IMPROVING CULTURAL COMPETENCY AT DELTA STATE

IMPROVING CULTURAL COMPETENCY AT DELTA STATE
Section I: Executivve Summaary wide effort, Delta State U
University has identified
d improving Through a lengthy institutional‐w
cultural ccompetence
e as its next Q
QEP topic. W
While severa l themes recceived praisee and attenttion, cultural ccompetence
e distinguishe
ed itself as aa timely and relevant top
pic. Improvin
ng cultural compete
ency at Deltaa State will assist students in discoveering and leaarning aboutt other cultu
ures; understaanding culturral biases an
nd difference
es; improvin g intercultural commun
nication skillss; developing empathicc skills; and m
moving effecctively withi n a globalizeed society. A
As the literatture suggests,, working in an increasin
ngly multiculltural societyy and globall economy taakes more th
han just simp
ple interactio
on. Cultural ccompetence
e is not innatte and canno
ot be assum
med; by taking full advantagge of its location, rich hisstory, and bo
ountiful culttural resourcces, DSU plans to be proactive
e in improvin
ng its studen
nts’ worldvie
ew. To achievve these goaals, DSU’s QEEP Team created three pprimary stud
dent learningg outcomes:: 1. Describe vari
D
ous aspects of cultural d
diversity. hared underrstanding an
2. Articulate a s
A
nd support oof cross‐cultu
ural experien
nces. 3. Evvaluate cultural perspecctives with o
openness andd respect. To implement the plaan, the QEP Team devised four strattegies to inffuse cultural competency into the u
undergraduaate academiic experience from startt to finish. In GST 100, m
mentors will ttreat the entire course as an intercultu
ural experience while al so adding a new featuree – a commo
on reading o
of “Dead Me
en’s Path” byy Chinua Ach
hebe. Additioonally, in tw
wenty‐one geeneral educaation courses aand fifty‐six major‐specific courses, academic deepartments will incorpo
orate cultural compete
ence by creatting specific objectives aand then evaaluating insttruction and assessmentt methodss. Finally, the
e plan will also delve into
o extracurriccular activitiies through ssponsoring, promotin
ng, and creatting culturallly rich and instructive evvents on cam
mpus. The assessment plan
n’s heart lies in the acade
emic departtments’ achievement of the SLOs an
nd their use of evaluatio
on results to
o change or improve the ir courses. O
Over the cou
urse of the plan, these departmental evaluation rreports will b
be augmenteed by a num
mber of supplemental reports and surve
eys to deterrmine the ovverall plan’s efficacy. A sampling of tthese items includes thee Freshmen
n Cultural Co
ompetence SSurvey, chairrs’ Departmeental QEP Reeports, and aannual revieews by the QEP Director aand the QEP
P Advisory Group. usion, DSU has created aa five‐year pllan that is reelevant and ffocused on sstudent learrning, In conclu
action ite
ems that are
e logical and thorough, aand assessm ent procedu
ures that aree based on effective and best prractices. 2 Section II: Processs Used to D
Develop th
he QEP In
n 2011, DSU’’s SACS Lead
dership Team
m formed th e QEP Leadeership Team, a body of 2
24 faculty, sstaff, and stu
udents, repre
esenting all areas of cam
mpus (Appen
ndix 1 – Quaality Enhancement Plan LLeadership TTeam). This ggroup, comm
monly referrred to as thee QEP Team, closely fo
ollowed the suggested steps outline
ed by SACS‐C
COC on pagees 39‐50 in th
he Handbook for Institutio
ons Seeking R
Reaffirmatio
on. From its ffirst meetingg in Novemb
ber 2011, thee QEP Team
m followed these guiding principless: 
on plan must be focused
d on the impprovement o
of student learning or itss The QEP actio
environment. 
entire campuus communitty is necessaary and must be Broad‐based involvement from the e
se
elf‐evident. 
The topic must arise from
m issues iden
ntified throuugh institutio
onal research. 
The plan musst be sustainable. A. Choossing the Topiic The first step, choosing a topic, involved a numb er of phasess (listed in ro
ough chronolo
ogical order): a review off institutionaal research; identificatio
on of a numb
ber of topicss relevant to campus; a student fo
ocus group; aa faculty foc us group; fo
ormal topic p
proposals by memberss of the QEP Team and additional voolunteers fro
om across caampus; a revview created b
of the proposals by tthe SACS Leaadership Teaam; and fina lly, the vote by the QEP Team makin
ng “Culturall Awareness” the primarry theme forr DSU’s next QEP. More detailed info
ormation ab
bout the identtification of tthe topic can be found in Section III . B. Campu
us Feedbackk and Promo
otion Once the QEP
O
P Team seleccted the top
pic, attentionn turned agaain to the entire campuss for feedbackk. Two surveys were adm
ministered: o
one for studeents, and on
ne for facultyy and staff. W
With students, the QEP Te
eam wanted to gauge their understaanding of culture and their thoughtss on n higher edu
ucation. For ffaculty and sstaff, the qu
uestions werre mostly op
pen‐ intercultural issues in
3 nd mostly ab
bout how cultural aware
eness could bbe infused in
nto the curriiculum and ended an
campus life. The survveys not onlyy helped the
e team furthher develop tthe plan, but they also informed
d the campus of the QEP
P’s direction. In
n addition to
o the surveyss, the QEP Te
eam also creeated a web
b site with a ffeedback mechanism, and promoted “Culttural Awaren
ness” on thee university h
homepage w
with the initiial catch phrase, “Cultural Awarene
ess, the QEP,, and You!” TThat informaational pagee has since been converte
ed to an FAQ
Q sheet supplementing a wider onlinne presence ffor the QEP.. After a campu
A
us‐wide survvey and an aanalysis of vaarious themes and ideass in the fall o
of 2013, the
e QEP Comm
mittee chose
e “A World Class Experie nce: Improvving Cultural Competenccy at DSU” as tthe title for the project. A subseque
ent media caampaign ensued to prom
mote the QEP
P and its go
oals. C. Literatture Review
w The literature
e review, written and dirrected by Drrs. Scott Dru
ury and Julie Speakes, no
ot only provvided a stron
ng foundatio
on on which the QEP Teaam could bu
uild, but it also signaled aa shift in direction. Wh
hile “culturall awareness”” was the in itial theme, the authorss actually fou
und that the concept “cultural compe
etency” wou
uld serve thee DSU comm
munity better. For more information on this d
directional shift, see Section V. D. The QEP Action Pllan Subcomm
mittee Created shorttly after the topic was ch
hosen, the A
Action Plan SSubcommittee took bility for creating QEP program goalls, student leearning outccomes (SLOss), and strateegies responsib
for action
n. The full Q
QEP Team recconvened sh
hortly after tthe subcomm
mittee’s deliberations to
o complete
e work on acction items, assessment techniques,, a timeline, and requireed financial aand human re
esources. 4 n E. Preparring for Implementation
Throughout tthe plan’s cre
eation, mem
mbers of the QEP Team ccontinued to
o correspond
d through email and m
meet with gro
oups to inform them of tthe QEP’s prrogress, stattus, and implementation. Exaamples of such groups in
nclude the Coollege of Artts and Sciences Chairs Council, G
GST 600 (an orientation seminar forr new facultyy), Staff Cou
uncil, the Divversity Committee, Academic Council, the Presidentt’s Cabinet, and the Stud
dent Govern
nment Association. 5 Section III: Identiffication off the Topic After an intro
A
oductory me
eeting, the Q
QEP Team beegan the arduous work o
of selecting aa topic. The team revie
ewed such d
documents aas the “Maguuire Report,”” the Studen
nt Discovery Assessmeent by Sungaard, notes frrom the univversity’s 20110 Retention Conferencee, Foundatio
ons of Excellencce Dimension reports, an
nd recomme
endations froom the GST Task Force. After review
wing this mate
erial, the QEP Team succcessfully identified five ttopics for revview: Student Preparation; Student R
Responsibilitty; Reading Comprehension; Writingg Skills; and Cultural Awarene
ess/Sensitivitty (or) Sense
e of Place. The next step
p involved faacilitating foccus groups: oone for stud
dents, and one for facultty. Focus G
Group Questions Facultyy Question 1 What do yyou believe D
DSU could doo better to improve student learnning? Facultyy Question 2 What are some speciffic actions thhat might bee bring about change inn relation to the topics during Questtion 1? revealed d
Facultyy Question 3 What wou
uld be some measurablee outcomes ffor these sam
me topics? Student Question What can DSU do to im
improve studdent learning
g? 1 Studen
nt Questions What is m
missing or laccking from yyour colleagu
ues’ 2a and 2b or your ow
wn academicc experiencee? and How could
d DSU make that experieence better?? Both groups were then asked to rank in orde
er of importaance the listt of topics orriginally chosen hile also “wriiting in” any desirable toopics discusssed during th
he session. TThe by the QEP Team wh
top three
e topics, in o
order, chosen by faculty were writin g skills, stud
dent preparaation, and 6 student rresponsibilitty; the top th
hree for stud
dents were sstudent prep
paration, advising (a new
wly identified
d topic), and
d student ressponsibility ((Appendix 22 – Focus Gro
oup Rankinggs). To supplementt the outcom
mes of the fo
ocus groups, the QEP Teaam solicited proposals fo
or he original to
opics1 plus aadvising. Volunteer facullty, staff, and students joined the Q
QEP four of th
Team in ccreating the
ese proposalss. The QEP TTeam chair aasked each ggroup to con
nsider the followingg items (thuss replicating what a full plan would llook like): a full descripttion of the to
opic includingg relevance tto the campu
us; SLOs; acttions for impplementatio
on; identificaation of necessarry resources;; and assessm
ment techniques. The SA
ACS Leadersship Team th
hen evaluateed each proposal using a rubric while also including additioonal written comments, strengths, and weaknesses (Append
dix 3 – Rubriic Summary). The propoosals along w
with the com
mpleted rubrrics went bacck to the QEP Team for aa summary e
evaluation. A
After discusssing the streengths and weaknesses of each, members voted to adopt Cultural A
Awareness aas DSU’s next QEP. Wh
hile many of these propo
osal topics, ssuch as read ing or writin
ng, are typicaal QEP frontrunn
ners and com
mmon fodde
er for discussions aroundd academic water cooleers, cultural awareness made the
e most sense
e for Delta Sttate and eassily distinguished itself. TThe topic’s kernel be
egan with th
he “Maguire Report,” a cconsultant’s report, stating quite sim
mply that thee “Mississippi Delta [is] a unique re
esource for discovering America – itts political history, the ccivil ovement, great literary ffigures, the b
birth of the Blues and Rock, and oth
her importan
nt rights mo
features”” (Maguire, 2
2011, p. 5). SSimilarly, Brown (n.d.) reeferred to th
he Delta as aa “mindset [[that] is the disstillation of A
