LEARNING DESIGN

 

ACADEMIC DIRECTORS’

FACULTY MANAGEMENT TRAINING COURSE

 

"COUNSELING AND MENTORING FACULTY IN THE WAKE OF

NEGATIVE STUDENT FEEDBACK"

 

 

PROBLEM AND PROPOSED SOLUTION

 

Problem

New Academic Directors in the Organization have no formal training, specifically to prepare them to counsel and mentor faculty concerning students’ informal complaints.  The lack of training is exacerbated by the absence of formal UMUC policies/procedures for counseling faculty in these situations.   Furthermore, with the absence of formal training, experienced Academic Directors have no resources to draw upon when facing these same issues.

Note:  The “problem” has been narrowed to omit negative student feedback from course evaluation forms.  The focus is now only on informal student complaints.

 

Proposed Overall Solution

The proposed solution is to offer to Academic Directors a Faculty Management Training (“FMT”) course, Counseling and Mentoring Faculty in the Wake of Negative Student Feedback.   

 

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Counseling and Mentoring Faculty in the Wake of Negative Student Feedback

This training course will prepare UMUC Academic Directors in the School of Undergraduate Studies to counsel and mentor faculty concerning negative feedback from informal student complaints.  Participants will first examine the role of the Academic Director as counselor and mentor to the faculty.  Then, trainees will review UMUC policies to differentiate formal from informal student complaints.  Then, participants will examine and categorize different types of students’ informal complaints.  Next, participants will review various techniques to investigate informal student complaints and consider resources to examine during complaint investigation.  Trainees will then explore methods for approaching faculty about negative student feedback, and will propose ways to assist faculty with avoiding further student complaints.  They will also explore their own faculty mentoring and management strategies to attempt to prevent certain types of student complaints. Finally, participants will practice devising a cumulative strategy for evaluating and investigating informal student complaints and counseling and mentoring faculty concerning these complaints.

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES

 

After completing this course, you should be able to:

 

● Examine the role of the Academic Director in counseling and mentoring faculty members.

 

● Differentiate between formal and informal student complaints.

 

● Identify the variety of typical informal student complaints.

 

● Explain various strategies for the Academic Director’s investigation of students’ informal complaints.

 

● Predict how a faculty member may react to negative feedback and to the Academic Director’s counseling. 

 

● Formulate an approach to address student complaints with the faculty member based upon the perceived characteristics of the faculty member.

 

● Identify best practices for faculty, including those in UMUC Faculty Expectations documents and the UMUC Faculty Guide.

 

● Propose strategies to faculty members to avoid future student complaints.

 

● Formulate a proactive strategy so that Academic Directors can attempt to avert certain types of student complaints.

 

PROPOSED COURSE PLAN

 

Module 1 – The Academic Director as Manager and Mentor

Course objective addressed:

 

● Examine the role of the Academic Director in counseling and mentoring faculty members.

 

Module 2 – Evaluating and Investigating Student Complaints

Course objectives addressed:

 

● Differentiate between formal and informal student complaints.

 

● Identify the variety of typical informal student complaints.

 

● Explain various strategies for the Academic Director’s investigation of students’ informal complaints.

 

Module 3 – Counseling Faculty Members about Student Complaints

Course objectives addressed:

 

● Predict how a faculty member may react to negative feedback and to the Academic Director’s counseling. 

 

● Formulate an approach to address student complaints with the faculty member based upon the perceived characteristics of the faculty member.

 

Module 4 – Mentoring Faculty Members to Avoid Student Complaints

Course objectives addressed:

 

● Identify best practices for faculty, including those in UMUC Faculty Expectations documents and the UMUC Faculty Guide.

 

● Propose strategies to faculty members to avoid future student complaints.

 

● Formulate a proactive strategy so that Academic Directors can attempt to avert certain types of student complaints.

 

Module 5 – Cumulative Project

The Cumulative Project will evaluate all Course Objectives.  See details in “Proposed Evaluative Strategies” below.

PROPOSED LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Ongoing Activity for All Objectives/Modules

 

“Learning Journal”

In each conference, trainee will:

-          Before reading or engaging in module activities, note “Your Initial Thoughts” - preconceived notions, attitudes, etc., about topic(s) of module.

