Which course to review?
At a recent peer review team meeting, a reviewer asked why we generally review online courses that are currently active with students. Wouldn’t it be better to review courses that have already ended so that we could seethem in theirentirety? A good question!
We don’t always review “live” courses, but I would say that the majority have been. Generally, instructors make changes in their courses from semester to semester and want reviewers to see the improvements. The question got me thinking, however, that team leaders need to specifically ask online faculty which semester’s course to review and not assume that it’s the most current one. This question could very easily beincluded on the Instructor Worksheet (see the “Related Documents” page on theleft-hand side of this blog) and really should be there. This is a good example of how the process continually improves as needs surface and suggestions are made.
WhileLSC’s peer review process generally has involved courses that are currently in progress, courses that have not yet started, courses that have ended for the semester, and even courses that are sometimes taught as hybrid (part online, part in the classroom) have been reviewed. The process is really about faculty helping faculty make online learning more efficient, effective, and, yes, fun!
Posted: March 13th, 2007 under Peer Review.
Comments: 3
Comments
Comment from Kent Richards
Time: March 19, 2007, 8:49 pm
Theoretically, it shouldn’t make any difference to me whether I’m reviewing a course that is live or completed. But the two feel quite different, and I’ve struggled to figure out why that is.
The best answer I can come up with is that my perception of the design of the course is inevitably affected by the way it’s taught. I suspect I’m uncomfortable in a live course in part because I’m getting an incomlete picture whereas in a completed course I can see how it all came out in the end.
Yes, I know that the MarylandOnline Quality Matters Project on which our peer review process is based “specifically focuses on course design, rather than on course delivery or course academic content” and yes, I know that the rubric ought to minimize such considerations. Nevertheless, I’m convinced that poor design can be largely overcome by great delivery and poor delivery can sabotage the best design. How should we as peer reviewers handle such “extracurriculur” observations?
The question I am getting at, I think, is whether the distinction between design and delivery is as clear as the process supposes and if not, what are the consequences for the peer review process of admitting that?
Comment from Barry Dahl
Time: March 21, 2007, 1:13 pm
Wow, Kent really said a mouthful. A very tasty, full-flavored mouthful at that.
We’ll probably never be able to fully separate design from delivery, so my take would be that we just need to operate at a level of personal comfort in evaluating the design aspects with all of their delivery tails attached.
Excellent food for thought! BD
Comment from susan
Time: March 21, 2007, 10:34 pm
I agree that we cannot completely separate the design of a course from its delivery, yet our charge is to examine the design. Still, during the process of a peer review it is quite natural for faculty to provide verbal suggestions for improved delivery—not in a negative way of course, but based on our own experiences of what seems to work in the online classroom and what doesn’t. Boy, Kent, you’ve got me really thinking again! 
Related articles
- Getting off to a great start! (August 27th, 2008)
- Streaming video (May 1st, 2008)
- YouTube in the Classroom? (April 23rd, 2008)
- Next week’s Learn from Each Other sessions (April 16th, 2008)
- An important tutorial — at our fingertips! (March 20th, 2008)
Write a comment