iii. topic identification and development suscc

Southern Union State Community College

6

III. Topic Identification and Development Process

Institutional Summary

Southern Union State Community College was formed on August 12, 1993, when the Alabama

State Board of Education effectively merged Southern Union State Junior College, located in

Wadley, Valley, and Opelika, with Opelika State Technical College in Opelika. Final approval

for the merger was granted on August 11, 1994. Each partner brought to the merger a history

rich in tradition of service to students.

The older of the two colleges, Southern Union, was chartered as Bethlehem College on June 2,

1922, by the Southern Christian Convention of Congregational Christian Churches. Wadley

was chosen as the site for the College because of its proximity to a large number of the

denomination’s churches and because of the donation of a forty-acre site by John M. Hodge, a

local banker.

From its opening with 51 students in a single building on September 13, 1923, until 1964, the

College remained church related, operating as Piedmont Junior College, Southern Union

College, and The Southern Union College. On October 1, 1964, the College was deeded to the

State of Alabama and became part of a newly created system of two-year colleges under the

governance of the Alabama State Board of Education. The name of the College became

Southern Union State Junior College, and it achieved accreditation in 1970 from the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools.

Opelika State Technical College was created by an act of the Alabama State Legislature on

May 3, 1963, in response to a recognized need to establish vocational/technical colleges in

industrial areas of Alabama. Contributions of local governmental entities such as the Lee


7

County Commission, which donated 63 acres of land for the college site, and the City of

Opelika, which provided access to utility services, helped make the College a reality. The

College opened on January 10, 1966, as Opelika State Vocational Technical Institute but was

designated Opelika State Technical College on August 22, 1973, by the Alabama State Board of

Education and accredited in 1971 by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

Southern Union State Community College serves residents of an eight-county area of East

Central Alabama as well as neighboring Georgia counties from its campuses in Wadley, Valley,

and Opelika. A three-faceted educational emphasis is on academic programs for transferability,

technical/vocational programs for specialized career competencies, and nursing and allied

health programs for specialized training in health sciences.

Mission

Southern Union State Community College, an open admission, public two-year college and

member of the Alabama Community College System, provides quality and relevant teaching

and learning in academic, technical, and health science programs that are affordable,

accessible, equitable, and responsive to the diverse needs of its students, community,

business, industry, and government.

Institutional Goals

Institutional Goal 1:

Provide students with comprehensive and accessible instructional opportunities through

community based education as well as dual enrollment, academic transfer, technical education,

health science, and workforce development programs.


8


Assist students in overcoming deficiencies and acquiring skills which are fundamental to further

academic and career achievement.


Provide academic support services to maximize student potential in attaining their education

and career goals.


Maintain excellence as the guiding principle for staffing and programming.


Maintain and establish relationships with other educational institutions, public and social

agencies, and business and industry.


Maintain systematic participation of the college staff in comprehensive institutional planning,

management, and evaluation of college operations.


Promote educational, cultural, and recreational enrichment by offering college facilities and

resources to the community.

Geographic Service Area

Southern Union State Community College is located in East Central Alabama. The Wadley

Campus is located on Roberts Street off Alabama State Highways 22 and 77, approximately 90


9

miles southwest of Atlanta, Georgia, and the same distance southeast of Birmingham, Alabama.

The Valley Campus is located on Fob James Drive in Valley, Alabama, just off Interstate

Highway 85. The Opelika Campus is on LaFayette Parkway at the intersection of U.S. Highways

431 and 29 just eight miles from Auburn University. Southern Union State Community College

serves residents of a six-county area (Chambers, Clay, Lee, Macon, Randolph, and Tallapoosa)

of East Central Alabama as well as several neighboring Georgia counties.

Student Population

The student population of Southern Union State Community College is approximately 56%

female and 44% male. The majority (58%) of students are in the under-22 age bracket while

30% are within the 22-to-34-year-old age bracket, and 12% are within the 35-and-over age

bracket. Whites comprise the largest ethnic group, about 68% of the student body; African-

Americans comprise about 23% of the student population, with all other race/ethnicity groups

comprising 9% of the student body. The student population of the College is approximately 65%

full-time and 35% part-time. Over 75% of the students attend during the day. Approximately

88% of the students are from Alabama and 6% from Georgia. Approximately 61% of the

students receive financial aid (grants, scholarships, etc.).

