This note is not about the per term planning, monitoring, review, and adjustment activities associated with a course. It is also not about the big program level reviews that might touch a course. This is about a serious, in-depth review of a course, every three to four years.

A course sits within a program or set of course offerings. Just like we assume that all students can get an A in our course until they prove otherwise, we make similar assumptions about a course.

We assume that...

• the course was launched and aligned with program objectives
• the course has been designed according to reasonable and feasible interpretation of what is generally regarded as best practice
• the course is being delivered in a reasonable and feasible fashion considering the resources and infrastructure
• the instructor is qualified in both topic and instruction to deliver the course
• the students taking the course are qualified to take the course, are doing what would be considered reasonable and feasible ‘learning’, and stand a fair chance at achieving the desired outcome

Lots of assumptions, but that is the starting point. This covers most of the who, what, where, when, why, and how dimensions. When looking at a course holistically. Because it is in a program framework, there are also implicit assumptions about appropriate vertical and horizontal integration; when feasible and reasonable. There are other implied assumptions as well, the overall design of a course covers material, assessments, tutorials, labs, etc. Lots and lots of moving pieces and assumptions.

For each assumption, there are attributes and qualities that can be delved into, possibly measured, and possibly used in a comparative analysis. The big question of course: “is the course fulfilling its ‘contract’ and delivering what is required in an acceptable way?”. Having reviews and being accountable is all part of being professional and responsible for delivering what you are being paid to deliver.

It does not mean that everything is standardized, turned into a bureaucratic mess, etc. There is usually not one right way to do something. However, there is a solid body of work about mistakes and what should not be done and these should be the focus of the review; not fitting into a box. It should be about delivering the goods to the desired level. It should be about using the science of learning, education, and cognitive skill and expertise acquisition. It is not about ‘I think xxx is better’; unless you can back xxx up with science. These factors do not infringe on academic freedom or your individual choices. However, these factors do impact if your are an amateur or if you are a professsional (Zimmerman 2020).

Summary observations...

• A thorough course review will take one or more person weeks to do. Sorry. It is not possible to do in one or two days, or in one or two hours.
• A course review should investigate the pedagogy used, how the course fits into the overall scheme of things, and if the specific material and learning is appropriate. This might require three different people for a few days each, perhaps a week.
• The review should try to validate and verify the assumptions in a positive way and not come at the review with negativity; trying to invalidate and find issues. Look first for what is done appropriately and according to plan. Then do the gap analysis.
• The course should be reviewed in a broad context and not just based on local thinking. What are the current, recognized education leaders doing in this space? This does not mean that the best need be done; the spirit might be willing but the flesh is weak. As we do in research, we should know the theoretical upper/lower bounds and use these for insights, even if they cannot be achieved in practice.
• It is important to work from the outcomes laid upon the course from the program or department level. These might have changed since the last course overhaul, or not. It is also important to know if the course is delivering what is expected.
• For each outcome, there should be a strategy and plan for how to introduce, instruct, practice, and assess; when, how, who, etc. There should be a plan for how the outcomes work together and what threshold concepts are necessary to support the learning.
• The course should be laid out using a backward chaining strategy, working from the outcomes to the first lecture; not the reverse. This will indicate if there is slack in the term or if the term is overloaded. If there is slack, there is an opportunity to teach the same material better; not just add more material. If time has run out, something needs to change.

• As the course is reviewed, the assumptions about incoming, retained skills can be checked. Do the students coming in have the appropriate knowledge and skill?
• During the review, each lecture needs to be reviewed for contribution to the learning outcomes and the pedagogy used. The connections to other lectures is also reviewed: where a concept is introduced, reinforced, applied, assessed.
• The instructor should be actively involved during the review process and in the best case, openly embrace a review and the potential, future improvements.
• The results of a review should identify the good, the bad, and the ugly; in a non-personal way. This reception of results might be hard because some instructors will have an ownership issue and see the course as ‘my course’. Some instructors will be insecure and be uncomfortable about others poking into their domain of supposed ‘academic freedom’.
• There is also the potential arrogance and lack of understanding about how expertise and skill in instruction evolves. From the novice level to true expert which can lead to statements such as ‘I have been teaching for n years, I know what I am doing’, or ‘instructors have learned how to teach by being students for nn years, they know how to do it without any concerted effort’, ‘I have taken all of the short courses offered by the teaching centre, I have a certificate, I am an expert’. There will be some instructors who will be very upset with having their courses critically reviewed and their teaching prowess discussed. Some can dish it out to students in their courses, but cannot take it themselves.
• After the review, a short report should be prepared about the results and recommendations and shared with the appropriate senior management in the department. The instructor can respond of course and should also prepare a plan for the course overhaul (if warranted).
• The plan should be mindful of change management principle and deal with sequencing, effort, time needed, and if any special resources will be needed to help with the overall.

Further reading

• Zimmerman, J. (2020). The amateur hour: History of college teaching in America. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/amateur-hour