I definitely appreciate the point about keeping the learning outcomes and the assignments authentic or real-world focused. As a course designer, I strive to write assignment overviews that describe how the assignment is related to real-world use.
The concept of dynamic outcomes, which seem to involve students in determining them, was interesting and a bit surprising. I would like to better understand the practical side of this point. Do we involve students in writing the outcomes based on their areas of focus?
Another poignant point refers to training faculty not only on the technology and software features but also on the theoretical side—when and why we use the tech. I also deliver continued education events to faculty and have always strived to provide enough theory to support the new tech we are learning but did my best to make it sound conversational.
Most recently, I developed training on active learning through live Zoom sessions. The opening lesson is focused on the limits of attention spans and the "7 plus or minus 2" element of cognitive load theory. That part of the training is about gaining instructor buy-in and helping faculty realize if you deliver information for long periods of time, it becomes a threat to short term memory and attention spans. Without recognizing these limits how can we know when we've gone too far with instruction? This served as a basis for when and where student interactivity is most necessary. Without it, the training would rely on the novelty of the software features such as the whiteboard or break out rooms to gain instructor buy-in. When the novelty wears off or if something doesn't pan out for an instructor, what would be left to encourage experimentation or self-efficacy?
