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