communication for career preparation Enhanced student engagement Financial literacy Cross-cutting skills for career readiness Cross-cutting skill building through curricular and cocurricular experiences

Phase Two: Identifying a Viable TopicThe emphasis of this phase was on engaging UCF stakeholders to gather feedback about the six concepts papers and then using this feedback to identify a viable topic.

The completed and edited concept papers were placed on the UCF QEP website and distributed in the Faculty Focus newsletter for consideration by the UCF community. The QEP Coordinating Team developed and launched a Qualtrics survey for community input (also available on the QEP website), and held nine listening groups of approximately 90 minutes each; three were for students, four for faculty and staff, one for alumni and area employers, and one for all stakeholders as an electronic town hall. The QEP Coordinating Team also asked a committee of Pegasus Professors to evaluate and provide input about the concept papers.

With the help of OEAS, the Coordinating Team analyzed and reported the Qualtrics survey results to the Planning and Development Team, which incorporated this information into its evaluation of the concept papers. Criteria used in evaluation by the community and Planning and Development Committee echoed those used in the topic vetting phase, with additional emphases on potential to improve student learning, feasibility of the topic given existing resources and budget parameters, and capacity to assess student learning outcomes and improvement.

Based on the survey, listening group feedback, Pegasus Professor feedback, and the evaluation of the Planning and Development Committee, the QEP Coordinating Team combined elements of several concept papers into a common topic around professional and civic preparation through curricular, cocurricular/involvement, and career-oriented learning experiences. A team of nine academic and student development representatives, lead by the QEP Coordinating Team and including Planning and Development Committee members, attended a Florida Campus Compact Engagement Academy to further shape the new combined topic. This group identified integrative learning as a guiding concept for the topic, and worked to connect integrative learning to student planning and preparation for “What’s Next” after graduation.

Phase Three: Shaping the Topic and Securing Approval

6

After the work at the Engagement Academic, the QEP Coordinating Team and its lead writer further researched integrative learning and other elements of the QEP topic proposal, examining scholarship and best practices, meeting with campus and external specialists, reading related QEP proposals of other universities, reviewing related campus programming and assessment, and investigating potential actions and resources (including a campus-wide e-portfolio platform). From this work, a revised QEP proposal was developed to share with the Planning and Development Committee, vice president of SDES, vice provost for Academic Program Quality, and Provost Whittaker. Members of the QEP Coordinating Team met with these administrators in March and April 2015 (including twice with the provost) to get their input and make another round of revisions.

The revised QEP proposal was then approved by the provost for submission to President Hitt. The topic of “What’s Next: Integrative Learning for Professional and Civic Preparation” was approved by the UCF administration in April after Dr. Bowdon, co-chair of the QEP Coordinating Team, and Vice Provost Chase presented the QEP proposal to the president’s leadership team.

Phase Four: Publicizing the Topic, Augmenting the QEP Plan, and Forming an Implementation CommitteeWhile phases 1-3 established a framework and proposal for the QEP topic, phase four (still ongoing) involves publicizing this topic, augmenting and refining a fuller plan (this document) to be presented to SACSCOC, and forming a QEP Implementation Committee, including a QEP director.

In April of 2015, the QEP topic was given a “soft launch” at a special session of the Summer Faculty Development Conference sponsored by the Karen L. Smith Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning (FCTL). During this session, members of the QEP Coordinating Team overviewed the topic and its proposed student learning outcomes to the faculty attendees, who expressed enthusiastic interest and offered suggestions for potential pilot projects. The QEP topic will be presented to the full campus community via the website and other means in the Fall 2015 term.

Also in April, the interim vice provost for Teaching and Learning and the vice provost for Academic Program Quality selected a faculty member, Dr. Anna Jones, as the new QEP director. Over the Summer, the QEP Coordinating Team (including its lead writer and the new QEP director) have continued to augment and refine the QEP proposal into a more focused, specific, and complete plan, further researching relevant scholarship and best practices in the process. This work has involved further research of relevant scholarship and best practices; refinement of the student learning outcomes, possible actions, and assessment mechanisms; development of a multiyear implementation timeline, budget, and management structure; and planning ways to further publicizing of the QEP over the next academic year.

In July, the QEP director will meet with leaders of key units that will be vital to the QEP’s success, and will form a QEP Implementation Committee that includes some members of

7

the previous Planning and Development Committee. Also in July and August, the QEP Coordinating Team will solicit feedback about the emerging plan from our SACSCOC representative and other expert advisors and further refine the plan accordingly.

Phase Five: Laying the Groundwork for ImplementationThis phase, which has begun but will continue during the Fall 2015 term, involves further preparing a detailed implementation plan, including pilot projects and preliminary assessment measures. It will be lead by the QEP Coordinating Team until the QEP director and Implementation Committee can take over. These leaders will develop an implementation matrix of actions to be taken, action objectives, persons responsible, deliverables, outcomes and specific measures, budget, and timeline. They will work with other campus leaders to determine precisely how other, related initiatives (with separate oversight and funding streams) will be developed in concert with the QEP. They will also identify and launch several pilot projects (from at least three academic colleges) that will provide the QEP with models and preliminary assessment data.

In September 2015, UCF will submit its Compliance Certification Report, which will contain preliminary information about the QEP, for SACSCOC off-site review. At the end of the Fall term, part of the Faculty Development Winter Conference will be dedicated to the QEP; this work will involve further developing pilot projects, building additional infrastructure to support the QEP, and further collecting assessment data.

8

III. IDENTIFICATION OF AND RATIONALE FOR QEP TOPICThis section provides additional details about the process of identifying and refining the QEP topic, including its vision and goals, key components, and rationale. The information gathered in phases two and three of the QEP development process has enabled the QEP Coordinating Team to establish a refined QEP topic and plan with the clear and assessable student learning outcomes explained in section IV, a focus for the research and best practices summarized in section V, and the comprehensive plan of action discussed in section VI.

Topic IdentificationSeveral of the concept papers developed during phase one and evaluated during phase two involved career readiness—a topic of increasing importance to the State of Florida and UCF. The Florida Board of Governors (BOG) recently added career readiness measures to its performance metrics for the state university system (SUS). UCF recently co-founded the state-funded Florida Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities, whose mission is to better prepare college graduates for the workforce. Although the majority of participants in the survey and listening groups also valued career readiness, many faculty participants expressed concern over approaching this topic too narrowly, instead preferring a more expansive notion of professional preparation and the connection of this to civic preparation.

Based on feedback from the UCF community, Planning and Development Committee, and key UCF administrators, the QEP Coordinating Team narrowed the proposed topic to “What’s Next: Integrative Learning for Professional and Civic Preparation. This topic incorporates several elements from the concept papers, including student planning of learning pathways; the development of cross-cutting skills across curricular, cocurricular, and career-oriented experiences, and professional preparation. It also recognizes links between professional preparation and civic preparation—the latter an important part of UCF’s mission. Connecting these elements around the framework of integrative learning provides the QEP with a more defined focus grounded in student learning experiences and outcomes. Integrative learning involves developing the ability to plan for, make, reflect on, and evaluate connections among disparate concepts, contexts, and experiences, enabling the student to adapt what and how they have learned to new challenges and contexts (in this case post-graduate ones). According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)’s Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric, “Integrative learning is an understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and co-curriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus.” This framework and focus can ensure that students’ planning is intentional, that their learning experiences are connected, and that they develop the skills and disposition to help them succeed in what’s next.

QEP Topic’s Vision and GoalsThis QEP topic supports helping students plan and connect learning across curricular, cocurricular, and career-preparation experiences. Students will graduate with integrative

9

learning experiences that have prepared them for their professional and civic goals, the ability to persuasively demonstrate and articulate their skills, and the capacity to transfer their skills and intentional learning strategies to new contexts. Consequently, graduates will be able to successfully enter and participate in the next steps of their professional and civic lives.

In order to achieve this vision, the QEP has two primary goals:3. Engaging students in an intentional process of integrative learning that involves and

connects curricular, cocurricular (including campus and community involvement, as defined by AAC&U), and career-oriented experiences. (See figure 1 for a representation of how integrative learning can connects various types of experiences and contexts.)

