# Accjc De Review > Use whenever the user is conducting peer review of a distance education course section against ACCJC's Policy on Distance Education and Correspondence Education, the Quality Continuum Rubric for Distance Education, or the federal definition of substantive and regular interaction. Trigger when reviewing a Canvas (or comparable LMS) course for ACCJC compliance, filling in the ACCJC Review Workbook (course sheets and notes sheets), writing rubric-level justifications, or when phrases like "review this course for ACCJC," "substantive interaction," "regular interaction," "rubric level," "Course XX" referring to the workbook, or "distance education peer review" appear with an LMS or workbook context. Do not use for general instructional design feedback unrelated to ACCJC compliance. - Skill: `macfarlanem-cloud/accjc-de-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add macfarlanem-cloud/accjc-de-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/macfarlanem-cloud/accjc-de-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: macfarlanem-cloud (https://skillmd.com/u/macfarlanem-cloud) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/macfarlanem-cloud/accjc-de-review --- # ACCJC Distance Education Peer Review ## Orienting commitment Peer review of distance education is collegial, not punitive. The ACCJC Quality Continuum Rubric is explicitly not an instrument for evaluating individual faculty or grading sections. It exists to support institutional alignment with the federal definition of substantive and regular interaction, and to give the institution constructive, growth-oriented feedback for its peer review report. Treat every review as feedback to a colleague who is teaching in a difficult modality. Notice strengths. Name growth opportunities. Document evidence rather than impressions. Asset-based language throughout. ## Two contexts, one framework This skill runs in two places that work together: 1. **Reading Canvas (Claude in Chrome).** Surveying the course shell, identifying instructor activity, and producing a structured evidence summary the reviewer will relay to the workbook. 2. **Writing the workbook (Claude for Excel).** Translating that evidence summary into the correct cells across the course sheet and the notes sheet, applying the level definitions and the justification pattern below. The framework is the same in both. The cell map below applies only in the workbook context. ## Workflow sequence Follow this order for every course, unless the reviewer directs otherwise. 1. **Anchor the course.** Confirm department, course name, CRN, instructor of record, and modality (asynchronous or synchronous). For asynchronous courses, note that Substantive Criterion A (Direct Instruction) does not apply and should remain unmarked. 2. **Survey the evidence systematically.** Walk the course in this order: syllabus and start-here module (interaction expectations), announcements (frequency, substance, dates), modules and instructor-created content (videos, audio, interactive lessons), discussions (instructor posts, replies, facilitation moves), graded assignments and gradebook (feedback type and depth), inbox or messaging (responsiveness), analytics or message-students-who use (monitoring), and any synchronous session recordings. 3. **Determine binary verification per criterion.** For each of the four substantive criteria and the two regular criteria, decide whether the criterion is verified at all, meaning supported by any actual evidence regardless of quality level. The course meets ACCJC policy if at least two substantive methods are verified and both regular criteria are verified. 4. **Determine quality level per criterion.** For each of the six criteria, place the evidence on the four-level continuum. Use the level definitions below. Pick the level whose description most closely matches the actual evidence. When evidence sits between two levels, pick the lower of the two and name the growth direction in the justification. 5. **Produce the evidence summary or write the workbook.** In Chrome context, produce the structured evidence summary in the format below. In Excel context, write the X marks, levels, optional brief notes, and justifications into the cells specified in the cell map. 6. **Update review status.** In Excel context, set Review Status to Complete and stamp Last Updated with today's date. ## Substantive Interaction criteria reference A course meets the substantive interaction policy element if at least two of the four following methods are verified. **A. Direct Instruction (synchronous courses only).** Live engagement where the instructor delivers or facilitates instruction in real time. Look for: scheduled live sessions, recordings of live lectures, real-time discussion facilitation, synchronous office hours used for instruction. For asynchronous courses, this criterion does not apply and is left unmarked. **B. Assessment and Feedback.** Instructor feedback on student coursework that goes beyond automated grading. Look for: written comments on assignments, rubric-based feedback, audio or video feedback, examples of revision guidance, comments that name what is working and what is not. **C. Information and Responses to Questions about Course Content.** Instructor-provided substantive course content and responsiveness on content. Look for: instructor-created videos, audio, or interactive lessons; substantive announcements about content (not just reminders); instructor replies to content questions in discussions, inbox, or Q&A boards. **D. Facilitating Group Discussions on Course Content.** Instructor presence and facilitation in discussions that move the conversation forward. Look for: instructor posts that pose questions, propose alternative viewpoints, connect ideas, or summarize threads. Grading discussion participation alone is not facilitation. ## Regular Interaction criteria reference A course meets the regular interaction policy element only if both of the following are verified. **A. Predictable and Regular Engagement.** Opportunities for substantive interaction occur on a predictable schedule appropriate to the course length and content. Look for: stated interaction expectations in the syllabus or start-here module (response times, office hours, posting cadence), evidence of consistent posting cadence over the term, predictable response windows. **B. Monitoring Student Engagement and Success.** The instructor monitors academic engagement and proactively reaches out, or responds promptly when a student reaches out. Look for: outreach messages to students who have not submitted or logged in, use of Canvas analytics or message-students-who tools, evidence of timely response to student questions. ## Quality level definitions These descriptions translate the four-level continuum into operational decisions. **Initial.** Minimum evidence is present. Policies, syllabus statements, or a small number of postings establish that the criterion exists, but engagement is sparse or limited to compliance baseline. The criterion is verifiable but not yet a sustained feature of the course. **Emerging.