Running head: ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION 1

Assignment 4 Reflection

Alexis Handford & Joyce Kim

ETEC565A

University of British Columbia

Dr. N. Boskic

March 3, 2018
 2
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

Assignment 4 Reflection

To best recognize our extensive work together throughout this project, we wrote a

collaborative reflection. When we calculated our working hours together, we realized that we

have spent up to four synchronous meeting hours per week to discuss, design, and edit all of

the different aspects of Assignments 3 and 4. We will include an individual reflection portion at

the end of each of our posts in addition to our collaborative reflection.

Our Course and working in Moodle

When we first met to discuss creating our course module, we knew we wanted to

explore an LMS tool and content that would both utilize and challenge our complementary skill

sets (Alexis’ experience as an instructional designer and Joyce’s teaching experience). Bates

notes to adhere to best practices for online learning design teachers must “[work] closely with

instructional designers and media professionals whenever possible” and that “teachers working

with instructional designers will need to decide which media they intend to use on pedagogical

as well as operational grounds” (Bates, 2015). Implementation of the SECTIONS model means

collaboration between multiple stakeholders. We also wanted to work with an LMS with which

neither of us had worked extensively. This left us with the two choices of Moodle or Google

Classroom as we had interacted as students or administrators for the other LMS options. Our

next step was to refer to each of our LMS Evaluation rubrics that we had created in Assignment

2 to assess Moodle and Google Classroom. Though neither LMS platform met all our

expectations, we felt that Moodle best fulfilled our criteria for functionality. When referencing the

LMS Evaluation Rubric (Cruz et al., 2018), Moodle met or exceeded expectations in the

following areas:

● Fully supports user-intuitive actions, such as WYSIWYG drag-and-drop functionality,

instant upload and auto-save, history tracking.

 3
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

● Provides a comprehensive range of assessment and evaluation tools: standardized and

non-standardized testing methods, assignments, and activities.

● Allows for a complete range of both synchronous and asynchronous modes of

communication.

● Fully supports instructor-student, student-student, and third-party interaction..

● Allows for user-unique curation of course content including the integration of external

learning tools.

Once we had chosen Moodle as our LMS, we then began to focus on the course content

and design. We chose to create a course that would serve as a transition course for students

who may be entering (or re-entering) a postsecondary environment. After discussion of our own

experience as beginning postsecondary students, we felt one of the most challenging areas was

learning to research and to write in an academic postsecondary environment; thus, we created

our course, “An Introduction to Academic Research and Writing”. Our major focus for

Assignment 3, the Course Overview, was on how to make the course as accessible as possible

for a wide range of students at differing skills and abilities. Another important area of focus for

our Course Overview was recognizing and supporting the cultural and emotional transition

students would be making as they enter into a postsecondary learning environment. Kahu &

Nelson (2017) discuss that though student success and retention are key issues that face all

higher education institutions, most discussions in this area fail to include “four specific

psychosocial constructs: self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and well-being” which are key to

authentic student engagement (p.58).

We believed that course design that emphasized clarity and organization of content,

supplemented with “user-friendly” language and self-reflection would help support students in

the above elements. For example, we worked on creating a clear calendar and course
 4
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

schedule, and placed all expected assignments and assessments to the forefront of the course.

In addition to our administrative language such as “Course Schedule” we also give a subtitles

posed in colloquial terms, “When is everything happening?” which we hoped would give a more

comfortable tone to the course.

We also discussed how assessment practices could be a particular area where we might

be able to support the students’ growth as learners. As a continued effort towards promoting

self-regulation and learner reflexivity, we provided clear expectations of the assessments in the

course at the forefront of the original course page (which has now been revised). Nicol notes

that “in order to self-regulate their own learning, students must have a reasonable

understanding of what is required in assessment tasks” (2007, p. 55); this research motivated

our efforts towards transparency and clear expectations. We followed a three stage model for

developing assessment in our course:

1. Identify clear learning outcomes.

2. Design appropriate assessment tasks that will directly assess whether each of

the learning outcomes has been met.