-          At end of module, note “Your Reflections”  - what was learned, what attitudes, etc., changed, what was surprising, etc.

 

Pro:  Trainees will gain a deeper appreciation for their role as Academic Director.

 

Con:  The Organization may perceive the journal as extra or “busy” work that is not a relevant training tool to prepare trainees for their job duties.

 

Analysis:  The journal is a must!  The training provides a good foundation for the job as a whole; therefore, trainees should have ample time for reflection.  Even though there will be no formal evaluation of this exercise, trainees should understand that the Learning Journal is a vital component of the course and necessary to complete the course. 

 

Learning Activities Paired with Course Objectives

 

Note:  The content for each learning activity will be standard among all sections of the training course, except where noted.

 

OBJECTIVE

● Examine the role of the Academic Director in counseling and mentoring faculty members.

 

Activities:

 

▫ Read excerpt from typical job description for UMUC Academic Director: “responsible for leading and directing approximately [number] collegiate and adjunct faculty."

 

Pro:  This is good context for the Academic Director’s responsibility to his/her faculty and it sets the stage for the training course. 

 

Con:  Because Academic Departments are staffed differently, the actual description of duties could vary among Academic Directors in the various Academic Departments and may cause confusion.  The Organization tends to want to avoid any emphasis on the differences among Academic Directors.

 

Analysis:  This activity is vital and does no harm.  Facilitators can temper any confusion by keeping the trainee focused on his/her responsibility to the faculty, rather than where s/he fits in among UMUC Academic Directors.

 

▫ Review example of typical “major duty” listed under “Faculty (Staff) Development and Management” in UMUC Performance Assessment Development Plan (“PAD”) for Academic Directors:  “engage in activities that ensure faculty meet high professional standards in the classroom and that promote faculty development…”

 

Pro:  This emphasizes that the Academic Director’s job performance will be evaluated according to his/her faculty development efforts.  Therefore, it validates the need for the training course and should remain. 

 

Con:  This is only a typical PAD “major duty” and may not actually mirror that in the trainee’s PAD.  Therefore, the Organization may again be concerned about creating confusion.

 

Analysis:  Facilitators should remind the trainee that even if his/her PAD language somewhat varies, the ultimate responsibility to faculty is the same among Academic Directors.  Therefore, this activity should remain in the course.

 

▫ Read article, Managing Faculty at a Distance.

 

Pro:  The article is an excellent resource for the context in which Academic Directors will be managing and mentoring their faculty.  UMUC is somewhat unique since most faculty members are at a distance from their Academic Directors.   

 

Con:  The Organization may maintain that the article is extraneous to the training course since its focus is not on student complaints.

 

Analysis:  UMUC does not offer Academic Directors any training about this type of faculty management environment.  Furthermore, the “distance factor” can greatly affect the Academic Director’s efforts to get to know the faculty.  That in turn can affect how the Academic Director approaches student complaints and how the approach is perceived by the faculty member.  Therefore, the trainees should understand the context of managing their faculty at a distance and this learning activity should be included in the course.

 

 

Pro:  This activity is essential to establish the context for the training process.  The trainee must develop his/her own context for the learning that is to take place. 

 

Con:  The Organization may maintain that at this early stage the trainee may not know enough to understand his/her role. 

 

Analysis:  It is important that the trainee express simply what s/he knows and thinks at the outset of the course.  Obviously much thought went into applying for and accepting the position of Academic Director! The activity will start the reflection process that will be nurtured by the learning journal activity. Therefore, this activity is imperative.

 

OBJECTIVE

● Differentiate between formal and informal student complaints.

 

Activities:

 

▫ Locate pertinent UMUC policies.

 

Pro:  This activity will educate the trainees about UMUC’s policies. 

 

Con:  The activity may end up being too much of a fishing expedition given the complex structure of UMUC’s Web site.

 

Analysis:  Regardless of whether this is a fishing expedition, it is a vital activity to prepare the trainees for their job performance, especially since UMUC’s Web site is so complex.  When investigating student complaints in the workplace, Academic Directors must be familiar enough with the policies to be able to determine whether the complaint must be addressed under any UMUC policies.  If necessary, training facilitators can guide trainees through the policies. 

 

▫  Infer from policies some issues that could give rise to formal student complaints (2 to 5 examples).