American culture in its purest form.”” The univerrsity and thee region, as the original ttopic propossal states, “create such aan amazinglyy rich converrgence of hisstory, culturre, and diversity” (Cultural Awarene
ess, 2012, p. 1). Discussioon of culturee and other issues important to the un
niversity and
d region easily transitioned to the brroader conceerns of cultu
ural awareneess and even
ntually cultural compete
ence. With th
his QEP, DSU
U will be ablee to expand its student body’s w
worldview byy taking full aadvantage off its locationn and bountiiful resourcees. Far more than a sensitivvity issue, the purposes and necessitty of improvving cultural competencyy at Delta Sttate 1
Reading C
Comprehension, an original ttopic, ultimately did not garnner enough sup
pport from thee QEP Team to warrant a ffull proposal. 7 discovering aand learning about other cultures; uunderstandin
ng cultural b
biases and include d
differencces; improvin
ng intercultu
ural commun
nication skillls; developin
ng empathicc skills; and working and moving effectively w
within a glob
balized socieety. As the literature sugggests, DSU must be proactive and nott leave this e
education to
o chance. n one propossal review (2
2012), the un
niversity’s thhen‐president, Dr. John Hilpert, In
commented: Isssues related
d to cultural awareness h
have been uunderemphassized at Deltta State, perrhaps because of th
he richness of
of diversity th
hat exists naaturally on thhe campus a
and in the Mississippi De
M
elta. While w
we have worrked at correecting this siituation for a
a number off yeears, a moree visible prog
gram with beetter resourcces, goals reelated to learning outcom
mes, and regular a
assessments would be fa
ar better. Inddeed, there is
is a unique o
opportunity ffor Delta State to
D
o provide lea
adership with
hin the higher educationn communityy in this area
a. To be surre, cultural ccompetence fits seamlesssly with othher universitty initiatives and goals su
uch as one off the universsity’s Guiding
g Principles, “Respect foor People and Ideas” and
d one of its Purposess of General Education, ““Cultural Aw
wareness.” Thhis QEP’s foccus will also support and
d enhance the expectaations and go
oals of the u
university’s D
Diversity Com
mmittee. 8 Section IV: Litera
ature Revie
ew In
n the past, th
here have be
een few articles on cultuural sensitiviity in the acaademic worlld; howeverr, there has b
been a recen
nt trend of p
pertinent ressearch (Sperrry & Carson, 2012) filling the void. The
e purpose off cultural awareness is to
o look at culttural diversity, notice cu
ustoms, valu
ues, and belie
efs without b
being stereo
otypically jud
dgmental (Naakabusga & Rittner, 199
92). Davies (2012) no
oted that cultural aware
eness also includes “peoople’s socio‐eeconomic status, languaage, gender and religious characteristtics (p. 64),” not just racce and ethniccity. Useem
m, Useem, an
nd ue give us a ssimple, clearr definition o
of culture: “.... the learneed and shareed behavior of a Donoghu
community of interacting human
n beings …[that] postulaates no racial, national, o
or ethnic boundariies, and speccifies no min
nimum or maximum num
mbers. Wherever a grou
up of people are set apartt by their diffferent ‘learn
ned and sharred behavior,’ a culturall difference exists.” (as ccited in Howell, 1982, p. 179). Liiterature on cultural diversity emphasizes the n eed for cultu
ural awareness educatio
on, howeverr, few researrchers agree on the bestt method forr that educattion. Nakabu
usga and Ritttner (1992) su
uggest stude
ents look at cculture with their own bbackgroundss in mind wh
hile respectin
ng other eth
hnic backgro
ounds. Activve learning to
o increase seelf‐awareneess and self‐eexamination
n helps stu
udents to leaarn what the
eir biases are
e and how thhose biases aaffect their tthinking and
d acting (H
Hepworth, Ro
ooney, & Larrson, 2002). Strategies ffrom Devoree and Schlesiinger (1996) to reach cultural compe
etency includ
de: (1) recognition of the
e influence o
of institutionnal racism prroblems; (2) the need to
o emphasize institution
nal change approaches; (3) the need
d to incorporrate culturallly appropriaate practice strategies an
nd interactioonal styles; aand (4) respeect for cultu
urally based perrspectives ass a valid and
d important ccomponent of culturallyy competentt practice. The term “cultural compe
etence” as aa precise andd measurable descriptorr of interculttural Gallegos et aal., 2008) annd has been described ass “ubiquitou
us” in issues daates to the early 1980s (G
human se
ervices settings ranging from the ap
pplied to eduucation (Johnson & Mun
nch, 2009, p.. 51). Sue (2006) described
d cultural competence (o
or “cultural ccompetencyy,” interchan
ngeably) as b
being 9 ed of culturaal awarenesss and beliefs, cultural kn owledge, an
nd cultural skills, a definition comprise
adopted by the American Psycho
ological Asso
ociation in 20003. Hansuvvadha and Sllater (2012) describe cultural com
mpetence ass a range of ““knowledge,, behaviors, and disposittions necesssary to culturaally interact with other ccultural grou
ups” (p. 174). Ford and W
Whiting (200
08) have placed cultural ccompetence
e on the positive end of aa continuum
m that movess from “cultu
ural destructiiveness” to ““advanced cultural comp
petence,” w
where “culturrally compettent individu
uals or organiizations asse
ertively and proactively develop new
w educational models an
nd approach
hes based on
n culture” (p. 106). Relevant scho
olarly researrch on culturral compete nce has focu
used broadlyy on education (Colombo
o, 2007; De Beuckelaer, Lievens, & B
Bücker, 20122; Hansuvad
dha & Slater,, 2012; Keen
ngwe, 2010; Paz, 2008; Roggers‐Sirin & SSirin, 2009; TTanner & Alllen, 2007), eeducation off gifted studeents (Ford & W
Whiting, 200
08; Henshon, 2008), edu
ucation of stuudents with disabilities (Harmon, Kaasa‐
Hendrickkson, & Neal, 2009), high
her educatio
on (De Beuckkelaer et al, 2012; Kohli, Kohli, & Huber, 2010), an
nd campus laaw enforcem
ment (Anderrson, 2011). Researcherss in cultural competencee have examined appliications of cu
ultural comp
petence in fiields such ass social workk (Allen‐Meaares, 2008; Gaallegos et al.,, 2008; Johnson & Muncch, 2008), coounselor traiining/mentaal health servvices (Ilieva & Erguner‐Tekkinalp, 2012;; Sue, 2006),, nursing (Sccott, 2011), aand coaching (Van Horn, 2009). Competencee Education Urgency of Cultural C
Itt is worth no
oting that the
e prima faciee value of cuultural comp
petence education is nott universally accepted. Gallegos ett al. (2008) aadmit that thhe ephemeral nature of such a consstruct may defyy evaluation and testing. Johnson an
nd Munch (22009) decry ““contradictio
ons” in instilling cultural ccompetence
e (2009) thatt undermine presumed eequality of social work cclients and fo
oster specious heuristics in
n client treattment. Neve
ertheless, th e general asssertions of G
Gallegos et aal. and John
nson and Mu
unch are in the minority.. Significantt dissent in aacademe and
d other areas with resp
pect to the vvalue of cultu
ural competence is scarccer. In fact, Eisenchlas and Trevaskees (2007) arrgue that universities an
nd colleges should prom ote cultural competence so that 10 easingly ethnnically and culturally diverse societyy and students can “operatte effectivelyy in an incre
globalised economy”” (p. 414). Sirin et al. (20
010) describe the need ffor teachers’’ cultural competence as “urgent” (p. 49). Cultural compe
etence has been espouse
ed more form
mally in the mission stattements of aand ohnson & Mu
unch, 2009),, as accrediting bodies off social workk programs (Gallegos et al., 2008; Jo
well as being listed as a formal re
equirement for funding of service programs (Paaz, 2008). Broadly, the value‐baased perspective of cultural compettence has beeen endorsed in the es of psychotherapy (Sue
e, 2006), police work (A nderson, 20011), online eeducation discipline
(Keengwe, 2010; Roggers, Graham
m, & Mayes, 2007), asseessment (Trim
mble, Trickeett, & Fisher, 2012), an
nd nursing (SScott, 2011).. Recently, authors have assserted explicitly that cuultural comp
petence train
ning should be a “requirem
ment” (Allen
n‐Meares, 20
008; Rogers‐‐Sirin & Sirinn, 2009; Trim
mble et al., 2012) even in
n areas nott specificallyy compelled by law or acccrediting boodies. The cu
urrent focuss is on culturral compete
ence in educaation, where
e precedent exists in traaining educattors in primaary and secondarry education
n (Colombo, 2007; Ford &
& Whiting, 22008; Hansuvadha & Slater, 2012; Harmon, Kasa‐Hendrrickson, & Neal, 2009; Ke
eengwe, 20110; Paz, 2008; Trimble eet al., 2012) aand higher ed
ducation (An
nderson, 201
11; De Beuckkelaer et al.,, 2012; Ilievaa & Erguner‐‐Tekinalp, 20
012; Kohli et aal., 2010; Ponterotto, Baaluch, Greig, & Rivera, 19998; Tharp, 2012). For eexample, Roggers‐
Sirin and Sirin (2009)) warn against the impliccations of a sstatic, whitee, female teaaching force in the changing face of student dem
mographics. Assessme
ent of Cultural Competeence General asses
G
ssment strattegies: Diagn
nostic tools iin cultural co
ompetence often use brroad barometers. Johnson
n and Munch
h (2009) desscribe NASW
W accreditatio
on standards within thee field ever, similar concretenesss is rarer in education. C
of social work; howe
Cooper, He, and Levin escribe cultu
ural compete
ence in the b
broad termss of studentss and primarry and secon
ndary (2011) de
educatorrs understan
nding themse
elves and eaach other. Paaz (2008) concedes that organizations 11 must beggin with the ability to asssess cultural competencce, an impliccit suggestion that thesee mechanisms are not widespread
d. Fo
ord and Whiting are som
mewhat morre concrete. They have rrecommended that the organizattional spectrrum of Crosss (1988; as ccited in Ford and Whitingg, 2008) be aapplied to individuaals. On one e
end of Cross’’s five‐part ccontinuum iss “cultural destructiveneess,” in whicch a malevole
ent ignorance prevails ab
bout culture
e and its impplications. On the oppossite and morre refined e
end is “advan
nced culturaal competencce” where “culture is heeld in the higghest regard
d” (p. 106). Forrd and Whiting also refer to Storti’s (1998; as citted in Ford aand Whiting,, 2008) four‐‐part continuu
um ranging frrom “blissful ignorance”” of culture tto “spontaneeous sensitivvity” of cultu
ure (p. 106). In
n a slightly m
more specificc definition o
of cultural coompetence iinvolving lan
nguage, Robinson
n & Clardy (2
2011) describe the term “culturally aand linguistically diversee” (CLD) to include ““all people w
whose first laanguage or d
dialect and ccultural backkgrounds aree other than mainstre
eam”(p. 102)). Robinson aand Clardy aassessed tea cher educattion candidates and k‐12
2 teachers to evaluate their work w
with culturally and linguuistically diveerse (CLD) sttudents and peers. Robinson and
d Clardy (201
11) studied tthis problem
m using the C