3. Design appropriate learning opportunities for the students to get them to a

point where they can successfully undertake the assessment tasks.

(Rust, 2002, p.148)

As we write this reflection, we now understand that this emphasis on simplicity and

organization, although effective for some, could be improved upon. As a result, our discussions

for Assignment 4 and beyond focused intensely on how to enliven our course to ensure student

success and engagement.

 5
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

Assignment 4 and adjustments based on Assignment 3 feedback

Based on the feedback we received for assignment 3, we worked diligently to make

changes to our course. We focused on innovation moving into assignment 4, and we focused

more on the activity components of our course. For assignment 4 we completed the Module 1

portion of our course which runs through weeks 2, 3, and 4. Our main area of focus and

concentration was Module 1; however, we did include placeholders for Modules 2 and 3 with

backward design and planning in mind. In our revisions and Module 1 design, we wanted to

enhance our diversity and variety in interaction for our students to better reflect the constructivist

foundation on which we had based our course creation, as “interactivity and interactive features

in a multimedia application facilitate interaction between the computer and the user, and

increases user engagement” (Bates & Poole, 2003, as cited in Neo et al., 2007, p. 471).

First off, we changed the location of our assessments within our Moodle course. Instead

of having the assessments grouped together, we moved them to be within the corresponding

modules. Secondly, we adjusted our discussion board in the Course Overview module to be

more creative and engaging. For example, we changed the Week 1a discussion to be a video

response, rather than a traditional written introduction, and we included our own video

introduction as well. Additionally, we adjusted the schedule we created to better reflect the

specific course modules. Finally, we also worked to create consistency in our imagery and

sizing of images (ie. instructor images, and the addition of activity images).
 6
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

Furthermore, we worked hard to change the overall layout of our course. We added in

visual elements, including linked banner images and activity images. As well, we worked to

implement group activities that would enhance the constructivist nature of our course including

activities in Flipgrid, Padlet, and Wiki. Additionally, we also embedded a Twitter hashtag feed

(#academicresearchandwriting) that students can follow for additional tips and resources.
 7
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

At the end of our work together, we both felt that the course now better

demonstrated more sophisticated application of instructional design and pedagogical theories.

Digital Story

**Note: Here we include our reflection on the Digital Story, also previously posted in the

course blog

Here is the link to our digital story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VobDufVSPY&t=1s

We chose a medium that would work well with our course topic of introductory

postsecondary research and writing, so we chose to work with Pecha Kucha as it is a proven

effective storytelling technique (Beyer, 2011). On first glance it might seem like Pecha Kucha is

a slide show presentation, but Pecha Kucha presentations are more strategic than slideshows

or traditional PowerPoint presentations in the use of storytelling, images, and time.

Pecha Kucha presentations are generally 20 photos with 20 seconds per photo. The

difference between a Pecha Kucha and a slide presentation is the focus on the visuals within

the slides. Pecha Kucha stories don’t deliver information through text on a screen, the images

speak for themselves as guiding tools for the audio storytelling. Pecha Kucha storytelling

encourages the presenter to condense their ideas into bite sized “chunks,” which helps keep

viewers engaged (Carter et al., 2001). According to findings, “…by using diagrams and visual

metaphors instead of just text, the perception of the presenter by his or her audience can be

improved” (Kernbach et al., 2015, p. 179)

Pecha Kucha (ペチャクチャ in Japanese, and pronounced peh-CHA koo-CHA) is a

digital storytelling format created by architects Astrid Klein and Mark Dytham of Tokyo, Japan in
 8
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

February 2003. The word pechakucha itself is an onomatopoeic word for the sound of

conversation, and the format is intended to provoke dialogue and discourse.

To meet the assignment guidelines, we shortened the Pecha Kucha slightly to 13 photos

but we feel our product still holds true to the concept– a visually compelling presentation that

engages the audience and provokes further discussion. Please note that the length of our video

is due to our two combined time allotments. Another interesting challenge was creating the

audio for the piece. We are located in Vancouver, British Columbia (Joyce) and in Calgary,

Alberta (Alexis) so we needed to account for geographical and time differences while still

remaining true to the dynamic nature of Pecha Kucha. We recorded our session live and

synchronously; though this required a number of takes, we were committed to the fluidity and

spontaneity of Pecha Kucha.

