The course is ready, and the finished syllabus looks almost deceptively simple. A few pages can't show the meetings, the abandoned ideas, the assessment you rebuilt, or the hours spent getting the course site into shape. When your review comes around, “developed a new course” feels both true and incomplete.
You don't need to document every hour to explain that work. You need to show the need, the design decisions, the materials produced, and the stage the course reached. The book's course-development example offers a useful sequence: initial planning, detailed design, and development of the actual course materials.
Start with the need the course was meant to address.
Was a program missing a necessary learning experience? Did a revised curriculum require a new sequence? Did students need more practice connecting methods with real problems? Explain the documented reason for developing the course, using the context relevant to your appointment and review.
Don't inflate the need to make the project sound bigger. A clearly identified gap is enough. If the course responds to a program requirement, identify that requirement accurately rather than suggesting that the new course alone proves the program meets every standard.
Show the decisions behind the design.
Describe the learning goals and how the assessments were intended to reveal students' progress toward them. Then explain a few choices that mattered. Why did you use a proposal, a case analysis, or a sequence of smaller tasks? How did those choices fit the students and the course's place in the program?
For a hypothetical research methods course, a proposal assignment might let students connect a question, method, and analysis plan. The useful review narrative explains that connection. It doesn't just list the assignment alongside the readings and software.
If you worked with an instructional designer or other colleagues, credit their contribution and clarify your own role. Shared design can be substantial work without being described as a solo accomplishment.
Distinguish planning from completed materials.
A blueprint establishes what you intend to build. A completed module shows what you built. A taught course creates opportunities to learn how the design worked in practice. These are related stages, but they aren't the same evidence.
State which stage you reached during the review period. You may have completed the design while the first offering is still ahead. That's a legitimate contribution to describe. Don't write about student outcomes as if they already happened.
Select supporting materials that fit the claim and the institution's requirements. A syllabus, assessment prompt, module outline, or development approval may be more useful than a large collection of screenshots with no explanation.
Leave room for what you'll learn from teaching it.
A carefully designed course still needs examination after students encounter it. Plan how you'll assess a relevant learning goal and gather appropriate feedback. A polished course site doesn't establish that students can use the ideas, just as a positive reaction doesn't answer every learning question.
Keep a short development log with four headings: need, decisions, completed materials, and next check. Update it at major stages rather than trying to reconstruct the entire process at review time.
Start by writing one paragraph about the most consequential design decision you made. Explain the problem it addressed, what you built, and what evidence will help you judge it after the course runs. That gives readers a clearer picture of the intellectual work behind the finished syllabus.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 15, pp. 249–250.