Critical Race Theory (CRTT) to “analyze race and racism at macro and micro
o levels as itt affects our society and our schools/iinstitutions”” (Robinson &
& Clardy, 20
011, p. 102). Seelf‐report sccale: A more specific use
eful tool has been advan
nced by Pontterotto et al.. (as cited in R
Rogers‐Sirin & Sirin, 2009
9). The Teaccher Multicuultural Attitu
ude Survey (TMAS) is a 2
20‐
item self‐report scale
e measuringg “teachers’ aawareness oof, comfort w
with, and sensitivity issu
ues of cultural p
pluralism in the classroo
om” among p
preservice teeachers, where preserviice teachers rate themselvves on a 1‐5 Likert scale.. Example ite
ems include “I can learn a great deal from studeents with culturally differe
ent backgrounds” and “Being multicculturally aw
ware is not reelevant for ompetence aas directly as any students” (reverse‐sccored). This scale appears to tap intto cultural co
d thus far, but a subjectiive self‐repo
ort scale suchh as this may have less o
objective utiility discussed
than other approach
hes. 12 ecommenda
ations on Imp
proving Culttural Compeetence Broad Re
The United Sttates has been called a m
melting pot rich in cultural diversity; however, education appears to
o be homoge
enous. While
e the populaation is chan
nging, the ed
ducational system d
does not seem to be flexible or mind
dful of the baackgrounds of students seeking education. Not all professors havve the culturral knowledgge and expeerience of wo
orking or teaching in diverse e
environmentts (Robinson & Clardy, 20011; Colvin eet al., 2007). While the n
need for culturral diversity awareness iis understoo
od, the methhod to reach
h that goal is not. “If teaccher educatorrs do not value or have e
experiences with culturaal diversity, iit is unlikely that they w
will be able to te
each these cculturally relevant teaching skills to ttheir teacheer education students” (Robinson & Clardy, 2011, p. 109
9). General recom
G
mmendation
ns on langua
age: Robinsoon and Clard
dy examined how culturaal and lingu
uistic diversitty is addresssed in teache
er educationn programs ((2011). Theyy generally recomme
end coursew
work “that fo
ocuses on effectively teaaching culturrally and lingguistically diverse (CLD) students [and that] should be required of all teacher eeducation prrograms duee to the grow
wing number of these stu
udents in our schools” (R
Robinson & Clardy, 2011
1, p. 109). General recom
G
mmendation
ns on structu
ure and courrsework: In ttandem with
h Robinson aand Clardy’s ggeneral reco
ommendatio
on involving CLD for teaccher educato
ors, recomm
mendations aabout cultural ccompetence
e exist acrosss the literatu
ure in relativvely broad veeins. Paz (20
008) recomme
ends an institutionalizattion and adaption of servvice deliveryy in broad teerms for scho
ool administrators. Ilievaa and Ergune
er‐Tekinalp ((2012) discuuss specific attributes in online assignme
ents that fosster greater ccultural com
mpetence in nascent cou
unselors. De Beuckelaer et al. (2012) offfer a descrip
ption of the culturally co
ompetent sttudent as mo
ore likely to succeed in business. Kohli et al. (2010) focus on a narro
ow graduate student con
nstituency. General philo
G
osophical reccommendatiions: Tharp ((2012) addreessed the cu
urrent spirit m
more directly b
but was also somewhat vvague in his recommenddations. Thaarp’s four reecommendattions for highe
er educators include: “1) Being aware of, and ow
wning your ssocial identity and its im
mpact on others; 2) knowin
ng and applying social ide
entity theorries; 3) recoggnizing how multiple soccial identitiess and powerr interface w
with society o
on an individdual, commu
unity, and institutional leevel; 13 m development and facilitation of and 4) caarefully conssidering yourr approach tto curriculum
diversity education.”” On the face of it, Tharp
p’s article apppears to bee the most neatly reconcciled to the cu
urrent topic b
but avails few operation
nal definitionns to aid thee reader or college administrator. Specific EExercises an
nd Activities to Improve Cultural Com
mpetence The REST: A p
Th
particularly sspecific educcational tooll within the realm of preeservice teaccher education is produce
ed by Rogerss‐Sirin and Sirin (2009; laater validateed by Sirin ett al., 2010). TThey develope
ed the Racial and Ethicall Sensitivity TTest (REST). The REST is designed to
o help teacheers recognize
e intolerance and develo
ops skills related to addrressing margginalization of students based on
n demograph
hics. These sskills notablyy used conteext‐specific vvocabulary. TThose that performe
ed well on th
he REST show
wed greaterr cultural com
mpetence, m
measured latter. Rogers‐SSirin and Sirin had educators‐in‐training address e
ethically prooblematic vid
deoed scenaarios for preservicce secondaryy school teacchers. These
e scenarios i nvolved a faaculty loungee scenario and a students‐on‐a‐basketball‐court sscenario. In each, overt and subtle rracial discrim
mination occurred
d, by the auth
hors’ descrip
ption. Preservice teacheers rated thee scenarios o
on a 1‐5 scalee in terms of how problematic they w
were, with h
higher scoress diagnosingg greater sen
nsitivity to raacial discrimin
nation. The Self and O
Th
Other Awareeness Projecct (SOAP): Coolvin‐Burquee et al. (2007
7) described The Self and Other Aware
eness Projecct (SOAP) as designed too help educaators advance cultural compete
ence. Specificcally, the SO
OAP model in
ncludes “diveersity and cu
ulture, poweer, inequalityy, and strattification, miinority and m
majority groups, and preejudice and d
discriminatio
on” (p. 226). The SOAP mo
odel was for an undergraaduate mino
ority‐groupeed course. Th
he object waas: (1) to foster studentss’ ability and
d willingness to recognize and explore cultural diversity; (2) to facilitate students’ accknowledgement of their own dentity; (3) tto increase student know
wledge relatted to minorrity‐group cultural id
concepts,, and majoritty‐minority ggroup dynam
mics; and (4)) to develop
p skills in 14 unications, in
n preparatioon for workin
ng in a diverse cross‐culttural commu
society (p
p. 226). The SOAP mo
odel includess a variety off activities inncluding “seelf‐evaluation
n, large and small gro
oup activitiess, journals, vvideos, guestt speakers a nd Lenspersson assignments (five homewo
ork assignme
ents to suppo
ort cultural ccompetencee developmeent” (p. 226). The culturral compete
encies selected by Colvin
n‐Burque et aal. were relaated to race,, gender, sexxual orientattion, religion, ability, or agge with partiicular imporrtance on racce. The SOA
AP project was measured
d by the Colorr‐Blind Raciaal attitudes sscale (coBRA
AS) by Nevillee, Lilly, Duraan, Lee, and Browne (200
00). The CoBR
RAS captured data throu
ugh an objecctive, self‐addministered 20‐question
n survey usin
ng the Likert scale. To m
measure any change, the
e CoBRAS waas given on tthe first and last day of cclass in a pre‐ttest/post‐tesst design. Th
he results showed signifiicant differeences between the preteest and posttest . Specifically, differe
ences were noted for thhe following objective arreas (in conttrast to the subjective TMAS by Ponte
erotto et al., 1998): Unaw
wareness off racial privilege, unawareness to blatant racial isssues, and un
nawareness tto institution
nal discrimin
nation (Colviin‐
Burque e
et al., 2007). Further, the authors no
oted significcant differen
nces between the white students and the black students.. White students had higgher levels o
of unawareness of racial privilege,, unawarene
ess to blatan
nt racial issue
es, and unaw
wareness to institutionaal discrimination when com
mpared to b
black students on the pre
etest. The auuthors note that: this studyy provides p
preliminary e
empirical eviidence regarrding the impact of a specific m
model design
ned to assist faculty whoo are educatiing social wo
ork students tto acquire th
he knowledgge and skills necessary to work successfully with clien
nts from dive
erse backgro
ounds (p. 2377). The SOAP
P study provvided a posittive change iin student aw
wareness off color blind racial attitudes as measu
ured by the C
CoBRAS survvey. This mo
odel and survvey can be u
used togetheer to educatee students and faculty attitudes in the areas of race, gend er, age, ability, religion,, ethnicity, and sexual orrientation (C
Colvin‐Burque et al., 2007). The inclusiona
Th
ary cultural model: The inclusionaryy cultural mo
odel first usees self‐
identificaation of backkground including childh
hood memorries and trad
ditions. The next step looks 15 erspective off other cultural backgrou
unds and traaditions (Nakkabusgu & R
Rittner, 1992
2). at the pe
Nakabusgu and Rittn
ner (1992) no
oted that mo
ost studentss do not und
derstand how
w profoundlyy their culttural backgro
ounds affectt beliefs and decisions. Further stud
dents “may h
have an unrealisttic expectatio
on that mino
ority content will teach tthem sufficient information about specific ccultures to enable them to work com
mfortably wiith those populations” (p. 4). This thought process allow
ws studentss to compare
e other cultuures as “mosst like mine” or “least likke mine” wh
hich can lead
d to bias. Inttercultural le
earning is m ultifaceted. In the inclussionary cultu
ural method, the studentts examine themselves b
becoming th e subject in the experim
ment “and crross‐
learning process to e
enable them to generalizze more didaactic materiaal on broad, cultural compone
ents” (p. 4). This inclusio
onary culturaal model alloows students to “recogn
nize behaviors and attitudes that arre culturally influenced rregardless off the specificc cultural co
ontent” (p. 5). The crosss cultural ap
pproach allow
ws students to learn wh at shapes th
heir own valu
ues and traditions, then learn
n other cultu
ural backgrounds. The inclusionary cultural model process is brokenn down into
o several step
ps and can b
be done in aa classroom setting. Firstt students divide by culttural backgro
ound. Nakab
busgu and Rittner (1
1992) noted that “some students wiill use only aa single ethn
nic identity (C
Chinese, Cub
ban, English, G
German, Me
exican, Puertto Rican) or combined iddentities (African Americcan, Italian‐
American
n, Japanese‐‐Peruvian) w
while others m
may includee religious afffiliations (Iriish‐Catholic,, Guayane
ese‐Hindu, Le
ebanese‐Mo
oslem, New YYork‐Jew, Sccottish‐Germ
man‐Southerrn Baptist), o
or other com
mbination” ((p. 6). The next step req
quires subgrooups for disccussion. Theese small subgroup
ps that stude
ents divide u
up into mostt closely reseemble their own culturee. In these sm
mall subgroup
ps, students discuss theiir childhood memories, ttraditions, aand behaviorrs. Specificallly “they are
e encouraged to try to re
emember an
ny of the adm
monitions, ssayings, or rh
hymes they heard as children” (N
Nakabusgu &
& Rittner, 1992, p. 7). Stuudents focuss on what th
hey were tau
