1 / 18

Online Course Authorship in the Peer Review Process

Online Course Authorship in the Peer Review Process. Thomas Chase Director, Centre for Academic Technologies University of Regina Regina, Canada S4S 0A2. “Bah, humbug!” --the peer review committee chairperson. “I can’t get no respect” -- the online course author. Opening questions.

kyran
Télécharger la présentation

Online Course Authorship in the Peer Review Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Online Course Authorship in the Peer Review Process Thomas ChaseDirector, Centre for Academic TechnologiesUniversity of ReginaRegina, Canada S4S 0A2

  2. “Bah, humbug!” --the peer reviewcommitteechairperson Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  3. “I can’t get no respect” -- the online course author Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  4. Opening questions • Determination of worth • Preparation and documentation • Formation of effective policy • “Coinage of the realm”: functioning in the academic economy Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  5. Academic economies • Homogeneity is a chimera • Brideshead Revisited and the “gentleman scholar”: gone are the days … • The impact of online teaching upon the academic economy • The “hypercampusing” of higher education: non-traditional student groups Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  6. The Humpty Dumpty problem • “A word means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less” • The meaning of online course • Minimal courses (skeletal) • External and internal elements • Maximal courses Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  7. Which is better? • Minimal or maximal? • The phenomenon of content dependency • The question of level or originality • Online teaching blurs traditional dividing lines Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  8. Focusing on content • The print/digital divide • Paper as the established denomination of currency • The elaborate mechanisms of traditional scholarly publication • The well-received textbook versus the research monograph Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  9. Content(2) • Pixels rather than print • Adoption by other instructors/institutions • The innate conservatism of academic institutions and their denizens • New modes of writing • New modes of publication Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  10. Authorship: paper and pixels • External peer review remains crucial • Blurring the line: modern textbooks with accompanying websites and CDs • Project MUSE and the future of the traditional learned journal Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  11. Suggestions: preliminary • Respect older modes of publication • Preserve external peer review • Reward sound academic work, whatever the medium of transmission • Achieve institution’s strategic goals Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  12. Suggestion 1: online authorship—meaning, needs • Gather statistics, internal and external • Know more than cost and enrolments • Determine development time: the example of the 500-hour course • Be flexible in assessment—and reward Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  13. Suggestion 2: external strategizing • Get out of the foxhole!—erasing the here/there binary • Making effective, responsible use of online materials developed elsewhere • MERLOT • Consortia such as Campus Alberta, Campus Saskatchewan Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  14. Suggestion 3: internal strategizing • Institutional directions & priorities • Bricks and mortar  “bricks and clicks” • The two nodes: • Student-side • Faculty-side Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  15. Suggestion 3 (continued) • Make value clear to faculty • Enhance and extend the institution’s teaching capacities • Integrate peer-reviewed authorship into the reward and incentive scheme • Emphasize areas of strength Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  16. Suggestion 4: overhaul the peer review process • Respect institutional context and orientation • Erase the paper/pixels divide • Standardize incentives and rewards • Educate peer review committees • Develop clear protocols for external peer review (take advantage of MERLOT!) Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  17. Conclusion • Assigning value: the beginning of the process • The changed nature of academic authorship • The focus on content & effectiveness rather than form or medium • A new currency comes into play Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

  18. Thank you!Comments and enquiries welcome … Thomas Chase, PhDDirector Centre for Academic Technologies University of Regina REGINA, Canada S4S 0A2 thomas.chase@uregina.ca Tel. 306.337.2400/Fax 306.337.2401 Online Authorship and Peer Review: Thomas Chase, University of Regina

More Related