Proposal: Learning Materials Review Feature

[olha-turutova]

Abstract

This proposal outlines the development of a Learning Materials Review feature in Open edX Studio. The aim is to introduce a structured, collaborative review process for course authors, instructional designers, subject matter experts (SMEs), and institutional stakeholders. The feature would allow draft course content to be shared, annotated, and iteratively improved within the Open edX authoring environment, thereby eliminating reliance on external tools like Google Docs or Word documents and significantly improving feedback quality, version control, and content development efficiency.

Detailed Product Proposal

https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/x/KwBFMgE

Context & Background

Despite Open edX Studio’s robust content creation capabilities, many educators and instructional designers avoid building course materials directly in the LMS during early-stage development. Instead, they rely on external storyboards, text-based drafts, or slides to iterate with stakeholders. This results in several pain points:

• Fragmented collaboration: Feedback is scattered across platforms (email, PDFs, Word) and difficult to track.
• Redundant work: Final content must be re-entered into Studio after the storyboard is approved.
• Poor visibility for reviewers: Stakeholders without Studio experience often can’t visualize how the written content will appear on the platform. This creates confusion, miscommunication, and misaligned expectations.
• Limited Studio adoption: The authoring tool is used as a final input step rather than a collaborative design space.

These issues are especially acute in environments where:

• Multiple reviewers must sign off on course content
• Institutional approval is required before launch
• Courses are localized into multiple languages
• Projects involve distributed or cross-functional teams

Scope & Approach

We propose introducing a Review Mode in Open edX Studio, enabling realistic course previews and collaborative feedback workflows. This would:

• Allow stakeholders to experience the course as learners would, without needing Studio access or training.
• Eliminate guesswork caused by abstract storyboards or text-only documents.
• Provide context-aware commenting, making it easier to give actionable feedback.

The approach includes the following components:

• Review Mode toggle
  Course authors can activate "Review Mode" on draft units or subsections. This generates a Review Link that provides a read-only view of the course content.
• Inline commenting
  Reviewers can click on specific content blocks (text, video, quiz, etc.) and leave comments. Comments appear in context, much like Google Docs or Figma’s comment layers.
• Comment panel
  All comments are listed in a sidebar or overlay, grouped by block. Threads allow back-and-forth discussion. Comments can be marked as “resolved.”
• Roles and permissions
  Only reviewers with appropriate permissions (assigned via email or user role) can view or leave comments. Admins can set whether links are public or private.
• Notifications and version history
  Optional email or in-app notifications alert authors to new comments. Comments are saved with time stamps and optionally associated with a unit version for historical traceability.

The use cases of the Review Mode:

• Instructional Designer + SME collaboration
  An ID builds a draft unit in Studio and shares it with an SME for review. The SME highlights unclear terminology, suggests rephrasing, or flags inaccuracies, all directly within the course view.
• Stakeholder sign-off
  A high-level stakeholder needs to approve a course before it is published. Instead of exporting or emailing documents, the stakeholder receives a link to the module, reviews it in context, and leaves feedback.
• Localization and translation review
  A course is translated into multiple languages. Translators can leave in-line comments where content needs clarification, cultural adaptation, or formatting adjustments.
• QA and accessibility checks
  A QA specialist reviews a near-final draft and flags blocks with accessibility or usability issues directly in the LMS, enabling the content team to resolve them quickly.
• Course iteration post-launch
  A course has already been published. A course team plans improvements for the next cohort. They mark sections for revision based on user feedback or analytics.
• Visualizing course layout for non-technical stakeholders
  When a stakeholder, client, or SME reviews a course draft via Google Docs or Word, they often ask, “What will this look like to learners?” The layout, interactions, and media placement are not apparent. A Review Mode in Studio provides a realistic preview of the final learner experience, bridging the gap for stakeholders unfamiliar with LMS structures.

The feature can be developed as a modular extension to Studio with minimal changes to core authoring workflows. It would include:

• Review link generator
  Allows authors to create secure, time-limited links to draft content
• Read-only preview mode
  Lets reviewers view and navigate the course material without editing access
• Inline commenting
  Comment pins appear on specific content blocks, similar to Google Docs
• Threaded comment panel
  Displays comments, threads, and resolution status
• Permissions management
  Assign review permissions to specific Open edX users or external emails
• Notifications (optional)
  Email or dashboard alerts for new reviewer comments
• Export
  Ability to download a report of all comments for offline or archival use

Value & Impact

Current market data shows that:

• 30% of instructional designers surveyed by Synthesia in 2024 reported that delays in SME collaboration significantly slow down design workflows (source)
• 64% of employees in workplace studies report losing at least 3 hours weekly due to redundant feedback processes and inefficient collaboration – a proxy for the time lost in external storyboard review cycles (source)
• Articulate Review 360 is widely used because it enables in-context stakeholder comments without requiring platform access providing a seamless, real-time feedback loop embedded directly within course content

The proposed Learning Materials Review feature would significantly enhance the content development experience within Open edX Studio, particularly for collaborative teams involving instructional designers, SMEs, QA specialists, and program administrators. By enabling inline feedback and previewing directly in the authoring environment, this initiative addresses persistent challenges in instructional design workflows and content quality assurance.