Distinctive Features

Through an articulation agreement between Alabama two- and four-year colleges and

universities, two-year college students completing a planned university parallel program of

courses that are appropriate to their major and/or degree program are guaranteed junior status

upon transferring to the upper division college.


10

Admissions Policies

Southern Union State Community College has an open-door admissions policy to assure

optimal higher educational opportunities. The College admits eligible applicants at the beginning

of each fall, spring, and summer term.

QEP Development and Topic Selection

Southern Union State Community College began the process of developing a Quality

Enhancement Plan (QEP) in June 2013 as a part of its preparation for SACSCOC reaffirmation.

In order to facilitate this process, the institution invited QEP topic proposals to be submitted from

faculty and staff members who were required to address the following points: topic, relation to

college mission/goals, expected student learning outcomes, budget requirements, and timeline

(See Appendix 1). The deadline for submissions was July 8, 2013, and an initial QEP steering

committee, consisting of eleven members, was formed on July 22, 2013.

Each proposal was presented to the faculty and staff of the College at the annual in-service

meeting in August of 2013. After the presentations, in order to determine the QEP topic, copies

of each proposal were sent to all faculty and staff members on August 23, 2013.These

stakeholders were given the opportunity to complete an online survey and rank their top three

proposal topics. The proposal topics included the following: Improving Student Learning and

Success through Learning Communities, Online Administrative Services, Improving Student

Performance in the ENG 092 – Basic English I course, COMPASS: Connecting Online

Maximum Potential and Student Success, First Year Student Success Seminar for Non-

Traditional Students, and Improving Student Performance in the RDG 084 course. In ranking

these proposals, faculty and staff members were informed that an acceptable QEP should focus

on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing

the mission of the College. The deadline for online voting and submission of surveys was

September 24, 2013. On October 15, 2013, the Executive Council of the College had a meeting


11

in which the results of the QEP survey, as listed below, were explained and discussed. (See

Table 1).

There was also a discussion about combining the ideas of improving student performance in

English and reading as the prospective QEP and how this combination could be used to

enhance the learning environment. After discussing timelines and importance of the top three

possible topics, a decision was made to create a Steering Committee to assess the final topic

decision.

Table 3. QEP topic vote results - sent out to all faculty, staff and adjuncts in Fall 2013 (n113)

Proposed QEP Topics First Choice Second Choice Third Choice

Improving Student Performance in the - 092 Course – Tauton/Ammons

15.92%

18

12.38%

14

17.69%

20

Improving Student Performance in the RDG 084 Course – Tauton/Ammons

7.96%

9

20.35%

23

16.81%

19

Online Administrative Services - McGhee

23.00%

26

18.58%

21

15.04%

17

COMPASS: Connecting Online Maximum Potential and Student Success - Andrews

29.20%

33

14.15%

16

10.61%

12

First Year Student Success for Non-Traditional Students - Branch

8.84%

10

17.69%

20

21.23%

24

Improving Student Learning and Success Through Learning Communities - Wiley

15.04%

17

16.81%

19

18.58%

21


12

Developing the QEP Topic

Phase I – Committee Formation and Topic Selection

On November 7, 2013, a revised QEP Steering Committee was selected. The Committee

consisted of thirteen members, including the faculty and staff members who submitted QEP

proposals. In the next meeting, which was held on November 15, 2013, the final QEP ideas

were introduced to the Committee. After discussion, the Steering Committee chose to focus on

improving student performance in developmental English and reading classes because many

other topics that were proposed needed to be addressed immediately at the College.

In order to narrow the focus of the QEP, the Committee decided to send emails to reading and

English instructors regarding areas of needed improvement within specific areas or

competencies. The results varied from student disengagement to lack of skill comprehension.

Some of the main issues in the developmental reading courses revolved around poor critical

thinking skills, cause and effect, and vocabulary development. In the developmental English

courses, the main areas in need of improvement included grammar, punctuation, spelling,

paragraph composition, and sentence fragments. One problem that seemed to be of concern in

all classes was retention of students in the developmental course sequence and enrollment in

college-level English courses. All of this information was essential in determining what areas

were problematic for students and deterred them from being successful in these courses.

