Part V of the Fifth-Year Interim Report - VCU SACS/COC Tenth Year ...

Part V 

The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan 

Introduction 

SACS/COC Fifth-Year Interim Report, Part V 

VCU is a thriving institution of higher education that is at the forefront of urban universities actively engaged in the future 

of their cities and communities. More than 32,000 students are enrolled in over 210 degree and post-graduate certificate 

programs through the College of Humanities and Sciences and the schools of Allied Health Professions, the Arts, Business, 

Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Social Work. Our faculty attract approximately $220 

million a year in sponsored research funding, ranking the University among the top research universities in the nation. 

VCU is a public, urban research university, supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia to serve the people of the 

Commonwealth and the nation. The University provides a fertile and stimulating environment for learning, teaching, 

research, creative expression, and public service. Essential to the life of the university is a faculty actively engaged in 

scholarship and creative exploration activities that increase knowledge and understanding of the world, and inspire and 

enrich teaching. Virginia Commonwealth University proudly defines itself as a university of opportunity which provides 

access to many students from a diversity of backgrounds. 86% of our students are from the state of Virginia, while 14% 

are from 49 states and 108 countries. 58% of our students are female while 42% are male. 53% of the students are 

white, 16% are African American, 10% are Asian, 5% International, 3% Hispanic and 1% Native American(12% not 

reporting). Finally, 75% of the students are full-time and 25% part-time. 

The University is governed by a Board of Visitors appointed by the governor to serve four year terms. The Board elects its 

own officers who are independent of and have no relationship to any positions within the university. The Board is 

authorized (within the Code of Virginia 23-50.10) to “appoint the president, who shall be the chief executive officer of the 

university, and all professors, teachers, staff members and agents, and shall fix their salaries and prescribe their duties.” 

Original Quality Enhancement Plan 

In January of 2004, VCU’s Quality Enhancement Plan “Enhancing Student Engagement in Learning” was submitted to 

SACS. The 2004 QEP was based on three engagement initiatives. First, the plan worked toward creating a transparent 

framework of academic and engagement expectations for students. Establishing expectations, for both faculty and 

students, is viewed as critical for success in college. We proposed to develop a list of expectations, making them as public 

and transparent as possible to the university community. 

Secondly, the QEP plan emphasized establishing communities of learners and communities of practice, both initiatives that 

are rooted in contemporary scholarship in the area of student engagement. The “communities of learners” initiative, in 

particular, derives from the work of Tinto (1996) and Astin (2000), among others, who have found that learning 

communities and service-learning are two of the most powerful pedagogical innovations of the time. Learning more and 

learning more deeply occurs in these types of settings. Thus, we proposed to explore a number of possibilities that would 

allow us to create a learning-centered environment, offering greater opportunities for students to engage with each other 

and their learning. We found, in particular, that aligning and centralizing resources was a key factor in accomplishing this 

goal. The centralization of learning support services and greater collaboration across units would encourage student 

participation and would also facilitate faculty in their efforts to engage students more effectively. Greater collaboration 

would also provide opportunities for faculty to disseminate and extend good instructional practice. 

Clearly increasing student engagement to facilitate learning and academic successes provided the overriding theme of the 

QEP. This initial framework for engagement led to various strategies designed to enhance engagement. The QEP of 2004 

provided the vision and groundwork for the specific programmatic outcomes and concrete institutional change that 

resulted from the development and implementation of VCU 2020, the University strategic plan developed between the 

fall of 2004 and the winter of 2006. 