 

Pro:  Although this is a “process of elimination” strategy, trainees can begin to learn when to seek policy guidance when certain complaints arise.

 

Con:  The Organization may maintain that this is an irrelevant exercise since the training course does not focus on formal complaints.

 

Analysis:  At this point, this seems to be a good exercise since there is a large universe of informal complaints and this process of elimination may be useful.  The activity should stay as of now.  The process in this learning activity is one that trainees will need to transfer to the workplace.  Before proceeding to evaluate a student complaint, the Academic Director must first determine whether the complaint must be addressed under any UMUC policies.

 

OBJECTIVE

● Identify the variety of typical informal student complaints.

 

Activities:

 

▫ Review examples of student complaints or “gripes.”  

Note:  A certain sampling of complaints should be included in common course content in all sections of the training course.  However, training facilitators should present in the Conference area their own examples that may be somewhat unique to their Academic Department.  (For example, math students’ complaints may differ from those taking writing courses.)

 

Pro:  This activity will allow the trainee to appreciate the range of possibilities.  In addition, if the complaint examples are specific to the Academic Department, they may provide a more realistic training environment.

 

Con:  Because the variety of student complaints is seemingly endless, the Organization may maintain that there is no such thing as a typical complaint.    

 

Analysis:  This exercise is valuable and should be included.  The examples of complaints can be somewhat categorized by training facilitators who are experienced Academic Directors. 

 

▫ Review UMUC’s student course evaluation forms.

 

Pro:  Trainees can see how students – especially those who are seasoned “evaluators” – look critically at their courses.  The criteria can form the basis for some student complaints so they are handy bits of information.

 

Con:  The student course evaluation forms are a bit out of context for this training course since we will not address negative student feedback obtained from course evaluations.

 

Analysis:  This activity is not particularly vital since the concepts can be covered in other activities.  In addition, inclusion of the course evaluation forms may cause some confusion as to the focus of the course.  Therefore, this activity may be scrapped.

 

 

Pro:  This activity’s evaluation strategy forms the basis for the investigation stage.

 

Con:  An activity to determine whether to drop certain complaints may appear as counterintuitive or extraneous to a training course that instructs trainees to address complaints. 

 

Analysis:  In spite of appearances, this activity should be included.  One training course objective requires trainees to learn how to counsel faculty.  Part of the art of counseling is knowing when – and when not – to approach faculty.  Trainees need to appreciate that faculty members perhaps should not be informed of negative feedback that is mere venting.  Since trainees will need to transfer this evaluative strategy to the workplace, the activity is vital to the training course.

 

OBJECTIVE 

● Explain various strategies for the Academic Director’s investigation of informal student complaints.

 

Activities:

 

▫ Read article, Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education:  Academic Appeals and Student Complaints on Academic Matters. 

 

Pro:  This resource contains a good set of standards for handling student complaints. 

 

Con:  The article’s focus is on formal, not informal, complaints; therefore, it may appear irrelevant to the training course. 

 

Analysis:  Nonetheless, this article emphasizes the importance for attending to students’ complaints.  Therefore, this activity should be included in the course.

 

▫ Read article, College Marketing and the Academic Structure:  Incompatibility?

 

Pro:  This article gives trainees another perspective of student complaints, as it discusses the pitfalls of perceiving the student as “consumer.” 

 

Con:  UMUC administrators may not be too happy with this article.  According to the article, many universities are sold on this consumerism theory.

Analysis:  I would strongly suggest that the article be included to balance the trainee’s thought process when evaluating students’ complaints.  Even if the article’s author is a bit negative about the consumerism theory, trainees should still understand it – especially if UMUC endorses the theory.  Therefore, this learning activity should remain in the course.

 

▫ Explore resources available to assist with complaint investigations.

 

Pro:  This activity will give the trainees guidance on constructing their “tool box” for investigating complaints (conversation with student, instructor’s syllabus and Web class, etc.).

 

Con:  While the possibilities of resources are not endless, they can widely vary with each complaint and may be difficult to define.

 

Analysis:  We need to start somewhere to enable the trainee to construct a useful set of tools for handling each complaint.  This process of assembling tools is something that Academic Directors will need to transfer to the workplace.  Therefore, the activity is vital and should remain in the course.