In order to understand the QEP topic, a working knowledge of the history of developmental

English and reading at Southern Union State Community College is necessary. This area has

been one of concern for the College for many years. In 2013, a move was made to change both

of these developmental threads. At this time, Southern Union State Community College offered

one level of developmental English, ENG 093 – Basic English II, and one level of developmental

reading, RDG 085 – Developmental Reading III. After much discussion and looking at


13

troublesome data, the English Department proposed the addition of another level of each

course. During the Fall 2013 semester, ENG 092 – Basic English I and RDG 084 –

Developmental Reading I, were taught. The reason for adding these additional courses was so

that more classes would make the students stronger academically when they reached college-

level courses. Another change was the hiring of a full time reading instructor. The RDG 085 –

Developmental Reading III course was taught entirely on computer using My Reading Lab. The

new reading instructor developed RDG 084– Developmental Reading II to be taught entirely in

the classroom without a computerized component. This class was first offered in the Fall 2013

semester along with ENG 092 – Basic English I, which added sentence to paragraph level

teaching to the students who scored in the lower range on the COMPASS writing test. Because

of these additional courses, it was possible for a developmental student to be required to take

12 hours of non-credit bearing of English/reading courses before ever getting to a credit-bearing

course.

At the end of each semester of RDG 084 – Developmental Reading II, the students had an

opportunity to test out of RDG 085 – Developmental Reading III. By the 2014 Fall semester, it

was clear by the large number of students who tested out of the second developmental reading

class that it was not necessary to have two semesters of developmental reading to increase

student performance. It was also clear that it was better to teach the class in a classroom setting

as opposed to entirely on the computer. Therefore, the developmental reading sequence was

once again revised to return to only one course, RDG 085 – Developmental Reading III;

however, the course was moved from the lab setting to the classroom with a lab component

added as homework.

The ENG 092/ENG 093 course sequence has been both successful and troublesome at times.

One issue is the lack of options for students to test out of a course once they are placed in it.


14

The English Department has noted that some students are not placed accurately, yet they have

not been able to develop an acceptable process for testing students out of placement. They

have seen some improvement which may be attributed to ENG 092 – Basic English I. From the

sample that the English Department has collected, students who successfully completed ENG

092 – Basic English I scored better in ENG 093 – Basic English II than in previous years when

only ENG 093 – Basic English II was offered. The data below indicates success rates for

students in ENG 093 – Basic English II, some of whom took ENG 092 – Basic English I as well

(See Table 4).

Table 4. Success Rates for ENG 093 – Basic English II

Semester Total Students in ENG 093

Students Who Passed 093 with a C

or Better

Percentage of Students who

Passed 093 with a C or Better

Fall 2011 451 273 60.53%

Spring 2012 241 154 63.90%

Summer 2012 66 43 65.15%

Fall 2012 464 333 71.77%

Spring 2013 166 84 50.60%

Summer 2013 40 22 55.00%

Fall 2013

*ENG 092 first offered

126 82 65.08%

Spring 2014

*ENG 092 offered

174 134 77.01%

This history of developmental English and reading courses at Southern Union State Community

College provides the context for the changes that the QEP Steering Committee developed.


15

From October 2014 to March 2015, the Steering Committee members conducted research in

developmental English and reading problematic areas and best practices. In the Fall 2014

semester, after meeting and discussing possible ways to proceed, the Steering Committee

determined that the primary problems facing developmental students were the overlap in

content of the reading and writing courses and the fact that the current course progression

presented too many exit points.

In October 2014, two QEP co-chairpersons were named: Kim Jones and Emily Laseter.

Subcommittees were formed--each one chaired by a member of the larger Steering

Committee—and these chairpersons were given assignments and tasked with populating their

committees with members from a variety of stakeholders across all of the College’s campuses

(See Appendix 2).

Phase II – Subcommittee Work

Research

The Literature Review Subcommittee conducted research on the following topics: college

readiness and the developmental student, acceleration through integrating developmental

reading and writing, individualized instruction for developmental learners, and current methods

of support for students transitioning into credit courses. The Subcommittee worked together to

compile information and bring suggestions of best practices to the Steering Committee.

In October of 2014, a group of faculty and staff—including the QEP co-chairpersons—visited

Northwest-Shoals Community College (NW-SCC) in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. While there, the

QEP co-chairpersons attended a presentation on NW-SCC’s Accelerated Learning Program

(ALP), which is a mode of providing extra support to students in credit-bearing classes. NW-

SCC adapted the idea from the Community College of Baltimore County’s successful program

of the same name.