Virginia Commonwealth University P a g e | 1


Strategic Plan 2020 

As soon as VCU was reaffirmed by SACS in 2004, President Trani determined it was time for a new strategic plan that 

would guide the university for the next fifteen years, hence the development of VCU 2020. The development of the new 

strategic plan was fortuitous, as it presented the opportunity to embed much of the framework of the 2004 QEP into the 

future plans of the entire university. While five overarching themes structure VCU 2020, Theme II of the plan addresses 

the QEP initiatives directly. Theme II is the charge “to achieve national recognition as a learning-centered research 

university that embraces a world-class student experience.” This theme embodied the vision of the student engagement 

QEP and, if accomplished, would fully realize the plan’s call. The charge then became finding the funding to see the 

engagement vision put into action. Concurrent with the development of the VCU 2020 plan, the state of Virginia 

distributed money defined as “base adequacy” dollars. These were dollars directed at universities based on the 

relationships between their state budget and their current enrollments. As Virginia’s largest state university, VCU’s “base 

adequacy” allocation was quite generous. This allocation of funds provided the opportunity to do something on a larger 

scale than was originally planned in the 2004 QEP. 

As a result, the Theme II sub-committee of the VCU 2020 investigated initiatives regarding student learning and 

experience. With careful analysis of the QEP combined with research and comparative study of best practices across the 

nation, the committee determined what VCU could do over fifteen years that would increase student engagement and 

learning. This resulted in two critical proposals: 1) the call for the establishment of a University College, and 2) a mandate 

to develop a core curriculum for the entire university. 

Strategic Plan: University College 

University College (UC) was established to provide a single home for interrelated programs, services, and learning 

opportunities for all students, but particularly first-year students. The intent of University College was to dramatically 

enrich the undergraduate experience. Our own data shows that grades earned the first semester of the first college year 

are the best predictor of a student’s overall success toward college graduation. Grades earned during the second 

semester are the next best predictor of academic success. Clearly, the first-year experience is the cornerstone of a 

student’s college career. 

Prior to the creation of University College, many key support people and much of the work – learning support, for 

example, and first-year student advising – had been spread throughout the university in various schools. In contrast, a 

single unit would capitalize on the power of a combined, collaborative resource space and reduce, if not eliminate, 

inconsistencies and irregularities across the schools in terms of advising and learning support. To that end, University 

College now houses first year advisors for all programs in one building on a single floor. These advisors form a community 

of professionals who meet on a regular basis and share information throughout each day. Academic Advising offers an 

array of learning and social support opportunities for students through course offerings and special programs and 

workshops. In the same first floor space, students will find the University Writing Center, the University Learning Center 

and the staff for New Student Programs. New students are encouraged to view University College as the place to come 

with any questions or problems they may have during the year. It is also a central space for student engagement, offering 

daily opportunities for learning and collaboration in informal and more formal ways. For example, the University College 

offers group study space, ongoing tutoring and supplemental instruction, and opportunities for students to receive oneon-one 

consultation services for writing, as well as skills and concept-based workshops. The University College also 

provides leadership and employment opportunities for VCU’s highest performing students, who work as peer mentors, 

tutors, and writing consultants. 

The sections which follow detail the primary objectives of the University College and its progress to date. 

Creating the Core Curriculum 

The proposal to establish a Core Curriculum formed the second major initiative resulting from VCU 2020. Along with the 

Core emerged a pledge to create the VCU Compact. The Compact commits the University to creating a shared experience 

for all undergraduates, an experience which focuses on the foundations necessary to enable and ensure lifelong learning. 



In the ensuing three years, after discussion, input, and debate by faculty throughout the University community, the Core 

Curriculum was integrated into all programs as of fall 2009. 

As with the University College, student engagement is a fundamental principle of the new Core Curriculum. The Core is 

based on a learning-centered approach to both teaching and learning, an approach that aims to encourage shared 

experience. Integration and cohesion are central goals of the new core curriculum. The Core is fundamentally 

transformative: it seeks to reenergize the traditional general education model of discrete and often disconnected learning 

experiences by creating a core of synergistic learning experiences. The 21 credit Core is structured by a framework of 

shared competencies. Core courses are designed to attend specifically to at least three of the six core competency 

categories, thus students are ensured a level of continuity in their learning experiences. Commitment to developing a 

particular competency transcends any specific course. The Core program of study assures that students continue to 

improve in all areas throughout their undergraduate study. 