** Periodic evidence across the term. The instructor engages with the criterion at multiple points, with some quality and some warmth, but the engagement is occasional rather than consistent, or it is uneven across the term. **Developed.** Consistent, meaningful engagement across the term. The criterion is a sustained feature of the course. Feedback is substantive, posts are timely, monitoring is active, and engagement is recognizably attentive to learners. **Highly Developed.** Frequent, multi-modal, learner-centered engagement that integrates culturally responsive practice and yields evidence of successful outcomes. The instructor uses varied media, anticipates learner needs, and treats interaction as a relational practice rather than a procedural one. Aspirational placement is a disservice to the institution and to the instructor. When evidence is thin, choose the lower level and name the growth direction. ## Workbook cell map The ACCJC Review Workbook uses identical coordinates across every course sheet (Course 01 to Course 50, Test 01 to Test 03) and every corresponding notes sheet. Use these cells exactly when writing in the Excel context. **On the course sheet:** - B4 Department, B5 Course Name, B6 CRN, B7 Instructor - B8 Type of DE (dropdown: Asynchronous or Synchronous) - B9 Review Status (dropdown: Not Started, In Progress, Complete) - B10 Last Updated (date) - C14 Substantive A verified (X if yes), C15 Substantive B verified, C16 Substantive C verified, C17 Substantive D verified - C21 Regular A verified, C22 Regular B verified - B26 Substantive A level (dropdown), B27 Substantive B, B28 Substantive C, B29 Substantive D - B30 Regular A level, B31 Regular B level - C26 to C31 brief one-line notes per criterion (optional) - B33 ACCJC Outcome (auto-calculated, do not write) **On the notes sheet (justification text goes in the merged cell whose top-left coordinate is listed):** - A14 Substantive A justification - A23 Substantive B justification - A32 Substantive C justification - A41 Substantive D justification - A50 Regular A justification - A59 Regular B justification - A66 Overall Summary Department, Course Name, CRN, Instructor, Type of DE, ACCJC Outcome, and each rubric level are pulled into the notes sheet automatically by formula. Do not write those values on the notes sheet. Only write justifications and the overall summary. ## Evidence summary format (Chrome to Excel handoff) When producing an evidence summary from Canvas to be relayed into the workbook, use this structure so it maps cleanly to cells: ``` Course identification: Department: [text] Course Name: [text] CRN: [text] Instructor: [text] Type of DE: [Asynchronous | Synchronous] Substantive A. Direct Instruction: Verified: [Yes | No | N/A for async] Level: [Initial | Emerging | Developed | Highly Developed | N/A] Evidence: [specific artifacts observed] Substantive B. Assessment and Feedback: Verified: [Yes | No] Level: [level] Evidence: [specific artifacts] Substantive C. Information and Responses: Verified: [Yes | No] Level: [level] Evidence: [specific artifacts] Substantive D. Group Discussions: Verified: [Yes | No] Level: [level] Evidence: [specific artifacts] Regular A. Predictable Engagement: Verified: [Yes | No] Level: [level] Evidence: [specific artifacts] Regular B. Monitors Success: Verified: [Yes | No] Level: [level] Evidence: [specific artifacts] Strengths to surface in overall summary: [two or three concrete observations] Growth opportunities to surface: [one or two next-step framings] ``` This block can be pasted directly into the Excel context, and the workbook writer will translate it into the correct cells. ## Justification writing pattern Every per-criterion justification has three moves, in this order, in two to four sentences total. 1. **Name the level and what it reflects.** State the level chosen and what that level means in this course's context. 2. **Cite specific evidence.** Reference concrete artifacts: announcement counts and dates where useful, type of feedback observed, examples of discussion facilitation, the syllabus statement of interaction expectations. Quote sparingly and only when phrasing matters. 3. **Explain the placement.** Briefly say why the evidence places the criterion at this level rather than the next one up or down. If relevant, name the growth direction. The overall summary is one short paragraph. Lead with two or three concrete strengths. Close with one or two growth opportunities framed as next steps the institution and instructor could pursue together. Asset-based language throughout. Do not rank instructors. Do not speculate about intent. ## Output conventions - In Chrome context, produce the evidence summary in the structured block above. Do not write prose justifications yet; those happen in Excel context where the level and the cell are paired. - In Excel context, write justifications directly into the merged cells listed in the cell map. Use the three-move pattern. - Keep brief notes in C26 to C31 to one line, optional. Use them only when a single phrase clarifies the level choice (for example, "Weekly substantive announcements with content links"). - When updating Last Updated (B10), use a date format consistent with what is already in the workbook. ## What not to do - Do not evaluate the instructor as a person. The unit of review is the course section's alignment with policy, and the rubric output is institutional feedback. - Do not mark a criterion verified without evidence. Empty discussion boards, automated grade-only feedback, and a syllabus statement alone are insufficient on their own. - Do not assign Highly Developed without evidence of frequency, multi-modal engagement, and outcomes. Highly Developed is a high bar and should not be the default ceiling. - Do not write justifications that paraphrase the rubric language back. The justification must be specific to this course. - Do not assess Substantive A (Direct Instruction) for asynchronous courses. Leave the verification cell empty and leave the level cell empty. - Do not write to B33 (the auto-calculated outcome) or to any pulled-through cell on the notes sheet (B4 through B9 and the level cells). - Do not invent course details. If a field is unclear in Canvas or in conversation, ask before writing. - Do not use em dashes anywhere. Use commas, periods, semicolons, colons, or parentheses instead. ## Self-check before completing Before marking Review Status as Complete, confirm: - Is every verified criterion supported by specific, named evidence in the course? - Does the level chosen match the level definition, not the level the course aspires to? - Is each justification specific to this course, not paraphrased rubric language? - Does the overall summary lead with strengths and close with growth opportunities framed as next steps? - For asynchronous courses, is Substantive A unmarked at both verification (C14) and level (B26)? - Are pulled-through cells on the notes sheet untouched? - Are em dashes absent throughout?