16

Later that month, the QEP co-chairpersons, the Department Chairperson of developmental

English, and other members of the QEP Steering Committee attended the Alabama Association

of Developmental Education Conference at Wallace Community College in Selma. At the

conference, the Steering Committee members attended a session on Accelerated Learning

Programs (ALPs), also presented by Northwest-Shoals Community College. After much

discussion and research, the Steering Committee members determined that including the ALP

model in the College’s QEP would increase student success.

Data

The charge of the Data Subcommittee was to explore the numbers for ENG 092 – Basic English

I, ENG 093 – Basic English II, and RDG 085 – Developmental Reading II to see what patterns

emerged in areas of retention, student success rates, and other variables that may impact the

QEP.

In the Fall 2014 semester, the Data Subcommittee analyzed the success rates from a cohort of

developmental students who began the developmental English course sequence in the Fall

2013 semester. Those students were tracked through the sequence in order to identify how

many students completed ENG 092 with a grade of C or better, how many of those students

then completed ENG 093 with a grade of C or better, and finally, how many of those students

went on to complete ENG 101 – English Composition I with a grade of C or better. The purpose

of tracking this cohort was to analyze retention rates through the developmental course

sequence and through a credit-bearing course. These students were tracked for two years

when these data were collected. The Subcommittee’s findings are illustrated below.


17

Table 5. Fall 2012/2013 Developmental English Student Success Rates


18

As the graphs above show, success rates for ENG 092 – Basic English I and ENG 093 – Basic

English II ranged from 66% to 72% over the observed courses. These success rates may seem

acceptable, but when the success rate of ENG 101 – English Composition I is figured, the

numbers are worse, as seen in the charts below.

*The data in the chart above was

gathered before the implementation

of ENG 092 – Basic Composition I.


19

.

In both the Fall 2012 and the Fall 2013 cohorts of ENG 093 students, the final number of

students who successfully passed ENG 101 dropped to 47% and 45% respectively. So, even

though the success rates of ENG 093 seem strong, they did not translate into similar success

rates in ENG 101.

Even more telling are the data for students who started the developmental sequence in the

lower level class, ENG 092, Basic English I. As shown in the graphic below, these students’

performance was even worse in the long term as far as success in ENG 101 is concerned.

Their success rates dropped to a 26% pass rate into ENG 101. These data pair well with the

research the QEP team had found about acceleration and developmental education. According

to the research, accelerated courses have been associated with increased enrollment and

completion of college-level math and English courses, with motivation identified as a possible

factor since the length of transitional coursework is reduced (Jaggars, Edgecombe, Stacey 6;

Hodara and Jaggars 250; Jenkins et al. 10). According to the experiences of Chabot College,

*The data in the chart above was

collected from the first semester that

ENG 092 – Basic Composition I was

implemented.


20

“Accelerated students face just three exit points in their path through college English instead of

five” (Hern 63). Jaggars, Hodara, Cho, and Xu assert, “Chabot and Baltimore County students

also earned five to six more credits over three years, compared with their peers in non-

accelerated developmental English sequence” (18). Southern Union State Community

College’s data seem to support the idea that longer developmental sequences hurt student

chances to be successful.

The Data Committee also analyzed the number of students who, after completing RDG 084,

tested out of RDG 085 and determined that an additional reading course was unnecessary.


21

Based on data collected from the RDG 084 instructors, the Committee found anecdotally from

the instructor that success in the RDG 084 course showed a positive correlation with class

attendance. In the Fall 2013 semester, 48% of all students enrolled in RDG 084 tested out of

RDG 085. When students with over six absences are removed, the percentage raises to about

76%. In the Spring 2014 semester, 40% tested out. When students with over six absences are

removed from the data, 89% tested out. This promising data from the more challenging,

teacher-led RDG 084 course may indicate that more challenging developmental coursework is

more beneficial than additional layers of developmental courses. This concept supports the

foundational hypothesis of the College’s QEP. The actual pass rates for RDG 084 –

Developmental Reading I and RDG 085 – Developmental Reading II are not as conclusive in

showing that acceleration would be helpful for these students, but part of the problem of these

data is the statistic stated above. The majority of students who completed a RDG 084 class not

only passed RDG 084, but also bypassed RDG 085 entirely. There was a very small number of

students who took both reading courses in the sequence. These pass rates are shown below

and indicate moderate success at best in these classes.


22

Table 6. Success Rates of the Multi-Level Developmental Reading Sequence.