4. Creating an educational environment to incentivize and support students’ intentional and guided integrative learning.

Figure 1. “3 Cs” of Integrative Learning

QEP Topic’s Key Components In order to meet the QEP’s first goal of engaging and guiding students in an intentional process of designing and navigating integrated learning pathways, students will work with advisors, faculty, and perhaps others (e.g., professional coaches, peer mentors) to

set professional and civic goals, design, actively manage, and enact personalized integrated pathways,

10

identify, reflect on, and explain connections among their applications of, cross- cutting skills in learning experiences across various contexts,

persuasively demonstrate and articulate to others the connections they made and how their integrative learning experiences have prepared them to succeed in their continuing education, careers, and civic involvement.

Toward the QEP’s second goal of supporting students’ intentional and guided integrative learning, the university will develop or expand

resources that enable students to design and manage their personalized learning pathways,

enhanced training of faculty and program advisors around supporting students’ integrative learning,

resources to assist students in reflecting on and explaining connections among their learning experiences,

support for degree program enhancement focused on embedding integrative learning through cross-cutting skills and high-impact experiences (e.g., research, experiential learning, campus involvement, capstone projects),

resources and programming to assist students in persuasively demonstrating and articulating their learning for themselves and others, and

mechanisms for assessing students’ integrative pathway planning, reflection and explanation, and demonstration and articulation of integrative learning.

As section VI and IX will explain, some of these environmental efforts—including advisor training, the development of university- and college-level pathway resources, and the expansion of career preparation resources—dovetail with other university initiatives that are overseen and funded outside of the QEP but that will be further developed in collaboration with the QEP Implementation Committee.

Rationale and Need for TopicSupport of University Mission and GoalsOne of UCF’s five visionary goals is to offer the best undergraduate education in the state of Florida. The State University System Board of Governors and other state policy makers have pointed to career preparation as being an important dimension of this education, as indicated in performance-based funding metrics focused on employment. UCF’s mission of “anchoring the Central Florida city-state in meeting its economic, cultural, intellectual, environmental, and societal needs” extends beyond workforce development to include the development of a citizenry that engages and positively impacts its communities. Indeed, the university’s work toward its mission of citizen development has been recognized by a renewed “Community Engagement” classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. UCF’s contributions to the surrounding region are often recognized in terms of research-based and technology-led economic development; although our students are part of this development, the approximately fifteen thousand students that UCF delivers to the workforce annually constitute a contribution that itself deserves attention, and this QEP will enhance the preparation of these students to be engaged, effective workers and citizens.

11

A growing concern about the cost of education and the burden of student debt has led policymakers and universities to focus also on academic progress, which must be addressed in concert with postgraduate preparation. Enabling students to more strategically create and manage their learning pathways—including degree programs—could have the added effects of improving retention and graduation rates.

The Florida Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities was co-founded by UCF, USF, and FIU to better prepare graduating students “to contribute to our state’s economic and civic life,” primarily through career development and experiential learning (“Florida” 25). Importantly, this goal extends beyond students’ first jobs to “meaningful personal and career development across a lifetime” (25).

Along with ten other large public research universities, UCF is a founding member of the University Innovation Alliance, whose mission is “to make high-quality, empowering college degrees accessible to a diverse body of students at a cost that working and middle class families can afford” (University 4–5). One of the challenges of the next-generation American university represented by this consortium is to balance the goals of broadening student access and prioritizing individual student success. This QEP will help the university achieve such a balance by engaging a broad scope of students around personalized pathways that engage them as whole people and prepare them for postgraduate success.

Evidence of Gap and NeedThis QEP addresses two related gaps regarding graduating students’ preparation: a gap between employer expectations of graduates and perceptions of graduates’ actual preparation, and a gap between students’ preparatory learning and their ability to persuasively articulate and demonstrate their preparation to employers and others. Several national surveys have pointed to the importance of career preparation in college but also have suggested that college graduates are not adequately prepared for the next steps of their careers. For example, more than 30 percent of respondents to a national employer survey sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education indicated that recent graduates are “unprepared” or “very unprepared” for their job search (Role). A report of surveys recently conducted for the AAC&U noted gaps between student and employer assessment of the students’ career preparation, with employers rating this preparation substantially lower (Hart, Falling). In these surveys, “large majorities of employers do NOT feel that recent college graduates are well prepared,” particularly in “applying knowledge and skills in real world settings” (11). Another report of an employee survey similarly noted the importance of cross-cutting skills—including the ability to apply knowledge in real-world settings and the capacity for continued learning—to workplace success (Hart, It 1, 6). This national data has been reinforced by employer responses at the regional and local levels. A 2014 survey of over 250 Central Florida companies—along with follow-up interviews and focus groups by CareerSource and the Florida High Tech Corridor Council—found that a majority of employers reported difficulty finding and hiring skilled applicants, including applicants lacking technical and “soft” skills (e.g., motivation, communication, problem solving) (“Central” 4, 28). In follow up interviews, companies’ HR staff reported

12

applicants’ lack of professionalism and knowledge about the job and relevant skills (28). Employers partnering with UCF’s Career Services have indicated that many students they interview could be better prepared and could better articulate their preparation in interviews and through their resumes and other job search materials.

Surveys of graduates and students themselves have also indicated that they feel inadequately prepared. The report of a recent Gallup Purdue national survey of college ‐graduates found that career preparation in college made them nearly three times as likely to be engaged at work, but that less than a third strongly agreed that their education prepared them for life outside of college (Great 7). The report goes on to suggest why: only 6 percent of respondents strongly agreed that they had sustained job-related, extracurricular, and research-based engagement experiences (9). These findings, too, are supported by local data. Despite students’ generally inflated view of their preparation, many UCF students do not feel as prepared for “what’s next” as they could be. The last UCF Baccalaureate Alumni survey found that more than 40 percent of respondents thought that the career advising in their majors was inadequate. In a recent Foundations of Excellence (FoE) UCF student survey, large percentages of respondents rated as “moderate” or below the degree to which their college experience increased their knowledge for future employment (38 percent) and prepared them for community involvement (40 percent).

Another gap addressed by this QEP is that between the university’s goal to produce prepared graduates and students’ accessing of preparation opportunities. Surveys of UCF students indicate that large number of students do not access opportunities for professional and career preparation, even when such opportunities exist, and lack of guidance could be one factor. A large majority of UCF students do not access career preparation support. Students report similar challenges and lack of use of career advising and preparation support. Over 73% of respondents to the 2013-2014 Graduating Student Survey reported “seldom” or “never” accessing the Career Services support, and only 11% of respondents to the 2013-2014 First Destination Survey reported having used or planning to use resources of their academic department in their job search. In the 2011 NSSE Survey, 67% of UCF’s senior respondents reported “sometimes” or “never” discussing career plans with a faculty member or advisor. Most recently, over 60% of respondents to the 2015 Foundations of Excellence (FoE) Transfer Student Survey rated as “moderate” or below the degree to which they had opportunities to interact with professionals in their chosen field within and outside of their coursework.

UCF has demonstrated a commitment to experiential learning and to campus and community involvement. For example, more than twenty thousand students annually participate in co-ops, internships, and service-learning courses, and student experiences in co-ops, internships, externships, community service, and undergraduate research have increased substantially over the past several years (“UCF” 36-37, 77). Surveys of student involvement and experiential learning indicate the usefulness of such experiences for student participants. As part of Project CEO (a national project surveying students about cocurricular experience outcomes), the Office of Student Involvement (OSI) found that students report gaining several NACE-identified cross-cutting skills—including teamwork, communication, and persuasion—more through cocurricular/involvement experiences

13

than classroom ones. Large majority of students responding to the service-learning and co-op/internship surveys indicated that their experience helped them recognize how to apply the subject matter and motivated them to learn in the classroom, respectively (“UCF” 75).At the same time, however, a large number of our students do not take advantage of these and other engaged learning opportunities. For example, over 76% of respondents to the 2013-2014 Graduating Student Survey reported to have “never” used student leadership programs such as those as the Office of Student Involvement, and over 74% of respondents reported having “seldom” or “never” participated in experiential learning programs such as internships and co-ops. In this same survey, around 26% of students reported participating in organizations related to their majors, around 33% in other UCF clubs and organizations, around 31% in community service, and around 9% in research with a faculty member. Results of FoE Transfer Student Survey indicate a similar pattern of under-usage, with over 39% of respondents reported being “not active at all” in student groups, and over 52% reported begin “not active at all” in academic groups. Further, many involved students lack guidance in strategically identifying opportunities that are relevant to their career and civic goals and that complement their curricular learning. In the FoE Transfer Student Survey, 49% of respondents rated as “moderate” or below the degree to which faculty and staff advisors discussed how college could help them achieve their life goals, and over 48% of respondents rated as “moderate” or below the degree to which the institution provided opportunities for involvement in out-of-class activities that interested them.

