Jumping on the QM Bandwagon

1. Jumping on the QM Bandwagon Make QM implementation a Faculty Driven Process Jenny Quarles, Longwood University

2. Objectives By the end of this session you will be able to: • name challenges at your institution that can be addressed using successful implementation of a QM campus program. • identify barriers to success created by an administrator lead QM implementation. • review a faculty driven QM implementation model and consider the application of this model at your institution.

3. What you need to know about Longwood… • Virginia public institution • Liberal Arts focus • 5,000 FTE • 46% 4 year graduation rate

4. Problems QM Helps Solve • Regional accreditation standards for demonstrating equivalency between online/hybrid and face to face courses • More online/hybrid learning = higher graduation rates • Internal quality assurance

5. Downsides of Administrator Selected Tool • Feels like directive rather than collaborative process • Questions about administrator access to courses • Should be part of faculty policy and procedures

6. Steps to Making QM a Faculty Driven Process • Select group of faculty with diverse backgrounds/experiences • Allow faculty to determine what they want from a course review tool • Do your research • Facilitate guided conversations • Make faculty the experts • Faculty governance accepts QM program as part of formal policy/procedures

7. Select Faculty • Mix online, hybrid and face to face faculty • Use your “frequent flyers” • Identify a “non-believer” • Make sure all colleges or major divisions of your institution are represented • Keep meetings short, focused and goal oriented

8. Let Faculty Define Need • Faculty created survey to take back to assigned departments. • Less then 10 questions. • Some paper, some electronic. • Sample questions: • What defines a quality online class? • Should online learning require more scrutiny than face to face learning? • Should training be required for online/hybrid faculty?

9. Survey Trends • Faculty wanted more oversight of online/hybrid learning • Faculty were concerned that online learning was as “good” as face to face learning • Faculty wanted distinction/respect/promotion and tenure credit for work put into online/hybrid courses • Faculty felt students learned best in an environment that was focused, uncluttered and easy to navigate • Faculty were more open to feedback from peers than staff or administrators

10. Do Your Research • Be prepared with tools to review • Know each tool considered • Be prepared to address concerns and questions

11. Facilitate Guided Conversations • Faculty created rubric to evaluate rubrics • Focused on key aspects from faculty survey • Focus group tried and discussed each tool • Faculty agreed to rank tools and if tie, instructional design office should make final choice

12. Make Faculty the Experts • All faculty who participated were invited to become QM certified • Started QM coaches program • Begin preparing faculty for review process

13. Make it a Policy • Faculty committee proposed QM program become part of Faculty Policy and Procedure Manual • Each faculty member prepares a course for review within a three year cycle • Faculty member works with QM coach to address QM standards • Faculty choose whether course is submitted to QM for formal review

14. Did it work? Yes! • 15% of faculty have volunteered to become QM certified • QM coaches have worked with 30% of faculty • Courses are not yet meeting standards but are improving • First courses (6) to be submitted for formal review by this January Eh, sort of…. • Although regular communication was sent out about QM policies, some faculty still don’t know about QM • New faculty nervous about being “reviewed” • Lingering fear administrators are judging courses

15. Questions? Jenny Provo Quarles Director, Digital Education Collaborative & Distance Education Longwood University quarlesja@longwood.edu @jenny_quarles