Session 9: Review and Feedback (May 2024 B Cohort)

Hello @may24b-cohort, I just want to remind you that we’ll be meeting tomorrow from 1:00-2:30 p.m. Central for our first session in Phase 3. We’ll be discussing the Review and Feedback processes. Please also be prepared to provide updates on your teams and projects. See you tomorrow!

1 Like

This is Kim Uddo and I in the hospital on Tuesdays so I attended the Monday group today and emailed my group some review input from my point of view. do I have to make an upload on rebus individually also? Kim Uddo Med Surg II

1 Like

Thank you Brian,
see you then.

Illya

1 Like

@kuddo, as long as you’ve shared your input with your group, that’s the main concern. But you can certainly feel free to post your suggestions in this thread as well since it might spark some ideas for others in the cohort. I’ll be asking everyone to respond to the discussion prompts from today’s session in this thread.

The prompt that speaks to me is: What non-traditional subject experts would you like to work with on this? One particular group, as a cohort leader, that I would love to have involved in the IVT group review is IVT students. I think the possibility for excellent feedback leading to greater clarity in writing, in very pertinent examples used, and in the descriptions of various techniques would be game changing feedback for the group.

1 Like

Introduction to Practical Nursing Cohort

  1. This will be done by recruiting diverse reviewers
  2. Including invitation to multiple organizations and the student nurse association
  3. Both students and instructors
  4. We are still working on questions
2 Likes

The prompt that resonated with me is: How will your team attempt to manage the effects of bias in the review process? We can ensure the materials are inclusive and representatives of diverse perspectives. We should also check for culturally sensitive language, examples, and accessibility compliance.

2 Likes

Introduction to Health Professions
Question 3: What non-traditional subject matter experts you’d like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
As a group, we have discussed doing short interviews with individuals from the various Health Profession fields we will be highlighting in our textbook. The interviews would basically be " a day in the life of" to give a perspective of what that profession is about. Also ensuring as part of the text / interview things each profession may see. For example, if a person is looking at Respiratory Therapy, but gags at the sight of mucus, that field is not for you. As for community members, be inclusive of career planning type individuals.

1 Like

The prmopt that the Introduction to Practical Nursing cohort will work with is #3 - what non-traditional subject matter experts would you like to work with?
We will be interviewing via video, audio, and textual interviews with Nursing students at NSU. A couple of the questions we will ask are: Name three characteristics that you feel a nurse should embody, How to handle stress and/or your workload while in Nursing School, etc.

1 Like

I love this. We will definitely make strides in ensuring that our book appeals to diverse learners through language, culture, and visuals.

2 Likes

Re: review process prompts—

I think for our resource, it would be cool to have a reviewer who works in career development in some capacity. Since a major objective of our course is to help students discover healthcare professional pathways that might mesh with their goals and aptitudes in the long term and begin planning their education/career moves in concrete ways, having a reviewer who specializes in helping students envision and plan their careers would be valuable.

For project-specific questions in the review process, I’d want to ask something about whether the information would be accessible and applicable to high school students, both in terms of language and general POV, since our teaching faculty are accustomed to addressing an undergrad audience. I’d also want to ask whether the material is consistently class-conscious and provides information to students of varying economic situations.

2 Likes

I agree. I can maybe reach out to my local high school to see if one of the guidance councilors would be willing to review it.

Samantha Summers, MSN, RN | FranU School of Nursing Instructor

Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady University | www.franu.edu

7500 Hennessy Blvd. | Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Office (225)526 – 1691 | Fax (225) 768 – 1760

Samantha.summers@franu.edu

Louisiana Nurse Honor Guard of Greater Baton Rouge Secretary / Treasurer

FranU Nurse Honor Society Secretary

FranU Alumni Vice President

FranU SON Faculty, Development, and Scholarship Committee Recorder

Dare to Dream!

1 Like

Med-Surg II - team member Kim Uddo

    1. How will your team attempt to manage the effects of bias in the review process?
      We will read each others chapters and ask are a variety of race, ethnicities, and religious practices are included? If so what groups are represented in case studies? Do we have resources that may be helpful to a diverse group? What diverse groups are noticed to have resources? What groups are left out? What groups are strongly represented in Louisiana? have we addressed them? How can we?
2 Likes

Thanks for a great session today, @may24b-cohort! Here are some key links from today’s session:

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.

