My course mates and I are well into creating and reviewing our instructional design documents in my Technology-Based Learning Environments class. I have decided to go with the cross-curricular, project-based course for gifted and talented students. I actually created most of the ideas several years ago as a gifted/talented teacher, but I did not write out objectives, lesson plans, or rubrics. Also, the projects were not required to be completed using computer technologies, so turning the ideas into projects which can be created with online technologies is what I have been concentrating on the most. What I have struggled with the most is expanding the entire course up to between 40 and 45 hours. My GT students and I would not have had this much time together, so I know the amount of activities I am developing will not be possible with a GT program which meets only the minimum time required by law. However, now that I think about it, a course such as this really could have helped my students spend more time on projects outside of regular meetings times because of the online nature of the course. For this blog, we have been asked to reflect upon the feedback from our peers as well as discuss what we used and did not use and why.
After receiving feedback from my professor on the first draft, I focused on developing the course goals and objectives in addition to the timeline of course activities to a greater extent. My peer reviewer provided me with even more guidance on the goals and objectives, especially the addition of how to conduct research. I am so thankful because of the struggles I am having with writing them out. Because searching for information on the Internet will be a skill used throughout the course to complete assignments, goals and objectives are necessary. Funny how it sometimes takes the perspective of a professional in another field to stress the importance of some skills – in this case, my peer reviewer is a librarian, so developing searches is within her field of expertise. As for disagreeing with any feedback and not changing the design according to the peer review, I am afraid to say this will not be happening. All feedback was valuable resulting in at least minor changes, if only to clarify confusing writing or further explain ideas which are unclear.
I ponder how a peer review will be conducted in the world of professional instructional design. The need for multiple perspectives or just another set of eyes to find typos is critical to a quality final product. Perhaps the client or a project manager will serve in this role.