Creating Communities of Learning 

We believe students will become more engaged with their learning as they become more collaborative both inside and 

outside of the classroom. Thus, the Core Curriculum program, a vertical structure designed to follow students from their 

first year to their last, begins even before first year students arrive to campus to begin their studies. Students are first 

exposed to Core Curriculum expectations during their new student orientation experience. A significant element of this 

first exposure is VCU’s Summer Reading Program. The Summer Reading Program aims to transition high school students 

to the learning expectations of university life, encouraging them to accept responsibility for their own learning by reading 

a provocative book on their own before they arrive to campus in the fall. All first year students receive a copy of the book 

during summer orientation. The book forms the basis for small and large discussions during Welcome Week and provides 

new students with opportunities to engage in communities of learning as soon as they arrive on campus. As the semester 

begins, the book also becomes embedded into their course of study during the first semester of Focused Inquiry 

(UNIV111). 

The foundation of the Core is the Focused Inquiry sequence (UNIV111 and UNIV112), which is a two-semester course 

sequence required of first year students. The Focused Inquiry class is deliberately small, with a cap of 22 students. It 

begins students’ focus on the five competency areas (written and oral communication, critical thinking, information 

fluency, collaborative learning, and ethical and civic reasoning). These areas of focus continue as students move through 

their Core requirements: three courses each in the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Finally, the competency areas 

are re-emphasized in the capstone experience required in every program. 

In a university with over 32,000 students, organizing and institutionalizing a program such as Focused Inquiry requires a 

major commitment of resources and time. To implement the program, forty-one full time faculty from a variety of 

disciplines were hired to teach over 280 sections. Focused Inquiry faculty are members of University College and form 

their own interdisciplinary department. The primary responsibility of this faculty is the success of first-year students. The 

courses are learning-centered and emphasize personal growth and academic achievement. Core competencies are 

covered with a shared curriculum across course sections, facilitating student discussion and engagement with material 

outside of class. The intent is to emphasize shared learning and generate academic discussions throughout the campus 

between students in a diversity of classes. A unique and important feature of the course is its semester-to-semester 

continuity. When students move from UNIV111 to UNIV112, they move with their faculty member and classmates. Thus, 

unlike traditional university courses, the group works and learns together over the full academic year. While 

implementation of this system is unwieldy with over 3700 students, students benefit from the sustained contact and 

engagement such a system allows. 

Focused Inquiry was fully implemented in the fall of 2006 and has thus been in operation for three full academic year 

cycles. The outcomes of the Focused Inquiry program are reported in following sections. 

The second tier Core courses follow the Focused Inquiry sequence. The second tier includes a math course, an academic 

research writing course, as well as one course in each of the sciences, social sciences, and humanities/fine arts. The 



academic research writing course is the third course in the Focused Inquiry program and is taken by over 90% of all 

students. To maintain cohesion and integration across the Core, a limited the number of courses is offered in each of the 

disciplinary categories. Math course placement depends on the skill level at which the student enters the university. The 

science, social science, and humanities/fine arts courses come from a list of twelve courses in each category. Second tier 

courses must target at least three of the competency areas and must be “learning centered” in pedagogy. The content 

and the process of these courses is monitored and reviewed by an academic committee chaired by the Dean of University 

College. 

The third tier to the program involves a capstone experience which reaffirms our commitment to the competency areas 

while giving each school/major the authority to choose how to structure the experience. During the 2008-2009 year, 

almost every department proposed a capstone experience that would fit the model to be implemented in the fall of 2009. 

All capstones focus on at least two of the five skill areas with many declaring a focus on all five. 

