- 1 Instructor comments on your topic and instructional analysis -- Jz833665 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2015 (EST)
- 2 Instructor comments on your objectives -- Jz833665 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2015 (EST)
- 3 Instructor comments on your task analysis and unit-level performance objectives -- Jz833665 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2015 (EDT)
- 4 -- EmilyJohns (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)
Instructor comments on your topic and instructional analysis -- Jz833665 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2015 (EST)
Your project's topic will be very helpful for teachers! The analysis of the learning outcomes, needs, and the learner sets a productive direction for your mini-course design.
I think your analysis of the nature of the problem/gap can be more specific and expanded: Your statement "When given a SMART board in their classroom, teachers are generally left on their own to explore the software and the media. With out guidance, most teachers use the basic tools and leave out the most engaging aspects of the technology" points to the lack of instruction, but not exactly what the learner needs exactly: is the gap about tech details, understanding/misunderstanding of the purpose and affordances of this tool, pedagogical design and strategies, or all of these? Among these gaps, which will you emphasize the most in this mini-course? Maybe you can find readily available resources about the basic tech use, while focusing more on how to design lessons use smart boards for effective interactions and reflection for deep understanding. Just my thought.
Your objectives are clearly stated. I think the objectives about activity design can be elaborated to highlight the nature of the activities: interactive? discussion-based...?
Instructor comments on your task analysis and unit-level performance objectives -- Jz833665 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2015 (EDT)
Your instructional curriculum map is clear and well organized, give you a clear structure that will guide the design of your learning units.
Re. the following objective: Design activities that center around the SMART Board and utilize SMART Board software: you may want to rethink and rephrase this objective to clarify the pedagogical nature of the activities and make it clear that the center of the activities is not the technology, but learning. Will the activities designed focus on deep processing of knowledge and interactive discussions?
-- EmilyJohns (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)
My first reactions to your course were very positive. Your course is well thought out and engaging to the learner. Your introduction page really hooked me into reading more and more because you started with your philosophy of technology and education which was interesting to me. You have an excellent grasp on your concept of the SmartBoard and what you wanted this course to look like as a whole.
Everything in the mini-course part is very user friendly. You have images that help "spice" up the blank wiki pages but they are not in the way or too obtrusive with the rest of the course. All the parts of your course are linked and labeled so I knew where I had to click next to go (either farther into the course or back to your homepage).
I really enjoyed your topic as a whole. Mostly because I am always looking for new ways to use my SmartBoard. Many of the teachers at my school just use them as whiteboards and don't utilize the features of the board itself. I liked that you started unit 1 off with simply learning about the SmartBoard and the parts of the SmartBoard. This would be very useful for new teachers who have never used a SmartBoard before. This well-thought out course definitely would motivate me to continue through your course to learn more. In fact, I just might!
The only thing I could ask if you've considered is: Have you considered having participants posting their scores for the unit 1 quiz so that at least you can see if your video and introduction has helped people learn about SmartBoards?
Other than that, I feel the start of your course was great. Educational and engaging. Great design and overall structure.