These numbers indicated to the data committee that by reducing the number of developmental

classes that a student at Southern Union State Community College has to complete in order to


23

take college level English may in fact help retain students in the progression and ultimately lead

to their completion of a certificate or a degree program.

Advising

The charge of the Advisement/Placement Subcommittee was to establish a placement scoring

system and advising guidelines for students who will be enrolled in ENR094, an integrated

English and reading class.

The Advisement/Placement Subcommittee first reviewed the Alabama State Board Policy and

Guidelines which relates to placement scores for reading and writing (See Appendix 3). The

scores in that policy are the minimum placement requirements, and colleges are allowed to

establish higher placement scores. The review revealed that Southern Union State Community

College requires higher placement test scores than the minimum scores set by the Alabama

State Board Policy. However, in the past, this discrepancy in scores was seen as essential due

to the College’s proximity to Auburn University because a large number of the College’s

students transfer to Auburn University. Anecdotal evidence from reading instructors indicated

that the majority of students who would not be placed in developmental reading at the levels set

by the state, as opposed to Southern Union’s cut scores, actually tested out of reading on the

first day of class; however, this schedule change made these students miss at least one class of

other college-level courses. The reading instructors felt this situation was detrimental to the

success of the students. Therefore, the Subcommittee reviewed the College’s current

placement scores and surveyed other community colleges within the Alabama Community

College System, which are similar to the College in size, to compare these colleges’ COMPASS

placement scores with Southern Union State Community College’s placement scores. While

Southern Union State Community College’s English placement scores are slightly higher than

the other colleges’ English scores, the College’s reading placement scores are as many as 15


24

points higher than the minimum scores set by the state. Because of this finding, the

Subcommittee decided to adjust the scores to adhere more closely to the minimum

requirements in the Alabama State Board Policy. This decision was discussed with the Dean of

Academics and the College’s Institutional Effectiveness Chair, and they were both in agreement

with these changes. The changes were then sent to the College’s Policy Committee for

approval.

As a result of the Subcommittee’s findings, incoming students at the College will take the

Computer-Adaptive Placement Assessment and Support System (COMPASS), unless the

student has an ACT score of 20 or higher on the English section, 17 or higher on the Reading

section of the ACT, or a 480 on Reading and/or English on the SAT. The incoming students

must make 65 or above on the writing portion and 70 or above on the reading portion of

COMPASS in order to register for English 101 – English Composition I. Students who score 60-

64 on the writing portion of COMPASS and score above 70 on the reading portion will take

English 101 – English Composition I along with the ENG 080 - English Laboratory. The

students who score 60 or below on the writing portion of COMPASS and 70 or below on the

reading portion will enroll in ENR 094 – Integrated Reading and Writing.

Placement by COMPASS Scores

Students with valid COMPASS scores (less than three years old from the intended start date)

will be placed by COMPASS subscores as indicated below. Due to the recent news that the

COMPASS Test will be discontinued in 2016, the College realizes that this policy will need to be

adjusted after the Alabama Community College System makes recommendation for placement

in developmental classes.


25

COMPASS

Test

Subtest Cutoff

Range

Course Placement

Reading Reading 0-69 ENR 094 - INTEGRATED READING AND

WRITING

70 No Reading Required

English Writing 0-60 ENR 094 - INTEGRATED READING AND

WRITING

61-64 ENG 101 w/ENG 080

65 ENG 101

Placement by ACT Scores

Students with valid ACT scores (less than three years old from the intended start date) will be

placed by ACT subscores as indicated below:

ACT Test Cutoff Range Course Placement

Reading 1-16 COMPASS Reading Test Required

17 No Reading Requirement

English 1-16 COMPASS Writing Test Required

17-19 ENG 101 w/ALP

20 ENG 101**


26

Placement by SAT Scores

Students with valid SAT scores (less than three years old from the intended start date) will be

placed by SAT subscores as indicated below.

SAT Test Cutoff Range Course Placement

Reading 200-470 COMPASS Reading Test required

480-800 No Reading Requirement

English 200-470 COMPASS Writing Test required

480-800 ENG 101

Placement by ASSET Scores

Students with valid ASSET scores (less than three years old from the intended start date) will be

placed by ASSET subscores as indicated below:


27

ASSET Test Subtest Cutoff Range Course Placement

Reading Reading 40 COMPASS Reading Test Required

41 No Reading Requirement

English Writing 39 COMPASS Writing Test Required

39-42 ENG 101 w/ALP

43 ENG 101

The Advisement Committee is also in charge of coordinating meetings with all advisers,

business department personnel, and financial aid personnel to ensure that everyone

understands all the new placement policies before Project A.I.M. is fully implemented in the Fall

2016 semester.

