This document outlines Ashford University's model for engaging and supporting their geographically diverse faculty. It discusses their New Faculty Experience for onboarding, the Faculty Support and Development Associates who monitor faculty and provide just-in-time coaching, and various professional development opportunities. Faculty play an active role in governance, curriculum development, and program review, which follows a collaborative process involving multiple stakeholders. Common standards around course health, peer reviews, surveys and mentoring are used to develop faculty and ensure quality. Data shows faculty support scores and survey results meeting or exceeding targets, demonstrating the effectiveness of Ashford's faculty engagement approach.

1. A UNITY OF ENGAGEMENT FROM
MANY, FOR MANY, SHALL
FLOURISH ONLINE
J. Joseph Hoey, Ed.D.
Carmen “Lizy” Lamboy-Naughton, Ed.D.
Morgan Johnson, M.A.

2. OUTCOMES
After participating in this session, participants will be able to:
 Understand the history and identify the elements of Ashford
University’s faculty engagement culture
 Share onboarding, governance, faculty development and
engagement in program review and assessment of learning
 Discuss elements presented and possible applicability in their
school.
2

3. AGENDA
Conceptual Framework
Serving a Diverse Faculty Community
Faculty Development and Review
Governance
Curriculum Development
Program Review
Developing Common Standards
Summary
Q & A
3

4. ASHFORD: WHO ARE WE?
4

5. FACULTY PROFILE
• Full-time professionals
• Vast experience in their fields
• Master’s or doctorally-prepared
• Geographically diverse
5

6. FACULTY ENGAGEMENT MODEL
6

7. SUPPORTING A DIVERSE
FACULTY COMMUNITY
7
New Faculty
Experience
College
Welcome
Introduction
to Support
Team and
Resources
Professional
Development
Offerings
Ongoing
Opportunities
for Virtual and
Face-to-Face
Engagement

8. NEW FACULTY EXPERIENCE
The New Faculty Experience (NFE) is an orientation for our
faculty. NFE is designed to provide faculty with the
information necessary to run a productive and effective
learning environment in the online setting.
3 week orientation, includes a training course where
engagement with a facilitator and other new faculty members
occur. New faculty also complete tasks in a simulated course.
8

9. •Faculty Support and
Development Associate
(FSDA) Support
•Full Time Faculty support
•Provide support for
additional resources
• FSDA Support
• Resources for Best Practices
• College Specific Faculty Forums
• Peer Review / Instructional Support
• Faculty Resource Center
• Peer Review Resource Center
• Center Excellence Teaching
Learning (CETL)
• Ashford Teaching and Learning
Conference
•Guide Faculty through their
first course
•Monitor Ashford course
requirements are met
•Coach and support faculty
• Ashford Course Requirements
•Announcement
•Faculty Profile
•Faculty Expectations
•Guidance
•Instructor Discussions
•Peer Discussions
•Grading New Faculty
Experience
3 Week Course
FSDA Support
First Course
5/6 Weeks
FSDA Support
Second Course
5/6 Weeks
Ashford
Full Time
Faculty
Support
Ongoing
Ashford
Instructional/
Faculty
Development
9

10. ONGOING FACULTY SUPPORT
10
FSDA
• Faculty monitoring status driven by FSDA, IQR, and EOCS
• Classroom observations/ just-in-time coaching
• Monthly reports/immediate escalation to college
Colleges
• Review of FSDA interventions and scores, IQR, and EOCS
• Direct mentoring/coaching of faculty
• Requests to scheduling for changes
Scheduling
• Changes to course load, approvals, deactivation
• Adjustments to priority scheduling
• Recommendations on recruitment needs
10

11. FACULTY SUPPORT
Research
FULL TIME
FACULTY
Curriculum
Development
Full-time
faculty and
college
leadership
Center for
Excellence in
Teaching &
Learning
Research
ADJUNCT
FACULTY
Standardized
Curriculum
Full-time
faculty and
college
leadership
Center for
Excellence in
Teaching &
Learning

12. WHAT IS THE FACULTY SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
ROLE?
Provide faculty with
technical and policy-
related assistance
Observe instructor
activities in the
online classrooms
Coach faculty on
instructional best
practices
Report on
observations and
coaching outcomes
FSDA
Role
12

13. 13
High Impact Online
Teaching & Learning
Practices
Online Teaching &
Learning Research
Understanding Our
Students
PROPOSALS BY CONFERENCE TRACK
ASHFORD
NOV. 4th and 5th
TLC
#AshfordTLC

14. FACULTY
GOVERNANCE
14

15. FACULTY GOVERNANCE
MODEL
15

16. FACULTY GOVERNANCE & OVERSIGHT
STUDENT
LEARNING
CURRICULUM
INSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT &
IMPROVEMENT
16

17. CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT
17

18. COURSE DEVELOPMENT
18

19. ROLE OF FACULTY IN
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
19
Program
Managers
Assessment
Analyst
Instructional
Designers
Instructional
Technologists
Quality
Assurance

