Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 105

Beliefs Regarding Faculty Participation
The decision to develop an internal
process at our institution, rather than
adopt the official QM process, was based
on a consensus of faculty preference. Our
faculty wanted to be personally engaged
in the peer review process, and they were
reluctant to involve external reviewers,
whom they believed might not understand
our unique institution. In addition, some
faculty members expressed concern about
a pre-existing, external procedure being
“imposed” upon them. To gain faculty support,
we tailored our peer review process to
allow faculty ownership of it and reassure
them that they would have the chance to
revise their courses before any official reviews
were undertaken.
In our process, faculty members intending
to submit a course for peer review
made the request through the Distributed
Learning and Instructional Technology Office,
which informed the respective college
OC. During the initial contact with the
faculty member, the OC invited the faculty
member to participate in this research
study. Potential participants received a
copy of the IRB approved Informed Consent
form and a link to the online survey
administered via Survey Monkey. Faculty
members were instructed to return the
signed Informed Consent form to a designated
staff member in the institution’s
research office, not to the OC, and then
complete the online survey. Because each
OC collaborated as a facilitator and mentor
with each peer review participant on
course revisions prior to the course being
submitted to the internal peer review team,
all OCs were blind to the research participation
status until all peer reviews were
completed.
To initiate the review process,
the faculty course developer conducted
a self-review of the course using the QM
Rubric by identifying the location in the
course where each standard was met. The
purpose of the self-review was to get faculty
familiar with using the Rubric as a peer
review tool and allow them to systematically
examine their course from a reviewer’s
perspective to reduce their apprehension
and assist them in making revisions
to the course before revealing it to the peer
review team. While the faculty course developer
completed the self-review, the faculty
member’s college OC conducted an
independent review of the course. After the
faculty course developer and the OC completed
their reviews, they met to discuss
revisions to the course. Faculty members
were under no obligation to implement any
of the revisions suggested by the OC, who
served strictly in a support role to assuage
faculty concerns regarding administrative
evaluation. Once the faculty course developer
was satisfied with the course, it was
opened to the peer review team.
To be eligible to serve for an internal
peer review team, each reviewer completed
the Applying the Quality Matters
Rubric course (APPQMR), the established,
basic QM Rubric course. Once the review
teams were set and the course opened to
the peer review team, the OC stepped out
of the process, and the faculty Chair of the
review team was responsible for scheduling
timelines, leading team meetings, and
closing the review in the QM Course Review
Management System. The peer review
was conducted in accordance with the official
QM process and met/not met numbering
thresholds. If the course did not
meet the threshold requirements on the
initial review, the faculty course developer
consulted with the peer review team and
made revisions to the course until it earned
enough points to meet requirements. Eligible
faculty members received a $1,000 stipend
when their courses successfully completed
the entire peer review process, and
104