Yet another gap addressed by this QEP is that between students’ learning experience and their opportunities to integrate or synthesize these, in part through purposeful planning. Although students learn and apply important skills across a variety of experiences beyond the curricula of their degree programs, they often do so in a fragmented and haphazard manner. As highlighted in the epigraph of this proposal, students’ undergraduate experiences can be a “fragmented landscape” involving general education, degree-program curricula (including experiential learning activities), cocurricular activities, campus involvement activities, and the world beyond the campus (including work, community involvement, and personal pursuits) (Statement). Contributing to this landscape is the siloed distribution of different support offices and systems across the university; at UCF, for example, students go to different places for help with academic advising, experiential learning, campus and community involvement, and career preparation and the job-search process. Faculty and professional staff at UCF have pointed to this problem: In the FoE Faculty/Staff Survey, over 45% of respondents indicated that UCF could better coordinate support for students, and over 50% indicated that UCF could better facilitate routine communication among units that work with students. In addition to having a range of learning opportunities, students need guidance in and integrated support for more intentionally planning and connecting their learning experiences. To this end, the AAC&U and Carnegie Foundation assert that students “need programs of study that will help them understand the nature and advantages of integrative learning and assist them in pursuing their college experience in more intentionally connected ways” (Huber and Hutchings 14).

In their national inventory of integrative learning projects sponsored by AAC&U, DeZure, Babb, and Waldmann characterize them as the “connective tissue among collegiate experiences so that the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts, and are designed

14

intentionally to clarify and amplify what students learn to enable them to access and apply this learning more readily in the future.” This QEP will provide students with such connective tissue for their learning.

15

IV. DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES The following student learning outcomes were developed by the QEP Coordinating Team and lead writer, based on input from the UCF Community, Planning and Development Committee, and key UCF administrators; UCF and national surveys regarding student preparation; and insights gained from the literature on integrative learning.

1. Students will purposefully design, actively manage, and enact personalized “3C” (curricular, cocurricular, career-oriented) learning pathways for professional and civic preparation.a. Students will draw on resources and work with others (i.e., faculty,

advisors/coaches, peer mentors, area professionals) to identify achievable professional and civic goals (including career paths), to identity the skills needed to achieve such goals, and to design an integrated learning pathway that incorporates related curricular, cocurricular (including involvement), and career-preparation experiences (including work and internships/co-ops).

b. Students will actively manage and adapt their pathway, perhaps through an online resource, based on self-assessment, continued learning, and guidance from others.

c. Students will enact their pathways, developing skills across a range of learning experiences (e.g., course work, research, experiential learning activities, entrepreneurship activities, campus organizations and other involvement activities, civic or community-based activities, work and other job preparation activities) that relate to their postgraduate goals and contexts; they will also document these experiences, perhaps through a cocurricular transcript or e-portfolio.

d. Through the process of intentional pathway design and management, students will develop their capacity for intentional, self-directed learning.

2. As they enact their pathways, students will identify and reflect on connections among these applications, explaining how they relate to their postgraduate goals and contexts.a. Through online modules and (formative) program assignments, students will

identify and reflect on connections across their range of learning experiences, including their synthesis of different kinds of knowledge and applications of cross=cutting skills.

b. Based on their reflection, and through online modules and program assignments, students will explain for themselves and others the connections among their learning experiences, and how their learning is preparing them for their postgraduate goals and contexts.

c. Through the process of reflecting on and explaining their learning, students will develop a metacognitive awareness of their learning strategies.

3. Through “launching” materials and other products, students will persuasively demonstrate and articulate how their learning experiences and gains have prepared

16

them to effectively participate in the professional, civic, and continued educational environments they plan to enter.a. Through a (summative) “signature” program product (e.g., capstone e-portfolio),

students will exhibit or demonstrate a sampling of varied learning experiences and contexts, and in a manner that highlights connections among them.

b. Through program and other advising, students will identify specific professional, civic, and educational audiences (e.g., potential employers, graduate and professional programs) and demonstrate understanding of these audiences’ values and expectations.

c. In a set of field- and program-specific “launching” materials (i.e., résumé, showcase e-portfolio) and perhaps other means (e.g., interview), students will persuasively articulate how their experiences and competencies have prepared them to effectively participate and succeed in their targeted professional, civic, and educational environments.

Rationale for SLOsThe three above-listed student learning outcomes address the gaps described in the previous section in several ways: by encouraging and guiding students to pursue integrative learning experiences (among the many opportunities UCF already offers and those that programs will develop); by helping students’ connect their various learning experiences to one another and to their targeted post-graduate contexts; by helping students more persuasively articulate and demonstrate their preparation and qualifications; and by helping students develop the capacity to plan for and adapt in new post-graduate learning environments.

The first learning outcome is grounded in the research-based observation that students’ integrative learning should be intentionally planned and actively managed, skills that should serve students well in their post-graduate lives. It places student-identified goals at the center of this planning, but also recognizes the essential functions of advising and guidance around these goals and their enactment. Finally, it acknowledges that students’ goals will change over time, as they continue to learn, and therefore their planned learning pathways must be adjusted.

The second learning outcome captures the importance of synthesis and reflection for students to recognize connections across and make sense of their integrative learning, and to develop meta-cognitive awareness about their learning that can help them adapt their skills and learning to new situations. It is premised on the idea that guided integrative learning provides students with multiple opportunities to identify, reflect on, and explain their integrative learning and skill applications across experiences and over time. Along with the other outcomes, this learning outcomes requires students to document their integrative learning experiences somehow.

Learning outcome number three focuses on helping students move from making sense of their integrative learning for themselves and their teachers to articulating this learning and the skills it developed to public, especially post-graduate audiences. This outcome focuses

17

on students’ ability to connect their integrative learning to the contexts of their next steps (e.g., job or graduate school) and to persuasively articulate and demonstrate (through sample learning products) their preparation and qualifications for targeted post-graduate opportunities.

Scope of SLOsBeyond the four integrative learning outcomes, the proposed QEP does not specify which high-impact practices students will learn through or which essential cross-cutting skills they will connect and develop; instead, it enables academic colleges and programs to identify these and embed them into program objectives, curricula, and assessments. This QEP proposal’s focus on one type of integrative learning (i.e., “3C” learning) at the university level and sponsorship of more specific program-level foci follows AAC&U recommendations (Miller 12). In addition to academic degree programs, leadership programs (e.g., eli2, LEAD Scholars, University Honors Program) and advising units (e.g., college and university advising offices, Regional Campuses advising) can further embed integrative learning guidance and direct students to opportunities. It is important to note that although this QEP will support the embedding of integrative learning experiences and support in degree and other programs, it is not responsible or the disciplinary knowledge and cross-cutting skills students development in these programs.

This QEP supports the development of integrative learning in degree programs for several reasons: because such a focus has the potential to reach UCF’s large number of transfer students; because student learning and advising in anchored in their degree programs, and; because this approach enables programs and faculty to “own,” tailor, and assess integrative learning in a more bottom-up way. Although the General Education Program (GEP) is outside of this QEP’s scope and oversight, integrative learning could still be further emphasized in the GEP, perhaps using the e-portfolio system proposed for the QEP and through the expansion of such initiatives as the unifying theme and issue-based learning communities.

Although this QEP topic might appear to be ambitious in scope—in part because it will afford a further layer of program-level integrative learning and because its efforts will likely dovetail with and inform other undergraduate learning efforts—its goals, actions, and assessment are concretely centered on the three above-listed integrative learning outcomes.