Empirical Results 

The material below highlights some of the more significant outcomes: 

University College Scorecard 

The overarching goal of the University College is to promote the academic success of students. Over the past several 

years, we have seen a steady increase in the percentage of first-year students who ended their first year in good academic 

standing, which improves the overall retention of students. Indeed, 80% of students who entered in fall 2008 ended their 

first year of college with at least a 2.0 cumulative GPA. While many research universities have experienced a decline in 

retention numbers, VCU has been improving over the last five years. The fall 2009 student retention matched our highest 

number on record. Although we may be reaching a ceiling given the profile of our students, we continue to strive for an 

even higher retention number as we refine and institute our Core Curriculum. 

In addition to increased student retention, we have also seen gains in students’ overall satisfaction with VCU. For 

example, 85% of students rated their educational experience as good or excellent, while 84% of the respondents reported 

that they would make the decision to attend VCU again if they were to start over. Both of these numbers indicate an 

improvement of five percent since the implementation of the University College and are comparable to peer institutions. 

Our progress in these areas began with the implementation of the 2004 QEP. In June 2005, we identified particular areas 

in students’ undergraduate experience that needed attention. University College programs and initiatives were 

implemented to address these areas of concern. To measure the impact of the University College on these areas of need 

after three years of operation, we have identified ten expected outcomes. The data which follows regarding these 

outcomes comes from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as well as data collected independently by our 

office. 

Based on the 2006 and 2007 NSSE administered to a random sample of freshmen and seniors during the spring semester, 

over 76% of our freshmen respondents indicated that they receive the support needed to help them succeed 

academically. This is up 15% over the 2004 cohort and is also higher than our Carnegie Peer Institutions. Other data 

supports students’ overall assessment. Over the past three years, we have increased the number of students using 

Campus Learning Center services by nearly 50%. Further, the Writing Center has seen a 70% increase in the number of 

students served during this same period. Students indicate a higher level of engagement with their academic advisors as 

well, noted by an increase of almost 20% in student/advisor contact over the past two years. Last year, the University 

College advisors held over 30,000 advising sessions with students. On the NSSE item that asks students how often they 

talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor, we exceeded our Carnegie peer institutions by over 10%. 

NSSE questions related to time devoted to studying showed mixed results, however. Although there has been 

improvement, positive responses to this question were not consistent in the last year. We believe this can be attributed 

to a change in our UNIV 101 class, which we will seek to remedy in the future. Overall, on the NSSE, 73-77% of the 

students evaluated the quality of academic advising as good or excellent, another major improvement over 2004. 



Data also suggests that we have made positive strides in impacting student engagement outside of class. As one of our 

core expectations, we have emphasized the importance of engagement and connection. Through our learning 

communities program, Learning and Writing Centers, UNIV 101, and advising programs, students have numerous 

opportunities to engage with peers outside of class. In the latest administration of NSSE, 44% of students indicated that 

they often or very often work with classmates on assignments out of class, while 45% reported participating in a learning 

community. In both cases, we met or exceeded our peer institutions. We are also making some improvements in NSSE 

items related to interacting with faculty outside of class. In the latest administration, 13% of students reported working 

with faculty on activities other than courses. Additionally, 24% four percent discussed ideas with faculty outside of class 

often or very often and 76% of our students responded that they communicate with faculty through email. Finally, 52% 

reported that they discussed grades or assignments with their professors. 

In summary, data collected both internally and externally suggest a successful beginning to the engagement initiatives 

defined in the Quality Enhancement Plan. We hope to sustain this success over the coming years. We now turn to 

programs initiated in the past five years specifically targeting student engagement and other learning outcomes. 

Summer Reading Program 

VCU’s Summer Reading Program, designed to introduce first-year students to VCU’s academic and intellectual culture, has 

been a great success. During Welcome Week, over 80 discussion groups are held in the residence halls and the University 

College. In 2006, 1600 students took part in the Welcome Week discussions. This number increased to 2100 in 2007 and, 

in 2008, approximately 1900 students attended discussion groups and 3300 heard the author speak at New Student 

Convocation. Throughout the fall semester, students continue to exchange ideas on the summer reading in their Focused 

Inquiry classes. 

