Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
QM 2011 conference presentation:  Gaining faculty buy-in
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

352

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
352
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 <ul><li>Dr. Cathy House </li></ul><ul><li>Truckee Meadows Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Nancy Webb </li></ul><ul><li>College of Southern Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. Barbara W. Altman </li></ul><ul><li>Texas A &amp; M University, Central Texas </li></ul><ul><li>Greg Kaminski </li></ul><ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. Christopher K. Randall </li></ul><ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul>
    • 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. <ul><li>Each presenter will describe: </li></ul><ul><li>Context for change at their institution </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline for the QM implementation process </li></ul><ul><li>Issues related to faculty resistance to change </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned to ease implementation &amp; gain faculty buy-in </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 4. &nbsp;
    • 5. <ul><li>Truckee Meadows Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><li>FastTrack program funded by U.S. Dept. of Education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase retention rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore new ideas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rethink the way we are currently teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunity to introduce QM </li></ul></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 6. <ul><li>Truckee Meadows Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline - implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Received FIPS grant 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Began QM training for 2 web college staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Introduced to 26 faculty members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2011 Informal QM reviews mandatory for FastTrack classes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More to come in 2012 </li></ul></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 7. <ul><li>Truckee Meadows Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty resistance to change </li></ul><ul><li>26 faculty that were introduced liked it </li></ul><ul><li>6 FastTrack faculty paid stipend to develop courses with QM </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 8. <ul><li>Truckee Meadows Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Lessons Learned </li></ul><ul><li>Journey just beginning…… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need champions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional designer with faculty experience helpful </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be seen as organized and non-threatening </li></ul></ul>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. <ul><li>College of Southern Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><li>Largest community college (44,000 students) in Southern Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>20 online degrees (Associate of Arts, Associate of Science), six Certificates of Achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Approximately 4700 students are full-time online students </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 11. <ul><li>College of Southern Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline – QM implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Applying the QM Rubric course to be offered online in Spring 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>Two online courses internally reviewed </li></ul><ul><li>Approximately 15 faculty trained as Peer Reviewers in 2007 </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 12. <ul><li>College of Southern Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty resistance to change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perception that QM infringes on academic freedom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of understanding of the process (course design versus delivery, viewing the process as part of faculty evaluation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Departments/faculty want to choose how to interpret the QM rubric </li></ul></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 13. <ul><li>College of Southern Nevada </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Training! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proof is in the pudding – QM does work! Demonstrate QM value by gathering student feedback &amp; report this feedback to administration and other faculty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Encourage faculty to participate in official QM reviews, if possible </li></ul></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 14. &nbsp;
    • 15. <ul><li>Texas A&amp;M University/Central TX </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><li>Satellite campus became independent in Fall 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Upper division and graduate programs in Arts &amp; Science, Business and Education </li></ul><ul><li>10 Online degree programs to be rolled out 2011-2013 </li></ul><ul><li>Approximately 2,500 students </li></ul><ul><li>Heavy Military population </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 16. <ul><li>Texas A&amp;M University/Central TX </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline – QM Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Began Fall 2010 drafting Institutional Plan for Distance Education </li></ul><ul><li>QM Implementation Plan taken to Faculty Senate January 2011, Special Task Force formed </li></ul><ul><li>QM Implementation Plan revised April 2011 &amp; Task Force disbanded </li></ul><ul><li>Distance Learning Advisory Committee formed with representation from all divisions </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 17. <ul><li>Texas A&amp;M University/Central TX </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline – QM Implementation (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>40 Faculty/staff QM trained 2010 – 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Online Syllabus Template with QM elements embedded in place Spring 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty Incentive Program developed </li></ul><ul><li>Joint work with Institutional Effectiveness on learning outcomes /Accreditation process </li></ul><ul><li>Support from Provost and Presidential levels for online initiatives </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 18. <ul><li>Texas A&amp;M University/Central TX </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty resistance to change </li></ul><ul><li>Invasion of academic freedom re: classroom teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Pass/fail