Peer Review of Learning Objects

Part of the mandate of CLOE is to promote learning object design and evaluation as a scholarly activity. Therefore each object that is submitted to the repository will undergo a peer review similar in structure and process to the one used when submitting an article to an academic journal. The objects are evaluated according to clearly identified criteria by a panel consisting of an editor, subject matter experts and an instructional designer.

Subject matter experts will be responsible for examining the LO for the validity and quality of the content, for factual information and for the overall contribution of the LO towards student learning.

Instructional designers will evaluate the degree to which the LO is likely to meet its instructional goals as described by the author(s) and defined in the *Guidelines for Authors (below).

· Effectiveness as a Teaching/Learning Tool (Scale = not at all, somewhat, definitely)

· There are clear learning objectives.

· The learning object meets the stated learning objectives.

· The target learners are clearly identified (academic level addressed/technical ability/demographics).

· There are clear instructions for using the learning object.

· The technology helps learners to engage effectively with the concept/skill/idea.

· The learning object provides an opportunity for learners to obtain feedback within or outside the learning object.

· The author provides evidence that the learning object enhances student learning.[1]

· Pre-requisite knowledge/skills, if needed, are identified.

· The learning object stands alone and could be used in other learning environments.

· [1] Acceptable evidence could be anecdotal comments, student perception questionnaires, or more formal learning impact studies.

(source: CLOE Peer Review, November 2003 (PowerPoint Presentation from Dr. Michael Clarke, CLOE Peer Review Committee Chair, and Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario)
This process is designed to ensure academic rigour and high quality objects. It may help institutions to evaluate faculty work in the area of instructional technology.

"…research on the impact of new computer technologies on the discipline is an important area of scholarship, and institutions need to encourage and reward faculty doing this kind of work."

Culp, G. (2001) Faculty Rewards in Digital Instructional Environments. Syllabus Magazine.