Learning Materials Review feature value proposition:

• Reduces reliance on external tools (Google Docs, PDFs, emails) by consolidating review workflows inside Studio.
• Improves clarity for non-technical stakeholders by providing accurate visual previews of how course content will appear to learners.
• Shortens course production cycles by streamlining feedback loops and reducing redundant rework.
• Enhances course quality through more precise, contextualized feedback at earlier stages of content development.
• Drives wider Studio adoption by positioning it as both a development and collaboration platform.

Milestones and/or Epics

Milestone 1: Problem discovery and user research
Conduct user interviews and surveys to better understand how instructional designers, SMEs, and course authors currently review learning content in and outside Open edX. Identify key pain points, workflows, and feature expectations. Validate that Review Mode would solve real, high-priority problems.

• User story: As an instructional designer, I want to gather SME feedback directly in Studio so I don’t have to duplicate content and manage multiple external documents.
• Impact metric: ≥ 10 institutions or contributors confirm that lack of inline review significantly slows course creation or reduces content quality.

Milestone 2: Design and technical scope
Define UX flows, content block behavior, and reviewer permissions. Design wireframes and functional specifications for Review Mode. Identify components that can be reused from Studio (e.g., course previews, markdown block rendering).

• User story: As a reviewer, I want to view course content as a learner would, and leave comments on specific text or media blocks.
• Impact metric: Completion of UX prototypes; community review and feedback from at least 3 partner organizations.

Milestone 3: MVP development – Review link and preview interface
Implement functionality to generate a secure Review Link that displays a read-only course preview. This preview mirrors the learner view and supports navigation across units and verticals. Initially includes basic role-based access control.

• User story: As a course author, I want to generate a preview link for a unit so that external reviewers can view it without accessing Studio.
• Impact metric: Review links successfully generated and accessed in sandbox/staging by 3+ stakeholders.

Milestone 4: MVP development – Inline commenting
Enable reviewers to leave inline comments on blocks in the preview interface. Implement a comment thread view with ability to resolve, reply, and reopen. Associate comments with specific content elements (e.g., HTML block, video, quiz).

• User story: As a stakeholder, I want to leave comments on specific blocks so my feedback is contextual and easy to implement.
• Impact metric: > 80% of comments resolved in test environment; 2 pilot teams complete reviews using new feature.

Milestone 5: Pilot testing and refinement
Select 2–3 partner institutions to use the MVP in real content development scenarios. Gather qualitative and quantitative feedback on usability, collaboration efficiency, and impact on content review cycles. Refine UI and workflows based on insights.

• User story: As a course development team, we want to complete our content review cycle in Studio without switching tools.
• Impact metric: 20–30% reduction in time to finalize reviewed units; positive feedback from ≥ 70% of pilot users.

Milestone 6: Community release and documentation
Prepare the feature for broader Open edX adoption: finalize codebase, write documentation, and contribute to the platform. Announce release through Open edX channels, including forums and community calls.

• User story: As a platform administrator, I want to enable this feature for my organization to improve collaboration across course teams.
• Impact metric: Feature adopted by ≥ 5 institutions within 12 months of release.

Named Release

Verawood

Timeline

Phase 1: Research and community feedback (1 month)

• Conduct interviews with educators, IDs, and partners
• Validate user stories and preferred UX flows
• Define MVP scope with input from Open edX Product Working Group

Phase 2: Prototype (2 months)

• Develop commentable block wrapper components
• Create review links and view-only preview interface
• Implement comment threading and resolution logic
• Develop permissions system (basic reviewer roles)

Phase 3: Testing and pilot (1 month)

• Test feature in Devstack and Tutor environments
• Run pilots with 2–3 partners (e.g., universities, NGOs)
• Gather and implement feedback

Phase 4: Community contribution (1–2 months)

• Document code for PR submission
• Align with Open edX governance and release process
• Host a demo during the Open edX community call

Proposed By

Raccoon Gang

Additional Info

No response

[github-actions]

Thanks for your submission, @openedx/openedx-product-managers will review shortly.

[sarina]

@olha-turutova are you able to attend an upcoming Product Working Group meeting to present this idea?

[olha-turutova]

Hi @sarina
I'd love to! I will join the next Core Product WG meeting on Sept 9.

[sarina]

Hi @olha-turutova - we determine the agenda in advance, and Sept 9th already has presentations. You can claim time in an upcoming meeting. See https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/3754459506/Meeting+Notes+-+Core+Product for upcoming agendas.