Standard 1.2: Learners are introduced to the purpose and structure of the course. (Essential)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The Course Syllabus makes the purpose and structure clear. The information is located within the first couple of pages. The Course Syllabus also includes a table of contents so students can find this information easily.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
General statements of purpose/goals are included. The structure could be more clearly defined. In your syllabus you could explain the major pieces of each module more clearly (textbook reading, additional article reading, author study, etc.) These could be tied back to course objectives. You have not included the COE standards for beginning teachers. The Children’s Literature course is an important element in the standards for the preparation of professionals (IRA/NCTE) that we use as part of the evidence for accreditation. All of us have included how the general course objectives more specifically meet the standards.
There are no objectives stated related to digital text. This is important in both the field of children’s literature and in our professional standards for accreditation.
Your module level learning objectives in each module are prefaced with some “stock” language that is not really meant for students to read. (there are several instance of this throughout the course site).
The “sub” elements of the CID objectives are not evident in either the objectives or the discussion rubrics.
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The course’s purpose and structure are clearly delineated in the syllabus in the first module. I’m convinced that students will feel confident in knowing what this course is all about and how it works!
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will rewrite the learning objectives and incorporate Dr. T’s ideas.*****
Standard 1.3: Etiquette expectations (sometimes called “netiquette”) for online discussions, email, and other forms of communication are clearly stated. (Very Important)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The Course Syllabus has a section titled “Netiquette” and also a section titled “Student Expectations and Responsibilities.” These sections share how students can interact appropriately and effectively in the discussion forums and when to email the instructor.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes (assuming the link works)
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The hot link to the “rules of netiquette” did not function for me. It might be appropriate to offer more specific discussion of netiquette for discussion of children’s literature. Because the course deals with diversity and multiple perspectives it might be important to emphasize “civil discourse” while also being willing to share personal concerns about book content.
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
A definition of netiquette and a link to basic netiquette rules are included in the syllabus.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will check that link and fix if necessary.*****
Standard 2.1: The course learning objectives, or course/program competencies, describe outcomes that are measurable. (Essential)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The language used to describe the Course Objectives is measureable. Words such as “share,” “demonstrate,” and “discuss” are used.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Demonstrate and share are relatively vague. It would be helpful to be more explicit in how achievement of the objects can be measured.
E.g. Goal 2: Share classic and recent children’s books that showcase positive examples of the literary elements, formats, and genres that organize the field of children’s literature.
In 8/15 books shares the student has selected a children’s book that showcase positive examples of the literary elements, formats, and genres that organize the field of children’s literature. The student’s discussion clearly demonstrates an adult level understanding of these elements.
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Course goals contain measurable outcomes, and, as a CID course, communication skills (written) are emphasized.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I appreciate the thoughts about word choice. I will find ways to communicate more specific directives.*****
Standard 2.2: The module/unit learning objectives or competencies describe outcomes that are measurable and consistent with the course-level objectives or competencies. (Essential)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Ex. 1: Module 8 objectives include “Define Traditional Literature” and “Discuss Folklore Across Cultures.” This aligns with the LOs “Define Literary Terms…” and “Share Fresh Examples…”
Ex. 2: Module 11 objectives include “Define historical fiction” and “Illustrate the criteria for evaluating historical fiction.” These align with LOs “Define Literary Terms” and “Explain Criteria…”
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
See 1.2 above. As far as I can tell you use the same rubric for discussions of readings, author studies, book shares and field experiences. The rubric does not seem to be clearly linked to the course objectives, the CID objectives, or individual module objectives. The criterion on the final paper is very general and may not help students as they stive to complete the activities.
The only measurable elements are the number of postings/responses in a time period.
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Module-level objectives contain measurable outcomes and connect directly to course goals.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will revise appropriately to address alignment with Communication in the Discipline (CID) objectives while adding more specific criteria and measurable elements.*****
Standard 2.4: The relationship between learning objectives or competencies and course activities is clearly stated. (Essential)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
I didn’t find a numbering system or explanation for learners to connect the module objectives with the learning objectives for the course. As an outsider and instructor I can infer this information, but it isn’t directly stated for students. (Note: I noticed that Module 11 has an instructor editing note that wasn’t removed above the list of module objectives.)
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The rubrics do not reflect the course or module objectives. No elements of the CID objectives are evident. https://academics.boisestate.edu/fsp/a-learning-foundation-for-your-degree-learning-outcomes/cid-ff-cdt/
E.g. Write effectively: Purpose/ Exemplary Work: “Focuses narrowly on a clear purpose.” or Developing work: “Focuses on purpose in evident if scattered manner.”
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Each module contains a brief narrative overview, and the module objectives connect directly to course activities.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will integrate a numbering system, as suggested, and create better rubrics.