ught. udents were asked “to discriminate tthose behavviors that weere most likeely family‐
Next, stu
specific. TThey discove
er that, whaat they thougght was cult ural may have been fam
mily‐idiosynccratic in nature
e. Alternative
ely, they reaalize that what they belieeved were faamily rules ffor behaviorr may 16 en culturally consistent w
with others iin their subggroup” (Nakaabusgu & Ritttner, 1992, p. have bee
7). In
n the subgro
oups studentts realize how
w hard it is tto determinee what is thee cultural no
orm for their backgrounds and what aare idiosyncratic behavi ors. In the fiinal stage off this exercisse, oles, religion
n, and behavviors similarities and differences with respect to family responnsibilities, ro
lead to in
nteractive diiscussions. From this poiint, the didaactic materiaal on culture is presented
d. After com
ming through
h the inclusionary culturral model, sttudents understand how
w their own cultural b
background shaped their lives and h
how individuuals from oth
her cultures evolved from their own
n experience
es as well. It allows students to learnn from the kknown to thee unknown aand to distingguish between family rules and cultu
ural rules. Inn turn, this p
process has ““a tremendo
ous impact on attitudes, perceptionss, behaviors,, actions, feeelings, and m
most importaantly, expectations about h
how others sshould act, ffeel, and bel ieve” (Nakab
busgu & Ritttner, 1992, p
p. 9). The belie
ef is that oncce the students have a b
better underrstanding of themselves and their ptive. backgrou
und, then the didactic m
materials abo
out other cul tures will bee more recep
In
ntergroup Interaction: Eiisenchlas and Trevaskess (2007) high
hlight four diifferent casee studies at Griffith Un
niversity in A
Australia thatt focus on inntercultural eexchanges in
n various settings –
– from the closely controlled environment of thhe classroom
m to the broaader campuss setting and ultimatelly to the greater surroun
nding comm
munity. Throu
ugh films, discussions, group essays, and intercultural interacttions, the insstructors ex pect students to “recognise the nscious actin
ng out of culttural mores as situational and not necessarily conscious and uncon
universal” (p. 417). TThe implicatiions, then, are clear. If cculture is learned (or situ
uational), then students can also leaarn to adapt to differentt and unfamiiliar situations, customs, and peoplee. One prob
blem though
h, according to Eisenchlaas and Trevaaskes, is thatt no one will take ownerrship of the tassk: cultural ccompetence
e is always eiither someone else’s pro
oblem or “taaken for granted”” (p. 414). 17 Directions Future D
Challenges to
o University aadministrato
ors in beginnning culturall competencce initiativess include aa lack of preccedent and aa wide arrayy of operatioonal definitio
ons. While Rogers‐Sirin aand Sirin (200
09), Colvin‐B
Burque et al. (2007), and
d Nakabusguu and Rittnerr (1992), aree explicit in their methodss, their meth
hods have no
ot been enscconced as m odels for un
niversities to adopt. Rogeers‐
Sirin and Sirin’s RESTT model, whiile concrete,, is intendedd for a speciffic discipline. Broad and
d less tangible principles, such as those
e recommen
nded by Tharrp (2012), pllace the onu
us of program
m ment specificcs on the insstitution. W
While no one would dispu
ute that careefully developm
considering approaches to curricculum develo
opment sou nds like a prrofitable patth (among Tharp’s rrecommendaations), Tharrp and otherrs are underrstandably reeticent on sp
pecifics. On the positiv
O
ve side, therre is an emergent scaffoold in the liteerature from
m which a committe
ee could con
nstruct a plausible, cohe
erent plan ussing operatio
onal definitions of cultural compete
ence, from banal self‐rep
ports as desccribed by Poonterotto et al. (1998) to
o the method
ds of those described abovve. Administtrators, while preceded by few pion
neers, have w
wide latitudee to root initiatives in the
e best practicces of prior studies in a national zeittgeist that iss ready to acccept e training. cultural ccompetence
18 Section V: Studen
nt Learningg Outcome
es While much o
W
of the researrch indicatess a focus on systemic or organizational cultural compete
ence, Delta SState’s focus must be on that of the individual, tthe student. To create appropriate student learning outtcomes, the QEP Action Plan Subcom
mmittee dreew inspiratio
on and guidance from several sourcces: 
“Defining, A
Assessing, and Documentting Studentt Learning O
Outcomes at Delta State University” –
– This presentation by D
Dr. Thomas C
Cleary on Maarch 1, 2013
3 highlighted
d (among othe
er things) th
he “productss” of higher eeducation an
nd the basis for student learning outtcomes: 1. Cogn
nitive develo
opment (Kno
owledge) 2. Behaavioral development (Skkills) 3. Affecctive development (Attittude) 
Intercultural Knowledgee and Compeetence Valuee Rubric – Crreated by thee Association of American Co
A
olleges and SSchools (AAC
CU), this rubbric provided
d cogent talkking points aand inspiration ffor the discu
ussions. 
Bloom’s Taxxonomy of M
Measurable V
Verbs – A keyy document in this exerccise, Bloom’’s Taxonomy served as the
e catalyst forr the shape tthat the outtcomes would eventuallyy take. t

eview for thiis QEP – the literature reeview createed a breakth
hrough of sorts Literature re
by shifting the QEP’s em
mphasis from
m “cultural aw
wareness” tto “cultural ccompetencee.” While “awarreness” main
nly represen
nts sensitivitty issues, “co
ompetence” focuses on awareness, knowledge, and skills, th
hus allowingg for specificc measurablee opportunitties more opportu
unities for deepartments to in the curricculum. This ““new” focus opens up m
explore, and
d it creates m
more concre
ete assessmeent capabilitties. From the
ese four sourrces, the Acttion Plan Sub
bcommitteee created thee following tthree outcom
mes: 1. Describe varrious aspects of cultural diversity. 
Exam
mples: Learning about otther culturess; understan
nding culturaal biases and
d differences 19 2. Articulate a A
shared unde
erstanding aand support of cross‐culttural experieences. 
Exam
mples: Impro
oving intercu
ultural comm
munication; w
working within a globaliized socie
ety/economyy 3. Evaluate culltural perspe
ectives with openness annd respect. 
Exam
mples: Developing empaathic skills These ou
utcomes worrk in conjuncction with th
he accepted definitions o
of “culture” and “cultural compete
ence” and wiith the desire to give all departmentts and units autonomy in
n exploring intercultural issues w
within their o
own disciplin
nes. To aid inn the develo
opment and furtherancee of the learn
ning outcomes, the subcommittee also identifiedd three broaad goals of the QEP: 1. Provide opp
portunities fo
or students tto explore thheir own culltural communities. 2. Provide opp
portunities fo
or students tto experiencce, understand, and app
preciate otheer cultures. 3. Provide opp
portunities to
o enhance sttudents’ crooss‐cultural ccommunicattion and interaction sskills. 20 Section VI: Action
ns to be Im
mplemente
ed To meet the b
broad goals of the QEP, the QEP Teaam devised ffour strategies to assist the university in incorporating culturral competence at DSU, the intent b
being that cu
ultural compete
ence and its p
products willl become a part of the ffabric of thee undergradu
uate college experience from begginning to en
nd. Strategyy 1 – Introduce cultural a
awareness eexercises andd activities iinto the Firsst‐Year Experien
nce According to A
the universiity’s catalog,, the Bulletinn, GST 100, aa one‐hour ffreshmen orientation course, iss designed in
n part to hellp students ““adjust responsibly to th
he individual and interperssonal challen
nges presentted by colleggiate life.” This course fo
osters a sensse of commu
unity and ease
es DSU’s new
w students in
nto the camp
pus culture; it is therefo
ore the perfeect vehicle to
o introduce
e cultural co
ompetence to freshmen in a reliablee and consisttent mannerr. The QEP Team has developed tw
wo methods for introduccing cultural competence to this gro
oup. One is a ssurvey, while the other is a common
n reading exxperience, w
which will be a new required session for GST 100. 1. The Freshm
men Culturall Competencce Survey is aa simple Likeert scale dessigned to asssess nicating and associating with diversee population
ns. sttudents’ attiitudes towarrds commun
This survey w
will be admin
nistered twicce during thee semester: once at the beginning o
of the co
ourse, and o
once at the e
end. This insttrument meeasures the eentire GST experience and not simply the newly intrroduced sesssion dealing with culturaal competen
nce. See belo
ow: 21 Fresshmen Cultu
ural Competeence Surveyy Strongly Disa gree Agree Strongly Aggree 1 22 3 4 1 22 3 4 1 22 3 4 1 22 3 4 1 22 3 4 Disagre
ee A. It is im
mportant thaat I associate
e with peo
ople whose id
deas and backgrou
unds differ frrom mine B. Being exposed to o
others who are differrent helps m
me understaand myself better C. Underrstanding divverse people
e and cultu
ures is an important partt of my college experie
ence D. I value
e opinions an
nd perspectives differen
nt from my own E. DSU sh
hould make every effortt to encourage and pro
omote ong differentt communication amo
cultural ggroups 2. The common reading d
delves deepe
er into inter cultural relaations. Buildiing on the id
dea th
hat a commo
on reading e
experience “brings peopple closer toggether as a ccommunity b
by crreating common ground
d for discussion” (Fergusson 2006), G
GST mentors will lead theeir se
ections through a readin
ng of the sho
ort story, “D ead Men’s PPath” by Chinua Achebe. This sttory not onlyy introducess students to
o various typpes of culturee, but it also
o broaches th
he isssue of comm
municating w
with and und
derstanding others and the pitfalls aassociated w
with th
he failure to achieve culttural compe
etence. Afterr an evaluatiive period, o
other readinggs 22 may be consi
m
dered in sub
bsequent years. The QEPP Team is deeveloping a gguide for GST mentors to fa
m
acilitate the common reaading sessioon. Strategyy 2 – Incorpo
orate or enha
ance cultura
al competennce threads iin a range of
of general educatio
on courses Evvery Generaal Education course that currently iddentifies Culttural Awaren
ness as a compete
ency2 is automatically inccluded in the
e QEP plan. Of the fifty‐ttwo availablle General Education courses, tw
wenty‐one ccourses have
e Cultural Aw
wareness as a competen
ncy3 (Append
dix 4 – List of G
General Edu
ucation Courrses). Departments are ttaking a closse look at these courses and examinin
ng just exactly how cultu
ural compete
ence fits as aa componen
nt. This strateegy requiress that faculty m
members be intentional iin their efforrts when creeating or asssessing exerccises. Instrucctors will account for objectives, instru
uctional metthods, assignnments, and
d assessment methods. Departm
ments will be required to complete th
