Each of our eight meetings, focused on instructional aspects of Quality, included time for committee members to share Quality tools, processes, and techniques. Students frequently attended the meetings, also, and contributed greatly. Members frequently shared articles, copies of which are available from Donna Schober at the District Office.
The Committee sponsored two, nearly identical, Quality surveys of all faculty, full-time and part-time, and all other Maricopa employees. The results of the surveys will serve as baseline data concerning the awareness, knowledge, and use of Quality throughout the District. One reason for the surveys was that the committee has been asked to structure, in conjunction with the Quantum Quality Coordinators of the colleges and District Office, the Governing Board Strategic Conversation on Maricopa's Continuous Quality Improvement Initiative-- now scheduled for January 9, 1996.
At our initial meeting we welcomed members of the Quality in Learning Committee and reviewed a draft to be used to collect data on faculty and employee awareness and use of Quality in effective teaching and learning.
On September 29th we met in conjunction with the David Langford Quality in Learning videoconference and focused on practical demonstrations of Quality in the classroom. This videoconference was the first of a two-part series that focused on how schools can prepare win/win learning environments by developing purpose and vision, self-assessment processes, portfolios, a quality improvement attitude toward learning, and an understanding of brain-based learning concepts. (A videotape of the videoconference is available from the MCLI at the District Office.) Faculty demonstrated and discussed quality tools used in their classes, including a competency matrix, a cause and effect diagram, and a "window pane" anonymous plus/delta evaluation tool. Copies of the Memory Jogger for Education were distributed to members.
On October 21st, co-chairs Shirlene Bruce and Laura Helminski presented QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM 101 at the Student Success Conference. They assisted faculty in using Quality tools to help students become more responsible for their own learning and to increase learning.
Our next meeting focused on Quality principles and philosophy integrated into the classroom. A brainstorming session was conducted with the group breaking into two teams. Students present shared their experiences in classes which use Quality. Faculty shared how they use "the Five Whys," the four steps of critical reasoning, and Plan-Do-Check-Act (or Articulate) to develop the class syllabus with the students. A copy of the Robert Cornesky book, The Quality Professor was distributed to the Quality Coordinator of each college for loan to faculty and staff.
At our next meeting we focused on quality assessment and process improvement in the classroom. The meeting was conducted after the Peter Senge Videoconference, Part I, "Aspiration." Faculty also shared examples of student feedback resulting in improvement at Phoenix College and examples of process improvement in instruction.
Our special guest at one meeting was David Langford of Quality Learning, Inc., who answered questions and talked about what is happening around the nation with Quality in the classroom. The meeting also included reporting, discussing, and brainstorming about the Quality survey responses from faculty and employees. A subcommittee was established to help sort all of the responses and provide an easy, understandable way to report the data.
Our next meeting followed the Peter Senge Videoconference, Part II, "Conversation: Mental Models, Team Learning and Systems Thinking." As part of the videoconference members explored unsurfaced mental models (e.g., part-time and non-traditional are not equated with quality) and mental models present but not expressed (e.g., value of innovation and dialogue). (The mental models lists are available from Donna Schober. A videotape of the videoconference is available from the MCLI at the District Office.) The focus of the meeting involved sharing by faculty and students of best practices and results of using Quality in the classroom. For example, a faculty member and students from Phoenix College described the learning environment they create in their math classes. Another faculty member described the matrix he uses with Spanish students so they are able to assess their own learning.
Our final meeting included previewing the initial Quality Video: Quality in the Classroom, and provided time for information sharing on successes in the classroom. A training manual was also developed to be used with the video. QQEC and the Committee hope to make copies of the video and manual available to faculty who wish to use it as a catalyst for conversation about using Quality to increase student learning and for experimenting with Quality in learning. Also, two members demonstrated quality software.
