Session 9: Review and Feedback (July 22 M-1 Cohort)

Hello @July22-M-1-cohort! When we meet tomorrow, we’ll talk about review and feedback — and how these processes can help you stay accountable in your goals of creating culturally relevant OER. By the end of this session, you will be able to:

  1. Manage revisions with an open mind regarding purposeful feedback to strengthen your OER
  2. Determine which of the review processes (peer review, classroom review, accessibility review) to include in your project timeline
  3. Establish peer review and accessibility review workflows for your OER
  4. Create a review guide to share with your team
  5. Communicate the rigor, quality, and value of your resource through a peer review statement and accessibility assessment

Here are links to the slides and the handout. These are all contained in the Session 9 folder.

Looking forward to seeing you all soon. Remember: come prepared to discuss your “Plan OER Structure” document with everyone tomorrow! We didn’t get a chance to look at everyone’s ideas last week, so if you’ve made progress on this document since then, please share it during our first round of updates.

Hello Apurva,

I see that we are to discuss our Plan OER Structure document today. Forgive me but I can’t seem to find it. Can you please send it to me as an attachment? I have a few hours to work on it before our meeting today.

Thanks much,

Hey Yvonne - the document is in this folder. Feel free to make a copy and edit! See you later today.

Thank you, Apurva. You are a lifesaver!


1 Like

No problem! See you soon :slight_smile:

Here’s a link to Yvonne’s OER Structure Plan

Thanks to everyone who could be there at Monday’s session! @July22-M-1-cohort, what we discussed as a to-do for next week was:

Session Recap/Summary

The ultimate purpose of review is to ensure that your OER is well-structured and ready to be used in the classroom. Review can help you get critical input and suggestions for change that will make your OER even stronger. By sharing your book with subject experts, you can ensure that the content is appropriate, accurate, and adequately covers the material. At heart, review is about bringing more hands on deck to invest and help your resource.

Monday’s session covered the different kinds of review, workflows for these processes, and important considerations for this stage of your projects. We looked at a few central documents and questions that may support you all, and also do a bit of forward thinking about how to share the results of this process!

  1. Peer Review: ‘Peers’ can offer constructive feedback and solutions to improve the quality of educational content. We encourage you to reflect, recognize, and minimize biases in peer review. For instance, consider what types of feedback you need and who can speak to the quality of your content besides another instructor — would an industry expert be able to input? Think back to your SLOs — whose subject matter perspectives are needed to help determine whether the OER is built to help students achieve these outcomes?
  2. Accessibility Review: The accessibility review involves a thorough run through the different output formats of your OER looking specifically at the web accessibility in each format. A specific set of accessibility criteria can guide the people in your team who are tasked with this form of review to ensure that your resource meets the desired accessibility standards. The goal is to make as accessible an OER as you can, knowing that there is always opportunity for improvement down the road.
  3. Classroom Review: This form of review is particularly powerful because it invites feedback from the students which ultimately will help your team to determine necessary improvements for future iterations. Feedback can be gathered both from the instructor using the book to teach as well as the students using the book to learn. Try to identify some academic and non-academic measures as you gather comments from the classroom.

We provided a Review Guide Template that will help you establish review workflows and identify expectations and central guiding questions to better structure your review process and support reviewers. There can be many different lenses/criteria to keep in mind when reviewing the resource, and we suggested coming up with 3-5 central questions to keep things manageable. This is laid out in more detail in the handout for session 9. Read through the ROTEL Peer Review Process to see how the OTCC has customized these documents for your projects

In the final part of our session, we asked you to think ahead to how storytelling can be used to communicate the quality of your resource. Use the discussion questions on the slides to think of ways to center equity during the review process. We want to compile all your answers in this thread so you and other cohort participants, in this group and in concurrent cohorts can share and learn from one another.

While this stage is fairly straightforward, it’s critical to prepare all the documents and workflows ahead of time to ensure smooth sailing. And remember: along the way, if you have any questions — do not hesitate to lean on each other and the open community, including the Rebus forum, cohort members, and myself.

Next week, we’ll begin looking towards the book’s official launch with a session on formatting and release preparation. This phase is one where your project really begins to take shape as a whole, usable resource.