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

joseph.hoey@bpiedu.com

lizy.lamboy@ashford.edu

morgan.johnson@ashford.edu

39