he annual QEEP Outcomees for Genera
al Education
n Courses TTable (Appendix 5 – QEP
P Outcomess for Generall Education Courses Tab
ble). These tables generallyy record the following: 
The specified outcome (C
Column A) 
Description o
D
of how each course will aachieve sele cted SLOs, in
ncluding cou
ursework, daata co
ollection, an
nd analysis (C
Column B) 
Results of the
e Evaluation (Column C)

Use of Evalua
U
ation Resultss (Column D)) In Fall 20
013, departm
ments submitted partial tables show
wing how eacch course iniitially plans tto achieve tthe SLOs, and then collect and analyyze data. 2
Cultural A
Awareness is currently one of ten possible competencies associated witth General Edu
ucation courses. There are
e actually fifty‐‐six General Education course
es offered at D
DSU; however, ANT 101 and M
MUS 117 are currently n
not being offerred, and ART 40
01 and 402 are
e for Art majorrs only. 3
23 Strategyy 3 – Incorpo
orate or enha
ance cultura
al competennce threads iin selected u
upper‐level courses o
of all degree
e programs Fo
or all degree
e programs, departmentts will identi fy upper‐levvel courses tthat are relevvant to the QEEP. These up
pper‐level co
ourses are, fo
or the most part, 300 orr 400 level co
ourses or co
ore courses in the specific major. De
epartments m
must allow ffor the samee consideratiions as with the Gen Ed courses (obje
ectives, meth
hods, assignments, asseessment tech
hniques). They will also be required to complete
e the annuall QEP Outcom
mes for Uppper‐Level Couurses Table ((Appendix 6
6 – QEP Outccomes for U
Upper‐Level C
Courses Tab
ble). While the QE
W
P Team did not set a maaximum num
mber of uppeer‐level courrses for each
h degree p
program, the
ey did ask de
epartments tto identify att least one rrequired (or core) coursee, or a batteryy of electivess that are taught at leastt once everyy two years. This procedure is intend
ded to ensure
e that every student in e
every degree
e program w
will be exposed to the co
oncept of culltural compete
ence. During a leng
D
gthy process in Fall 2013, departmenntal curriculu
um committtees identifieed over fiftyy upper‐level courses to participate in the QEP (A
Appendix 7 – List of Up
pper‐level Courses). As with the
e Gen Ed cou
urses, deparrtments subm
mitted partial tables sho
owing how eeach course in
nitially plans to achieve tthe SLOs, and then colleect and analyyze data. In ssome ways, Strategy #3 created aa more intellectually rigo
orous proce ss than the other strateegies. With th
he mittees alreaady knew wh
hich coursess had to be Gen Ed courses, chairs and curricculum comm
Cultural Awarreness as a ccompetencyy); however, with the up
pper‐
included (those that identified C
level cou
urses, facultyy members e
examined evvery requiredd, core, or elective coursse in their respectivve programs to determin
ne where an
nd how cultuural competeency fit best. Through the lengthy communicaation with de
epartments and learningg of their unique situatio
ons, the QEP TTeam made some revisions to its initial requestts: 1. Departme
ents may cho
oose to inclu
ude a coursee more than once if it saatisfies requirements in multtiple degree programs (ee.g. Many bu
usiness degree programss share MG
GT 300 as a ccore course, so a numbeer of departm
ments in the College of Business h
have chosen
n that course
e as the one they will usse for the QEEP). 24 2. For those degree proggrams with low enrollm ent, many o
of the upper‐‐division cou
urses are not taaught as freq
quently as th
hose in the m
more populaated degree programs; therefore
e, some depaartments havve chosen “llower‐level”” core coursees as their Q
QEP selection((s). for Upper‐Level Courses Table and thhe QEP Outccomes for Geeneral Educa
ation The QEP Outcomes fo
Courses TTable will co
ollectively be
e called the Q
QEP Outcom
mes Tables. Strategyy 4 – Enhance
e the offerin
ngs of culturrally rich eveents on cam
mpus The QEP Director will work with vario
ous groups ( such as the Diversity Co
ommittee, SG
GA, and Interrnational Stu
udent Servicces) to develop strategiees for the devvelopment o
of relevant events; m
monitor the organization
n and coordiination of reelevant even
nts; and coorrdinate with all departments and units on campu
us to ensure
e that all releevant calend
dared activities are appropriately designated as QEP
P‐related (i.e
e. an event thhat relates tto intercultural issues). If so designate
ed, these evvents will be tagged and tracked wit h one of thee QEP prograam goals or student learning outcomes. All taagged eventts will be eliggible for spo
onsorship and funding. Supportiing Actions 
DSU will adm
D
inister an an
nnual QEP Su
urvey to fresshmen and sseniors. Thiss survey, sim
milar to
o the one givven after the
e QEP topic w
was chosen,, intends to capture stud
dents’ mindssets – their understanding of culture, their beliefs, annd their thou
ughts on culttural co
ompetence issues at Delta State. Th
he results, coompared yeaar to year, w
will indicate tthe plan’s effectivveness and w
will provide direction for future programming. TThis survey iis not in
ntended to b
be a longitud
dinal study; rrather, it is aan independ
dent sample that will co
ompare fresshmen to fre
eshmen and seniors to seeniors. Fresh
hmen will bee chosen fro
om a saample of the
e participatin
ng Gen Ed co
ourses. Senioors will be chosen from a sample off the participating upper‐level courses. The hypothesiss is that oveer time, whilee the freshm
men saample will likely remain relatively un
nchanged, thhe senior sample will deemonstrate im
mprovementt in the area of cultural ccompetencee (Appendix 8 – QEP Surrvey). 25 
DSU will also D
plan and ho
ost regular evvents (at leaast two annu
ually) on culttural co
ompetency. One such e
event will serrve as a “besst practices”” workshop iintended to asssist faculty in incorporaating culturaal competency into courses, while an
nother such evvent, availab
ble to the en
ntire campuss, will generaally focus on
n understand
ding intercultural isssues and im
mproving culttural competency skills. 26 Section VII: Organ
nizational Structure
While the ent
W
tire universitty has a stakke in this plaan, the QEP TTeam has ideentified a number o
of individuals or groups that will havve direct ressponsibility in overseeing, running, o
or evaluatin
ng this plan. 
QEP Director Q
o Coord
dinates all QEEP efforts o Ensures that all re
eports are co
ompleted annd submitted
d on time piles chairs’ D
Departmenta
al QEP Repoorts o Comp
o Admin
nisters QEP SSurvey o Tabulaates Freshm
men Cultural Competencee Survey resp
ponses o Trackss campus evvents with caampus‐wide support o Comp
pletes and su
ubmits annuaal report to SACS Liaison
n (see Sectio
on IX for more inform
mation on th
his report) 
SA
ACS Liaison o Monittors the entire plan for ccompliance
o Appoiints memberrs of the QEP
P Advisory G
Group (explaained below and in Section VIII) 
Academic De
A
partments Gen Ed and Upper‐level course selections o Annuaally Review G
o (Depaartment chaiirs) Submit Q
QEP Outcom es Tables to
o the QEP Dirrector o (Depaartment chaiirs) Submit aa Departmenntal QEP Repport to the Q
QEP Director (see Sectio
on IX for morre information on the Deepartmentaal QEP Reporrt) o (Facullty memberss) Make chan
nges to courrses based o
on analysis o
of the QEP Outco
omes Tables 
GST Mentors G
o Admin
nister the Frreshmen Culttural Compeetence Surveey to all GST 100 sectionss o Lead ssections thro
ough a readiing of “Deadd Men’s Path
h” by Chinuaa Achebe 27 
QEP Advisory
Q
y Group o Plans at least two
o workshops//presentatioons annuallyy o Review
ws QEP Dire
ector’s annuaal report o Review
ws submitte
ed QEP Outco
omes Tabless o Review
ws Departm
mental QEP R
Reports o Makes recommen
ndations to aacademic deepartments rregarding co
ourse selections echniques and asssessment te
o Comp
pletes and su
ubmits annuaal report to SACS Liaison
n (see Sectio
on IX for more inform
mation on th
his report) 
All University
A
y Departmen
nts, Units, Co
ommittees, aand Organizaations o Work with the QEEP Director to plan, iden tify, and tagg appropriatee calendared
d events 28 Section VIII: Reso
ources One of th
he hallmarkss of a successsful QEP is itts sustainab ility – of hum
man, physicaal, and finan
ncial resources. This QEP h
has an annual budget se
et aside of appproximatelly $77,000.0
00 for a minim
mum ears. While tthis plan will take full advantage of eexisting reso
ources, one n
new position
n and of five ye
one new committee with unique
e responsibilities have beeen created. 
QEP Director Q
– The individual in this ½
½‐time posittion doubless as the Asseessment and
d Planning Speccialist, also aa ½‐time possition. 
QEP Advisory
Q
y Group – Inttroduced in Section VII, this group w
will consist o
of members ffrom vaarious intere
ested partiess such as the
e General Edducation Com
mmittee, QEEP Team, Stu
udent Affairs, SGA, A
Diversity Committee, an
nd academicc departmen
ntal liaisons. The table
e below indicates expectted and budgeted expennditures: Item Cost QEP Director – Salaary + Fringe $42,250
0.00 Contractual (extern
nal evaluatio
on, consulta nts) $10,000
0.00 Commo
odities (supp
plies) $3,750
0.00 Marketting (publicitty, branding) $6,000
0.00 Professsional Development funds (Researchh, Presentations, Traiining) $15,000
0.00 Tottal: $77,000
0.00 29 Section IX: Assesssment Straategies The QEP Team
m has develo
oped a number of assessment strateegies to ensure that all broad program goalss and SLOs are successfu
ully met. Asssessment willl be the resp
ponsibility o
of academicc departmen
nts, faculty, tthe QEP Advvisory Groupp, and the QEP Director. QEP Outccomes Table
es (for Uppeer‐Level Courrses and Genneral Educa
ation Coursess) Since the
e success of tthis plan dep
pends on wh
hat happenss in the classsroom, how and to whatt degree competence is assessed w
will rest prim
marily with aacademic deepartments –– the facultyy. The ool. As discusssed in Sectiion VI, the taables chart tthe QEP Outccomes Tablee will be the reporting to
followingg: 
Specified Outcomes (Column A)

Methods,, data collecttion, and analysis (Colum
mn B) 
Results off evaluation (Column C)

Use of evaluation results (Column
n D) Rather th
han acceptin
ng the static “No Change
es” or “No Reecommendaations,” the QEP Team expects tto see much activity in C
Column D as an indicatioon of growth
h and adaptaability and a sign of departtments’ leve
el of involvem
ment in the plan. Departm
mental QEP R
Report This annual re
eport, subm
mitted by academic depa rtmental chairs to the Q
QEP Directorr, will serve two
o purposes: 
Fe
eedback – O
Open commu
unication is aa necessity. While facultty and chairss will alwayss have the opportunity to ccomment an
nd make sugggestions, the Departmeental QEP Reeport will serve as t
w
the authoritaative feedbaack mechaniism for facullty (e.g. Wha
at works? W
What does not work? Should SLLOs be chang
ged?). 