Course Development

The Course Development Committee was chaired by Jane M. Blankenship, Chairperson of

Transitional Education and chairperson of the Course Development Committee.

The first meeting of the Course Development Committee was held on November 14, 2014. The

objective of the first meeting was to present an overview of the vision for the Integrated Reading

and Writing Course (ENR094) as well as the second course to be named ENR094B (which was

later removed from consideration) and the ALP. With the exception of two committee members,

all members present were English instructors.


28

The vision for the new course evolved from concerns about the skill development of students in

the developmental English courses. Students’ difficulty in understanding correct sentence

structure was observed to be more of a reading skill issue than a writing skill issue. Students

having difficulty with understanding subordination and subordinating conjunctions, coordination

and use of coordinating conjunctions, and coordination with conjunctive adverbs clearly

exposed their lack of comprehension with logical connections between ideas and transitions that

provide those connections. Moreover, students who were enrolled in the Reading 085 - class

and the English 092 – Basic Composition I or 093 – Basic Composition II - classes were being

taught similar concepts without the students seeing a connection between the reading and

writing skills. Actually in some cases, their skill instruction in one class, as far as the student

perceived, even seemed to contradict the skill instruction in another class.

The second task that the Course Development Committee undertook was research for a

textbook. The key question was, “Is there a textbook currently published that provides

instruction in a truly integrated fashion?” Textbooks were acquired from all publishing

companies that service the College. However, it was soon obvious that the true concept of

integration was not accomplished in every textbook. The following textbooks were reviewed:

Henry, D. J. The Effective Reader/Writer. Pearson. 2015.

Hoeffner, Lisa and Kent Hoeffner. Common Places: Integrated Reading and Writing.

McGraw-Hill. 2015.

Kemper, Dave, et al. Fusion: Integrated Reading and Writing, Book 1and 2. Wadsworth.

2013.

Langan, John. The Reading-Writing Connection. Townsend. 2013.

Langan, John. The Advanced Reading-Writing Connection. Townsend. 2014.


29

McWhorter, Kathryn. In Concert: Reading and Writing. Pearson. 2014.

McWhorter, Kathryn. In Concert: Reading and Writing. 2nd ed. Pearson. 2016.

Common Places: Integrated Reading and Writing by Hoeffner was the Committee’s first choice.

However, the textbook seemed dense for the students that the College serves. The Committee

also found the lab component to be less than adequate for the intended purpose. Other

textbooks that the Committee reviewed seem to approach integration by offering readings to

respond to writing without teaching the concepts that truly connect the two concepts together.

Ultimately, the textbook that seemed to fit is In Concert: Integrated Reading and Writing, 2nd ed.

The later meetings of the Course Development Committee were devoted to structuring course

content and establishing methods of assessment for ENR 094 – Integrated Reading and Writing

and ENG 080 – English Laboratory. The Committee participated in webinars conducted by

Pearson and McGraw Hill which resulted in the Committee receiving valuable information

regarding course content and assessment. The Committee also developed student learning

outcomes for both courses that are specific and measurable (See Appendix 4).

Marketing

The charge of the Marketing Subcommittee was to determine a logo and marketing plan for the

upcoming QEP. The Subcommittee reviewed other successful QEP marketing campaigns

around the state. After using those as a reference point and conducting focus groups, the

Subcommittee devised a plan to include the diverse student population on all three

campuses. The Wadley Campus houses the majority of Southern Union State Community

College’s scholarship students from athletics and fine arts. These students tend to be traditional

college students who enroll in college directly after completing high school. The Wadley

Campus is in a rural area, and many of its students come from rural areas of the state. The


30

Valley Campus is a small campus with a mixture of traditional and non-traditional students.

These students also tend to come from smaller, more rural secondary school backgrounds. The

Opelika Campus enrolls the

majority of Southern Union’s

students. Opelika has the most

diverse population of students

with many transient students

from Auburn University, non-

traditional students returning to

school for further training, and

traditional students.

