Category: Uncategorized

Summarized Feedback:

•  Missing Content: The target audience is unclear in the learning context section, and the “Effects of Technology on Sleep” content is missing.

• Clarity & Structure: The landing page subtopics could be indented, and the “Sleep Hygiene” activity needs clearer instructions on when reflection occurs.

• Submission Process: Instructions for pre-assessments, learning activities, and the REM Cycles PowerPoint assignment are unclear—clarify where and how students submit work.

• Assessment & Engagement: The formative assessment structure should better align with learning outcomes. The discussion forum prompts could be more structured.

• Sleep-tracking assignments: Should have a more consistent format (consider adding a template).

• Accessibility & Readability: Add alt text for images, simplify grading rubrics for small assignments, and provide more expression options for the summative assessment. Improve website readability by using keyword-based links instead of full URLs.

• Technical Issues: Fix the missing “First, read this page…” link and ensure the first three subtopics are accessible from the overview page.

• Technology Use: Ensure AI-generated images align with educational goals and consider including the prompt used in attributions.

• Citations: The description of Inquiry-Based Learning may need a citation.

Incorporated Feedback and Why:

• Clarity & Structure: We ensured that the subtopics were accessible from the overview page. We agree that this may be an easier navigation tool for learners, especially since they don’t need to jump through different pages to find the desired subtopic.

• Sleep-tracking assignments: Included this into the sub-topic “Improving Sleep Hygiene” a formatted chart to track sleep and record the feedback. This was a good suggestion as it allowed for a more structured understanding of how the tracking would affect one’s sleep hygiene.

• Citations: Added a citation for description of Inquiry-Based Learning, this was a helpful suggestion that strengthens the learning and ensures factual information was recorded.

• Submission Process: We added further descriptions for submission of pre-assessments and learning activities within the subtopics, specifically aiming to clarify that these activities are to be submitted either through blog posts to the site or through email. We also tried to clarify whether or not instructor feedback was applicable and how the learners would receive it through our course site or by email.

• Accessibility and Readability: The percentage’s were slightly revised to reflect the marks out of ten given to the formative assessments, with the summative accumulating thirty marks. The discussion forum was changed as a separate marking for participation, rather than being apart of the formative assessments. We also added brief, more descriptive captions under videos that did not have one, giving those with any issues to accessibility more visual clarification on the links being provided.

Not Incorporated Feedback and Why:

• Missing Content: We did not feel that stating an age group was relevant, we did however, orient the blog around high school students, we believe the tone and content reflections this decision. We did not need to fix “missing content” for The Effects of Technology on Sleep, as we found this was not missing.

• Technical Issues: There was a misunderstanding of what we meant by “first read this page”, the suggestion was to fill in a missing link to that page, however, it was meant as “this page is the first page you must read”, not that their is an additional page that we will link you

• Technology Use: The AI tools used were for image generation and so we did not need to be more careful about the AI tools used.

• Assessment and Engagement: We felt that the assessment structure was already catered to the learning outcomes. The explanation of how the assessments fit within our design inquiry fits within the realm of how our assessments cater to the learning outcomes, which comply with the design inquiry used to define this project. The discussion forum is designed to incorporate the flow of student ideas and feedback into the site, and therefore does not require strict prompts or harsh grading.

We are giving feedback on https://suzuran.opened.ca/assignment-2/

Section	Feedback
Brief Introduction	Explores different views on AI but could be more to the point. The shift from AI’s impact to research could be smoother. References are helpful but don’t always connect well. Learning activities are clear but need more details on how progress is measured. Strong content overall, but small changes in wording and flow would help.
Misconceptions (one & two)	Clear explanations, but real-world examples or case studies could reinforce key points. Consider adding a self-check quiz or reflective activity for engagement. Could learners identify and correct a misconception themselves?
Learning Resource Fundamentals	Well-structured, but readability could improve with shorter sections or bullet points. Ensure visuals have alt text and are screen reader-friendly. More diverse examples could enhance inclusivity. Clarify why specific technologies were chosen—how do they support learning styles?
Learning Environment & Target Audience	Explains who the course is for, but could say more about how it helps different learners. Multilingual subtitles are great, but adding other support options would be helpful. The self-paced format is nice, but giving a suggested timeline could keep learners engaged. Assessments are included, but it’s unclear how feedback is given. A good setup, but more interactive activities would make learning more engaging.
Big Idea (subtopics)	Gives a good overview of AI, but the main lessons could be clearer. Covers important topics, but it would help to highlight the most useful ones. The structure makes sense, but more real-life examples would make it easier to understand. Mentions important chapters, but a quick explanation of how they connect would help. A strong start, but focusing more on how AI applies to everyday life would make it better.
Machine Learning	It seems to me that the Learning Objective is not clearly stated. What would be the interactive activity for this lesson? Machine Learning is clearly defined Consider separating this lesson into a different webpage. It will improve structuring and make accessing topics easier. Consider adding more media formatting in this lesson for accessibility.
Deep Learning	Include an activity to help learners build off of the previous sub-topic activity, as this section states that this topic should build off of Machine Learning. Try adding a video for further learning, or an AI activity involving how Deep Learning impacts AI efficiency.
Natural Language Processing	Some technical terms may be challenging—consider a glossary or brief definitions. A diagram of NLP processes could aid understanding. Could learners input text into an NLP tool to see it in action? More real-world examples (search engines, voice assistants) could improve relevance. A case study on NLP solving a real problem might engage learners further.
Interactivity & Technologies	Add transitional words to make it clear what the goal of the video is. It can be helpful for visually impaired readers, but also for students in general.
Inclusion Review & Accessibility Review	Provide specific evidence of ways you will make your activities and assessments inclusive to different cultural backgrounds and cognitive styles of learners. Provide more specific examples of how your accessibilities are incorporated into your resource, such as through sub-topic activities, lessons, and assessments.
Assessment plan (assignments, lab work, participation, presentation, final criteria)	Include a rationale: i.e. your design approach and learning outcomes in connection to learners’ assessments. The listing of assignments and percentages is very clear and effective for communicating assessments!
Inclusion of diverse learners	Inclusion Review: It seems like a dictionary section could be a helpful way to make complex words digestible to students. Accessibility Review: I find the topic of voice commands interesting. How will you implement that to your module? I suggest expanding on that idea.

