Course:
Faculty Member:
Semester:
Format:

1. Identify Learning Outcome (s)

a. What can the student be expected to do as a result of this course?


b. Identify the assessment techniques used to measure student’s learning.


c. Based on the assessments how have you improved the learning experience for students?

d. How did the improvements result in improved learning (where applicable show data)?

e. Upon completion of the Pilot, SAAC EZ form was completed?
 

Yes	Date completed
No

2. Course Design

a. Clear guidelines for instructor-to-learner and learner–to-learner are provided.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

b. Discussion assignments are open-ended and facilitate collaboration among learners.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

c. Learners are encouraged to present course projects to one another and to give one another meaningful feedback.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

d. Assignments contain reasonable and clear timeliness and deadlines for completion.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

e. The course contains challenging tasks, activities such as case studies or other means to practice skills development, and addresses various learning styles.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

f. Course projects allow for learner choice.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

Main Strengths:


Opportunities for Improvement:


Strategies/possible actions for improvement:


Priority:
 

	High
	Medium
	Low

3. Instructor Involvement

a. Instructor expectations for learners are clearly communicated.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

b. Instructor role is clearly communicated.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

c. The instructor provides two types of feedback - information and acknowledgement.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

d. Instructor feedback on assignments is prompt.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

e. The instructor acts as a facilitator of the discussion, but does not dominate.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

Main Strengths:


Opportunities for Improvement:


Strategies/possible actions for improvement:

Priority:
 

	High
	Medium
	Low

4. Student Assessment

a. Activity or course assessments are learner-focused and promote self-reflection.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

b. Grading rubrics are provided that assess contributions to discussion and all assignments.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

c. Collaborative assignments are included.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

d. Guidelines are provided to encourage learners to provide good feedback to on another.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

e. Assessment techniques are included that fit the context of the course and align with modes of content delivery and learning objectives/course competencies.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

f. Assessments are clear, easy to understand, and likely to work well in the online environment.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

g. Learner input has been incorporated into the development and delivery of assessments.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

Main Strengths:


Opportunities for Improvement:


Strategies/possible actions for improvement:

Priority:
 

	High
	Medium
	Low

5. Course Review

a. Review is embedded in the course and is ongoing.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

b. An area is provided in the course for reflection and review.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

c. Creative means of review are included, such as letters to successors and self-reflections.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

d. Both formative and summative review is included.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

e. Summative review goes beyond comments on the instructor and includes review of the learning experience, technical support, the technology in use, and self-assessment of learner input and effort.
 

	In place and like how it is
	In place, but needs improvement
	Not in Place
	N/A

Main Strengths:


Opportunities for Improvement:


Strategies/possible actions for improvement:

Priority:
 

	High
	Medium
	Low

Peer Feedback

1. Within Discipline

  -- Select Peer -- Carlotta Abrams Valerie Akuna Debbie Anderson Erin Blomstrand David Boblett Steve Boettcher John Bradley Mary Burdett Analicia Buentello Renee Ciezki Rodica Costin Lisa Dailey Clarissa Davis-Ragland Urbano Delgado Dwain Desbien Terry Dillon Milagro Escalona Mike Farabee Bill Farrar John Frasure Rod Freeman Stephanie Fujii Roberta Gray Karen Grizzaffi Rebecca Hailey Barbara Harrington Cheryl Hebert Larry Heinz Barbara Herzog Jon Hill John Hogue Laura Hohenstein Kathleen Iudicello Elaine Jolayemi Alex Joncas Michael Jones Patty Keener Kristin Koehn Randol Larson Rosemary Leary Carla LoCicero Jack LoCicero Deborah Lyons Mike MaGuire Frederick Maihofer Jason Mallory Susan Malmo Jason Martinez Randy McElroy Jean McKay Bertha Medina Terry Meyer Carolyn Miller Polly Miller Jim Nichols Dennis Oliver Lydia Perez Larry Pesta Debbie Pina Deborah Raffin Luvia Rivera Natalie Rivera Rey Rivera Cecilia Rosales Stephen Shriver Rachel Smith Gail Snyder Bronwen Steele Diane Stonebrink Kara Tableman Olga Tsoudis Roselyn Turner Betty Vickrey Alex Vrenios Pearl Williams Roger Yaeger Roger Yohe Chris Zagar Sandy Zetlan Eddie Zuleger Date (format 01/12/00)

Main Strengths:


Opportunities for Improvement:


Strategies/possible actions for improvement:

Priority:
 

	High
	Medium
	Low

2. Outside Discipline

-- Select Peer -- Carlotta Abrams Valerie Akuna Debbie Anderson Erin Blomstrand David Boblett Steve Boettcher John Bradley Mary Burdett Analicia Buentello Renee Ciezki Rodica Costin Lisa Dailey Clarissa Davis-Ragland Urbano Delgado Dwain Desbien Terry Dillon Milagro Escalona Mike Farabee Bill Farrar John Frasure Rod Freeman Stephanie Fujii Roberta Gray Karen Grizzaffi Rebecca Hailey Barbara Harrington Cheryl Hebert Larry Heinz Barbara Herzog Jon Hill John Hogue Laura Hohenstein Kathleen Iudicello Elaine Jolayemi Alex Joncas Michael Jones Patty Keener Kristin Koehn Randol Larson Rosemary Leary Carla LoCicero Jack LoCicero Deborah Lyons Mike MaGuire Frederick Maihofer Jason Mallory Susan Malmo Jason Martinez Randy McElroy Jean McKay Bertha Medina Terry Meyer Carolyn Miller Polly Miller Jim Nichols Dennis Oliver Lydia Perez Larry Pesta Debbie Pina Deborah Raffin Luvia Rivera Natalie Rivera Rey Rivera Cecilia Rosales Stephen Shriver Rachel Smith Gail Snyder Bronwen Steele Diane Stonebrink Kara Tableman Olga Tsoudis Roselyn Turner Betty Vickrey Alex Vrenios Pearl Williams Roger Yaeger Roger Yohe Chris Zagar Sandy Zetlan Eddie Zuleger Date (format 01/12/00)

Main Strengths:


Opportunities for Improvement:


Strategies/possible actions for improvement:

Priority:
 

	High
	Medium
	Low

This is not an individual evaluation, nor is it intended to be part of the faculty evaluation process; this process indicates that the course designer participated in collaborative input and analysis of the course creation. However, you may use this process and document in your FEP documentation.