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.
Todayâs 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!
Peer Review: âPeersâ can offer constructive feedback and solutions to improve the quality of educational content. We encourage you to reflect, recognize, and minimise 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 â would an industry expert be able to input? Think back to your SLOs â whose subject matter perspectives are needed to help determine whether the OER is built to help students achieve these outcomes?
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.
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 [link above] that will help you establish review workflows and identify expectations and central guiding questions to better structure your review process and support reviewers. We turned in the Review Guide after meeting with our cohorts. The adoption activity is is laid out in more detail in the handout for session 9 [linked above].
In the final part of our session, we participants engaged in a discussion activity on the cohort forum thread Session 9: Review and Feedback. Below please post an answer to one of the following prompts:
How will your team attempt to manage the effects of bias in the review process?
How will your team invite and value a broad range of reviewer perspectives?
What non-traditional subject matter experts youâd like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
What project specific questions you would like to ask during the review process?
While this stage is fairly straightforward, itâs 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, weâll begin looking towards the bookâs 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.
I think asking Health department personnel might be a good review resource for us. I also feel like we could ask the health department what they think needs to be emphasized in a food safety textbook.
Some of the non-traditional subject matter experts Iâd like to work with would be food and restaurant industry members and possibly health inspectors. Industry members and health inspectors may be able to provide insight into examples and practices which may be usefulu for our textbook.
At some point, I would like to get input from people in the fields that our math problems apply to. In particular, I want to work with instructors in chemistry, biology, psychology, engineering, and economics, among others, to come up with examples and problems that are relevant to what applied algebra students will see in their chosen fields.
What non-traditional subject matter experts youâd like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
We will be working with students. Our cohort (Intro to Safety) may find subject matter experts for interviews if appropriate for our OER.
Inviting a broad range of reviewers = though our team has not gotten to the point that we have discussed who and when we will invite others to review our chapters, I would like to see us invite others from non-criminal justice backgrounds to review. This will allow us to have a non-biased view of how our book flows and to ensure that our terminology is user-friendly.
When writing a criminology book, especially one that explores crime patterns, community perceptions, and law enforcement interactions, having law enforcement and community engagement partners involved in the review process will be valuable. As a psychology professor participating in the bookâs creation, I see several critical reasons why these partnerships enhance the bookâs impact, credibility, and real-world applicability. It may also help with bringing theory to practice, incorporating lived experiences, enhancing ethical standards and topics included, and facilitating community trust and dialogue.
I would be interested in reviewing feedback from students as well. Reviews from students who are using the textbook would provide a lens from a different angle. The population of students might also include individuals with accessibility concerns that might not have been considered or might have been considered differently.
I think our team can manage the effect of bias in the review process by getting thoughts from people outside of the education community. I think non-educators will have great perspective and help identify blind spots or help with our cohort have more clarity by having a âlayâ person look in. Both people in related industry and someone who would be a casual learner could offer insight.
What non-traditional subject matter experts youâd like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)i
Community members would be great experts to add to the subject matter because lived experiences are germane to understanding aspects of criminology. Also, students are often misguided about the criminal justice system and their questions are often the same questions the majority will have so being able to explain and dispel misguided beliefs about the criminal justice would be valued.
What non-traditional subject matter experts youâd like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
Copy editors will be a critical part of the editing process. In addition, it may be beneficial to get input from non-math professors who teach the subjects we are addressing in Applied Algebra.
Iâd like to get feedback from college students that have passed an applied algebra course. They can help us identify areas for improvement and ensure itâs a valuable resource for other college students.
I agree with Angela and Valerie. Health department input would help to ensure that we are on the right track with the subject matter, and review representation from industry would have equal importance.
Sorry for the late response. I was not able to access it on my other device. However, I believe itâs crucial to highlight someone related to the correctional system in Louisiana, especially since the book includes sections regarding Louisiana in each chapter. This could consist of captions from staff, administrators, or former inmates, adding a significant and practical dimension to the text.
Writing on Corrections with its collateral consequences for the community beyond individuals under different forms of correctional supervision, incorporating feedback from a wide spectrum of community members can be a powerful tool to make the book more useful and effective.
Our team will address bias by involving a diverse group of reviewers, including subject experts, instructors, and students. Weâll also use a structured review guide to keep feedback focused on accuracy and clarity.
Great work, everyone! I enjoyed our conversation in the meeting and the ongoing comments here. Great ideas for setting the expectations for reviewing and thinking about other voices that could be helpful in this process.
How will your team attempt to manage the effects of bias in the review process?
Through Zoom meetings of working together and getting each otherâs perspectives and feedback.
With such a specialized topic like Math for Elementary Education majors, we will try to handle bias by diligently reviewing each otherâs work. Along with that Iâd like to ask the other instructor at my university to review topics and provide outside feedback.
What non-traditional subject matter experts youâd like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
We would like to collaborate with students from diverse backgrounds who apply Applied Algebra in real-world settings. Their insights will help ensure the material is practical, relevant, and accessible to a broad audience.