Course Review – Departm
ments will an
nnually revieew both Gen
n Ed and upp
per‐level cou
urse se
elections and make reco
ommendatio
ons for changge. This review will provvide departm
ments th
he opportun
nity to add or to remove courses from the QEP p
program. Choosing the rright or best courses for this plan is vital and cannot h appen witho
out regular ffaculty inputt. 30 Annual R
Report of the
e QEP Directtor The QEP Director will create an annual report to the SACS Liaaison (also d
distributed to
o academicc departmen
nts and the Q
QEP Advisory Group) inccluding the ffollowing: brrief summary of QEP Outccomes Tablees; summaryy of the resullts of the QEEP Survey and Freshmen Cultural Competeence Survey; tabulation o
of evaluation
n forms of w
workshops/p
presentations; and tabulation of campu
us events. Annual R
Report of the
e QEP Advisory Group The QEP Adviisory Group’’s report to tthe SACS Liaaison (also diistributed to
o academic departments and QEEP Director) w
will include a detailed annalysis of QEEP Outcomees Tables; ons to deparrtments of changes to co
ourse methoodologies; significant fin
ndings from tthe suggestio
Departm
mental QEP Report; findin
ngs from the
e QEP Surveyy and the Freeshmen Culttural Competeence Survey; and recomm
mendations to the SACS Liaison for cchanges to tthe QEP. Freshmen Cultural C
Competence Survey ed twice duriing the seme
ester, will asssess studen
nts’ attitudess towards This tool, use
communicating and associating w
with diverse
e population s and will seerve as the aassessment ttool for the G
GST 100 fresh
hmen experiience. See Se
ection VI forr more detaiiled information of this instrume
ent. QEP Survvey Although the
A
QEP Outcom
mes Tables w
will be the p rimary assesssment vehicles, DSU neeeds to hear from studentts as well. Giiven to both
h freshmen aand seniors, the survey rresults will h
have programming and planning implications for tthe entire p lan. Results will be shareed with facu
ulty Report of thee QEP Adviso
ory Group. SSee Section VI for more detailed through tthe Annual R
information on the Q
QEP Survey. 31 SSection X: Tim
meline Action/Actiivity Indivvidual(s)/Group
p(s) Responsible QEP Advisory G
Group appointed
d QEP implemen
ntation Freshmen Culltural C
Competence Survvey given W
Workshops/prese
entations planned QEP Survey admiinistered QEP Outcomes Tables submitted to
o QEP Directorr D
Departmental QEEP Report submitted to
o QEP Directorr “Best Practicces” workshop
p Cultural Compe
etence campus presen
ntation Annual Report su
ubmitted to SACS Liaison Review of QEP D
Director’s Annual Rep
port Review of QEP O
Outcomes TTables and Spring
g Reports Advisory Annual Report ssubmitted to SAC
CS Liaison 2014 Spring Summer
S
Fall 2016
6 Spring Sum
mmer Fall Spring Summ
mer Fall SACS Liaison X Entire Campus QEP Director; GST
Q
T Mentors X
X
X X QEEP Advisory Group X
X X QEP Director X X De
epartment Chairss X X
epartment Chairss De
X X
QEEP Advisory Group X X QEEP Advisory Group X X QEP Director X X
QEEP Advisory Group X X QEEP Advisory Group X X QEEP Advisory Group X X 32 20015 Action/Actiivity p(s) Indivvidual(s)/Group
Responsible QEP Advisory G
Group appointed
d QEP implemen
ntation Freshmen Culltural C
Competence Survvey given W
Workshops/prese
entations planned QEP Survey admiinistered QEP Outcomes Tables submitted to
o QEP Directorr D
Departmental QEEP Report submitted to
o QEP Directorr “Best Practiices workshop
p” Cultural Compe
etence campus presen
ntation Annual Report su
ubmitted to SACS Liaison Review of QEP D
Director’s Annual Rep
port Review of QEP O
Outcomes TTables and Spring
g Reports Advisory Annual Report ssubmitted to SAC
CS Liaison 2017 Spring Summer
S
Fall 2019
9 Spring Sum
mmer Fall Spring Summ
mer Fall SACS Liaison Entire Campus QEP Director; GST
Q
T Mentors X
X QEEP Advisory Group X
X QEP Director X X X epartment Chairss De
X X X
epartment Chairss De
X X X
QEEP Advisory Group X X X QEEP Advisory Group X X X QEP Director X X QEEP Advisory Group X
X X QEEP Advisory Group X
X X QEEP Advisory Group X
X X 33 20018 X
Re
eferences Allen‐Me
eares, P. (200
08). Culturaal competence: An ethiccal requirem
ment. Journal of Ethnic an
nd Cultural Diver
C
rsity and Soccial Work, 16
6 (3‐4), 83‐992. Anderson
n, A. (2011). Cultural co
ompetency, e
education, aand training among campus law enforcement. Campus La
aw Enforcem
ment, 41 (3), 24‐25. Brown, LL. (n.d.). Misssissippi Delta
a: The place – the mindsset: Introducction. Retrievved from http://deltacenterforculttureandlearn
ning.com/wpp‐content/uploads/2013
3/07/Mississsippi‐
Delta.pdf. D
Colombo
o, M. W. (200
07). Developing cultural competencce. Mainstreeam teacherrs and professional d
developmen
nt. Multicultu
ural Perspecctives, 9 (2), 10‐16. Colvin‐Bu
urque, A., Zu
ugazaga, C. B
B., & Davis‐M
Maye, D. (20007). Can cultural compeetence be taaught? Evalu
uating the im
mpact of the SOAP modeel. Journal off Social Worrk Education,, 43 (2
2), 223‐241. Cooper, JJ., He, Y., & LLevin, B. B. ((2011). Deveeloping criticcal cultural ccompetencee. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cross, T. L. (1988). Se
ervices to minority popu
ulations: Culttural compeetence contin
nuum. Focall Point 3, 1‐9. Cultural A
Awareness P
Proposal Teaam. (2012). 2
2014 QEP Prroposal: Culttural Awaren
ness. Retrievved frrom http://w
www.deltasttate.edu/PDFFiles/irp/Q
QEP/Cultural%
%20Awareness.pdf. Davies, N
N. (2012). Broaden your cultural base. Nursing SStandard, 277 (5) 64. De Beuckkelaer, A., Lievens, F., & Bücker, J. (2012). The role of facullty memberss’ cross‐cultu
ural co
ompetencies in their perceived teacching qualityy: Evidence ffrom culturaally‐diverse cllasses in four European countries. Jo
ournal of Higgher Educatiion, 83(2), 217‐248. Devore, W
W., & Schlessinger, E. G. (1996). Ethn
nic‐sensitivee social workk practice. A
Allyn and Baccon, Boston. Eisenchlaas, S., & Trevvaskes, S. (20
007). Develo
oping intercuultural comm
munication sskills through in
ntergroup interaction. In
ntercultural EEducation, 118 (5), 413‐4425. 34 n, M. (2006).. Creating co
ommon grou
und: Commoon reading and the first yyear of colleege. Ferguson
Peer Review, 8 (3), 8‐10. Ford, D. YY., & Whiting, G. W. (200
08). Culturaal competence: Preparin
ng gifted stu
udents for a diverse societty. Roeper R
Review, 30, 1
104‐110. egos, S. A. (2
2008). The neeed for advaancement on
n the concep
ption Gallegos,, J. S., Tindalll, C., & Galle
of cultural competence. A
Advances in Social Workk, 9, 51‐62. Hansuvadha, N., & Sllater, C. L. (2
2012). Cultu
ural competeent school leeaders: The individual and he system. EEducational Forum, 76 (2), 174‐189.. th
Harmon, C., Kasa‐Hendrickson, C
C., & Neal, L.. I. (2009). Prromoting cu
ultural competencies forr te
eachers of sttudents with
h significant disabilities. Research and Practice, 34 (3‐4), 13
37‐
144. Henshon
n, S. E. (2008). An evolving field. Chaampion of cuultural comp
petence: An interview w
with Donna Y. Ford
D
d. Roeper Review, 30, 208‐210. Hepwortth, D. H., Roo
oney, R. H., &
& Larsen, J. A
A. (2002). D
Direct social work practicce: Theory a
and skkills. Brookss/Cole‐Thom
mson. Pacific Grove, CA.