nature of QM rubric </li></ul><ul><li>Inequity in oversight of online courses versus F2F </li></ul><ul><li>Opposition to non-peer reviews (external reviewers) </li></ul><ul><li>Concern over administrative staff role in faculty domain </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 19. <ul><li>Texas A&amp;M University/Central TX </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate how Rubric reflects best practices in teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Be willing to scale back certified reviews to internal reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Make sure to use “meets” and “does not meet” language (NOT pass/fail) </li></ul><ul><li>Training, training and more training </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 20. <ul><li>Texas A&amp;M University/Central TX </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>Master syllabi provided to faculty with QM elements embedded </li></ul><ul><li>Show positive ties to Accreditation process </li></ul><ul><li>Future: Document parallel process for oversight in F2F classes </li></ul><ul><li>Future: Document impact of incentive program </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 21. &nbsp;
    • 22. <ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-campus system </li></ul><ul><li>93,000 students – about 22,000 FTE </li></ul><ul><li>Online FTE: 4,500 </li></ul><ul><li>450 online course sections/term </li></ul><ul><li>Numerous Associate degrees available online </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 23. <ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline – QM Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>2005 – present: Modified version of QM rubric for informal reviews </li></ul><ul><li>2005 - present: State consortium funding for training &amp; now reviews </li></ul><ul><li>2006 – 2007: 3 official QM led peer reviews </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 24. <ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline – QM Implementation (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>2006 – present: Annual training Online &amp; local (IYOC, APPQMR) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>110 PCC faculty received training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Currently 4 master reviewers &amp; 44 certified peer reviewers, 1 trainer </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2011: Starting subscriber-managed QM reviews – completed one </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 25. <ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty resistance to change issues </li></ul><ul><li>Use of QM: DL Task Force issue (2010) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Treating online courses differently than F2F </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructors being told what is and isn ’t quality education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confusion over the intent/role of applying QM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of clarity of the SAC role in providing course quality oversight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institution ’s focus on outcomes supports a narrow interpretation of the educational process as one in which all outcomes are measurable </li></ul></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 26. <ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li>Keep a clear distinction between the use of QM as a course development guide vs. a peer review tool </li></ul><ul><li>Establish personal connections with faculty as a peer, reach out to clarify </li></ul><ul><li>Involve subject area “mentors” with the informal reviews as well </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 27. <ul><li>Portland Community College </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize the professional development nature of the process, the faculty driven “peer” approach </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborate with the SAC when possible to encourage peer reviews of courses </li></ul><ul><li>Show how QM supports the college-wide effort to track assessment of outcomes </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 28. &nbsp;
    • 29. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive Public University </li></ul><ul><li>24,100+ Students </li></ul><ul><li>Non-Residential, Non-Traditional </li></ul><ul><li>6 Fully Online Degree Programs </li></ul><ul><li>… Several ‘Under Construction’ </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 30. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline </li></ul><ul><li>Administration ’s Charge: Spring 07 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Faculty Development Workshops </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process for Ensuring Course Quality </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Faculty Advisory Committee / Consultant… &amp; CETL Position </li></ul><ul><li>Initial Workshops &amp; Reviews: Fall 0 7 </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 31. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>Mandatory QM Reviews: Fall 08 </li></ul><ul><li>Graduate Course Reviews: Spr 09 </li></ul><ul><li>Distance Learning Center: Fall 10 </li></ul><ul><li>Staff: 1 (Fall 07)  7 (Fall 11) </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 32. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>Participation </li></ul><ul><li>434 Online Certified Faculty (+41) </li></ul><ul><li>91 Faculty Peer Reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>224 Approved Classes (+7) </li></ul><ul><li>98 Classes “Under Development” </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 33. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty resistance to change </li></ul><ul><li>Shared Governance </li></ul><ul><li>Academic Freedom </li></ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty Support </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 34. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>2010 Faculty Survey Results </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>2010 Faculty Survey Results </li></ul>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. <ul><li>Kennesaw State University </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li>Mandate </li></ul><ul><li>Compensation </li></ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty Support </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 37. <ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Common Themes </li></ul><ul><li>Across Institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty resistance to change </li></ul><ul><li>issues </li></ul>2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation
    • 38. <ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Common Themes </li></ul><ul><li>Across Institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Tips/Lessons Learned </li></ul>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.

    ×