Peer Review Validation Summary
From 78% Baseline to 100% Compliance
Independent Verification of Framework Implementation Quality
DOCUMENT PURPOSE: This validation summary demonstrates quality assurance via independent peer review. You'll see baseline compliance (78%), 11 issues identified across three severity levels, specific examples of problems and corrections, and final compliance (100%). This provides evidence that framework implementation was rigorously verified.
Section 1: Peer Review Validation Overview
What Was Validated?
After initial course development, an independent instructional designer conducted systematic peer review of all 64 assignments against established frameworks (TILT, ICAP, DEL, Bloom's, CLT). The review assessed:
- TILT Compliance: Are Purpose/Task/Criteria present and complete?
- ICAP Accuracy: Does assignment's actual cognitive demand match claimed ICAP mode?
- DEL Timing: Are dependencies preserved? Does sequencing support Discover→Engage→Learn?
- Bloom's Alignment: Do learning objectives match assignment activities?
- CLT Optimization: Is extraneous cognitive load minimized?
Validation Methodology
The peer reviewer used this process:
- Random Sample (n=16): Selected 2 assignments per module (1 from Week 1, 1 from Week 2) for detailed analysis
- Full Scan (n=64): Quick scan of all assignments to identify obvious issues
- Issue Documentation: Categorized problems by severity (Critical/Moderate/Minor) and framework
- Correction Verification: Re-reviewed all corrected assignments to confirm resolution
- Final Compliance Check: Verified 100% of assignments met all framework requirements
Section 2: Issues Identified (11 Total)
Issue Breakdown by Severity
| Severity | Count | Definition | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 3 | Violates core framework principle; significantly impacts learning | Missing TILT component, ICAP mode misclassification |
| Moderate | 5 | Framework present but incomplete or unclear | Vague criteria, ambiguous timing, weak scaffolding |
| Minor | 3 | Framework present but could be optimized | Inconsistent terminology, formatting variation |
Detailed Issue Inventory
CRITICAL ISSUES (3)
Missing CRITERIA Section
Problem: Assignment 3.2 (InQuizitive + Visual Notes) included PURPOSE and TASK but completely omitted CRITERIA. Students had no rubric or evaluation standards.
Impact: Violates TILT transparency principle. Students cannot self-assess or understand how work will be graded.
ICAP Mode Misclassification
Problem: Assignment 5.3 (F2F Lab Week 1) was labeled as "Constructive" mode, but assignment actually requires collaborative case analysis (Interactive mode).
Impact: Misleading ICAP analysis. Point distribution calculations incorrect. Students unclear about cognitive engagement expectations.
Critical Timing Violation
Problem: Assignment 7.6 (Mega-Map Prep) was originally due Thursday 11:59 PM—after the 7.7 lab that requires the Mega-Map.
Impact: Impossible dependency. Students arrive to lab without synthesis artifact. Lab activity cannot proceed as designed.
MODERATE ISSUES (5)
Vague Criteria Language
Problem: Criteria sections used subjective language: "Visual notes should be well-organized" without defining "well-organized."
Impact: Reduced transparency. Students unclear about specific standards. Difficult to self-assess quality.
Ambiguous Dependency Signal
Problem: Assignment 2.5 references "use your Visual Notes from 2.2" but didn't explicitly state this was a prerequisite.
Impact: Students might complete assignments out of sequence, reducing learning effectiveness.
Learning Objective Mismatch
Problem: Learning objective stated "Students will evaluate..." but assignment task asked students to "create a new research question" (Create level, not Evaluate).
Impact: Misalignment between stated objectives and actual cognitive demand.
Weak Scaffolding Link
Problem: Assignment 4.6 (Mega-Map) asked for synthesis but didn't explicitly reference Visual Notes from 4.2 and 4.5 as scaffolding tools.
Impact: Students unaware they could use prior work to reduce cognitive load during synthesis.
Unclear Mode Boundaries
Problem: Assignment asked students to "reflect on concepts" without specifying whether reflection meant Active (summarizing) or Constructive (generating new connections).
Impact: Ambiguous cognitive engagement expectations. Students unsure what level of processing required.
