This case study examines an online peer review process designed for professional development at Bethlehem Tertiary Institute. Six lecturers with varying e-learning experience participated. The goals were to develop a framework for reviewing teacher presence in online courses and make the process collegial rather than for quality assurance. Principles from Garrison, Anderson & Archer and Chickering & Gamson informed a rating process and final framework focusing on teacher presence indicators. The collegial appraisal process involved self-review, peer review, and interview roles that rotated. It required moderate time investment. Implications include the ability to develop best practice frameworks internally and empower staff through a collaborative instead of evaluative process.

1. Case StudyOnline Course Peer Review as a Professional Development Processsupported by the ASCILITE 2006 Research Grant

2. Key questions…. Who was involved ? Why the e-learning event was designed ? What are the implications for future practice ?

4. Bethlehem Tertiary Institute 476 students 22 lecturers

5. Research Outline Small scale case study with six teaching staff who had a range of e-learning experience from beginner to advanced Purpose: to develop a framework and process for collegial review of teacher presence in online courses Framed in terms of professional development rather than quality assurance

6. Why was the e-learning event designed ? Very few ways that staff working online got feedback about their courses Quality assurance ‘checklists’ often complex and daunting Reframing the development of a process around a professional development focus would be less intimidating and encourage more ‘buy-in’ from staff

7. Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000)

8. Seven Principles for Good Practice Chickering & Gamson (1987) Good practice in undergraduate education: Encourages contact between students and faculty Develops reciprocity and co-operation among students Encourages active learning Gives prompt feedback Emphasizes time on task Communicates high expectations Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

9. Rating process Individual ideas – one of seven principles Wiki refinement Group brainstorm

10. The review framework Focuses on good practice in online courses in relation to teacher presence 30 primary indicators (‘must haves’) 41 secondary indicators (‘nice to haves’)

11. 6. Communicates high expectations Discuss with your neighbour what this might mean in an online course – how would an online teacher communicate high expectations ?

12. Some examples from the case study -communicates high expectations (a) can be communicated by positive lecturer comments (b) explicit expectations for participation requirements including quality of participation (c) expressing disappointment (privately to student after checking for other reasons e.g. illness) when students do not contribute (d) provide model answers and exemplars for students which set a high standard including correct APA or designated referencing format (e) generic comments and feedback given publicly to class about an assignment or task – strengths, gaps, items to improve

13. Some other framework examples Principle 2 – develops reciprocity and co-operation among students Staff member provides good briefing and clear instruction on collaborative activity, manages group process effectively

14. The Review Process CAP = Collegial Appraisal Process using triads Roles self-review (course lecturer) peer review (colleague) interviewer (colleague) Review – course is reviewed for 30 primary indicators only Interviewer guides the process using focus questions Roles rotate for the next iteration

15. ‘Do-it-yourself’ eMM

16. Time spent (averages) … Framework development per person 8.5 hours of FTF time – seven meetings 3.5 hours contributing to wiki 12 hours Collegial Appraisal Process per person 2 hours self-appraisal course review 4.5 hours three review meetings 6.5 hours

17. What are the implications for future practice ? You can ‘do it yourself’ for ‘best practice’ frameworks and process in a reasonable timeframe Good match with other benchmark models (e.g. eMM) Staff who participate in this process feel empowered rather than evaluated The framework and process is then available for institutional use

18. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi Engari he toa takitini My strength is not that of the individual, but that of the group