 

▫ Brainstorm about what information the trainees would seek from each resource (e.g., Web classroom:  how often instructor in class; grade book – are most students submitting timely work, what are grades like; from student – did student talk with instructor, does student feel comfortable talking with instructor, does student want to remain anonymous, what resolution does student expect, etc.).

 

Pro:  This activity helps the trainee to refine the tool box by evaluating what information may be gleaned from each resource and what other resources or “tools” may be needed. 

 

Con:  As with the above activity, the right tool box may be difficult to define.

 

Analysis:  Nonetheless, this is a vital exercise that should stay since it provides the trainees with an understanding of the significance of the various resources.  This process of refining resources and recognizing the need for more resources for handling student complaints is something that must transfer to the workplace.

 

● Predict how a faculty member may react to negative feedback and to the Academic Director’s counseling.

 

Activities:

 

▫ Brainstorm resources that would assist with making this prediction (e.g., get to know faculty by talking with them; observe how faculty interacts with students in face-to-face or Web classroom; observe how faculty interacts with other faculty in faculty meetings, etc.).

 

Pro:  Like the activity immediately above, this is useful for assembling the trainee’s tool box.

 

Con:  As with the above activity, the right tool box may be difficult to define.

 

Analysis:  Nonetheless, this is a vital exercise that should stay since it provides the trainees with an understanding of the significance of the various resources.  This process of refining resources and recognizing the need for more resources for handling student complaints is something that must transfer to the workplace.  Finally, it is good general practice to know one’s faculty.

 

▫ Provide examples of typical “predictor” faculty reactions to students – one positive predictor and one negative/defensive predictor – based upon a mock student question (e.g., “Prof – I just don’t get where you’re going with this theory.  I never understand ANYTHING you say!!!!”).    

 

Pro:  This activity allows the trainee to role play to help recognize the faculty member who may be a bit defensive to the Academic Director’s feedback about students’ complaints.

 

Con:  The role-playing exercise may be perceived to be a shot in the dark since faculty members’ reactions to students may be completely different from reactions to the Academic Director. 

 

Analysis:  This is a relevant exercise since Academic Directors’ ability to evaluate faculty members’ sensitivities is a vital skill for handling student complaints.  The skill must transfer to the workplace.  Refinement of the “prediction” skills will come with time and experience. Therefore, the activity should remain. 

 

● Formulate an approach to address student complaints with the faculty member based upon the perceived characteristics of the faculty member.

 

Activity:

 

▫  Based upon given sets of facts, suggest various approaches for handling the complaints with faculty. 

 

Pro:  This activity allows trainees to practice how to first approach a faculty member about a student complaint.  The approach will vary depending upon factors including whether the faculty member appears open or defensive to negative feedback.  The training facilitator can play the role of the faculty member and “react” to the trainee’s approach, and then suggest refinement to the approach.

 

Con:  The exercise may appear ineffective since there is no way to predict exactly how a faculty member will react to negative feedback from the Academic Director.    

Analysis:  Trainees can begin to recognize categories of faculty reactions – at least “open” and “defensive” – and what might work with each type of faculty member.  This is a vital exercise for the training course since this is a skill that Academic Directors need to transfer to the workplace to effectively handle student complaints.

 

OBJECTIVE

● Identify best practices for faculty, including those in UMUC Faculty Expectations documents and the UMUC Faculty Guide.

 

Activity:

 

▫ Identify 2 to 5 best practices in these resources that, if not followed, could result in students’ informal complaints. 

Note:  Links to UMUC “Faculty Expectations” documents and the UMUC “Faculty Guide” will be included in the training course content.

 

Pro:  Trainees learn the standards that UMUC sets for faculty members.  Knowing these standards can better ensure that the Academic Director will manage their faculty according to the standards.  If the Academic Director must “correct” the faculty member, the Academic Director may fall back on the standards to explain the need for the changed behavior.

 

Con:  At this point, I cannot think of a reason why the trainees should not know best practices!  Also, I don’t now see any flaw in the concept of the activity as it relates to the objective.

 

Analysis:  This is another vital exercise that has benefits that go beyond the skills needed for the student complaint process.  Academic Directors must know the best practices to engage in ongoing development of their faculty as well as to recognize when a faculty’s practices do not quite meet standards.  The skills and knowledge must transfer to the workplace.