18

V. LITERATURE REVIEW AND BEST PRACTICESIntegrative Learning and Its DimensionsAccording to the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)’s Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric, “Integrative learning is an understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and co-curriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus.” In various publications, the AAC&U and Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching have expanded on the dimensions, qualities, and activities of integrative learning, including the following:

Connecting knowledge and practice from different sources, experiences, and contexts;

Synthesizing or blending knowledge, skills, and points of view from various sources to analyze, evaluate, and respond to problems;

Adapting “skills learned in one situation to problems encountered in another” (Huber and Hutchings iv);

Intentionally planning and pursuing, with guidance, a diverse range of learning experiences;

Developing a holistic sense of how diverse learning experiences have shaped personal growth;

Demonstrating to themselves and others, growth, skills, and accomplishments; Developing self-awareness about learning goals and processes, and a capacity to

learn in new environments.

The AAC&U’s Greater Expectations report calls on universities to develop students as “integrative thinkers who can see connections in seemingly disparate information and draw on a wide range of knowledge to make decisions” (21). Such connections could be made across General Education courses (e.g., through a first-year learning community, a unifying theme), across General Education and upper-division curricula (e.g., through an e-portfolio, interdisciplinary research project), across curricular and cocurricular experiences (e.g., through experiential learning, campus involvement), and/or across academic, civic, and career-based contexts (e.g., through a capstone project, externship, community-based project).

Integrative learning involves blending different kinds of knowledge, skills, and points of view, often in novel ways, in order to analyze, evaluate, and respond to complex problems (Ferren and Paris 2). In this sense, integrative learning is connected to blended and interdisciplinary learning. In addition to synthesizing knowledge, the Greater Expectations report calls for enabling students to “adapt the skills learned in one situation to problems encountered in another: in a classroom, the workplace, their communities, or their personal lives" (21; see also Ferren and Paris 3). This process involves applying but also adjusting knowledge and skills based on the particularities of new and often complex situations.

Integrative learning processes often involve various cross-cutting skills—such as problem solving, communication, teamwork, analytical reasoning—and dispositions—such as

19

flexibility and engagement. Not only are such skills and dispositions elements to integrate and adapt, they can be the means of integration, as with students whose reflective writing enables them to identify connections, or with interns whose collaboration skills and flexibility enable them to adapt what they have learned to address workplace problems with others. Along with its goal of educating the whole person, its involvement of cross- cutting skills makes integrative learning a feature of liberal education and, according to employers, good preparation for career success. Because engagement and motivation can be catalysts for integrative learning (Huber and Hutchings 2), high-impact educational practices that engage and ignite students are often hallmarks of integrative learning. Based on research, the AAC&U identifies high-impact practices as including learning communities, common intellectual experiences (e.g., through a unifying theme), undergraduate research, service learning and community based learning, internships, and capstone project (Kuh).

As an intentional process, integrative learning requires students to identify “a sense of purpose that serves as a kind of ‘through line’” for “connecting the sometimes far-flung and fragmentary learning experiences they encounter” (Huber and Hutchings 6). Although institutions and programs should develop navigational guidance and resources, faculty and others assisting students should position themselves as co-constructing learning experiences with students rather than designing them for students (Ferren and Paris 7).

Through engaging students across various learning experiences, integrative learning can enable students to develop a body of work that demonstrates what they can do in a more holistic way, perhaps through an e-portfolio. Articulating their growth, accomplishments, and potential by showing as well as telling can lead to students’ further self-awareness and persuade others to provide them with postgraduate opportunities.

Finally, integrative learning develops students’ metacognition and self-awareness about how they learn—their goals, strengths and weaknesses, strategies, and processes. This self-awareness, in turn, helps students strengthen their capacity for continued strategic learning, including learning in postgraduate professional, civic, and educational environments. As an adaptive capacity, integrative learning can help students identify new opportunities, focus their efforts as learners, and acquire and leverage new learning strategies (Integrated). In this sense, integrative learning is another way of understanding self-directed learning and “learning how to learn” (Huber and Hutchings 6).

Figure 2 captures the intentional, connective, and adaptive nature of integrative learning as it relates to this QEP’s goals of guiding students along their intentional pathways and providing them with integrative learning opportunities that prepare them for their postgraduate lives:

20

Figure 2. Supporting Students’ Integrative Learning Pathways

Please note that this figure presents a comprehensive process of intentional and guided preparation through integrative learning—a process that the QEP will contribute to and create structures to support, but also one that will depend on other university initiatives (e.g., integrated advising structures, expansion of high-impact learning activities in degree programs).

Best Practices for Implementing Integrative Learning Although integrative learning initiatives could encompass several types and levels of connection building (e.g., across General Education coursework, between General Education and disciplinary learning, between disciplinary learning and workplace contexts), Ross Miller from AAC&U recommends that institutions focus on one type of connection for all students while enabling programs to identify “additional, different integrative goals specified for their own graduates” (12). This QEP focuses on connecting curricular, cocurricular, and career-oriented learning as they move through their degree programs and prepare for the job market or other next steps.

Although integrative learning is self-directed to some degree, it also requires intentional support and guidance by educators and institutions. Several studies indicate that student success and engagement can be enhanced through support that gives them clear, coherent pathways toward their goals and helps them integrate their academic learning and professional objectives (McClenney and Dare; Ehiyazaryan and Barraclough). Other studies suggest that employability can be enhanced by informed goal setting and other forms of self-management (e.g., self-monitoring, self-assessment) that are hallmarks of intentional learning (Eby, Butts, and Lockwood). Self management has been associated with higher ‐career success (Bridgstock; De Vos and Soens).

AAC&U president Carol Geary Schneider points to the importance of guided pathways (LEAP). Pathway guides and other navigational assistance should account for vertical as well as horizontal learning, recognizing the “importance of scaffolding learning experiences” (Ferren and Paris 3). A number of colleges and universities have found that

21

engaging students with guided learning pathways and related advising support increased student retention and decreased time-to-graduation (Marcus).

In developing mechanisms for faculty training and support, UCF could learn from the efforts of institutions in the AAC&U-sponsored Faculty Leadership for Integrative Liberal Learning (FLILL) project (see the Fall 2014/Winter 2015 issue of Peer Review ). For example, Clark University’s Effective Practice Faculty Fellowship and Exemplar Learning Communities programs provide models for faculty fellows and leadership cohorts that UCF could adapt and scale (see Budwig, Michaels, and Kasmer).

22

VI. ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED Successfully implementing the proposed QEP will require a coordinated and integrated university effort to meet the two primary goals:

1. Engaging and guiding students in an intentional process of designing, implementing, reflecting on, and demonstrating qualifications gained from integrated learning pathways that involve curricular, cocurricular (including involvement), and career-oriented experiences.

2. Creating an educational environment and infrastructure to incentivize and support students’ intentional and guided integrative learning, and their demonstration and articulation of this.*

Achieving both goals will depend on creating or expanding a number of resources, including resources around learning pathways, faculty training, program-level curriculum enhancement, students’ reflection and documentation, and students’ launching materials.

The QEP’s success will also be supported by several ancillary efforts that are overseen and funded outside of the QEP but that will be further developed in collaboration with the QEP Implementation Committee. First, overseen by university and college advising offices, UCF’s new Pegasus Path initiative is developing advising resources and protocols for helping students develop career readiness plans that connect coursework to involvement and job preparation experiences. Second, overseen by the provost, the implementation phase of the Foundations of Excellence Transfer Initiative will likely involve faculty and advisor training in helping students identify and engage in involvement and career readiness opportunities. Fourth, UCF, USF, and FIU recently formed the state-funded Florida Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities, which has begun to develop a number of career readiness initiatives, including a shared database of expanded internship and externship opportunities, student career maps that can be linked to curricular maps, career specialist advisors, and faculty training resources and grants.

The following proposed actions are organized around the QEP’s three student learning outcomes.

Actions Supporting Students’ Design, Management, and Enactment of “3C” Learning Pathways (Outcome 1)Create or Enhance Student Integrative Learning Pathway Guides Integrative learning pathway guides would help students achieve learning outcome one by helping them to create more intentional pathways for integrated learning. These guides could be used in conjunction with the QEP Outcome 1 Rubric to assess students’ personalized pathways.

