Hey readers! I’ve just finished my first stab at Assignment 2 in my Learning Technologies: Selection, Design, and Application course. It has been a learning experience full of ups and downs. But I see something of utility shaping up. You can get a login link to my course sandbox on our course Canvas page (sorry internet lurkers, this one isn’t for you).

Platform Choice 

I built the course in Edsby, our division’s Learning Management System. I knew this decision would impose limits—Edsby lacks several features common in other LMSs—but I welcomed the challenge of adapting those features within a familiar environment. Also, it’s sort of fun to find ways to work around limitations and problems 🙂 

Audience Lens, Hidden Curriculum & Assessment (oh my!)

Designing the course as a divisional certificate PD offered a double benefit. Many teachers have never seen Edsby “from the student side,” so completing the course lets them experience its interface firsthand. That perspective shift—alongside activities such as embedded Padlets, polls, and streamlined content panels—forms a hidden curriculum in which participants learn both about large language models (LLMs) and about effective Edsby design. Knowing my audience includes colleagues who describe themselves as “not tech-savvy,” I recorded short, captioned tutorials for every unfamiliar action—changing a Padlet display name, uploading a file, finding copilot, etc.—so nobody is left guessing. 

Assessment is intentionally lightweight but still purposeful. Every required Padlet activity and the final AI-analysis assignment is marked on a single pass/fail checklist: if all criteria are met the first time, the task is marked Complete; if anything is missing, I’ll return a brief note—usually within 48 hours—pinpointing what needs to be added or clarified. This approach models formative, mastery-oriented assessment, keeps marking manageable for me, and gives even tech-skeptical colleagues multiple low-stakes chances to succeed.

Challenges & Pivots 

Problems surfaced quickly: Professional Development Groups in Edsby accept assignment submissions, yet those submissions vanish because PD groups aren’t linked to a gradebook. I pivoted to a student-course framework for this prototype and plan to share it as proof of concept for divisional staff learning. 

Edsby’s main feed clutters fast and lacks threaded discussion, so I outsourced dialogue to Padlet. This aligns with Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) call for active learning and Bates’s (2015) three interaction types (learner–content, learner–teacher, learner–learner). The workaround—email notifications for every Padlet post—is clunky, but Padlet’s LTI integration could resolve that if I can get my IT to enable it. This is not something that will happen during the time we are in the course, but would be a great feature for other teachers in the future. 

By confronting Edsby’s constraints head-on—and documenting practical pivots—I aim to model the same critical, creative mindset toward technology that the course has encouraged us to embrace so far. 

References

Bates, T. (2015, April 5). Chapter 8: Choosing and using media in education: the SECTIONS model – Teaching in a Digital Age. Opentextbc.ca. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (2001). Implementing the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education: Technology as lever. Accounting Education News, Journal, Electronic. https://go.exlibris.link/N0tYMtWd