Incentive model for review and revision process
According to all stakeholders, one of the most challenging parts of the HOQAS review process was developing an appropriate and compelling incentive model to promote participation in the review process (i.e. having faculty members volunteer their courses for review) and the application of the results of the review process to make revisions to a reviewed course. While certain review targets had been established and communicated to department chairs by institutional leadership (e.g. that a certain percentage of courses within a program or department be reviewed), faculty members had to voluntarily submit their courses for review. As word spread of negative reviews and low scores, one faculty member reported a discussion with his colleagues where they tried to discourage him from submitting his course. Faculty members receiving low scores on their HOQAS reviews reported the scores as discouraging them from submitting other courses for review.
After a HOQAS review was completed, both the faculty member and department chair were sent the review report. Each HOQAS review report contained standard-by-standard details on whether or not the course had met the standard; in the case of a standard not being met, feedback on how to change the course to meet the standard was included. Many faculty reported that the details contained within the report were not helpful for a variety of reasons: for some, if too many standards were evaluated as not being met, there was no obvious starting point for making changes—especially with limited availability of time and effort and little-to-no compensation being offered, either monetarily, for part-time faculty, or in terms of workload, for full-time faculty—compared to the amount of time required; others reported that they didn’t agree with the application of some of the standards and thus wouldn’t make the changes.
For both part-time and full-time faculty, notwithstanding what was perceived as a lack of appropriate compensation for the amount of work, there was also a lack of benefit for having a course that met the HOQAS/QM standards, in terms of minimal official recognition and consideration for the effort. For part-time faculty, having developed a HOQAS/QM standards compliant course did not factor into hiring decisions nor did it necessarily help them along the pathway to full-time status. Similarly, whether submitting a course for review or making revisions after a review had been completed, no measures existed to force participation: submitting a course to the process was voluntary; and, should the review process determine that a course was not HOQAS standards compliant, there were no negative effects associated with a course being non-standards compliant.
The main motivator for participating in both the review and revision processes seemed to be intrinsic. Some faculty members who participated reported doing so because they were already familiar with Quality Matters and believed in the benefits of the process; their pre-existing familiarity with the standards also made the feedback more useful and the revisions quicker. Others reported taking part in the review and revision process because they believed that it would make their courses better and easier to navigate for their students. They mentioned the positive feedback that they received from their students about the online components of their courses as contributing to their desire to continue to make revisions and continue to be part of the HOQAS/QM process, including submitting additional courses for review.