MINOR ISSUES (3)
Inconsistent Section Headers
Problem: Some assignments used "PURPOSE" header, others used "What's the Purpose?" Different formatting reduces consistency.
Impact: Minor reduction in pattern recognition. Slightly increases cognitive load.
DEL Phase Not Labeled
Problem: Assignment 3.7 is clearly a "Learn" phase activity but didn't include explicit DEL phase badge/label.
Impact: Missed opportunity to reinforce DEL framework awareness for students.
Suboptimal Example Placement
Problem: Example of "good annotation" appeared after task instructions. Would be more effective before task instructions.
Impact: Slightly less efficient use of worked examples to reduce cognitive load.
Section 3: Before/After Correction Examples
Here are three detailed examples showing problems identified and corrections implemented:
Example 1: Critical Issue #1 - Missing CRITERIA (Assignment 3.2)
PURPOSE: This assignment builds your understanding of socialization concepts from Chapter 4...
TASK: You will:
- Complete InQuizitive adaptive quiz (target score: 90%)
- Create visual notes organizing Ch 4 concepts hierarchically
❌ CRITERIA section completely missing
PURPOSE: This assignment builds your understanding of socialization concepts from Chapter 4...
TASK: You will:
- Complete InQuizitive adaptive quiz (target score: 90%)
- Create visual notes organizing Ch 4 concepts hierarchically
CRITERIA: Your work will be evaluated on:
- InQuizitive (10 pts): Completion credit for reaching 90% confidence (auto-graded)
- Visual Notes (5 pts): Hierarchical organization (3 pts), accuracy (1 pt), clarity (1 pt)
✓ CRITERIA section added with specific point allocation and standards
Example 2: Critical Issue #2 - ICAP Misclassification (Assignment 5.3)
Assignment Type: F2F Lab Week 1
ICAP Mode: Constructive
Task Description: "Work in small groups to analyze the case study. Discuss how race and ethnicity influence the scenario. Co-create a group analysis document."
❌ Problem: Collaborative co-creation = Interactive mode, not Constructive. Misclassification impacts ICAP analysis accuracy.
Assignment Type: F2F Lab Week 1
ICAP Mode: Interactive
Task Description: "Work in small groups to analyze the case study. Discuss how race and ethnicity influence the scenario. Co-create a group analysis document."
✓ Correction: Mode changed to Interactive. All 16 F2F labs (x.3 and x.7 across 8 modules) verified as Interactive. Point distribution recalculated correctly (440 Interactive points).
Example 3: Critical Issue #3 - Timing Violation (Assignment 7.6)
7.6 Mega-Map Prep Due: Thursday 11:59 PM
7.7 Lab Week 2 Meets: Thursday 12:00 PM (noon)
❌ Problem: Lab meets 12 hours before Mega-Map is due. Students arrive to lab without synthesis artifact. Lab activity (RQ evolution using Mega-Map) cannot proceed. Instructor has no time to review Mega-Maps before lab.
7.6 Mega-Map Prep Due: Thursday 10:00 AM
7.7 Lab Week 2 Meets: Thursday 12:00 PM (noon)
✓ Correction: Mega-Map now due 2 hours before lab. Students complete synthesis, instructor reviews submissions (10:00-11:30 AM), students bring Mega-Maps to lab for RQ evolution discussion. All 8 modules verified with this critical 2-hour window.