Today’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. The adoption activity is is laid out in more detail in the handout for session 9.

In the final part of our session, we had a discussion activity around the following question prompts:

  1. How will your team attempt to manage the effects of bias in the review process?
  2. How will your team invite and value a broad range of reviewer perspectives?
  3. What non-traditional subject matter experts would you like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
  4. What project-specific questions would you like to ask during the review process?

I already see a lot of great responses to these questions here in this thread. If you haven’t yet had a chance to post your response, please do so here. You don’t need to respond to every question, just the one(s) that resonate the most with you.

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.

If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out. See you next week!

1 Like

Question 1) How will your team attempts to manage the effects of bias in the review process
Question 2)How will your team invite and value a broad range of reviewer perspectives
Question 3) What non-traditional subject matter experts would you like to work with (students, community members, etc)
Question 4) What project-specific questions would you like to ask during the review process?

Illya Q1) Identify bias areas and bias mitigation strategies
Illya Q2) Scientific community members
Illya Q3) Tap into relatives and friends and community members (spiritual communities?)
Illya Q4) Learning styles (visual, auditory,) and disability (visual, auditory, dyslexic)

2 Likes

Colton Wiggins - Introduction to Health Professions

Chosen Prompt: What non-traditional subject matter experts would you like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)

Response: Our group has opted to gather information and input from diverse sources including but not limited to students, alumni of health profession programs, community leaders, etc. We believe that by having a diverse source of input, our OER will be more applicable and impactful to a wider array of readers and users. We are also looking a creating some sort of career aptitude test to help steer students towards fields of interest based on a variety of data points.

The main goal is to be inclusive, effective, and informative!

1 Like

When writing an Open Educational Resource (OER) for Introduction to Health Careers, I feel that project-specific questions for the review process should focus on clarity, accuracy, engagement, accessibility, and effectiveness in preparing students for health careers. Here are some key questions I feel we could ask reviewers:

Content Accuracy & Relevance

  1. Are the descriptions of health careers accurate and up to date?
  2. Do the education and certification pathways align with current industry standards?
  3. Are there any errors or omissions in key job roles, responsibilities, or skills?

Clarity & Comprehension
4. Is the language clear and appropriate for the target audience (e.g., high school or college students)?
5. Do the explanations of medical terminology, job duties, and career pathways make sense to someone new to healthcare?
6. Are complex concepts (e.g., certification processes, healthcare regulations) broken down in an understandable way?

Engagement and Student Understanding
7.Are there enough interactive elements (e.g., case studies, reflection questions, activities) to engage students?
8. Do the real-world examples and career spotlights help students visualize their potential career paths?
9. Are there opportunities for students to apply critical thinking to real-world healthcare scenarios?

Accessibility & Inclusivity
10. Is the OER accessible to diverse learners, including those with disabilities (e.g., screen reader compatibility, alt text for images)?
11. Does the content include diverse perspectives and career stories from various backgrounds?
12. Are there any cultural or gender biases that should be addressed?

Usability & Organization
14. Is the structure logical and easy to follow (e.g., progression from general to specific careers)?
15. Are key takeaways and summaries present at the end of each section for better retention?
16. Are links to external resources, certification organizations, and career exploration tools useful and functional?

Effectiveness & Real-World Application
17. Does the OER effectively prepare students to make informed career choices in healthcare?
18. Are there enough resources for students to explore certification, training programs, or internships?
19. What additional content, examples, or exercises would enhance students’ readiness for healthcare careers?

Final Thoughts
20. What aspects of the OER were most effective in conveying health career pathways?
21. Are there any sections that need revision, expansion, or clarification?

These project-specific review questions will ensure that the OER is accurate, engaging, inclusive, and useful for students exploring health careers.

1 Like

Great points to consider, as well as pay attention to as the reviewer evaluates your particular educational resource.

2 Likes

Thanks Anna for posting for me since I attended on a different day. I love that we are asked to check for bias and I also feel having a diverse team will be helpful as we review. Kim Uddo

1 Like