ARRC | Assessment, Revision, and Review Cycle

Assessment, Revision, and Review Cycle (ARRC)

A structured process for the regular assessment, revision, and review of asynchronous online courses,
supporting high-quality online learning through collaboration among Academic Program Administrators,
faculty subject matter experts, and the Learning Technologies & Instructional Design team.

Overview
Workflow
ARRC Institute
Faculty Agreement
LTID Checklist
APA Checklist

Program Overview

What is ARRC?

ARRC ensures a consistent four-year cycle for evaluating and improving SUO asynchronous online courses.

Within each cycle year, designated courses are assessed by Academic Program Administrators (APAs)
and, when needed, revised collaboratively by a faculty member or subject matter expert and a supporting
Instructional Designer. Courses are then reviewed for design and accessibility by LTID and for content
quality by the APA.

Key Definitions

SUO Course: An asynchronously online course in a Stevenson University Online program.
Cycle Year: One year within the four-year ARRC cycle, aligned to the fiscal year (July 1–June 30).
Course Term: The delivery term used to determine the course workflow.
Course Workflow: A roughly five-month process including assessment, revision, and review/approval.

Guiding Standards

Institutional standards for high-quality online learning
National Standards for Quality Online Learning (NSQOL)
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles
Digital accessibility practices aligned with WCAG 2.1

Workflow Structure

Workflow Periods by Term

Courses are assigned to workflows that align with their delivery terms so revision work can be managed efficiently.

Term	Workflow	Assessment Period	Revision Period	Review & Approval Period
FSEM & F8W1	F1	Apr 01 – Jun 01	Jun 01 – Aug 10	Aug 10 – F8W1 Start
F8W2	F2	Jun 01 – Aug 01	Aug 01 – Oct 10	Oct 10 – F8W2 Start
JA, SSEM, & S8W1	S1	Aug 01 – Oct 01	Oct 01 – Dec 10	Dec 10 – S8W1 Start
S8W2	S2	Oct 01 – Jan 05	Jan 05 – Mar 10	Mar 10 – S8W2 Start
USEM & U8W1	U1	Jan 05 – Mar 01	Mar 01 – May 10	May 10 – U8W1 Start
U8W2	U2	Mar 01 – May 01	May 01 – Jun 30	Jun 30 – U8W2 Start

How the Process Works

1. Assessment Period
APAs review each scheduled course using the Content Quality Standards Checklist. If the course meets content standards,
the supporting ID reviews it with the Design & Accessibility Checklist. Based on those results, the course may be approved,
postponed once, or moved into revision.

2. Revision Period
For courses requiring updates, the supporting ID meets with the instructor or SME during week one to establish revision needs,
communication preferences, deliverables, and due dates. Revision work then proceeds with scheduled check-ins and support.

3. Review & Approval Period
The supporting ID completes the LTID checklist, and the APA completes final content review. If standards are met,
the full documentation package is submitted for approval and stipend processing, when applicable.

Optional Faculty Event

The ARRC Institute: A Guided Course-building Studio

A half-day working event designed to help faculty make meaningful progress on course revisions as the 10-week revision cycle begins.

Facilitated by the LTID team, the ARRC Institute blends a brief orientation to ARRC expectations with targeted micro-learning
sessions and supported work time inside actual course revision shells. Participants leave with a roadmap, initial revisions
underway, and direct access to instructional design guidance, technical support, and practical tools.

Intended Outcomes

A clear understanding of ARRC expectations and timelines
A tangible start on course revisions
A defined next step or checklist
Awareness of LTID support resources
Increased confidence and reduced start-up friction

Microlearning Topics

Course Mapping & Alignment
Assessment & Rubric Refresh
Blackboard Content Organization
Accessibility Quick Wins

Typical Agenda

Time	Session	Highlights
10:00 – 10:15	Arrival, Check-in, Informal Networking	Sign-in, coffee/snacks, sticky-note board activity, Blackboard login
10:15 – 10:45	ARRC Orientation	Purpose, timelines, deliverables, roadmap, support structure
10:45 – 11:45	Microlearning Rotations	Three short sessions focused on practical revision skills
11:45 – 12:30	Work Block 1	Draft course map, create revision checklist, identify priority modules
12:30 – 1:00	Lunch	Optional working lunch with social engagement encouraged
1:00 – 2:30	Work Block 2	Targeted revision work with color-coded help tables and mini pop-ins
2:30 – 3:00	Wrap-Up & The Path Forward	Questions, next steps, evaluation survey, resource sheet, raffle

Required Documentation

Course Development or Substantive Revision Agreement

This agreement documents faculty expectations, required deliverables, and compensation terms for course development or revision work supported by LTID.

Proposal Types

New Course Development (Online or Traditional)
Traditional Course Revision
Online Course Revision (SUO ARRC Process)
Online Course Revision (Not SUO)

Core Required Documentation

Course Development or Substantive Revision Agreement
APA Content Checklist
LTID Design and Accessibility Checklist
Academic Affairs Committee approval when required
Permission form when applicable

Faculty Expectations and Deliverables

Complete all revision work by the stated completion date.
Revise course content, syllabus, and materials according to the agreed schedule.
Follow the established course revision timeline in partnership with the supporting ID.
Abide by the Stevenson University Intellectual Property Policy.
Ensure both the APA and ID complete their respective checklists prior to stipend authorization.
Submit signed forms and completed checklists with payment authorization documentation.

