Reviewed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UGbR6nQX7HsgZnnGwu0I367J9YBHYraEe26n5yqYP6k/edit?usp=sharing

Learning Pod: # 4

Peers’ Names: Qirui Du, Susie Wang, Yizhou Zhang, Ziqi Wang

Interactive Learning Resource Topic: Economics in daily life

Identify components of the Interactive Learning Resource that might be missing (e.g., appropriate outcomes, alignment, interactivity, inclusivity, technology use and rationale, presentation, grammar, spelling, citations, etc.).

One missing part: overview of resource. In reality, the draft provided an introduction that discussed the meaning of economics a lot. An introduction is surely different from an overview. While some ideas in the current introduction part are worth retaining, the introduction part is kind of wordy. Suggestion: may add more contents on the relation between economics and this learning resource, and reduce the contents on sole economics. 


One incomplete part:  description.  Even though it is nice to mention the relation between opportunity costs, the one aspect of economics, and constructivism, readers may wonder if such an application of constructivism helps all 4 sub-topics.  


The other incomplete part: learning theory, which has a similar problem: discussed opportunity costs only.  Suggestion: I guess that description part and learning theory part were written by the same student. But ideas of this student is obviously different from those of the student who was in charge of Lesson Online. Does the final version of the learning resource focus on opportunity costs only? Or focus on all 4 topics that already written in learning outline part? Since the whole learning resource itself has time constraint of 1-2 hours and finishing one topic may take 1 hour, it may be almost impossible for one virtual student to finish all 4 topics in 1-2 hours.   

Provide a summary of The Interactive Learning Resource’s strengths and weaknesses. Draw out specific examples from your peers’ work to justify your feedback.

Strengths: very detailed plan in each sub-topic. For instance, under each sub-topic, learning outcome, activity, assessment were all demonstrated. Well-written in Technology Choice Rationale as well. Smart and reasonable setting in evaluation part: each sub-topic yields 20% and 4*20%+20% final exam=100%. The option of on-duty instructor is brilliant. 


Weaknesses: like I mentioned above, the largest weakness is that ideas within the group are not uniform: someone may want only 1 sub-topic, while someone else may want 4 sub-topics. In additional, the current 4 sub-topic setting exceed the time limit of 1-2 hours, though this time-limit may or may not be a strict requirement. 
 

Provide general, specific, and practical recommendations to your peers on how to improve their Interactive Learning Resource. 

 General Suggestion: some meetings may be needed to handle the conflicting issues of the project. In addition, the group may review the requirements of the project and determine what components may not meet the requirements. If time permits, consider designing some visible/actual Brightspace quizzes.