Hi Dr. Portugal:

I enjoyed your paper.  

On page 18, you discuss differentiated instruction.  In the online environment, I see this as being a crucial factor to instructor success.  When instructors use scripted responses, it can become clear that the instructor is, possibly, off target with his/her responses. When the instructor expands on the scripted response to personalize the response to the student, it clearly shows engagement, and by engaging the student, the instructor is expanding the thought-process of the student.  Nicely done.

On page 19, you discuss real-world experiences.  I find this a very important trait that all instructors should bring to the classroom.  If the instructor is not incorporating real-world scenarios into the writings, I do not see the student embracing the environment and growing.  I would expand on this section more to provide an example, so that the instructor has a full understanding of what is needed for student success.

On page 24, you discuss CATs.  I find CATs to be more informative when a real-world example is provided and a peer-reviewed article from the GCU Library.  I use this in my classrooms and it really kicks off the DQ week with excitement and engagement.  I take the DQ and incorporate a validated business example.  It helps the students think deeper and also helps them learn how to properly use the GCU Library.   My students become engaged and it takes the DQ to the next level.  I would expand on this section and include examples and a peer-reviewed article.

The student comment section is substantially long, counting at 20 pages. I would limit it to no more than two pages, as after the first three student praises, the reader understands the growth of your students and how you helped them become successful.   

Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this process.

JoAnn Prevetti, MBA (DBA in Process)

Hi Dr. Portugal,

First, I would like to thank you for sharing from your years of experience and expertise in this important article. Your article brought to light areas with which faculty are confronted on a continuing basis - university “add ons” and the difference in needs of first year students as contrasted with students closer to graduation and those in masters and doctoral programs.

The following comments are offered as suggestions that may be beneficial in revision, publication, and the implementation of the focuses of your writing by faculty and universities.

• On page 6, you mention student “persistence;” student “success,” both in the collegiate environment seems more appropriate for faculty and university focus. (I have no doubt this is what you had in mind. My suggestion is for a change in terminology.)
• It would be beneficial to delineate the specific “add ons” you have in mind with more detail.
• As you noted, best practices related to first year students differ from those of upper level and graduate students. I have encountered students who seem to want to come across more knowledgeable and articulate than their current abilities afford. These students may “cut and paste” the thoughts and words of another in the DQ Forum. Your writing would be enhanced if this danger were addressed and specific suggestions for instructors and universities included - I.e., “How can instructors detect and address these issues in larger classes, or when facilitating multiple classes simultaneously, when proper citation in the DQ Forum is not specifically required?” 
• The importance of course design with emerging relevance (p. 17) is a valid concern. Some further elaboration would be helpful.
• Finally, the writing contains a great deal of redundancy. An initial mention of “add ons” followed by explanation and elaboration (see #2 above) with a concluding statement would eliminate some of this redundancy. Your expertise comes through without reiteration. The pages dedicated to communications and evaluations you have received from students should be shortened to include only a token number that address the specifics highlighted in you article - something in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 communications (edited for length) would enhance the writing (JoAnn Previtti offered a similar suggestion). 

These suggestions are offered as a way to enhance you writing for faculty and university consumption.

Blessings,

Ron Steadman