3-Year Online Course Review
Revised: 2/6/2007
The 3 Year Online Course Review process has been developed with the goal of
maintaining the outstanding level of quality of online courses currently
provided by St. Petersburg College's eCampus. This form will serve as a
guide as you review your course and build on its strengths in accordance with
College guidelines and identified best practices. Your
Instructional Technologist will assist with this process.
The following section is to be completed by eCampus Program Director:
| Success and Retention Rates |
| What is the success rate for this particular online course? |
|
| What is the success rate for this course in all other modes of instruction at SPC? |
|
| What is the retention rate for this particular online course? |
|
| What is the overall retention rate for this course in all other modes of instruction at SPC? |
|
| Student Evaluations |
What is the student survey of instruction "instructor" average for this particular course? |
|
| What is the student survey of instruction "instructor" average for this course in all other modes of instruction at SPC? |
|
The timeline for course review is as follows:
Task: |
Date: |
| 1. Courses identified for 3 year review: |
July 15 |
| 2. Identified courses sent to eCampus
director for entry of stats. |
August 30 |
| 3. eCampus director summons Content Program Directors for course content revision
suggestions and sends information to appropriate instructional technologist. |
Sept. 15 |
4. Design meeting between instructor and instructional technologist:
- Your technologist will contact you to set up a meeting date and
time
|
by Oct. 30 |
| 5. Instructor completes changes based on review
form and suggestions from Program Director: |
Dec. 15 |
6. 2nd design meeting with educational technologist:
- Contact your instructional technologist when you are ready to setup
the meeting
|
by Feb. 1 |
| 7. Forms forwarded to eCampus for final review: |
March 1 |
| 8. Final review completed |
May 1 |
This online course is being reviewed as part of the ongoing Online Course 3
Year Review process. Step One of this process is to contact your
Instructional Technologist to setup a Design Meeting. Prior to that Design
Meeting, be sure you have read through this document completely.
| Course Information |
| Instructor Name: |
|
| Today's Date: |
|
| Course Title: |
|
| Course Number: |
|
| Credit Hours: |
|
| Target Audience Level (AS, AA, BA, BS, Graduate, Certificate
and Other (Continuing Ed., MCTFT, Work force, etc.)) |
|
| Design Meeting Date: |
|
| PROCEDUREInitials of InstructorInitials
of Technologist |
| I. Course Design |
| Objectives/learning outcomes are clearly outlined for the
students: (Check all that apply)
__in syllabus
__in course content |
|
|
| The Instructor has applied the Seven
Principles of Good Practice in Education during the development of
this course.
Please cite examples: |
|
|
| Additional resources are made available to students.
Please list: |
|
|
| The instructor has reviewed the 15
Step Accessibility Checklist (www.w3c.org)
and understands the need to address accessibility issues when designing
course content. |
|
|
| II. Technology |
| An expectation exists for students to use technology to
develop and submit their assignments.
Please explain: |
|
|
| The Instructor has applied the "Six
Principles of Good Web Design" to the development of this course.
Please cite examples:
Course is publisher design |
|
|
| The course makes creative use of a variety of technologies
Reusable Learning Objects
Streaming Video or Audio
Other (Please specify)
Please list examples: |
|
|
| III. Interaction
and Collaboration |
| Expected student participation levels are clearly defined.
What are they and where are they listed? |
|
|
| Instructor response time is clearly defined for the students.
What is it and where is it listed? |
|
|
| Group projects/activities are assigned to students.
If yes, please explain: |
|
|
Identify the Communication/Collaboration/Interaction tools
used in this course
| |
Discussions |
|
Whiteboard |
| |
Chat |
|
Email |
| |
Student Presentations
|
|
|
| |
Other (Please specify) |
|
|
|
|
|
| IV. Assessment |
| Assignments encourage students to work at higher level
of Bloom's taxonomy.
Please cite examples: |
|
|
| Assignments are clearly communicated with expectations,
including deliverables and due dates.
Where are they listed: |
|
|
| Students are encouraged to use the built in LMS tools for
self-assessment.
Please explain: |
|
|
| V. Learner Support |
| Links to LMS tutorials are available to students.
Please explain: |
|
|
| Access to Helpdesk is clearly defined.
Please explain: |
|
|
| Access to Library resources is clearly defined.
Please explain: |
|
|
| Required tools such as plug-ins and players that are not
part of SPC's standard technical requirements are clearly defined and
assistance is provided to students for acquiring those tools. Please list
required tools and location of information. |
|
|
| Appropriate instructor contact information is provided.
Please explain: |
|
|
| VI. Course Content |
| Content is current and up to date.
Please explain: |
|
|
| All links are currently functioning.
Date evaluated: |
|
|
| VII. Additional
Comments |
| |
| Please attach copies
of relevant documents to this form. |
Program Director's suggestions for improvement: |
|
|
I certify the requirements to review a successful Online Course have been
completed and the Online Course meets the criteria listed above:
Signatures of the Design/Development Team:
_______________________________
______________________________
Instructional Technologist/Date
Instructor/Developer/Date
Reviewed by:
__________________________________
_________________________________
E-Campus Program Director/Date
Subject Area Program Director/Date
|
.
.