As part of the new Pegasus Path initiative, the PROGRESS team is designing a basic pathway guide and template that programs would adapt. Such a university-level guide could

* Regarding this second goal, the AAC&U encourages faculty leaders to “recognize the timportance of infrastructure…so that efforts to implement and extend integrative learning are lasting, sustainable, and institutionalized” (Ferren and Paris 6).

23

resemble the University of South Carolina’s “USC Connect” online guides for creating a plan, which provides students with goals along a four-year timeline, and for choosing learning experiences, which enables students to search a database for relevant experiences by category. Supported by the Faculty Center, the Academic Advising Council, and college advising offices, and in consultation with other support offices (e.g., the Office of Experiential Learning, the Office of Undergraduate Research, the Office of Student Involvement, and Career Services), academic programs would enhance any existing student curriculum guides with more integrative ones that

enable guided major and career exploration, and connect curricular requirements and milestones with relevant cocurricular

(including involvement) and career-oriented activities. Program faculty and advisors could receive training (see below) to create these guides, and could adjust them based on feedback from students and area professionals. Some degree programs and other academic programs—including the B.A. in Writing and Rhetoric, eli 2 , LEAD Scholars—have already developed integrated pathway models that others could use as examples; additional programs that could be pilots for integrative learning pathway guides include the Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) (which includes service-learning and field-based coursework, internships, and advocacy work) and those in the Nicholson School of Communication (which are supported by such professional development programming as including comprehensive advising, COMM Week, and a communication internship fair).

The university and/or college advising offices could make pathway guides available online and searchable by both majors and meta-majors (as established by the Florida College System), perhaps through Webcourses or a new e-portfolio system. The University of South Carolina’s “USC Connect” website similarly provides students with recommendations for learning experiences relevant to specific majors.

Academic colleges and programs could use data from the Graduating Senior and First Destination surveys, college- and program-level alumni surveys, program external advisory boards, a new version of the Employer survey, experiential learning and involvement surveys, shifting engagement opportunities, and new research about job preparation to help programs revised pathway guides. If developed, a digital version of Pegasus Path could automatically generate recommendations based on patterns in previous students’ pathways. The QEP team could work with the academic colleges to encourage programs without external advisory boards to form them.

Creative or Enhance Online Resources for Students’ Pathway Management and DocumentationAlong with pathway guides, online resources for pathway management, engagement, and documentation would assist students in achieving outcome one.

Both Regional Campuses and the PROGRESS team have developed plans for online advising resources that assist students with managing and engaging their integrative learning

24

experiences. Regional Campuses’ new Enhanced DirectConnect Pathway, currently being piloted with transfer-bound DirectConnect students, supports students’ integrated learning through a set of Webcourses modules that guide and incentivize students to move through a series of engagement touch-points and that connect students to a team of advisors and student services personnel.† Advantages of this system are its low cost, integration into Webcourses (which students already use heavily), and generation of pilot data that could inform a scale-up.

Regional Campuses stands ready to help the QEP implementation team and Center for Distributed Learning (CDL) extend a more simplified version of its online Pathway modules for students at UCF. This extension, which could become part of Pegasus Path, would have two layers: 1) a university layer that focuses on this QEP’s integrative learning outcomes, pathway design and engagement strategies, and advising, and 2) a program layer with additional learning outcomes around cross-cutting skills and more specific guidance for connecting curricular with other learning experiences. The CDL, Faculty Center, and college advising offices could assist with the development and support of the second layer.‡

Any pathway management resource could exist behind the myUCF portal, be linked to degree audits, include resources in Webcourses, and be linked to a new e-portfolio platform, where students could document, exhibit, and explain their integrative learning activities.

OSI has promoted the KnightConnect system through which students can catalog and manage their involvement activities in an official cocurricular transcript, and this system could be incorporated into a broader pathway management system. Later, with the involvement of the Registrar’s Office, UCF could add a cover page to the official transcript that can link to the cocurricular transcript and possibly other demonstrations of preparation (e.g., showcase e-portfolio) (following Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis).

Although OSI, Career Services, Experiential Education, Undergraduate Research and other student support units offer databases for specific types of engaged learning opportunities,

† Valencia College has developed an similar advising system called LifeMap, which is connected to their online learning management system and which “promotes student social and academic integration and education and career planning” through integrating “a system of tools, services, programs, and people (faculty and staff) to engage with students to document, revise, and develop” their plans (Romano and White).‡ The PROGRESS team created a detailed plan for a digital Pegasus Path tool. If the university decides to invest in developing and supporting such a tool (a considerable expense), the tool could provide some additional valuable capabilities, including the integration of progress tracking and early alert/warning functions as well as auto-generated pathway recommendations based on previous students’ patterns. Other institutions in the University Innovation Alliance are experimenting with digital advising pathway tools with such capabilities.

25

these could either be consolidated at one website or combined into a larger master database that students could search, as with the University of South Carolina’s “USC Connect Database.”

Actions Supporting Students’ Reflection about and Explanation of Integrative Learning (Outcome 2)Offer Faculty Training and Program Enhancement Support Faculty training and program enhancement will support the QEP’s second student learning outcome by fostering the development of program-level infrastructures to support integrative learning, including advising, learning resources, and requirements that ask students to reflect on, explain, and demonstrate their learning. Such training could also help programs develop more specific integrative learning outcomes around specific cross-cutting skills relevant to their disciplines and fields.

The QEP Committee, Faculty Center, CDL, and other collaborating units could support several types and levels of faculty training. First, QEP funding could support several Integrative Learning Faculty Fellows, who would receive in-depth training in integrative learning, report to the QEP Director and Committee, hold faculty support positions in the Faculty Center, and assist with various types of faculty programming.

Second, the Faculty Center’s development conferences could include threads on integrative learning theory and pedagogy, teaching and advising toward university-level integrative learning outcomes, and helping students use Pegasus Path. Such programming would engage large numbers of faculty and be supported by online resources developed by the QEP Committee and CDL. These faculty development conferences could also include specific tracks for pilot projects and, later, be venues for sharing examples and models from such projects.

Third, co-led by the Faculty Center and units in Undergraduate Studies (e.g., Undergraduate Research, Experiential Learning) and in SDES (e.g., Career Services, OSI), faculty development conferences and workshops could assist program faculty in “3C” mapping—an expanded version of curriculum mapping that includes other types of learning contexts, experiences, touch points, and milestones. Along with input from a program’s external advisory board and student focus groups, such “3C” mapping would lead to program enhancements and the initial versions of program-level Pegasus Path guides. This level of training could utilize models of innovative integrative programs such as those developed by eli2 and LEAD Scholars.

Finally, modeled partly after UCF’s Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Fellows program, cohorts of program-level faculty could receive program enhancement grants to collaborate with a team of Integrative Learning Fellows and other faculty cohorts in further developing program-level outcomes (to include relevant cross-cutting skills), engaged learning experiences, and capstone and/or requirements that ask students to reflect on, exhibit, and explain their learning and then practice showcasing and articulating their preparation to other audiences. This level of faculty support could be a semester-long series of working

26

salon sessions. In the salons, faculty cohorts could begin with program-level outcomes and “3C” mapping and then move to the design of specific high-impact program requirements (e.g., capstone projects), reflection- and application-based learning activities, and assessment plans. Through this curriculum development process, programs could designate specific cross-cutting skills on which to focus, and the QEP team could connect program faculty to additional support and resources (e.g., WAC, CATME Teamwork Training, Experiential Learning, Undergraduate Research, Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Office of International Studies) for further embedding these skills and activities. In addition to enhancing curricula and creating resources, such faculty cohorts would continue to serve as integrative learning liaisons for their programs and departments.

Develop Integrative Learning Modules that Programs Could CustomizeModules housed in Webcourses or in an e-portfolio system could deliver content and simulated application activities around integrative learning. The QEP Implementation Committee and QEP Faculty Fellows could work with CDL, Library, Experiential Learning, and Career Services staff to develop the following types of modules:

Exercises and prompts that help students identify, synthesize, and reflect on connections across their varied learning experiences and contexts; some of these exercises could be incorporated into a Pegasus Path management tool or e-portfolio extension of such a tool, and some could be incorporated into online guides for experiential learning, research, campus involvement, and other activities.

Exercises and prompts that help students explain and demonstrate, in part through their documented learning products, connections across their learning experiences and contexts; some of these could be embedded in an e-portfolio platform and in KnightConnect.