20. PROGRAM
REVIEW
20

21. ASHFORD PROGRAM
REVIEW PROCESS
Three guiding principles:
The faculty-driven process should be highly collaborative
and involve academic contributions from faculty, students,
staff, and administrators.
The review should provide an opportunity to analyze,
reflect upon, and improve the program with regard to
student learning, instruction, and leadership support.
The process should include both short- and long-term
goals in a variety of areas, including: student learning,
curricular development, resource allocation, and faculty
development.
- Ashford University, Program Review Handbook, 2013-2014
21

22. PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS

23. KEY PARTICIPANTS IN
PROGRAM REVIEW
Program Chair
Faculty Self-Study Report Team
Students
Academic Leadership: Deans/Provost
External Reviewers
Staff Support: Institutional Research, Assessment,
Director of Program Review and Planning
Faculty Institutional Effectiveness Council
23

24. HOW WELL IS IT
WORKING?
“The application of Bloom’s Taxonomy, the use of the
Waypoint Outcomes tool, and the triangulation of
IQR data [scores from instructional quality review,
faculty support and development associates, and
end-of-course surveys] to assess student learning
revealed an impressive and disciplined culture that
supports student learning.”
External Program Review Report of Ashford University’s Bachelor of Arts in Business Information
Systems Program (Connolly & Sayeed, 2014)
24

25. DEVELOPING
COMMON
STANDARDS
25

26. DEVELOPING COMMON
FACULTY STANDARDS
Course Health Dashboard
Instructor Quality Review (Peer Review)
Faculty Support and Development Associates
End of Course Surveys (Faculty assessment portion
only)
Faculty Mentoring
Results
26

27. COURSE HEALTH
DASHBOARD
Final Scores to be reviewed include:
Quality of Faculty Score
Instructor Quality Review (Peer Review)
Faculty Support and Development Associate Score
End of Course Survey (Faculty Assessment portion only)
Student Success Score
Grades
End of Course Survey (Course Assessment portion only)
Course Completion
Course to Course Progression
Learning Outcomes
Course Failure Rate
27

28. COURSE HEALTH DASHBOARD – QUALITY
OF FACULTY FINAL SCORE
28

29. EFFECTIVE FACULTY
MENTORING
During Faculty Mentoring, a full time faculty member
mentors a low-performing instructor for the duration
of a course.
Average improvement score pre-post mentoring is
25%, or one full level of proficiency, on the
Instructional Quality Review Rubric.
29

30. 30

31. COURSE REQUIREMENTS
31

32. 2013-2014 FACULTY SUPPORT
SCORE
32
3.0 to 4 =
Exceeds
Expectations
2.6 to 3 =
Meets
Expectations
Below 2.6 =
Deactivated
3.01 2.94 2.95 3.00 2.86 2.84 2.97 2.90
3.05 2.96 2.92 2.99
2.97 2.85
2.97
1.93
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
2013
2014
All College Average Requirement Levels 2013-2014

33. FACULTY SUPPORT
MONITORING CHANGES
33
2005 - 2014
100% of courses monitored
Amount of time monitored
dependent on monitoring
status of faculty member
All course expectations
reviewed and observations
logged
2015
High performing faculty not
monitored
Reduced courses monitored by
25.8%
Can focus more emphasis on
higher-quality, in-depth,
support and follow-up
situations than simple
transactional monitoring-based
support.

34. 2015 FSDA SCORE
34
3.00 2.95 2.98 2.97 2.89 2.97 2.93
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Announcement Meet your
Instructor
Guidance Ask Your
Instructor
Discussions Written
Assignments
Posting Grades
2015 Data excludes 25% of courses
2015 Goal is to maintain score at 2.8 or above

35. END OF COURSE
SURVEY RESULTS
35

36. 36
END OF COURSE SURVEY
(AGGREGATE SCORES – 0 TO 4 SCALE)
Date Range Sent Received Response Rate # Sections Faculty Portion
Q1 2014 1/7/14-3/29/14 132,328 19,265 14.90% 7,546 3.35
Q2 2014 4/3/14-6/27/14 123,640 19,473 16.20% 6,533 3.33
Q3 2014 7/2/14-9/30/14 129,109 21,388 17.30% 6,845 3.32
Q4 2014 10/4/14-12/29/14 104,673 27,888 27.30% 5,603 3.36
Q1 2015 1/2/15-3/29/15 113,909 34,509 30.60% 6,019 3.38
Q2 2015 4/2/15-6/27/15 103,730 30,903 30.30% 5,695 3.39
3.35 3.33 3.32 3.36 3.38 3.39
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015
Faculty Portion
Goal: 3.5
end of 2016

37. SUMMARY
37

38. 38

39. A UNITY OF ENGAGEMENT
FROM MANY, FOR MANY, SHALL
FLOURISH ONLINE
joseph.hoey@bpiedu.com
lizy.lamboy@ashford.edu
morgan.johnson@ashford.edu
39