Design Document, Revised

Instructor Feedback

We received feedback from our instructor during the April 10th class meeting. He said our design document should address the pedagogy. Additionally, he recommended we add topics on website or content bias, as well as copyright and legal issues. He thinks we should use the term project-based instead of problem-based, and wanted to know how many teachers end up teaching.  We have addressed the addition of copyright and legal issues, as well as netiquette in our Topics in Online Learning: Access and Equity Online and Topics in Online Learning: Online Safety lessons.  Our design is based on the REALs model and information on this model is provided in our design document. The attributes of REALs including: student responsibility and initiative, generative learning activities, authentic learning contexts, authentic assessment strategies, and cooperative support are integrated into the design and are the foundation for this project. We have included additional literature in the document to address the statistics found for online instruction.

Peer Reviews
We received helpful, thoughtful suggestions back from our peers. We have attempted to address each of the suggestions.  The area of the design document I was focusing on is evaluation and assessment. The responses to this section include:

A reviewer said “to me, a critique of the final project really answers whether they ‘got it.’”. Our group responded “Yes it does.”

A reviewer asked “Who will take this survey?” Our group said “I will change this: students will take surveys :)”

A reviewer suggested we say “more informed decisions” instead of “a more informed decision” Another reviewer said “Clarification would help; make a more informed decision about what?” This phrase has been removed.

A reviewer commented “Would like to see the “Tools for Online Learning” unit expanded upon. Perhaps students could choose a method of interest (from an instructor provided list?)and present on them.” The group responded “Our thoughts exactly!”

Reference the timeline for weeks 8-15, a reviewer said “Recommend 2-3 bullets to break this down.” The group broke it into weeks 6-12 and 13-15 with more bullets under each.

A reviewer recommended we add “The assessment will consider content, pedagogical approach, and platforms for delivery.” To the end of paragraph one in evaluation. The group rewrote the entire paragraph.

A reviewer recommended we add a task “Learner will discuss strategies to apply when responding to different kinds of technology failures during synchronous instruction.”

Reference our timeline, a reviewer responded “this is a lot to cover in 15 weeks.” Our group believes our revised design takes care of this “I think we’ve resolved this with our more targeted design.”

With the design document revised, the focus has shifted to the prototype.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.