Modules to aid students in documenting—including collecting, arranging, and curating—examples of their integrative learning experiences, most likely in an e-portfolio platform.

Learning objects (using Materia and Obojobo) and content delivery modules that help students develop and practice applying (in a low-stakes manner) integrative learning and related cross-cutting skills. These could include “choose-your-adventure” games and case-based scenarios.

Some of these modules and learning objects will support university-level integrative learning and assessment, and others could be customized or extended to support program-level learning from student reflection and explanation. The assessment of some modules and learning objects could involve the QEP Outcome 2 Rubric.

Develop Enhanced Examples and Models of Program-Level Requirements and SupportConnected to faculty and program support, the QEP could sponsor the enhancement of existing program-level pilot initiatives for integrating, supporting, and assessing “3C” learning opportunities beyond pathway guides. Such initiatives could provide other programs with adaptable models for program advising, e-portfolio or journal guides, capstone or design projects, internship and externship guides, professional development

27

workshops and networking opportunities, research and community engagement opportunities, and other program requirements and resources.

Possible initial program pilots for curriculum enhancement and the development of program-level models for integrative learning requirements and support include the following:

a. The Engineering Leadership & Innovation Institute, or eli 2 , which includes a leadership development “roadmap” and other resources built around specific learning outcomes, professional development opportunities, and design projects.

b. College of Business Administration’s new primary core coursework and Office of Professional Development, which includes career coaching, a career professionalism course series, and social entrepreneurship competition.

c. Interdisciplinary program of peer research coaches who help students in large undergraduate courses plan research projects (piloted by the Office of Undergraduate Research and faculty from several disciplines).

d. The History Department’s new B.A. Tuning project to embed disciplinary and professional competencies (in affiliation with the American Historical Association’s Tuning Project).

e. The LEAD Scholars Academy , which merges academic and cocurricular leadership development, including civic service and undergraduate research. The program hosts a Leadership Week and enables students to chart their involvement.

f. The Burnett Honors College’s civic engagement programming, including Honors Symposium, Honors Alternative Spring Break, the Civic Engagement Fair, Honors Educational Reach Out (HERO) program, the latter of which enables students to engage and teach students in area elementary schools.

g. Digital Storytelling Initiative Along with faculty training and program enhancement efforts, these curricular models will support the process of embedding more specific forms of integrative learning into each degree program.

Actions Supporting Students’ Demonstration and Articulation of Learning and Qualifications (Outcome 3)Acquire and Implement a New E-Portfolio System Through the QEP, the university would acquire and adapt a university-wide e-portfolio system linked to its Webcourses course management platform. CDL has already determined that purchasing an existing system from a vendor is preferable to designing a homegrown system. CDL and the Faculty Center have evaluated systems based on key criteria—such as interoperability (with Webcourses, etc.), student ownership and portability, assessment capability, and balance of learning, advising, and showcase functions—with Pathbrite emerging as the leading contender. Pathbrite can receive official academic transcripts and other credentials, enabling students to merge their curricular and cocurricular records in the type of evidence-based product that employers say they prefer. In several recent surveys, employers have endorsed the use of e-portfolios in job searches,

28

with 83 percent saying e-portfolios would be useful in summarizing and demonstrating job applicants’ skills and achievements (Hart, It 11; Hart, Falling 13).

Although a modest number of academic programs across campus already require e-portfolios using various systems (e.g., LiveText, WordPress, Google Sites), most do not—in part, because they do not have the resources to acquire or develop a system. Academic programs could use the e-portfolio system for high-impact course assignments or program requirements (e.g., capstone projects) that prepare students for postgraduation. Like KnightConnect and Digital Commons (an online repository platform for UCF-produced digital scholarship) but with an expanded purpose, the e-portfolio system could help students reflect on connections among and applications of learning experiences, build a library or database of work products, and remix and curate their work products in a showcase e-portfolio for prospective employers and other audiences. Also related to the QEP, an e-portfolio system such as Pathbrite could be used for assessment (to track outcomes using rubrics or other means), advisor and faculty training, and support for the enhancement of program curricula. Thus, a university-wide e-portfolio system will support student learning outcomes two, three, and four by providing additional, scalable mechanisms for enabling student reflection, demonstration, and articulation of their integrated learning as it relates to their next steps.

An e-portfolio system could also have uses far beyond the QEP, including the following: Course-specific content delivery and evaluation of student learning; Competency-based GEP assessment; Curriculum planning and resource development; Program admissions; Marketing (particularly at college and program levels); Research coordination; Student postgraduate use for career and lifelong learning.

Create an Official Engagement Certificate Program or Graduation Distinction Along with their launching materials, students could demonstrate their qualifications through an official engagement certificate or graduation distinction if they meet specific integrative learning requirements. Such a certificate or distinction would appear on the official transcript, recognizing students’ enhanced “3C” training and qualifications; it would also further incentivize students to enact and document their integrative learning pathway plans. As part of its integrative learning “USC Connect” programs, the University of South Carolina offers a similar Graduation with Leadership Distinction that has successful incentivized many students.

UCF already enables students to develop a cocurricular transcript and offers an Undergraduate Service-Learning Certificate (through Experiential Learning) and an undergraduate Leadership Studies Certificate (through Interdisciplinary Studies). The design of an engagement certificate could be informed by these elements and could require students to engage in additional reflection, explanation, and demonstration activities through a required e-portfolio.

29

Develop New or Enhanced Career Preparation Opportunities around Integrative LearningCareer Services could also work with the CDL staff and QEP implementation team to help programs develop more specific modules or guides for developing discipline- or field-specific launching materials (e.g., showcase e-portfolios). These three units could also collaborate to design avatar-based simulations of interviews and other situations that enable students to practice articulating their qualifications in low-stakes contexts.

Ancillary Efforts Supporting QEP Student Learning OutcomesAncillary Efforts to Expand Career Preparation Support The QEP Implementation Committee could collaborate with Career Services and the new Florida Consortium of Metropolitan Research Universities to expand career readiness resources that support but are not directly part of the QEP. Career Services could expand some of its existing job preparation services for students, including expos, workshops, networking programs (e.g., lunch and learn with an employer), résumé critiques, practice interviews, professional mentoring, the professional speaker program, and a career planning course (MHS 2330). Career Services could work with the academic colleges and Undergraduate Studies to enhance and expand the use of such resources as the Virtual Career Center and KnightLink (a database for locating part-time and full-time jobs, posting resumes for full-time employment, and accessing on-campus interviewing and recruiting events).

The Consortium will create a range of career readiness resources that could support, be adjusted for, and be informed by this QEP. These include a Career Readiness Student Portal that will link students to career mapping technology (with a “career audit” function) and a shared database of expanded internship and externship opportunities. The Consortium will also fund grants for faculty to generate additional career readiness resources, and internship scholarships for low-income students and students in fields without paid internships.

Ancillary Efforts to Enhance Student Advising around Integrated Learning Outside the purview of but in lockstep with the QEP, training programs for SDES, college, and program advisors could be expanded to include integrative learning pathways and to enable further cross-training of academic advisors with cocurricular, involvement, and career services professionals (from Experiential Learning, OSI, and Career Services, respectively). This training could involve new integrative learning protocols and resources, perhaps delivered through Webcourses or e-portfolio modules. On the academic side, college-level advisors and program directors and coordinators could pass the training on to faculty and other program-level advisors. Regional Campuses and some college advising offices (e.g., CAH, COS) are already experimenting with such cross-training, and Career Services has expressed its readiness to train academic advisors in career exploration and preparation. The Consortium is also committed to funding new career specialist advisors and career readiness training for existing advisors.

30

Likely part of the Foundations of Excellence Transfer Initiative implementation phase, the university could create more better coordinated academic advising structures to enable more integrated advising around students’ “3C” pathways (which include curricular, cocurricular, and career-oriented activities). Such coordination could involve revising and enhancing new student orientation processes, creating a pathway planning course or module required of new students, and creating “one-stop shops” (physical and virtual) where students can access different types of advisors. The College of Sciences advising office is piloting an academic planning course for at-risk transfer students. Valencia College’s one-stop shops and “New Student Experience” course, and Regional Campuses’ new Enhanced DirectConnect Pathway, are models for more coordinated advising structures. One challenge will be integrating the Consortium-created Career Readiness Student Portal with other online advising resources, such as resources focused on campus involvement.

