Support Role 3.5: Revising Author Feedback
During Year 2, external audiences use and review the textbook manuscript. We gather feedback on our textbooks from multiple sources:
- Peer reviewers review entire manuscripts.
- Pilot instructors provide chapter-level feedback about their experience teaching with the textbook.
- Students in pilot courses are requested to provide feedback via a form embedded in each chapter and through an end of term survey.
During the last month of Year 2, The Developmental Editor will review and analyze all the feedback and use it to create a {Course #} Revision Recommendations document that the Revising Author uses to finalize the manuscript. The Revising Author may be the original Lead Author, a member of the original author team, or a person who is new to the project. The Revising Author has three priorities:
- Use feedback gathered in Year 2 to bring the manuscript towards the curriculum’s goals as described in the {Course #} About This Book document.
- Ensure overall consistency and coherence of the manuscript as a whole, within and between chapters.
- Maintain alignment of textbook and chapter elements, including curriculum learning outcomes, chapter learning objectives, key terms, H5P, attribution statements, etc.
Versioning note: the author team continues to revise their copy of the manuscript during Year 2, while it is out for review. The Developmental Editor will need to read the current version of the textbook in order to evaluate the external reviewers’ feedback. Some feedback may no longer be relevant.
We recommend using thematic analysis because you will be analyzing a large amount of qualitative feedback from different stakeholders. This process breaks down into three steps:
- Review: Note key concepts, themes, or patterns that emerge from the feedback.
- Categorization: Group key concepts, themes, or patterns into categories based on their similarities or relationships to each other.
- Prioritization: Focus on the themes from the feedback that relate to the project’s criteria for success.
For a longer introduction to this methodology, including a video of a worked example, visit How to Do Thematic Analysis [Website].
The Developmental Editor meets with each Revising Author and the Project Manager to share the feedback during Year 3, Month 1. The Revising Author creates a plan to address revision priorities and complete revisions by the end of Month 5.
Using the {Course #} Revision Recommendations Template
The template is pre-populated with messages for author teams. Please feel welcome to make it your own.
Revision rubric
You’ll use the same rubric as you did for the half-manuscript review, with the addition of a color-coded system to describe the level of priority. You are welcome to edit or annotate the color-coded scale, but please make sure that the text (“green light,” etc.) stays with the highlighted color so that the scale will be meaningful in grayscale or with a screen reader.
- Green light: reviewer feedback is positive.
- Yellow light: feedback about this change was recurring or offered by more than one stakeholder group.
- Red light: Reviewer consensus that this area needs to be addressed.
| Characteristics for Review | Green light: Optional change | Yellow light: Recommended change | Red light: Required change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learner Focus | This manuscript knows its audience and speaks directly and clearly to them at an appropriate level. The chapter has all required parts and the elements are aligned to support student learning. | This manuscript shows progress towards a learner focus and will benefit from work on readability and reducing word count. With more time invested the chapter elements will align to support the learning outcomes. | This manuscript needs to be refocused on the student audience. Chapter elements are missing or lack clarity on connection to learning outcomes. The drafting process is incomplete and outline elements are showing up in the chapter. |
| Representation of Diverse Voices | This manuscript demonstrates an exemplary focus on lifting up diversity, equity, and inclusion through examples, spotlights, and citations. | This manuscript discusses the elements of diversity, equity, and inclusion and will benefit from additional research or inviting new contributors to represent minoritized identities. | This manuscript does not currently meet the diversity, equity, and inclusion goals of this project. |
| Accessibility | This manuscript does an excellent job of anticipating the needs of all learners, including students with disabilities. | This manuscript follows some accessibility practices and will benefit from a review to make sure that all learners can use the whole text. | This manuscript will not be accessible to all learners as written. |
| Oregon Context | This manuscript will be relevant and engaging to current, diverse Oregon students. | This manuscript has started to develop its Oregon context and can do more to connect with current, diverse Oregon students. | This manuscript is missing an Oregon context. |
Readability at a glance:
- Word count: In Google Docs, go to Tools and select the “Word count” tool from the drop-down menu.
- Calculate average reading time by dividing the total word count by 138. Add in the total minutes of required multimedia elements in the chapter.
- Run a readability analysis Readability Scoring System [Website]. This is a clunky tool that can only handle 3,000 words at a time, so if the chapter is longer, you’ll have to divide it into multiple sections and run each section separately to obtain a readability score. The consensus score will be the average of all sections. If there are substantial differences in readability +/-3 points, or sections that exceed grade 12, please note this under the Comments section.
Feedback summary
Use this section of the document to summarize how you evaluate the overall manuscript for each category of the rubric. Under your narrative, offer your high-level recommendations of how the Revising Author can complete up to three passes through the manuscript in order to prepare the textbook for launch.
Here is an example of how a Revising Author might approach revision:
- The first pass will focus on the urgent “red light” issues identified in the rubric.
- The second pass will address additional issues that are important to the success of the project, depending on your assessment and the reviewer feedback.
- The third pass will ensure overall coherence within and between chapters (if this was not already addressed in an earlier pass), for example engaging chapter openers and conclusions, transitions between sections, and a consistent authorial voice.
Revision recommendations table
Use the “Revision Recommendations Table” to offer specific suggestions for the Revising Author to focus on during each pass through the manuscript. You can use the comments feature of Google Docs to highlight examples that correspond to your recommendations. This can be something the chapter as written is doing well that you’d like to see more of; or something that the Revising Author needs to work on in order for the book to be done.
Remember, the Revising Author works with the Project Manager to develop an action plan for revision based on your recommendations. You do not need to make a plan for them. Instead, your feedback will focus the Revising Author’s revision efforts on getting the manuscript ready to launch.
Most importantly, your feedback will offer encouragement to the Revising Author to prepare the manuscript for launch.
Licenses and Attributions for Revising Author Feedback
Open content, original
“Revising Author Feedback” by Open Oregon Educational Resources is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Open content, shared previously
“Developmental Review Process” by Stephanie Lenox for Chemeketa Press is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
