S6: Selection and Qualification of Faculty, SMEs, and Other Contributors
Who may serve as faculty, an SME, an author, or a reviewer for a Conduent accredited CPE activity?
Why it matters:
The reviewers need to determine whether Conduent has defined minimum expectations for individuals who influence educational content.
Recommended response:
Individuals may serve in these roles when their education, professional credentials, subject-matter expertise, practice or industry experience, and assigned responsibilities are appropriate for the activity. Qualification is determined in relation to the specific topic, intended audience, learning objectives, activity type, and the individual’s role. A person is not considered qualified solely because the person has participated in previous Conduent projects.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager.
What information does Conduent provide to faculty and SMEs before they begin work on an accredited activity?
Why it matters:
Contributors need clear instructions concerning their responsibilities, educational expectations, integrity obligations, and required documentation.
Recommended response:
Conduent provides role-specific instructions covering the activity purpose, intended audience, learning objectives, content scope, evidence expectations, instructional format, assessment requirements, timelines, financial disclosures, content integrity, commercial-bias restrictions, copyright or attribution expectations, and the review and approval process.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer.
How does Conduent evaluate faculty or SME performance?
Why it matters:
The reviewers need to understand whether Conduent has a defined method for assessing contributor effectiveness.
Recommended response:
Performance is assessed using applicable learner evaluations, narrative comments, internal quality-review findings, accuracy and completeness of deliverables, adherence to instructional and accreditation requirements, responsiveness to requested changes, and completion of assigned responsibilities. The evaluation method is appropriate to the individual’s role.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager.
How does Conduent select the teaching and learning methods for an accredited activity?
Why it matters:
The teaching method should result from the educational need and objectives, rather than simply from the template or technology available.
Recommended response:
Teaching and learning methods are selected after considering the identified practice or knowledge gap, intended audience, learning objectives, activity type, content complexity, delivery environment, expected learner participation, accessibility needs, and available technology. The selected method must give learners a reasonable opportunity to achieve the stated objectives.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer.
What information do learners receive about how to participate in and complete an activity?
Why it matters:
Learners need to understand technical requirements, participation expectations, completion criteria, assessments, evaluation requirements, and how credit will be awarded.
Recommended response:
Before or at the beginning of the activity, learners receive instructions concerning the activity format, system or technical requirements, navigation, learning objectives, required participation, assessment expectations, passing or completion criteria, evaluation requirements, credit procedures, support contacts, and applicable accessibility information.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer or LMS Administrator.
How does Conduent confirm that a proposed faculty member or SME is qualified for a specific activity?
Why it matters:
A reviewer may look beyond the existence of a résumé and ask how Conduent actually evaluates its relevance.
Recommended response:
During activity planning, Conduent defines the educational need, target audience, learning objectives, content scope, and required expertise. The proposed contributor’s education, credentials, relevant experience, and familiarity with the topic are then compared with those requirements. The selection decision and assigned responsibilities are documented before the person begins controlling educational content.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager or designated faculty coordinator.
How does Conduent confirm that faculty and SMEs understand their assigned responsibilities?
Why it matters:
Sending instructions does not establish that a contributor reviewed or understood them.
Recommended response:
Responsibilities are discussed during kickoff or onboarding and documented in the activity brief, engagement communication, or contributor acknowledgment. Questions are addressed before content development begins. The Instructional Designer or CE Program Manager monitors submitted work against the stated requirements and provides direction when deliverables do not meet expectations.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer.
Who reviews faculty performance information, and what happens to the results?
Why it matters:
Collecting evaluations without reviewing or acting on them does not demonstrate meaningful oversight.
Recommended response:
The CE Program Manager, Instructional Designer, or other designated educational leader reviews relevant results after the activity and during periodic quality monitoring. Positive performance may support future assignments. Concerns are documented, discussed with the contributor as appropriate, and considered when determining whether coaching, additional review, role modification, or exclusion from future activities is necessary.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager.
How does Conduent verify that each learning objective is supported by an appropriate educational method?
Why it matters:
A content-heavy presentation alone may not be sufficient for objectives requiring application, analysis, decision-making, or skill development.
Recommended response:
The Instructional Designer maps each objective to the relevant content, learner interaction, practice opportunity, and assessment. Objectives focused on knowledge may be supported through structured explanation and examples. Objectives requiring application or problem-solving require methods such as scenarios, case analysis, decision points, practice activities, simulations, or other active-learning approaches. Misalignment is corrected before release.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer.
How does Conduent test an activity before it is released to learners?
Why it matters:
A prerelease review helps confirm that educational interactions, navigation, assessments, links, media, and reporting functions operate as intended.