Section 4: Resolution Implementation Process
How Issues Were Corrected
| Issue Type | Assignments Affected | Resolution Action | Verification Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing CRITERIA Critical |
1 assignment (3.2) | Added complete CRITERIA section with point allocation breakdown and specific evaluation standards | Peer reviewer confirmed CRITERIA section presence and completeness |
| ICAP Misclassification Critical |
1 assignment (5.3) + verification of all 16 labs | Changed 5.3 from Constructive to Interactive. Verified all F2F labs (x.3 and x.7) correctly classified as Interactive | Peer reviewer verified ICAP modes against Chi & Wylie (2014) definitions. Recalculated point distribution. |
| Timing Violation Critical |
1 assignment (7.6) + verification across all 8 modules | Changed all x.6 due dates from 11:59 PM Wed to 10:00 AM Thu (2-hour window before x.7 lab) | Peer reviewer verified timing logic for all 8 modules. Confirmed 2-hour window preserved. |
| Vague Criteria Moderate |
2 assignments (1.2, 4.2) | Replaced subjective language ("well-organized") with operational definitions ("hierarchical structure with 2+ levels") | Peer reviewer confirmed criteria specificity using TILT transparency checklist |
| Ambiguous Dependencies Moderate |
1 assignment (2.5) + review of all x.5 and x.6 | Added explicit prerequisite statements: "This assignment requires your Visual Notes from X.2" | Peer reviewer traced dependency chains across all 8 modules |
| Bloom's Mismatch Moderate |
1 assignment (6.7) | Updated learning objective from "evaluate" to "create" to match actual task cognitive demand | Peer reviewer verified Bloom's verb alignment for all 64 assignments |
| Weak Scaffolding Moderate |
1 assignment (4.6) + review of all x.6 | Added explicit scaffolding prompt: "Use your Visual Notes from 4.2 and 4.5 to organize your synthesis map" | Peer reviewer confirmed CLT scaffolding guidance present in all synthesis assignments |
| Unclear ICAP Boundaries Moderate |
2 assignments (8.2, 8.5) | Clarified "reflection" task: "Identify relationships between concepts (Constructive mode)" | Peer reviewer verified ICAP mode clarity using Chi & Wylie operational definitions |
| Inconsistent Headers Minor |
Multiple assignments | Standardized all TILT headers: "PURPOSE" / "TASK" / "CRITERIA" (all caps, bold) | Peer reviewer confirmed formatting consistency across all 64 assignments |
| Missing DEL Label Minor |
1 assignment (3.7) | Added DEL phase badge: [LEARN PHASE] at top of assignment | Peer reviewer confirmed all assignments labeled with DEL phase |
| Suboptimal Example Placement Minor |
1 assignment (1.1) | Moved worked example to appear before task instructions (CLT best practice) | Peer reviewer verified worked example placement follows CLT guidance |
Section 5: Final Compliance Metrics (100%)
| Framework | Baseline Compliance | Issues Found | Final Compliance |
|---|---|---|---|
| TILT (Transparency) | 60 of 64 (94%) | 4 issues (1 missing section, 2 vague criteria, 1 header inconsistency) | 64 of 64 (100%) |
| ICAP (Engagement) | 62 of 64 (97%) | 3 issues (1 misclassification, 2 unclear boundaries) | 64 of 64 (100%) |
| DEL (Timing) | 56 of 64 (88%) | 9 issues (1 critical timing, 1 ambiguous dependency, 7 missing labels) | 64 of 64 (100%) |
| Bloom's (Objectives) | 63 of 64 (98%) | 1 issue (objective/task mismatch) | 64 of 64 (100%) |
| CLT (Load Management) | 62 of 64 (97%) | 2 issues (1 weak scaffolding, 1 suboptimal example) | 64 of 64 (100%) |
| OVERALL COMPLIANCE | 78% | 11 unique issues | 100% |
Key Takeaways for Reviewer
This validation process demonstrates:
- Rigorous quality assurance: Independent peer review identified 11 issues across 78% baseline compliance
- Critical issues caught: 3 serious problems (missing CRITERIA, ICAP misclassification, timing violation) corrected before deployment
- Systematic resolution: All 11 issues documented, corrected, and re-verified by peer reviewer
- 100% final compliance: All 64 assignments meet all framework requirements across TILT, ICAP, DEL, Bloom's, and CLT
- Transparent methodology: Validation process, issue categorization, and correction examples fully documented
- Evidence-based decisions: All corrections grounded in framework research (Chi & Wylie 2014, Winkelmes et al. 2016, Bloom's Taxonomy, CLT principles)
- Replicable process: Peer review methodology can be repeated for future course iterations
- Quality documentation: Complete audit trail from baseline → issues → corrections → verification
SOCI 2013 Hybrid Course | Evidence-Based Pedagogy Documentation Package
To see framework application in action, review Document #06 (Sample Assignment Annotated)