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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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