Recommended response:
Before release, the activity undergoes content, instructional, technical, and accreditation quality review. The designated reviewers test navigation, media, links, interactions, assessments, feedback, completion rules, evaluation access, credit functionality, display behavior, and applicable accessibility features. Identified issues are corrected and retested before approval.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Quality Reviewer or LMS Administrator.
How does Conduent determine whether a person is qualified for one educational role but not necessarily for another?
Why it matters:
Someone may possess technical knowledge but lack instructional-design, facilitation, assessment-writing, or independent-review qualifications. Reviewers may test whether Conduent differentiates these responsibilities.
Recommended response:
Qualification is assessed by role, rather than treated as a single universal determination. For example, a technical SME may validate scientific, operational, or regulatory content, while an Instructional Designer is responsible for instructional alignment and learner engagement. A pharmacist or other appropriately qualified reviewer may be assigned when professional-practice validation is necessary. Roles are divided so that each person performs work aligned with demonstrated expertise, and final approval reflects the combined review.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager, supported by the Instructional Designer.
What happens when faculty or an SME submits content that does not follow Conduent’s educational or accreditation requirements?
Why it matters:
The reviewer is testing whether Conduent retains control of accredited education and actively enforces its expectations.
Recommended response:
The content is not approved in its submitted form. The Instructional Designer or designated reviewer documents the issue and returns the material with required revisions. Depending on the concern, Conduent may provide additional guidance, require another review, narrow the contributor’s role, assign a second qualified reviewer, or escalate the issue to CE leadership. The activity is not released until the concern is resolved and the final material is approved.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer, supported by the CE Program Manager.
How would Conduent investigate a pattern of learner comments questioning a faculty member’s clarity, accuracy, balance, or relevance?
Why it matters:
A single unfavorable comment may not establish a problem, but repeated or serious comments require investigation.
Recommended response:
Conduent would first determine the number, nature, severity, and concentration of comments. The team would review the activity content, learning objectives, references, delivery records, assessments, and other learner results. The faculty member or SME may be asked for clarification, and an independent qualified reviewer may assess technical accuracy or balance. The findings, decision, corrective actions, and follow-up would be documented.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager, supported by the Instructional Designer and qualified SME.
How are teaching methods adapted for pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, or mixed audiences?
Why it matters:
These audiences may have different scopes of practice, baseline knowledge, responsibilities, and educational needs.
Recommended response:
During planning, Conduent defines the intended audience and evaluates the expected baseline knowledge, professional responsibilities, and application context. Content, examples, terminology, scenarios, practice opportunities, and assessments are then tailored to the identified audience. For mixed audiences, the design distinguishes shared concepts from role-specific application and avoids assigning responsibilities that are outside a learner group’s scope or expected function.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer, supported by the SME.
How does Conduent address accessibility in the design and delivery of accredited activities?
Why it matters:
Learners should have equitable access to educational content and required interactions. Reviewers may ask for specific design practices rather than a general statement of commitment.
Recommended response:
Accessibility is considered during design, development, testing, and publication. Depending on the activity, controls may include readable visual structure, keyboard navigation, alternative text, captions or transcripts, sufficient color contrast, accessible documents, clearly labeled controls, and alternatives for interactions that create access barriers. Learners are also given a method to request assistance or accommodation.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer, supported by Accessibility or Quality Assurance personnel.
How does Conduent demonstrate that qualification reviews are applied consistently across all accredited activities?
Why it matters:
One well-documented faculty file does not establish that the selection process is consistently applied throughout the accredited portfolio.
Recommended response:
Conduent uses a standard qualification and activity-file process for all accredited activities. Every applicable contributor should have a defined role, current qualification documentation, completed financial disclosure, and documented approval. The Accreditation Coordinator or CE Program Manager monitors documentation completeness and follows up on expired, missing, or insufficient qualifications before an activity is approved or republished.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Accreditation Coordinator.
How does Conduent ensure that external, internal, new, and experienced contributors receive consistent expectations?
Why it matters:
Informal practices can lead to different requirements being applied depending on the person’s employment status, familiarity with the team, or history with the organization.
Recommended response:
Conduent applies the same core accreditation requirements to all individuals who control educational content. Orientation may be adapted to the person’s role and experience, but required topics and documentation do not change. Standard materials, disclosure forms, templates, checklists, and approval gates help ensure that internal employees and external contributors are treated consistently.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager or Accreditation Coordinator.
How does Conduent determine whether a faculty-performance concern is isolated to one activity or represents a broader portfolio risk?
Why it matters:
A reviewer may expect Conduent to assess whether the same person, template, development method, or review weakness affected additional activities.
Recommended response:
When a material concern is identified, Conduent examines other activities involving the same contributor, reviewer, topic, process, or development period. The team compares evaluation data, review findings, learner outcomes, and content versions to determine whether the concern is isolated or systemic. If the risk extends beyond one activity, corrective action is applied across the affected portfolio.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager or Quality Assurance lead.
