The videos are uploaded, the readings are linked, and the modules finally open in the right order. Moving a course online can involve so much practical work that finishing the setup feels like the whole accomplishment. When review time comes, though, “converted the course to online delivery” leaves the important decisions out of view.
The book's example describes more than transferring files. It includes revisiting learning goals, redesigning activities, planning assessment and communication, checking access, and gathering feedback. Those decisions give you a clearer way to explain the work in a review file.
Begin with what students still needed to learn.
Identify the course goals that guided the transition. Which activities depended on a classroom conversation or immediate guidance? Which assessments needed adjustment for the new setting? Explain the problem before naming the technology you used.
In a hypothetical curriculum course, students might still need to defend the reasoning behind a unit plan. Replacing a live presentation with an uploaded slide deck may not create the same opportunity. The design question is how students will demonstrate and discuss that reasoning online, not simply where to store the slides.
Make interaction and feedback visible.
Describe how students would work with the material, with you, and with one another. A discussion board isn't automatically meaningful interaction. Explain the task, what students were asked to contribute, and how the exchange supported the learning goal.
The same applies to feedback. Where would students receive it, when could they use it, and what would they do next? A communication plan can also explain how students knew where to ask questions and what response expectations applied.
Give collaborators credit. If an instructional designer helped rethink the sequence or another colleague reviewed the materials, show the shared work and your own contribution accurately.
Document access and usability as design work.
Explain the steps you took to make materials and course navigation usable, following institutional accessibility requirements and support processes. Include appropriate records of review or testing when relevant. Don't claim universal accessibility merely because the materials are digital.
A pilot or course review may reveal that instructions are hard to find or that an activity requires clarification. Recording what you changed in response can show a thoughtful development process. It doesn't establish every outcome, but it helps explain the quality of the preparation.
Separate the redesigned course from evidence of its effects.
Before teaching the course, you can document completed materials, design choices, and approved reviews. After teaching it, you may have additional evidence about student work and experience. Be clear about which stage your review period covers.
Student feedback can identify frustrations or useful features. Appropriate assessment evidence can help examine learning. Neither should be stretched into a claim that the redesign succeeded in every respect. Describe what you know and what still needs checking.
Start a short comparison with four parts: the original learning task, the difficulty in the new format, your design response, and the evidence you'll use to assess it. Choose one consequential example rather than listing every feature in the course site. You'll make the instructional thinking visible, which is far more useful than asking a reviewer to infer it from a collection of screenshots.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 16, pp. 282–283.
