Purpose of
this form:
The RODP Assessment Form has been developed by the RODP Curriculum
Committee to serve as a guide for best practices and design in the
development of Regents Online Degree Program (RODP). This form will
serve as a tool for formative evaluation of the RODP efforts. In
addition, outside experts will review and provide feedback on the
program through use of this form. Please note that this form is not
designed for comparison of specific individual courses since
reliability and validity have not been established for such purposes.
In addition, this form is not designed to assess the content of the
courses. However, it is designed to provide an overall indication of
the types of courses being designed for the RODP as well as areas of
strengths and weaknesses to guide further development efforts for RODP
course development. This form is to be
completed by the Course Reviewer, NOT the Developer. |
Instructions to the Reviewer:
First, enter the RODP-D2L elearn website and navigate to the course
that has been identified as the focus of this review. Next, enter into
the course system and navigate further, taking on the role of a
learner or user of the system. Note your reactions concerning the
various features of the courseware, including the design standards
that have been approved by the RODP Curriculum Committee, RODP D2L
Template, RODP Syllabus, D2L Navigation Bar, online
orientation, ease of use, asynchronous activities, level of
involvement and interaction of the learner, library resources, the
adaptability of the system to a learner, ADA, and the type of feedback
(summative and formative) the learner receives. Once you feel you have
reviewed the courseware sufficiently to form judgments of the design
quality, then complete the assessment items below. |
| RODP Reviewer Name: |
|
| Reviewer E-mail
Address: |
|
| Work Phone Number: |
|
| Institution: |
|
| RODP Online Course
Title: |
|
| Course Number: |
|
| Faculty Developer Name: |
|
|
1.
The "Instructor" box in the "News" widget should
be in the RODP format as shown below. It should NOT reflect the
name of the developer of the course. It should reflect a
generic name so that when the course is cloned, the developers name
will not be copied to sections he/she may not be teaching.
Is the Instructor box in the RODP format, as
shown above?
Is the placeholder
for the Instructor's Name generic, and not referring to a
specific instructor.
Is the sort order
for the Instructor News widget box
set to "0".
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
2. The "Welcome" box in the "News" widget has a welcome
message that has been customized to the specific course. The message
should be generic and not mention specific instructor's names.
Has the Welcome
Message been customized to the specific course.
If the question above is answered
"No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the
above standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
3. Are the following items noted in the course syllabus:
a. The course
syllabus uses the RODP syllabus format and design.
See example.
b. The expectations for student outcomes are clearly
defined.
c. Instructions are clearly stated regarding course
organization.
d. Information on
Virtual Library is presented
e. Grading procedures are clearly presented.
f. Textbook information,
including ISBN, is correct and posted.
g. If additional
software or materials have to be purchased, have they been identified.
h. Information ADA, and syllabus changes are mentioned in
the syllabus.
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
4. The Getting Started module should be found in the Course
Content, and should be the uppermost module within the Course
Content.
a. Is the
Getting Started module within the Course Content?
b. Is the
enumeration on the Getting Started module hidden? (see below example).
Review the content in the Getting Started
module.
c. Has the
"Message from the Instructor" been updated to reflect the
current course?.
d. Has the
"Review Course Expectations" been updated to reflect the current
course?
e. Is the Course
Syllabus the correct syllabus for the course?
f. Do the other
links within the Getting Started module have the correct
information identified by the link title?
g. Instructor contact information is clearly stated,
as well as, feedback and response times to students on course
progress.
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
5.
Review the design of the content links within the Course
Content. The design and layout of the course content should
include the RODP Sample Module components shown below.
For more information on the RODP Sample module, click
HERE.
a. Course
Content modules "very closely" follows the RODP Sample Module, as shown above?
b. Has the
content in the
Module Components been separated (chunked) into individual
content files, as required by the RODP Sample module?
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
6.
Review the following course design features.
a. Is the course easy to navigate?
b. Is it easy to find information, course content,
instructions, etc. within the course?
c. Are there specific instructions for
the students regarding the submission of assignments (files or other documents)
using the Dropbox.
d. Do all hyperlinks within the course open up into a new window when clicked.
(Please list below any hyperlinks which are broken or do not open in
a new window.)
e. Is developer created content consistently formatted
with an Arial 10pt font, as recommended by the RODP?
h. Do activities and assignments promote an asynchronous format in
the course design?
i. Does the course include multiple forms of
assessment, integrated into the course?
j. Does the course encourage student-to-student
interaction? (e.g., online threaded discussions, peer feedback,
group/joint projects etc).
If any of the questions above are answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
7. Quizzes should be found
in the Assessments link on the upper navigation bar, along with
dates which reflect the correct semester.
a. Does the course
use quizzes?
b. Are the quizzes located in Assessments?
c. Do the dates of
the quizzes reflect the correct semester?
d. Are the dates
of the quizzes displayed in the Calendar tool?
e. Are the quizzes
linked to the Grades tool, (see 1 below)?
f
. Are the grades
auto-exported to the Grades tool (See 2 below)?
f. Are quicklinks
used to link the quizzes directly from the Course Content page?
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?).
|
|
8. The Dropbox should have
assignments reflecting module assignments found in the Course
Content.
a. Does the course
use assignments?
b. Are the course assignments located in the Dropbox?
c. Are the
assignment folders labeled so students can clearly
identify the assignment with the appropriate module content?
d. Are the
assignment instructions clear and easily understood?
e. Are there
instructions on how to submit the assignments through the
Dropbox?
f. Are the
due dates of assignments displayed in the Calendar tool?
g.
Are the
assignments linked to the Grade tool?
h. Are quicklinks
used to link the assignments directly from the Course Content
page?
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
9. The grade tool should have grade
categories and items to properly reflect the course assessments.
a. Do the grades
properly reflect the syllabus grading scale, assignments and
assessments within the course?
b. If grade
categories are used, is there at least one grade item associated
within each category?
c. Is the "Allow
this item to be seen by students" checked, in the grade item
properties?
d. If C above is
Yes, select N/A. If No, Is there a clear statement of when
students should expect grades to be exported to the gradebook,
in the syllabus?
If any of the questions above are
answered "No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the above
standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?)
|
|
10. The Calendar tool should reflect due
dates and other important dates within the course.
a. Are all course
due dates properly displayed within the Calendar
tool?
If the question above is answered
"No", please;
1. Give specific details below as to why the
above standard is not met. (What is the problem?)
2. Provide recommendations as to how the developer can
bring the course up to the standard. (How do they fix it?).
|
|
Is this course ready
for hosting and presentation?
Yes (This should only be
selected if "Yes" has been selected on all of the above responses
and no recommendations made by the Quality Reviewer.)
No,
modifications are required. (The Quality Review has indicated
all areas where the course design does not meet RODP standards.
Reviewer has provided detailed recommendations as to how the
developer can bring the course up to RODP standards.)
|
Thank you
for your comments and recommendations. Please be sure your comments and recommendations are phrased in a manner in which the developer of the course will understand what needs to be done to implement your recommendations. When you are finished inputting your comments and recommendations, click on the "submit" button below. Your assessment
information will be shared with the course developer for course
enhancement.
|
