Hazardous Weather Outlook in Effect Through October 2
Salisbury University students on campus

Course Reviews

Faculty can request for their online, remote, or hybrid course to be peer-reviewed using the QM rubric.  Salisbury University offers three types of reviews:

  • ID&D Course Review- An ID&D or Academic Instructional Designer will review the course based on the QM rubric and setup a consultation with the faculty or course developer.
  • Internal QM Review- Internal quality assurance review for courses/departments interested in a preliminary review prior to an official QM review or those not interested in official QM reviews.
  • Official QM Review- Official QM review comprised of a QM certified peer-review team (subject matter expert, internal and external reviewer).

SU’s QM internal course review process is all volunteer based. A call for volunteers is posted three times a year seeking course reviewers. A team of three reviewers works to review each course submitted. To participate in the process, reviewers must have completed the Applying the QM Rubric (APPQMR) Workshop. There is no prerequisite for submitting a course for review.

Review Cycle Schedule

QM Internal course reviews occur three times a year. Volunteers for review teams are gathered through an open call.

Review Cycle Schedule
Open Call for Volunteers Course Review Periods
August 1 to September 15

October 1 to December 15

November 1 to January 15 February 1 to April 30
April 1 to May 15 June 1 to July 31

Course Review Request Form

Why have your course reviewed? ​

Individuals who volunteer courses for review receive detailed feedback and recommendations for course improvement from reviewers trained in applying the QM Rubric. Note the QM Rubric contains known elements of quality for course design only. It is not a measure of faculty teaching or performance.

 

Submit a Course for an Internal Review

Faculty or staff may have their online, remote or hybrid courses reviewed. There are four steps in the course review process. Time commitment may vary by course based on review findings, however, estimates for the time required for each step in the process are included below. The time required for the entire course review is 3 to 6 weeks.

Detailed Process, Roles, and Tasks

Step 1: Submit a Course for Review
Faculty Time: ~10 minutes

To initiate an internal course review, the course developer/representative should complete the QM Online/Hybrid Course Review Request in the ID&D Support Center.

Once the request is reviewed, ID&D will initiate the Review Application in the My Custom Review (MyCR) section of the Quality Matters MyQM site and provide a Word template to help the course representative prepare responses needed for the Course Worksheet in step 2.

Step 2: Complete the Course Information Worksheet in MyCR
Faculty Time: ~1-2 hours

Once the course has been accepted for the QM internal review, the course developer/representative must complete the detailed course worksheet to start the review process. This form is online in MyCR. It takes an estimated 1-2 hours to complete.

Tips

  • Work with your Instructional Designer liaison for any questions you might have about the various information required for the Course Worksheet and for creating a copy of the course in MyClasses to be used solely for the course review.
  • A course cannot move forward through the review process without learning objectives. Please check that the course has learning objectives at the course and module/unit levels prior to submitting it for review.
  • If you have detailed activities within the course, be sure to explain the purpose, connection to learning objectives, and materials used to support the activity on the form. Without an explanation of the context and use of the activity, reviewers may miss the connection to course learning objectives.

Next Steps

After the Course Information Worksheet is complete, the SU QM Coordinator is able to assign a review team to the course and move the review to the next step. Note: A course may not move forward in the course review process until the Course Worksheet is completed and submitted online.

Step 3: Meet the Review Team
Faculty Time: ~30 minutes

The Chair of the review team will coordinate a brief meeting to introduce faculty to the review process, the reviewers, their roles, and what individuals can expect from the review. The review team may also use this time to ask clarifying questions about the course. This usually requires less than one hour of time.

Note: The review team will need access to the course prior to this meeting.

Next Steps

After this initial meeting, the review team will meet as a group as needed to discuss the review process and findings. The review team members will also spend individual time reviewing the course based on the QM rubric. Reviewers mark each item in the rubric as “met” or “not met.” When the review is submitted, a notification that the findings are ready for review will be sent.

Step 4: Respond to Reviewer Findings

The time required for this step in the process varies. At this point, the course developer/representative reviews the final report and decides how they would like to proceed.

Faculty Time: ~5 minutes
Faculty intent to respond to the review (or not) is submitted through a short form online.

If the course meets Quality Matters review expectations, the course developer/representative can use the feedback from the review team to make any adjustments to their course design as desired.

If the course does not meet Quality Matters review expectations, the course developer/representative responds on whether (or not) they will make additions or revisions to the course. If the decision is to make revisions, the course representative has 14 weeks to make the modifications and resubmit the course for review. Working with your Instructional Designer liaison is highly recommended. The amount of time required for this step of the process varies based on the extent of the work to be completed.

Next Steps

If the Team Chair agrees standards previously “not met” are now “met,” the review will be updated to reflect this, and an amended final report will be issued.

Information regarding QM was adapted with permission from our colleagues at Pennsylvania State University.