The course review process was a useful experience that widened my understanding of the possibilities that exist within a digital space. The reviewers gave me encouraging feedback about the module’s ease of use, and offered some great suggestions that I will implement in my second module. The process of receiving as well as providing written feedback from peers provided interesting insights into the multitude of differences in learner’s experiences. We all interpreted the assignment differently, and thus our modules reflected various modes of learning. The review process also helped us as course participants to recognize how many different digital education perspectives exist, and celebrate those perspectives as valid and reflective forms of teaching.
My first module didn’t contain much as far as summative assessment, which was pointed out in the reviews, so I’ll make sure to include that in my final product. There was the suggestion of using checklists, which I think would be appropriate for my modules. It was also pointed out that the curricular connections weren’t included in the module. I had considered this, and have decided to not include them with intention. The rationale is that my module is meant to be transferable between grade 4-8, in that it should be simple and concise. I view the modules more as a springboard to multiple curricular achievements, rather than a particular unit or subject area. Video creation and editing can be implemented across many subject areas and age ranges, thus leaving the objectives open to interpretation. I view the modules as a tool to unlock the curriculum, and think that the outcomes are attached in a broader sense.
As far as accessibility, I’ve been having a hard time wrapping my head around that. I think my module is simple and easy to follow, so in a sense it is fairly accessible. The instructions of my module could be read aloud using Google Read&Write, available on Regina Public Schools computers, which is appreciated. A good suggestion came from last week’s small group discussion, which is to talk directly to the student that requires enhanced accessibility and find out what has worked in the past. I would also request extra assistance from my LRT and administration in navigating an effective plan of action.
As far as digital accessibility, my modules are fairly user friendly. They can be accessed on various devices through a student’s Google account. This provides the opportunity for students to work on the modules outside of school hours, which I think works well in a digital learning environment. Upon reflection, if I were to re-do my modules I would’ve focused on digital learning environments that work well on smartphones. Many of my students have them, and lessons that transfer well to that technology would be an interesting area to explore. I’d also be eager to look at something like that through an accessibility lens.
Devon,
You make an excellent point regarding the use of smart phones. I have found myself in a similar situation. A number of students don’t have laptops or tablets in their homes, but they do have smart phones. I am not sure how to develop digital learning environments that are more “smart phone friendly”, but you make a great point.
I do find checklists really helpful, especially when we needed to do remote learning last year. It helped students stay on track, but also served as a reminder for myself of what needed to be assessed/helped me plan for the following week.
Great insights here!
Great to see that the feedback was helpful for you! Same for me… lots of good suggestions and positive feedback that made me feel like the work I had completed was worthwhile! I think everyone has that uneasiness of “am I doing this right??” so it is a bit of a relief to get that positive feedback. Accessibility is such a tricky issue to deal with in hypotheticals – it is much easier to evaluate on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to assume the problems and combat them before they’re even a problem, but great job on the meta side of things and being analytical of your work! Well done!
I as well as you received some good feedback for review. I like that you spoke about your rational for leaving out the outcomes as you want this module to be used throughout a variety of grade levels. I believe having modules easily accessible from home is a great addition to any classroom so kiddo’s have the opportunity to not fall behind on work they have missed or need that little bit of extra time to complete.
I as well as you received some good feedback for review. I like that you spoke about your rational for leaving out the outcomes as you want this module to be used throughout a variety of grade levels. I believe having modules easily accessible from home is a great addition to any classroom so kiddo’s have the opportunity to not fall behind on work they have missed or need that little bit of extra time to complete. Have fun creating Module 2!
Hi Devon,
I too found the course review process beneficial, not only receiving feedback but giving some as well. At first I felt unqualified to give the feedback because of my limited technology skills. However, I soon realized many of my comments included best practices in planning lessons and not just technology concerns.
I appreciated your perspective for intentionally leaving out the curricular connections for your module. The versatility of your model sounds appealing and engaging for students and teachers alike and creating and editing videos is a skill that could be widely used. I look forward to seeing your course modules.
Hi Devon,
I appreciated your post and related with some of the things you mentioned. It is true that us colleagues all interpreted the assignment slightly differently, and thus our modules reflected various modes of learning. It is always interesting to have a fellow teacher give feedback and a new perspective. I too did not involve any summative assessment in my first module and will be adding it to future models. Keep up the good work – I look forward to seeing your final submission.