 

OBJECTIVE

● Propose strategies to faculty members to avoid future student complaints.

 

Activity:

 

▫ Suggest strategies for having faculty comply with the UMUC Syllabus Checklist (for example, by pointing out the “virtue” or logic of various items and the potential “disasters” that can result from not following them).

 

Pro:  This activity encourages a good management strategy for the trainee – passing on best practices to faculty.  The Syllabus Checklist is a good example of a model of faculty best practices.

 

Con:  I cannot think of any reason why the Organization would object to having the trainee become familiar with its own model for best practices.

 

Analysis:  The fringe benefit of this activity encourages faculty to adopt a proactive class management style.  If faculty members adhere to best practices, in theory the Academic Director may engage in more proactive rather than reactive management.  This is a vital exercise since this management strategy must transfer to the workplace.  Therefore, the activity is vital to the training course.

 

OBJECTIVE

● Formulate a proactive strategy so that Academic Directors can attempt to avert certain types of student complaints.

 

Activity:

 

▫ Within fact patterns in the training course content, identify potential problems and techniques for averting them. 

 

Pro:  This activity enables the trainee to begin to formulate a proactive management strategy.  For example, trainees can begin to appreciate the need to review syllabi before the semester starts to spot potential problems with a faculty member’s project instructions, grading policies, etc., that may later give rise to student complaints.

 

Con:  The skills demanded from the trainees may be appear to be too advanced for the trainee’s professional development stage.

 

Analysis:  Again, the trainee needs to start somewhere.  This is a vital exercise since a proactive management strategy with regard to student complaints must transfer to the workplace.

 

 

EVAULATION STRATEGIES

 

Modules 1 through 4

 

The strategy in these modules will be somewhat informal and collaborative.   The training facilitator will offer guidance to set the trainee on a different path or to expand the trainee’s strategy, as necessary.   The facilitator should be provided with the “best” answers for the exercises (e.g., core UMUC policies and best practices the trainees should note as pertinent; core resources for investigating student complaints and for predicting faculty temperament regarding negative feedback; more desirable strategies for approaching faculty; etc.).

 

Pro:  Even an informal evaluation is helpful in keeping the trainee on track.

 

Con:  An informal evaluation will yield inconsistent results.

 

Analysis:  Formal “testing” at each module could be cumbersome and could slow the training process.  The training facilitators can be trained in the TTT course to informally evaluate the trainees’ progress and to ensure success with the Cumulative Project.  Finally, the Cumulative Project will formally evaluate all of the Course Objectives.

 

Module 5 – Cumulative Project

 

Trainees will articulate a comprehensive strategy for managing a student complaint.  Based upon a fact pattern describing a student complaint, the trainee will describe and justify/analyze each step in handling the complaint. 

 

At a minimum, the trainee must:

 

▪ Explain how the trainee determined that the complaint is informal and not a formal complaint governed by UMUC policies.

▪ Explain why the complaint is more than “venting” and therefore should be investigated.

▪ Identify resources that will assist the trainee with investigating the complaint.

▪ Explain why these resources are relevant, or what might be gleaned from the resources to aid the investigation process.

▪ Identify resources that will assist the trainee with predicting the reaction from the faculty member to the negative feedback.

▪ Explain why these resources are relevant, or what might be gleaned from the resources to aid the trainee with handling the complaint with the faculty member.

▪ Articulate the strategy the trainee would use to approach the faculty member about the student complaint and explain the basis for such strategy.

▪ Identify what best practices the trainee will rely upon when addressing the complaint with the faculty member.

▪ Articulate a strategy for this faculty member to avoid another similar complaint and explain the basis for such strategy.

▪ Explain what proactive measures the Academic Director could have taken to avoid this complaint.

 

Pro:  This is the chance for the facilitator to determine whether the trainee understands the processes, strategies, and nuances involved in the student complaint process.

 

Con:  The evaluation may be a bit complex or subjective since there seem to be endless variations for how a complaint can be handled.  In addition, the “problem” may become stale and be revised, thus resulting in evaluation inconsistencies over time.

 

Analysis:  We can achieve objectivity by crafting a rubric to be used for all sections of the training course.  The rubric will contain the core requirements for policies, resources, etc., and general characteristics of good strategies.  To combat any future inconsistencies, any revisions to the problem should be geared to the rubric.  In other words, we should be sure to test the same knowledge and skills base to ensure that all trainees are fairly and consistently evaluated.