Since a variety of marketing

methods is necessary with

branding and needs to be highly

visible throughout each campus,

it was determined that a

consistent branding campaign

with a multi-tiered approach would initially inform all faculty, staff, and new students about

Project A.I.M. (Accelerate, Integrate, Motivate), and then a widened focus would inform all

students and community. Promotional materials and brochures for targeted demographics were

chosen as a good use of resources because of pricing. The recruiters on campus are already in

place and can reach the targeted community demographic through their regular recruiting

efforts. Then extra coverage through press releases will cover a wider area at no cost. After

pricing all media outlets in the College’s service area, the Subcommittee decided on a


31

commercial or media clip, which only has one front end production cost that can be lowered by

using in-house production and can showcase the talent of the Fine Arts Department.

After input from committee members, other faculty, and staff, the Subcommittee sent out a ballot

to over 600 college constituents with ten choices for a QEP logo (See Appendix 5). Ultimately,

A.I.M. (Accelerate, Integrate, Motivate) was chosen as the QEP logo. This logo is intended to

incorporate all of the important aspects of the QEP: accelerating students through

developmental classes, integrating developmental English and reading classes, and motivating

developmental students through individualized support.

Committee Presentations for Stakeholders

On February 27, 2015, the QEP Steering Committee held a meeting for various stakeholders in

the Southern Union State Community College service area. A total of 48 out of the over 300

invited local politicians, business owners, teachers, parents, students, faculty, and staff came to

the Opelika Campus to hear presentations from each QEP Subcommittee. Comments and

questions were entertained by committee members and chairpersons at the end of the meeting.

After the meeting, a survey was sent out to all attendees. In the survey, respondents were

asked how they saw the QEP proposal benefiting Southern Union State Community College’s

students. One respondent noted, “Implementing a combined English and reading course will

boost the students' morale because they will reach their goal of getting into the college-level

courses earlier. I think this will increase the retention rate because they will see progress rather

than spending a year in developmental courses.” Another faculty respondent noticed similarities

to programs that they have implemented which have aided students. “I think this will be a benefit

to all students. We have been using a similar format for several years for bridge students

heading to nursing. We teach the Basic and Advanced Emergency Medical Technology in one

semester (20 semester hours) and then move them into the paramedic program. This cohort of


32

students always outperforms students taught in traditional courses. The course is taught by the

same faculty members, so the only thing we can contribute to its success is the pace of the

course. Students want to get to their goal as quickly as possible before a life event happens.”

This anecdotal evidence supports the research that was collected at the beginning of this

project as well.

Respondents were also asked what questions or concerns they had about the QEP. A few

concerns that were brought up will be important for the QEP Committee to consider. One

faculty member responded, “As an instructor at the College, I am concerned that a significant

number of students are coming to the College because of the lack of economic opportunity in

our area, and the availability of financial aid is a stop-gap means of obtaining income. Many of

those students, even when given the extra encouragement that the QEP plan will provide, still

lack the foundational study skills needed in college. Perhaps more emphasis on good study

skills would also help.” The idea of study skills will be addressed in ENR 094 – Integrated

Reading and Writing and ENG 080 – English Laboratory by emphasizing soft skills and

metacognitive reflection in these classes. The soft skills training will entail work on social skills,

job skills, and collaborative skills. The metacognitive reflections will entail students not only

analyzing what they are learning, but also how they best learn. Another concern was “It seems

like the blended class will require students to cover more in a shorter period of time by

eliminating the levels of developmental classes and having just one class prior to ENG 101. I

wonder if the students who are struggling the most will be able to manage the coursework and

grasp things well enough to go to ENG 101.” Project A.I.M. will provide extra support to

developmental students through ENG 080 – English Laboratory in a direct effort to help fill any

gaps these students have when moving into ENG 101 – English Composition I.


33

The final question related to how the stakeholders felt the QEP would affect them. Many

believed it would have a favorable impact overall. “As an educator, it is simple, my students

need to finish my program. If the students can successfully finish English faster and by

completing fewer classes, it will appeal to the students. If the students as a whole can leave

Southern Union with a better understanding of English and can use it on a daily basis, then we

have accomplished a major goal. I believe the QEP proposal has the long term goal in mind by

offering struggling students the opportunity for the extra classes and the one-on-one help they

need; everyone succeeds.” Student impact was favorable as well. “As I am an Ambassador for

Southern Union, I will now be able to tell the people who are thinking about coming to Southern

Union about the QEP. I feel the QEP will be a great program.” (See Appendix 6)

iii. topic identification and development suscc

Documents