Focused Inquiry Program 

Over the last two years, we have conducted an assessment of the two-semester Focused Inquiry courses specifically in the 

areas of writing and critical thinking. In 2009-2010 we will add an assessment of ethical reasoning. We have a number of 

indirect measures regarding collaborative work as well as information fluency learning outcomes. 

Throughout the year, faculty evaluate targeted assignments in an effort to measure writing and critical thinking skills at 

various points in the curriculum. A faculty-designed rubric was used to measure the following skills: 

 

 

 

 

 

Critical Thinking 

Organization 

Development 

Grammar and Mechanics 

Purpose and Audience 

The Focused Inquiry program embraces a “learning-centered” pedagogy and was therefore expected to improve VCU’s 

institution’s NSSE results. Many of the questions on the NSSE are also addressed by the CLASSE, (Classroom Assessment of 

Student Engagement) allowing the institution to begin measuring the success of the Focused Inquiry Program in meeting 

its stated goals. 

The Focused Inquiry Program targets a number of engagement areas for specific improvement. These areas include: 

 

 

 

 

Level of academic challenge 

Active learning 

Collaborative learning 

Student-faculty interaction 

The following questions on the CLASSE were chosen as indicators of these areas. 

Asking more questions in class and class discussions 

Making classroom presentations 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Preparing two or more drafts of a paper 

Working with other students during class 

Receiving prompt written or oral feedback 

Emphasis on analysis, synthesizing and evaluation 

Emphasis on writing, thinking, speaking and working with others 

Applying electronic medium in the classroom 

These targeted areas are measured by both the NSSE and CLASSE, providing the program opportunity to compare results 

from previous freshman classes. 

Lastly, retention has been a long-term focus of the institution and therefore course completion rates were also evaluated 

as part of the measure of the success of the Focused Inquiry program. A comparison of recent DFW rates for the former 

English 101 course (which was replaced by the Focused Inquiry course sequence) and data regarding the percentage of 

freshman in good standing at the end of their first and second semesters of college will be utilized in this report. 

Program-wide assessment of critical thinking and writing 

Prior to the start of the 2007-08 academic year, an assessment plan was developed through the joint efforts of both 

faculty and administrators of the Focused Inquiry program. This plan included the development of the writing rubric, the 

selection of the means for storing data, and the schedule by which the Focused Inquiry faculty members would complete 

the assessment. Four specific writing assessments were selected from the common curriculum of the program. In each 

semester, units one and four were to be evaluated on the basis of writing and critical thinking, providing an opportunity 

to measure value-added gains in both areas. The data was stored in a program called rGrade. This program was selected 

because it would provide the opportunity to analyze the data both longitudinally as well as by particular year. As a means 

of evaluating the validity of the faculty assigned scores, approximately 10% of the essays were evaluated by a second 

Focused Inquiry faculty member. In all instances, with 3400 students submitting four assignments, the scope of this 

project proved difficult to both coordinate and culminate. 

A total of four writing samples were evaluated during the 2007-08 academic year 1 . The writing samples from units one in 

both the fall and spring semesters were reflective essays, while units four in both the fall and spring semester were 

analytical essays. As such, reflective essays and analytical essays from each semester were the basis for comparison. 

Scores of one, two, three, four, or five were assigned for each skill on the program rubric with a one being the lowest 

score and five being the highest. The terminology used to indicate each skill level is as follows: 

1 – Incompetent 

2 – Weak 

3 – Competent 

4 – Strong 

5 – Expert 

1 As this was the first year of both the Focused Inquiry program and the assessment plan, several methods were utilized to 

evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the plan. Most notably, a rubric committee comprised of Focused Inquiry 

faculty members used feedback from other faculty members, as well as their own experiences to devise a significant 

revision to the program rubric. The revised rubric was piloted in the Summer of 2008 and implemented in the 2008-2009 

year. At the suggestion of the Director of Assessment, the revised rubric provides several additional measures of critical 

thinking. Voluntary focus groups were also utilized to gather information from faculty members in order to determine 

possible ways to improve upon the assessment plan in future years. 


