qm 2011 conference presentation: gaining faculty buy-in

Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM ImplementationLessons from the Field

• Dr. Cathy HouseTruckee Meadows Community College • Nancy WebbCollege of Southern Nevada• Dr. Barbara W. AltmanTexas A & M University, Central Texas• Greg KaminskiPortland Community College• Dr. Christopher K. RandallKennesaw State University

2011 QM Conference “Gaining Faculty Buy-In for QM Implementation” Panel Presentation2


Each presenter will describe:

1.Context for change at their institution

2.Timeline for the QM implementation process

3.Issues related to faculty resistance to change

4.Tips/lessons learned to ease implementation & gain faculty buy-in


Truckee Meadows Community CollegeContext

•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


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


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


Truckee Meadows Community CollegeLessons Learned

•Journey just beginning……

• Need champions

• Instructional designer with faculty experience helpful

• Must be seen as organized and non-threatening


Nancy Webb, M.Ed.Senior Analyst, eLearningAdjunct Instructor, Department of EducationCollege of Southern [email protected]

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



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



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



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


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



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



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




•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



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


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



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



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



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




•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



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


Kennesaw State University

Context

•Comprehensive Public University

•24,100+ Students

•Non-Residential, Non-Traditional

•6 Fully Online Degree Programs

…Several ‘Under Construction’



Timeline

•Administration’s Charge: Spring 07

• Faculty Development Workshops

• Process for Ensuring Course Quality

•Faculty Advisory Committee / Consultant… & CETL Position

•Initial Workshops & Reviews: Fall 07



Timeline (cont.)

•Mandatory QM Reviews: Fall 08

•Graduate Course Reviews: Spr 09

•Distance Learning Center: Fall 10

•Staff: 1 (Fall 07) 7 (Fall 11)



Participation

•434 Online Certified Faculty (+41)

•91 Faculty Peer Reviewers

•224 Approved Classes (+7)

•98 Classes “Under Development”




•Shared Governance

•Academic Freedom

•Communication

•Faculty Support



2010 Faculty Survey Results


(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%


2010 Faculty Survey Results


(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%



•Mandate

•Compensation

•Communication

•Faculty Support


Discussion

Common Themes

Across Institutions


issues


Discussion

Common Themes

Across Institutions

Tips/Lessons Learned


Thank you for coming! Feel free to contact any of us for additional information.