Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

QM 2011 conference presentation: Gaining faculty buy-in

347

Published on

Gaining faculty buy-in into the Quality Matters process

Gaining faculty buy-in into the Quality Matters process

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
347
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • s
  • s
  • Transcript

    • 1. Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation Lessons from the Field
      • Dr. Cathy House
      • Truckee Meadows Community College
      • Nancy Webb
      • College of Southern Nevada
      • Dr. Barbara W. Altman
      • Texas A & M University, Central Texas
      • Greg Kaminski
      • Portland Community College
      • Dr. Christopher K. Randall
      • Kennesaw State University
    • 2. 2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation 2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 3.
      • Each presenter will describe:
      • Context for change at their institution
      • Timeline for the QM implementation process
      • Issues related to faculty resistance to change
      • Tips/lessons learned to ease implementation & gain faculty buy-in
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 4.  
    • 5.
      • Truckee Meadows Community College
      • Context
      • FastTrack program funded by U.S. Dept. of Education
        • Increase retention rate
        • Explore new ideas
        • Rethink the way we are currently teaching
        • Opportunity to introduce QM
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 6.
      • Truckee Meadows Community College
      • Timeline - implementation
      • Received FIPS grant 2010
        • Began QM training for 2 web college staff
        • Introduced to 26 faculty members
        • 2011 Informal QM reviews mandatory for FastTrack classes
        • More to come in 2012
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 7.
      • Truckee Meadows Community College
      • Faculty resistance to change
      • 26 faculty that were introduced liked it
      • 6 FastTrack faculty paid stipend to develop courses with QM
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 8.
      • Truckee Meadows Community College
      • Lessons Learned
      • Journey just beginning……
        • Need champions
        • Instructional designer with faculty experience helpful
        • Must be seen as organized and non-threatening
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 9. Nancy Webb, M.Ed. Senior Analyst, eLearning Adjunct Instructor, Department of Education College of Southern Nevada [email_address]
    • 10.
      • College of Southern Nevada
      • Context
      • Largest community college (44,000 students) in Southern Nevada
      • 20 online degrees (Associate of Arts, Associate of Science), six Certificates of Achievement
      • Approximately 4700 students are full-time online students
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 11.
      • College of Southern Nevada
      • Timeline – QM implementation
      • Applying the QM Rubric course to be offered online in Spring 2012
      • Two online courses internally reviewed
      • Approximately 15 faculty trained as Peer Reviewers in 2007
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 12.
      • College of Southern Nevada
      • Faculty resistance to change
        • Perception that QM infringes on academic freedom
        • Lack of understanding of the process (course design versus delivery, viewing the process as part of faculty evaluation)
        • Departments/faculty want to choose how to interpret the QM rubric
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 13.
      • College of Southern Nevada
      • Tips/lessons learned
        • Training!
        • Proof is in the pudding – QM does work! Demonstrate QM value by gathering student feedback & report this feedback to administration and other faculty
        • Encourage faculty to participate in official QM reviews, if possible
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 14.  
    • 15.
      • Texas A&M University/Central TX
      • Context
      • Satellite campus became independent in Fall 2009
      • Upper division and graduate programs in Arts & Science, Business and Education
      • 10 Online degree programs to be rolled out 2011-2013
      • Approximately 2,500 students
      • Heavy Military population
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 16.
      • Texas A&M University/Central TX
      • Timeline – QM Implementation
      • Began Fall 2010 drafting Institutional Plan for Distance Education
      • QM Implementation Plan taken to Faculty Senate January 2011, Special Task Force formed
      • QM Implementation Plan revised April 2011 & Task Force disbanded
      • Distance Learning Advisory Committee formed with representation from all divisions
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 17.
      • Texas A&M University/Central TX
      • Timeline – QM Implementation (cont.)
      • 40 Faculty/staff QM trained 2010 – 2011
      • Online Syllabus Template with QM elements embedded in place Spring 2011
      • Faculty Incentive Program developed
      • Joint work with Institutional Effectiveness on learning outcomes /Accreditation process
      • Support from Provost and Presidential levels for online initiatives
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 18.
      • Texas A&M University/Central TX
      • Faculty resistance to change
      • Invasion of academic freedom re: classroom teaching
      • Pass/fail nature of QM rubric
      • Inequity in oversight of online courses versus F2F
      • Opposition to non-peer reviews (external reviewers)
      • Concern over administrative staff role in faculty domain
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 19.
      • Texas A&M University/Central TX