The QEP could inform (though not directly sponsor) college-specific advising and mentoring pilot projects that enable peer mentors and professional coaches to advise and offer feedback (perhaps virtually) about learning pathways. Undergraduate Research, Transfer and Transition Services, and OSI’s KnightQuest program have created robust peer advising and mentoring programs. Career Services’ mentoring, externship, and job shadowing programs help connect students with professional mentors, and the College of Business Administration’s Office of Professional Development utilizes career coaches (with HR experience) with students in its majors. The Consortium plans to fund career specialist advisors and student peer mentors. In a 2014 Talent Gap survey administered by the Florida High Tech Corridor Council, only 21% of employer respondents reported having a role in influencing the curriculum at area education institutions; yet in follow-up focus groups and interviews, employers expressed great interest in contributing to students’ workforce skill development (“Central” 41).

31

VII. TIMELINE (to be added)

Table 1. Sample Timeline of QEP Actions to be Implemented

Action Plan Year2015-2016

Year 12016-2017

Year 22017-2018

Year 32018-2019

Year 42019-2020

Year 52020-2021

Create program-specific pathway guides

pilot

revise

Develop online pathway management system and resources

design &

pilot

activate

revise

implement

Train faculty in advising, assignment design, assessment, etc.

large-scale

training

large-scale & cohort

cohort

training

cohort

trainingProvide support for program enhancement

identify models

large-scale

support

large-scale & cohort

cohort

support

cohort

supportCreate modules and other resources for university and programs

design &

pilot

university

level

university & program

program

level

program

levelImplement e-portfolio system, create related resources and support

acquire &

adapt

pilot

develop

resources & support

develop

resources & support

identify program models

share

models

Implement engagement certificate

design

formally approve

pilot

implement

VIII. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE (to be added)

32

IX. RESOURCES Existing ResourcesAs referenced throughout this proposal, this QEP could utilize, adjust, or redirect a number of existing resources and efforts. A number of these are listed below. Some of these are part of or could be expanded through different but complementary, ancillary initiatives, such as the Consortium and FoE Transfer Initiative.

Student Programs, Support, and Resources Career Services resources (e.g., Virtual Career Center, KnightLink, and CareerShift,

the latter a job hunting management site); training (e.g., career planning course, workshops and consultations, mock interviews, externships); networking (e.g., lunch and learn with employers); and events (Majors Fair, Career Expo, Employment Bootcamp; Graduate and Professional Schools Fair, Nonprofit and Public Service Career Showcase).

Consortium resources, including Career Readiness Student Portal with internship/ externship database and career mapping technology, career specialist advisors and peer mentors.

State resources, including Florida Career Centers and Statewide Job Fair. Undergraduate Research peer mentoring, online resources (e.g., position database,

Research Rewards video series, webGURU guide), training and programs (e.g., workshops, research grants, RAMP, LEARN), and events (e.g., Showcase of Undergraduate Research Excellence, Summer Research Academy).

Experiential Learning student/provider guides and databases and annual events (e.g., Service Learning Student Showcase, Internship Symposium).

OSI resources (e.g., KnightConnect, KnightQuest, RSO database), programs (e.g., Volunteer UCF, KoRT), and events (e.g., Pegasus Palooza, Knight Camp, KnightThon, UCF Service Day, Knight Camp, Civic Engagement Week); as part of Project CEO, OSI is also embarking on a new leadership/involvement program that involves involvement consulting, competency and experience mapping, and certifications and badges. In particular, OSI provides all UCF students with free access to KnightConnect, an online program that can help them explore and document their involvement, service, and leadership experiences in route to developing a cocurricular transcript.

CDL online learning and Online@UCF support (e.g., for Webcourses, Materia, Obojobo).

Faculty Training, Support, and Resources Faculty Center development conferences, workshops, and Faculty Fellows (some of

whom could be designated as Integrative Learning Fellows). CDL Online@UCF support (e.g., for Webcourses, Materia, Obojobo), course design

and curriculum enhancement support, and professional development training programs and workshops.

Experiential Learning faculty training, including workshops and presentations, the annual Service-Learning Day, and Community Partners Luncheon.

33

Undergraduate Research opportunities, including the statewide Symposium on Engagement in Undergraduate Research.

Faculty training and support initiatives that assist with curriculum enhancement around cross-cutting skills; these include Writing across the Curriculum and CATME teamwork training.

Examples of existing program integrative learning initiatives (discussed in section VI).

Florida Campus Compact opportunities, including an annual conference and Engagement Academy, regional meetings, and AmeriCorps VISTA in-service training.

AAC&U resources, including integrative learning publications, models and case studies, VALUE rubrics, meetings, and grants.

Carnegie Foundation’s Integrative Learning: Opportunities to Connect website.

Advising Resources, Support, and Training (for students, faculty, and professional advisors)

Regional Campuses’ enhanced advising DirectConnect Pathway, including student portal with modules.

The PROGRESS team’s plans for Pegasus Path. A range of initiatives undertaken by academic colleges, including enhanced advisor

training around career readiness. Advisor training and update programs—namely AAC’s Advisor Enhancement

Program, the Academic Advisors Update Forum, and TTS’s Transfer Counselor Workshop—all of which could assist with training around integrative learning.

Examples of program advising guides and resources that include integrative learning.

Other Resources for QEP Implementation Team Office of Excellence and Assessment Support assessments and staff. UCF Communications and Marketing.

New ResourcesThe proposed QEP would also require substantial new investments to expand faculty training and curriculum enhancement opportunities, create new advising resources and coordinated advising structures, develop online modules and expand online support, and invest in a new e-portfolio platform.

X. ASSESSMENT

34

Enhanced and New Assessment MechanismsUCF already assesses student perception of learning and preparation through several surveys, including the Entering Student Survey, Graduating Student Survey, First Destination Survey, and Baccalaureate Alumni survey; the Graduating Student Survey includes a series of program-specific questions. All undergraduate degree programs conduct assessment based on student learning outcomes and support (e.g., advising). Experiential Learning conducts a student service-learning survey and student evaluations of internships/co-ops. All of these could be modified to collect more specific student perception data about preparation through integrative learning.

UCF participates in Project CEO (through OSI), which collects student perception data about where they gain NACE-designated cross-cutting skills, and he NSSE survey, which collects data about student experiences as well as student perceptions. A number of other academic and student support office and programs (e.g., Career Services, Undergraduate Studies) also regularly survey students, and these instruments could be adapted to provide additional perception data as well.

Regarding the perspectives of area community partners and internship providers, many of whom also employ UCF graduates, the Experiential Learning administers an internship/o-op employer evaluation of student performance and community partner and faculty service-learning surveys. To supplement national data indicating a need for integrative learning and postgraduate preparation, and to help establish additional baseline data about area employer perceptions, UCF could re-administer an adapted version of its survey of Employers of UCF Graduates (last given in 2000). In addition, Career Services has indicated that it can conduct focus group assessment with recruiters about students’ job search materials, performance, and level of preparation.

Direct assessment of student learning outcomes could utilize the QEP rubrics (see appendixes) adapted from elements of several AAC&U VALUE rubrics, namely those for Integrative Learning, Personal Development, Lifelong Learning, Inquiry and Analysis, Critical Thinking, and Written Communication. Assessment of outcome 1 could involve completion data from students’ Pegasus Path plans (which could determine whether students developed and adjusted their plans) and the evaluation of a random sample of student plans using the QEP Outcome 1 Rubric, possibly by college advising teams. The QEP Outcome 2 Rubric could be used in the direct assessment of random samples of students’ reflections about and explanations of documented integrative learning. The QEP Outcome 3 Rubric could be used in the direct assessment of students’ launching materials, possibly by both programs and a team from Career Services. Program level assessment of additional cross-cutting skills could utilize modified versions of additional VALUE rubrics (e.g., those for Civic Engagement, Critical Thinking, Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Problem Solving, Teamwork, Oral and Written Communication).

Some technology-based modules can be designed to collect performance data automatically, and the Pathbrite e-portfolio system can connect student work to learning outcomes and rubrics and can generate different levels of rubric- or outcome-based

35

assessment reports. In addition, assessment of integrative learning outcomes could be correlated with other kinds of student performance measures, such as GPAs, retention and graduation rates, time to graduation, and first destination.

