Skip to content
 Scroll To Top

Each course review will have three reviewers. All reviewers must have taken the QM Applying the Rubric course. At least one member of the review team will be a content expert in the field or a closely related field to the course being reviewed. All reviewers are paid a stipend to compensate and thank them for their time.

The following persons have taken the QM Applying the Rubric course and can serve on a peer review committee.

  • Maren Haavig, Accounting  
  • Anne Jones, Education
  • Kathi Baldwin, Instructional Designer
  • Mary Purvis, Title III Project Coordinator
  • Maureen O'Halloran, Regional Instructional Designer
  • Eve Dillingham, Information Systems
  • Rose Goeden, Health Information Management
  • Andrea Dewees, Spanish
  • Jill Dumesnil, Mathematics
  • Susan Andrews, Education
  • Steve Kocsis, Astronomy
  • Math Trafton, English
  • Brian Buma, Forest Ecosystem Ecology
  • Katy Spangler, Education
  • Ljubomir Medenica, Management
  • Kristy Smith, Education

Course reviews take time and we understand that reviewers are also teaching or working on their own courses. We have created a timeline for the review process that balances the needs of the reviewers against the need of the instructor for timely feedback. The chair of the review committee will try to keep the review committee to a timeline where the entire review from start to finish is completed within two months.

  1. Instructor contacts committee member to express interest in Peer Review.
  2. Committee member directs instructor to the online Application to Peer Review form.
  3. Form is received by UAS Peer Review committee chair (or designated committee person).
  4. Committee discusses viability of reviewing the course submission. The course must have been taught at least 1 semester. The course has been reviewed either informally using the rubric/checklist or with an instructional designer.
  5. If course is accepted:
    • Instructor is notified by email or phone and asked to fill out the Faculty Course Information form which provides further details needed for the course review.
    • Committee chair (or designated person) contacts eligible faculty reviewers (those who took the APQMR course) to see who is available and interested in participating in the peer review
  6. If course is not accepted:
    • Instructor is notified by email or phone
    • Explain why the course cannot be reviewed at this time and provide suggestions on how to ready the course for a review
  7. From the three (3) faculty reviewers a chair is chosen.
  8. Review Chair sets a timeline and communicates the timeline and deadlines to all reviewers and the instructor. Suggested timeline:
    • Week 1: Review Standard 1 and 2. Reviewers view the course independently and share results. Chair provides some feedback to the instructor.
    • Week 2: Review Standards 3 and 4 independently and reviewers meet to share results.
    • Week 3: Review Standard 5 and discuss feedback that should be given to instructor. Chair provides some feedback to instructor at this time.
    • Week 4: Chair compiles all the comments and notes and returns to committee for their final review, comments and modifications.
    • Week 5: Final report is written and sent to instructor to preview prior to exit interview. Set up date for final exit interview with instructor and committee members.
    • Week 6: Exit interview takes place.
    • Week 7: Payment of reviewers is initiated by Chair.
    • Week 7/8: Letters of recognition for both reviewers and instructor are written and mailed for Tenure/Review files.

Content maintained by Instructional Design Center.