Value Added Critical Thinking Evaluation 


3.5 

3.4 

3.3 

3.2 

3.1 

3 

2.9 

Fall 

Semester 

Spring 

Semester 

2.8 

Critical Thinking in Reflective Writing 

Critical Thinking in Analytical Writing 

Four categories were included in the evaluation of writing for each of the four writing samples. These categories were: 

organization, development, grammar and mechanics, and purpose and audience. The skill levels used to evaluate each of 

these categories was the same as the levels used to evaluate critical thinking (shown above). The graph below illustrates 

changes throughout the course sequence in each of these four categories. 

4 

3.5 

3 

Value Added Writing Evaluation 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

FI I Unit 1 

FI I Unit 4 

FI II Unit 1 

FI II Unit 4 

0.5 

0 

Organization Development Grammar/Mechanics Purpose/Audience 

It is clear from these indicators that although progress was made consistently across all writing categories the differences 

were not that large. We have a number of explanations for this and will look to improving the design of our assessment 

plan to obtain a better indication of the progress that most of the students expressed in their reflective end of course 

essays. 

Gains were made in both reflective writing and analytical writing over the course of the curriculum. 

Four categories including organization, development, grammar and mechanics, and purpose and audience were included 

in the evaluation of writing for each of the four writing samples. It is clear from these indicators that although progress 

was made consistently across all writing categories, the differences were not large. Whether this is an artifact of our 

methodology or the classes themselves will be investigated in the future. 



First-year retention 

Below are VCU’s first year retention rates for Fall 2006 to Fall 2009. 

Fall 2006 82.3% 

Fall 2007 82.7% 

Fall 2008 84.2% 

Fall 2009 83.4% 

Several important factors related to freshman retention have been used to evaluate improvements since the Focused 

Inquiry program has been implemented. First is a comparison of the DFW rates from the English 101 course during the 

time period from fall 2003 to spring 2006. During this three-year period, the DFW rates averaged 27.5%, with a high of 

33% and a low of 20%. Rates from the 2006-07 academic year were not used in this analysis because both English 101 

and a piloted version of the Focused Inquiry courses were offered simultaneously. In the 2007-09 academic years, 

Focused Inquiry had replaced English 101 as a required general education course. The DFW rates during both the fall and 

spring semesters averaged 12% across all course offerings in 2007-2008 while falling to 10% and 6.6% in the 2008-2009 

year. The Focused Inquiry program was successful in keeping the DFW rates relatively lower and was able to maintain 

stability in those rates over both the fall and spring semesters. 

Academic standing among freshman is directly related to the success rates of freshman enrolled in the required general 

education courses such as Focused Inquiry. Generally speaking, retention will be higher when more students are in good 

academic standing with the institution. The number of freshman students in good academic standing at the end of the fall 

and spring semesters for the past five academic years has been improving. As is expected with lower DFW rates and 

higher levels of student engagement in the classroom (as will be illustrated later in this report), more freshman students 

were in good academic standing at the end of both their first semester and their first full year of college than in the 

previous five years. 

The percentage of first-year students choosing to reenroll at VCU after completing their first full year of college has 

gradually been on the rise for the past eight years. The first-year retention rate for the 2006-2007 academic year at VCU’s 

peer institution averaged 82% with a high of 95% at the University of Southern California and a low of 73% at both Wayne 

State University and the University of Utah. However, a significant increase in freshman retention at VCU is evidenced 

during the past three academic years after the implementation of both University College and the Focused Inquiry 

program. 

NSSE and CLASSE target data for freshman 

A number of NSSE items were targeted as possible areas where the Focused Inquiry curriculum could help improve 

student engagement. These areas deal with classroom engagement, collaborative work with other students, writing 

goals, and faculty/student interactions. The results from the 2006-07 and 2007-2008 NSSE results are compared to 

matching items on the CLASSE which was administered in each Focused Inquiry course during both the spring semesters. 

