QM 2011 conference presentation: Gaining faculty buy-in

  • 329 views
Uploaded on

Gaining faculty buy-in into the Quality Matters process

Gaining faculty buy-in into the Quality Matters process

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
329
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
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.