View
116
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
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
AGENDA Conceptual Framework
Serving a Diverse Faculty Community
Faculty Development and Review
Governance
Curriculum Development
Program Review
Developing Common Standards
Summary
Q & A
3
ASHFORD: WHO ARE WE?
4
FACULTY PROFILE
• Full-time professionals
• Vast experience in their fields
• Master’s or doctorally-prepared
• Geographically diverse
5
FACULTY ENGAGEMENT MODEL
6
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
High Impact OnlineTeaching & Learning
Practices
Online Teaching &Learning Research
Understanding OurStudents
PROPOSALS BY CONFERENCE TRACK
ASHFORD
NOV. 4th
and 5th
TLC
#AshfordTLC
FACULTY
GOVERNANCE
14
FACULTY GOVERNANCE
MODEL
15
FACULTY GOVERNANCE & OVERSIGHT
STUDENT LEARNING
CURRICULUM
INSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT
16
CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT
17
COURSE DEVELOPMENT
18
ROLE OF FACULTY IN
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
19
Program Managers
Assessment Analyst
Instructional Designers
Instructional Technologists
Quality Assurance
PROGRAM
REVIEW
20
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
PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS
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
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
DEVELOPING
COMMON
STANDARDS
25
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
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
COURSE HEALTH DASHBOARD – QUALITY
OF FACULTY FINAL SCORE
28
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
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
31
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
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.
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 yourInstructor
Guidance Ask YourInstructor
Discussions WrittenAssignments
Posting Grades
2015 Data excludes 25% of courses
2015 Goal is to maintain score at 2.8 or above
END OF COURSE SURVEY RESULTS
35
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
SUMMARY
37
38
A UNITY OF ENGAGEMENT
FROM MANY, FOR MANY, SHALL
FLOURISH ONLINE
39