The Focused Inquiry curriculum brought about significant results regarding the number of students that actively engaged 

in classroom presentations and collaborative work with other students during class time. The only category where change 

was not indicated is in the use of electronic mediums for discussing or completing class assignments. 

In the area of student engagement in a classroom setting, significant improvements are indicated by the CLASSE. Over 

75% of first-year students during those fall and spring semesters indicated that they participated in class discussions in 

their Focused Inquiry course often or very often. Similarly, significant increases in the numbers of students asking 

questions during class are indicated. 

An additional goal of the Focused Inquiry curriculum was to increase students’ experiences with higher order thinking 

skills, such as analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information in the classroom and on assignments outside the 

classroom. Both the NSSE and CLASSE contain items related to the frequency of engagement in these processes. Once 



again advantages for the Focused Inquiry curriculum were realized and showed an improvement of almost 10% in the 

NSSE. In 2009 we clarified the concepts of analysis, synthesis and evaluation for the students by defining each for them. 

In that survey 92%, 93%, and 91% respectively responded “Quite a bit” or “Very Much” to each item. In contrast, the 

Focused Inquiry curriculum did not emphasize lower order thinking skills such as memorization. Student survey responses 

confirm that memorization was not a large part of what they were required to do in Focused Inquiry courses. 

Finally, one way to measure student/faculty interactions is to look at student perceptions of feedback provided on 

academic assignments. Both the NSSE and the CLASSE include a question which targets this area. The results indicate 

that 75% of freshman students reported receiving prompt written or oral feedback regarding an academic assignment 

“often” or “very often” during the spring 2008 semester in their Focused Inquiry courses. “Very often” was the most 

common response to this question during the spring 2008 semester. NSSE results indicate a modest improvement from 

2007 to 2008. 

Service-Learning 

In the original QEP we committed ourselves to expanding our service-learning program. As data has shown participation 

in service-learning opportunities can be related to both engagement and deeper learning. Again, our strategic plan took 

up this charge and made community partnerships one of the five themes for the next fifteen years. We have made 

significant advancements in this area over the last five years. 

A full-time Ph.D. level director has been hired to lead the service-learning program. The director reports to the Vice 

Provost of Community Engagement. Funding for service-learning (in addition to the director’s salary) includes support for 

a graduate assistantship and an annual faculty development program. 

The number of faculty participating in service-learning courses has increased 120% in five years from 19 to 42. The 

number of distinct courses has increased 150% in five years from 19 to 48. The number of service learning sections has 

increased 100% in five years from 49 to 109. A service-learning faculty advisory council was established in 2008 and an 

annual faculty development program offers eight to ten faculty members training and support in the development of high 

quality service-learning courses. 

The number of students enrolled in service-learning courses has increased 120% in five years from 831 to 1826. In end-ofcourse 

surveys completed by students during 2008-2009, 58% of students reported that the service-learning course 

increased their speaking and communication skills, 72% said that the course increased their leadership skills; 75% 

indicated that the course increased their awareness of needs in the community; and 75% noted that the course improved 

their ability to work more effectively with people of different backgrounds and interests. A leadership focused 

undergraduate Service-Learning Teaching Assistantship Program has been established and annually enrolls approximately 

20 students. 

Information about VCU service-learning is disseminated to community partners through the program’s community 

partners website, through workshops offered at the Nonprofit Learning Point annual conference, and through local online 

clearinghouses for the nonprofit community (e.g., ConnectRichmond.org). Community partners are recognized through 

an annual recognition reception and the Currents of Change award 

Finally, a university-wide definition of service-learning has been institutionalized. All courses designated as servicelearning 

are required to meet key criteria and to include the institution’s service-learning definition on service-learning 

course syllabi. 