 

 

Proposal 

The course will be a hybrid, with the Web portion facilitated on UMUC’s training server, Nighthawk.  The training course will span five weeks, with each module lasting one week. 

 

Each new Academic Director will participate with a training facilitator who is an experienced Academic Director working in the trainee’s Academic Department.   The training facilitator will have completed UMUC’s “Train the Trainer” course.

 

Ideally the training will be conducted on a one-to-one basis.  The face-to-face portion of the course will occur in the workplace as the training facilitator and trainee discuss training course content and related situations which may arise in the workplace.

 

Analysis

 

Course Timeline

 

Pro:  Five weeks allow the trainee to adequately reflect upon the training process and to consult with the facilitator in the workplace.

 

Con:  UMUC may perceive that five weeks is too long for a training course that focuses on only one aspect of the job.

 

Analysis:  Time is needed for reflection.  In addition, the trainee will be handling Academic Director duties in the workplace as s/he is able to manage.  Therefore, the training does not entirely keep the trainee away from the job.  Furthermore, this training is not so intense that it likely rules out other simultaneous training opportunities (such as training in e-mail technology).  Finally, this training goes deeper than just handling student complaints.  It allows trainees to learn about faculty, students, their academic programs, and UMUC policies and resources that will be useful for other job duties.  Therefore, the five-week schedule should be maintained.

 

Training Facilitator from Trainee’s Academic Department

 

Pro:  This is the best possible scenario since the facilitator can use student complaint examples that may be unique to the Academic Department.  Also, having the facilitator and trainee in the same Academic Department would better facilitate the face-to-face portion of the course and the mentoring stage after the completion of the course.

 

Con:  The organization will likely object to this as an inefficient use of resources since it may result in a one-to-one facilitator-trainee ratio. 

 

Analysis:  It is less efficient to have the facilitator and trainee working in different Departments since we would not have the benefit of their being side-by-side on a daily basis.  If UMUC insists that the match is not vital, then the Department-specific training facilitator could conceivably conduct just the workplace portion and take over in the mentoring stage.  In that case, it is vital that the training facilitator from the trainee’s Academic Department be well versed in the content and learning activities of the course as well as the trainee’s progress.  However, this process could be awkward and confusing for the trainee and it creates more work for both facilitators.  Therefore, it is vital to have the facilitator and the trainee work in the same Academic Department.

 

Ratio

 

Pro:  Small ratio of facilitator to trainee(s) should allow for better quality training. 

 

Con:  The Organization will claim that with the small ratio and the turnover of Academic Directors, UMUC could conceivably be conducting this training 365 days a year.  UMUC will argue that this is not an efficient use of resources.

 

Analysis:  First, it should be noted that as an educational institution, there should be no objection to a “pervasive” training environment.  Second, we can compromise and increase efficiency somewhat if the timing of the training is aligned with the arrival of a group of Academic Directors within a Department.  That will allow for a larger ratio.  Finally, this training course could reduce the turnover rate among Academic Directors, thus reducing the need for so many training sessions in the long term.  Therefore, there is no reason to significantly increase the ratio.

 

Training Facilitator Should Complete UMUC’s “Train the Trainer” (“TTT”) Course

 

Pro:  The TTT course is the best method to prepare the facilitator since s/he will better understand the training process and will be well versed in the training course content.

 

Con:  The Organization may perceive this as an inefficient use of resources.  The Organization must compensate a TTT facilitator each time the TTT course is run.  With the high turnover rate among Academic Directors, there is logically a high turnover rate among the training course facilitators.  Therefore, much time and money will be spent training trainers. 

 

Analysis:  One alternative is to have the experienced Academic Directors complete a self-paced training or read materials on the training process.  However, they likely will not gain the same benefits as from interacting with a knowledgeable training facilitator in the TTT.  If the facilitators’ training is ineffective, they will not be good trainers for Academic Directors.  Therefore, this alternative would taint the entire training process.  Furthermore, involving Academic Directors as training facilitators could actually decrease turnover and, consequently the TTT course expense may level out over the long term.  Therefore, it is in the Organization’s best interest to have the trainers complete the TTT course.