      • Tips/lessons learned
      • Demonstrate how Rubric reflects best practices in teaching
      • Be willing to scale back certified reviews to internal reviews
      • Make sure to use “meets” and “does not meet” language (NOT pass/fail)
      • Training, training and more training
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 20.
      • Texas A&M University/Central TX
      • Tips/lessons learned (cont.)
      • Master syllabi provided to faculty with QM elements embedded
      • Show positive ties to Accreditation process
      • Future: Document parallel process for oversight in F2F classes
      • Future: Document impact of incentive program
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 21.  
    • 22.
      • Portland Community College
      • Context
      • Multi-campus system
      • 93,000 students – about 22,000 FTE
      • Online FTE: 4,500
      • 450 online course sections/term
      • Numerous Associate degrees available online
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 23.
      • Portland Community College
      • Timeline – QM Implementation
      • 2005 – present: Modified version of QM rubric for informal reviews
      • 2005 - present: State consortium funding for training & now reviews
      • 2006 – 2007: 3 official QM led peer reviews
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 24.
      • Portland Community College
      • Timeline – QM Implementation (cont.)
      • 2006 – present: Annual training Online & local (IYOC, APPQMR)
        • 110 PCC faculty received training
        • Currently 4 master reviewers & 44 certified peer reviewers, 1 trainer
      • 2011: Starting subscriber-managed QM reviews – completed one
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 25.
      • Portland Community College
      • Faculty resistance to change issues
      • Use of QM: DL Task Force issue (2010)
        • Treating online courses differently than F2F
        • Instructors being told what is and isn ’t quality education
        • Confusion over the intent/role of applying QM
        • Lack of clarity of the SAC role in providing course quality oversight
        • Institution ’s focus on outcomes supports a narrow interpretation of the educational process as one in which all outcomes are measurable
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 26.
      • Portland Community College
      • Tips/lessons learned
      • Keep a clear distinction between the use of QM as a course development guide vs. a peer review tool
      • Establish personal connections with faculty as a peer, reach out to clarify
      • Involve subject area “mentors” with the informal reviews as well
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 27.
      • Portland Community College
      • Tips/lessons learned (cont.)
      • Emphasize the professional development nature of the process, the faculty driven “peer” approach
      • Collaborate with the SAC when possible to encourage peer reviews of courses
      • Show how QM supports the college-wide effort to track assessment of outcomes
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 28.  
    • 29.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • Context
      • Comprehensive Public University
      • 24,100+ Students
      • Non-Residential, Non-Traditional
      • 6 Fully Online Degree Programs
      • … Several ‘Under Construction’
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 30.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • Timeline
      • Administration ’s Charge: Spring 07
        • Faculty Development Workshops
        • Process for Ensuring Course Quality
      • Faculty Advisory Committee / Consultant… & CETL Position
      • Initial Workshops & Reviews: Fall 0 7
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 31.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • Timeline (cont.)
      • Mandatory QM Reviews: Fall 08
      • Graduate Course Reviews: Spr 09
      • Distance Learning Center: Fall 10
      • Staff: 1 (Fall 07)  7 (Fall 11)
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 32.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • Participation
      • 434 Online Certified Faculty (+41)
      • 91 Faculty Peer Reviewers
      • 224 Approved Classes (+7)
      • 98 Classes “Under Development”
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 33.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • Faculty resistance to change
      • Shared Governance
      • Academic Freedom
      • Communication
      • Faculty Support
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 34.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • 2010 Faculty Survey Results
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation (Participants) Satisfied Dissatisfied N/A Process 75.6% 23.2% 1.2% Feedback 67.0% 23.2% 9.8% (Non-Participants) Satisfied Dissatisfied N/A Process 4.8% 19.0% 76.2% Feedback 9.5% 19.1% 71.4%
    • 35.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • 2010 Faculty Survey Results
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation (Participants) Improved Not Improved N/A Online 76.8% 6.1% 17.1% Blended 43.4% 7.9% 48.7% Face-to-Face 64.6% 13.2% 22.4%
    • 36.
      • Kennesaw State University
      • Tips/lessons learned
      • Mandate
      • Compensation
      • Communication
      • Faculty Support
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 37.
      • Discussion
      • Common Themes
      • Across Institutions
      • Faculty resistance to change
      • issues
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 38.
      • Discussion
      • Common Themes
      • Across Institutions
      • Tips/Lessons Learned
      2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 39. Questions Thank you for coming! Feel free to contact any of us for additional information.

    ×