Clearly we have made significant progress in the area of service-learning over the past five years and intend to continue 

that trend by expanding the program into many of our recently developed capstone experiences. 

Learning Communities 

VCU provides two types of learning community programs: Residential Villages and First-Semester Learning Communities. 

Residential Villages are living-learning communities in which students live on particular residential floors and learn in a 



collection of programs and courses taught and led by faculty representatives. First-Semester Learning Communities are 

small groups of approximately 22 students enrolled in three courses: Introduction to VCU, Focused Inquiry I, and a Core 

Curriculum course. 

Since the 2006-07 academic year, VCU has increased the number of First-Semester Learning Communities from 33 

learning communities in fall 2006 to 48 learning communities in fall 2007, 79 learning communities in fall 2008 and 87 in 

fall 2009. University College was able to accommodate 425 students in fall 2006, 825 students in fall 2007, 1,716 students 

in fall 2008 and will be able to accommodate 1,818 students fall 2009 into some type of learning community. 

Additionally, VCU has developed the Residential Village program to work cooperatively with a learning community 

structure. In fall 2006, VCU had 10 Residential Villages (RVs), in fall 2007 11 RVs, in fall 2008 11 RVs and fall 2009 12 RVs 

and three commuter learning communities. In fall 2006 some of the RVs had linked courses, while 2007 and 2008 RVs 

had no linked courses. In fall 2009 all Residential Villages will have a curriculum including Introduction to the University, 

Focused Inquiry I and a Core Curriculum course. VCU has moved some First-Semester Learning Communities to the status 

of Residential Villages in order to provide a more comprehensive model of living-learning. The original goal for the 

Residential Villages was to have 80 students in each village. Attempting to enroll this many students together posed 

many problems. Students were not in a small cohort any more, but instead in a microcosm of their own interests. After 

reviewing the needs for these student populations, a decision was made to decrease the size to 44 students and increase 

the effectiveness of the VCU Residential Village program. A total of 528 students may participate in the Residential Village 

program in fall 2009 and 66 may enroll in a commuter learning community. 

An additional benefit of the Residential Village Program is the increasing collaboration between the Division of Student 

Affairs, University College, and various academic departments. The programming for fall 2009 is enhanced with the use of 

the Core Curriculum, including Focused Inquiry. As plans for fall 2009 began, New Student Programs and Residential Life 

have developed a comprehensive plan for University-wide collaboration by meeting with students’ advisors, faculty, 

R.A.’s, and Coordinators of Residential Education. Additionally, the plan incorporates educational activities that enhance 

student achievement, learning and development. These programs include a regular speaker series, advising 

opportunities, local and regional trips that may include the Holocaust Museum in coordination with VCU’s Summer 

Reading Program, career programs, discussion groups, village meetings, study groups and supplementary activities for 

first-year students. The goal for the Residential Village program is one of a holistic education incorporating one’s learning 

with their living environment. 

Conclusions 

# RVs Curriculum Learning Communities LC Participants 

2006-2007 10 Some linked courses 33 425 

2007-2008 11 No linked courses 48 825 

2008-2009 11 No linked courses 79 1716 

2009-2010 12 All with linked courses 87 1818 

We believe our Quality Enhancement Plan has been a success both in terms of institutional change and the impact that it 

has had on students. However, there is much more work in front of us. The academic research and writing course, 

formerly coordinated by the department of English through the use of adjuncts, part-time faculty and graduate students, 

will now be taught by primarily full time faculty. This course will become the third in our university writing program and 

will be coordinated out of University College. The Core Curriculum, although in place as of fall 2009, will not be fully 

implemented until all the courses have been altered to meet the Core learning objectives. We have given the instructors 

two years to make these changes in their curricula. All this will be reviewed and monitored by the University College 

Academic Committee. We believe all the pieces are now in place to realize our goal of a world class university and a 

world class learning experience for our students.

Part V of the Fifth-Year Interim Report - VCU SACS/COC Tenth Year ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?