How does Conduent determine that an activity marketed as application-based or interactive actually provides meaningful learner engagement?
Why it matters:
Clicking “next,” opening tabs, or answering recall questions does not necessarily demonstrate application or meaningful interaction.
Recommended response:
Conduent evaluates the cognitive demand and purpose of each interaction. Meaningful application requires learners to use information to make a decision, solve a problem, interpret a situation, apply a rule, or respond to a realistic case. The design should include feedback that explains why a response is correct or incorrect. The activity-type designation, objectives, instructional methods, and assessments must all be consistent.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer.
What happens when a learner reports that a required interaction, assessment, or media element cannot be accessed or completed?
Why it matters:
Technical and accessibility failures can prevent objective achievement, unfairly affect completion, or interfere with credit reporting.
Recommended response:
The report is documented and triaged to determine its scope, severity, and learner impact. Conduent provides an appropriate support path or accessible alternative without lowering the educational or assessment requirement. If the issue may affect multiple learners, the team investigates the activity configuration, corrects the problem, tests the solution, communicates as necessary, and evaluates whether completions, assessments, or credit records require correction.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: LMS Administrator or learner-support lead, with CE Program Manager oversight.
How would Conduent respond if a highly experienced SME had strong technical expertise but insufficient credentials, limited teaching ability, or incomplete qualification documentation?
Why it matters:
The reviewers may test whether business needs or subject-matter scarcity can override accreditation controls.
Recommended response:
Conduent would evaluate the specific deficiency and determine whether the person’s role can be appropriately limited or supplemented. The individual might contribute technical information while another qualified person validates professional applicability, instructional alignment, or assessment quality. If Conduent cannot establish and document sufficient qualifications for the assigned role, the individual would not independently control that component of the accredited activity. Business urgency would not replace the qualification requirement.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Director or CE Program Manager.
How does Conduent know that its faculty orientation is effective rather than simply completed?
Why it matters:
Attendance or acknowledgment only proves that information was provided. Reviewers may ask whether the orientation improves performance and reduces compliance or quality problems.
Recommended response:
Conduent evaluates effectiveness by monitoring the quality and completeness of contributor submissions, the frequency and type of required corrections, compliance with disclosure and content-validity requirements, adherence to timelines, and learner feedback related to faculty performance or content clarity. Recurring deficiencies are used to revise orientation materials, templates, or contributor guidance. A closed-loop example should show the identified issue, analysis, adjustment to orientation, and subsequent result.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager, supported by Quality Assurance or the Data Analyst.
Provide an example in which faculty or SME performance information changed a contributor assignment, educational process, or future activity decision.
Why it matters:
This question tests whether faculty monitoring has consequences and contributes to continuous quality improvement.
Recommended response:
We would present a closed-loop example beginning with the performance signal, such as learner feedback, internal review, missed requirements, or recurring revisions. We would then show the investigation, the documented decision, communication with the contributor, corrective action, and the effect on future work. Possible outcomes could include additional coaching, assigning an independent reviewer, changing the contributor’s role, revising orientation, or deciding not to use the person for a similar activity. We would conclude with evidence that the action was implemented and monitored.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Director or CE Program Manager.
How can Conduent prove that the selected teaching methods contributed to achievement of the learning objectives rather than merely delivering the content?
Why it matters:
A polished course is not necessarily an effective course. Reviewers may ask for evidence connecting design choices to learning results.
Recommended response:
Conduent should triangulate objective-level assessment performance, completion data, learner feedback, practice-activity results, and any available preactivity and postactivity comparisons. The team should examine whether learners struggled with particular objectives or interactions and whether results differ by audience, activity format, or course version. When a method appears ineffective, Conduent should revise it and compare subsequent results. A strong response includes a closed-loop example linking a design concern to revision and measurable follow-up.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: Instructional Designer, supported by the Data Analyst and CE Program Manager.
How does Conduent demonstrate that learning methods and the delivery environment remain effective after launch, across course versions, LMS updates, clients, and learner populations?
Why it matters:
A course that worked during prerelease testing may be affected by later content revisions, browser changes, platform updates, partner configurations, altered links, or audience differences.
Recommended response:
Conduent uses postlaunch monitoring, learner feedback, technical-support data, assessment results, and change control to identify changes that could affect the educational experience. Material content updates, package replacements, LMS changes, assessment changes, or client-environment changes trigger an appropriate level of retesting. Trends are reviewed across versions, audiences, and delivery settings. Identified concerns are corrected, revalidated, and monitored to confirm that the solution was effective.
Evidence expected:
Suggested owner: CE Program Manager, supported by the LMS Administrator, Instructional Designer, and Data Analyst.