| Course | NUR 672 Design and Delivery of Mediated Instruction |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Peer review of a draft online course against national online course design standards |
| Length | About 613 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | MS in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 672 Module 5
Standard by Standard: A Peer Review of a Draft Online Course on Feedback for New Preceptors Against National Online Course Design Standards
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
NUR 672: Design and Delivery of Mediated Instruction
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Standard by Standard: A Peer Review of a Draft Online Course on Feedback for New Preceptors Against National Online Course Design Standards
Course Reviewed and Approach
I reviewed a classmate's draft course, Giving Feedback That Helps: An Online Course for New Preceptors, built in Canvas Free-For-Teacher with two modules on feedback models and difficult conversations. I used the eight general standards of the Quality Matters higher education rubric, a widely used set of national standards for online course design (Quality Matters, 2023). For each standard I note what the draft does well and what would strengthen it. I reviewed the course as a learner first, using a phone and then a laptop, and then went back through it as a reviewer.
Standard 1: Course Overview and Introduction
Meets: a clear start-here page with a welcome video and a course map. Strengthen: the page does not state the technology needed or how long the course takes. Adding "about three hours; works on phone or computer" would help busy preceptors decide when to start.
Standard 2: Learning Objectives
Meets: each module lists its objectives at the top, written in measurable terms. Strengthen: one objective, "Understand the importance of feedback," uses a verb that cannot be measured. "Explain how timely feedback affects new graduate confidence" would align with the module's quiz.
Standard 3: Assessment and Measurement
Meets: the summative recorded role-play matches the course outcome on giving specific feedback, and its rubric is posted in advance. Strengthen: Module 1 has no formative check before the role-play. A short self-check, such as rating three sample comments, would let learners practice first.
Standard 4: Instructional Materials
Meets: materials are current and cited, including a widely used review of feedback research (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Strengthen: two articles are linked as PDFs without a note on why they matter; one sentence before each link would show learners how it connects to the objective.
Standard 5: Learning Activities and Learner Interaction
Meets: a discussion on a difficult conversation case asks learners to post and reply. Strengthen: the instructions do not say how many replies are expected or by when. Adding numbers and dates would set clear expectations.
Standard 6: Course Technology
Meets: tools are limited to Canvas pages, a quiz and the recording tool, which keeps the course simple. Strengthen: the recording tool needs a short how-to, since many preceptors will not have used it.
Standard 7: Learner Support
Meets: contact information for the educator is on the start page. Strengthen: there is no link to technical help or to the health system's education office. Adding both would help learners who get stuck outside office hours.
Standard 8: Accessibility and Usability
Meets: pages use headings and short paragraphs, which read well on a phone. Strengthen: the welcome video has automatic captions with several errors, and two images lack alternative text. Corrected captions and alt text, both basic requirements of the web accessibility guidelines (World Wide Web Consortium, 2023), would make the course usable for every learner.
Priorities for the Final Course
If time is limited before the final submission, I would make three changes first. First, rewrite the "understand" objective, because objectives anchor everything else under Standard 2. Second, correct the captions and add alternative text, because accessibility affects whether some learners can use the course at all. Third, add the Module 1 formative self-check, which gives learners practice before the graded role-play.
Closing Note to My Peer
Your course is well organized and focused on a real need. The role-play assessment is the strongest part, because it asks preceptors to do exactly what the course teaches. The changes above are small, and most could be made in an afternoon.
References
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Quality Matters. (2023). Specific review standards from the QM higher education rubric (7th ed.). https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
What the NUR 672 Module 5 instructions ask for
The posted syllabus calls the Draft/Review Online Course a discussion-style activity worth 10 points: a peer is selected for review, each student shares a draft course and each completes a review using national standards for online course design. It comes before the final online course submission, worth 20 points, in which students revise their course using feedback from peers and faculty. Review the draft as a learner first and then as a reviewer, working through the standards in order. For each standard, say what the draft already meets and give a specific change. Because your peer will use the review to revise, end with priorities, so the most important changes are made first. Your own draft must be shared on time so a peer can review it.
How this NUR 672 Module 5 example is built
One paragraph introduces the course reviewed, the standards used and the review method, which included checking the course on a phone. Eight short sections follow, one per general standard of the Quality Matters rubric, each in the same pattern: what the draft meets, then what would strengthen it, with a concrete example. A priorities section ranks three changes and explains the reason for each order. A brief closing note to the peer names the course's strongest element. Sources are few on purpose: the national standards document, the web accessibility guidelines and the feedback review the peer's course already cites, since the review applies standards rather than arguing from the literature. The consistent pattern lets the peer act on each standard without guessing.
NUR 672 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
The peer review carries 10 points and is likely graded on whether it applies national standards accurately and completely, gives specific and actionable feedback and is respectful and useful to the peer. Reviews earn most when every comment points to a particular page or element and suggests a change, rather than general approval. Covering all of the standards, including accessibility and learner support, which reviewers often skip, shows thoroughness. Prioritizing changes helps the peer and shows judgment about what matters most. Sharing your own draft on time is part of the activity. A balanced tone, noting strengths as well as gaps, makes the review more likely to be used in the final course.
NUR 672 Module 5 help with common mistakes
The usual weakness is a review that praises the course and adds a few general suggestions. Go standard by standard and point to specific elements. Another is skipping accessibility; check captions, alternative text and headings on every page. Avoid rewriting the peer's course for them; suggest the change and why. Test the course on a phone, since many learners will use one. If you send the desk the standards your course uses and a description of your peer's draft, a structured review can be drafted with you. Check whether your section uses the full Quality Matters rubric or a shorter checklist, and use the version your faculty assigns.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 672 and MS in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 672 Module 1: Learning Plan Part 1: The Analyze Phase of ADDIE
- NUR 672 Module 2: Learning Plan Part 2: Outcomes, Objectives and Evaluation
- NUR 672 Module 3: Learning Plan Part 3: Learning Activities and Assessments
- NUR 672 Module 4: Escape Room: EdTech Tools and Presence in Online Learning
- NUR 501 Module 7: Innovation in Practice Paper
- NUR 544 Module 3: Grand Theorist Presentation on Johnson's Behavioral System Model
- NUR 553 Module 7: Integration and Application of Concepts Worksheet
- NUR 673 Module 6: Case Study: Course Evaluation
NUR 672 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 672 Module 5 sample paper?
A complete NUR 672 Draft/Review Online Course sample, reviewing a peer's course against the eight Quality Matters general standards with prioritized changes, is on this page.
What does the NUR 672 Draft/Review activity involve?
Each student shares a draft online course, and a selected peer reviews it using national standards for online course design.
What are the Quality Matters general standards?
Course overview, learning objectives, assessment, instructional materials, learning activities and interaction, technology, learner support and accessibility and usability.
How many points is the NUR 672 final online course worth?
The posted syllabus lists the final online course submission at 20 points, after the 10-point draft and peer review.
How do I give useful peer review on an online course?
Point to specific pages or elements, explain the standard involved and suggest a concrete change, then rank the most important changes.