Outcome assessment could begin with QEP-coordinated pilot projects around the three main outcomes before moving to more specific program-level versions; this would give programs more time to embed integrative learning activities into their Academic Learning Compacts, curricular requirements and milestones, advising, and assessment plans.

Beyond student learning and preparation, QEP assessment could measure the usability of infrastructural and environmental elements. As Regional Campuses has done with its Enhanced DirectConnect Pathway, a new Pegasus Path system and resources could be initially assessed in focus groups of students piloting its use (e.g., students in the Burnett Honors College, LEAD Scholars, and ACCESS programs).

Assessment Mechanisms Aligned with Desired Student Learning OutcomesThe following section aligns specific mechanisms for directly and indirectly assessing learning with each of the QEP’s three student learning outcomes.

1. Students will purposefully design, actively manage, and enact personalized “3C” (curricular, cocurricular, career-oriented) learning pathways for professional and civic preparation.

Direct: Using the QEP Outcome 1 Rubric, rubric-based evaluation of student pathway

plans by trained college and program advisors, including faculty (as part of academic college and program assessments);

Focus groups of students piloting Pegasus Path and resources; Quantitative data about timing and frequency of plan use and adjustment; Data about student documentation (from e-portfolio, KnightConnect, or other

tools).

Indirect: Entering Student Survey; Graduating Student Surveys, including specific program questions; First Destination Survey; UCF-specific questions on Project CEO survey.

2. As they enact their pathways by applying cross-cutting skills across a range of experiences, students will identify and reflect on connections among these applications, explaining how they relate to their postgraduate goals and contexts.

Direct: Using the QEP Outcome 2 Rubric, rubric-based evaluation of students’ written

synthesis, reflection, and explanation in Pegasus Path modules (using online prompts or exercises);

36

Using the QEP Outcome 2 Rubric, rubric-based assessment of students’ “3C” transcripts and written explanations of learning connections in Pegasus Path modules;

Using the QEP Outcome 2 Rubric, rubric-based evaluation of students’ written synthesis, reflection and explanation in program-specific documents (e.g., e-portfolios and capstone projects);

Using the QEP Outcome 2 Rubric, rubric-based assessment of reflection/explanation in program-specific milestone artifact, such as an e-portfolio, capstone project, or design project (as part of program assessment);

Additional questions in internship/co-op employer evaluation of student performance and service-learning community partner and faculty surveys;

Data about student performance on online modules and activities (e.g., Obojobo learning objects).

Indirect: Program-level student questionnaires, surveys, or focus groups; Internship/co-op student evaluation and service-learning student survey; OSI’s Continuing Student Success survey; UCF-specific questions on Project CEO survey.

3. Through “launching” materials and other products, students will persuasively demonstrate and articulate how their learning experiences and gains have prepared them to effectively participate in the professional, civic, and continued educational environments they plan to enter.

Direct: Using the QEP Outcome 3 Rubric, rubric-based assessment of program-specific

milestone artifact, such as an e-portfolio, capstone project, or design project (as part of program assessment);

Using QEP Outcome 3 Rubric, rubric-based evaluation of “launching” materials and practice interviews (as part of Career Services and academic program assessments);

Focus groups of recruiters, internship and co-op employers, and service-learning community partners;

Additional questions in internship/co-op employer evaluation of student performance and service-learning community partner and faculty surveys;

Pathbrite-generated data about students’ e-portfolio development (for those students in programs using Pathbrite);

Data about student performance on online modules and learning objects (e.g., Obojobo) and on simulation experiences (e.g., TeachLivE);

Employer survey.

Indirect: Additional questions in internship/co-op employer evaluation of student

performance and service-learning community partner and faculty surveys; Graduating Student Survey; Baccalaureate Alumni survey;

37

First Destination survey; NSSE survey; Program-level student questionnaires, surveys, or focus groups; Internship/co-op student evaluation and service-learning student survey; OSI’s Continuing Student Success survey; UCF-specific questions on Project CEO survey.

Sample Figure 3. Tentative Timeline of QEP Assessment Rollout

XI. REFERENCES

2016-2021: Baseline and Ongoing Assessment

Student surveys (indirect)Project CEO, Continuing Student Success surveys (indirect)NSSE (direct and indirect)Employer Survey and focus groups (direct)Experiential ed focus groups (direct)

2017-2021: Concentrated Assessment of Outcome 1

Pathway plan use data (direct)Rubric-based eval of student plans (direct)Program assessment (direct and indirect)Student focus groups from pilots (indirect)

mid 2017-2021: Concentrated Assessment of Outcome 2

Rubric-based eval of student synthesis, reflection, and explanation(direct)Student performance on online learning objects (direct)Program assessment (direct and indirect)Assessment of program e-portfolio and other pilots (direct)

2018-2021: Concentrated Assessment of Outcome 3

Rubric-based eval of student launching materials (direct)Program assessment of launching materials (direct and indirect)Employer/recruiter focus groups (direct)Student performance on online learning objects and simulation (direct)

38

Bridgstock, Ruth. “The Graduate Attributes We’ve Overlooked: Enhancing Graduate Employability through Career Management Skills. Higher Education Research & Development 28.1 (2009): 31–44.

Budwig, Nancy, Sarah Michaels, and Lisa Kasmer. “Facilitating Campus Leadership for Integrated Liberal Learning.” Peer Review 16/17.4/1 (Fall/Winter 2015). Association of American Colleges & Universities. Web.

“Central Florida Talent Gap Analysis.” Report. CareerSource Central Florida and the Florida High Tech Corridor Council. 24 September 2014. Web.

DeVos, Ans, and Nele Soens. “Protean Attitude and Career Success: The Mediating Role of Self-Management.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 73.3 (2008): 449–456.

DeZure, Deborah, Marcia Babb, and Stephanie Waldmann. “Integrative Learning Nationwide: Emerging Themes and Practices.” Peer Review 7.3.4 (Summer/Fall 2005): Web.

Eby, Lillian T., Marcus Butts, and Angie Lockwood. “Predictors of Success in the Era of the Boundaryless Career.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24.6 (2003): 689–708.

Ehiyazaryan, Ester, and Nicola Barraclough. (2009). “Enhancing Employability: Integrating Real World Experience in the Curriculum.” Education + Training 51.4 (2009): 292–308.

Ferren, Ann, and David Paris. “DRAFT: Principles and Practices of Integrative Liberal Learning.” Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2014. Web. PDF file.

Great Jobs, Great Lives: The 2014 Gallup-Purdue Index Report. Gallup and Purdue University, 2014. Web. PDF file.

Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. National Panel Report by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2002. Web. PDF file.

Hart Research Associates. Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. PDF file.

---. It Takes More Than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. PDF file.

Huber, Mary Taylor, and Pat Hutchings. Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Association of American Colleges and Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2004. Web. PDF file.

Integrated Learning: Opportunities to Connect. Association of American Colleges and Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.

Kuh, George D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2008.

LEAP Challenge: Education for a World of Unscripted Problems. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015. Web. PDF file.

Marcus, Jon. “Colleges Give Drifting Students Maps to Help Them Find Their Way to Graduation.” The Hechinger Report, 23 July 2015. Web.

McClenney, Kay, and Donna Dare. “Designing New Academic Pathways.” Community College Journal (June/July 2013): 21–26.

Miller, Ross. “Integrative Learning and Assessment.” Peer Review (Summer/Fall 2005): 11–14.

39

Raising the Bar: Employers’ Views. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2010. Web. PDF file.

The Role of Higher Education in Career Development: Employer Perceptions. Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 2012. Web. PDF file.

Romano, Joyce C., and Bill White. “Valencia College: LifeMap and Atlas—Planning for Success.” In Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies. Ed. Diana G. Oblinger. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE, 2012. 331–336.

A Statement on Integrative Learning. Association of American Colleges and Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, March 2004. Web. PDF file.

“UCF 2015 Carnegie Community Engagement Classification.” University of Central Florida.2015. Web. PDF file.

University Innovation Alliance Vision and Prospectus. University Innovation Alliance, n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2015. PDF file.

XII: APPENDIXES(to be added)

40