*****
Standard 3.1: The assessments measure the stated learning objectives or competencies. (Essential)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Ex. 1: Module 2 has students write reflections on the readings and evaluate their peers’ work in the discussion board. This aligns with the module objective to “Contribute to the growth of the online learning community,” and the module objective aligns with the course objectives.
Ex. 2: Module 8 requires a field activity in which students visit a library and reflect upon their experience (guidelines provided in writing prompt). I”m not an expert, but I would say this aligns with the module objective #2, which aligns with the course objectives, specifically goals 1 and 7.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
I wish this were a little more clear cut. Because most of the course evaluation comes from discussion boards and journal entries that use a common “generic” rubric I can easily see a student protesting that they have achieved the objectives even when their grade is low.
Because we have just completed accreditation I also know how important it is that education students be able to articulate clearly how a course activity/assignment provides evidence that they have achieved specific standards. You would help students out a lot if you would include the CAEP standards and forewarn education students that they should save course work for the portfolio they must complete in their professional semester.
The final paper, which is a significant portion of the course, does not seem to relate particularly well to the course objectives, the CID objectives, individual module objectives, or Teacher Education Standards (not all students enrolled in children’s literature will be teacher education students).
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The variety of assessments, which are described in the syllabus as well as in weekly modules (quiz, discussion posts, essays, reflections, self-evaluations), are clearly linked to course goals. I really appreciated how the syllabus gave a comprehensive “heads-up” about how students will be evaluated!
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will revise various assignments, including the final paper, to relate better to course objectives and CID objectives.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
Standard 3.3: Specific and descriptive criteria are provided for the evaluation of learners’ work and are tied to the course grading policy. (Essential)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Beginning on page 4 of the syllabus (Course Modules and Activities) are explanations on what is expected of students when posting in the discussion forums, constructing written assignments, and self evaluations. These explanations are general, but rubrics for assignments are offered under “Course Resources” in Blackboard.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
General rubrics are not tied to objectives. Many of the course goals/objectives are not really “Measurable.” They could be--but not enough information is provided to help students know what the target is for success.
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The syllabus contains an overall description of successful discussion posts. Michael also mentions how he will comment on written assignments using Bb tools. In addition, course modules include very clear and specific guidelines for specific discussion board assignments--these are great!
I only have one suggestion in for this area, based on my love/hate relationship with rubrics. Consider including a rubric for the final paper. Although I find them a pain to create, my students appreciate having rubrics to help keep them on track during the writing process.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will add a rubric for the final paper.*****
Standard 3.4: The assessment instruments selected are sequenced, varied, and suited to the learner work being assessed. (Very Important)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
Assessment instruments appear to be varied enough to suit the student needs in the course. There is student-student discussion in each module allowing for peer feedback throughout the week. The are self evaluations in each module to allow the student to digest the information further. Finally, there are field activities that allow more room for timely (one week) instructor-student feedback.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
See above--little variety in assessment. Rubrics are not tailored specfically to the module objectives, nor do they provide adequate detail to help students see the relationship between activities and the course goals/objectives. No examples of exemplary or satisfactory work are provided.
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
There are a wide variety of assessments--quiz, discussion board posts, essays, self-evaluations, journal entries, and a final paper. They are tightly connected to course content and learning goals, and should maintain student interest as well as provide meaningful information to the instructor about student learning.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will add variety to assessment and incorporate examples of exemplary work.*****
Standard 6.5: Links are provided to privacy policies for all external tools required in the course. (Important)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
A link is provided on page 12 of the syllabus about online student privacy. No external tools appear to be required outside of Blackboard.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
You’re using some outside websites and YouTube. I’ve had students in the past who object to getting their digital information open to these sites (and advertising on sites). It’s always good to post a warning. (Most students will ignore it...but it does provide a good reminder of digital citizenship issues.)
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The syllabus contains a link to Boise State’s online privacy policy.
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will post a warning about outside websites.*****
Standard 8.3: The course provides alternative means of access to course materials in formats that meet the needs of diverse learners. (Very Important)
Peer Reviewer 1
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
I noticed that some of the required videos that are captioned on YouTube are not captioned with complete accuracy. For example, this video in Module 2 is a little off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnh3JNCMLq8
I noticed the same problem in Module 6 under the Author Study.
Peer Reviewer 2
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
No
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
The videos for the author studies should be augmented with print options. Students with visual or hearing impairments might have trouble with the heavy reliance on YouTube videos. (But most will find them very engaging!)
Peer Reviewer 3
Standard Met to at least 85 Percent
Yes
Supporting Evidence and Location/Peer Reviewer Feedback
This standard appears well-met. Michael uses a wealth of multimedia, and the videos that I checked had options for captions. Illustrations contained alt text. I’m still working on improving accessibility in my courses, so I’m still in the learning process...
Developer’s Own Review Comments
Write here:
I will offer more forms of alternative access to materials.*****
