Instructional Technology
Conference 2007
Title: Strategy for Excellence: The Online Course Review Process
Name: Lisa Henriksen, Elaine Adams, Todd Blankenbeckler, Mary Nell Cook
Audience Level: all
Audience: faculty, deans, instructional technologists
Length: 1 hour
Abstract:
Southwest Tennessee Community College has created an extensive course review process for fully online and hybrid courses. Through years of working, changing and re-working, the review has evolved from a single page into an extensive three level, five step process. This process establishes a consistent level of quality and ensures that courses meet or exceed College standards. The review instruments are based on Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education by Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson. We look forward to sharing our experiences and review process with you.
Description:
Southwest Tennessee Community College has created an extensive course review process for fully online and hybrid courses. Through years of working, changing and re-working, the review has evolved from a single page into an extensive three level, five step process. This process establishes a consistent level of quality and ensures that courses meet or exceed College standards. The review instruments are based on Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education by Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson.
LEVEL I
Step 1 / Self-Evaluation: The Self-evaluation is an extensive checklist for items that may be contained in the course for each of the six categories. This often prompts the instructor to correct mistakes or oversights, and decrease the number of items to be addressed further into the process. (See additional information in ‘Trainer Review’ below)
LEVEL II
Step 2 / Peer Review: A Peer Review is completed by two members of the instructor’s academic department, selected by the department chair. A temporary student account is created for use until the reviews are complete. The Peer Review focuses on content, objectives, and assessment activities in the course.
LEVEL III
This level of review consists of a Technical, Trainer, and Accessibility Review.
The Self-Evaluation and Trainer Review are modeled after California State
University’s Rubric for Online Instruction Rubric.
Step 3 / Trainer Review: The Self-evaluation and the Trainer Review assess the course in six categories.
The Trainer Review is a holistic assessment of the course based on the Self-Evaluation and examination of the course itself. Each of the six categories is rated based on the criteria:
Step 4 / Technical Review: The technical review checks for consistent formatting, horizontal scrolling, broken links, orphaned pages, page load time and other visual inspection items.
Step 5 / Accessibility Review: The Distance Education and Instructional
Technology division began its Web Accessibility initiative in the summer of 2002 out of growing concern about the ability to provide equal access to online education for our students with disabilities. The result has been the formulation of an accessibility review of all new online and hybrid courses. The Accessibility Review is based on the Section 508 guidelines of the American Rehabilitation Act and the Level 1 guidelines of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative, a subgroup of the World Wide Web Consortium. Southwest is at the forefront of TBR institutions with its accessibility initiative. By sharing our experiences, it is hoped that more institutions will find it possible too begin the journey to accessible education.
Level 1 Checks - All Level 1 Checks must be satisfactorily passed at the time of course review before a course will be approved for public access. If the course receives a “Fail” on any of these items, faculty can make an appointment with the Accessibility Coordinator for assistance.
Level 2 Checks – Faculty have two semesters (fall/spring, spring/summer, summer/fall) from the time of initial course approval to address any failed Level 2 Checks.
Level 3 Checks – These standards must be addressed (where applicable) within One (1) full year of initial course approval.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases where reviewers believe a course does not yet meet the established standards, specific areas needing improvement will be identified. The instructor would then be expected to address these concerns in order to teach or continue to teach this course in an online/hybrid format. Instructors are encouraged to discuss review findings with members of the course review team to gain greater clarify on needed modifications.
Session Type: Lecture/Presentation
Contact information/affiliation:
Lisa Henriksen
Position: Academic Webmaster
Email: lhenriksen@southwest.tn.edu
Phone: 901-333-4653
Elaine Adams
Position: Director, Center of Emphasis for Teaching and Technology
E-mail: eadams@southwest.tn.edu
Phone: 901-333-5778
Todd Blankenbeckler
Position: Instructional Technologist, Center of Emphasis for Teaching and Technology
E-mail: tblankenbeck@southwest.tn.edu
Phone: 901-333-4305
Mary Nell Cook
Position: Associate Professor, Education
E-mail: mncook@southwest.tn.edu
Phone 901-333-5148