• Formative: 
• Our formative assessments will start with learners completing a self-assessment where they will be asked to answer a prompt that asks them to write about their previous knowledge of the sub-topics, to give us (the instructors) an idea of how much the learners already know.
• Lesson Activity: Learners are encouraged to engage in lesson activities to culminate the information they have learned from the sub-topics. These activities through the four sub-topics include questions or charts pertaining to sleep tracking, quizzes, and powerpoint activities. These learning activities will be submitted for a small grade, with feedback from the instructor to guide their Short Answer Evaluation.
• Short Answer Evaluation: This will be a written assessment where the students are expected to combine the knowledge of their sleep study and the sub-topics. Each sub-topic includes the combination of a sleep study and an evaluation of the knowledge provided in relation to the learners own sleep.
• Discussion: There will be a online forum to give an opportunity for discussion between the learners and the instructor for every sub-topic. Learners can tell the instructor how they felt about the learning activities and assessment. Learners can also give their instructor feedback and recall their own experiences, thereby helping them remember the concepts they learned. Students can also suggest ways they can improve their sleep through the information learned in the sub-topics.
• Summative:
• The summative assessment is a final two page reflection/essay. Learners will choose their favorite sub-topic and write why they chose to write about that sub-topic and how this topic has impacted their sleep the most, and how they want to improve their sleep patterns. This assessment is expected to use a mix of personal reflection, while also using information from the videos and articles provided by this course.
• Grading: According to the grading scale below, learning activities must be passed with at least a 50% to be deemed acceptable to pass the course. The cumulative performance of the formative (75%) and summative assessments (25%) will be combined to complete the overall score of each individual learner in the course. Each formative assessment will be marked out of ten points. The discussion forum will be marked out of five points, purely for participation. The summative assessment will be marked out of 30 points.   
• BC Grading Scale:

Letter Grade	Percentage	Definition
A	86 – 100%	Excellent or Outstanding Performance in relation to learning outcomes.
B	73 – 85%	Very Good Performance in relation to learning outcomes.
C+	67 – 72%	Good Performance in relation to learning outcomes.
C	60 – 66%	Satisfactory Performance in relation to learning outcomes.
C-	50 – 59%	Minimally Acceptable Performance in relation to learning outcomes.
IE	N/A	Insufficient Evidence of Learning.  When an IE is assigned, teachers will connect with the student, parents, and caregivers to discuss the area of learning in question, the needs of the student, and the solutions and supports to help move the student forward in their learning.
F	N/A	No demonstration of minimally acceptable performance in relation to the learning outcomes for this course.
W	N/A	Student has withdrawn from the course.
SG	N/A	Standing granted.  Acceptable level of performance though normal requirements not completed.
RM	N/A	Requirements Met (for use with Graduation Transitions only).

• Assessment Rationale: 
• Grading Scale: For a short course like this one we decided to use a BC Secondary School Grading scale that utilizes letter grades and percentages that our learners are already familiar with. This specific scale offers a wide range of percentages, allowing more flexibility in the way learners are evaluated (because all learners have differing abilities and needs that affect their grades). We do not intend for the grades to define learners’ experience, rather their experience from the activities. 
• Formative: We intend for the content provided in the learning activities to match the learning outcomes, and the formative assessments are meant to offer feedback upon a real-life approach to the content. This real-life approach is designed from the Inquiry-Based Learning Approach, which we have based our course off of.     
• By incorporating more of a variety of assessments with a short answer evaluation and a discussion, we decided to have a mix of traditional and authentic assessment, as we feel that both kinds are appropriate for this course (Tanner, 2001). For the short answer evaluation learners are being asked to engage with the material by drawing from their own real life experiences (the constructivist theory). The online forum for discussion allows for peer, instructor, and individual feedback, as well as individual reflection.
• Summative: The summative assessment is meant to reflect an overall combination of knowledge from the formative assessments and learning outcomes. Because of the formative assessments, the summative assessment is not meant to exert great pressure, rather act as a closing to the work and feedback students have received. This kind of closing and reflection can be related to what the University of Calgary’s Learning Module says Eportfolios do, which is force learners to see how far they’ve come (University of Calgary).  
• Goal w/ the Course: Our learning activities and assessments were designed with the intention of prioritising learning the content through scenarios that increase critical thinking skills and involve personal reflection on the effects of sleep on several aspects of daily life.
• End of Course: At the end of the course learners will receive a letter grade, along with official certification that can be sent via email. Learners can therefore have official proof of their completion after passing the course.  

References

David Thompson Secondary School (2024), https://www.vsb.bc.ca/david-thompson/page/1128/letter-grades-and-work-habits. 

Tanner, E. David (2001). “Authentic Assessment: A Solution, or Part of the Problem? The High School Journal, Vol 85, No. 1, pp. 24-29, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364377. 

University of Calgary, Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, “Learning Module: Designing Student Assessments, https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/module/designing-online-assessment/understanding-alignment-assessment.