Hilpert, J. (2012). Com
mments on p
preferred QEEP proposalss. Unpublish
hed documen
nt, Delta Staate University, Cl
U
eveland, MSS. Howell, W
W. S. (1982). The empatthic commun
nicator. Waddsworth. Beelmont, CA. Ilieva, V.,, & Erguner‐Tekinalp, B. (2012). Com
mputer appllications in ccounselor ed
ducation: Developing cu
D
ultural comp
petencies through onlinee collaborattion of futuree school co
ounselors. C
Canadian Jou
urnal of Learrning and Teechnology, 388 (2), 1‐15. Johnson, Y. M., & Mu
unch, S. (200
09). Fundam
mental contrradictions in cultural com
mpetence. SSocial Work, 54 (3), W
220‐231. Keengwe
e, J. (2010). Fostering cu
ultural comp
petence in prreservice teaachers throu
ugh multicultural education experiences. EEarly Childho
ood Educatioon Journal, 338, 197‐204.. Kohli, H. K., Kohli, A. S., & Huber,, R. (2010). Assessing cuultural comp
petence in grraduate sttudents. Intternational Journal of Prrogressive Edducation, 6 (1), 6‐27. Maguire Associates. (2011). Repo
ort to Delta State Univerrsity. Concord, MA: Magguire Associaates. 35 usionary culttural model. Journal of SSocial Work Nakabusgu, M., & Rittter, B. (1992). The inclu
Education, 28
8, 27‐35. H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G
G., Lee, R. M
M., & Brownee, L. (2000). C
Construction
n and initial Neville, H
vaalidation of the Color‐Blind Racial Attitudes Sca le (CoBRAS). Journal of C
Counseling Pssychology, 4
47, 59‐70. Paz, S. (2
2008). Cultu
ural compete
ency. Schooll Administra tor, 65 (10), 36‐39. Ponterottto, J. G., Baluch, S., Greiig, T., & Rive
era, L. (1998)). Developm
ment and inittial score of the Teacher Multticultural Atttitude Survey. Educationnal and Psycchological Measurementt, 58, 1002‐1016. Robinson
n, C. C., & Claardy, P. (201
11). It ain’t w
what you sayy, it’s how yo
ou say it: Lin
nguistic and cu
ultural diverrsity in the cllassroom. Jo
ournal of Culltural Diversity, 18 (3), 101‐110. Rogers‐Sirin, L., & Sirrin, S. R. (200
09). Culturaal competencce as an ethical requirem
ment: In
ntroducing aa new educattional mode
el. Journal off Diversity inn Higher Edu
ucation, 2 (1)), 19‐
29. Rogers, P
P. C., Graham
m, C. R., & M
Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultuural compettence and instructional design: Explo
oration reseaarch into the
e delivery off online instrruction crosss‐culturally. Education Tecchnology Reesearch and D
Developmennt, 55 (2), 1997‐217. Scott, K. L. (2011). The developm
ment of cultu
ural compettence amongg communityy college nurses frrom the classroom to the work setting. Dissertaation Abstracts Internatiional, 72 (1‐B), 190. Sirin, S. R
R., Rogers‐Sirin, L., & Colllins, B. A. (2
2010). A meaasure of culttural compeetence as an etthical responsibility: Qu
uick‐Racial and Ethical Seensitivity Test. Journal o
of Moral Education, 39
9 (1), 49‐64. Sperry, L. & Carlson JJ. (2012). The global sign
nificance of iindividual pssychology: A
An introduction and overview
w. The Journa
al of Individu
ual Psycholo gy, 68,(3) 2005‐209. n
Storti (19
998). The arrt of crossing
g cultures (2nd
ed.). Yarm
mouth. ME. Interculturaal Press. Sue, S. (2
2006). Culturral competency: From p
philosophy too research aand practice. Journal of Community P
C
Psychology, 3
34 (2), 237‐2
245. 36 K., & Allen, D
D. (2007). Cu
ultural comp
petency in thhe biology classroom. Life Sciences Tanner, K
Education, 6 (4), 251‐258
8. Tharp, D. S. (2012). W
What it take
es to do dive
ersity educattion. About Campus, 17 7 (4), 28‐32. Trimble, J., Trickett, E., & Fisher, C. (2012). A
A conversati on on multicultural com
mpetence in American Jou
urnal of Evalluation, 33 ( 1), 112‐123.. evvaluation. A
Van Horn
n, S. F. (2009
9). An explorration of culttural compeetence hiringg criteria for head coaching positions in C
California com
mmunity colleges. Disseertation Absttracts Intern
national, 69 ((10‐
A), 3828. A
37 Section XI: Appen
ndices Appendixx 1 – Qualityy Enhancement Plan Leaadership Teaam Appendixx 2 – Focus G
Group Rankiings Appendixx 3 – Rubric Summary Appendixx 4 – List of General Edu
ucation Courrses Appendixx 5 – QEP Ou
utcomes for General Edu
ucation Courrses Table Appendixx 6 – QEP Ou
utcomes for Upper‐Level Courses Taable Appendixx 7 – List of Upper‐level Courses Appendixx 8 – QEP Su
urvey 38 APPENDIX 1
Quality Enhancement Plan Leeadership Team
39 AP
PPENDIX 2
Focus Grou
up Rankings – Faculty
F
Participan
nts were asked to rank their to
op three topics i n order of highest priority (1 b
being the highe st). Italicized to
opics are write‐‐ins resulting frrom the focus group discussion
n. Cultural A
Awareness/Sensitivity Or Sense of Place
Reading C
Comprehension
n
Student P
Preparation
Student R
Responsibility
Writing Sk
kills
Academicc Support
Computerr Literacy
Critical Th
hinking
Culture off Learning
Financial Literacy
Required GST 100 1
2
3
1
4
4
2
2
1
3
2
5
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
Research Skills
5
5
9
6
10
2
2
4
1
1
1
0
ore Comps
Sophomo
1
1
Student E
Engagement
0
Study Skillls
Time Man
nagement
1
Understanding Value of Education
1
40 Total Vottes
1
1
1
2
1
AP
PPENDIX 2
Focus Group
p Rankings – Students
S
Participants w
were asked to ra
ank their top three topics in ord
der of highest p
priority (1 beingg the highest). Italicized topicss are write‐ins resu
ulting from the ffocus group discussion. 1
Cultural Awarreness/Sensitivity Or Sense of Place
Reading Comp
prehension
Student Prepa
aration
Student Respo
onsibility
Writing Skills
1
1
3
1
1
1
Advising onsibility
Faculty Respo
Library Hours
Life Skills
Study Skills
Test Preparatiion
1
3
3
Total Votes
1
2
2
5
3
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
41 2
1
4
0
1
1
1
2
APPENDIX 3
Rubrric Summarry
CRITE
ERIA
SCORES
E
Excellent = 3 S
Satisfactory = 2
Th
his QEP proposal…
..iss consistent with
h our institution’ss Mission and Sttrategic Plan
..w
will have a signifficant impact on student learning
g 
..inncludes measuraable student learn
ning outcomes 
..haas identified speecific measures and
a tools to assess student
leaarning 
..haas clearly defineed ideas for a succcessful assessm
ment plan
..hiighlights opportu
unities to build on
o current institu
utional initiativees
andd resources
..haas a well-develo
oped and realisticc budget for whaat is proposed 
..taakes demonstrateed “best practicees” into account
..iss of a scope that will be able to be
b implemented effectively
e
and
willl obtain meanin
ngful results 
Academic Advising = 19
Student Preeparation = 19
Cultural A
Awareness = 17
Writing = 16
Student Reesponsibility = 1 4
Student Preeparation = 12
Academic Advising = 11
Cultural A
Awareness = 10
Writing = 9
Student Reesponsibility = 7
Academic Advising = 10
Student Preeparation = 10
Student Reesponsibility = 9
Writing = 9
Cultural A
Awareness = 8
Student Reesponsibility = 1 2
Academic Advising = 11
Awareness = 10
Cultural A
Student Preeparation = 10
Writing = 10
Student Reesponsibility = 1 1
Writing = 9
Academic Advising = 8
Student Preeparation = 8
Cultural A
Awareness = 7
Cultural A
Awareness = 17
Student Reesponsibility = 1 5
Student Preeparation = 15
Academic Advising = 14
Writing = 9
Writing =110
Cultural A
Awareness = 8
Student Preeparation =7
Student Reesponsibility = 4
Academic Advising = 2
Academic Advising = 15
Cultural A
Awareness = 11
Student Reesponsibility = 1 0
Student Preeparation = 9
Writing = 4
Academic Advising = 11
Cultural A
Awareness = 11
Student Reesponsibility = 1 0
Student Preeparation = 9
Writing = 9
Adapted frrom UNA proce
ess documentss (April 2012)
42 Not Adequatee = 0

Totals
T
Total
T
Score (E
Excellent – 3;
3 Satisfactorry – 2; Not A
Adequate – 0))
Acadeemic Advising
g –101
Culturral Awarenesss – 99
Studen
nt Preparation
n – 99
Studen
nt Responsibiility – 92
Writin
ng – 85
Total
T
Score by
y Certain Ca
ategories* (Same Point Sccale as Abovve)
Studen
nt Preparation
n – 48
Culturral Awarenesss – 47
Writin
ng – 47
Acadeemic Advising
g – 45
Studen
nt Responsibiility – 42
* SACS identifies certain ch
haracteristics that define a “good,” or suuccessful, QE
EP. These
ch
haracteristics are specifically representeed by the folloowing categoories in the rubbric:





Sig
gnificant imp
pact on studen
nt learning
Includes measu
ureable SLOs
Haas identified specific
s
measures and tool s for assessm
ment
Well-developed
W
d budget
Is of a scope that will be able to be implem
mented …
43 APPENDIX 4
List of Genera
al Educatioon Courses
(Currrently Iden
ntifying Culttural Awareeness as a C
Competencyy)
ART 101
1 – Introducttion to Art
CEL 300
0 – Human Growth
G
and Developmen
D
nt
COM 101 – Public Speaking
S
COM 202 – Interperssonal Comm
munication
ENG 203
3 – Introducttion to Literaature (short story/novel))
ENG 204
4 – Introducttion to Literaature (poetry
y/drama)
ENG 206
6 – World Liiterature Surrvey
FRE 101 – Elementaary French
GEO 201
1 – Introducttion to Humaan Geograph
hy
GEO 303
3 – World Regional Geo
ography
MUS 114
4 – Music in
n American Culture
C
MUS 115
5 – Experien
ncing Music
MUS 116
6 – The Histtory of Rock
k and Roll
PHI 201 – Introduction to Philosophy
PSC 201 – American
n National Government
G
SHS 360
0 – American
n Sign Langu
uage
SOC 101
1 – Principles of Sociology
SPA 101 – Elementaary Spanish
SWO 101 – Volunteeering in the Community
C
SWO 300
0 – Human Diversity
D
THE 225
5 – Introducttion to Theattre
44 APPE
ENDIX 5
QEP
Q
Outcomess for General Education
E
Courrse _________ (insert
(
course d
discipline/numb
ber)
A
A. QEP Outcom
me
Forr each outcome tha
at you
addresss below, fill in all boxes of
that roow (for each gen ed
d course
with “
“cultural awarenesss” as a
“purp
rpose,” departmentts must
choosse at least one of th
he three
outccomes listed; use N/A
N as
app
ppropriate for thosee not
covered)
B. Data
D Collection & Analysis
1. Whatt assessment tools and
d/or methods
will you
u use to determine ach
hievement of
the learrning outcome? Set benchmarks
b
(ex.
---% of students will achievee --- )
2. Descrribe how the data fro
om these tools
and/or methods
m
will be/havee been collected
3. Expla
ain the procedure to analyze
a
the
data.
C. Results of
o Evaluation
What were the findiings of the analysis?
(How many studentss are achieving at thee
level of competency previously
p
set for thiss
outco
ome?)
Descrribe various aspeects of
culturral diversity
[know
wledge]
Articuulate a shared
underrstanding and su
upport
of crooss-cultural
experiiences
[skillss]
Evaluuate cultural
perspeectives with opeenness
and reespect
[attituude]
45 D. Use oof Evaluation R
Results
1. List sppecific recommendattions.
2. Describe changes in course(s)) that are
proposed orr made as a result off the QEP
learning outcome assessment pprocess.
APPE
ENDIX 6
QEP Outcom
mes for Upper Level Course _________
_
(insert course disci
cipline/number))
A
A. QEP Outcom
me
Forr each outcome tha
at you
addresss below, fill in all boxes of
that rrow (for each uppeer level
coursee with cultural com
mpetency
as a tthread, departmentts must
choosse at least one of th
he three
outccomes listed; use N/A
N as
app
ppropriate for thosee not
covered)
B. Data
D Collection & Analysis
1. Whatt assessment tools and
d/or methods
will you
u use to determine ach
hievement of
the learrning outcome? Set benchmarks
b
(ex.