We centred the narrative of our digital story in the Pecha Kucha on the challenges and

issues we faced in our own postsecondary writing and how we overcame some of these

struggles. Our story is, first and foremost, intended to help us connect and gain trust with our

students. At the same time, we refer to tools that might be helpful to them in the transition into

postsecondary writing: research search techniques, writing organization strategies, generating

quality writing topics, and social emotional skills such as self-reflexivity and perseverance.

Because Pecha Kucha are intended as a way to provoke discussion, we will follow up this digital

story in our Course Module with student opportunities to discuss our video further, or to create

their own.

Thanks for reading and watching!

To learn more about Pecha Kucha presentations, please check out the following resources:
 9
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

General Information:

http://www.pechakucha.org/

Youtube:

How PechaKucha Changed My Life: Eddie Selover at TEDxOrlando

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM4TXMBGLdY

In Vancouver:

https://www.pechakucha.org/cities/vancouver

http://www.pechakuchavancouver.com/

In Calgary:

https://www.pechakucha.org/cities/calgary

https://www.facebook.com/PechaKuchaYYC/

Alexis’ Individual Reflection

Working with Joyce was a highlight for me in my last semester of MET. Throughout the

process of completing assignment 3, receiving feedback, and making improvements for

assignment 4 we gained insight into what it means to be innovative and creative in LMS courses

(which can often be limiting). I believe that by working together, our understanding of innovative

LMS design was enhanced through our ability to discuss challenges with one another, and our

ability to brainstorm creative solutions.

I feel fortunate to have been able to work with Joyce, as she has an extensive teaching

background, which is different from my personal experience. While the assumption is usually

that designers and teachers don’t work well together, I didn’t find this to be true. I found that

Joyce and I had skills that complemented each other throughout this process, and that we were

both able to learn more as we discussed the pros and cons of each course aspect from our
 10
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

varying perspectives. I have gained a better understanding of course progression for student

learning from the perspective of an instructor with the insight that Joyce provided.

I’m sure that I will be able to bring what I learned from this assignment forward into my

work. In the next couple of weeks I am starting a new job at the University of Calgary, and I will

be working in the LMS platform, D2L. I am new to D2L, and I’m certain that the strategies Joyce

and I used in Moodle and the troubleshooting we underwent will be useful in learning the D2L

platform.
 11
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

References

Bates, T. (2015). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In Teaching

in a digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-

pedagogical-differences-between-media/

Beyer, A.M. (2011). Improving student presentations: Pecha kucha and just plain PowerPoint.

Teaching of Psychology, 38 (2), 122-126.8

Carter, T., Hardy, C. A., & Hardy, J. C. (2001). Latin vocabulary acquisition: An experiment

using information-processing techniques of chunking and imagery. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 28(4), 225.

Cruz, C., Kim, J., Ross, K., Schultz, K., & Wong, J. (2018) ETEC 565A: Learning Technology

Selection: Design and Application, assignment 2 LMS evaluation rubric submission

[Written PDF document].

Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface:

Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research &

Development, 37(1), 58. 10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197

Kernbach, S., Eppler, M. J., & Bresciani, S. (2015). The use of visualization in the

communication of business strategies: An experimental evaluation. International

Journal of Business Communication, 52 (2), 164-187. 10.1177/2329488414525444

Neo, M., Neo, T., & Xiao-Lian, G. T. (2007). A constructivist approach to learning an interactive

multimedia course : Malaysian students' perspectives. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 23(4), 470-489. 10.14742/ajet.1247

Nicol, D. (2007) E- assessment by design: using multiple- choice tests to good effect, Journal of

Further and Higher Education, (31),1, pp. 53-64,

http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/030

98770601167922
 12
ASSIGNMENT 4 REFLECTION

Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature

practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and

learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145-

158. 10.1177/1469787402003002004