The Tortoise and the Hare: Using Quick but Iterative Instructional Improvements to Build a Better Class Over Time

You may have heard Aesop’s fable of The Tortoise and the Hare. The two are pitted against each other in a race. The Hare is confident in his speed making him the clear winner, against the Tortoise’s slow and languid gate. The speedy Hare stops for a nap, and the Tortoise passes him and wins the race. The moral of the tale adds up to “slow and steady wins the race”. But what if we could learn from both the Tortoise and the Hare in our course revision and instructional design practices and win the race together?

Tortoise: Managing Workload Over Time

As instructors, we may be very much aware of the things we love about our courses or those that we wish we could change. Sometimes the small suggestions of an extra assignment, more active learning, updated readings, recording new lectures, updating an outdated learning technology can be…overwhelming. The Tortoise is the prime example of how to approach this process. Slow and steady. We are in our teaching for the long haul. We don’t need to expel all our energy at once to be successful.

Hare: Rapid Iterative Improvement

The Hare seems to be the loser in the fable. But the Hare is not without its merits when it comes to course revision. Sometimes if we drag out the process of design and improvement too long (à la Tortoise), we forget to set manageable goals for ourselves with real actions and timelines to see them through. The Hare is ready for the challenge. In line with our iterative design and revision process, we pick one or two things to set as high priority for improvement between runs of a course. We set a plan to race! (and give our instructional design team a tap to assist and review).

This does not mean a long-form evaluation of a course that considers the design and micro-level content, as well as overall placement of a course in an academic program, is obsolete. Instead having a rapid iterative process gives a space to make incremental changes between larger and more taxing review processes.

SoLS Rapid Review Process

In December 2020, The School of Life Sciences Beta-tested a Rapid Review process for “ Accelerated Course Design Assistance”. The goal was to provide a manageable amount of quick high-priority improvements for a course between semesters, and a few longer-term improvements to be made over the next few runs. Faculty offering their course up for a Rapid Review committed to three meetings over three to four weeks: One 60-minute meeting with two instructional designers (one lead and one extensive note taker so not a moment of an idea is missed), a 30-minute meeting with one of the instructional designers (a check-in and troubleshooting), and a final 15-minute meeting (just one last check!) before course launch.

Faculty could identify an area of focus in addition to the 12 criteria selected by the Teaching Innovation Center that would be evaluated against the review. This could include things like “increasing student engagement in class” or “better group work outcomes”. The series of three meetings with reducing time tables were designed to create accountability during the sprint for the instructor and the designer. Work needed to be completed outside of the meeting by both parties in order for the process to be successful.

Before the 60 minute meeting, the lead instructional designer walked through the course making notes against 12 criteria centered around selected design standards, content standards, and evidence-based teaching standards. The designer filled out a rubric and identified high, medium, and low priority adjustments to discuss with the faculty member. These adjustments were meant to be a springboard for discussion and not a prescription. The discussion itself then confirmed needs and outlined reasonable goals for the revision timeline.

You can view a more in-depth description of the Rapid Review Process here:

The Teaching Innovation Center, anonymously surveyed faculty for feedback on their Rapid Review experience. Faculty noted the experience helped them think about the concerns they had about improving the course, but also added the additional value of new ideas and adjustments to think about. They also expressed that having a dedicated notetaker helped them focus on the discussion part of the meeting instead of trying not to forget important details by taking notes themselves.

One faculty member received an email on the first day of school that a student had already reached out to them. The student said they felt “very seen” even in a fully online class and that they felt it was such a nice touch that the professor was able to achieve this, and the student was looking forward to office hours. The faculty member’s goal had been to help students feel more engaged in the course and willing to participate in office hours to improve their experience.

Future Opportunities

The Teaching Innovation Center plans to continue and to improve our Rapid Review Process. Future versions will allow for faculty to bring the same courses back to our Instructional Design teams, to check on the implemented ideas and help plan action on the medium and low priority items (or even newly surfaced ideas). We want to design a meaningful learning experience for you and your learners.

If you are faculty within the School of Life Sciences, please reach out to TIC@asu.edu, to register for our next cycle of Rapid Reviews.

Post Author:

Lenora Ott is an instructional designer in the School of Life Sciences Teaching Innovation Center at Arizona State University. Lenora assists faculty with developing and launching their online courses and provides long term evaluation, redesign, and support for online coursework. Her passion is empowering faculty to create meaningful learning experiences for their students and themselves online. She has worked in higher education for 7 years and has a Master of Science in Global Technology and Development from Arizona State University and a Graduate Certificate in Educational Technology from Northern Arizona University.