Phase II of the QEP development process began with the first committee meeting on September 13, 2005. Since that date, five additional committee meetings and two subcommittee meetings have been held. A summary follows.

Over the past six meetings, the broad QEP topic, Gear Up to Graduate: A Model for Academic Success for First Generation Mexican American University Students has evolved and become more focused. One early discussion revolved around placement of the term “first generation.” If “first generation” appears in the title before “Mexican American,” it can be falsely assumed that all Mexican Americans in the project are first generation in this country; therefore, the recommendation is to place the term after “Mexican American,” but before “university.” This implies that the students are the first generation in their families to attend college.

QEP topic discussions became much more focused after several members of the committee attended a UT System workshop on Aligning Institutional Planning and Preparation for SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation in late October. At this workshop, Margaret Sullivan discussed the importance of developing a QEP topic around assessing Student Learning Outcomes (what students know and are able to do). She emphasized that multiple measures of assessment over at least 2 assessment cycles needed to be used. Student achievement measures need to be the primary focus of the QEP, but secondary measures such as graduation and retention could also be included in the QEP.

After the Austin workshop, the committee regrouped, discussing the possibility of examining the top gatekeeper courses – those with the highest failure rates – as a focus. Upon examining the 2004 and 2005 course failure rate data, three mathematics courses appeared at the top of the list. The inability to pass Math 1300, 1334, and 1340 consistently keeps many UTPA students from moving forward in pursuit of their degrees. The committee asked that representatives from the math department (Dr. John Bernard and Dr. Lokenath Debnath) attend the QEP meetings and become part of the committee since the focus is on mathematics. At the last meeting, Drs. Bernard and Debnath were present to hear Dr. Ana Maria Rodriguez present the failure rate data to the committee. Committee members were overwhelmingly in favor of focusing on the top three gatekeeper math courses as the focus of the QEP.

Several members of the QEP committee recently attended the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ Annual Meeting in Atlanta. There the committee heard Margaret Sullivan again emphasize the need to use multiple measures of assessment for each Student Learning Outcome that would be addressed in the QEP. She also advised QEP committee members to make the QEP title more specific to mathematics since that was the focus. The committee members settled on Gear Up to Graduate: A Model for Success in Gatekeeper Mathematics Courses for Mexican American First Generation University Students.

Discussions about research design have centered around examining four groups of students from a cohort entering UTPA in 2006 and/or in 2007. The student groups would include a sample of first generation students who 1) participated in GEAR UP; 2) participated in AVID; 3) participated in GEAR UP and AVID; 4) did not participate in GEAR UP or AVID. One justification for this is that the GEAR UP and/or AVID students have received some pre-college interventions that might prove to be useful at the university level.

During Phase I of the QEP development, town hall meetings were held to gain input from faculty and staff. Focus groups were not conducted during that first phase; however, now that the QEP is more focused, it is important that student and faculty focus groups are conducted. One idea is to conduct focus group discussions with students who have failed the gatekeeper math courses several times and also with students who have passed the courses. Additionally, mathematics faculty focus groups should be held to gain their perspective about why students fail their classes. It is proposed that these focus groups be conducted in the spring of 2006 so that the findings can be used in the “statement of need” of the QEP. Doctoral students who are enrolled in a qualitative research class in the spring can be utilized to collect the focus group data in a timely manner.

Finally, though an interventions subcommittee has been formed and has met once, the QEP committee will now focus on appropriate interventions that can be put in place to improve mathematics achievement in gatekeeper courses. These will be designed to address specific Student learning Outcomes from the three math courses. Examples of categories of interventions include 1) professional development activities for mathematics faculty; 2) a collaborative mathematics tutorial model; 3) time spent by student with professor in and out of class; and, 4) technological innovations. Each one of these categories should be grounded in existing research on Hispanic students and mathematics achievement.