Compensation

Course development and revision are considered full-time faculty responsibilities compensated by salary.
Adjunct faculty may receive a stipend.
Full course development: up to $1000 stipend for adjunct faculty.
Substantive course revision: up to $500 stipend for adjunct faculty.
No compensation may also be designated.

LTID Review

Design & Accessibility Standards Checklist

The LTID checklist verifies design quality, learner engagement, and digital accessibility standards before final approval.

Standard A: Overview & Introduction

Course overview and description included
Downloadable syllabus file posted
Minimum technology requirements and skills stated
Technical and academic support services linked
Introductory engagement activity scheduled for week one

Standard B: Design & Engagement

Logical organization using modules and folders
CLOs clearly stated in the course
Variety of perspectives and non-stereotypical representation
Multiple learning paths and ways to engage
Regular student-to-student interaction
Regular student-to-instructor interaction

Standard C: Assessment

Assessments align with course learning outcomes
Rubrics define multiple levels of proficiency
Frequent opportunities for self-monitoring and reflection
Flexible options for demonstrating understanding

Standard D: Digital Accessibility

Content is perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust
Materials and activities support varying learner needs
Assessment submissions and grades are recorded accurately
Media and hyperlinks function appropriately
Student privacy is protected in all tools and technologies

APA Review

Content Quality Standards Checklist

The APA checklist focuses on academic quality, currency, alignment, and appropriateness of course content and assessments.

Standard A: Course Overview

Posted course description is accurate and current
Syllabus uses the current university template
Introductory engagement activity fits the course level and outcomes

Standard B: Course Content

CLOs are accurate and current
Content and activities are relevant and level-appropriate
Materials are accurate, current, and career-connected
Materials reflect varied perspectives
Learning paths and engagement options are appropriate to the discipline
Student interaction opportunities are appropriate and sufficient

Standard C: Assessment

Assessments align with program and course outcomes
Assessment methods are discipline-appropriate
Students have opportunities for self-monitoring and reflection
Assessments allow multiple ways to demonstrate understanding

Review Outcomes

Initial Assessment: Meets CQ Standards / Does Not Meet CQ Standards
Final Review: Meets CQ Standards and Approved for Delivery / Does Not Meet CQ Standards

Support and Next Steps

ARRC is designed to make course quality review more systematic, collaborative, and manageable. Faculty members,
APAs, and instructional designers each play a defined role in ensuring that asynchronous online courses remain current,
accessible, and aligned with institutional expectations for high-quality teaching and learning.

Roles & Responsibilities

ARRC Course Revision Roles & Responsibilities

The ARRC revision process defines distinct responsibilities for the Faculty Member, Supporting Instructional Designer, and Academic Program Administrator to support a collaborative, efficient, and high-quality course revision experience.

Role	Responsibilities
Faculty Member	Serve as the Subject Matter Expert (SME) by leading all discipline-specific content revisions, updates, and academic decisions within the assigned course. Collaboratively establish a revision work plan with the supporting instructional designer at the outset of the revision period, including deliverables, timelines, communication preferences, and scheduled check-ins, while adhering to the course’s established ARRC revision window. Provide complete and timely content deliverables such as revised lectures, readings, assessments, media, prompts, and rubrics in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule. Engage in regular, professional communication with the instructional designer and respond to feedback or requests for clarification in a timely manner. Collaborate with the instructional designer on course alignment and structure, recognizing that pedagogical strategy, LMS build, accessibility compliance, and technical implementation are guided and facilitated by LTID. Adhere to Stevenson University’s Intellectual Property Policy, acknowledging institutional ownership and approved use of course materials developed or revised within the ARRC process. Acknowledge the formal course approval process, including completion of the Design & Accessibility Checklist by LTID and the Content Quality Checklist by the Academic Program Administrator (APA), both of which must be satisfied prior to course deployment and stipend disbursement. Agree to the stipend policy, including that stipends for ARRC revision work are extended to adjunct faculty only, in accordance with university guidelines.
Supporting Instructional Designer	Serve as the pedagogical and design consultant by guiding course alignment, instructional strategy, learner engagement approaches, and assessment design in collaboration with the faculty SME. Facilitate the collaborative establishment of the revision work plan at the outset of the ARRC revision period, including timelines, deliverables, communication cadence, and milestone check-ins. Provide timely structured feedback and recommendations on content organization, alignment to course learning outcomes, and best practices in online course design. Offer LMS technical support with the implementation of approved instructional technologies. Ensure compliance with institutional digital accessibility standards. Maintain documentation and progress tracking to ensure the course remains on schedule within the established ARRC revision period. Communicate proactively with the SME and APA regarding timeline risks or missing checklist requirements that may impact course approval. Support, but do not author, discipline-specific content, recognizing that subject-matter accuracy and content creation remain the responsibility of the assigned faculty SME. Complete the Design & Accessibility Standards Checklist at the onset of the course review period.
Academic Program Administrator	Review assigned courses within the ARRC cycle and determine the scope and necessity of revisions prior to the start of the revision window. Select and assign a qualified faculty SME to complete approved course revisions and clearly communicate expectations for participation. Clarify content priorities and program-level goals to ensure revisions align with disciplinary standards, accreditation requirements, and curricular coherence. Complete the Content Quality Checklist as the formal academic review mechanism for approving revised course content prior to deployment. Collaborate with LTID as needed to address content concerns, scope adjustments, or timeline issues that may affect course readiness. Ensure adherence to institutional policies, including intellectual property guidelines and stipend eligibility parameters. Provide final academic approval confirming that the revised course meets program standards and is ready for use in the upcoming term.