---% of students will achievee --- )
2. Descrribe how the data fro
om these tools
and/or methods
m
will be/havee been collected
3. Expla
ain the procedure to analyze
a
the
data.
C. Results of
o Evaluation
What were the findiings of the analysis?
(How many studentss are achieving at thee
level of competency previously
p
set for thiss
outco
ome?)
Descrribe various aspeects of
culturral diversity
[know
wledge]
Articuulate a shared
underrstanding and su
upport
of crooss-cultural
experiiences
[skillss]
Evaluuate cultural
perspeectives with opeenness
and reespect
[attituude]
46 D. Use oof Evaluation R
Results
1. List sppecific recommendattions.
2. Describe changes in course(s)) that are
proposed orr made as a result off the QEP
learning outcome assessment pprocess.
APPENDIX 7
List of Up
pper-level Courses
ART 401
1 – Art Histo
ory Survey I
ART 402
2 – Art Histo
ory Survey III
ART 419
9 – Women in
i the Arts
BIO 300 – Cell Biolo
ogy
BIO 301 - Ecology
BIO 328 - Genetics
BIS 300 – Introductio
on to Interdiisciplinary Studies
S
CAV 373
3 – Human Factors
F
in Av
viation
CEL 497
7 – Diagnosis and Evaluaation of Stud
dent Achieveement in thee Elementaryy School
CHE 440
0 - Biochemiistry
COM 325 – Interculttural Commu
unication
nological Th
heory
CRJ 405 – Introductiion to Crimin
2 – History of
o Recorded Music
DMI 302
ENG 313
3 – American
n Literature
ENG 406
6 – History and
a Grammaars of the En
nglish Languuage
FCS 447 – Profession
nal Develop
pment
FCS 480 – Senior Seeminar in Dieetetics
FRE 201 – Intermediiate French
FRE 202
2 – Intermediiate French
GEO 201
1 – Introducttion to Humaan Geograph
hy
HIS 457 – The New South, 1865 - Present
opics in Histtory
HIS 492 – Special To
HSE 458
8 – Organizaation and Adm
ministration
n in Athletic Training
JOU 303 – History of Journalism
m
47 5 – History of
o Mathemaatics
MAT 405
MAT 490
0 – Senior Seminar
S
in Mathematics
M
MGT 300
0 – Principlees of Management
MUS 301 – Music off the Middlee Ages, Renaaissance, andd Baroque Peeriods
2 – Music off the Classicc, Romantic, and Contem
mporary Periods
MUS 302
NUR 302
2 – Fundameentals of Clieent Care
NUR 303
3 – Health Assessment
A
NUR 304
4 - Pharmaco
ology
NUR 305
5 – Nursing the Adult Cllient I
NUR 306
6 – Nursing the Adult Cllient II
NUR 312
2 (BSN) – Basic
B
Pathoph
hysiology
NUR 312
2 (RN – BSN
N) – Basic Pathophysiol
P
ogy
NUR 333
3 – Health Assessment
A
Practicum
P
NUR 335
5 – Nursing the Adult Cllient I Practiicum
NUR 336
6 – Nursing the Adult Cllient II Practticum
NUR 403
3 (BSN) – Community
C
Health
H
Nursiing
NUR 403
3 (RN – BSN
N) – Commu
unity Health Nursing
NUR 408
8 – Nursing Synthesis
NUR 443
3 (BSN) – Community
C
Health
H
Nursiing Practicum
m
NUR 443
3 (RN – BSN
N) – Commu
unity Health Nursing Praacticum
PER 300
0 – History an
nd Philosoph
hy of Sport and
a Physicaal Education
PER 460
0 – Exercise Testing
PHI 406 - Ethics
PSC 360 – Comparattive Politics
48 PSC 406 – State and Local Goveernment
heory
PSC 431 – Classical to Medievall Political Th
7 – Developm
mental Psych
hology
PSY 307
SHS 300
0 – Introductiion to the Sp
peech and Hearing Sciennces
SOC 456
6 – Race, Claass, and Gen
nder
SPA 403 – Spanish Conversation
C
n
SWO 481 – Integratiive Seminar
THE 320
0 – History of
o the Theatrre
49 Ap
ppendix 8
QE
EP Survey
1. When you think off culture, wh
hat do you co
onsider? (Chhoose all thaat apply)
Race
Langu
uage, Signs, and Symbols
Food
Cloth
hes/Furnituree/Transportattion (person
nal effects)
Rituaals/Ceremoniies
Relig
gious Beliefs or Values
Art, Music,
M
Dancce
Otherr, please speccify _______
________
2a. In geeneral, descrribe the exten
nt of your in
nteraction wiith people whho are differrent from yoou in
the follow
wing ways BEFORE
B
co
oming to colllege (please choose the aappropriate bbox).
Very
Occcasionally Rarely Verry
Frequenttly
Neverr
Frequently
(less Rarrely
y (at least
(at lleast once
(Daily)
once a
am
month)
than (lesss
once a thann
week)
month) twice a
yeaar)
a) Diffeerent races
and ethnicities
e
b) Diffeerent
religiions
c) Diffeerent
sexuaal
orien
ntations
d) Diffeerent
sociaal classes
e) Diffeerent
nation
nalities
f) People with
physiical
disab
bilities
g) People with
cogniitive
disab
bilities
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
50 []
[]
nt of your intteraction witth people whho are different from youu in
2b. In general, descriibe the exten
wing ways WHILE
W
at DSU
D
(please choose the aappropriate bbox).
the follow
Very
Frequentlly
Frequently
y (at least
(Daily)
once a
week)
a) Diffeerent races
and ethnicities
e
b) Diffeerent
religiions
c) Diffeerent
sexuaal
orien
ntations
d) Diffeerent
sociaal classes
e) Diffeerent
nation
nalities
f) People with
physiical
disab
bilities
g) People with
cogniitive
disab
bilities
[]
Occcasionally
(at lleast once
am
month)
[]
[]
[]
[]
Verry
Neverr
Rarrely
(noo
more
thann
twice a
yeaar)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
51 Rarely
(less
than
once a
month)
[]
Provide a response to
o each of thee following statements
s
by choosing tthe appropriiate rating fo
for
each stattement.
Strongly
Agree
33. DSU enccourages intercultural
commun
nications and
d activities.
44. DSU hass provided multiple
m
oppo
ortunities
that havee prepared me
m to understtand
diverse people
p
and cultures.
c
5. Cultural awareness and
a interculttural
interaction are relevaant to my deegree
program
m.
66. Cultural awareness and
a interculttural
interaction are relevaant to my ov
verall
college experience.
e
77. The culture to which
h I associate most
strongly is well repreesented on th
he DSU
campus.
8. Studentss should mak
ke every effo
ort to
embracee varied cultu
ural perspecttives and
opportun
nities.
99. It is important to mee to have frieends and
colleagu
ues who are of
o a different
racial/eth
hnic backgro
ound, religio
ous
affiliatio
on, socio-eco
onomic back
kground,
sexual, or
o political orientation
o
th
han me.
10. When reelating to oth
hers, culturall
differencces are not hard
h
to overccome.
11. I try to consider
c
otheer points of view
v
when intteracting witth others.
12. I can cleearly define characteristi
c
cs of my
own cultture.
13. I can cleearly define the
t characterristics of
cultures other than my
m own.
14. I consideer myself to be culturally
y
competeent.
52 Agree
D
Disagree
S
Strongly
D
Disagree
I Don’t
Know
ollowing stattements and assign an apppropriate raating for the result of succh an
15. Pleasse read the fo
action.
Impro
ove
climaate
considerably
Im
mprove
cliimate
som
mewhat
Noo
chhange
in
cliimate
Worrsen
clim
mate
som
mewhat
Worsen
climate
co nsiderably
a. Providin
ng more worrkshops,
events, or programss to help the
DSU co
ommunity beecome more
aware and
a responsiv
ve to the
differen
nces of otherrs.
b. DSU reequiring all students
s
to
take gen
neral education courses
that foccuses on issu
ues, research,
and perrspectives on
n cultural
differen
nces.
c. DSU reequiring all students
s
to
particip
pate in a firstt year
experien
nce program
m that focusees
on issuees, research, and
perspecctives on culttural
differen
nces.
d. DSU reequiring all students
s
to
take at least
l
one cou
urse in their
major th
hat focuses on
o issues,
research
h, and perspeectives on
culturall differences.
nk is a good way to incorrporate cultuural studies oor interculturral
16. Whatt do you thin
communication on caampus? (Cho
oose all that apply)
Takin
ng a course dealing
d
speciifically with
h cultural stuudies for my major or disscipline
Readiing a novel about
a
other cultures
c
Watch
hing a movie
Atten
nding a camp
pus event foccusing on mu
ulticultural oor different ((outside of m
my own) ideaas
Writing an essay about a crosss-cultural ex
xperience orr class projecct
Particcipating in group projectts/presentatio
ons
Particcipating in a DSU-sponsored travel course
c
Atten
nding an arts, music, dan
nce or perform
mance eventt
53 17. Overall, considerring as a grou
up all the co
ourses you arre currently ttaking, how often wouldd you
y are expo
osed to cultu
ural studies or
o interculturral communiication in yoour class worrk?
say that you
Often
n (3-5 times a semester)
Someetimes (1-2 times a semeester)
Seldo
om (once a year)
y
Neverr
18. How satisfied aree you with yo
our campus experience/eenvironmentt regarding ccultural studdies
or intercu
ultural comm
munication at
a DSU? (Maark one)
Very satisfied
Satisffied
Neutrral
Dissaatisfied
Very dissatisfied
19. In wh
hat year of college are yo
ou?
1st Yeear
2nd Year
3rd Yeear
4th Yeear
5th + Year
Y
20. Gend
der
Male
Femaale
21. Ethniicity
Do you identify as Hispanic
H
or Latino?
L
Yes
No
22. Pleasse select the racial catego
ory with whiich you mostt closely ideentify -- Chooose all that
apply
Amerrican Indian or Alaska Native
N
Asian
n
Black
k or African American
Nativ
ve Hawaiian or Other Paccific Islandeer
Whitee
Otherr: (Please speecify)______
__________
_______________
54 23. Are you
y an intern
national stud
dent?
Yes
No
24. If yess, please list your national origin ___
___________________
25. Family income
Less than
t
35,000
35,00
00-49,999
50,00
00-74,999
75,00
00-99,999
100,0
000-149,999
150,0
000-199,999
200,0
000 or more
26a. Do you
y affiliate yourself witth a particular religion? (if no, skip tto Question 8)
Yes
No
26b. Reliigious affiliaation
Catholic
Protesstant
Hindu
u
Jewish
h
Muslim
m
Other (please speccify)
26c. My religious beliefs influence my accep
ptance of othhers (choose only one)
Strong
gly agree
Agreee
Neutraal
Disagrree
Strong
gly disagree
ou live on caampus?
27. Do yo
Yes
No
Commen
nts:
55